segunda-feira, 31 de maio de 2021

Um Governo na “bolha”

 


Um Governo na “bolha”

António Costa

https://eco.sapo.pt/opiniao/um-governo-na-bolha/?fbclid=IwAR1O_mCWuWFojl7atMG-STcZlQL-_Qn8ov27QRByodTVgaeXvuGlymd8AYM

 

O Governo voltou a falhar (qual é a novidade?) e tudo foi permitido aos ingleses na final da Champions. Quem é que se explica ao país?

 

“As pessoas que vierem à final da Liga dos Campeões virão e regressarão no mesmo dia, com teste feito e em situação de bolha, ou seja, em voo charter, deslocação para duas zonas de espera de adeptos, daí para o estádio e depois do jogo de volta para o aeroporto, estando em território nacional menos de 24 horas”.

 

Mariana Vieira da Silva, ministra da Presidência, 13 de maio

 

Já sabemos o que aconteceu na final da Champions no Porto, por isso esta afirmação da ministra Vieira da Silva deveria ter consequências. Antes, deveria obrigar a explicações, da ministra que as fez, do primeiro-ministro, do ministro-que-diz-que-é-da-administração-interna e da ministra da Saúde que tutela a direção-Geral de Saúde. O silêncio não é só ensurdecer, é ofensivo. O Estado entregue a um (des)governo que volta a falhar aos portugueses, a enganar de forma deliberada ou por incompetência.

 

Depois do que sucedeu nos festejos do Sporting, o Governo e a câmara de Lisboa entretiveram-se a passar culpas, a explicarem como não fizeram o que lhes era exigido. Durante uns dias, não se falou de outra coisa, dos festejos sem qualquer tipo de controlo e com riscos de saúde pública. O país estava em pandemia, em situação de calamidade, e pediram-se lições (consequências, com este governo, é que não vale a pena pedir). O Governo chegou a admitir público nos estádios nas duas últimas jornadas do campeonato nacional e na final da Taça de Portugal, mas na sequência dos festejos, recuou. Era necessário manter uma certa ordem, uma autoridade do Estado. Definitivamente, depois do que foi prometido e do que sucedeu este fim de semana, não há autoridade que resista, não é possível continuar a impedir os portugueses de assistirem a jogos de futebol, ou a concertos, não é possível impedir o consumo de bebidas alcoólicas no espaço público nem sequer obrigar à utilização de máscaras. Foi isto que o Governo permitiu a dezenas de milhares de ingleses que, durante dias, estiveram não só no Porto como em Lisboa e noutras cidades do Algarve.

 

Marcelo Rebelo de Sousa voltou a criticar o Governo, depois das palavras equívocas e até contraditórias na sequência dos festejos dos sportinguistas. Sem perceber que a sua palavra, sem consequências, está a perder força, a desligar-se, a tornar-se politicamente irrelevante. “Quando se comunica que se vem em bolha é porque se vem em bolha. Senão não se diz que se vem em bolha. Diz-se vêm tantos, uns vêm em bolha, outros não. E depois tem de se explicar porque foi diferente. E tem de se ter a noção do exemplo que se dá“, disse Marcelo. E? O que faria o Presidente se o primeiro-ministro fosse Santana Lopes depois de tantas falhas, tantos erros grosseiros, tanta incompetência? Marcelo poderia e deveria chamar o primeiro-ministro para uma audiência formal em Belém, sem esperar pela reunião. Ou, no mínimo, convocar a ministra da Presidência para se explicar ao Presidente da República.

 

A realização da final da Champions no Porto foi de duvidosa utilidade, para não dizer outra coisa. Terão existido vantagens para o comércio, mas provavelmente esses empresários dispensariam o negócio de dois ou três dias pelo sossego que deixaram de ter. Não serve para a imagem do país (lembra-se onde foi a final de 2019?) e só veio cá parar porque outros países não estavam interessados (e os que estavam não constam da lista verde do Reino Unido). Além disso, já tínhamos tido a ‘final eight’ de 2020 da Liga dos Campeões, cujos benefícios foram limitadíssimos.

 

Portugal está em estado de calamidade, mas o principal problema não resulta do risco de saúde pública (embora também esse seja efetivo, particularmente porque no Reino Unido a variante indiana está a ganhar força, como pode ler aqui). Há efetivamente duas ordens de problemas: Uma flagrante contradição entre as medidas impostas aos portugueses e as que não foram impostas aos ingleses, por um lado, e a incapacidade do Governo de fazer cumprir as leis que ele próprio aprovou.

 

Nestas duas dimensões, não há boas explicações, só a confirmação de que há um Governo em “bolha”, imune a tudo e, pelos vistos, a todos os erros políticos.

Brawling Chelsea and Man City fans clash in shameful scenes in Porto // Costa admite que Champions “não correu na perfeição” mas justifica com a vinda espontânea de turistas



Estas afirmações de António Costa constituem um insulto à inteligência dos Portugueses !
OVOODOCORVO


COVID-19

Costa admite que Champions “não correu na perfeição” mas justifica com a vinda espontânea de turistas

 

Primeiro-ministro assegurou que vai ser melhorada a informação dada aos turistas sobre as regras sanitárias em vigor em Portugal.

 




Sofia Rodrigues

31 de Maio de 2021, 16:45

https://www.publico.pt/2021/05/31/politica/noticia/costa-admite-champions-nao-correu-perfeicao-justifica-vinda-espontanea-turistas-1964755

 

António Costa admite não ter gostado das imagens televisivas que mostraram centenas de adeptos sem máscara nas ruas do Porto

 

O primeiro-ministro admite que a operação da Liga dos Campeões “não correu na perfeição” e que há “lições” sobre o que aconteceu este fim-de-semana no Porto, mas justifica o acréscimo de adeptos com a vinda espontânea de turistas permitida pela abertura de fronteiras.

 

“Não podemos confundir os 12 mil adeptos acordados com a UEFA que os clubes podiam trazer em regime de bolha, em voos charter, transportados para a fanzone, e transportados do estádio e para o aeroporto, com os turistas que vêm espontaneamente”, afirmou António Costa aos jornalistas no Parlamento. “São situações distintas. O que foi acordado e comunicado é que esses 12 mil adeptos teriam de vir em bolha, 9800 vieram em bolha. Diz-me que era perfeito que viessem 100%, sim, é verdade, foram 80%”, acrescentou, referindo que já depois do número de adeptos acordado com a UEFA foi reaberta a circulação nas fronteiras.

 

Questionado sobre o que falhou nessa previsão da chegada de mais turistas, o primeiro-ministro apontou uma contradição entre a vontade de ter “mais turistas” no país e dizer que não gostamos dos turistas.

 

António Costa foi também confrontado com as afirmações do Presidente da República sobre a necessidade de cumprir a vinda dos adeptos do Chelsea e do Manchester City em bolha, mas escusou-se a comentar: “Não compete ao Governo avaliar a avaliação que o Presidente da República faz de cada uma das circunstâncias.” De qualquer forma, antes de ser confrontado com a questão, já o primeiro-ministro tinha rejeitado ter sido dito algo de “falso” sobre a forma como iria decorrer a organização da Liga dos Campeões.

 

Questionado sobre se gostou das imagens dos ajuntamentos de adeptos no Porto, António Costa foi peremptório: “Não gostei das imagens, foram repetidas em loop durante vários dias dando a ilusão de que eram imagens em contínuo.”

 

António Costa foi questionado sobre os próximos eventos – como os Santos Populares – e sobre como os portugueses poderão cumprir as regras depois do que aconteceu neste fim-de-semana. “Não é pelo facto de haver incumprimento das regras que as regras se tornam ilegítimas”, disse, referindo que desde o início da pandemia que as forças de segurança têm optado pela via mais pedagógica em vez de uma intervenção mais musculada. “A PSP tem o seu relatório feito: há um número muito limitado de pessoas detidas e de incidentes. Comparativamente a outros momentos desportivos, quer internacionais quer nacionais, o que aconteceu neste fim-de-semana marca mais pela positiva do que pela negativa”, afirmou, depois de se ter referido à intervenção da PSP nos recentes festejos do Sporting.

 

De qualquer forma, o primeiro-ministro deixou um aviso: “É evidente que o que ocorreu neste fim-de-semana não pode servir de exemplo, tem de servir de lição relativamente a circunstâncias futuras.” Uma das lições é o reforço da informação junto dos turistas sobre o uso de máscara na via pública quando há pessoas nas proximidades. António Costa garantiu que já foram dadas indicações para reforçar a divulgação dessas regras a quem visita Portugal.


 


Da Champions à polícia nas praias: endoideceram?

 

Portugal assistiu incrédulo à festa dos ingleses na Baixa do Porto enquanto lhe diziam para ter cuidado na ida às praias senão apanhava multas. Depois da Champions, que resta do suave desconfinamento?

https://observador.pt/programas/contra-corrente/da-champions-a-policia-nas-praias-endoideceram/?fbclid=IwAR2ULRsRrT6VbNrfpXVmNyC1ZdYIR2ysSoJ9U2RnxhNiLaT0OVzayPQzE7g

Europe’s farm fail // PM forced into ‘damage control’ intervention over Covid ‘blackspot’ of Odemira.

 


Portugal, Agriculture Minister Maria do Céu Antunes talking about the future of farming in the EU ?!?

Read what is happening in Odemira ( and other places ) below, in the second article.

OVOODOCORVO

 

Europe’s farm fail

 

A week of negotiations crashed and burned after EU countries pulled back on plans to make farming greener.

 

BY EDDY WAX AND GABRIELA GALINDO

May 28, 2021 6:33 pm

https://www.politico.eu/article/europe-eu-farming-fail-common-agricultural-policy-budget-environment/

 

EU governments showed their true colors on reforming the bloc's mammoth farm policy this week — and that color's not green.

 

Four days of negotiations billed as the prime moment to finalize a new Common Agricultural Policy blew up on Friday in a skull-crunching head-to-head clash between governments and members of the European Parliament over how much of the €270 billion budget should be set aside for greener kinds of farming.

 

The CAP is the single biggest tranche of the regular EU budget and campaigners have pressed the European Commission's green supremo Frans Timmermans to ensure that those payments secure a paradigm shift from business-as-usual industrial farming to more environmentally friendly methods.

 

That switch to greener farming looked a remote prospect after Friday's breakdown, with talks now shunted into June. The failed negotiations revealed a chasm of divergent views between governments, EU officials and MEPs on how to make agriculture more climate-friendly, and left the bloc's 10 million farmers in the dark about what's in store in the next five-year CAP, which has already been delayed by two years.

 

"Some member states have zero willing, but really zero, to change anything. They wanted a reform that does not change anything at all," said European People's Party lawmaker Herbert Dorfmann.

 

As talks reached their climax on Thursday afternoon, MEPs were seething at a proposal from EU countries that walked back the environmental ambition even further than what countries had offered the previous day, and was light-years away from what the European Parliament wanted.

 

The proposal would have given countries a loophole to spend just 18 percent of their main subsidies pot on the new "eco-scheme" programs, a flagship element of the CAP meant to encourage more sustainable farming from agro-forestry to organic agriculture. Countries argued the loophole was needed in case farmers don't take up the green schemes, but Parliament rejects that and has pushed for a higher 30 percent ring-fence.

 

MEPs flatly rejected the offer from countries, as represented by the Council of the EU. They regarded the offer as an attempt to bulldoze the Parliament, an institution which is often considered the junior partner in EU negotiations.

 

Agriculture ministers reacted furiously at a 2 a.m. roundtable. Greece's Spilios Livanos accused MEPs of blackmailing democratically elected governments by daring to turn down their proposal. "I sincerely don’t understand how the European Parliament reacts to this dialogue and I find it totally disrespectful to all of us," he told ministers and diplomats, to a round of applause.

 

Into the dark

Shortly afterward, the Council turned off the cameras despite the session having been advertised to journalists as a public session and ministers continued their talks in what was described by an EU diplomat as "a very bad atmosphere." Countries ultimately did not give Portugal, which holds the rotating presidency of the Council, a fresh mandate to keep negotiating with Parliament, torpedoing the talks early on Friday.

 

The reluctant decision to postpone talks for another month represents a blow for Portugal, whose Agriculture Minister Maria do Céu Antunes had stressed that the end of May was the latest possible moment for tying up the CAP.

 

At a press conference, she put a positive spin on the talks, saying: “We did say that we would have liked to conclude this process in May but that doesn’t mean we are giving up.” She said that Portugal still aims to wrap up the CAP reform before the end of its presidency and insisted that "there are a whole host of points on which we do agree."

 

But the reality was that negotiating sides drifted further apart, rather than converging, across the week.

 

Negotiations broke off with Parliament still pushing the Council to be greener on a host of other issues. These included linking the CAP strongly to the EU's broader Green Deal plans, the basic land management conditions farmers will have to meet to receive any EU subsidies, how much money to set aside for longer-term green investments, and also which payments should be classed as climate-friendly.

 

Diplomats from two EU countries said they felt Portuguese diplomats had made a grave error by presenting the provocative proposal to the Parliament, as there was no way it could have formed the basis for a reasonable compromise.

 

"In Council last night it became really clear that it was impossible to get a new proposal that would allow for a deal today. It was a clusterfuck," one of the EU diplomats commented. They described the week of talks as "so unprofessional from every side."

 

But on Friday France was keen to project an image of unity among countries, stressing that Portugal still had the full backing of the Council. Turning its guns on MEPs, the French agriculture ministry signaled to journalists that all ministers were united in opposing the Parliament’s proposals, deeming them unworkable, and arguing that the Parliament showed little willingness to listen.

 

MEPs from across the political spectrum were united in criticizing the Council's attitude toward them. The EPP's Norbert Lins told journalists: "I expect the Council to respect us as co-legislators." This was echoed by Green lawmaker Benoît Biteau, who said: “The Council has not understood that the Parliament is a co-legislator, that it is not for the Council to impose their vision of things, of the CAP, of European agriculture."

 

The bitter post-mortem of the breakdown of talks was not limited to a spat between MEPs and governments.

 

EU Agriculture Commissioner Janusz Wojciechowski defended the role he and his superior Timmermans played in the talks, having taken flak from powerful agricultural ministers of Germany and Spain for so strongly supporting the Parliament's greener push. "The role of the Commission is as a kind of facilitator and mediator, but I don't think it can be a completely neutral role."

 

Styling himself as the champion of real farmers, he took a dig at pesky national administrations, whom he blamed for whipping up fears that eco-schemes money would go to waste.

 

 

The skirmish leaves MEPs emboldened to push home their demands for a greener CAP during the next set-piece negotiations in Luxembourg on June 28 and 29.

 


PM forced into ‘damage control’ intervention over Covid ‘blackspot’  of Odemira

By Natasha Donn -12th May 2021

https://www.portugalresident.com/pm-forced-into-damage-control-intervention-over-covid-blackspot-of-odemira/

 

Following a manic week of news and revelations from the ‘Covid-blackspot’ of Odemira, prime minister António Costa cancelled his agenda on Tuesday afternoon in order to wrestle back control.

 

From now on, the housing of immigrant agricultural workers employed by intensive salad greens and berry explorations will have some structure to ensure adult men are not packed cheek-by-jowl into unsanitary accommodation paying small fortunes for the privilege as they eke out a living that can only be described as ‘modern-day slavery’.

 

Temporary workers brought in for specific moments (harvesting, etc.) are to be offered decent conditions of housing by their employing entities, while the living conditions of permanent workers will be the responsibility of the municipality.

 

On the basis that there are not enough homes to offer permanent workers, EU funding is to be used to construct what is necessary.

 

This is clearly a ‘long-term’ plan and doesn’t fully explain ‘what happens in the meantime’. But it is a solid step in the right direction.

 

President Marcelo waded into the developing crisis over a week ago, demanding reports from his advisors on everything that was ‘wrong’ in Odemira.

 

He said on Tuesday as António Costa was still on his way to what is the largest municipality in the country, there will have to be ‘many political consequences’ from this episode that began with ‘the alarm’ that cases of Covid in the municipality were ‘running out of control’.

 

This has been ‘dealt with’ now in that the cases were largely within the immigrant population – by dint of their miserable living conditions (which have been an open secret for the best part of a decade) – and these have been isolated and are recovering without any reports of serious illness.

 

The sanitary cordon that had barricaded citizens of two parishes from the outside world for the last 12 days is now over, and a robust vaccination and testing programme underway.

 

With certainly one of the political consequences likely being the performance through this drama of the ministry of interior administration Eduardo Cabrita (notably absent in Mr Costa’s damage control intervention on Tuesday), others have been highlighted by local politicians – particularly when it comes to the total lack of ‘joined up thinking’ over territorial order.

 

Mayor José Gonçalves in the neighbouring borough of Aljezur – which was also blighted by an outbreak of Covid infections among immigrants employed on Odemira’s explorations – explains that everything that is wrong stems from successive governments having allowed “the practice of unrestrained, unregulated, intensive agriculture” in an area that has been designated as a natural park (the Parque Natural do Sudoeste Alentejano e Costa Vicentina, or ‘PNSACV’).

 

Irrespective of the effects on the environment, on communities, the lack of control has meant that nothing is being done with regards to addressing issues over water. These explorations – many of them unlicensed – are ‘guzzling’ the area’s precious supplies; every year issues with water become that more acute.

 

It’s time, says the mayor for much more than the rehousing thousands of ‘pawns’ in this insidious game. It’s time to define:

 

Says Mr Gonçalves, “the challenge is enormous”. But it makes no sense that people living legally within the natural park (that stretches from Vila do Bispo in the south round Sagres and up to Sines) are not even allowed to undertake the simplest of home-improvements, while companies can come in, cover huge tracts of land with plastic-covered greenhouses, pollute the soil and groundwater with chemicals, guzzle water and exploit Third World citizens living in unimaginable poverty.

 

“It’s time to face this situation with realism”, the mayor concluded in a statement, while on television commentator Miguel Sousa Tavares praised the concerted efforts of journalists throughout the country in ramming home Odemira’s problems, to the point that they have finally started being addressed at the highest level of government.

 

Leader writer Eduardo Damâso, director of Sâbado magazine, warns that even this however is not enough.

 

“What Odemira needs cannot be resolved with mere episodes of political protagonism even from the highest level”, he wrote on Wednesday. “It needs rigorous decision-making and good planning, investment and respect from those in Lisbon who think Portugal exists between the Palaces of São Bento (the prime minister’s official residence) and Belém (the official residence of the president).

 

Odemira has ‘no health care system to speak of, no roads, no quality employment’, says Mr Damâso. It needs much more in the way of education and environmental protection, or what is one of the most beautiful coastal areas of Europe that is meant to be ‘protected’ will simply continue to be ravished.

 

Immigrants pay up to €17,000 for ‘the privilege’ of working in Odemira explorations

 

This is just one of the ‘shocks’ coming out of journalistic investigations into the plight of immigrant workers employed in explorations in Odemira. Many of these workers do not have contracts with their employers (only with employment agencies), Miguel Sousa Tavares told TVI, and they have paid anything between €12,000 – €17,000 for the privilege of securing their jobs, unaware that part of this money goes to the companies employing them. “This is scandalous”, said Tavares.

 

The ‘scandals’ don’t appear to stop coming, but the more they come out, the more local authorities that have for years been demanding solutions may at last start seeing them.

California faces another drought as lake beds turn to dust – a photo essay

 



California faces another drought as lake beds turn to dust – a photo essay

Water shortages and dry conditions are already affecting the state as the governor has declared an emergency in 41 of 58 counties

 

by Gabrielle Canon

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/may/30/california-drought-water-shortage-photo-essay

Eufóricos, desiludidos e zangados: a desunião do Chega




OPINIÃO

Eufóricos, desiludidos e zangados: a desunião do Chega

 

O militante do Chega é “moderado”, “sensato” e “pessoa de bem”. O problema está nos “outros” militantes, que são “fanáticos”, “extremistas”, “antidemocráticos” e “radicais”. Deus e democracia são os temas da discórdia.

 

Bárbara Reis

30 de Maio de 2021, 23:11

https://www.publico.pt/2021/05/30/politica/opiniao/euforicos-desiludidos-zangados-desuniao-chega-1964666

 

Três dias a ouvir delegados do III Congresso do Chega, que acabou este domingo em Coimbra, mostram o que os militantes têm em comum: estão eufóricos com a promessa de poder e zangados com a esquerda, o Governo, Portugal e o mundo. Em quase tudo o resto, a desunião do Chega é evidente.

 

Se há coisa que não existe no partido criado por André Venture é um uniforme. Vêem-se mulheres com ar beato e ar pós-punk, colares de pérolas e cortes de cabelo gótico, cabeças rapadas, cabelos azuis, boinas militares e kipás judaicas, vestidos espampanantes e fatos cinzentos, ténis e saltos-agulha, looks de menino-bem, de operário fabril e ultramusculados, John Travoltas tardios e nerds desajeitados, urbanos, suburbanos e rurais.

 

Na forma, o Chega é ecléctico. A amostra dos 400 delegados de Coimbra reflecte o padrão de voto nas presidenciais de Janeiro, nas quais Ventura foi “o candidato dos intermédios”: teve mais votos de pessoas com escolaridade intermédia e de idade intermédia, teve votos de todos os escalões de rendimento e de todas as regiões do país distribuídos por igual (sondagem do CESOP-Universidade Católica Portuguesa feita para a RTP à boca das urnas a 24 de Janeiro).

 

As divisões não têm a ver com a diversidade. A desunião do Chega está na forma como os militantes olham para si e para os outros. O militante do Chega é “moderado”, “sensato”, “normal” e “uma pessoa de bem”. É o auto-retrato que fazem. O problema está nos outros militantes. Os “outros” são pessoas “sem maneiras”, “agressivas”, “fanáticas”, “extremistas”, “antidemocráticas”, “radicais”, “autoritárias” e representam “alas perigosas”. Num movimento circular, todos parecem sentir-se a lutar contra uma “facção” ameaçadora.

 

Nos discursos e moções de Coimbra houve referências constantes à “desunião” do partido, às “lutas internas”, à “conflitualidade”, às “divisões”, “disputas”, “quezílias internas”, “pedras na engrenagem”, “dissidentes” e “problemas de disciplina”. Fernanda Marques Lopes, presidente do conselho de jurisdição do Chega nos últimos dois anos, subiu ao palco e disse que nos 700 dias de vida do órgão recebeu 718 queixas. Nuno Afonso, afastado por Ventura do cargo de vice-presidente, disse — também no palco — que tinha sido “apunhalado”. A sua despromoção foi uma surpresa para muitos e ficou a ideia de que também para o próprio. Afonso está ao lado de Ventura há 20 anos, são amigos de infância e ele é o militante n.º 2.

 

O Chega nasceu como partido de protesto e dois anos depois assume que a “única obsessão é governar Portugal” — Ventura disse-o em Coimbra nos seus três discursos. O parto está a ser difícil. O Chega acolhe o que para já são tribos incompatíveis: encalhados de máquinas partidárias que esperam ter agora maior sucesso; desiludidos das estruturas concelhias — o nível mais baixo da pirâmide partidária — do PS, PSD e CDS; militantes de vários partidos, de esquerda e de direita; ultra-religiosos. E acolhe também uma outra tribo: as “pessoas comuns” que nunca trabalharam nem militaram em nenhum partido e que vêm de todos os lados, incluíndo o PCP e o Bloco de Esquerda.

 

Desta multidão complexa emergem duas divergências: Deus e democracia. Foram as mais ruidosas e as mais discutidas no palco e nos corredores do congresso de Coimbra. Muitos militantes criticam o facto de as estruturas concelhias continuarem a ser nomeadas e não eleitas, e houve uma moção a acusar a direcção nacional de violar os estatutos ao manter um militante em dois órgãos dirigentes — Rui Paulo Sousa, do círculo íntimo de Ventura.

 

Um dos momentos mais tensos foi causado pela moção que propôs a “clarificação ideológica do Chega”. O militante subiu ao palco e defendeu que o partido “não é, nem quer ser um partido da democracia cristã”, nem da “direita descaracterizada e mansa”, e disse que as “pessoas comuns” estão “cansadas” de serem “manipuladas” pela “direita cristã”, pelos “lobbies do Opus Dei” e pelo “centro-direita que se deita com Deus e acorda com o Diabo”. Quem falava assim? Luís Alves, um engenheiro ambiental de Sintra que em jovem foi militante da Juventude Centrista da Amadora e se desfiliou do CDS em 1998. Mal acabou, Rafael Santos, do antigo Portugal Pró-Vida, foi ao palco e berrou repetidamente “calúnia!”. Ao PÚBLICO, Alves explicou: “Escrevi esta moção para defender o partido. Isto é um partido de pessoas comuns que querem o bem comum. Não vamos deixar os fanáticos religiosos tomarem conta do Chega.” Alves é um moderado? No Chega, dir-se-á que sim. Noutro lugar, será visto como extrema-direita.

 

A religião é um tema fracturante. No Chega, Deus é omnipresente de forma taxativa. Ventura concorda com a separação entre religião e partido, mas descreve o sucesso eleitoral como “milagre” e diz que foi “escolhido por Deus” para liderar o Chega. Alinhado com o amigo português, Matteo Salvini, líder da Liga por Salvini — o convidado-estrela da festa —, fez um breve discurso em italiano.

 

As duas mensagens que deixou aos delegados do Chega parecem ter sido escolhidas de forma cirúrgica. Uma sobre Deus, outra sobre desunião. Salvini quer ir a Fátima, porque é cristão e “a Itália é cristã!”. Os delegados gostaram. A sala levantou-se em peso e gritou “Salvini!”, “Salvini!”. A outra teve um efeito ambíguo. “Sei que tiveram um congresso combativo, que uns ganharam e outros perderam. Quero dizer-vos, de militante para militante: o adversário não está aqui, o adversário está lá fora.” A ideia era o leão da extrema-direita europeia ajudar Ventura, o novo protegido. Calçando os sapatos de mestre, sugeriu a fórmula do sucesso: agregar populistas, conservadores e identitários. A receita para a ascensão do Chega. Ou para a queda.


Párias por efeito do complexo da pequenez

 



EDITORIAL

Párias por efeito do complexo da pequenez

 

Tanto como a mentira da bolha de segurança, a subserviência ante a UEFA, a corrosão da autoridade do Estado ou o descontrolo e a indecisão, o complexo de pequenez face à final europeia causa um dano grave. Quem for rico e vier de fora fica imune à situação de calamidade.

 

Manuel Carvalho

30 de Maio de 2021, 21:30

https://www.publico.pt/2021/05/30/sociedade/editorial/parias-efeito-complexo-pequenez-1964661

 

Os britânicos voltaram a gozar de privilégios no Porto que se julgavam extintos há séculos. Como outrora, tiveram por estes dias direito a leis exclusivas e a estatutos de excepção. Puderam fazer o que os indígenas não podem, como reunir-se aos magotes com cerveja na mão, assistir a um jogo de futebol ao vivo, deambular em hordas pela rua e, aqui e a ali, dar largas ao mau feitio estimulado pelo álcool. Tinham prometido que nada disto aconteceria, que eles viriam e iriam numa bolha de segurança, que teriam os movimentos condicionados por “fanzones”, que haveria a garantia de que todos tinham feito testes e seriam acompanhados. Era mentira.

 

Os jovens que jogaram a final do campeonato de râguebi acreditaram que a recusa da DGS da presença de 500 espectadores se baseava na aplicação de um critério universal, como manda o Estado de direito. Os jovens que noite sim, noite não são convidados pela polícia a desamparar os miradouros, também. Os donos dos restaurantes que correm com os clientes que se atrasam na sobremesa à hora do fecho, também. Os adeptos do futebol que sonharam com uma última jornada com duas ou três mil pessoas nos estádios, também. Quem se sujeita ao cumprimento da lei não pode aceitar que o Estado o trate como um pária no seu próprio país.

 

Foi isso que aconteceu. O que os portugueses não podem fazer outros podem. Aquilo que os portugueses têm de cumprir os ingleses não têm. O estado de calamidade só vincula os nacionais. As medidas de protecção, os avisos, os apelos, as matrizes existem para que o vírus não se transmita de uns para outros, mas essa hipótese não existe com adeptos do Chelsea ou do City. Tanto como a mentira da bolha de segurança, a subserviência ante a UEFA, a corrosão da autoridade do Estado ou o descontrolo e indecisão que este domingo assinalámos neste espaço, o complexo da pequenez face à final europeia causa um dano grave. Quem for rico e vier de fora fica imune à situação de calamidade.

 

Portugal precisa de turismo e para o ter precisa de mostrar ao mundo um certo ar de normalidade. Uma final da Champions serviria para esse fim, sem dúvida. Mas há um equilíbrio obrigatório entre os eventuais ganhos de imagem lá fora e o insulto à dignidade dos portugueses cá dentro. Um país decente não ajusta nem suspende as regras em vigor. Nem para os adeptos do Sporting, como aconteceu no final do campeonato nacional, nem para estrangeiros. Todos são iguais perante a lei. O Governo deixou essa regra basilar em pousio. Deslumbrou-se com a final e cometeu um erro grave. 

 

tp.ocilbup@ohlavrac.leunam

In full: Trevor Phillips on Sunday

Press Preview: A look inside Monday's newspapers

Covid vaccination programme steps up a gear in England @BBC News live 🔴 BBC

India’s Covid fraudsters selling fake drugs and medical supplies - BBC News

Bulgaria cleans up its beaches by renovating its water treatment facilities

Chinese robotic spacecraft docks with the country's new space station

Backlash for Spain's postal service anti-racist campaign

COVID-19 India: Guru Baba Ramdev sparks adulation and anger | DW News

Czech Republic reopens amid anger over high COVID death rate | DW News

Israeli opposition parties near final deal to replace Netanyahu

 


POLITICS

 

Israeli opposition parties near final deal to replace Netanyahu

 

The pair have until Wednesday to complete a deal in which they are expected to each serve two years as prime minister in a rotation deal.

 

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was given the first opportunity to form a coalition but was unable to secure a majority with his traditional religious and nationalist allies. |

 

By ASSOCIATED PRESS

05/30/2021 01:40 PM EDT

Updated: 05/30/2021 02:31 PM EDT

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/05/30/israeli-opposition-parties-deal-replace-netanyahu-491426

 

JERUSALEM — The head of a small hard-line party on Sunday said he would try to form a unity government with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s opponents, taking a major step toward ending the 12-year rule of the Israeli leader.

 

In a nationwide address, Yamina party leader Naftali Bennett said he had decided to join forces with the country’s opposition leader, Yair Lapid.

 

 

“It’s my intention to do my utmost in order to form a national unity government along with my friend Yair Lapid, so that, God willing, together we can save the country from a tailspin and return Israel to its course,” Bennett said.

 

 

The pair have until Wednesday to complete a deal in which they are expected to each serve two years as prime minister in a rotation deal. Lapid’s Yesh Atid party said negotiating teams were to meet later Sunday.

 

A unity government would end the cycle of deadlock that has plunged the country into four inconclusive elections over the past two years. It also would end, at least for the time being, the record-setting tenure of Netanyahu, the most dominant figure in Israeli politics over the past three decades.

 

In his own televised statement, Netanyahu accused Bennett of betraying the Israeli right wing.

 

He urged nationalist politicians who have joined the coalition talks not to establish what he called a “leftist government.”

 

“A government like this is a danger to the security of Israel, and is also a danger to the future of the state,” he said.

 

Bennett, a former Netanyahu aide turned rival, said he was taking the dramatic step to prevent yet another election. While sharing Netanyahu’s nationalist ideology, Bennett said there was no feasible way for the hard-line right wing to form a governing majority in parliament.

 

“A government like this will succeed only if we work together as a group,” he said.

 

He said everyone “will need to postpone fulfilling all their dreams. We will focus on what can be done, instead of fighting all day on what’s impossible.”

 

Each of the past four elections was seen as a referendum on Netanyahu — who has become a polarizing figure as he stands trial on corruption charges — with each ending in deadlock.

 

Netanyahu is desperate to stay in power while he is on trial. He has used his office as a stage to rally support and lash out against police, prosecutors and the media.

 

If his opponents fail to form a government and new elections are triggered, it would give him another chance at seeing the election of a parliament that is in favor of granting him immunity from prosecution. But if they succeed, he would find himself in the much weaker position of opposition leader and potentially find himself facing unrest in his Likud party.

 

Netanyahu, who has accused Bennett of betraying the Israeli right wing, planned a televised statement later Sunday.

 

In order to form a government, a party leader must secure the support of a 61-seat majority in parliament. Because no single party controls a majority on its own, coalitions are usually built with smaller partners.

 

As leader of the largest party, Netanyahu was given the first opportunity by the country’s figurehead president to form a coalition. But he was unable to secure a majority with his traditional religious and nationalist allies.

 

Netanyahu even attempted to court a small Islamist Arab party but was thwarted by a small ultranationalist party with a racist anti-Arab agenda. Although Arabs make up some 20% of Israel’s population, an Arab party has never before sat in an Israeli coalition government.

 

After Netanyahu’s failure to form a government, Lapid was then given four weeks to cobble together a coalition. He has until Wednesday to complete the task.

 

Lapid already faced a difficult challenge, given the broad range of parties in the anti-Netanyahu bloc that have little in common. They include dovish left-wing parties, a pair of right-wing nationalist parties, including Bennett’s Yamina, and most likely the Islamist United Arab List.

 

Lapid’s task was made even more difficult after war broke out with Hamas militants in the Gaza Strip on May 10. His coalition talks were put on hold during the 11 days of fighting.

 

But with Wednesday’s deadline looming, negotiations have kicked into high gear. Lapid has reached coalition deals with three other parties so far. If he finalizes a deal with Bennett, the remaining partners are expected to quickly fall into place.

Israel's far-right 'kingmaker' Bennett joins anti-Netanyahu coalition

Are Swiss banks in trouble? | CNBC Explains

Denmark helped US spy on Merkel and European allies, says report

Texas Senate Passes Controversial Election Integrity Bill

Voting rights activists during a protest in Austin in early May against the Texas voting legislation.

 


Voting rights activists during a protest in Austin in early May against the Texas voting legislation.

 


Nick Corasaniti

By Nick Corasaniti

May 31, 2021

Updated 1:13 a.m. ET

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/31/us/politics/texas-voting-bill-special-session.html?action=click&module=Spotlight&pgtype=Homepage

 

Democrats in the Texas Legislature staged a dramatic, late-night walkout on Sunday night to force the failure of a sweeping Republican overhaul of state election laws. The move, which deprived the session of the minimum number of lawmakers required for a vote before a midnight deadline, was a stunning setback for state Republicans who had made a new voting law one of their top priorities.

 

The effort is not entirely dead, however. Gov. Greg Abbott, a Republican, indicated that he would call a special session of the Legislature, which could start as early as June 1, or Tuesday, to restart the process. The governor has said that he strongly supported an election bill, and in a statement he called the failure to reach one on Sunday “deeply disappointing.” He was widely expected to sign whatever measure Republicans passed.

 

“Election Integrity & Bail Reform were emergency items for this legislative session,” Mr. Abbott said on Twitter on Sunday night. “They will be added to the special session agenda.” He did not specify when the session would start.

 

While Republicans would still be favored to pass a bill in a special session, the unexpected turn of events on Sunday presents a new hurdle in their push to enact a far-reaching election law that would install some of the most rigid voting restrictions in the country, and cement the state as one of the hardest in which to cast a ballot.

 

The final bill, known as S.B. 7, included new restrictions on absentee voting; granted broad new autonomy and authority to partisan poll watchers; escalated punishments for mistakes or offenses by election officials; and banned both drive-through voting and 24-hour voting, which were used for the first time during the 2020 election in Harris County, home to Houston and a growing number of the state’s Democratic voters.

 

Republicans’ inability to pass the measure on Sunday night was the first major stumble for the party in its monthslong drive to restrict voting across the nation, and an embarrassment for G.O.P. leaders in the Texas Legislature who at least momentarily fell short of a top legislative goal for both the governor and the Republican Party.

 

After a lengthy debate in the State House of Representatives in which Democrats raised numerous objections, staged lengthy question-and-answer sessions and leveraged procedural maneuvers, Democrats left the chamber en masse, leaving the chamber roughly 14 members short of the required 100-member quorum to continue business. Without the requisite number of legislators, Dade Phelan, the speaker of the State House, adjourned the session around 11 p.m. local time, effectively killing the bill for this legislative session.

 

The Democratic flight was sparked by State Representative Chris Turner, the party’s caucus chair in the House, who sent a text message to members at 10:35 p.m. local time.

 

“Members, take your key and leave the chamber discreetly,” Mr. Turner wrote. “Do not go to the gallery. Leave the building. ~ Chris”

 

In a statement early Monday, Mr. Turner said the walkout had been a last resort.

 

“It became obvious Republicans were going to cut off debate to ram through their vote suppression legislation,” he said. “At that point, we had no choice but to take extraordinary measures to protect our constituents and their right to vote.”

 

Early Monday, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, a Republican, lashed out at his House colleagues and indirectly criticized the Republican leadership in the House, saying in a statement that it had “failed the people of Texas tonight. No excuse.”

 

If Mr. Abbott calls a special session, Republican legislators would have to start from scratch, but it is possible that they could simply use the same language and provisions from S.B. 7, or even introduce a bill with more strident restrictions on voting access. 

From the outset, the push to install new restrictions on voting in Texas has been upended by legislative missteps and tension among Republicans in the State Capitol, marked by multiple late-night voting sessions in both chambers. After two different versions of the bill were passed by the House and the Senate, legislators took the bill behind closed doors to hash out a final version in a panel known as a conference committee.

 

The conference committee took more than a week to finalize the measures, reaching an agreement on Friday, releasing the details of the legislation on Saturday and leaving both chambers with less than 48 hours to pass the bill.

 

A legislative power play by Republicans in the Senate late Saturday led to an all-night session and hours of impassioned debate and objections from Democrats. Early Sunday, the Senate passed the bill largely along party lines.

 

During debate late Sunday, State Representative Travis Clardy, a Republican, acknowledged that advancing the bill through the conference committee had proved to be a lengthy process, but he defended the panel’s methods.

 

“A lot of this was done late, I don’t get to control the clock,” Mr. Clardy said. “But I can assure you that the members of the committee did their absolute best, dead-level best, to make sure we’ve provided information to all members, including representative rows. And then we did everything that we could to make sure this was transparent.”

 

The effort in Texas, a major state with a booming population, represents the apex of the national Republican push to install tall new barriers to voting after President Donald J. Trump’s loss last year to Joseph R. Biden Jr., with expansive restrictions already becoming law in Iowa, Georgia and Florida in 2021. Fueled by Mr. Trump’s false claims of widespread fraud in the election, Republicans have passed the bills almost entirely along partisan lines, brushing off the protestations of Democrats, civil rights groups, voting rights groups, major corporations and faith leaders.

 

But the party’s setback in Texas is unlikely to calm Democratic pressure in Washington to pass new federal voting laws. President Biden and key Democrats in Congress are confronting rising calls from their party to do whatever is needed — including abolishing the Senate filibuster, which moderate senators have resisted — to push through a major voting rights and elections overhaul that would counteract the wave of Republican laws.

 

After the Texas bill became public on Saturday, Mr. Biden denounced it, along with similar measures in Georgia and Florida, as “an assault on democracy,” blasting the moves in a statement as “disproportionately targeting Black and Brown Americans.”

 

The Battle Over Voting Rights

Amid months of false claims by former President Donald J. Trump that the 2020 election was stolen from him, Republican lawmakers in many states are marching ahead to pass laws making it harder to vote and changing how elections are run, frustrating Democrats and even some election officials in their own party.

 

A Key Topic: The rules and procedures of elections have become a central issue in American politics. The Brennan Center for Justice, a liberal-leaning law and justice institute at New York University, counts 361 bills in 47 states that seek to tighten voting rules. At the same time, 843 bills have been introduced with provisions to improve access to voting.

The Basic Measures: The restrictions vary by state but can include limiting the use of ballot drop boxes, adding identification requirements for voters requesting absentee ballots, and doing away with local laws that allow automatic registration for absentee voting.

More Extreme Measures: Some measures go beyond altering how one votes, including tweaking Electoral College and judicial election rules, clamping down on citizen-led ballot initiatives, and outlawing private donations that provide resources for administering elections.

Pushback: This Republican effort has led Democrats in Congress to find a way to pass federal voting laws. A sweeping voting rights bill passed the House in March, but faces difficult obstacles in the Senate. Republicans have remained united against the proposal and even if the bill became law, it would likely face steep legal challenges.

Florida: Measures here include limiting the use of drop boxes, adding more identification requirements for absentee ballots, requiring voters to request an absentee ballot for each election, limiting who could collect and drop off ballots, and further empowering partisan observers during the ballot-counting process.

Texas: The next big move could happen here, where Republicans in the legislature are brushing aside objections from corporate titans and moving on a vast election bill that would be among the most severe in the nation. It would impose new restrictions on early voting, ban drive-through voting, threaten election officials with harsher penalties and greatly empower partisan poll watchers.

Other States: Arizona’s Republican-controlled Legislature passed a bill that would limit the distribution of mail ballots. The bill, which includes removing voters from the state’s Permanent Early Voting List if they do not cast a ballot at least once every two years, may be only the first in a series of voting restrictions to be enacted there. Georgia Republicans in March enacted far-reaching new voting laws that limit ballot drop-boxes and make the distribution of water within certain boundaries of a polling station a misdemeanor. Iowa has also imposed new limits, including reducing the period for early voting and in-person voting hours on Election Day. And bills to restrict voting have been moving through the Republican-led Legislature in Michigan.

 

He urged Congress to pass Democrats’ voting bills, the most ambitious of which, the For the People Act, would expand access to the ballot, reduce the role of money in politics, strengthen enforcement of existing election laws and limit gerrymandering. Another measure, the narrower John Lewis Voting Rights Act, would restore crucial parts of the 1965 Voting Rights Act that were struck down by the Supreme Court in 2013, including the requirement that some states receive federal approval before changing their election laws.

 

Aside from Texas, multiple states, including Arizona, Ohio and Michigan, have legislatures that are still in session and that may move forward on new voting laws. Republicans in Michigan have pledged to work around a likely veto from Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, a Democrat, by collecting signatures from citizens and seeking to pass new restrictions through a ballot initiative.

 

Republican lawmakers in battleground states have been backed in their effort by a party base and conservative media that have largely embraced the election falsehoods spread by Mr. Trump and his allies. G.O.P. legislators have argued that the nation must improve its “election security” even though the results of the last election have been confirmed by multiple audits, lawsuits, court decisions, election officials and even Mr. Trump’s own attorney general as free, safe, fair and secure.

 

In debate late Sunday night, Democratic legislators seized on a provision added late in the process that would make it easier to overturn the results of an election in the state in some circumstances. Texas law previously required proof that illicit votes had resulted in a wrongful victory. The new measure says that the number of fraudulent votes would simply need to be equal to the winning vote differential; it would not matter for whom those votes had been cast.

 

“They can use this to overthrow the voice of the people, to overthrow the voice of Texas,” said State Representative John Bucy III, a Democrat from near Austin. “Do we want to throw out our ability to let the voices be heard through elections?”

 

As with bills passed in other states, voting rights groups said the new provisions in Texas, if passed, would be likely to disproportionately affect poorer people and those of color.

 

“All the provisions have an impact on minorities one way or another,” Gilberto Hinojosa, the chair of the Texas Democratic Party, said on Sunday. “That’s what it’s intended to. They’re not trying to stop Republicans from going out to vote. They’re trying to stop Democrats from going out to vote and the base of the Democratic Party is overwhelmingly African-American and Hispanic.”

 

Republicans in the Legislature had defended the bill, falsely arguing that it contained no restrictions on voting and saying that it was part of a yearslong effort to strengthen election security in the state. Even so, they acknowledged that there was no widespread voting fraud last year in Texas, and the Republican secretary of state testified that the state’s election was “smooth and secure.”

 

“This isn’t about who won or who lost, it’s really to make the process better,” State Senator Bryan Hughes, one of the Republican sponsors of the bill, said in an interview this month. “We want to make the elections more accessible and more secure, make them smoother.”

 

Briscoe Cain, the sponsor of the bill in the House, said late Sunday that the bill was meant to ensure that “conduct of elections be uniform and consistent throughout the state, to reduce the likelihood of fraud and the conduct of elections, to protect the secrecy the ballot, promote voter access and ensure that all legally cast ballots are counted.”

 

Voting rights groups have long pointed to Texas as one of the hardest states in the country for voters to cast ballots. One recent study by Northern Illinois University ranked Texas last in an index measuring the difficulty of voting. The report cited a host of factors, including a drastic reduction of polling stations in some parts of the state and strict voter identification laws.

 

David Montgomery contributed reporting from Austin, Texas. Reporting was also contributed by Austin Ramzy and Anna Schaverien.

 

Nick Corasaniti covers national politics. He was one of the lead reporters covering Donald Trump's campaign for president in 2016 and has been writing about presidential, congressional, gubernatorial and mayoral campaigns for The Times since 2011. @NYTnickc • Facebook