German unemployed the first in EU for poverty risk

Be careful to keep the job place, or the situation won't be easy at all. Eurostat unveiled the fake news of a country where everything is OK

by Emanuele Bonini

Germany is the strongest European economy and the country is consired a winning model for its performances in all sectors. Public finances are sound, export is robust and the unemployment rate is the third lowest of the entire European Union. Yet data suggest that something is wrong with Germany: its share of people at risk of monetary poverty is the highest of Europe. Latest Eurostat figures on unemployment confirmed the virtuous trend of the norther country, with the not working citizens fallen down to 3,6% in January 2018 compared to 3,9% in the same month of 2017. There are actually some 1,547,000 people out of the labour market, 131,000 less that the first month of the previous year. According to the same EU institute of statistics, at the end of 2016 in Germany the 70.8% of unemployed persons was at risk of poverty. This is the highest European rate, meaning first of all that in Germany there are about more than 1,1 million people with a vulnerability status (in December 2017 the total amount reached the threshold of 1,188,732 persons, in relation to the unemployment rate of that period). In absolute number the situation is less negative than other country. In Italy, for instance, at the end of 2016 there were 1,427,380 unemployed persons was at risk of poverty (or 46% of total unemployed population). In Spain that category of people counted for 2,064,426 individuals (49,4%).

Italy's problem is not Europe, is Italy itself

The Country suffers the European decisions because of its political non weight in the EU. Instead of autocriticism national political class fed euroscepticism

by Emanuele Bonini

If 64% of EU citizens believe in the benefits of being part of the Europen Union, in Italy only 39% of the national population does, marking the lowest rate in Europe. Italy has thus become the most eurosceptic country among the 28 (soon 27) Member States. The change of mind of one the founders of the today European Union is something not be underestimated. It is not only the consequent result of never explained what the EU represent, but the lack of political engagement. The truth is Italy chose not to be part of the Brussels decision process. In the European Union of the Member States, this is certainly an epic fail. But here are all the Italian responsibilities. During last two decades the Italian government have merely thought to domestic affairs leaving to the other countries the duty of taking decisions. A totally absent Italy around the table, togheter with the lies told internally, contributed to feed an always growing euroscepticism in the Italian peninsula.

The uncapability of the Italian political class didn't make possible for the country to be an active player of the European debate. The case of Fiscal compact well shows how Italians live in a parallel dimension. Everybody, from left to right, complain about what is by definition an «inter-governmental» agreement. Inter-governmental means that decisions like the ones foreseen by such a compact were taken by national governments, not by «Europe». More and more in Italy the «blame and complain» game has been played against Europe. The same Matteo Renzi, who always claims to be a true committed pro-European, chose to talk against the European Union in his speeches. Instead of clearlt recall that decision are taken by Member States, he offered the idea of a country continously oppressed by «Europe». Unfortunately, a non-federal Europe cannot impose nothing but what its members agree among themselves. The European Commission only has the power of proposing legislations, and on the basis of these proposals national governments decide what to do.

Safe web and preventive censorship, a thin red line

Social media use to intervene against contents «allegded to be infringing,without prior notice», at their sole discretion. A controversial regime applied in name of proper use and security

by Emanuele Bonini (English version of my Eunews article)

Copyright infringements, incitement to racial or ethnic hatred, cheesecake picture or even porn content, violence. There are several cases of back out and removal of what is posted on-line. Such activities are carried out by the social media themselves, but in most of cases the reporting of inadequate posts and messages is left to the internet users. But who can really say what is right and what is wrong? diversity of opinions and different degree of susceptibility, risk to trigger a short-circuit in the network made by ‘lightly’ complaints with immediate consequences. Twitter, Blogger (the Google blog platform), Facebook and Istagram all have more or less the same conditions and terms of use (ToU) of their services. There is of course, as it’s right it is, a control of surfers. Nevertheless this policy control poses a certain question marks on the way it is applied, since in name of a ‘clean’ and safe web the risk of a real preventive censorship is there.

Presumption of guilt, preventive and discretionary removal
The network is vast, and the number of users – especially those of certain social media – virtually boundless. Monitoring everything that is written is not an easy task. And then the principle of preventive intervention applies. Blogger offers an example. The team can send at any time e-mails like the following:

 

«Blogger has been notified, according to the terms of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), that certain content in your blog is alleged to infringe upon the copyrights of others. As a result, we have reset the post(s) to "draft" status. (If we did not do so, we would be subject to a claim of copyright infringement, regardless of its merits). If you believe that you have the rights to post the content at issue here, you can file a counter-claim».

The DMCA is a US copyright law that provides guidelines for online service provider liability in case of copyright infringement. What has to be noticed is that intervetions are made on the basis of possible infringement. Is a post ‘alleged to infringe’ the rules or in them violation? There is a huge difference between having an illegal situation or a situation thought to be illegal. Anyway, in case of doubt the giants of the internet carry out preventive censorship.
Having a look to the Twitter ToU, it is possible to read that «We reserve the right to remove Content alleged to be infringing without prior notice, at our sole discretion, and without liability to you». In return of being ‘responsibilities-free’, Twitter can basically do whatever the social media likes. Once again rules refer to contents presumed to be irregular, to be treated with immediate and not-communicated removal. The same policy applied to Facebook services. Once again, in case of a report from a rights owner claiming content on Facebook infringes their intellectual property rights, «we may need to promptly remove that content from Facebook without contacting you first. If you believe the content should not have been removed, you can follow up with them directly to try to resolve the issue». First complain, then delete. Only after try to negotiate. Instagram doesn’t act differently. «We reserve the right to modify or terminate the Service or your access to the Service for any reason, without notice, at any time, and without liability to you», states the terms of use of the photo-sharing service.

Puigdemont, the Catalan Farage

Like in the case of Brexit, former Generalitat Catalana president just pushed for independence without thinking to the following steps and the side effects

by Emanuele Bonini

The Catalan issue showed how irresponsible leaders with nonsense decisions be fatal for everybody. Carles Puigdemont has been seen as a new revolutionary man, and perhaps is still considered in such a way by part of local population and some sympathizer here and there across the world. A premise here becomes necessary: the right of people to self-determination is still there, still valid. No question about. But people invoking such a right and nothing but that right, have not clear in their mind the world they live in. Independence is nothing without international recognition. In order to start a new life independence and sovreignity are nothing but the necessary preliminary step. Then comes the internation recognition, and only after that is possibile to start acting in world. This is something that perhaps mr. Puigdemont didn't explain in Catalonia before calling for a referendum illegal since the first moment.

Puigdemont failed, and he failed basically for two reasons: he had a suicide strategy and he played with the popular sentiment . People never pay attention to their mind, just listen to their impulse and follow the instinct. In Spain there historical problems, never-solved issues re-emerging on cyclical basis. Independentism is something typical not only of Catalonia: there's a not isolated problem of identity in Spain, and this is undeniable. But times are radically changed. Trying to act as in the past it is not conceivable. Globalization changed even the idea of independence, and in time of inter-connected societies the Catalan leaders showed to be completely disconnected from the reality. Being separated today means much more risk elements compared to the XIX century. Having different entities in times of single States could still be OK, but in the XXI century we have are unions, confederations, organizazions, associations, finance. It's totally another story, with completely different rules.

«Nobody would recognise the independence of Catalonia», EP chief warned

The president of the European Parliament, Antonio Tajani, took an unprecedented position so far against the idea of secession, considered a «mistake»

Antonio Tajani (left side) with Mariano Rajoy

by Emanuele Bonini  
(english version of my article for eunews.it)

Separation from Spain is «a mistake», a not sustainable option, since «nobody in Europe would recognise the independence of Catalonia», the president of the European Parliament said today. Antonio Tajani is the first EU top official to openly take position against what is still a Spanish autonomus region. Speaking at the end of the meeting with the head of State and government of the EU Member States, he was able to break the wall of silence around the Catalan issue. The political messagge sent to the local authorities is not conciliatory. On the contrary, Tajani's speech escalates tentions, although it contains true element of realpolitik. Amongst these, the fact that in case of independence Catalunya risks to find itself totally and completely alone and isolated.

Leaving Spain means leaving the EU. In such a scenario, Catalunia will never access the European Union because enlargment alwayas requires unanimity. The alternative can be the European Economic Area (EEA), but in order to join the group the applicant needs to be recognised as State, independent and sovereign, by the international community. There is also a legal aspect, Tajani told repoters during the press conference. The EU cannot recognise Catalonia because already recognises Spain and its Constitution. Therefore, an eventual secession of Catalunia «would be against the law», and more in detail, it would be «against the Spanish Constitution, which is EU law». In other words no mediation is possible, according to Tajani. «I have no intention to mediate» between Spain and Catalunia. This for two different motivations: first of all, «it's not up the European Parliament to do so», and secondly «we have no intention to recognise Catalunia as an interlocutor of the same level of the Spanish government». Tajani standed with Marian Rajoy, the Spanish prime minister member of the EPP like the president of the European Parliament. The latter made clear that «Catalunia is not a State but a region part of the Spanish country», assuming that for the EU the status won't change.

Italy wants a «multi-year» period to assess reforms

Finance minister Pier Carlo Padoan stressed the importance of giving structural intervention the proper time to bear fruits. «It is no a way to escape our duties»

Pier Carlo Padoan

by Emanuele Bonini

The European Union should reconsider the approach at the base of the European Semester, the cycle of economic and fiscal policy coordination within the EU. Reforms should be evaluated in the medium term instead of the current year-by-year attitude, the Italian Finance minister, Pier Carlo Padoan, said today. «One year is not enough to see if reforms are on track», he said intervening at the "Reinventing convergence" conference, held in Brussels by the European Commission. «We need a multi-year period to assess whether reforms are bearing fruits or not». The concept expressed is not new to Padoan. Indeed, it is not the fist time the Italian minister insists on longer-lasting framework as key elements of reforms, and once again he reiterated what has been stating since he took office, in the previous legislature. «Reforms need time to be passed and implemented, need time to be perceived by the people as the good idea, need time to produce effects». That doesn't want to be a smart move to avoid responsibilities. Padoan assured partners Italy will remain committed to what the EU rules foresee. A multi-year approach in the national reform programme assessment «has not be seen as a way to escape from obligations».

Padoan recalled how much Italy has done in these last years. «The beginning of the story» of the country, as he said, was a situation made by «three challenges», namely the stability of the public finance with the related debt reduction issue, the need of enhancing the growth potential, and the reform of the banking sector. Italy had all these three problems, three aspects that «severly interact» and that turn in «a worse example of vicious circle» especially in situation of harsh crisis such as the one Europe experienced since 2008. «Since then we turned a page, starting a virtuos circle», the Italian minister stressed in his intervention. He recalled all the reformes already passed by the Parliament, the one of the labour market (Jobs act), the one for the civil just, «one of the main obstacles for business», and the several measures tabled for the banking sector. Here the italian minister wanted to point out that the bank restructuring process «is still underway, is not over, but is in the right direction».

EU to put an end the profitable detached work

Draft amending proposal of the posted workers directive wants to eliminate the wage differences. In name of labour protection and fair competition

by Emanuele Bonini

Same remuneration and same conditions as local workers, no salary level change in case of subcontractor, publication of all elements of the different remuneration policies in force in the Member States. The European Union made a step forward in the revision of posting workers directive, by adopting the draft proposal containing the new measures. The Employment and Social Affairs Committee approved the legislative text by with 32 votes to 8 and 13 abstentions, paving the way to the negotiations with the European Council. Unless of last-minute surprises, with every probability the Plenary will back the draft bill in the vote scheduled next week. Then representative from the Parliament and from the Member States (Council) will be in the position of table negotiations.

Posted workers account for less than 1% of the overall EU working population, but they are growing in number. According to the EU figures, in 2015 they were 2.05 million, a value increased by 41,3% between 2010 and 2015. The growth of the single market has led to increased wage differences, generating automatic incentives for posting. Workers sent working abroad often earn considerably less than local workers, which can lead to unfair competition between posting and domestic companies, social dumping and exploitation of posted workers. The new draft rules are supposed to stop all that, pointed out one of the two co-rapporteur. «The agreement we have is politically clear: improve the protection of workers and ensure a level playing field for companies in the internal market», said the Elisabeth Morin-Chartier after the commitee vote.

Italy a real problem as no-vax war set in EU agenda

«Unacceptable» for the European Commission chief that in 2017 children still die for measles. Figures suggest is time for remedies, called vaccinations

A US measles information leaflet. Click to enlarge

by Emanuele Bonini

A spectre is haunting Europe, the spectre of sickness. All the powers of Europe have entered into a holy alliance to exorcise this spectre, except the Italians. It could be argued that Karl Marx, philosophy and history are all serious things. Perhaps health is not? Of course it is, otherwise the Italian no-vax culture would had never become a matter of urgence. How to explain the lack of vaccinations in Italy in the politica agenda of the EU? In no other way but that. Care and healthcare are supposed to be prerogative of sovereign countries, but apparently in certain cases they don't care. So here comes the need of intervention. The president of the European Commission stressed it clearly in his State of the Union speech, and that was astonishing as is the Italian state of play. The latest figures from the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) help a lot in catching the spectre which is annoying the continent. Only in 2017, as of 13 September, Italy has reported 4.487 measles cases, making the country the 5th in the world for highest infection rate. Worse than Italy made India, Nigeria, Pakistan and PRC, all developing or underdeveloped countries.

Shame and shake. Antivaxers are ashaming Italy and shaking Europe. «Measles outbreaks continue to occur in a number of EU/EEA countries», the ECDC noticed. Italy and Romania are the main EU countries where such infections take place, as also detected by the World Health Organization (not updated data compared to those from the ECDC). Thus, «there is a risk of spread and sustained transmission in areas with susceptible populations». According to Jean-Claude Juncker «it is unacceptable that in 2017 there are still children dying of diseases that should long have been eradicated in Europe». In other words, what the president of the European Commission ment without saying, a modern Europe can't afford to have neither medievalist forces nor third world poverty dynamics. «Children in Romania or Italy must have the same access to measles vaccines as children in other European countries. No ifs, no buts». So antivaxers, please go home! «Avoidable deaths must not occur in Europe, and we are working with all Member States to support national vaccination efforts». So work Italy? Just in case, the ECDC recalled that «vaccination with at least two doses remains the most effective measure» against measles outbreaks. Oops!


Related articles: 
EU commissioner declared war on antivaxers

Brexit to hit literary legend's isle

Corto Maltese, a «cult» character of the best of the European graphic novel genre, had official residence in Antigua, where consequences from the anti-EU referendum are expected

by Emanuele Bonini

History proved Corto Maltese was right, in the end. Antigua is a good place for a domicile, not a good a place to live in. Even Gibraltar has become a country just to pass through, a destination probably good nothing but for hit and run visits. And that's true especially today, in time of Brexit, whose waves propagate so far to reach and shake the crystalline waters of the Caribbean. In this part of the world many of the countries under the British crown, both formally and «de facto» still continue to be heavily dependent on the United Kingdom. Commercial supplies, special financing, tourism: the British are worth a lot here, and Antigua make no exceptions. Around the 17.7% of local wealth depends on tourism, driven for one third by UK nationals now not in the condition to sustain higher travel costs. With the UK out of the great play of the EU, import-export flows won't be possible any longer unless new commercial agreements are arranged. Because of British EU membership trade, aid, and investment relations between the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) Member States countries, included Antigua, has been with the EU.

In perspective what has been until today can't be taken for granted any longer. After Brexit Antigua, as well as all the CARICOM group, won't be in the position to trade with London because the latter will have become a third Country. New partnership will be needed, with CARICOM not on the top of the British agenda. If living in Antigua could previously seem not to be a good idea, it doesn't appear to be the wisest choice given the current times. So farewell, Corto!

Migration is there to stay. So will Europe?

EU more and more disunited in dealing with the asylum seekers crisis, and now it was made clear that mutual solidarity is not a must

by Emanuele Bonini

The first access country is always responsible for migrants and asylum seekers, even in time of crisis, so ruled the European Court of justice today. That means that people landing on the Italian ground can't be allowed to pass through the national territory to submit their asylum application to the EU member State where they would like staying. Juridical clarity was made, now both political measures and practical solutions have to be established as well. Rules are there to stay as they are and always have been, but this doesn't solve the the migration issue. Or, well, it does just in part. First access countries - such as Italy and Greece, in the specific case - are left alone by law in dealing with migrations flows. It's up to them to table credible and sustainable solutions, exactly what didn't happen so far.

It has been recognised that the rules in force have not been thought for managing emergency situations, but under a legal point of view this doesn't justify any derogation to the implementation of the European regulation for the single asylum system, knows as the Dublin regulation. The latter «must be interpreted» in a scrict way: even in front of an emergency («an unusually large number of third-country nationals» arrived to the European Union territory) every transit must be regarded as having «irregular crossing» of the border of the first Member State. This is about justice, which is different from fairness.