Espaço de comunicação acerca da Nação Luso-Latina (Space of communication about Lusitanic-Latin Nation) no Mundo (in the World), aqui representada por ( represented here by) «Lisboa reedificada» pelo escultor (by the sculptor) Francisco dos Santos
terça-feira, 28 de maio de 2013
DEMOCRACIA II - DEMOCRATIA II - DEMOCRACY II
O líder do Partido Socialista António José Seguro no seu discurso na conferência «Next Left e os movimentos sociais» promovida pela Fundação Respublica e pelo Instituo Renner (27-5-2013), salienta o enorme desfasamento entre representantes e representados na Democracia Portuguesa:
[É necessário] «um novo Governo com legitimidade democrática» [renovada, está a aumentar a distância entre a democracia real e a democracia ideal.]
«As pessoas olham para os actores do processo democrático e não se revêem muitas das vezes nas atitudes e nos comportamentos sentindo que os seus problemas estão a aumentar e que não há uma resposta das instituições. Isso leva ao afastamento dos cidadãos em relação ao processo democrático, leva à desafectação, à desilusão e desfiliação (...) têm de aproximar o discurso da realidade, porque se houver afastamento, a consequência é que, no plano imediato, ou quando se chegar à função governativa, gerar-se-à desilusão e desconfiança».
«É isso que se passa em Portugal, com um Governo que prometeu precisamente o contrário do que está a fazer. Além de se colocar o problema da legitimidade do contrato eleitoral, há também problemas de desafectação, desilusão e desconfiança. Como o país tem problemas sérios que precisam de uma abordagem mais profunda do que tradicionalmente, isso convoca a necessidade de uma legitimidade democrática para poder fazer o que é necessário fazer»
«Quem está hoje na vida pública e ambiciona governar o país, tem de possuir a consciência de que não se pode prometer tudo a toda a gente. Em cada momento, é preciso ter a noção que é preciso falar verdade, sem cortar a esperança às pessoas, mas simultaneamente propondo aquilo que é necessário ser feito para gerar confiança e para resolver os problemas concretos das pessoas».
António Seguro é das pessoas da Sociedade Política que mais se preocupa com o necessário aprofundamento da Democracia.
António Salazar foi a pessoa que mais condicionou o desenvolvimento da Democracia em Portugal, tendo a sua autocracia limitado fortemente a actual Democracia imatura, com representatividade enviesada e muito pouco participativa.
Em 28 de Maio de 1926, há 87 anos, a I República caía sob os seus próprios erros, tal como a Monarquia tinha caído. Nasce uma II República que vai bloquear Portugal em termos políticos, culturais, sócio-económicos através de um regime de tirania, ignorância e fanatismo. Portugal fica durante décadas sem Liberdade e após o advento da III República sem Responsabilidade.
Ainda hoje se sentem fortemente os efeitos das causas do «Estado Novo» autocrata, dirigido essencialmente por António Oliveira Salazar que tinha medo da indústria, dos comunistas e de perder o Ultramar e que condicionou fortemente o desenvolvimento industrial, gerou comunistas como cogumelos com a humidade e comprometeu seriamente a presença de Portugal no «Ultramar», lançando-o na guerra quente indirecta entre as superpotências, lançando-o indirectamente, nas mãos dos soviéticos em 1975. Quem deu força a um conflito que degenerou numa desastrosa «Descolonização»: Salazar, que nunca conheceu o «Ultramar» e que não o deixou desenvolver-se, nem que se criassem condições para independências amistosas em relação a Portugal. As filhas e os filhos da Nação Portuguesa tudo fizeram para criar relações cristãs e saudáveis nas «Colónias», mas Salazar, com a sua tirania, ignorância e fanatismo permitiu que os oportunistas do regime exercessem a total arbitrariedade, saque para benefício pessoal e de grupo (o exemplo dos «prejuízos» do Banco Nacional Ultramarino e a quase escravatura nas roças de cacau de São Tomé e Príncipe são apenas uma uma pequena manifestação da cultura nociva que se instalou). Fomentaram-se os jogos de soma negativa ou nula, abusos de posição dominante, uma cultura da denúncia, ainda por cima falsa, tipo Inquisição, amesquinhou-se Portugal, hipotecou-se culturalmente o País, que acumulou ouro, mas que não se desenvolveu, que ficou extremamente atrasado.
Depois de uma «guerra colonial», depois de uma «guerra civil», só agora Portugal desenvolve relações mutuamente favoráveis com Angola, por exemplo. Mas existem condicionamentos que vão demorar muito tempo a serem transcendidos.
domingo, 26 de maio de 2013
OPINIÃO NÃO É DIFAMAÇÃO - OPINIONEM NON EST DEFAMACIONE - OPINION IS NOT DEFAMATION
A «FAMA» EXPÕE, REVELA ANÍBAL
DE UMA FORMA BRUTAL?
COMO ESTÃO A «CASTIGAR» PORTUGAL?
A GENERALIZADA OPINIÃO
NÃO É UMA DIFAMAÇÃO
É UMA CONSTATAÇÃO
É UM MAU PRESIDENTE
DA DEFESA DA NAÇÃO EFECTIVAMENTE AUSENTE
DA SALVAGUARDA DOS SEUS INTERESSES E IDEIAS PRESENTE
PORTUGAL NECESSITAVA DE PESSOAS UNIVERSALISTAS
QUE DIALECTICAMENTE NOS AJUDASSEM A LIBERTAR DOS FUNDAMENTALISTAS
MIGUEL SOUSA TAVARES TEM SIDO UMA CORAJOSA VOZ INDEPENDENTE A DEFENDER A NAÇÃO DAS ATROCIDADES COMETIDAS PELO ESTADO, SEUS AGENTES E POR ABUSOS DE POSIÇÃO DOMINANTE POR PARTE DE OLIGARQUIAS, CARTÉIS E DEMAIS ACTORES DE JOGOS DE SOMA NEGATIVA QUE TANTO TÊM PREJUDICADO PORTUGAL AO LONGO DE SÉCULOS.
O GOVERNO, O PRESIDENTE DA REPÚBLICA, A ACTUAL MAIORIA PARLAMENTAR ASSALTARAM O PODER POLÍTICO EM PORTUGAL EM 2011, PROVOCARAM A QUEDA DO ANTERIOR GOVERNO E PRECIPITARAM A INTERVENÇÃO EXTERNA DA TROIKA, PONDO EM CAUSA OS INTERESSES DA NAÇÃO. O QUE DEFENDEMOS NA ALTURA, QUE INDEPENDENTEMENTE DAS RAZÕES, NÃO SE PODERIA NUNCA CHUMBAR O PEC IV, CONSTITUI UMA LEVIANDADE IMPERDOÁVEL QUE TEVE A CUMPLICIDADE DE ANÍBAL CAVACO SILVA, QUE NADA FEZ PARA O EVITAR, SEGUNDO O EX-PRIMEIRO MINISTRO QUE O ESTAVA A NEGOCIAR E QUE TINHA O ACORDO PRÉVIO DAS AUTORIDADES EUROPEIAS.
MAIS, AO CONTRÁRIO DO PROMETIDO, O ACTUAL GOVERNO NADA FEZ PARA INCIDIR CONSTITUCIONALMENTE, SOBRE O PRÓPRIO ESTADO, A NECESSIDADE DE REDUZIR OS DÉFICES ORÇAMENTAIS, FAZENDO INCIDIR SOBRE AS EMPRESAS E FAMÍLIAS UM BRUTAL AUMENTO DA TRIBUTAÇÃO E DE PRÁTICAS BRUTAIS DE COBRANÇAS COERCIVAS DE IMPOSTOS E PENHORAS, COMETENDO ERROS DE INVERSÃO DE INCUMPRIMENTOS POR PRÁTICAS ABUSIVAS DE INVERSÃO DO ÓNUS DE PROVA, INVENTANDO DÍVIDAS INEXISTENTES, AINDA POR CIMA COM EXECUÇÃO DE PENHORAS COMO SE O ESTADO FOSSE UM BANCO, PRÁTICAS QUE SE DESENVOLVERAM DESDE QUE O ACTUAL MINISTRO DA SAÚDE FOI GANHAR MUITO DINHEIRO PARA IMPLEMENTAR NO «FISCO» ESSE SISTEMA QUE LESA DIREITOS CONSTITUCIONAIS DAS EMPRESAS E FAMÍLIAS.
CONSIDERAMOS QUE A INSTAURAÇÃO DE UM INQUÉRITO DE APURAMENTO DE UM POTENCIAL CRIME DE OFENSA AO PRESIDENTE DA REPÚBLICA, DESPOLETADO PELA PRESIDÊNCIA APESAR DE LEGAL É IMORAL! ALIÁS CONSIDERAMOS QUE O CÓDIGO PENAL ESTÁ CARREGADO DE INJUSTIÇAS NA DEFINIÇÃO E HIERARQUIZAÇÃO DE CRIMES E SUAS PENALIDADES, EM QUE ESTE CASO É MAIS UM.
ANÍBAL CAVACO SILVA TEM UM CURRICULUM DE RESPONSABILIDADES NA GERAÇÃO DE DÉFICES ORÇAMENTAIS DESDE QUE FOI MINISTRO DAS FINANÇAS EM 1980 MUITO SIGNIFICATIVO. COM AS SUAS DECISÕES CONTRIBUIU PARA UM ESTADO MUITO ACIMA DAS SUAS POSSIBILIDADES. A SUA RELAÇÃO COM AS PESSOAS DO PSD LIGADAS AO ESCÂNDALO BPN, A SUA RELAÇÃO COM MAIS VALIAS DE ACÇÕES DO GRUPO SLN DIVULGADAS NOS MEIOS DE COMUNICAÇÃO NÃO FORAM ESCLARECIDAS.
A SUA POSIÇÃO ACTIVA NA DEFESA DE DESPESAS DO ESTADO E A SUA POSIÇÃO PASSIVA EFECTIVA NO ATAQUE TRIBUTÁRIO ÀS EMPRESAS E FAMÍLIAS CAUSAM-NOS INDIGNAÇÃO. A SUA COLAGEM AOS INTERESSES DA ACTUAL MAIORIA QUE O APOIOU NA SUA RECANDIDATURA, AFASTAM-NO DO CONCEITO DE «PRESIDENTE DE TODA(O)S OS PORTUGUESA(E)S»
ESTE EPISÓDIO MESQUINHO REVELA BEM O NÍVEL DESTE CIDADÃO ANÍBAL CAVACO SILVA, QUE O DEPUTADO JOÃO GALAMBA TINHA JÁ RECENTEMENTE, CRITICADO FORTEMENTE.
A HIPOCRISIA TEM LIMITES E A SOCIEDADE POLÍTICA ESTÁ CHEIA DESSA PRÁTICA REPUGNANTE.
A MIGUEL SOUSA TAVARES, GRANDE ESCRITOR E CORAJOSO FILHO DA NAÇÃO PORTUGUESA, SALIENTAMOS AQUI NESTE ESPAÇO DOS INÚMEROS ESPAÇOS DA INTERNET QUE ELE TANTO DESCONFIA, A NOSSA TOTAL SOLIDARIEDADE E COMPREENSÃO PELA SUA ENTREVISTA, PELO SEU CONTEXTO HUMANO DO SEU DESABAFO, PROFUNDAMENTE HUMANO. QUE EXISTAM MAIS VOZES QUE DE UMA FORMA CIVILIZADA, DEMOCRÁTICA, DIALÉCTICA, COM RESPEITO PELO OUTRO, ERGAM A SUA VOZ CONTRA ESTA TRISTE HIERARQUIA DE SUBSERVIÊNCIAS:
- Subserviência em relação ao Governo actual da Alemanha por parte do PSD liderado pelos fundamentalistas Pedro Passos Coelho (equivocado sobre a missão que lhe foi confiada pelos votos democráticos, que desrespeitou gravemente) e Vítor Gaspar, com a cumplicidade de Aníbal Cavaco Silva;
- Subserviência do líder do CDS/PP e do partido em relação ao PSD e ao poder político, cada vez mais esvaziado de determinação Nacional, por essa cultura subserviente!
_ «(...) O pior que nos pode acontecer é um Beppe Grillo, um Sidónio Pais. Mas não por via militar. Nós já temos um palhaço. Chama-se Cavaco Silva. Muito pior do que isso, é difícil (...)
A independência, hoje em dia, pago-a em situações de mal estar (...)
Num livro em que reuni crónicas políticas escrevi na introdução: ‘O dever de um cronista é ter opinião’. Conheço tanta gente que tem opinião e que nunca, nunca molha as mãos... Eu, este ano, fui bombardeado: Rendeiro, Mota-Engil, Gonçalo Amaral, Armando Vara. Todos me puseram processos, e todos perderam. O que quer dizer que eu sei os limites entre a ofensa e a crítica. Mas incomoda. Você tem que ir a tribunal, chatear testemunhas, gastar dinheiro. Mas se não faz isso, não tem o direito de ter uma coluna de opinião (...) (Miguel Sousa Tavares em entrevista ao Jornal de Negócios, publicada em 24-5-2013)
_ «Em face das afirmações hoje publicadas no Jornal de Negócios pelo Dr. Miguel Sousa Tavares, o Presidente da República contactou a Procuradora-Geral da República com vista a que as referidas afirmações sejam analisadas à luz do artigo 328.º do Código Penal» (Fonte da Presidência da República em declaração à Lusa, 24-5-2013)
_ «Na edição do dia 24.05.2013 do Jornal de Negócios foi publicada uma entrevista sob o título «Beppe Grillo? “Nós já temos um palhaço. Chama-se Cavaco Silva.”»
As expressões proferidas na entrevista são susceptíveis de integrar a prática do crime de Ofensa à honra do Presidente da República, previsto no artigo 328.º do Código Penal.Tendo o crime natureza pública, o Ministério Público procedeu à instauração de inquérito.»
(Lisboa, 24 de Maio de 2013, O Gabinete de Imprensa, Verónica Marques - Procuradoria Geral da República)
_ «Artigo 328.º
Ofensa à honra do Presidente da República
1 — Quem injuriar ou difamar o Presidente da República, ou quem constitucionalmente o substituir, é punido com pena de prisão até três anos ou com pena de multa.
2 — Se a injúria ou a difamação forem feitas por meio de palavras proferidas publicamente, de publicação de escrito ou de desenho, ou por qualquer meio técnico de comunicação com o público, o agente é punido com pena de prisão de seis meses a três anos ou com pena de multa não inferior a 60 dias.
3 — O procedimento criminal cessa se o Presidente da República expressamente declarar que dele desiste.» (Código Penal)
_ «Perguntaram-me não teme que apareça um palhaço aqui e eu disse já temos um; fui atrás da
pergunta, mas reconheço que não o devia ter feito, não pelo professor
Cavaco Silva enquanto político, mas pelo chefe de Estado que é uma
entidade que eu respeito (...)
É muito simples, eu não tenho nenhuma consideração política pelo
professor Cavaco Silva, conforme é público, mas tenho pelo chefe de
Estado, seja ele quem for e nesse sentido reconheço que não devia ter
dito aquilo, mas de facto fui arrastado pela pergunta, não é uma coisa
que me tenha saído a mim espontaneamente (...)» (Miguel Sousa Tavares, declarações à Lusa, 24-5-2013) COMPREENDEMOS A SUA PROFUNDA HUMANIDADE! NÃO COMPREENDEMOS ANÍBAL CAVACO SILVA; QUE NÃO NOS MERECE CONSIDERAÇÃO DESDE 1980.
«(...) o PSD repudia as declarações insultuosas (...)» (Nota do PPD/PSD divulgada por Jorge Moreira da Silva, 24-5-2013) POIS CLARO/ESCURO, DECLARAÇÕES INSULTUOSAS FORAM AS PROFERIDAS POR PEDRO PASSOS COELHO, LÍDER DO PSD, ACERCA DA RESPONSABILIDADE DOS PORTUGUESES RELATIVAMENTE À INTERVENÇÃO DA TROIKA E DE ANÍBAL CAVACO SILVA RELATIVAMENTE À RELAÇÃO ENTRE OS RENDIMENTOS DA SUA FAMÍLIA E AS SUAS DESPESAS, POR COMPARAÇÃO COM A BRUTAL CARGA FISCAL QUE AS EMPRESAS E FAMÍLIAS DE RENDIMENTOS INTERMÉDIOS ESTÃO A SUPORTAR
«As declarações de Miguel Sousa Tavares foram manifestamente inadequadas. Independentemente das opiniões políticas, numa sociedade aberta, o Presidente da República e chefe de Estado representa Portugal e merece, por isso, respeito e deve ser preservado no debate político» (Nuno Magalhães, CDS/PP) É O CIDADÃO CAVACO SILVA QUE É VISADO, RESPONSÁVEL PELA SUA INTERPRETAÇÃO DO PAPEL DO PRESIDENTE DA REPÚBLICA.
«O escritor chamou "palhaço" ao Presidente da República (...)» (Expresso, 25 de Maio de 2013) MIGUEL SOUSA TAVARES REFERIU-SE A CAVACO SILVA E NÃO AO PRESIDENTE DA REPÚBLICA, MAIS UMA INCORRECÇÃO DO EXPRESSO!
Ecos internacionais, que amplificam a mesquinha atitude de Aníbal Cavaco Silva:
ROMANIA
Mediafax (http://www.mediafax.ro/externe/presedintele-portughez-a-fost-numit-clovn-de-catre-un-jurnalist-anibal-cavaco-silva-a-sesizat-justitia-10900604)
«Preşedintele portughez a fost numit "clovn" de către un jurnalist. Anibal Cavaco Silva a sesizat justiţia» de Ana Borlescu
«Justiţia portugheză a deschis o anchetă vineri pentru a
determina dacă a îl numi pe preşedinte "clovn", aşa cum a făcut un
scriitor şi jurnalist portughez, necesită urmăriri penale pentru injurii
aduse şefului statului.
«Anchetă deschisă în Portugalia, după ce preşedintele a fost numit "clovn" de un jurnalist»
"Avem deja un clovn. Se numeşte (Anibal) Cavaco Silva". Această
frază, care a apărut vineri în cotidianul economic Jornal de Negocios, a
fost pronunţată de jurnalistul şi scriitorul Miguel Sousa Tavares.
Scriitorul răspundea astfel, într-un interviu pentru jurnal, la o
întrebare privind o eventuală apariţie în Portugalia a unei
personalităţi asemănătoare comedianului şi omului politic Beppe Grillo.
Formularea nu a fost apreciată de preşedinte care la câteva ore după apariţia jurnalului, a cerut procurorului general al republicii să determine dacă poate fi asimilată unei "ofense la onoarea" şefului de stat. O anchetă a fost imediat deschisă.
"Ofensa la onoarea" preşedintelui este pasibilă unei "pedepse de maxim 3 ani de închisoare, sau o amendă", conform articolului din codul penal pe care Cavaco Silva l-a invocat pentru a îşi formula cererea.
Sousa Tavares a recunoscut totuşi rapid, în declaraţiile pentru agenţia Lusa, că a fost "excesiv" în cuvintele sale. "Nu am nicio consideraţie politică pentru Cavaco Silva, dar am pentru şeful statului indiferent cine este", a declarat el.
Preşedintele portughez, al cărui rol este în esenţă protocolar, este uneori subiect de glumă printre compatrioţii săi.
Recent, acesta a fost ridiculizat pentru că a declarat că o "intervenţie a Sfintei Fecioare de la Fatima" a permis fără îndoială Portugaliei, care se află sub asistenţă financiară, să obţină un nou raport pozitiv de la creditorii săi.»
Antena3 (http://www.antena3.ro/externe/ancheta-deschisa-in-portugalia-dupa-ce-presedintele-a-fost-numit-clovn-de-un-jurnalist-215435.html)
Formularea nu a fost apreciată de preşedinte care la câteva ore după apariţia jurnalului, a cerut procurorului general al republicii să determine dacă poate fi asimilată unei "ofense la onoarea" şefului de stat. O anchetă a fost imediat deschisă.
"Ofensa la onoarea" preşedintelui este pasibilă unei "pedepse de maxim 3 ani de închisoare, sau o amendă", conform articolului din codul penal pe care Cavaco Silva l-a invocat pentru a îşi formula cererea.
Sousa Tavares a recunoscut totuşi rapid, în declaraţiile pentru agenţia Lusa, că a fost "excesiv" în cuvintele sale. "Nu am nicio consideraţie politică pentru Cavaco Silva, dar am pentru şeful statului indiferent cine este", a declarat el.
Preşedintele portughez, al cărui rol este în esenţă protocolar, este uneori subiect de glumă printre compatrioţii săi.
Recent, acesta a fost ridiculizat pentru că a declarat că o "intervenţie a Sfintei Fecioare de la Fatima" a permis fără îndoială Portugaliei, care se află sub asistenţă financiară, să obţină un nou raport pozitiv de la creditorii săi.»
Antena3 (http://www.antena3.ro/externe/ancheta-deschisa-in-portugalia-dupa-ce-presedintele-a-fost-numit-clovn-de-un-jurnalist-215435.html)
«Justiţia portugheză a deschis o anchetă vineri pentru a determina
dacă a îl numi pe preşedinte "clovn", aşa cum a făcut un scriitor şi
jurnalist portughez, necesită urmăriri penale pentru injurii aduse
şefului statului, relatează AFP, conform Mediafax.
"Avem
deja un clovn. Se numeşte (Anibal) Cavaco Silva". Această frază, care a
apărut vineri în cotidianul economic Jornal de Negocios, a fost
pronunţată de jurnalistul şi scriitorul Miguel Sousa Tavares.
Scriitorul
răspundea astfel, într-un interviu pentru jurnal, la o întrebare
privind o eventuală apariţie în Portugalia a unei personalităţi
asemănătoare comedianului şi omului politic Beppe Grillo.
Formularea
nu a fost apreciată de preşedinte care la câteva ore după apariţia
jurnalului, a cerut procurorului general al republicii să determine dacă
poate fi asimilată unei "ofense la onoarea" şefului de stat. O anchetă a
fost imediat deschisă.
"Ofensa
la onoarea" preşedintelui este pasibilă unei "pedepse de maxim 3 ani de
închisoare, sau o amendă", conform articolului din codul penal pe care
Cavaco Silva l-a invocat pentru a îşi formula cererea.
Sousa
Tavares a recunoscut totuşi rapid, în declaraţiile pentru agenţia Lusa,
că a fost "excesiv" în cuvintele sale. "Nu am nicio consideraţie
politică pentru Cavaco Silva, dar am pentru şeful statului indiferent
cine este", a declarat el.
Preşedintele portughez, al cărui rol este în esenţă protocolar, este uneori subiect de glumă printre compatrioţii săi.
Recent,
acesta a fost ridiculizat pentru că a declarat că o "intervenţie a
Sfintei Fecioare de la Fatima" a permis fără îndoială Portugaliei, care
se află sub asistenţă financiară, să obţină un nou raport pozitiv de la
creditorii săi.»
BRITANIA
BBC (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-22663977)
«Portugal author Miguel Sousa Tavares probed for 'clown' jibe»
The famous writer said his country did not need someone like Italy's comedian-turned-politician Beppe Grillo, because it already had a clown as leader.He faces up to three years in prison if found guilty of offending the honour of the President of the Republic.
Mr Cavaco Silva has lost public support over his cabinet's austerity policies.
Recent polls show he has the lowest ratings of any Portuguese president ever, the BBC's Alison Roberts, in Lisbon, reports.
By contrast, Mr Sousa Tavares's work is hugely popular, both in book form and adapted for TV, our correspondent says.
He made the controversial remark in an interview with Portugal's leading financial daily, Jornal de Negocios.
"We already have a clown: His name is Cavaco Silva," he told the newspaper.
The quote was also splashed in large letters across the newspaper's front page.
The author later said he went a bit too far in his comments.
Meanwhile, the attorney-general's office has not specified if the move to investigate the novelist was prompted by the president himself.
If criminal proceedings were to run their full course, it might not do much good for Mr Cavaco Silva's image, our correspondent says.
Instead of being seen as above party politics, the president has become associated with the centre-right government and its austerity policies, she adds.
The measures have triggered mass protests across the country.
Entretanto no dia 25 de Maio de 2013, de acordo com a TVI (http://www.tvi24.iol.pt/sociedade/manifestacao-belem-cgtp-palhaco-tvi24/1453530-4071.html)
«Milhares de manifestantes estiveram concentrados em frente ao Mosteiro dos Jerónimos, em Belém, gritando palavras de ordem contra o Governo e o Presidente da República.
Os manifestantes gritavam palavras de ordem como «Governo para a rua» e «Palhaços».
Entre as palavras de ordem estiveram também «Cavaco, função do Presidente é demitir aquela gente» e vêem-se cartazes nos quais está escrito «Palhaço Cavaco», com uma imagem do PR com um nariz vermelho, ou uma foto do PR com a legenda «Leilão de imóveis».
«Cavaco! O teu Governo já não representa a maioria que o elegeu - Eleições já», «Cavaco para a rua» e «Governo rua», eram outras das legendas dos cartazes.
Além dos muitos cartazes de Cavaco Silva com montagens do presidente vestido de palhaço e alguns manifestantes que se fazem acompanhar de narizes vermelhos, eram visíveis ainda criticas ao Governo como «PSD e CDS nunca mais» e «Bandidos, demissão».
Enquanto a sindicalista Ana Avoila discursava, vários manifestantes insurgiram-se contra o PR, usando expressões como «palhaço» e criticando os gastos do Presidente.»
Manifestante de outra manifestação salienta a «fragilidade» de Aníbal Cavaco Silva para enfrentar as suas despesas, como salientou :
«(...) tudo somado o que irei receber do Fundo de Pensões do Banco de Portugal e da Caixa Geral de Aposentações quase de certeza que não vai chegar para pagar as minhas despesas (...)» (Janeiro de 2012 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvGTjA594E8). Saliente-se que foi referido pelos órgãos de comunicação social que Aníbal Cavaco Silva.
Outra situação imoral que nunca é demais salientar é a das mais valias obtidas com a SLN (que neste momento alimentam as gigantescas imparidades do Grupo, do BPN, incrivelmente assunidas pelo Estado Português), evidenciada aqui pelo Expresso em 2009:
«Cavaco ganhou €147 mil com SLN»
Pedro Lima, Isabel Vicente e Nicolau Santos*
«A passagem de Cavaco Silva pela Sociedade
Lusa de Negócios (SLN), como accionista, foi lucrativa. O Presidente da
República (PR) vendeu em Novembro de 2003 as 105.378 acções que tinha da
SLN - empresa que até Novembro controlou o Banco Português de Negócios
(BPN) -, por €2,4 cada. Tendo em conta que as tinha comprado em 2001 por
€1, Cavaco obteve, com este negócio, ganhos de €147,5 mil.
Também a sua filha Patrícia era uma pequena accionista
da SLN e vendeu 149.640 acções na mesma altura que o pai, pelos mesmos
€2,4. Resultado: mais-valias de €209,4 mil.
Documentos a que o Expresso teve acesso mostram que, a
17 de Novembro de 2003, Cavaco Silva e a filha deram ordem de venda das
suas acções, em cartas separadas endereçadas ao então presidente da
administração da SLN, José Oliveira Costa. Este determinou que as
255.018 acções detidas por ambos fossem vendidas à SLN Valor, a maior
accionista da SLN, na qual participam os maiores accionistas individuais
desta empresa, entre os quais o próprio Oliveira Costa.
O Expresso voltou esta semana a contactar o PR.
Perguntou-lhe outra vez quando se tornou accionista e porquê, qual o
valor a que comprou as acções em 2001 e qual o valor a que as vendeu.
Fonte oficial da Presidência da República respondeu: "O professor Cavaco
Silva - que só tomou posse como Presidente da República em 9 de Março
de 2006 - e a sua mulher não têm nada a acrescentar sobre a gestão das
suas poupanças, relativamente ao que consta do comunicado emitido pela
Presidência da República em 23 de Novembro de 2008".
Nesse comunicado podia ler-se que Cavaco Silva, no
exercício da sua vida profissional, "nunca exerceu qualquer tipo de
função no BPN ou em qualquer das suas empresas; nunca recebeu qualquer
remuneração do BPN ou de qualquer das suas empresas; nunca comprou ou
vendeu nada ao BPN ou a qualquer das suas empresas". Além disso, referiu
que nem ele nem a sua mulher contraíram qualquer empréstimo junto do
BPN nem devem um único euro a qualquer banco, nacional ou estrangeiro,
nem a qualquer outra entidade. Mas sobre ter sido accionista da SLN -
que controlava o BPN - nada disse.
O Expresso foi também consultar as declarações de
rendimentos de Cavaco Silva. Nelas foi possível verificar que na mesma
conta do BPN onde tinha depositadas as acções da SLN, Cavaco tinha, em
2005, €210.634. Com a venda das acções a €2,4 em Novembro de 2003, o PR
obteve um encaixe de €252.907,2.
Os €2,4 não andavam, ao que o Expresso apurou, muito
longe dos valores praticados noutras transacções de acções da SLN
naquela altura. O BPN não estava cotado na Bolsa, pelo que a
determinação do preço das acções não era feita pelas regras de mercado.
Não havia, por isso, um preço de referência para as acções definido
oficialmente.
A participação de Cavaco na SLN não terá sido muito
diferente da de muitas pessoas que foram atraídas para o projecto de
Oliveira Costa pelas perspectivas de valorização do grupo. O banqueiro
utilizava os seus conhecimentos para trazer para o grupo accionistas de
relevo, quer da área política quer da empresarial. Por isso não é de
estranhar que também Cavaco tenha acedido a participar no projecto
SLN/BPN, tendo em conta que Oliveira Costa foi secretário de Estado dos
Assuntos Fiscais de um dos seus governos.
Mas, apesar de tal ser natural - e de ter sido mais um
entre os 400 accionistas da SLN em 2003 -, Cavaco nunca quis confirmar a
relação que teve com a SLN. Esta semana manteve a mesma postura. O
Expresso já tinha revelado, em Fevereiro de 2008, que Cavaco Silva fora
accionista da SLN, informação que na altura foi confirmada pela própria
SLN. Em Novembro questionou o PR, pedindo-lhe que explicasse essa
relação.
Cavaco não quis fazer comentários. Em vez disso, fez
sair, a 23 de Novembro (um dia após sair a notícia), o comunicado a que
alude.»
*com Joana Pereira Bastos
A fama de Aníbal Cavaco Silva é muito má e é ele é inteiramente responsável por ela.
Acerca da FAMA mitológica oiçamos Virgílio no seu poema épico «Eneida» de 19 antes de Cristo (Publius Vergilius Maro «Aeneis» - Virgil «The Aeneid»):
«(...)
Nem há contágio mais veloz que a Fama.
Móbil vigora, e força adquire andando:
Tímida e fraca, eis se remonta às auras;
No chão caminha, e a fronte enubla e esconde.
Da ira dos deuses Terra mãe picada,
Póstuma a Celo e Encélado, é constante,
De pés leve engendrou-a e de asas lestes:
Horrendo monstro ingente, que, oh prodígio!
No corpo quantas plumas tem, com tantos
Olhos por baixo vela, tantas línguas,
Tantas bocas lhe soam, tende e alerta
Ouvidos tantos. Pelo céu de noite
Revoa, e ruge na terrena sombra,
Nem os lumes declina ao meigo sono:
De dia, em celsa torre ou sumo alcáçar,
Sentada espia e as capitais aterra;
Do falso e ruim tenaz, do vero núncia.
Vária e palreira então com gáudio os povos
Aturde, e o feito e por fazer pregoa:
(...)» (tradução de Manuel Odorico Mendes, 1854)
«(...)
Fama, malum qua non aliud uelocius ullum:
mobilitate uiget uirisque adquirit eundo,
parua metu primo, mox sese attollit in auras
ingrediturque solo et caput inter nubila condit.
illam Terra parens ira inritata deorum
extremam, ut perhibent, Coeo Enceladoque sororem
progenuit pedibus celerem et pernicibus alis,
monstrum horrendum, ingens, cui quot sunt corpore plumae,
tot uigiles oculi subter (mirabile dictu),
tot linguae, totidem ora sonant, tot subrigit auris.
nocte uolat caeli medio terraeque per umbram
stridens, nec dulci declinat lumina somno;
luce sedet custos aut summi culmine tecti
turribus aut altis, et magnas territat urbes,
tam ficti prauique tenax quam nuntia ueri.
haec tum multiplici populos sermone replebat
gaudens, et pariter facta atque infecta canebat:
(...)»
«(...)
Fame, the great ill, from small beginnings grows:
Swift from the first; and ev’ry moment brings
New vigor to her flights, new pinions to her wings.
Soon grows the pigmy to gigantic size;
Her feet on earth, her forehead in the skies.
Inrag’d against the gods, revengeful Earth
Produc’d her last of the Titanian birth.
Swift is her walk, more swift her winged haste:
A monstrous phantom, horrible and vast.
As many plumes as raise her lofty flight,
So many piercing eyes inlarge her sight;
Millions of opening mouths to Fame belong,
And ev’ry mouth is furnish’d with a tongue,
And round with list’ning ears the flying plague is hung.
She fills the peaceful universe with cries;
No slumbers ever close her wakeful eyes;
By day, from lofty tow’rs her head she shews,
And spreads thro’ trembling crowds disastrous news;
With court informers haunts, and royal spies;
Things done relates, not done she feigns, and mingles truth with lies.
Talk is her business, and her chief delight
To tell of prodigies and cause affright.
She fills the people’s ears (...)» (translated by John Dryden in 1697)
sábado, 25 de maio de 2013
«ALIANÇA PROGRESSISTA» - «SOCIETATIS PROGRESSUI» - «PROGRESSIVE ALLIANCE»
Progressive Alliance Conference (22 May 2013) in Leipzig, Germany, with the presence of the leader of Partido Socialista (Portugal), António José Seguro that defend a different point of view to Europe problems shared with «Progressive», «Socialist» and «Social Democratic» parties of the world.
Progressive Alliance was founded in May 23 2013, it´s an alternative to International Socialist criticized by SPD for the presence of non democratic members.
This is it «Basic Document» (http://progressive-alliance.info/basic-document/):
The present day and age is marked by rapid change and historical, economical and political upheaval. Many countries around us are battling with huge economic problems, while in other parts of the world people are enjoying better prospects for the future than ever before. With globalization, the social matter has come to the fore again in a new guise, as inequality in our societies and between the rich and the poor states of the world has increased. This new social issue must be addressed in order to make participation possible, prevent distribution conflicts and ensure the ecological balance of our environment.
Today in the globalized 21st century humanity can only solve our age’s existential challenges together. To create just jobs and ensure equal pay for women and men, to fight unemployment, curb climate change, restrain rampant financial markets with sensible regulations, counter increased inequality in societies, secure peace and human rights as global public goods, stop the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and put an end to hunger and poverty once and for all. Challenges like these can only be tackled by working together and not against each other. At the same time these are challenges for a new order of the world, which the progressive forces worldwide have to fight for.
We want to contribute to the establishment of a cooperative world order which makes shared solutions of problems and construction of the future possible. Together with social and workers movements and groups of civil society, we want to shape the future with the aim of advancing global peace, justice, equality – including gender equality – and sustainability.
We have seen how the politics of injustice and inequality have divided our societies and have undermined social cohesion and solidarity. Neo-liberalism has failed miserably.
The time is ripe for a progressive, global political and economic system which places humans at the centre of attention again. We need a progressive answer which gives people hope instead of fuelling fear, allows women and men to have equal opportunities and be part of society instead of excluding them, and which encourages cooperation instead of confrontation.
As progressive parties, we want to make the 21st century a century of democratic, social and ecological progress. In order to achieve this goal, we have to understand the needs of our fellow human beings and work out modern political approaches to satisfy these needs. For that to happen, we need to strengthen our parties, our organisations and our campaigns.
And for this very reason, we, the progressive parties, wish to improve our cooperation and establish a progressive alliance of political parties, welcoming cooperation with other progressive social forces, trade unions, foundations, think tanks and NGOs.
The Progressive Alliance is a network which is open to progressive, democratic, social-democratic, socialist and labour parties and party networks. The Progressive Alliance is funded by voluntary contributions. The values of democracy, gender equality, justice and solidarity we advocate are the basic operational principles inside of the Progressive Alliance.
Parallel and complementary to other associations operating at an international level, the Progressive Alliance builds on existing and evolving networks and forums.
For global political challenges like strengthening the social dimension of globalisation and sustainable progress, combating climate change, strengthening human rights, including women’s rights, and democracy, as well as peace and security, the Progressive Alliance is the platform for formulating common, progressive answers.
Specifically through the Progressive Alliance we need to:
Cooperation on Campaigning: The Progressive Alliance focus on building-up the capacity for campaigns and the organisational integrity of political parties. This needs to happen in the developed and the developing world. The International Progressive Campaign Forum gives progressive political parties opportunities to discuss shared electoral challenges and successful campaigns. The International Progressive Campaign Forum will be continued in cooperation with the Progressive Alliance.
Cooperation of Progressive Parliamentarians: The Conference of Progressive Parliamentary Leaders brings together progressive politicians from across the world to start discussing shared policy challenges and to foster international cooperation. The Conference of Progressive Parliamentary Leaders will be continued in cooperation with the Progressive Alliance.
Cooperation on Key Topical Issues: Key topical issues are the questions of a new global deal between capital and labour and the implementation of frameworks which ensure equal opportunities for all members of society, especially with regards to gender equality. This important discussion centres on the concept of shared prosperity, how we can make the relationship between capital and labour, but also between the oftentimes female unpaid and male paid forms of employment more balanced, and how to secure basic workers’ rights and decent work for all. The work on A New Global Deal between Capital and Labour will be continued in cooperation with the Progressive Alliance.
Cooperation with Regional Networks: The Progressive Alliance aims to cooperate with existing regional networks in Asia, Africa, the Middle-East, Europe, Latin America and North-America.
International Campaigns: For interested parties a joint international campaign can be agreed upon for the coming year. The campaigns can be staged in conjunction with other progressive social forces, trade unions, foundations and NGOs.
Further activities: Activities of the Progressive Alliance concerning youth’s and women’s issues are also planned.»
Progressive Alliance was founded in May 23 2013, it´s an alternative to International Socialist criticized by SPD for the presence of non democratic members.
This is it «Basic Document» (http://progressive-alliance.info/basic-document/):
«Progressive Alliance:
A Network of Progressive Forces for the 21st Century»
«The progressive, democratic, social-democratic, socialist and labour movement is based on a common commitment to human rights and the joint pursuit of freedom, justice, social equality, including gender equality, sustainability and international solidarity.The present day and age is marked by rapid change and historical, economical and political upheaval. Many countries around us are battling with huge economic problems, while in other parts of the world people are enjoying better prospects for the future than ever before. With globalization, the social matter has come to the fore again in a new guise, as inequality in our societies and between the rich and the poor states of the world has increased. This new social issue must be addressed in order to make participation possible, prevent distribution conflicts and ensure the ecological balance of our environment.
Today in the globalized 21st century humanity can only solve our age’s existential challenges together. To create just jobs and ensure equal pay for women and men, to fight unemployment, curb climate change, restrain rampant financial markets with sensible regulations, counter increased inequality in societies, secure peace and human rights as global public goods, stop the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and put an end to hunger and poverty once and for all. Challenges like these can only be tackled by working together and not against each other. At the same time these are challenges for a new order of the world, which the progressive forces worldwide have to fight for.
We want to contribute to the establishment of a cooperative world order which makes shared solutions of problems and construction of the future possible. Together with social and workers movements and groups of civil society, we want to shape the future with the aim of advancing global peace, justice, equality – including gender equality – and sustainability.
We have seen how the politics of injustice and inequality have divided our societies and have undermined social cohesion and solidarity. Neo-liberalism has failed miserably.
The time is ripe for a progressive, global political and economic system which places humans at the centre of attention again. We need a progressive answer which gives people hope instead of fuelling fear, allows women and men to have equal opportunities and be part of society instead of excluding them, and which encourages cooperation instead of confrontation.
As progressive parties, we want to make the 21st century a century of democratic, social and ecological progress. In order to achieve this goal, we have to understand the needs of our fellow human beings and work out modern political approaches to satisfy these needs. For that to happen, we need to strengthen our parties, our organisations and our campaigns.
And for this very reason, we, the progressive parties, wish to improve our cooperation and establish a progressive alliance of political parties, welcoming cooperation with other progressive social forces, trade unions, foundations, think tanks and NGOs.
The Progressive Alliance is a network which is open to progressive, democratic, social-democratic, socialist and labour parties and party networks. The Progressive Alliance is funded by voluntary contributions. The values of democracy, gender equality, justice and solidarity we advocate are the basic operational principles inside of the Progressive Alliance.
Parallel and complementary to other associations operating at an international level, the Progressive Alliance builds on existing and evolving networks and forums.
For global political challenges like strengthening the social dimension of globalisation and sustainable progress, combating climate change, strengthening human rights, including women’s rights, and democracy, as well as peace and security, the Progressive Alliance is the platform for formulating common, progressive answers.
What we do
As progressive parties, we want to make the 21st century a century of democratic, social and ecological progress. In order to achieve this goal, we have to understand the needs of our fellow human beings and work out modern political approaches to satisfy these needs. For that to happen, we need to fortify our parties, our organisations and our campaigns.Specifically through the Progressive Alliance we need to:
- Ensure sharing of best practice with regards to party development, organization, campaigning, running elections, engagement and policy development;
- Build the campaign capacity of progressive parties. So that right around the world progressives and our agenda win electorally;
- Strengthen our networks of young leaders and parliamentarians: So that succeeding generations of progressives contribute to the on-going work of the network;
- Ensure greater cooperation between the leaders of the world’s progressive political parties: So that significant decisions can be informed by a common approach and common thinking from the political leadership of our network;
- Build a truly global network of progressive parties: Including political parties in North America, Latin America, Europe, Africa, Asia, the Middle East and the Pacific so that our network is truly global and reflects the needs of developing and developed countries, and also working with the think-tanks and institutions that already provide a degree of global coordination.
Progressive Alliance: Activities
Conference of the Progressive Alliance: The Progressive Alliance stages an annual international conference . The conferences focus on progressive forces finding common answers to prevailing global political problems.Cooperation on Campaigning: The Progressive Alliance focus on building-up the capacity for campaigns and the organisational integrity of political parties. This needs to happen in the developed and the developing world. The International Progressive Campaign Forum gives progressive political parties opportunities to discuss shared electoral challenges and successful campaigns. The International Progressive Campaign Forum will be continued in cooperation with the Progressive Alliance.
Cooperation of Progressive Parliamentarians: The Conference of Progressive Parliamentary Leaders brings together progressive politicians from across the world to start discussing shared policy challenges and to foster international cooperation. The Conference of Progressive Parliamentary Leaders will be continued in cooperation with the Progressive Alliance.
Cooperation on Key Topical Issues: Key topical issues are the questions of a new global deal between capital and labour and the implementation of frameworks which ensure equal opportunities for all members of society, especially with regards to gender equality. This important discussion centres on the concept of shared prosperity, how we can make the relationship between capital and labour, but also between the oftentimes female unpaid and male paid forms of employment more balanced, and how to secure basic workers’ rights and decent work for all. The work on A New Global Deal between Capital and Labour will be continued in cooperation with the Progressive Alliance.
Cooperation with Regional Networks: The Progressive Alliance aims to cooperate with existing regional networks in Asia, Africa, the Middle-East, Europe, Latin America and North-America.
International Campaigns: For interested parties a joint international campaign can be agreed upon for the coming year. The campaigns can be staged in conjunction with other progressive social forces, trade unions, foundations and NGOs.
Further activities: Activities of the Progressive Alliance concerning youth’s and women’s issues are also planned.»
«© 2013 Progressive Alliance. All Rights Reserved.»
Some expected participants in Progressive Alliance: | |
France | Socialist Party (PS) |
Germany | Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD) |
Great Britain | The Labour Party |
Ireland | The Labour Party |
Italy | Democratic Party (PD) |
Portugal | Socialist Party (PS) |
Republic of Moldova | Democratic Party (PDM) |
Romania | Social Democratic Party (PSD) |
Spain | Spanish Socialist Workers‘ Party (PSOE) |
USA | Democratic Party |
Foundation for European Progressive Studies (FEPS) | |
Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists & Democrats in the European Parliament (S&D Group) | |
Party of European Socialist Women (PES Women) | |
Socialist International Women (SIW) | |
GERMÂNIA III - GERMANIA III - GERMANY III
Manuela Schwesig of SPD, Social Democrat Party of Germany with 150 years of History (May 23, 1863, Allgemeiner Deutscher Arbeiterverein was founded)!
In 1918 SPD was determinant to women´s suffrage right.
March 23, 1933, Otto Wels, leader of Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands (SPD), speak as member of Reichtag against the «Enabling Act» («Ermächtigungsgesetz») that opened the way for Hitler become the dictator, the Führer in 1934, and the responsable with Stalin of an horrrible tyranny, ignorance and fanaticism over Germany and Europe until 1989 with the liberation of Romania, Hungary, East Germany, Poland:
«At this historic hour, we German Social Democrats pledge ourselves to the principles of humanity and justice, of freedom and Socialism. No Enabling Law can give you the power to destroy ideas which are eternal and indestructible ... From this new persecution too German Social Democracy can draw new strength. We send greetings to the persecuted and oppressed. We greet our friends in the Reich. Their steadfastness and loyalty deserve admiration. The courage with which they maintain their convictions and their unbroken confidence guarantee a brighter future.»
«You can take our lives and our freedom, but you cannot take our honour. We are defenseless but not honourless.»
Hitler said:
«By its decision to carry out the political and moral cleansing of our public life, the Government is creating and securing the conditions for a really deep and inner religious life. The advantages for the individual which may be derived from compromises with atheistic organizations do not compare in any way with the consequences which are visible in the destruction of our common religious and ethical values.
The struggle against the materialistic ideology and for the erection of a true people's community (Volksgemeinschaft) serves as much the interests of the German nation as of our Christian faith. ...The national Government, seeing in Christianity the unshakable foundation of the moral and ethical life of our people, attaches utmost importance to the cultivation and maintenance of the friendliest relations with the Holy See. ...The rights of the churches will not be curtailed; their position in relation to the State will not be changed.»
This is the «Enabling Act»:
«Gesetz zur Behebung der Not von Volk und Reich» («Law to Remedy the Distress of the People and the Nation»):
«The Reichstag has enacted the following law, which is hereby proclaimed with the assent of the Reichsrat, it having been established that the requirements for a constitutional amendment have been fulfilled: | |
Article 1 | |
In addition to the procedure prescribed by the constitution, laws of the Reich may also be enacted by the government of the Reich. This includes the laws referred to by Articles 85 Paragraph 2 and Article 87 of the constitution. | |
Article 2 | |
Laws enacted by the government of the Reich may deviate from the constitution as long as they do not affect the institutions of the Reichstag and the Reichsrat. The rights of the President remain undisturbed. | |
Article 3 | |
Laws enacted by the Reich government shall be issued by the Chancellor and announced in the Reich Gazette. They shall take effect on the day following the announcement, unless they prescribe a different date. Articles 68 to 77 of the Constitution do not apply to laws enacted by the Reich government. | |
Article 4 | |
Treaties of the
Reich with foreign states, which relate to matters of Reich legislation
shall for the duration of the validity of these laws not require the
consent of the Reichstag. The national government shall adopt the
necessary legislation to implement these agreements.» |
«Topography of North Rhine-Westphalia» Tubs (Wikipedia) Creative Commons license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/deed.en)
In a recent interview with Valdemar Cruz (Expresso, May, 25 2013), Ute Lemper answered:
«(...)
_ Como são as memórias do seu período de juventude na Alemanha?
_ A religião católica é muito triste e é muito opressiva. HHavia um julgamento muito moralista da vida. Era uma visão muito alemã do sucesso e da reputaçção. Meu Deus, que desperdício de energia. Não havia nada de livre. Ainda noto isso quando regresso à Alemanha ou a alguns lugares onde sinto uma certa claustrofobia. As mentes não são livres.
_ Havia a memória da guerra e o modo como os alemães lidaram com essa memória...
_ A geração dos meus pais foi a geração da guerra.
(...)
Eles eram vítimas-e não responsáveis. Eram crianças, (...) faziam parte de uma geração de pessoas responsáveis que fizeram as suas escolhas. (...) Havia o impossível conceito de que milhões de pessoas tinham seguido aquele homem, Hitler, e apoiaram a sua estratégia. Isso era incrível.
(...)
Não queria ser alemã. (...) Era uma adolescente muito zangada com a geração dos meus pais e dos meus avós. Havia ali qualquer coisa de vergonhoso e era muito difícil concentrar-me no que realmente tinha acontecido. (...) os meus pais (...)
Acho que não foram suficientemente honestos com a sua própria identidade. Mais tarde, quando comecei a (...) a cantar a música de compositores judeus, agarrei esse diálogo que foi sempre algo presente na música que canto. Fiz reviver aquelas músicas para as pessoas da minha geraçção e ao mesmo tempo centrei-me na história da Alemanha. Era uma missão para mim, fazer reviver aqueles compositores, falar do modo como foram obrigados a exilar-se ou como foram mortos pelos nazis. (...) São alemães exemplares daquele tempo e com eles houve milhões de pessoas que fizeram o mesmo percurso. Com o meu trabalho libertei-me e consegui assegurar esse diálogo.»
Ursula von der Leyen, Minister of German Government vote with opposition about gender quota. Wolfang Schäuble not.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/german-labor-minister-ursula-von-der-leyen-stands-up-to-merkel-a-895940-2.html (23-4-2013)
Ursula von der Leyen, Minister of German Government vote with opposition about gender quota. Wolfang Schäuble not.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/german-labor-minister-ursula-von-der-leyen-stands-up-to-merkel-a-895940-2.html (23-4-2013)
April 10, 2013
_ «You can't do this. A cabinet member cannot vote with the opposition.» (Volker Kauder CDU/CSU parliamentary group chairman)
_ «I have my convictions» (Ursula von der Leyen)
_ «The question of how many women work in a company is up to the company.» « It is part of the basic principle of the conservative parties that we strengthen self-reliance within industry and do not boss businesses around. This applies to setting wages, and it should also apply to the quota.» (CSU Former party leader Erwin Huber)
A rival of Angela Merkel? A good alternative for Europe? She have her convictions and ambitions:
In 2011 defend the United States of Europe to solve the euro crisis and that the gold of the countries under European Union financial assistance would support them responsabilities.
In July 10, 2012 Ursula von der Leyen said about euro crisis in a interview to Der Spiegel (conducted by Markus Dettmer http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/labor-minister-discusses-constitutionality-of-merkel-s-euro-rescue-a-843583.html):
«_ Madame Minister, the German Federal Constitutional Court is considering a petition for an interim injunction, with which the plaintiffs are seeking to stop the law on the permanent euro rescue fund, the European Stability Mechanism (ESM) and the fiscal pact.Is it still possible to reconcile the German government's policies on the euro rescue with the constitution?
_ «You can't do this. A cabinet member cannot vote with the opposition.» (Volker Kauder CDU/CSU parliamentary group chairman)
_ «I have my convictions» (Ursula von der Leyen)
_ «The question of how many women work in a company is up to the company.» « It is part of the basic principle of the conservative parties that we strengthen self-reliance within industry and do not boss businesses around. This applies to setting wages, and it should also apply to the quota.» (CSU Former party leader Erwin Huber)
A rival of Angela Merkel? A good alternative for Europe? She have her convictions and ambitions:
In 2011 defend the United States of Europe to solve the euro crisis and that the gold of the countries under European Union financial assistance would support them responsabilities.
In July 10, 2012 Ursula von der Leyen said about euro crisis in a interview to Der Spiegel (conducted by Markus Dettmer http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/labor-minister-discusses-constitutionality-of-merkel-s-euro-rescue-a-843583.html):
«_ Madame Minister, the German Federal Constitutional Court is considering a petition for an interim injunction, with which the plaintiffs are seeking to stop the law on the permanent euro rescue fund, the European Stability Mechanism (ESM) and the fiscal pact.Is it still possible to reconcile the German government's policies on the euro rescue with the constitution?
_ I am convinced of it. If you look at the foresight
our founding fathers and mothers had with our constitution, then I
would say that they were further ahead back then than some are in
today's discussion. The preamble to the Basic Law states: "Inspired by
the determination to promote world peace as an equal partner in a united
Europe …" That is the mandate of our constitution and we have not yet
fulfilled it. The constitution still provides us with leeway. We
shouldn't begin to doubt it yet, rather we should first implement its
mandate. That's a mammoth project: a united Europe!
_ The president of the German Constitutional Court, Andreas Vosskuhle, has said in the past that he considers the framework of the constitution to be largely exhausted when it comes to further transfers of competencies to Brussels.
_ Let's first exhaust the word "largely".
_ But the word also implies that there isn't much leeway left.
_ The more I learn about it, the greater the respect I have for these men and woman who wrote our constitution. They thought so far ahead. The preamble has the same importance as the articles that follow it. And that should be our mandate.
_ In other words, you aren't worried that the Federal Constitutional Court will put the brakes on government plans?
_ The historical experience of 60 years of the Federal Republic of Germany has been that constitutional organs do not block each other. We can't lose sight of the bigger picture in this deep crisis. We must confidently strive for a common path, but I do not see us causing the downfall of the European project.
_ You are pushing for deeper European integration with the ultimate goal of establishing a United States of Europe. In a Europe where the nation states are transferring greater amounts of sovereignty to Brussels, shouldn't the European Commission president be directly elected by the people?
_ I am dispassionate today about questions on details of the technical implementation of European integration. We have to resolve them when we get to that point. What is important is this: If we want a strong Europe, then we also require strong European institutions. We need to strengthen the European Parliament and we must increase the democratic legitimization of the European Commission. But the member states also need to be represented if they transfer greater competencies to the European level. Something like a European chamber of the member states similar to Germany's Bundesrat (eds. note: the upper legislative chamber, which represents the interests of the country's 16 federal states) would be conceivable in which national parliaments would be represented.
_ Would national parliaments still be needed in a United States of Europe?
_ Yes, without a doubt. Europe will never be able to regulate everything -- just as the federal government can't regulate everything in Germany or the Swiss Confederation can't regulate everything in the cantons. That's why we have state and municipal parliaments in which regional needs can be better regulated than they ever could be centrally, at the federal level.
_ German President Joachim Gauck recently admonished Chancellor Angela Merkel to do a better job when it comes to explaining her policies in the euro rescue to the German people. Is it not time for a national referendum over these policies?
_ Let me ask you a question in return: What question
would you pose in a referendum? That's namely the difficulty. "More
Europe" is not a question -- because what does "more" mean? I have very
high regard for Joachim Gauck, but I still have to say that, as
politicians -- and this applies especially to Angela Merkel -- we have
never before discussed Europe with the citizens to the degree we are
now. And that is as it should be. It is true that we cannot neglect to
explain why everything we are doing is necessary. At the end of the day,
it is not a question of how big the rescue packages are going to be,
but rather that of whether we want to preserve Europe as a shelter for
our children and grandchildren in a globalized world.
_ Nevertheless, it appears that a large part of the population is still afraid of more Europe. How do you intend to persuade these people?
_ I would say to them: Imagine if our European neighbors had been asked the question after World War II: "Do you want to build Europe?" Then they would have said: "Yes, but without Germany." Had the American government asked its exhausted people after the war "Do we want to create a Marshall Plan for Germany?," the rejection would have been overwhelming. Thank god there were women and men with enough foresight back then who saw, even after the terrible past, that our future can only be together. We will all be stronger through the community. We must evoke this fundamental idea time and again. It is based on the recognition that we can best master the greatest risks together and that this is also the best way to shape our future.»
WE HOPE SO BUT WITHOUT A LIMITED POINT OF VIEW OF A GERMAN GOVERNMENT LIKE THE ACTUAL. SO EUROPEAN DEMOCRACY MUST BALANCE THE COMPLEXITY OF THE DECISIONS AND IT EFFICIENCY AND EFFICACITY TO DEFEND ALL EUROPEAN PERSONS! IS NOT EASY WITH SO MANY DIFFERENCES, BUT WE FEEL THANT A LOT OF POLITICS COULD BE HAVE CONSENSUS TO EUROPE CREATE MORE VALUE TO THE WORLD WITH HER CULTURE OF UNIVERSALITY AND LOVE. THIS IMPLICATE STOP EXPENSES THAT DON´T CREATE VALUE IN ALL EUROPE AND MAKE DECISIONS THAT REALIZE THE GREAT HUMAN POTENTIAL OF EUROPE WITH HER GREAT DIFFERENTIATIONS BY ALL HER NATIONS! HE ALSO NEED STOP ACCEPT PRODUCTS AND SERVICES FROM WORLD THAT DON´T RESPECT HUMAN RIGHTS!!!! WE MUST IMPOSE HUMAN RIGHTS CERTIFICATION A DEEP QUALITY CERTIFICATION: WE NEED MUCH MORE QUALITY AND LESS QUANTITY!
Germany received abouut 1.000.000 of immigrants in 2012, +15% than 2011, with salience to East and South of Europe:
- Poland (+68,100),
- Romania (+45,700),
- Hungary (+26,200)
- Bulgaria (+25,000),
- Italy (+12,000),
- Greece (+10,000),
- Spain (+9,000),
- Portugal (+4,000).
A large percentage of the new immigrants to the country are young, educated and skilled, and can contribute to alleviate the problem of a lack of skilled laborers in German companies.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/elite-young-immigrants-could-provide-future-stability-for-german-economy-a-885647.html
http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/press-review-on-mass-influx-of-european-immigrants-to-germany-a-898786.html
_ The president of the German Constitutional Court, Andreas Vosskuhle, has said in the past that he considers the framework of the constitution to be largely exhausted when it comes to further transfers of competencies to Brussels.
_ Let's first exhaust the word "largely".
_ But the word also implies that there isn't much leeway left.
_ The more I learn about it, the greater the respect I have for these men and woman who wrote our constitution. They thought so far ahead. The preamble has the same importance as the articles that follow it. And that should be our mandate.
_ In other words, you aren't worried that the Federal Constitutional Court will put the brakes on government plans?
_ The historical experience of 60 years of the Federal Republic of Germany has been that constitutional organs do not block each other. We can't lose sight of the bigger picture in this deep crisis. We must confidently strive for a common path, but I do not see us causing the downfall of the European project.
_ You are pushing for deeper European integration with the ultimate goal of establishing a United States of Europe. In a Europe where the nation states are transferring greater amounts of sovereignty to Brussels, shouldn't the European Commission president be directly elected by the people?
_ I am dispassionate today about questions on details of the technical implementation of European integration. We have to resolve them when we get to that point. What is important is this: If we want a strong Europe, then we also require strong European institutions. We need to strengthen the European Parliament and we must increase the democratic legitimization of the European Commission. But the member states also need to be represented if they transfer greater competencies to the European level. Something like a European chamber of the member states similar to Germany's Bundesrat (eds. note: the upper legislative chamber, which represents the interests of the country's 16 federal states) would be conceivable in which national parliaments would be represented.
_ Would national parliaments still be needed in a United States of Europe?
_ Yes, without a doubt. Europe will never be able to regulate everything -- just as the federal government can't regulate everything in Germany or the Swiss Confederation can't regulate everything in the cantons. That's why we have state and municipal parliaments in which regional needs can be better regulated than they ever could be centrally, at the federal level.
_ German President Joachim Gauck recently admonished Chancellor Angela Merkel to do a better job when it comes to explaining her policies in the euro rescue to the German people. Is it not time for a national referendum over these policies?
_ Nevertheless, it appears that a large part of the population is still afraid of more Europe. How do you intend to persuade these people?
_ I would say to them: Imagine if our European neighbors had been asked the question after World War II: "Do you want to build Europe?" Then they would have said: "Yes, but without Germany." Had the American government asked its exhausted people after the war "Do we want to create a Marshall Plan for Germany?," the rejection would have been overwhelming. Thank god there were women and men with enough foresight back then who saw, even after the terrible past, that our future can only be together. We will all be stronger through the community. We must evoke this fundamental idea time and again. It is based on the recognition that we can best master the greatest risks together and that this is also the best way to shape our future.»
WE HOPE SO BUT WITHOUT A LIMITED POINT OF VIEW OF A GERMAN GOVERNMENT LIKE THE ACTUAL. SO EUROPEAN DEMOCRACY MUST BALANCE THE COMPLEXITY OF THE DECISIONS AND IT EFFICIENCY AND EFFICACITY TO DEFEND ALL EUROPEAN PERSONS! IS NOT EASY WITH SO MANY DIFFERENCES, BUT WE FEEL THANT A LOT OF POLITICS COULD BE HAVE CONSENSUS TO EUROPE CREATE MORE VALUE TO THE WORLD WITH HER CULTURE OF UNIVERSALITY AND LOVE. THIS IMPLICATE STOP EXPENSES THAT DON´T CREATE VALUE IN ALL EUROPE AND MAKE DECISIONS THAT REALIZE THE GREAT HUMAN POTENTIAL OF EUROPE WITH HER GREAT DIFFERENTIATIONS BY ALL HER NATIONS! HE ALSO NEED STOP ACCEPT PRODUCTS AND SERVICES FROM WORLD THAT DON´T RESPECT HUMAN RIGHTS!!!! WE MUST IMPOSE HUMAN RIGHTS CERTIFICATION A DEEP QUALITY CERTIFICATION: WE NEED MUCH MORE QUALITY AND LESS QUANTITY!
Germany received abouut 1.000.000 of immigrants in 2012, +15% than 2011, with salience to East and South of Europe:
- Poland (+68,100),
- Romania (+45,700),
- Hungary (+26,200)
- Bulgaria (+25,000),
- Italy (+12,000),
- Greece (+10,000),
- Spain (+9,000),
- Portugal (+4,000).
A large percentage of the new immigrants to the country are young, educated and skilled, and can contribute to alleviate the problem of a lack of skilled laborers in German companies.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/elite-young-immigrants-could-provide-future-stability-for-german-economy-a-885647.html
http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/press-review-on-mass-influx-of-european-immigrants-to-germany-a-898786.html
quarta-feira, 22 de maio de 2013
COLÔMBIA PORTUGAL III - COLUMBIA LUSITANIA III - COLOMBIA PORTUGAL III
María Ángela Holguín Cuellar, Ministra dos Negócios Estrangeiros da Colômbia, esteve em Lisboa na semana passada e declarou a propósito da intenção de aquisição da TAP pela AVIANCA: «O que me pareceu interessante em tudo isto foi que Portugal se convertesse, não só em porta de entrada na Europa para a América do Sul, como em África, já que não temos nenhuma conexão. É como unir dois continentes através de Portugal.»
Amanhã, 22 de Maio de 2013, a Colômbia vai apoiar na VII Cimeira dos Chefes de Estado da Aliança do Pacifico em Cali, Colômbia, a aceitação de Portugal como membro observador. Os Países membros da Aliança criada em Junho de 2012, são a Colômbia, o Peru, o Chile e o México. A Ministra refere que «nasceu olhando para a Ásia, mas agora damos-nos conta de que podemos ir juntos para outras partes do mundo, como África, Caraíbas e Europa, explorando sinergias. (...). A nossa ideia é criar uma zona de livre circulação de bens, pessoas e serviços» de 211,9 milhões de habitantes, 5,144,603 Km2 de superfície terrrestre, 3.048.238 milhões de USD de Produto Interno Bruto.
Amanhã, 22 de Maio de 2013, a Colômbia vai apoiar na VII Cimeira dos Chefes de Estado da Aliança do Pacifico em Cali, Colômbia, a aceitação de Portugal como membro observador. Os Países membros da Aliança criada em Junho de 2012, são a Colômbia, o Peru, o Chile e o México. A Ministra refere que «nasceu olhando para a Ásia, mas agora damos-nos conta de que podemos ir juntos para outras partes do mundo, como África, Caraíbas e Europa, explorando sinergias. (...). A nossa ideia é criar uma zona de livre circulação de bens, pessoas e serviços» de 211,9 milhões de habitantes, 5,144,603 Km2 de superfície terrrestre, 3.048.238 milhões de USD de Produto Interno Bruto.
Membros da Aliança do Pacífico
Países observadores
domingo, 19 de maio de 2013
GERMÂNIA II - GERMANIA II - GERMANY II
Sylt, the very beautiful German island (with an artificial isthmus), the extrem north point of Germany, where friendly and kinder squirrels up to us to take a nut from our hands!
Our hope for Europe is an democratic alternative to conservative and liberal Government of Germany by SPD and Gründen that change German politics.
Peter Steinbrück family (http://www.express.de/politik-wirtschaft/kein-interesse-am-rummel-steinbruecks-frau--fuehre-mein-eigenes-leben,2184,21018328.html)
In this sense let we see an interwiew with the SPD candidate to next elections to German Bundestag by Spiegel in 8-4-2013
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/spiegel-interview-with-spd-candidate-peer-steinbrueck-a-892973.html:
«SPIEGEL: Mr. Steinbrück, following the revelations about
trillions of euros in assets deposited in offshore tax havens, you have
called for a tougher approach against tax evaders. Why have you waited
so long? You would have had an opportunity to do this when you were
finance minister.
Steinbrück: First, I have advocated a tougher approach for years.
Second, if there was anyone who placed the topic on the agenda during
his term in office, with the support of the OECD and my French partners
at the time, it was I. Some have even quoted my use of the word
"cavalry" to criticize my hard-hitting approach.
SPIEGEL: Why do Germany and the European Union have such a hard time taking action against tax havens?
Steinbrück: The current government has indeed neglected the issue. Worse yet, Mrs. Merkel's government wanted to stop German tax authorities and public prosecutor's offices from accepting tax CDs for their investigations of tax evaders. This makes the latest reactions about wanting to establish a sort of tax FBI all the more hypocritical. That's what the German government should have done long ago, instead of sidelining the tax evasion probes.
SPIEGEL: What's your objection to a nationwide tax investigation authority?
Steinbrück: It's the usual strategy of the government. First it does nothing, and now it's far too late in presenting an idea that the SPD already proposed in a five-point paper on combating tax fraud. In that document, we also proposed a criminal code for corporations, which could be used to force the banks to assist tax investigators. So far the government has rejected all of these ideas.
SPIEGEL: At least one tax oasis could have been dried out by now: Switzerland. The SPD prevented that from happening.
Steinbrück: No, the SPD prevented a tax amnesty that wouldn't even have made tax fraud impossible. The German-Swiss treaty would have left bigger holes than you get in a piece of Swiss cheese. My successor Wolfgang Schäuble was prepared to exempt German tax evaders from punishment, allow them to remain anonymous and accept tax secrecy, while the Americans get all the data on their tax evaders with money in Swiss bank accounts. With the help of the OECD, which I have just visited, and the European Commission, the pressure on European tax havens should have been intensified by now.
SPIEGEL: Do you expect that the desire to avoid tax will become even stronger if the SPD and the Greens form the next government?
Steinbrück: Why?
SPIEGEL: Because you want to revoke some of the tax cuts enacted during the former SPD/Greens government.
Steinbrück: Times have changed since the crisis. We will not increase all taxes for everyone, but some taxes for some people. I stand by that because the gaps in income and wealth distribution are widening. To contribute to greater equality of opportunities, we have to invest more money in infrastructure and education, as well as help local authorities. At the same time, we have to adhere to the debt brake.
SPIEGEL: You could also cut spending.
Steinbrück: An SPD/Greens government under my leadership will make savings. We will cut subsidies where there are environmental disincentives. For instance, we will repeal the Mövenpick tax break for hotels. Other changes will follow. For more than 10 years, we have been in a situation in which top incomes and assets have been growing considerably, while ordinary citizens have had to accept real wage losses. That's why stronger shoulders will also have to contribute more to the funding of public services.
SPIEGEL: The income gap between rich and poor hasn't grown any larger in recent years.
Steinbrück: The basic situation hasn't changed. In recent years, we have also been dealing with stagnating real wages and a significant increase in income and wealth at the upper levels of society. The gap has grown wider, as Hans-Ulrich Wehler recently explained convincingly in a SPIEGEL interview.
SPIEGEL: But it was already there when your party was still in power.
Steinbrück: We didn't manage to reduce the incomes gap. But the current government hasn't even tried. Besides, the situation and the challenges have changed since 2008, when the major crisis erupted. Society is drifting apart.
SPIEGEL: Former Chancellor Gerhard Schröder likes to point out that the relatively low tax rates have helped Germany become competitive again.
Steinbrück: Yes, but as I said, we face different problems today. Demographic change and the integration of children from weaker social classes mean that more money is needed for education, if we want to keep our society together and innovative. We'll have to do more for childcare to help improve opportunities for women in the workplace.
SPIEGEL: Where exactly do you stand within your party on a program like that? Still to the right or more to the left now?
Steinbrück: The left-right scheme is too simplistic for me. If something that is socially just also makes sense economically, I support it. The introduction of a comprehensive, statutory minimum wage, for example, is socially just and makes economic sense, because purchasing power is increased.
SPIEGEL: Those are the words of someone who is trying to please everyone. So far, you have always been viewed as a representative of the party's right wing.
Steinbrück: That doesn't make sense to me. It isn't a matter of right or left, but of right or wrong. For example, it's a question of ensuring that no child is left behind. And providing for affordable housing is probably less of an issue of right or left, but of social necessity.
SPIEGEL: You just visited President Fraçois Hollande in France. What can a German Social Democrat learn from the winner of last year's French election?
Steinbrück: He too made an issue out of the question of greater balance, specifically in French society. Apparently both we and the French Socialists are concerned with the same question: How do we keep a society together? That's how he won the election…
SPIEGEL: … a victory he is now putting on the line with many scandals and a clearly leftist economic program.
Steinbrück: He has been in office for 10 months, and he can hardly be held responsible for the omissions of two conservative presidents. He can't be blamed for the scandal surrounding his budget minister, who lied to him and the French people. We have many similarities, especially when it comes to European policy. But that doesn't meant that in Germany everything has to be done the same way it's done in France.
SPIEGEL: How worrisome is the situation in France, where unemployment is rising sharply and the economy is in a crisis?
Steinbrück: The French president is familiar with the situation in his country and gave me a no-frills description. We Germans, in particular, have a great interest in ensuring that his efforts to make France more competitive are successful. Together, we have to make sure that the crisis in Europe does not destabilize our social order and social cohesion.
SPIEGEL: Hollande blames Europe's austerity policy, which Germany, in particular, has been pushing.
Steinbrück: The very one-sided crisis management pursued by Mrs. Merkel's government, which is geared solely toward cutting costs, is a mistake. As a result, entire countries have entered a vicious circle of sharply declining growth, higher unemployment, especially among young people, declining tax revenues and rising deficits, which they can hardly refinance anymore. Then their ratings are downgraded and the screw tightens even further. We have to be careful that this crisis management doesn't end up costing us Germans more money than it appears to be costing at the moment.
SPIEGEL: In contrast to Germany, wages have risen sharply in these countries in recent years, while productivity has stagnated. This is why European Central Bank President Mario Draghi argues that there is no getting around a strict austerity policy.
SPIEGEL: I disagree. Reforms are necessary and mistakes have to be corrected. But the mix of consolidation and growth enhancement, of demanding and encouraging, isn't correct. As a result, social tensions are building in these societies.
SPIEGEL: In the end, your argument amounts to a call for Germany to spend more money for Europe.
Steinbrück: Well, saying that in Germany, at any rate, has long been a taboo for the current government.
SPIEGEL: Then you now have the opportunity to break the taboo.
Steinbrück: I'm not saying this for the first time: We must tell people the plain truth. Overcoming the European crisis will cost money. And Germany will always only do well if its neighbors are doing well.
SPIEGEL: Do you want to give the affected countries more time to save money?
Steinbrück: Yes, as long as they make verifiable efforts to improve their situation in return for the solidarity they receive from others.
SPIEGEL: And the consequence is that the rest of Europe, including the Germans, will have to take on more costs?
Steinbrück: If consolidation efforts are tied to stimulating economic growth, it will also be possible to curb costs. Any other solution will not only come with an economic price, but will also impair democracy in Europe. Then we won't be seeing a peaceful demonstration by 200,000 young people in Madrid, but of 300,000, and protests of similar magnitude elsewhere.
SPIEGEL: Do you think Germany has assumed sufficient responsibility in Europe?
Steinbrück: Germany has assumed responsibility. Our country had a good reputation for a long time, but it's no longer quite as certain at the moment. (Former Chancellor) Willy Brandt's motto about Germans wanting to be good neighbors is in question.
SPIEGEL: Does it worry you that posters in Southern Europe depict the chancellor with a Hitler moustache?
Steinbrück: That's completely unacceptable. We Germans haven't prevented these countries from implementing reforms and making themselves more competitive. Their governments should take a look at themselves and shouldn't lay the blame on Mrs. Merkel or a different German leader.
SPIEGEL: Should the Germans change their tone toward the other countries of Europe?
Steinbrück: Yes, there have been tones coming from Germany that were not seen as helpful. For example, the remark by Volker Kauder (chairman of the CDU/CSU parliamentary group in the Bundestag), that German is now being spoken in Europe, or some of the chancellor's speeches ahead of the 2010 regional election in (the western state of North Rhine-Westphalia) were unsettling.
SPIEGEL: You, on the other hand, with your keen diplomatic abilities, would be the right man to represent Germany in Europe?
Steinbrück: I can certainly distinguish between plain language and the duties of the office.
SPIEGEL: It's not that easy for voters.
Steinbrück: Many voters understand my language. In the case of Mrs. Merkel, it's hard to tell what she wants.
SPIEGEL: There would be no more talk of clowns and cavalry attacks?
Steinbrück: The cavalry remark put the debate in a nutshell in political terms. And I won't take back what I said about clowns in relation to Mr. Berlusconi. But you can be sure that as chancellor I will speak the way a chancellor should.
SPIEGEL: So you think that you've learned something?
Steinbrück: One should never stop learning.
SPIEGEL: You were finance minister when you made your cavalry remark. You held a position of governmental responsibility at the time.
Steinbrück: Yes, and a broad segment of the public understood what I was saying perfectly well.
SPIEGEL: But it caused considerable upset in Switzerland.
Steinbrück: Perhaps, but much has changed in Switzerland since then.
SPIEGEL: So far you have only been restrained when it comes to Russia, even though the regime of (President Vladimir) Putin has just taken action against the Konrad Adenauer Foundation and the Friedrich Ebert Foundation, the latter of which is aligned with the SPD. Why were you so loud in the case of Switzerland and are so quiet on Russia?
Steinbrück: What the Russian authorities have done is completely unacceptable, and I strongly object to it. But I believe that since Willy Brandt's time, we have done very well with the motto "change through rapprochement." It's the way we should deal with countries where there are human rights violations. This also applies to China.
SPIEGEL: So you don't agree with your mentor, (former Chancellor) Helmut Schmidt, who says that the West should stay out of these issues?
Steinbrück: These issues must be clearly addressed in direct talks with the governments in question. All former chancellors have done so, it's what the current chancellor does and when I am chancellor, I'll do it, as well.
SPIEGEL: Do you enjoy running for office?
Steinbrück: Yes. Come to my events and you'll see.
SPIEGEL: Have you sometimes regretted running for chancellor?
Steinbrück: Never.
SPIEGEL: We don't quite believe you.
Steinbrück: When I was chosen as the candidate all of a sudden in late September, I assumed a responsibility that goes beyond me as a person. That is why I say "never."
SPIEGEL: Does that mean that you did indeed think of ditching your candidacy?
Steinbrück: No, because when the wind is blowing in your face, you automatically think that a candidacy isn't a private matter. It's sort of like the motto: The air contains iron, so I'd better pull the covers over my head and not get up anymore. I'm aware that I also assumed responsibility for my party, our supporters and a cause. And if things sometimes get tough, you can't ask yourself what impact it's having on you. It isn't an option.
SPIEGEL: Things certainly haven't gone that well in recent months.
Steinbrück: Of course, not everything has gone smoothly. I don't deny that at all. But there have also been times when I had the impression that others had an interest in stirring things up. But that's behind me, and now it's time to enter the campaign and talk about the issues.
Translated from the German by Christopher Sultan
Interview by Konstantin von Hammerstein and Gordon Repinski»SPIEGEL: Why do Germany and the European Union have such a hard time taking action against tax havens?
Steinbrück: The current government has indeed neglected the issue. Worse yet, Mrs. Merkel's government wanted to stop German tax authorities and public prosecutor's offices from accepting tax CDs for their investigations of tax evaders. This makes the latest reactions about wanting to establish a sort of tax FBI all the more hypocritical. That's what the German government should have done long ago, instead of sidelining the tax evasion probes.
SPIEGEL: What's your objection to a nationwide tax investigation authority?
Steinbrück: It's the usual strategy of the government. First it does nothing, and now it's far too late in presenting an idea that the SPD already proposed in a five-point paper on combating tax fraud. In that document, we also proposed a criminal code for corporations, which could be used to force the banks to assist tax investigators. So far the government has rejected all of these ideas.
SPIEGEL: At least one tax oasis could have been dried out by now: Switzerland. The SPD prevented that from happening.
Steinbrück: No, the SPD prevented a tax amnesty that wouldn't even have made tax fraud impossible. The German-Swiss treaty would have left bigger holes than you get in a piece of Swiss cheese. My successor Wolfgang Schäuble was prepared to exempt German tax evaders from punishment, allow them to remain anonymous and accept tax secrecy, while the Americans get all the data on their tax evaders with money in Swiss bank accounts. With the help of the OECD, which I have just visited, and the European Commission, the pressure on European tax havens should have been intensified by now.
SPIEGEL: Do you expect that the desire to avoid tax will become even stronger if the SPD and the Greens form the next government?
Steinbrück: Why?
SPIEGEL: Because you want to revoke some of the tax cuts enacted during the former SPD/Greens government.
Steinbrück: Times have changed since the crisis. We will not increase all taxes for everyone, but some taxes for some people. I stand by that because the gaps in income and wealth distribution are widening. To contribute to greater equality of opportunities, we have to invest more money in infrastructure and education, as well as help local authorities. At the same time, we have to adhere to the debt brake.
SPIEGEL: You could also cut spending.
Steinbrück: An SPD/Greens government under my leadership will make savings. We will cut subsidies where there are environmental disincentives. For instance, we will repeal the Mövenpick tax break for hotels. Other changes will follow. For more than 10 years, we have been in a situation in which top incomes and assets have been growing considerably, while ordinary citizens have had to accept real wage losses. That's why stronger shoulders will also have to contribute more to the funding of public services.
SPIEGEL: The income gap between rich and poor hasn't grown any larger in recent years.
Steinbrück: The basic situation hasn't changed. In recent years, we have also been dealing with stagnating real wages and a significant increase in income and wealth at the upper levels of society. The gap has grown wider, as Hans-Ulrich Wehler recently explained convincingly in a SPIEGEL interview.
SPIEGEL: But it was already there when your party was still in power.
Steinbrück: We didn't manage to reduce the incomes gap. But the current government hasn't even tried. Besides, the situation and the challenges have changed since 2008, when the major crisis erupted. Society is drifting apart.
SPIEGEL: Former Chancellor Gerhard Schröder likes to point out that the relatively low tax rates have helped Germany become competitive again.
Steinbrück: Yes, but as I said, we face different problems today. Demographic change and the integration of children from weaker social classes mean that more money is needed for education, if we want to keep our society together and innovative. We'll have to do more for childcare to help improve opportunities for women in the workplace.
SPIEGEL: Where exactly do you stand within your party on a program like that? Still to the right or more to the left now?
Steinbrück: The left-right scheme is too simplistic for me. If something that is socially just also makes sense economically, I support it. The introduction of a comprehensive, statutory minimum wage, for example, is socially just and makes economic sense, because purchasing power is increased.
SPIEGEL: Those are the words of someone who is trying to please everyone. So far, you have always been viewed as a representative of the party's right wing.
Steinbrück: That doesn't make sense to me. It isn't a matter of right or left, but of right or wrong. For example, it's a question of ensuring that no child is left behind. And providing for affordable housing is probably less of an issue of right or left, but of social necessity.
SPIEGEL: You just visited President Fraçois Hollande in France. What can a German Social Democrat learn from the winner of last year's French election?
Steinbrück: He too made an issue out of the question of greater balance, specifically in French society. Apparently both we and the French Socialists are concerned with the same question: How do we keep a society together? That's how he won the election…
SPIEGEL: … a victory he is now putting on the line with many scandals and a clearly leftist economic program.
Steinbrück: He has been in office for 10 months, and he can hardly be held responsible for the omissions of two conservative presidents. He can't be blamed for the scandal surrounding his budget minister, who lied to him and the French people. We have many similarities, especially when it comes to European policy. But that doesn't meant that in Germany everything has to be done the same way it's done in France.
SPIEGEL: How worrisome is the situation in France, where unemployment is rising sharply and the economy is in a crisis?
Steinbrück: The French president is familiar with the situation in his country and gave me a no-frills description. We Germans, in particular, have a great interest in ensuring that his efforts to make France more competitive are successful. Together, we have to make sure that the crisis in Europe does not destabilize our social order and social cohesion.
SPIEGEL: Hollande blames Europe's austerity policy, which Germany, in particular, has been pushing.
Steinbrück: The very one-sided crisis management pursued by Mrs. Merkel's government, which is geared solely toward cutting costs, is a mistake. As a result, entire countries have entered a vicious circle of sharply declining growth, higher unemployment, especially among young people, declining tax revenues and rising deficits, which they can hardly refinance anymore. Then their ratings are downgraded and the screw tightens even further. We have to be careful that this crisis management doesn't end up costing us Germans more money than it appears to be costing at the moment.
SPIEGEL: In contrast to Germany, wages have risen sharply in these countries in recent years, while productivity has stagnated. This is why European Central Bank President Mario Draghi argues that there is no getting around a strict austerity policy.
SPIEGEL: I disagree. Reforms are necessary and mistakes have to be corrected. But the mix of consolidation and growth enhancement, of demanding and encouraging, isn't correct. As a result, social tensions are building in these societies.
SPIEGEL: In the end, your argument amounts to a call for Germany to spend more money for Europe.
Steinbrück: Well, saying that in Germany, at any rate, has long been a taboo for the current government.
SPIEGEL: Then you now have the opportunity to break the taboo.
Steinbrück: I'm not saying this for the first time: We must tell people the plain truth. Overcoming the European crisis will cost money. And Germany will always only do well if its neighbors are doing well.
SPIEGEL: Do you want to give the affected countries more time to save money?
Steinbrück: Yes, as long as they make verifiable efforts to improve their situation in return for the solidarity they receive from others.
SPIEGEL: And the consequence is that the rest of Europe, including the Germans, will have to take on more costs?
Steinbrück: If consolidation efforts are tied to stimulating economic growth, it will also be possible to curb costs. Any other solution will not only come with an economic price, but will also impair democracy in Europe. Then we won't be seeing a peaceful demonstration by 200,000 young people in Madrid, but of 300,000, and protests of similar magnitude elsewhere.
SPIEGEL: Do you think Germany has assumed sufficient responsibility in Europe?
Steinbrück: Germany has assumed responsibility. Our country had a good reputation for a long time, but it's no longer quite as certain at the moment. (Former Chancellor) Willy Brandt's motto about Germans wanting to be good neighbors is in question.
SPIEGEL: Does it worry you that posters in Southern Europe depict the chancellor with a Hitler moustache?
Steinbrück: That's completely unacceptable. We Germans haven't prevented these countries from implementing reforms and making themselves more competitive. Their governments should take a look at themselves and shouldn't lay the blame on Mrs. Merkel or a different German leader.
SPIEGEL: Should the Germans change their tone toward the other countries of Europe?
Steinbrück: Yes, there have been tones coming from Germany that were not seen as helpful. For example, the remark by Volker Kauder (chairman of the CDU/CSU parliamentary group in the Bundestag), that German is now being spoken in Europe, or some of the chancellor's speeches ahead of the 2010 regional election in (the western state of North Rhine-Westphalia) were unsettling.
SPIEGEL: You, on the other hand, with your keen diplomatic abilities, would be the right man to represent Germany in Europe?
Steinbrück: I can certainly distinguish between plain language and the duties of the office.
SPIEGEL: It's not that easy for voters.
Steinbrück: Many voters understand my language. In the case of Mrs. Merkel, it's hard to tell what she wants.
SPIEGEL: There would be no more talk of clowns and cavalry attacks?
Steinbrück: The cavalry remark put the debate in a nutshell in political terms. And I won't take back what I said about clowns in relation to Mr. Berlusconi. But you can be sure that as chancellor I will speak the way a chancellor should.
SPIEGEL: So you think that you've learned something?
Steinbrück: One should never stop learning.
SPIEGEL: You were finance minister when you made your cavalry remark. You held a position of governmental responsibility at the time.
Steinbrück: Yes, and a broad segment of the public understood what I was saying perfectly well.
SPIEGEL: But it caused considerable upset in Switzerland.
Steinbrück: Perhaps, but much has changed in Switzerland since then.
SPIEGEL: So far you have only been restrained when it comes to Russia, even though the regime of (President Vladimir) Putin has just taken action against the Konrad Adenauer Foundation and the Friedrich Ebert Foundation, the latter of which is aligned with the SPD. Why were you so loud in the case of Switzerland and are so quiet on Russia?
Steinbrück: What the Russian authorities have done is completely unacceptable, and I strongly object to it. But I believe that since Willy Brandt's time, we have done very well with the motto "change through rapprochement." It's the way we should deal with countries where there are human rights violations. This also applies to China.
SPIEGEL: So you don't agree with your mentor, (former Chancellor) Helmut Schmidt, who says that the West should stay out of these issues?
Steinbrück: These issues must be clearly addressed in direct talks with the governments in question. All former chancellors have done so, it's what the current chancellor does and when I am chancellor, I'll do it, as well.
SPIEGEL: Do you enjoy running for office?
Steinbrück: Yes. Come to my events and you'll see.
SPIEGEL: Have you sometimes regretted running for chancellor?
Steinbrück: Never.
SPIEGEL: We don't quite believe you.
Steinbrück: When I was chosen as the candidate all of a sudden in late September, I assumed a responsibility that goes beyond me as a person. That is why I say "never."
SPIEGEL: Does that mean that you did indeed think of ditching your candidacy?
Steinbrück: No, because when the wind is blowing in your face, you automatically think that a candidacy isn't a private matter. It's sort of like the motto: The air contains iron, so I'd better pull the covers over my head and not get up anymore. I'm aware that I also assumed responsibility for my party, our supporters and a cause. And if things sometimes get tough, you can't ask yourself what impact it's having on you. It isn't an option.
Steinbrück: Of course, not everything has gone smoothly. I don't deny that at all. But there have also been times when I had the impression that others had an interest in stirring things up. But that's behind me, and now it's time to enter the campaign and talk about the issues.
Translated from the German by Christopher Sultan
Wolfang Schäuble by him side was critic about European Commission during a televised debate on Europe (May 16, 2013):
[was not] «faster, more efficient»[, for instance in fighting unemployment among young people.
European institutions, are] «always the slowest» [to react and, given their slow pace], «what one could do bilaterally».
About Greece, Schaeuble said that responsibilities within the Commission were too fragmented, creating an administrative burden.
Oskar Lafontaine founder and former chair of the Left Party in him «productivity-oriented wage policy» (May of 2013) have similar points of view of Bernd Lucke, chair of the right-wing party Alternative for Germany (AFD) in Ap, the extremes touch each other (die extreme berühren sich) by a point of view of the World Socialist Web Site (WSWS) published by the «Marxist» International Committee of the Fourth International (ICFI):
«German Left Party’s Oskar Lafontaine calls for return to national currencies» (http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2013/05/11/lafo-m11.html)
By
Christoph Dreier
11 May 2013
«Amid growing social conflicts in Europe, the founder and former
chair of the Left Party, Oskar Lafontaine, has made a proposal about how
the austerity measures in Europe can be intensified and the continent’s
workers divided. He wants to cut wages in the Southern European
countries by 20 to 30 percent by reintroducing national currencies.Last week, Lafontaine published a commentary on his web site, arguing for a “productivity-oriented wage policy”.
“Wages and social expenditure have grown too much in Southern Europe,” writes Lafontaine. Because wages in Germany have sunk, this has led to an economic imbalance that makes exporting from Southern Europe more difficult, he said.
“To again achieve an approximately balanced competitiveness”, says Lafontaine, “countries like Greece, Portugal and Spain [must become] around 20 to 30 percent less expensive, and Germany 20 percent more expensive compared with the average of the EU countries”.
The attempt to reduce wages in the Southern European countries with austerity measures has failed, he said. “The real devaluation through declining wages, leading to a 20 to 30 per cent loss of income in Southern Europe and even in France, is leading to disaster, as we can see already in Spain, Greece and Portugal.”
By disaster, Lafontaine does not mean the social misery, unemployment or pay cuts, which he himself advocates a little later in the text. Rather, he means the risk of uncontrollable social uprisings and revolutions in the face of growing social anger and class tensions throughout Europe. He wants to prevent this by developing a new mechanism for imposing social attacks and stoking up nationalism and chauvinism to divide the European working class.
Concretely, Lafontaine suggests the re-introduction of parallel national currencies “alongside the euro”, in order “to make controlled devaluations and controlled revaluations by means of an exchange rate regime underpinned by the EU possible again”. According to Lafontaine, the Southern European countries should then devalue their own currencies to a level where their exports are competitive again on the world market.
Lafontaine advocated a similar model in 1990, when he was the Social Democratic Party (SPD) candidate for chancellor. At that time, he spoke out against the introduction of the West German deutschemark into East Germany, in order to keep wages as low as possible in the east before reunification.
Lafontaine’s proposal to return to national currencies builds on the austerity policies of the German government. The Merkel government dictates a policy of wage cuts and cuts in social spending to all European countries. With the help of the EU and the IMF, it has unleashed a social disaster in Greece, Portugal, Spain and Italy. In Greece alone, real wages fell by an average of 40 percent. At the same time, unemployment rose to over 27 percent.
For Lafontaine, this does not go far enough. Through the introduction of parallel national currencies, and then devaluing them, he wants to cut wages, pensions and benefits to a minimum with the scythe of inflation.
Such parallel currencies are a common phenomenon in countries of the Balkans and the former Soviet Union, where the euro or the dollar function as a semi-official currency. Workers are paid abysmally low wages in the national currency and have no access to imported goods, international travel or expensive medication, while a wealthy section of the middle class with access to foreign currency is living a comfortable life.
Would Lafontaine’s proposal be implemented, the countries in the south would become a paradise for foreign investors thanks to slave wages, with devastating social consequences. A section of the wealthy middle class would have access to funds and income in euros and to the funding pots of the EU, while their housemaids, gardeners and shoe-shine boys would receive starvation wages.
Lafontaine’s proposal aims to mobilize these middle class layers in order to continue the austerity measures of the financial elite and to suppress the resistance of the workers against them. He aims to deepen the income differentials in Europe, to divide workers and play them off against each other.
Incomes in Europe are already drifting far apart. According to Eurostat, gross average annual wages in Germany in 2012 were €42,400, in Spain €26,300 and €17,400 in Portugal. Lafontaine wants this gulf to widen even further.
His contention that wages in Southern Europe have “grown too strongly” is simply a lie. According to figures from the pro-union Hans Böckler Foundation, real wages in Spain rose by just 4.6 percent from 2000 to 2008, and by only 3.3 percent in Portugal. As a result of the austerity measures they have since fallen dramatically and are mostly below the level in 2000.
The wage reductions proposed by Lafontaine would have a direct impact on Germany. Wages in Germany would not rise by 20 percent, as he suggests. Rather, as in the past, low wages in Southern and Eastern Europe would be used systematically to depress the wages in the Western and Northern European countries. The goal is the destruction of all workers’ social achievements across the continent.
That Lafontaine employs such right-wing and reactionary arguments and openly stands behind the programme of social counter-revolution in Europe reveals the social nature of the Left Party. Emerging from the Stalinist bureaucracy in East Germany and the Social Democratic bureaucracy in the West, it represents the interests of a wealthy layer that is extremely hostile to the working class. The more the crisis sharpens, the closer these elements move to the financial elite and their state apparatus.
Lafontaine’s views on this question hardly differ from those of the most right-wing formations. The proposal to introduce parallel currencies with the aim of devaluation was first advanced two weeks ago by Bernd Lucke, chair of the right-wing party Alternative for Germany (AFD). The AFD advocates a neo-liberal economic programme and is aiming to reduce social spending and other taxes for the rich. They want to maintain the EU and “streamline it through more competition and personal responsibility”.
“In many ways, their criticism of the currently practiced euro rescue is right”, said Left Party deputy chair Sahra Wagenknecht about the program of the right-wing formation to N-TV . It was “not yet clear” in which direction this party is going. “Like us, they are critical of the [German] chancellor’s European policy. There is a lot of overlap”, Wagenknecht said.
With her advances towards the right-wing fringe, Wagenknecht reveals the orientation of her own party, following the example of similar petty bourgeois and pseudo-left groups in other countries. The Greek Coalition of the Radical Left (SYRIZA) recently forged an alliance with right-wing populists. In Eastern Europe, the collaboration of self-proclaimed “left-wing” organizations with far-right and fascist parties is the order of the day.
Lafontaine’s proposals have led to clashes in the Left Party. Chair Katja Kipping argues for the preservation of the European Union and its common currency. She is lining up behind the Merkel government, the SPD and the Greens, who currently uphold the EU and the euro, and use them to attack the social rights of workers throughout Europe.
In the final analysis, the differences between the two viewpoints are minimal from the standpoint of the working class. While Kipping clings to the past policies of social cuts under the dictates of the EU, Lafontaine is seeking to develop new mechanisms to achieve the same goal.
The workers of Europe can only confront the EU’s austerity diktats and break the power of the financial elite by uniting and fighting for the United Socialist States of Europe. Lafontaine is trying to prevent such unity by dividing the working class and stirring up nationalism.»
One more approach:
«German companies in Portugal have rates of productivity similar to those which occur in Germany. In some cases there is even the units located in Portugal occupy prominent places in international rankings of these companies in relation to productivity.» Hans-Joacquim Böhmer (director of Chamber of Commerce and Industry Luso-Germanic)
About hours of work don´t doubts: Portuguese workers works much more than German workers. The problem is the Value Added by hour of work because the activities/the market that Portuguese elites create in Portugal are in lower level with a tyrant like Salazar that rules the country a lot of years with affraid of industry and development, that saved all the gold that he can.
Subscrever:
Mensagens (Atom)