domingo, 26 de março de 2017

Parlamento aprova 6 de maio como Dia Nacional do Azulejo

E … quanto à actuação directa de roubo pernamente nas fachadas e “circuitos” de vendas em antiquários e feiras da ladra ?
OVOODOCORVO


Parlamento aprova 6 de maio como Dia Nacional do Azulejo
24.03.2017 19h06

A Assembleia da República aprovou esta sexta-feira por unanimidade uma resolução do PS para consagrar a data de 6 de maio como Dia Nacional do Azulejo, além de outras iniciativas de socialistas, bloquistas, democratas-cristãos e comunistas.

Segundo o texto do PS, a data agora eleita será "um momento para afirmação e reconhecimento desta tradição e património nacional, projetando a sua importância, constituindo-se, igualmente, numa ocasião de evocação da sua proteção e preservação, que deve envolver os agentes públicos e privados".

Todas as bancadas aprovaram igualmente um projeto de lei do PS e resoluções de BE, CDS-PP e PCP no sentido de proteger o património azulejar, com os socialistas a procederem à 13.ª alteração ao regime jurídico de urbanização e edificação.

Em entrevista à agência Lusa, na semana passada, quando estava agendado o debate parlamentar sobre a proposta de lei, a coordenadora do projeto "SOS Azulejo", da Polícia Judiciária (PJ), Leonor Sá, defendeu a sua aprovação, em defesa do património azulejar a nível nacional, para estancar a "sangria" da sua destruição no país. Contactada pela agência Lusa sobre estes projetos agora aprovados, Leonor Sá disse que podem provocar "uma mudança a nível nacional e uma viragem de 180 graus na proteção do património azulejar do país".

"Desta forma o património" pode ser "protegido sem precisar de ser classificado", interditando a demolição ou remoção das fachadas com azulejos, apenas com autorização dos técnicos das autarquias, e autorizando-se a sua destruição ou remoção apenas no caso de não constituírem qualquer valor.

De acordo com a responsável, todos os projetos que vão ser discutidos na sexta-feira referem, na introdução, o projeto "SOS Azulejo", cujo trabalho desenvolvido nesta área foi apresentado no ano passado, no parlamento, a par de propostas de defesa deste património.

"Dois dos projetos são o desenvolvimento direto das nossas propostas", apontou Leonor Sá, acrescentando que, na sequência do trabalho desenvolvido pelo projeto da PJ, houve anteriores avanços, nomeadamente em Lisboa e noutras cidades, onde as câmaras já exercem esse tipo de proteção.

A responsável lembrou que o município de Lisboa adotou, em 2013, legislação que interdita a demolição de fachadas revestidas a azulejos e a sua remoção, a não ser que se verifique que esses azulejos "são elementos arquitetónicos sem qualquer valor", sendo necessário agora estender, por lei, essa proibição a todos os municípios.

Leonor Sá considera que, a serem tomadas medidas legais, a curto prazo, "extremamente simples, terão um grande impacto" na proteção do património azulejar do país, parando o que foi destruído nos últimos 30 a 50 anos.

Criado em 2007, o projeto "SOS Azulejo", coordenado pela PJ, incide na prevenção criminal e conservação preventiva do património azulejar do país, e tem parcerias com várias entidades, de universidades à Associação Nacional de Municípios, da Direção-Geral do Património Cultural à PSP e à GNR.

Lusa

Maratona eleitoral alemã arranca com vitória da CDU no Sarre / 3 takeaways from election in Germany’s Saarland


Maratona eleitoral alemã arranca com vitória da CDU no Sarre
O primeiro teste eleitoral ao “efeito Schulz” não terá tido um resultado favorável aos sociais-democratas.

PÚBLICO 26 de Março de 2017, 17:16

Angela Merkel fez campanha por Annegret Kramp-Karrenbaue no Sarre.Foto
Angela Merkel fez campanha por Annegret Kramp-Karrenbaue no Sarre. LUSA/RONALD WITTEK

Os democratas-cristãos da chanceler Angela Merkel serão os vencedores das eleições deste domingo no estado federado alemão do Sarre. De acordo com uma projecção da televisão pública ARD, a CDU terá alcançado 41% dos votos, contra 29,5% dos sociais-democratas do SPD e 13% do Die Linke.

O partido populista de direita Alternativa para a Alemanha (AfD, na sigla germânica), terá conquistado 6% dos votos. Os Verdes alemães terão conseguido 4,5% dos votos, enquanto os liberais do FDP obtiveram 3%.

Habitualmente, as eleições num dos mais pequenos estados alemães não despertariam grande atenção além-fronteiras. No entanto, a campanha no Sarre conquistou interesse por um súbito avanço do SPD nas sondagens nacionais, após a escolha do antigo presidente do Parlamento Europeu, Martin Schulz, para candidato a chanceler nas eleições gerais de Setembro. A nível nacional, Schulz está agora praticamente empatado com Merkel.

As eleições no Sarre eram vistas como um teste ao chamado "efeito Schulz".


No Sarre, as sondagens de Janeiro davam um avanço de dez pontos à CDU da chefe do governo estadual, Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer. Na semana da ida a votos, a vantagem tinha caído para um ponto percentual. Agora, e de acordo com as primeiras projecções, o muito "efeito Schulz" não terá tido influência na eleição estadual, a primeira de três (Schleswig-Holstein a 7 de Maio, Renânia do Norte-Vestefália a 14 do mesmo mês) antes das legislativas federais de 24 de Setembro, em que Merkel volta a procurar a reeleição. Kramp-Karrenbauer deverá ser reconduzida na liderança do executivo do Sarre.

3 takeaways from election in Germany’s Saarland
Merkel’s CDU outperforms while SPD’s ‘Schulz effect’ disappoints.

By JANOSCH DELCKER 3/26/17, 10:43 PM CET Updated 3/27/17, 4:34 AM CET

BERLIN — Chancellor Angela Merkel’s conservatives scored a windfall victory Sunday in the first of three regional elections ahead of Germany’s national election in the fall, giving the party a much-needed boost and buying the chancellor some time.

Merkel’s Christian Democrats (CDU) won 40.7 percent of the votes in Saarland, around 11 percentage points ahead of the Social Democrats (SPD) at 29.6 percent, followed by far-left Die Linke at 12.9 percent and the populist right-wing Alternative for Germany at 6.2 percent.

The result proved that “the CDU can mobilize voters,” CDU State Premier Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer told public broadcaster ARD, adding: “This also sends out an important signal for the CDU on the national level.”

Saarland was the first election since the SPD named former European Parliament President Martin Schulz as their candidate to challenge Merkel this fall. The SPD has surged in national opinion polls and Sunday’s state vote was a first test of the so-called “Schulz effect.”

Here are three takeaways:

1. Muted ‘Schulz effect’

At first blush, Sunday’s result might look disastrous for the SPD: While the CDU and SPD were running neck-and-neck in polls before the election, the Social Democrats ended up with considerably fewer votes than anticipated, around 11 percent points behind the CDU.

At the same time, however, the party did indeed win over some new voters — it just wasn’t enough.

“At the end of January, we were still at 24 percent, and tonight we will likely reach the result of the last regional election,” Schulz said on Sunday evening, speaking to the party faithful in Berlin. In 2012, the SPD reached 30.6 percent of the votes.

The message from SPD during the next couple of days will likely be that Saarland was mainly about state politics but that, nonetheless, the vote should serve as a warning that much more campaigning needs to be done for the SPD to win in September.

Is Merkel back in pole position to retain her chancellorship in September?

“It’s a long-distance run, not a sprint,” Schulz said.

2. A vote for a ‘grand coalition’ — against Die Linke

The only coalition possible in Saarland after Sunday’s vote seems to be another ‘grand coalition’ between the CDU and SPD. The conservatives have been in power in the state for 18 years. Kramp-Karrenbauer took over from a CDU predecessor in 2011 and since 2012 she has headed a ‘grand coalition’ with the SPD.

Ahead of Sunday’s vote, the SPD had sent out signals that it was willing to consider a coalition with Die Linke instead, which would allow them to push Kramp-Karrenbauer out of office even if she managed to win the most votes in the state. Few, however, had expected the popular Kramp-Karrenbauer to bring home such a strong result, which makes a so-called “red-red” coalition in the state virtually impossible.

“During the last couple of days, it became clear that the SPD would be willing to go down the path of a red-red coalition. This mobilized voters,” Kramp-Karrenbauer told ARD. “Today was a vote for a grand coalition.”

And yet, there’s one important thing to keep in mind…

3. It’s only Saarland

Although the vote attracted wide interest far beyond the state’s borders, the election in rural Saarland isn’t the most important regional election this year — that is yet to come.

With an electorate of only around 800,000, Saarland is too small to offer a clear picture of voting intentions of the roughly 61.5 million Germans who are eligible to vote in the fall.

The next state election is in Schleswig-Holstein on May 7, with about 2.3 million people eligible to vote — but all eyes are on the vote in North-Rhine Westphalia on May 14, which will be the most important state election to watch this year, with 13 million voters.

Authors:

Janosch Delcker  

Theresa May to meet Nicola Sturgeon in week she triggers article 50



Theresa May to meet Nicola Sturgeon in week she triggers article 50
Prime minister to say four nations of the UK are ‘unstoppable force’ during tour ahead of formally commencing EU withdrawal process

Andrew Sparrow
@AndrewSparrow
Sunday 26 March 2017 22.30 BST

The prime minister will meet Nicola Sturgeon in Scotland on Monday at the start of the week in which she will trigger Britain’s departure from the EU, and argue that the four nations of the UK represent an “unstoppable force”. Theresa May is to hold talks with the first minister for the first time since Sturgeon demanded a second independence vote in the wake of the EU referendum and for the last time before triggering article 50 on Wednesday.

Before the meeting she will make a speech stressing both her global, outward-looking ambitions for the country and her faith in the union. The prime minister will tell staff at the office of the Department for International Development (DfID) in East Kilbride that their work shows how Britain is a “kind and generous country” and that when the nations of the UK work together, “there is no limit to what we can do”.

May is visiting Scotland as part of a tour of all four UK nations before she formally triggers Brexit, starting the two-year EU withdrawal process. The article 50 letter to the EU announcing the beginning of the withdrawal will be followed by the publication of a white paper on Thursday on the “great repeal bill”, one of the key measures that will give legislative effect to Brexit.

Sturgeon believes May’s Brexit negotiating stance is so hostile to Scotland’s interests that she has called for a second independence referendum and has publicly demanded permission from Westminster to schedule a vote before the Brexit process is completed.

Downing Street sources said that May would not budge from her previously stated position that “now is not the time” for a second vote when the two leaders meet on Monday.

But in her speech May will talk up the case for the union, citing DfID’s work as an example of how the nations of the UK can achieve more together than apart. “UK Aid is a badge of hope for so many around the world. It appears on the side of buildings, school books, medical supplies and food parcels in some of the toughest environments and most hard-to-reach countries on the planet,” she will say.

“And it says this: that when this great union of nations – England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland – sets its mind on something and works together with determination, we are an unstoppable force.”

She will also argue that Britain’s aid spending shows “we are a big country that will never let down those in need” and that the UK will continue to play a global role as it leaves the EU.

The two-year Brexit negotiations will define her premiership, but the difficulties she faces were underlined by an article in the Financial Times by Michel Barnier, the European commission’s chief Brexit negotiator, saying that a “no-deal scenario” is a “distinct possibility” and that this would have “severe consequences” for the UK and for the rest of the EU.

“Severe disruption to air transport and long queues at the Channel port of Dover are just some of the many examples of the negative consequences of failing to reach a deal,” he said. “Others include the disruption of supply chains, including the suspension of the delivery of nuclear material to the UK.” Barnier also claimed that there would have to be an agreement on what Britain owed the EU early in the process if the talks were to proceed smoothly.

May received warning of another potential obstacle on Sunday when Jeremy Corbyn, the Labour leader, said his party would oppose plans in the “great repeal bill” to give ministers sweeping powers to rewrite laws with minimal interference from parliament.

The white paper due on Thursday will set out how the government intends to repeal the 1972 European Communities Act and transplant laws that have force because of the UK’s membership of the EU into domestic law. It is expected that this will involve extensive use of “Henry VIII powers” – laws allowing ministers to change primary legislation (government bills) using secondary legislation (orders that go through parliament with little or no scrutiny).

Speaking on ITV’s Peston on Sunday, Corbyn said Labour would oppose handing ministers such extensive powers when the House of Commons voted on the great repeal bill. “We’re not going to sit there and hand over powers to this government to override parliament, override democracy and just set down a series of diktats on what’s going to happen in the future,” he said. “We’d be failing in our duty as democratically elected parliamentarians if we did that.”

Corbyn said the fact that the constitution allowed these sorts of powers to survive was “a wondrous thing”, but “they’ve got to stop”. “I don’t think the record of Henry VIII on promoting democracy, inclusion and participation was a very good one,” he said. “He was all about essentially dictatorial powers to bypass what was then a very limited parliamentary power. We need total accountability at every stage of this whole Brexit negotiation.”

Ministers argue that they need the powers because leaving the EU will require a vast body of law to be rewritten and many of the changes that will be made to primary legislation using Henry VIII powers will be technical.

What happens next
Monday Theresa May will visit Scotland where she will give a speech to staff at the Department for International Development office in East Kilbride before meeting Nicola Sturgeon, Scotland’s first minister. Keir Starmer, Labour’s Brexit spokesman, and Paul Nuttall, the Ukip leader, will both give speeches setting out their parties’ conditions for Brexit.

Tuesday MSPs will finish their debate on the motion calling for a second independence referendum. Sturgeon is expected to speak in the debate, and the motion is almost certain to be passed.

Wednesday The government will trigger article 50. A letter, about seven or eight pages long, will be handed to Donald Tusk, the president of the European council, and May is expected to make a statement to MPs.


Thursday The white paper on the “great repeal bill” will be published, with David Davis, the Brexit secretary, likely to give a statement on it in the Commons.

The Observer view on triggering article 50 / Observer editorial


The Observer view on triggering article 50
Observer editorial
As Britain hurtles towards the precipice, truth and democracy are in short supply

Sunday 26 March 2017 00.05 GMT

Like sheep, the British people, regardless of whether they support Brexit, are being herded off a cliff, duped and misled by the most irresponsible, least trustworthy government in living memory. The moment when article 50 is triggered, signalling Britain’s irreversible decision to quit the EU, approaches inexorably. This week, on Black Wednesday, the UK will throw into jeopardy the achievements of 60 years of unparalleled European peace, security and prosperity from which it has greatly benefited. And for what?

The ultra-hard Tory Brexit break with Europe that is now seen as the most likely outcome when the two-year negotiation concludes is the peacetime equivalent of the ignominious retreat from Dunkirk. It is a national catastrophe by any measure. It is a historic error. And Theresa May, figuratively waving the cross of St George atop the white cliffs of Dover like a tone-deaf parody of Vera Lynn, will be remembered as the principal author of the debacle. This is not liberation, as Ukip argues, nor even a fresh start. It is a reckless, foolhardy leap into the unknown and the prelude, perhaps, to what the existentialist writer Albert Camus described in La chute – a fall from grace, in every conceivable sense.

It did not have to be this way. Like others who favoured Remain, we have reiterated, ad nauseam, our acceptance of the referendum result. But whether you were for or against, what confronts us all now is drastically different from what was on the table last June. The hard Tory Brexit in prospect represents an epic act of self-harm. A more enlightened Conservative prime minister, better attuned to the “one nation” tradition of the party of Disraeli and Macmillan, less in thrall to Little Englanders, and less intimidated by the peculiarly vicious and Manichaean worldview of the Daily Mail, would have taken a more consensual approach. Yet despite her promises when she became prime minister, Theresa May has failed to heal the divisions caused by Brexit.

Far from reuniting a fractured kingdom, she has divided it further, perhaps fatally, as the SNP’s unsettling decision last week to push for a second Scottish independence referendum implies. As Lord Heseltine has suggested, a more imaginative, braver and more consistent leader could have used the referendum result to propel an immediate negotiation with the EU on much-needed reforms. If, at the end of that process, Britain’s demands remained unmet, the divorce could have proceeded or, if a deal were agreed, been put to a second vote. Instead, May, more sheep than shepherd, has feebly allowed herself to be driven ever further towards an extreme, inflexible, take-it-or-leave-it stance for which she has neither mandate nor credible grounds.

The main reason that May and her ministers now say that no deal would be better than a bad deal is that even the most blinkered Brexiters have belatedly realised what an impossible position they have placed the country in. They simply cannot deliver what they promised. Nor will an affronted, alienated Brussels help them do so. Rejigged single market access? Forget it. A bespoke customs union? Not a chance. A free trade deal within two years? In your dreams. It has become crystal clear that none of this is possible while ministers continue to reject freedom of movement and other basic EU principles, including European court of justice jurisdiction. On this, the other 27 countries are united. So now the hard Brexiters say, with astonishingly cynical mendacity, that Britain would be better off going it alone. This approach plays fast and loose with ordinary people’s livelihoods. Yet still, with jingoistic horns and trumpets drowning out the roar of the deep, the stampede towards the cliff’s edge gathers pace.

Every day produces more evidence that this hard Tory Brexit is a disaster in the making. Carmakers and other export manufacturers, fearing swingeing tariffs, are demanding special protections and exemptions or else they leave. Professional bodies, ranging from lawyers to economists, warn of endlessly damaging business consequences. The NHS faces the loss of tens of thousands of qualified doctors and nurses it has no prospect of replacing. Care homes are in a similar plight. Banks, financial institutions and airlines face unavoidable decisions about moving jobs and operations to mainland Europe.

Environmentalists rightly fear the cleaner rivers and cleaner air ensured by EU regulations (red tape to the Europhobes) may soon become a thing of the past. British citizens living and working in Europe fear the chaos that would surely follow all-out rupture; likewise EU citizens living here. Britain’s farmers, like its academics, surely realise by now, if they did not before, that they cannot trust this government to replicate the research funding, subsidies and employment freedoms that EU membership currently bestows. The average British family is now hemmed in by multiple, authoritative predictions of stagnant or falling wages, higher food and fuel prices, an ongoing sterling devaluation, collapsing social care and public services and increased, regressive indirect taxation. Be you a Remainer or a Leaver, you would have to be particularly obtuse not to see that May’s hard Tory Brexit will cost this country and its families more than it can conceivably afford.

The prospective political, diplomatic and reputational cost is every bit as daunting. Take the damage to Britain’s democracy. Last week, parliament was at its best, uniting in defiance of terrorism. The week before, it was at its worst, agreeing to deny itself a meaningful vote on any final deal. The government argued that to do otherwise would tie its hands. This is baloney. David Davis, Liam Fox, Boris Johnson and the other Brexit blowhards know they have no chance of achieving their stated aims, such as a £350m weekly NHS payback. So they pre-emptively reject parliamentary scrutiny, dismiss any criticism as unpatriotic and hope, like the cheap chancers they are, that they will get away with it. They’ve peddled a fake Brexit, full of false promises. The reality is beginning to dawn.

Unconscionably, they and their outliers in the hard Brexit media have attempted to stifle debate and question those who demand proper scrutiny of the most significant political and economic challenge to Britain in decades. They have helped foster a corrosive, mean-spirited, angry and divisive atmosphere that May and her lieutenants are too weak to challenge. Into this swill comes Leave financier-in-chief, Arron Banks, who last week announced he was setting up a “Patriotic Alliance” to attempt to unseat 100 Remain-supporting MPs. The Daily Mail, Katie Hopkins, Arron Banks, Nigel Farage, Paul Nuttall – meet Britain’s new patriots. Except they’re not, because divisiveness and intolerance are not the values of patriots.

There is a criticism of one’s country that is born of hate and a criticism born of love. And they are materially different. One wishes to divide us, the other attempts to bind, cohere and support. It fell last week to Michel Barnier, the EU’s chief negotiator, to throw a cold bucket of reality over the ultra-hard Brexiters’ fantasies. The effect was chilling. Barnier made clear May’s “no deal” option was no option at all. He warned of queues of lorries at Dover, chaos for ordinary citizens and custom controls on trade from day one of the UK’s withdrawal. Barnier also made plain the EU would not even begin to talk about a post-Brexit trade deal until Britain agrees to cough up the estimated £50bn Brussels says it owes in prior commitments. The figure is disputed. But the principle is not. Britain faces a hugely costly settling of accounts, whatever parti pris barristers may advise. For good measure, Barnier insisted the Irish border conundrum and citizens’ rights must be resolved before other Brexit matters can be discussed.

Barnier says the EU wants a deal. And it would be reckless indeed for EU leaders to ignore the factors that produced the Brexit vote, many of which can be observed across the union. The EU itself is becoming uncomfortably aware that as well as a need to show flexibility towards the UK, it also has to demonstrate to its own citizens an awareness of its democratic and policy deficiencies if it is to rekindle the support that has seen it develop since its origins in the Treaty of Rome 60 years ago.


But Barnier’s stance, if unchanged, presages a negotiations humiliation for the government. Yet more threatening for the ultra-hard Brexit brigade and the lie factories of Fleet Street was Barnier’s vow to spell out what leaving the EU really entails for the British people. “We need to tell the truth and we will tell the truth to our citizens about what Brexit means,” Barnier said, his point being that, until now, here and elsewhere, such truths have been deliberately concealed, ignored or distorted. How galling, and how ironic, that the country, the “mother of parliaments” that boastfully styles itself the home of modern representative governance, should need a lesson in open democracy. But needed it is. Truth and common sense are in short supply as Britain charges towards the precipice.

Impasse na mesquita da Mouraria: "Tenho uma vida miserável"


Impasse na mesquita da Mouraria: "Tenho uma vida miserável"
O homem expropriado de dois prédios na Mouraria está doente, falido e desesperado com a Câmara Municipal de Lisboa. Promete continuar a lutar pelo que julga ser justo, mas não parece haver uma solução amigável.

JOÃO PEDRO PINCHA 26 de Março de 2017, 8:28

António Barroso não parece ter mudado muito. Está visivelmente mais magro e talvez os seus passos sejam um pouco mais vacilantes do que quando o conhecemos, em Maio do ano passado. Mas o olhar mantém-se vivo, as palavras azedas e a revolta em ebulição – pronta a explodir e a dificultar o mais possível a criação de uma nova praça na Mouraria, para onde está prevista uma mesquita.

Os dois AVC e a febre tifóide que afirma ter tido nos últimos meses não o demoveram da luta que assumiu contra a Câmara Municipal de Lisboa, que no ano passado o expropriou de dois edifícios na Rua do Benformoso para dar corpo ao projecto da nova praça. “Eu era para ter uma vida linda. E hoje tenho uma vida miserável. Isto deu cabo da minha vida toda, deu cabo da vida da minha família. Estes cavalheiros não têm humanidade nenhuma. Isto é à maneira deles e pronto.”

Os “cavalheiros” são o presidente da câmara, Fernando Medina, e o vereador do Urbanismo, Manuel Salgado, que António Barroso identifica como os principais responsáveis pela situação em que vive hoje.

Em Maio de 2016, a autarquia tomou posse administrativa dos dois prédios que António Barroso tinha comprado dez anos antes naquela que é uma das artérias mais multiculturais de Lisboa. O projecto de criação de uma praça naquele local, ligando as ruas da Palma e do Benformoso, é de 2012. O protocolo com o Centro Islâmico do Bangladesh com vista à instalação de uma mesquita num dos edifícios da nova praça é do ano seguinte.

Inicialmente, a câmara ofereceu cerca de 500 mil euros de indemnização pelo maior dos dois imóveis, que António Barroso usa para habitação e para arrendamento. Recusou. Diz que gastou quase tanto nas obras de reabilitação do prédio, que tiveram de obedecer a várias regras patrimoniais – a manutenção dos azulejos e lajes oitocentistas — e até chegaram a estar embargadas.

António Barroso quer ser indemnizado pelo que diz ser o preço de mercado – mais de um milhão de euros – ou que a autarquia lhe arranje outro edifício. “Interessa-me que me dêem um prédio nesta zona para eu continuar com o negócio e ter um sítio para viver”, diz ao PÚBLICO na loja de tricots, crochets e roupa interior que gere na mesma rua.

Quando as negociações ainda estavam numa fase amigável, a câmara não concordou com o valor sugerido por Barroso. Considerou-o “excessivamente elevado e não devidamente justificado”, como se pode ler numa carta enviada por Manuel Salgado ao empresário. Depois, em Maio, António Barroso foi a uma reunião pública do município para tentar expor a situação e Fernando Medina garantiu-lhe que havia “interesse em consensualizar” um valor.

A derradeira tentativa de diálogo terá ocorrido a 22 de Julho, já depois de o Tribunal Administrativo do Círculo de Lisboa ter dado razão à câmara na expropriação por haver “inquestionável interesse público” e depois de também já ter sido definido um novo valor de indemnização por peritos nomeados pelo tribunal (a rondar os 600 mil euros).

“Fomos lá e os cavalheiros propuseram-me o seguinte: davam-me 936 mil euros, mas eu tinha de indemnizar os meus inquilinos”, conta Barroso. Ficaria, assim, com cerca de 850 mil euros. Um valor que, uma vez mais, não lhe interessa. “Tenho andado muito doente. Com a miséria que eles me dão eu não consigo comprar absolutamente nada. Com este dinheiro nem um andar consigo comprar.”

Apesar de já não ser oficialmente o dono dos prédios, António Barroso continua a ter de pagar mensalmente quase dois mil euros de prestações pelos empréstimos que contraiu para comprar os imóveis. Tentou impugnar todo este processo, mas o Tribunal Judicial da Comarca de Lisboa recusou e autorizou a câmara a prosseguir com os seus intentos.

O PÚBLICO contactou a autarquia na semana passada para saber em que ponto está este processo e como é que ele se desenrolou nos últimos meses. As perguntas continuam sem resposta.


António Barroso é que não vai ficar calado. Além de querer contestar a última decisão judicial, vai escrever cartas a António Costa e a Marcelo Rebelo de Sousa, na esperança de os sensibilizar

Declaração de Roma: a Europa caminhará numa só direcção, mas a várias velocidades / Quase tudo ou quase nada / Europe’s elite put on grand show of unity in Rome


Declaração de Roma: a Europa caminhará numa só direcção, mas a várias velocidades

Na celebração dos 60 anos, os líderes falaram numa UE mais social no futuro, e com mais unidade - um antídoto para o populismo. “A Europa como entidade política ou estará unida, ou não será nada”, disse Tusk.

VASCO GANDRA Bruxelas 25 de Março de 2017, 18:03

Os líderes europeus celebraram em Roma os 60 anos da União Europeia numa numa cerimónia que culminou com a assinatura de uma Declaração que aponta o rumo, as prioridades políticas e os valores que devem guiar o bloco comunitário nos próximos dez anos, após o "Brexit".

Num contexto marcado pelo divórcio do Reino Unido, os líderes dos 27 prometem uma Europa “forte” para o futuro e fazem juras de unidade. “A nossa União é indivisa e indivisível”, afirmam na Declaração.

Ainda que de forma suavizada, a Declaração de Roma reconhece o princípio de uma Europa a várias velocidades e lança uma agenda política para a próxima década assente em várias prioridades, em que uma das promessas é a aposta na “Europa social”.

Na Sala dos Horácios e Curiácios do Capitólio romano, onde em Março de 1957 os primeiros seis países - República Federal Alemã, França, Itália, Bélgica, Holanda e Luxemburgo -, assinaram os tratados fundadores do projecto comunitário, os líderes europeus tentaram mostrar-se à altura da tarefa: celebrar o caminho percorrido até hoje reconhecendo a dificuldade dos actuais desafios, e apontar o rumo para a próxima década.

Talvez inspirados pelo histórico e soalheiro cenário da capital italiana, os líderes das instituições comunitárias e dos 27 Estados-membros (sem Theresa May) apareceram mais descontraídos do que no habitual contexto cinzento de Bruxelas. Ao final da manhã, assinaram um a um a Declaração de Roma, um documento de três páginas redigidas na habitual linguagem formal e pouco enfática.

Os líderes manifestam o seu orgulho nas “conquistas da União Europeia”, um “empreendimento audacioso”, e no seu caracter “ímpar” de paz, liberdade, democracia e direitos humanos. Sublinham que hoje “estamos unidos e mais fortes” mas reconhecem que o bloco comunitário enfrenta desafios sem precedentes: conflitos regionais, terrorismo, pressões migratórias crescentes, protecionismo e desigualdades sociais e económicas.

Os 27 e as instituições europeias querem tornar a União Europeia “mais forte e resiliente” mediante mais unidade e solidariedade. No seu discurso, o presidente do Conselho Europeu, Donald Tusk deixou o alerta: “A Europa como entidade política ou estará unida, ou não será nada”.

A Declaração reconhece também a opção da chamada Europa a várias velocidades que permite a um grupo de países avançar na integração em áreas específicas, sem esperar pelos reticentes. Os seis países fundadores são os principais defensores deste princípio sem o qual, consideram, a UE está condenada ao bloqueio.

“Actuaremos em conjunto, a ritmos e com intensidades diferentes quando for necessário, avançando todos na mesma direcção”, respeitando os Tratados e “mantendo a porta aberta àqueles que se nos queiram juntar mais tarde”, diz o documento. Esta formulação foi diluída em relação a uma versão anterior por forma acomodar as preocupações dos Estados-membros de leste que receiam a criação de várias categorias de países dentro do bloco.

Para fazer face às várias crises e dificuldades que a UE enfrenta, os dirigentes europeus lançaram a Agenda de Roma com vários pontos prioritários nos próximos tempos: uma Europa segura e protegida, próspera e sustentável, mais forte no plano internacional com o reforço de uma segurança e defesa comuns. Os 27 e as instituições prometem ainda apostar numa “Europa social” que “fomente o progresso económico e social, bem como a coesão e a convergência”.

O primeiro-ministro maltês, cujo país assume a presidência semestral do Conselho da UE, sublinhou em conferência de imprensa que a UE vai mesmo avançar na área social e que esta pode funcionar como “antídoto ao crescimento do populismo”. O anfitrião da cerimónia, o italiano Paolo Gentiloni garantiu que a Declaração representa “um passo em frente” para a UE em áreas como a defesa, a economia e o social.


Por seu turno, o primeiro-ministro, António Costa, disse ter “muito esperança e confiança” em que a “renovação de votos” feita pelos líderes se traduza em “respostas concretas”. “É muito importante que esta celebração que hoje aqui fazemos possa continuar amanhã e para que isso aconteça é fundamental podermos responder de uma forma positiva àquilo que são os anseios, as angústias, o medo que muitos cidadãos têm e para os quais a União Europeia é mesmo a única entidade que pode dar uma boa resposta”, declarou o chefe de Governo, minutos depois de assinar a “Declaração de Roma”, segundo a Lusa.

Este sábado, todos os caminhos da Europa foram dar a Roma para um dia de celebrações e promessas. Face aos desafios e ao ciclo eleitoral que a Europa enfrenta, os líderes europeus não têm tempo a perder para apresentar resultados. Como disse Donald Tusk: “Provem hoje que são os líderes da Europa, que podem cuidar desse grande legado que herdámos dos heróis da integração europeia há 60 anos”.

Quase tudo ou quase nada
A Europa estabelece quatro prioridades que, se forem levadas a sério, podem ser um bom ponto de partida. A dúvida é mesmo essa: se vão ser levadas a sério.

Teresa de Sousa
25 de Março de 2017, 19:15

1. Ninguém quis estragar a festa, em Roma, no Capitólio onde, há 60 anos, seis países europeus selaram um novo destino para a Europa. Nem a primeira-ministra polaca, nem o seu homólogo grego. Ambos subscreveram, com os seus 25 pares, a Agenda de Roma, com os seus quatro compromissos para os próximos dez anos. A cerimónia esteve à altura das circunstâncias. A cidade encheu-se das cores europeias, as salas magníficas do Capitólio iluminaram os líderes, as manifestações a favor ou contra encheram as ruas e um Papa a muitos títulos excepcional desafiou-os líderes europeus a não esquecerem os seus valores.


Serviu de alguma coisa? Serviu pelo menos para demonstrar que a Europa ainda respira, mesmo que com dificuldade. A Declaração de Roma acaba por ser uma pequena manta de retalhos para satisfazer toda a gente. Era quase inevitável. A Europa chegou aos 60 anos demasiado dividida para se poder esperar outra coisa. Mesmo assim, estabelece quatro prioridades que, se forem levadas a sério, podem ser um bom ponto de partida. A dúvida é mesmo essa: se vão ser levadas a sério. O risco é que os líderes europeus, regressados às suas agendas domésticas, esqueçam rapidamente o compromisso que assumiram. As eleições na Alemanha, em França e na Itália (ainda sem data marcada) vão ajudar a “esquecer” por algum tempo alguns desses compromissos.

2. A chanceler alemã tem uma batalha interna a travar pelo seu quarto mandato. A Europa está no centro do debate político do seu país e os alemães continuam a apoiar a forma como ela a conduz. Mas Merkel vai ter pela frente um candidato à sua altura, coisa que esteve muito longe de acontecer nas duas últimas batalhas eleitorais que travou com o SPD. Realisticamente, a maioria dos governos europeus sabe que as grandes decisões vão ter de esperar pelo dia 24 de Setembro. A questão que falta saber é se Martin Schulz, o candidato do SPD que conseguiu a proeza de igualar a chanceler nas sondagens, vai estabelecer alguma diferença entre o seu programa europeu e o da chanceler. Em França, os campos estão claramente separados pela questão europeia. Emmanuel Macron não tem um grama de eurocepticismo e elogia a forma como Merkel lidou com os refugiados. A sua eleição pode ajudar a reconstituir uma parceria franco-alemã menos desigual e mais equilibrada (ou seja, menos alemã), fundamental para devolver à Europa uma liderança política. Mas se houve uma preocupação franco-alemã neste compromisso de Roma, ela foi a de abrir as portas a uma Europa que permita a integração a várias velocidades, mesmo que a expressão não conste do texto final.

3. A necessidade de concluir a reforma da União Económica e Monetária (UEM) também vai ter de esperar pelas eleições em França e na Alemanha, até que seja possível um novo entendimento entre os dois países. E essa é, para o Governo de Lisboa, a questão mais importante. Como o primeiro-ministro português repetiu ontem em Roma, Portugal não quer “fugas para a frente”, antes que os “alicerces” estejam suficientemente sólidos. Ou seja, a zona euro tem de completar a sua reforma para estabilizar a moeda, evitar choques assimétricos e criar condições para a convergência económica, antes de se lançar em novos projectos. António Costa conseguiu o que pretendia, e não era muito. A Declaração refere, no seu compromisso número dois, que é preciso incentivar a convergência económica “através do investimento, das reformas estruturais e trabalhando no sentido de completar a UEM”. Falta passar das palavras aos actos.

4. Como superar este desfasamento entre a agenda europeia e as agendas nacionais, é a grande questão que será testada nos próximos meses. O que sabemos hoje é que foi muito difícil negociar um texto que todos pudessem assinar. Tão difícil que o resultado final tira boa parte do sentido a cada um dos quatro compromissos, produzindo um resultado onde cabe tudo à custa de não significar quase nada.

5. Mas há ainda uma verdade que prevalece. Citado pela Reuters, o actual Presidente polaco, Andrzej Duda, tratou de esclarecer que o seu país continua “totalmente comprometido com a Europa”, para lá de todas as divergências. Ele próprio explica porquê: “Hoje, qualquer partido que viesse a público dizer que quer sair da Europa não teria qualquer hipótese na cena política nacional”.

Quando recebeu no Vaticano os líderes europeus, o Papa conseguiu resumir numa frase o que está em jogo para a Europa: “Quando um organismo perde o sentido do caminho a seguir, deixa de ser capaz de olhar em frente, acabará por regredir e, no longo prazo, corre o risco de morrer.” É isso mesmo.


Europe’s elite put on grand show of unity in Rome
European leaders sign Rome Declaration as centerpiece of 60th anniversary celebrations.

By MATTHEW KARNITSCHNIG AND FLORIAN EDER 3/25/17, 3:21 PM CET Updated 3/25/17, 4:17 PM CET

ROME — Europe’s prominence descended on the Italian capital Saturday to celebrate their union’s 60th anniversary with a single aim: fare bella figura.

After a year in which the EU has had to stomach the Brexit vote, bitter fights over refugees and the resurgence of far-right populism, failure was not an option. Yet for a club riven by division over matters large and small, keeping up appearances was no small order.

The setting, a vast palazzo on Capitoline hill that was once the site of a temple ancient Romans believed would stand for eternity, offered an apt reminder of the EU’s own fragility.

But somehow — whether inspired by the weight of the moment, the ghosts of their predecessors or the warm Roman spring — the 27 heads of government and state, pulled it off. For a day, at least, they put their squabbles aside to celebrate the unlikely success of an idea born out of catastrophe.

Gathered in the hall of Horatii and the Curiatii, the opulent marbled chamber where the Treaty of Rome was signed in 1957, the continent’s leaders reasserted the EU’s founding principles, while vowing to carry the region’s integration forward.

When Greek Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras signed, someone from the audience muttered “at last.”
One by one, the leaders were called to a wide table at the head of the hall to put their signature to an 800-word document dubbed the Rome Declaration. Each signature, all in thick black ink from the same hefty pen, was greeted with a round of applause, backslaps and smiles.

What looked effortless from afar, was preceded by weeks of pitched debate and recriminations over the content of the declaration. In particular, Poland and Greece objected to key aspects of the aspects of the text, threatening to upend the show of unity.

Both governments were trying to send a signal to their electorates. Poland needed to show it is still listened to by Brussels after losing out in the vote on the re-appointment of Donald Tusk as European Council president. Greece needs to sell another round of economic reforms demanded by Europe to its skeptical public.

Just hours before the signing, having sated their home crowds’ appetite for defiance, they dropped their objections.

When Greek Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras signed, someone from the audience muttered “at last.” After Polish Prime Minister Beata Szydło signed, she made a gesture that an aide to one prime minister interpreted as, “You see? I did it”.

“I believe that what we succeeded to do in the past days and hours marks a new awakening,” a visibly relieved Jean-Claude Juncker told reporters afterwards. “Contrary to expectations, it didn’t come to a clash.”

Donald Tusk, who was born in the same year of the Rome Treaty, recalled his childhood behind the Iron Curtain in the rubble of Gdańsk, a city destroyed during the war.
That was in large part due to the day’s careful choreography. Unlike most EU summits, which are followed by a cacophony of conflicting messages when leaders speak to the press, the organizers left nothing to chance.

Leaders were kept on a tight leash. Instead of individual national press briefings, the ceremony was followed by a press conference hosted by Juncker, Tusk, Italian Prime Minister Paolo Gentiloni, European Parliament president Antonio Tajani and Maltese Prime minister Joseph Muscat who holds the rotating EU presidency. Though hundreds of journalists were in attendance, they took just a handful of questions.

Juncker offered a very Italian justification for calling it short: “I’m hungry,” he said before following the other leaders to the presidential palace for lunch with Italy’s president Sergio Mattarella.

The ceremony itself lasted little more than an hour, with five set-piece speeches.

The highpoint came during an address by Tusk who who was born in the same year of the Rome Treaty. He recalled his childhood behind the Iron Curtain in the rubble of Gdańsk, a city destroyed during the war.

“Back then, that really was a two-speed Europe,” he said. “And that is why today I have the right to loudly repeat this simple truth: that nothing in our life is granted forever; that to build a free world requires time, great effort and sacrifice…To destroy such a world is very easy. It only takes a short moment. As it happened once, with my Gdańsk.”


Tusk’s remarks, the most personal of the day, left many of those present, including German Chancellor Angela Merkel visibly moved.

The weighty tone for the day’s festivities was set Friday night, when leaders were received in the Vatican by the Pope.

The pontiff urged them to resist the “false forms of security” promoted by populist parties across the Continent.

“Europe finds new hope in solidarity, which is also the most effective antidote to modern forms of populism,” the Pope told them.

“We’re not proud enough of what we’ve achieved in Europe” — Jean-Claude Juncker
The EU’s success “will depend on its readiness to work together once again, and by its willingness to wager on the future.”

He got his message across — Szydło energetically kissed his ring after the speeches.

The big question hanging over the meeting was whether the show of solidarity on display in Rome will last. In the coming months, the EU’s remaining 27 will not only have to find common purpose over Brexit. The biggest challenge they face will be to agree on a broader overhaul of the Union, which for all its success, is in sore need of reform.

To push the project forward, Juncker told his colleagues, will require more confidence.


“We’re not proud enough of what we’ve achieved in Europe,” he said.

sábado, 25 de março de 2017

EU to move in different speeds despite Polish reservations


EU to move in different speeds despite Polish reservations
Text of the Rome Declaration says countries will move in the same direction but ‘at different paces and intensity.’

By FLORIAN EDER 3/25/17, 3:38 PM CET Updated 3/25/17, 4:54 PM CET


ROME — The EU will move on with further integration without always waiting for the stragglers, European leaders pledged in Rome Saturday.

“We will act together, at different paces and intensity where necessary, while moving in the same direction,” the declaration signed by EU leaders on the 60th anniversary said.

It added that this would happen “as we have done in the past, in line with the Treaties and keeping the door open to those who want to join later,” a move to accommodate criticism most articulately voiced by Polish Prime Minister Beata Szydło.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel echoed the softeners in the text when she told reporters that “we want to get in the same direction” but spoke of a multi-speed EU as a reality: “A Europe of different speeds doesn’t mean that it’s not a common Europe,” she said after the ceremony.

Luxemburgish Prime Minister Xavier Bettel told AP that he “preferred a two speed Europe to a cul-de-sac and no speed at all.” The two-speed idea, he claimed, was originally one by the benelux countries. “We in Benelux were alone at the beginning, but then one country after other joined because we saw that certain countries took us as hostages,” he said, implicitly referring to Poland’s unsuccessful fight against Council president Donald Tusk’s reappointment earlier this month.

Tusk called for those unhappy to work constructively together. “Today it is not enough to call for unity and to protest against multiple speeds,” he said in a speech in front of the 27 EU leaders (minus Britain’s Theresa May who is busy writing a letter to formally trigger Article 50 that will be delivered in Brussels on Wednesday).

European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker, European Parliament President Antonio Tajani, Italy's Prime Minister Paolo Gentiloni, European Council President Donald Tusk and Malta's

“It is much more important that we all respect our common rules such as human rights and civil liberties, freedom of speech and freedom of assembly, checks and balances, and the rule of law,” Tusk said, referring to his home Poland and echoing repeated calls by the European commission for the Warsaw government to respect judicial independence.

“Europe as a political entity will either be united, or will not be at all,” Tusk said, adding that “the unity of Europe is not a bureaucratic model. It is a set of common values and democratic standards.”

The summit marked the signature of the Treaties of Rome in 1957, which Commission president Jean-Claude Juncker praised as having “sealed our Union forevermore”. He said the people in the room should be proud of having seen decades of peace on the EU’s territory.

“After so many wars, so many battles — why are we not proud of this? Because it wasn’t our generation but our predecessors?”, Juncker said.

Tusk drew more concrete lessons from history. “Today in Rome we are renewing the unique alliance of free nations,” Tusk said. The “great predecessors” of today’s leaders “at that time did not discuss multiple speeds, they did not devise exits, but despite all the tragic circumstances of the recent history, they placed all their faith in the unity of Europe,” Tusk said.

Authors:


Florian Eder