Sunday, March 31, 2013

126. DES-UNIÃO EUROPEIA PROVOCA CRISE

126
CATESIUSRENATUS

SEGUNDO ESTE ARTIGO DO NEW YORK TIMES, A CRISE ECONÓMICA NA EUROPA DEVE-SE  A NÃO TER HAVIDO LÍDERES CARISMÁSTICOS CAPAZES DE UNIREM A EUROPA.  O EURO, UMA DAS MAIORES REVOLUÇÕES DA HISTÓRIA ECONÓMICA, SÓ PODERÁ FUNCIONAR COM PODERES FINANCEIROS CENTRALIZADOS. 

É URGENTE POREM FIM À EMISSÃO DESSES TITULOZECOS DE TESOURO EMITIDOS INDIVIDUALMENTE PELOS ESTADECOS MEMBROS DA UNIÃO.  SE CONTINUAREM A BRINCAR ÀS ECONOMIAS CASEIRAS NA ECONOMIA GLOBAL, ACABARÃO TODOS FRITOS NAS WOKS CHINESAS. SÓ É PENA QUE OS LÍDERS EUROPEUS, POR FALTA DE CORAGEM, ARRASTEM COM ELES  AS POPULAÇÕES EUROPEIAS. 

O PROBLEMA RESIDE NO FATO DE QUE OUTRORA, ANTES DO EURO, CADA NAÇÃO PODIA DESVALORIZAR AS SUAS MOEDAS, E ISSO AUMENTAVA AS EXPORTAÇÕES E TRAZIA INVESTIMENTOS. ERA O REMÉDIO QUE UTILIZAVAM PARA CURAR AS CRISES. 

HOJE NENHUM PAÍS PODE DESVALORIZAR O EURO, E ASSIM AS ECONOMIAS MAIS FRACAS SÃO EMPURRADAS PARA A RUINA. QUANDO CONSEGUIREM CRIAR UMA ÚNICA ECONOMIA EUROPEIA E OBVIAMENTE CENTRALIZADA, ESTARÃO ENTÃO FUNDADAS AS BASES PARA A SOLUÇÃO DA CRISE.

PORÉM, ESTE TIPO DE CRISE SEM A UNIÃO EUROPEIA EXISTENTE, JÁ TERIA POSTO  TUDO À BATATADA, OS TAMBORES A TOCAR, COLUNAS MILITARES A MARCHAR, OS CANHÕES A REBENTAR, OS AGENTS-PROVOCATEURS A EXALTAR OS NACIONALISMOS ESTREITOS, E OS FABRICANTES DE MATERIAL DE GUERRA A RIR E A ENCHER OS BOLSOS. 



EDITORIAL | SUNDAY OBSERVER

Who Can Bring the E.U. To Its Senses?



  • FACEBOOK
  • TWITTER
  • GOOGLE+
  • SAVE
  • E-MAIL
  • SHARE
  • PRINT
  • REPRINTS

Cyprus finally got a revised bailout plan last week. It taxes big, uninsured bank depositors to pay part of the cost of restructuring the country’s two biggest banks while leaving the savings of smaller, insured depositors untouched. But just days before, Cyprus, with the blessings of the smartest bankers and smartest finance ministers in Europe, came within a whisker of adopting a truly reckless plan that would have taxed small savers, undermined deposit insurance and risked sparking disastrous bank runs elsewhere, notably Italy and Spain, the euro zone’s third- and fourth-largest economies.
How could sophisticated European finance ministers — along with senior officials of the European Central Bank and the International Monetary Fund — have signed off on such a counterproductive rescue plan? And if they could agree to that, what other damaging schemes might they grab for in some future crisis?
Europe urgently needs to ask itself these questions. This month’s close call was hardly its first brush with self-inflicted disaster in the three-year-old euro crisis; in 2010, loose and premature talk by French and German leaders about involuntary loan write-downs of private-sector loans needlessly scared off potential lenders. And unless some drastic, though politically difficult, changes are made in Europe’s outdated decision-making machinery, it probably won’t be the last.
The basic problem is that the E.U. is not a true union but more a collection of states that have not in any real sense ceded decision-making power to a central authority. The result is chaos fed by conflicting national objectives. In the Cyprus case, German politicians wanted to minimize bailout costs to German taxpayers in an election year. Cyprus’s president hoped to keep the island an attractive haven for foreign depositors. The I.M.F. insisted that Cyprus not be lent more than it could pay back. And the new leader of Europe’s finance ministers, a tough-talking, austerity-preaching Dutch finance minister, wanted to make a point about debtors paying for their own bailouts. All of them somehow initially settled on the lowest common denominator: a bizarre scheme pinning much of the responsibility and most of the pain on small, insured depositors in Cyprus’s banks.
Wiser heads would have squelched any such plan before it was announced. Even though the proposal was later dropped, the public — justifiably worried that its leaders could make the same dumb mistake again — quickly lost confidence in the deposit insurance every E.U. country has been required to have since 2010 as a safeguard against bank runs. That confidence will take years to rebuild.
None of these European leaders would sign off on such high-wire financial policy experiments in their home countries. Why do they do it on the wider European stage?
Part of the answer lies in the way the E.U. was put together in the 1950s and ’60s as a loose union of jealously sovereign states — somewhat like the United States under the original Articles of Confederation. That posed no insuperable problems for the six-nation coal-and-steel community and free-trade zone that the European Common Market was at the time.
But as the E.U. has grown larger (Croatia will become the 28th member state later this year) and more ambitious (17 countries now use the euro), that loose and decentralized structure has begun audibly creaking. Instead of preserving sovereignty and nurturing democracy, it has created a situation where paymaster nations like Germany seek to impose the policy preferences of German voters on other states without regard to economic circumstances. It makes no sense to raise taxes and slash jobs when economies are already in free fall. But that is what the E.U. is now demanding be done across Southern Europe, with disastrous economic and political consequences. A better governed E.U. would put more emphasis on reviving growth in the south and stimulating consumer demand in the north.
But there is not much European vision among today’s top national leaders. No Helmut Kohl or François Mitterrand sits among them to bring fellow leaders to their senses before local political motives lead them into continentwide blunders. There are plenty of smart politicians attending E.U. summit meetings and plenty of capable European commissioners keeping the Brussels bureaucracy whirring. But there are no Alexander Hamiltons or James Madisons pushing for the interests of Europe as a whole, not just the interests of Germany, France, Finland, the Netherlands or Cyprus — even as ambitious projects like the euro have increased the need for coherent and consistent rules and policies.
The European Central Bank president, Mario Draghi, has occasionally tried to step into the leadership gap but is constantly reminded that he can be only as “European” as Germany, the bank’s most important shareholder, will permit.
So while the euro will likely survive Europe’s recent stumbles on Cyprus, it will survive unnecessarily weakened by avoidable mistakes. Someday Europe may produce leaders willing to grapple with the task of building sustainable European economic institutions. Until then, the union seems doomed to lurch from one mismanaged crisis to the next. 


  • SAVE
  • E-MAIL
  • SHARE


125 governo reacionário Ingla a criminalizar os pobres por serem pobres.

125  CartesiusRenatus
Terra Ingla
Este artigo das Igrejas mostra bem o lado perverso da ação do governo Tory em culpar os pobres por serem pobres. O governo britânico,  defensor incondicional dos banqueiros, lançou   uma operação de distração para desviar as atenções dos verdadeiros criminosos, os banqueiros e o próprio governo que permite a pouca vergonha dos salários escandalosos na banca. A populaça já mordeu na isca e não fala noutra coisa senãono subsídio deste, do desemprego do outro, da deficiência deste, do subsídio de baixa da outra.... Que cambada de atrasados mentais! 

O relatório diz que o governo Ingla anda a torcer as estatísticas de modo a ajustá-las às ideias deles sobre as classes populares Inglas. A Índia tem a má fama de terem um sistemas de castas com os intocáveis (nem se pode tocar neles), quando o sistema da  Terra Ingla também tem  deliberadamente produzido intocáveis aos milhões! Os Housing Estates estão cheios deles! E quando pensam que os intocáveis estão a diminuir, então os Inglas do Apparatchik mandam vir muitos das colónias e doutros países, até da Europa. Laugh Out Loud!

Agora até meteram um canadiano como presidente do Banco de Inglaterra  a ganhar uma fortuna: centenas de milhares de libras por ano.  Quem é que sabe ao certo! Vejam lá se o tipo não vai transferir o ouro todo para o Banco do Canadá sem ninguém dar por ela! Trust nobody, mate!  Lol.

Meter um canadiano no Banco da Terra Ingla é verdadeiramente um dos piores insultos contra os Inglas! Não há ninguém nesse país com capacidade para gerir esse Banco Nacional? Ou será que o Ministro das Finanças e o Primeiro Ministro  estarão já planeando o exílio no Canadá quando o governo  cair? Só que não está assegurado que o Canadá os vai lá aceitar! Lol. 

Lembramos que este blog é de certo modo caricatural e permite-se estas liberdades de expressão  Temos também de rir à gargalhadas desses palhaços. Oops!

Isto não é o Egipto onde já emitiram um mandado de captura de um caricaturista. Este anda escondido e diz que se rende se o forem buscar num Rolls Royce! O tipo continua a rir à gargalhada desses palhaços da irmandade mixlina no poder.  Mas se lhe deitam mão, certamente que lhe põem uma corda ao pescoço. E assim acabam as caricaturas!


Government 'misrepresenting' the poor, say churches

Boarded up terraced housesThe churches claim several "myths" have emerged as a result of the way information is used

Related Stories

The government is deliberately misusing evidence and statistics to misrepresent the plight of the poor, a report says.
The Methodist and United Reformed Churches, the Church of Scotland and the Baptist Union jointly published the The Lies We Tell Ourselves study.
Researchers said evidence had been skewed to put the blame for poverty at the door of the poor themselves.
The government said it had always made it clear that the system was failing people, not the other way around.
Complex reasons
The churches said that a number of "myths" about welfare claimants have arisen as a result of statistics being misused.
These are repeated by the media and find their way into the popular consciousness.
The myths, according to the churches, pin the blame for poverty directly on those who rely on welfare benefits while ignoring more complex reasons.
These incorrect ideas must be challenged, according to Paul Morrison from the Methodist Church.
He said: "Everybody is complicit - politicians, the media and the general public.
"This is because we have a culture which allows us to tell lies in public life."
Mr Morrison said many people preferred to believe that bad things only happen to "bad people".
The report challenged what it called several misleading ideas about welfare and poverty.
One of these related to the 2011 launch of the government's plan to tackle disruptive families, the Troubled Families programme.
Mental health
Speaking about the programme at the time, Prime Minister David Cameron referred to 120,000 families who were plagued by drug addiction, alcohol dependency and crime.
The report said families counted as "troubled" had to exhibit certain characteristics - none of which actually related to alcohol or drug addiction or criminality.
The largest shared characteristic of the families was, in fact, that the mother had mental health problems.
The report's authors also challenged the idea, repeated by Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan-Smith, that in some parts of Britain there are three generations of families where nobody has ever worked.
According to Mr Morrison, the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) has admitted that no data exists to prove this claim.
In response to the report, the DWP said there was an ongoing debate about the benefits system.
The department's reforms aimed to end the benefits trap and make it easier for those who needed help to get it.
The four churches said they would send a copy of their findings to every MP and MSP.
They have called for an honest debate about poverty, with policy being formed on the basis of clear facts.


Thursday, March 28, 2013

124. BEBER JUNTOS? NUNCA?

124
RENATUS CARTESIUS


Dizem que os Políticos são todos iguais e que fora da política são todos amigos e andam na farra todos juntos.

Naaa.  Leiam isto.  Este político do Partido Trabalhista (Labour Party)  apecebeu-se que havia um Tory (membro do Partido Conservador)  num canto reservado ao Labour no Bar do Parlamento Britânco em Westminster. 

Segundo  foi reportado nessa altura, o Deputado Labour Eric Joyce correu para ele, numa trajetória de abelha, mandou-lhe uns tentos na mola e despejou o Deputado Tory dali para fora.

O Eric foi imediamente detido e interrogado na esquadra da bófia. 

Nste artigo, A CPS (A Promotoria em Português do Brasil e Ministério Público em Português Europeu) diz agora que não vale a pena levá-lo a tribunal. Difícil compreender como não há provas suficientes, quando ele  tinha confessado e até teria sido uma honra para ele ter disparado uns sopapos e amolgado  a tola do Tory.

Diga-se  também de passagem que o Tory sabia bem que aquela área do Bar era Tory-free zona. Ele pushed his luck, só que não teve sorte, foi logo cuspido dali. Quer dizer, ele também foi culpado porque foi desafiador e provocador.  Cartesius é pacifista e obviamente que o Tory deveria ter sido educamente convidado a evacuar o local porque ali nunca tinha sido cosentido a presença daquelas aves de rapina.

O Cartesius espera que o incidente sirva de lição e  que mais nenhum Tory ali meta os pés.



28 March 2013 Last updated at 13:26

MP Eric Joyce will not face charges over bar incident

Eric JoyceEric Joyce said he drank a modest amount of alcohol

Related Stories

MP Eric Joyce will not face charges following his arrest over an alleged brawl in a House of Commons bar.
Scotland Yard said it would be taking no further action following the incident earlier in March.
Last year, the independent MP was convicted of assault in the Strangers bar in the House of Commons and later resigned from the Labour Party.
In a recent blog post, the MP, who has said he will stand down at the next election, denied he was an alcoholic.
"I do not go into bars, nor drink in my office. Nor do I inject alcohol right into my eyeballs while crying", he said in the blog.
Following his arrest in March, Mr Joyce was was held at Belgravia Police Station for around 20 hours before being released on police bail.
He was also banned from buying alcohol in the Houses of Parliament, pending the police investigations into the incident.
The Met police said: "A man aged in his fifties, arrested on Thursday 14 March … in connection with a disturbance in a bar within the House of Commons and bailed to a central London police station has been released with no further action today."
The Crown Prosecution Service said that after receiving a complete file on the alleged incident, it had concluded there was insufficient evidence to bring charges.
"Although there appears to have been an incident on the evening in question, evidence obtained from witnesses contained multiple inconsistencies and there is insufficient evidence that Mr Joyce committed any offence," a CPS spokesman said.
"On this basis, we have concluded there is insufficient evidence to support a realistic prospect of conviction and that no further action should be taken."
Eight bars
The Parliamentary estate has eight bars and 19 other catering venues, most of which sell alcohol. It is also possible to buy specially-branded alcohol, such as the Speaker's malt whiskey, from two gift shops.
Measures have already been taken to try to encourage more responsible drinking in Parliament, with staff told to cut down on topping up MPs' glasses at receptions.
The authorities also say there have been "significant price increases" in alcohol sold in Parliamentary bars, which are "now comparable to high street pubs".
Speaking outside court, after pleading guilty to assault in March last year, Mr Joyce said the fight was a "matter of considerable personal shame" and that the punishment was fair.
He was given a 12-month community order that included a Friday-to-Sunday curfew and a three-month pub ban. He was fined £3,000 and ordered to pay £1,400 in compensation to his victims.
"Drink was an aggravating factor, there's no question about that," he said.
"It's something I have to deal with personally. Not everyone who drinks gets involved in fights and certainly when they are my age."

More on This Story

Related Stories

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external Internet siteso o que reportado

123. HOME OFFICE VERSUS MINISTÉRIO DA JUSTIÇA

123  
CARTESIUS RENATUS


Neste artigo, saído mesmo agora fresquinho do forno da BBC, o Tribunal da Relação Ingla em London queimou o Home Office (olhe que isto não é o escritório da casa, é o Ministério da Administração Interna) e a ministra Teresa Maio, dando razão ao terrorista pregador de ódio Abu Hamza. A pobre riquíssima ministra tem andado envinagrada com o assunto, queria-se ver já livre deste fulano e  despachá-lo para a Jordânia para ser batizado. A secreta  e a justiça jordana querem cortar-lhe a barba,  sentarem-se à mesa com ele e pagar-lhe um chá com buscuits halal.

Só que ele diz que lhe querem lá apertar o papo, extrair-lhe  o fel juntamente com o bofe. e fazer-lhe a folha.  Eles lá sabe porquê, certamente por ter sido um cidadão exemplar. E os Juízes da Relação Inglas deconfiam mesmo que os Jordanos querem  dar  uns apertões fortes a este barbaça e decretaram contra a extradição. 

Nisto, o Cartesius aconselha a ministra Teresinha Maio a fechar o Tribunal da Relação,   to scrap the Habeas Corpus, e a fazer justiça por decreto. Deste modo haveria muito mais justiça e o Ministério da Justiça passaria a Ministério da Poupança. Laugh Out Loud!!!  Dizemos isto e rimos à gargalhada porque ela e toda a comitiva do governo Tory anda sempre a vituperar conta o Tribunal Europeu dos Direitos Humanos e querem de lá sair! Na verdade, eles querem sair de tudo, mas querem assistir às reuniões todas da Europa, dentro do cavalo de Tróia. 

O Cartesius pensa que o Tribunal Europeu dos Direitos Humanos já decretou a deportação do Abbu, mas são agora os Tribunais Inglas a travar o processo de extradição. Dizemos travar, porque mais cedo ou mais tarde ele vai mesmo vijar de férias para a Jordânia. Ele é de lá, mas virou rabble rouser e está a criar problemas graves na Terra dos Inglas.



Abu Qatada: Government loses deportation appeal

Abu QatadaAbu Qatada was returned to prison following an alleged bail breach on 9 March

Related Stories

Home Secretary Theresa May has lost her appeal against a ruling preventing the deportation of preacher Abu Qatada.
She acted after the Special Immigration Appeals Commission said the radical cleric could not be returned to Jordan.
Judges say he could face an unfair trial involving evidence obtained by torturing others.
The Home Office said it would further appeal, adding: "This is not the end of the road. The government remains determined to deport Abu Qatada."
A spokesman added: "In the meantime we continue to work with the Jordanians to address the outstanding legal issues preventing deportation."
In their judgement, Lord Dyson, sitting with Lord Justice Richards and Lord Justice Elias, said the appeals commission was entitled to think there was a risk the "impugned statements" would be admitted in evidence at a retrial. This meant there was "a real risk of a flagrant denial of justice".
The judges said the court accepted that Qatada "is regarded as a very dangerous person", but that was not "a relevant consideration" under human rights laws.
Immigration legislation
Abu Qatada's legal team has not yet lodged a bail application with the Special Immigration Appeals Commission.
Judges would not be able to hear any application before the Easter break which means he remains in prison for the time being.

The legal battle over Abu Qatada has gone on so long, he's seen off six home secretaries. It's now very, very, difficult to see where Theresa May can go from here.
The Court of Appeal's ruling makes clear that the chances of an appeal to the Supreme Court are very slim.
The immediate effect is that the preacher can't be detained under immigration law because there's no realistic chance he is going to be deported anytime soon.
So if the home secretary wants to get rid of the cleric, she'll have to start all over again trying to convince judges that the facts on the ground in Jordan have changed.
Critics of this legal saga say it would never have been necessary if Abu Qatada had been charged with a crime and put on trial.
This law can only be used to hold someone if there is a realistic prospect the person is going to be deported - a prospect this ruling undermines.
Abu Qatada was re-arrested and returned to Belmarsh prison earlier this month following an alleged breach of bail conditions, concerning the use of communications equipment at his home.
The Metropolitan Police said his breach was linked to an investigation into extremist internet material.
If the police arrested and charged him with an offence in relation to that investigation, or another accusation, they could ask a judge to remand him in prison before trial.
Abu Qatada has never been charged with an offence in the UK.
Shadow home secretary Yvette Cooper said: "This is an extremely serious and disappointing judgment which rips apart Theresa May's strategy for deporting Abu Qatada and contradicts her repeated assurances to Parliament that her approach would get him swiftly on to a plane.
"The home secretary needs to pursue all legal avenues, demonstrate further work with Jordan, take urgent action to keep the public safe, and get this deportation back on track."
Siac ruled in November there was a "real risk" evidence gained by torture could be used against Abu Qatada at a retrial in Jordan, meaning that he would not get a fair hearing.
In April 1999, he was convicted in his absence on terror charges in Jordan and sentenced to life imprisonment, and it is on these charges that he faces a retrial.
'Compelling evidence'
At a Court of Appeal hearing earlier this month, lawyers for the UK government argued a block on his deportation should be lifted, saying a "fair" trial in Jordan was possible.
Home Office Minister James Brokenshire: ''This is certainly not the end of the road''
James Eadie QC, appearing for Mrs May, said Siac had taken an "erroneous" view of the situation in Jordan and the legal tests that had to be applied when it came to assessing the conditions Abu Qatada could face there.
He said Jordanian law bans the use of torture and reliance on statements extracted under duress.
Jordanians will do everything in their power to make sure Abu Qatada receives a trial that was "fair and seen to be so", he added.
But lawyers for Abu Qatada told the court that the UK should not send someone back to a country with a "dubious human rights record".
Edward Fitzgerald QC, appearing for the cleric, argued the Siac ruling was right and there was "concrete and compelling evidence" that his co-defendants were tortured into providing evidence.
He said government lawyers had "identified no error of law" and were "quarrelling with findings of fact".
Abu Qatada was first arrested in October 2002 in south London and detained in Belmarsh high-security prison. He was re-arrested and released on bail number of times over the years that followed.
In November 2012, he was released on bail from prison in when the courts blocked the home secretary's latest attempt to deport him to Jordan.
Who is Abu Qatada?Abu Qatada was born in Bethlehem in 1960 and spent his early life in Jordan. He fled to Pakistan in 1989 claiming political persecution and eventually arrived in the UK in 1993. Abu Qatada was part of a wave of Islamists who sought refuge in the UK during the 1980s and 90s, often exiled from the Arab regimes they were trying to overthrow.
1/7

More on This Story

Related Stories

More UK stories

RSS