sábado, 30 de setembro de 2023
A Europa em perigo
OPINIÃO
A Europa em perigo
A Europa da democracia e da liberdade e a Europa da
grande cultura e dos direitos humanos só se defendem se conseguirem combinar os
seus impulsos federalistas com os seus sentimentos nacionais
António Barreto
30 de Setembro de
2023, 6:35
https://www.publico.pt/2023/09/30/opiniao/opiniao/europa-perigo-2065144
Não é a luta de
classes que ameaça a Europa e a paz. Nem o espectro do comunismo, reduzido
agora à ínfima espécie. Pode ser que a globalização acelere a decadência
europeia. Mas é sobretudo, uma vez mais, como quase sempre na história, a
questão nacional que ameaça. As nações, os Estados nacionais e as ambições
dominadoras manifestam-se e não se encontram respostas neste formidável arranjo
que é o da União. Talvez seja a mais sólida aliança política pacifica da
história recente, mas hoje revela-se frágil e insegura. Incapaz de progresso
federal, aliás arriscado. Mas também inapta para resolver as perenes questões
nacionais. Sem ultrapassar esta velha certeza: a de que a democracia é de
pertença ou nacional.
Do
"Brexit" à Catalunha, da Irlanda à Escócia, da Padânia à Polónia e da
Península Balcânica ao mar Negro, sucedem-se os sinais alarmantes de conflitos
inevitáveis. Ou antes, dificilmente reparáveis. Agora, com a invasão da Ucrânia
pela Rússia, com os conflitos na Arménia e no Azerbaijão, com as candidaturas
de mais nove países à União, com as dificuldades húngaras e polacas e com as
vagas descontroladas de emigrantes africanos e asiáticos, a Europa conhece um
período de vulnerabilidade como já não se sentia há muitas décadas.
Há uma espécie de
regresso do nacionalismo que cria a intranquilidade. Todas as pulsões
antidemocráticas e antieuropeias procuram no populismo nacionalista a sua
energia. Com uma razão certa: a Europa e a sua União não têm sabido conciliar o
espírito federal com a tradição nacional. As votações tão significativas das
correntes nacionalistas em França, em Espanha, na Itália e na Alemanha, por
exemplo, além da Hungria e da Polónia, são sinais de que o nacionalismo está em
ascensão. As manifestações de crise das democracias e do sistema europeu têm
sido tonificantes para a direita nacionalista. Nos programas de muitos
partidos, é o nacionalismo o motor retórico, não a antidemocracia.
As manifestações
de crise das democracias e do sistema europeu têm sido tonificantes para a
direita nacionalista. Nos programas de muitos partidos, é o nacionalismo o
motor retórico, não a antidemocracia
Desde os anos 50
que, por duas ou três vezes, os europeus conseguiram o que sempre pareceu
impossível: conciliar, com paz e democracia, aspirações federais com tradições
nacionais. Nem sempre foi fácil, várias vezes a Europa (o Mercado comum, a CEE,
a CE, a UE…) esteve à beira do colapso. Mas talvez nunca, como agora, os
perigos fossem tão grandes, as ameaças tão letais e os inimigos tão
importantes.
Os dirigentes
europeus têm o hábito de desvalorizar os problemas. É o que eles entendem por
acalmar os espíritos. Mas esta maneira olímpica de considerar que graves são os
problemas a longo prazo, como as alterações climáticas, para os quais tudo é
urgente e nada imediato, pode levar facilmente ao desastre. No
"Brexit", em Barcelona, em Lampedusa, em Marselha e em Kiev está de
facto a jogar-se tudo. É nestes sítios que a Europa morre devagar. É nestes
locais que renasce o nacionalismo na sua vil espécie. Pior mesmo só o
nacionalismo imperialista de Moscovo, que também é uma ameaça contra a Europa.
Com as más
recordações da história e com a justificada repulsa do nacionalismo, os
dirigentes europeus não conseguem encontrar o seu caminho. A resposta não é
“mais burocracia europeia”, “mais fundos de coesão”, “mais indemnizações e
subsídios” … Já se percebeu que esses argumentos, válidos durante décadas, não
valem o que valiam. Parece evidente que só respostas que preservem o espírito
nacional e as tradições culturais, em combinação com a ideia europeia, terão o
condão de interessar aos eleitorados descrentes.
Faz parte da
ortodoxia considerar que o patriotismo é bom e o nacionalismo mau. O primeiro
significaria amor à pátria e à comunidade, assim como solidariedade para com os
seus iguais. Enquanto o nacionalismo, tendo o mesmo ponto de partida, a nação,
significaria o sentimento de superioridade de uma comunidade de cultura e
etnia, com exclusão de outras. A nação, como tal e com esta designação, é
recente, tem poucos séculos, serviu de base para a afirmação dos Estados
modernos. Já a pátria, como sentimento de pertença, tem muitos séculos, talvez
milénios. É muito fácil afirmar-se patriota e detestar o nacionalismo. Mas a
verdade é que têm ambos a mesma fonte, a mesma etimologia e raízes afins.
A esquerda tem
tendência a dizer-se patriota, mesmo quando é nacionalista. A direita prefere
considerar-se nacionalista, mesmo quando não é patriota. Os russos em geral, e
os comunistas em particular, sempre se disseram patriotas, até porque o seu
Estado tem muitas nações submetidas. Mas o nacionalismo russo é uma das grandes
ameaças contra a paz na Europa. Os nazis, pouco interessados em compor com
outras nações, consideravam-se nacionalistas, sem remorsos e com orgulho.
Cultivavam o espírito conquistador, como os russos sempre fizeram. Os
revolucionários franceses foram nacionalistas e patriotas sem escrúpulos nem
hesitação. Portugueses, espanhóis ou italianos oscilaram, ao longo dos tempos,
entre o nacionalismo e o patriotismo. Já os ingleses foram sempre as duas
coisas, além de imperialistas.
Como é evidente,
não há um patriotismo europeu. Muito menos nacionalismo. Pode haver, é certo
que há, um orgulho europeu, que a União tem sabido cultivar, com cautela e
sabedoria. Mas sem grandes resultados. Na verdade, o patriotismo de cada nação
europeia é mais forte. Em tempos de crise, como actualmente, a situação é ainda
mais delicada: na verdade, os argumentos políticos contrários à ordem
estabelecida socorrem-se do nacionalismo para se oporem. Aí se fundam várias
espécies de populismo.
A Europa da
democracia e da liberdade e a Europa da grande cultura e dos direitos humanos
só se defendem se conseguirem combinar os seus impulsos federalistas com os
seus sentimentos nacionais. Só o alcançarão se souberem defender a nação, sem
nacionalismo. E se souberem proteger a sua cultura sem xenofobia. E se
perceberem que ter pátria é melhor do que ser apátrida.
Que existe de
comum entre a guerra da Ucrânia, a crise económica internacional e o desastre
migratório do Mediterrâneo? Aparentemente, nada. Na verdade, muito. A Europa
está a perder, vive cada vez mais dependente, nas últimas décadas, da força
americana, da indústria chinesa, da energia russa, da mão-de-obra asiática e
africana, dos produtos alimentares e das matérias-primas de todo o mundo.
Parece que a Europa encontra satisfação na sua vocação de parque temático e de
atracção turística. A sua força é o seu passado. Não o seu futuro.
O autor é
colunista do PÚBLICO
Marcelo Rebelo de Sousa promulgou pacote Mais Habitação
HABITAÇÃO
Marcelo Rebelo de Sousa promulgou pacote Mais Habitação
Presidente da República anunciou que promulgou o pacote
Mais Habitação. Marcelo disse que as medidas contra a crise habitacional
constituem “uma meta importante para o fim da legislatura”.
Lusa
30 de Setembro de
2023, 20:27
O Presidente da
República anunciou este sábado, 30 de Setembro, a promulgação do pacote Mais
Habitação, dizendo que "prefere qualquer coisa, mesmo que curto, a
nada". "Eu promulguei porque a Assembleia [da República] confirmou e
eu tinha oito dias para promulgar, portanto, já promulguei antes mesmo dos oito
dias a lei chamada Mais Habitação", revelou Marcelo Rebelo de Sousa à
entrada para a XXVI Congresso da Associação Nacional de Municípios Portugueses
(ANMP) a decorrer no Seixal, no distrito de Setúbal.
Portanto,
acrescentou, o Governo de António Costa tem a partir de agora à disposição as
leis necessárias. "Eu só espero que corra bem, regulamente rapidamente as
leis e que avance com aquilo que constitui uma meta importante para o fim da
legislatura", vincou.
O parlamento
aprovou a 22 de Setembro, sem alterações, o programa Mais Habitação, apenas com
o voto favorável do PS, numa reapreciação após o veto do Presidente da
República.
A confirmação do
decreto, que aprova medidas no âmbito da habitação, procedendo a diversas
alterações legislativas, foi viabilizada pela maioria absoluta do PS, com votos
contra do PSD, Chega, Iniciativa Liberal, PCP e Bloco de Esquerda (BE), e
abstenção do Livre e Pessoas-Animais-Natureza (PAN), repetindo-se a votação
final global de Julho do programa.
O decreto da
Assembleia da República envolve alterações legislativas ao nível do
arrendamento, do alojamento local, dos imóveis devolutos e de impostos. As
medidas mais contestadas são a suspensão do registo de novos alojamentos locais
fora dos territórios de baixa densidade e por uma contribuição extraordinária
sobre este negócio, pelo arrendamento forçado de casas devolutas há mais de
dois anos e pela imposição de um limite no valor dos novos contratos de
arrendamento para casas que já estão no mercado.
O pacote prevê
ainda isenção da tributação de mais-valias aos proprietários que vendam casas
ao Estado, o fim de novos vistos gold, o aumento da dedução por dependente no
âmbito do IMI Familiar, alterações à taxa autónoma dos rendimentos prediais e
isenções de impostos para proprietários que retirem as casas do alojamento
local até ao fim de 2024.
Quando vetou o
diploma, em Agosto, o Presidente da República, Marcelo Rebelo de Sousa, assumiu
em Agosto um "sereno juízo analítico negativo" e criticou a ausência
de consenso partidário sobre o Mais Habitação, mas a ministra da tutela, Marina
Gonçalves, reafirmou a ideia de haver equilíbrio no programa e o PS disse que
iria confirmar as medidas na reabertura do parlamento após o verão.
Preços da habitação: já ninguém aguenta mais e o futuro do Governo joga-se aqui
OPINIÃO
Preços da habitação: já ninguém aguenta mais e o futuro
do Governo joga-se aqui
A loucura que se atingiu com a habitação pode ser, para
António Costa, o que foi o bloqueio da ponte para Cavaco Silva.
Ana Sá Lopes
30 de Setembro de
2023, 20:01
As manifestações
deste sábado foram um sinal do que, na realidade, já se sabia: a crise da
habitação atingiu o limite do suportável.
Não há nenhuma
conversa entre pessoas normais que não seja sobre a impossibilidade de arranjar
uma casa a um preço que os salários nacionais possam pagar. A bolha explodiu e
o assunto é demasiado grave para que o PS e o Governo continuem a sustentar um
discurso recheado de optimismo delirante, como fez António Costa na rentrée do
PS.
O pacote “Mais
Habitação” é manifestamente pouco. A forma como o PS decidiu ignorar todos os
alertas de Marcelo Rebelo de Sousa — uma atitude só explicada pela presente
tensão entre Presidente e Governo — e todas as propostas da oposição mostra
também que nesta matéria se chegou àquele ponto em que chegam todos os governos
que estão há muito tempo no poder. É habitual chamar-lhe “arrogância”, mas
consiste em ignorar a rua.
É sempre bom
lembrar os exemplos históricos, porque em política a história repete-se muito
mais vezes do que julgamos. O cavaquismo “acabou” quando o Governo decidiu
acabar com o feriado da terça-feira de Carnaval (uma arrogância inexplicável) e
aumentar as portagens na Ponte 25 de Abril, dando origem ao bloqueio.
A loucura que se
atingiu com a habitação pode ser, para António Costa, o que foi o bloqueio da
ponte para Cavaco Silva. Já escrevi noutro texto como fiquei boquiaberta ao ver
o primeiro-ministro gabar-se do seu enorme sucesso com as políticas de habitação.
O problema não é
só português, é europeu. Segundo os dados do Eurostat, o investimento em 2021
em Portugal em habitação foi igual ao da Hungria (3,9%), longe da República
Checa (4,7%) e muito distante de Chipre, Alemanha, Finlândia ou França (7,6% no
primeiro e 7% nos restantes). Quanto ao investimento público, Portugal está na
cauda da Europa, ainda que o Orçamento de 2023 tenha feito subir a percentagem
em 65%.
Mas o facto de o
Plano de Recuperação e Resiliência ser, na realidade, a verdadeira alavanca
para a construção mostra como antes da covid o dossier não foi prioridade. Na
mensagem ao Parlamento, a acompanhar o veto, Marcelo disse uma coisa de
esquerda ou, pelo menos, genuinamente social-democrata: “Salvo de forma
limitada, e com fundos europeus, o Estado não vai assumir responsabilidade
directa na construção de habitação.” É bastante penoso que um ciclo político
que começou com um acordo PS-PCP-Bloco de Esquerda não tenha colocado a questão
da habitação nos acordos de 2015. É verdade que em 2015 a crise não era tão
dramática como é hoje, mas a famosa “lei Cristas” estava em vigor praticamente
sem mexidas.
Este deslaçar do
tecido social — que a isenção de impostos e facilidades aos especuladores fez
disparar, vulgo “vistos gold” — pode aumentar as tendências xenófobas na
sociedade portuguesa.
Há um certo
discurso antiturismo demasiadamente parecido com o discurso anti-imigrantes
para poder ser ignorado. A presença do Chega na manifestação é o sinal óbvio: o
partido sabe como as duas coisas — o ódio ao estrangeiro que vem “roubar” as
nossas coisas — se podem misturar. A esquerda tem de saber fazer melhor.
A situação da
habitação chegou ao limite e estende-se a quase todo o país. Mas nunca é demais
lembrar que há uns anos no Rossio, em Lisboa, vivia “uma” pessoa. A Baixa
estava a cair aos bocados e era assustadora à noite para quem andava sozinho. O
turismo contribuiu para a riqueza nacional e para o emprego de uma forma
decisiva.
A ideia de uma
Lisboa perfeita cheia de lisboetas — nunca foi — é falsa e é bastante parecida
com aquelas crónicas bacocas sobre um Algarve idílico sem turistas, no tempo em
que só os ricos faziam férias.
Agora, é urgente
um equilíbrio que não existiu nas políticas públicas e que faz com que, neste
momento, as pessoas estejam bastante pior, mesmo que as contas do país estejam
melhor, na imortal frase de Luís Montenegro do tempo da troika.
O futuro
eleitoral do PS joga-se aqui (pelo menos esta é uma linguagem que António Costa
compreende).
Riding the Populist Wave: the UK Conservatives and the Constitution
Riding the populist wave: the UK Conservatives
and the constitution
Posted on
December 10, 2021 by The Constitution Unit
At a recent
Constitution Unit event (available in video and podcast form), Tim Bale
discussed the challenges posed to mainstream conservatism by the recent rise in
successful populist politicians. Here, he sets out those challenges, how
conservatives have traditionally faced them, and concludes that the UK
Conservative Party is so determined to ‘unite the right’ and supress support
for a challenger party that it risks transmogrifying into a populist radical
right party.
A few weeks
ago I was diagnosed with costochondritis – a minor and surprisingly common
condition involving the cartilage that joins your ribs to your sternum but
which produces chest pains that make some people suffering from it worry
they’re having a heart attack.
The
standard treatment is to take non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs such as
ibuprofen. For me this presented a bit of a dilemma. Like many other people, I
don’t tolerate ibuprofen: it irritates my gastrointestinal tract – something
I’m wise to avoid doing because I also suffer from something called Barrett’s
oesophagus, which, if you’re unlucky, can turn cancerous. So, on the assumption
that the costochondritis would eventually resolve itself, and given the fact
that the discomfort involved was irritating but far from overwhelming, I
decided just to put up with it.
I’m sharing
this bit of my recent medical history not because I particularly enjoy talking
about it but because it produces a useful analogy for a question that I want to
ask – namely, are politicians on the mainstream right so concerned about
countering the rise of populist radical right parties that they end up
proposing things that risk doing more harm to society and to the polity than if
they were simply to admit that those parties are now a normal rather than a
pathological feature of contemporary politics?
The
background to this is the book I’ve recently co-edited with Cristóbal Rovira
Kaltwasser, called Riding the Populist Wave: Europe’s Mainstream Right in
Crisis. We look at how mainstream right parties – which aren’t written about
anywhere near as much as their counterparts on the left or, indeed, on the far
right – have handled (or in some cases failed to handle) some of the challenges
that they’ve been facing for the last three or four decades. Over that time,
they’ve suffered significant electoral decline, although, as we show in the
book, the extent of that decline varies not just between countries but between
party families, with Christian democratic parties suffering more than
conservative parties, which, in turn, have suffered more than (market) liberal
parties, which have actually managed to hold pretty steady.
We argue
that the difficulties they’ve faced are partly down to their having to cope
with something of a double whammy.
On the one
hand, they’ve had to deal with what the late Ronald Inglehart called the
‘Silent Revolution’ – the gradual spread of progressive, liberal and
postmaterialist values which are particularly attractive to younger and
well-educated voters but which are inimical to some of the nationalistic and
socially-conservative values held and advocated by mainstream right
politicians.
On the
other hand, they’ve had to deal with the backlash against all that – what Piero
Ignazi has called the ‘Silent Counter-Revolution’ – that has helped fuel the
rise of populist radical right parties which, because they espouse (albeit in
more extreme fashion) some of the values espoused by their more centrist
counterparts, may well tempt some of those who traditionally vote for the
latter to jump ship.
In the
book, which contains country case studies (including one of the British
Conservative Party by Leeds University’s Richard Hayton), as well as a couple
of chapters looking at both the demand side and supply side of European party
politics, we focus on how all this has impacted on the stances adopted by the
mainstream right on welfare policy, on European integration, on moral/social
issues and on immigration. And it’s on the latter two where the impact is most
obvious, with mainstream right parties becoming more socially liberal in many
ways but not when it comes to immigration, where they’ve become noticeably more
restrictive, even hard-line.
But the
book is also a jumping-off point for talking about the broader strategic
responses to the rise of the populist radical right by its mainstream
counterpart. Essentially, these boil down to four approaches.
The first
is to resist it by huddling together with other mainstream parties, to try and
freeze out populist challenger parties by refusing to have anything to do with
them, even if that means (as in Germany, at least at the federal level) going
into or staying in ideologically uncongenial coalitions.
The second
approach – the most popular one across Western Europe, particularly on
migration and multiculturalism – is for mainstream right parties (and some on
the left as well) to adapt to, and even to some extent to adopt, the policies
of the populist radical right. We are seeing this in real-time in France but
we’ve seen it almost everywhere.
The third
approach taken by mainstream right parties is to actually get together in
government with populist radical right parties – either in full-blown coalition
or using them as support parties for minority mainstream administrations. This
has happened in Austria, Denmark and the Netherlands.
The fourth
option is for mainstream right parties to, in effect, become a kind of ersatz
populist radical right party, adopting not just its policies, but its rhetoric
and its ‘strongman’ approach to governing – so much so that observers begin to
voice concerns about the erosion of constitutional and political norms we might
(perhaps complacently) have taken for granted. The most extreme contemporary
examples of this kind of ‘democratic backsliding’ on the part of parties
previously considered (rightly or wrongly) to be part of the mainstream right
are the United States and, in Europe, Hungary and Poland.
Arguably
the UK, too, is heading in that direction, governed by a Conservative Party so
determined to ‘unite the right’ and supress support for a challenger party like
UKIP, the Brexit Party, and ReformUK that it risks transmogrifying into a
populist radical right party.
The ‘charge
sheet’ is a long one:
- There was the unlawful prorogation of parliament in order to help get Brexit (and possibly a no deal Brexit) done;
- There were the provisions in the Internal Market Bill that would have allowed the UK to break international law;
- There’s the Elections Bill, which threatens the independent governance of the Electoral Commission, promises to bring in voter ID for no good reason (hence raising accusations of voter suppression) and appears likely to make it more difficult financially for third parties to campaign in ways that might benefit the political parties with which they sympathise;
- There’s the possibility that judicial review is going to be heavily qualified or pared back, as well as Lord Chancellor Dominic Raab’s recent hint about a new legal ‘mechanism’ to allow ministers to overturn court rulings;
- There’s the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill which appears to place unprecedented limits on the right to protest;
- There’s what many people see as the attempt to undermine independent regulation and intimidate regulators – (a) by attempting to appoint sympathetic figures into public bodies like Ofcom or (b), as in the case of the Parliamentary Commissioner on Standards, making executive-friendly revisions to the system or (c) simply ignoring their findings, for example on colleagues who have clearly broken the Ministerial Code.
Taken
together, these ideas and measures raise the possibility that the UK may indeed
become another example of democratic backsliding, as suggested in a recent
Constitution Unit blogpost, in which the authors point out the part played in
the process by polarisation and a legislature rendered acquiescent by an
overwhelming government majority – both of which clearly apply in the UK case.
In the
government’s defence, of course, one can argue that not all of these ideas have
come to fruition and that we haven’t had enough time to allow us to come to a
judgement as to whether, in sum, they constitute a ‘pattern of behaviour’.
The problem
with this argument, of course, is that – much like the situation with COVID-19
– if you wait to act until you’re absolutely certain something’s wrong, then
you’re bound to be too late to do much about it. There are (as books by
Levitsky and Ziblatt, and Runciman recount) so many examples from history and
from around the world which remind us that democracy all too often ends not
with a bang but a whimper.
All of
which brings us back to the question raised by the analogy with which I began
and which can be traced right back to Virgil’s Aeneid: if the only way to
effectively stymie the rise of the populist radical right is to ape it, and in
so doing undermine and erode liberal democracy, at what point does the cure
become worse than the disease?
This
blogpost was written in conjunction with our December event, Riding the
populist wave: the UK Conservatives and the constitution, which featured Tim in
conversation with Conservative peer and Times columnist Lord (Daniel)
Finkelstein, and Unit Director Meg Russell. The video and podcast of the event
also feature a lively Q&A with the panellists
Here’s the latest on the funding crisis.
Here’s the latest on the funding crisis.
Congress careened toward a disruptive government
shutdown on Sunday as the Republican-led House groped for a way out of a
spending stalemate instigated by the far right just hours before funding for
federal agencies would lapse.
With their
own members standing in the way of a stopgap measure to keep federal funding
flowing, House Republican leaders did what they have been avoiding for weeks:
turning to Democrats for help passing a temporary bill.
Emerging
from a private meeting at the Capitol on Saturday morning, they said they would
bring up a measure that would keep government funding flowing for 45 days and
include diaster relief aid — but no money for Ukraine.
The
last-ditch effort, which would require Democratic votes to succeed, came a day
after the resounding defeat of Speaker Kevin McCarthy’s effort to break the
impasse on Friday afternoon, faced with the resistance of a solid bloc of
Republicans that has refused to back any stopgap plan that would even
temporarily avert the shutdown.
It was
unclear whether the measure could pass the House or the Senate. The maneuver
House Republicans were using — which requires a two-thirds majority for passage
— would require a significant bloc of Democrats, who have strongly supported sending
additional aid to Ukraine, to join with Republicans.
“What I am
asking, Republicans and Democrats alike, put your partisanship away,” said Mr.
McCarthy. “Focus on the American public.”
The
strategy was a final effort by Mr. McCarthy to show that Republicans were
making an effort to keep the government open, just hours away from a shutdown.
Mr. McCarthy has so far been unwilling to turn to Democrats, who have
repeatedly said they are willing to vote for a bare-bones bill to simply keep
the government funded while negotiators can reach a broader agreement on
spending for the coming year. His right-wing detractors have said they would
try to remove the speaker from his post if he did so.
In
response, Mr. McCarthy said Saturday that “if I have to risk my job standing up
for the American public, I will do it.”
In the
Senate, members were set to vote just after midday to advance a bipartisan
proposal to fund the government through Nov. 17 while providing $6 billion in
assistance to Ukraine and $6 billion for disaster recovery to aid hard-hit
Hawaii, Vermont, Florida and other states. It had encountered resistance of its
own from Republicans who wanted to add new border security provisions, but that
effort had stalled.
Mr.
McCarthy said late Friday on X, formerly known as Twitter, that the Senate
measure would be rejected in the House.
“After
meeting with House Republicans this evening, it’s clear the misguided Senate
bill has no path forward and is dead on arrival,” he wrote.
Still, that
legislation could pass with Democratic votes if Mr. McCarthy brought it to the
floor and Representative Hakeem Jeffries of New York, the Democratic leader, on
Friday urged Mr. McCarthy to move forward with it.
“Everyone in this town knows the bill will pass,” he
said.
In an
appearance on CNN, Representative Ken Buck, Republican of Colorado, said that
Friday’s humiliating defeat of Mr. McCarthy’s proposal represented a vote of
“no confidence” in him from the 21 Republicans who joined Democrats in bringing
down the bill, a move that severely narrowed the speaker’s options.
“This was a
vote where people didn’t have faith that Kevin McCarthy was going to do the
right thing,” Mr. Buck said.
Other
Republicans said it might be time for their leaders to rethink their strategy
of trying to find a way to get the holdouts to vote for what is known as a
continuing resolution, or C.R., because they had shown repeatedly that they
were not willing to do so.
“Why keep
running up a hill that you’re just gonna get shot in the head every time and
you’re wasting time and energy?” said Representative Mike Garcia of California,
a member of the whip team and one of a group of more mainstream Republicans in
districts won by President Biden who stand to pay the steepest political price
for the shutdown crisis. “The focus now needs to be getting a C.R. package that
can get us to 218. The blend of that voter makeup can change.”
With no
resolution in hand, federal agencies were bracing to be shuttered as of Sunday,
when programs would cease operation. The armed forces and other so-called
essential workers such as air traffic controllers and airport security workers
would remain on the job but without pay until the standoff was resolved.
Lawmakers see the mid-October deadline for military pay as a consequential
deadline were the government to shut down. National parks were to be closed as
of Monday, as leaders of both parties said the ramifications would be
significant.
“Shutting
down the government doesn’t help anybody politically,” Senator Mitch McConnell,
Republican of Kentucky and the minority leader, said Friday. “It doesn’t make
any meaningful progress on policy. And it heaps unnecessary hardships on the
American people as well as the brave men and women who keep us safe.”
Senator
Chuck Schumer called on Mr. McCarthy to quit trying to placate the hard-liners
among his membership, since any funding deal would ultimately have to be
acceptable to Senate Democrats and President Biden.
“At the end
of the day, these MAGA extremists, who are the ones responsible for bringing us
to the brink, fundamentally do not care about funding the government,” he said.
“Some of them are actually gleeful about a shutdown. Coddling the hard right is
as futile as trying to nail Jell-O to a wall and the harder the speaker tries,
the bigger mess he makes.”
Tories face frosty reception in Manchester as future of HS2 in doubt
Analysis
Tories face frosty reception in Manchester as
future of HS2 in doubt
Rowena
Mason, Pippa Crerar and Ben Quinn
Any rollback of' levelling up commitments in north
could anger ‘red wall’ voters who swung to Conservatives
Sat 30 Sep
2023 07.00 BST
As Tories
flock to Manchester for their annual conference, they are looking at an even
frostier welcome than usual in the northern city.
Once,
Manchester was at the heart of George Osborne’s promised “northern powerhouse”
project and the end destination of the HS2 rail line. Northern voters continued
to be wooed by Boris Johnson with a promise of levelling up as he sought to
retain the so-called “red wall” seats he won from Labour in 2019.
Those
love-bombing eras seem to be firmly at an end. HS2 was supposed to link London
to Manchester in just one hour and 11 minutes. But now Rishi Sunak looks likely
to put it on ice – to the fury of many northern mayors, politicians and voters.
The
promised train line was symbolic for many in the north of England who have
recently put up with months of disruption on the existing Avanti West Coast
line, where more strike action is taking place on Saturday.
A clock and
a Tory banner and flag outside Manchester Central conference centre.
Preparations
for the Conservative party conference at Manchester Central conference centre.
Photograph: Christopher Furlong/Getty Images
Sunak
appears to think it is worth risking the wrath of voters despite the party’s
relentless focus on retaining the former Labour seats in the north and Midlands
won by Johnson four years ago.
Conservative
insiders believe the move is driven by Sunak’s search for savings to spend on
pre-election tax cuts, which may ultimately prove more persuasive to voters
than a pledge on a long-term rail project.
“I don’t
think Rishi is giving up on levelling up but I think he’s trying to do it in a
way that realises the fiscal constraints we have,” said one Tory insider
plugged into Sunak’s thinking. “Under Boris, his view of levelling up was just
spending loads of money. It was meant to be about long-term ecosystems but
there hasn’t been the time or focus to do that with three prime ministers in
the last few years. To do levelling up properly, it was to be a decade of hard,
determined work. What the PM is doing is reflecting economic reality at the
moment.”
Others
point out that after 10 years of promises on HS2 and more prosperity for the
north of England, failure to meet those commitments will leave voters with a
sense of betrayal.
Rob Ford, a
professor of politics at the University of Manchester, questioned the upside
for the government of scrapping HS2, with any savings potentially many years in
the future and voters already sceptical that an alternative east-west link
thought to be on the table will ever be delivered.
“HS2 has
become a symbolic argument for people in the north. For many people it has
become about whether the government is delivering levelling up or not,” he
said.
“If a
south-facing Tory party dumps this project, how is that going to look? The
focus groups show that people already feel that the government is not going to
deliver on levelling up. It would be perfectly rational for them to then
conclude that Sunak won’t do whatever it is he ends up offering.”
He said the
dilemma facing the Tories was how to unite the elements of their 2019 coalition
representing different parts of the electorate when Brexit no longer had the
same salience.
“Which
seats are they trying to hold on to, the leave-leaning ‘red wall’ seats or the
traditional southern base? It feels very confused right now,” he said.
Ford also
noted that Sunak appeared to be retreating into the comfort zone of appealing
to his base rather than broadening his appeal to the whole electorate.
“Sunak
feels like he’s offering a brand of traditional Toryism – things like tax cuts
and smaller government resonate with his instincts. It’s the thread running
through a lot of the proposals floated over the last couple of weeks, from net
zero to inheritance tax,” he said.
“Politically
this looks like they’re trying to get all the main institutions that support
the Tory party back on side – the rightwing press, the activist base, business
and wealth creators. It’s a strategy for unifying the traditional elements of
the Conservative party, but not so much one for unifying the electorate.”
This
strategy – rolling back net zero pledges, pro-motorist policies and considering
more benefit cuts – has prompted concerns among some Conservative MPs that
Sunak’s No 10 is entering a core vote “bunker”.
While
polling suggests some “red wall” voters may back individual policies, there is
a sense among this demographic that Sunak personally doesn’t care about their
communities, according to focus groups organised by the thinktank More In
Common.
These
voters, described by the thinktank as “loyal nationals”, are the group with the
biggest swing away from the Conservatives since the last election. They are
also the ones the party most needs to hold on to if it wants to stay in power.
They find
Sunak’s wealth alienating, and loyal nationals also question whether the Tories
really meant to level up the country, with focus groups showing they feel the
government has broken its promises. Even among those who do not like HS2,
voters took the government’s plans to cut it as a sign it does not care.
Many
northern Conservative MPs were not wedded to HS2 but they fear voters will take
its mooted delay or cancellation as an insult. They are desperate to have solid
infrastructure to present to voters.
The answer
could be a compromise floated by the Greater Manchester mayor, Andy Burnham, in
recent days: accepting a delay to HS2 between Birmingham and Leeds in return
for smaller and more achievable rail projects across the north.
Sebastian
Payne, the director of the Onward thinktank and a Conservative candidate, said
ensuring the connectivity of northern cities was the real key to levelling up.
“Whatever is decided on HS2, the thing that can’t be forgotten is that you need
to link northern cities better,” he said.
Patriotically
onbrand, members of the Northern Research Group (NRG) group of MPs elected to
represent northern England, Wales and the Scottish borders in 2019 are hoping
that their preferred name for a link across the Pennines from Liverpool to
Leeds, the Charles line, will catch on.
“People
forget 25% of the English population lives in the north of England and a whole
chunk of that is around Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds, Bradford. Why shouldn’t
we have the equivalent to London’s Elizabeth line connecting them?” said John
Stevenson, the Carlisle MP who chairs the NRG. “I actually think east-west is
more important than the next stage of HS2, albeit I would still like ultimately
to see HS2 happening.”
As for the
broader question of where levelling up goes from here, the NRG is to produce
its own “northern manifesto” at next week’s Conservative conference, which will
make requests of the government.
“We have
done a lot but we want to see more done, and that’s where we want to see an
emphasis on the government bringing the north up, because our view is that it’s
good for Britain as a whole,” Stevenson said. “We’ve underperformed
economically and therefore the government should focus heavily on the north and
also it is a critical battleground when it comes to the next general election.”
He also
said Brexit as a concept was still very relevant to northern voters “in a more
nuanced form”.
“People
still have not totally grasped that Brexit was about a feeling in the north
that everything was dictated, at that time by Brussels, and there’s still a
sense that it is now dictated by London. So why not bring it home?”
Laurence Fox comments about me on GB News ‘unforgivable’, Ava Evans says
Laurence Fox comments about me on GB News
‘unforgivable’, Ava Evans says
Journalist says worst part of experience was trying to
explain politician’s ‘dehumanising’ remarks to father
PA Media
Sat 30 Sep
2023 08.49 BST
The
journalist Ava Evans has described the on-air comments made about her by
Laurence Fox on GB News as “unforgivable”.
Fox was
suspended by the channel after the actor-turned-politician made a series of
comments about the political correspondent on Tuesday, including suggesting no
one would want to “shag” her.
The
programme’s host, Dan Wootton, was also suspended, and the channel confirmed on
Friday that Calvin Robinson had been suspended after showing support on social
media for his fellow presenter.
Evans, who
works for the Politics Joe website, told the Daily Mail: “It would have been
horrible for a woman to hear she was being discussed in those terms in the pub.
“I’m not
naive. I know that men talk like that about women. But this was on national TV.
It was demeaning. It was dehumanising.
“As if it
was an option for him to have sex with me. As if men get to look at you and
decide if they want to ... Unforgivable.”
She said
the worst part of the experience had been explaining it to her father.
“My dad was
just confused. He said: ‘But why would he say this? Have you dated him?’ He
just didn’t get it,” she said.
“My parents
didn’t go to university. They have ordinary jobs and have always been so proud
of what I do and have achieved.
“Why should
my choice of career – political reporting – mean I have to contend with this?”
The former
producer for LBC radio said if she had been working on Tuesday’s Dan Wootton
Tonight show, she would have acted to stop the comments.
“If I had
been the producer on that show and the presenter wasn’t listening to commands
to shut it down, I would have taken that show off the air, no question. It
should never have been allowed to go as far as it did.”
Evans told
the Daily Mail the messages and threats she had received since the incident had
made her fear for her safety.
She
criticised the Conservative party MP Lee Anderson for the way he had publicised
an interview with the home secretary, Suella Braverman, on GB News but had not
commented on Fox’s remarks about her.
“This is an
elected representative and he hasn’t said anything publicly, or to me, and I
know him. I have worked with him.
“I felt it
showed contempt, really. By not saying anything, does he agree that it was OK
to sexualise me?
“What am I
supposed to think when I meet him in the office, or the parliamentary bar? And
this isn’t about me. It’s about every woman working in the lobby.”
The GB News
chief executive, Angelos Frangopolous, said on Friday he was “appalled” by the
remarks, telling BBC Radio 4’s Today programme they should not have gone to
air.
He issued a
personal apology to Evans, saying: “[The comments] did not reflect what we
believe is appropriate conversation as a media company, as a part of the
national conversation, it really is an apology, it was just really
inappropriate.”
He said GB
News had a “process to follow” in dealing with the suspended men but he
expected the internal investigation to be “resolved very quickly”.
MailOnline
announced on Thursday that it had terminated its contract with Wootton, who was
a columnist for the site.
Wootton
issued an apology to Evans, suggesting he should have intervened during the
broadcast, while Fox said he was “sorry for demeaning” the journalist.
Theresa May joins Johnson and Cameron in warning against HS2 cuts
Theresa May joins Johnson and Cameron in warning
against HS2 cuts
Tory former leader criticises Rishi Sunak’s potential
plans to scrap Manchester leg and change London terminus
Aubrey
Allegretti Senior political correspondent
@breeallegretti
Sat 30 Sep
2023 13.28 BST
Theresa May
has become the third Conservative former prime minister to criticise Rishi
Sunak’s potential plans to scale back HS2.
As Tory MPs
head to Manchester for their annual conference with the fate of the northern
leg of the high-speed rail line hanging in the balance, May said it was vital
to boost capacity on the west coast mainline.
She also
hit out at plans for HS2 to stop at Old Oak Common in London, a station in
construction several miles west of the originally planned central terminus of
Euston.
Mark
Harper, the transport secretary, refused to comment on Saturday on speculation
about the future of the planned second phase of HS2 – connecting Birmingham to
Manchester, via Crewe.
May joined
Boris Johnson and David Cameron in warning against moves to pare back the
project.
Asked on
Saturday if HS2 should be scrapped, May said: “The answer is no.
“I will
give you two comments on HS2. First of all, we have to think about why HS2 was
designed in the first place.
“It was
because there was a lack of capacity on the west coast mainline. So if there is
a lack of capacity on the west coast mainline, we need more railway capacity to
serve the north-west.
May, who is
the MP for Maidenhead in Berkshire, told attendees at the Henley literary
festival she had another issue with the mooted plans.
“If HS2
stops at Old Oak Common, it is going to make our railway journeys into London
longer and disrupted potentially over the period that Old Oak Common’s building
is being done to enable it to take that end point.
“So I am
arguing with government: ‘Don’t stop at Old Oak Common. You need to take it
into Euston because my constituents will be disadvantaged if you don’t.”
Johnson
said in his Daily Mail column on Saturday that making further cuts to HS2 over
cost concerns would be “desperate” and “Treasury-driven nonsense”, and that
delaying or cutting phase two would be “betraying the north of the country”.
He added
that ending the route at Old Oak Common would leave HS2 as a “white elephant”
and “the vanity project to end all vanity projects”.
Cameron has
reportedly raised concerns in private, with the Times quoting an ally who said
the former prime minister believed it was “central to levelling up”.
Other
senior Tories, including numerous former chancellors, have urged Sunak not to
junk the Birmingham to Manchester leg of HS2. Jeremy Wright, the former
attorney general, became the latest Conservative MP to join the fray on
Saturday.
He said
parliament would never have approved HS2 if the project had only been intended
for 225mph (360km/h) trains to travel between the capital and Birmingham,
saying the “strategic benefits just aren’t there” and that the “price of it
would simply be too high”.
Wright’s
Kenilworth and Southam constituency in Warwickshire has been affected by
phase-one works to install the track for the route.
He told BBC
Radio 4’s Today programme that, with housing having been demolished and ancient
forests ripped up to make way for HS2, his constituents wanted the benefits
they were initially promised. “I want the government to finish the job,” he
said.
A budget of
£55.7bn was allocated in 2015 for the entire HS2 project, including the London
to Birmingham route and branches from Birmingham to Manchester and to Leeds.
Sunak is
said to have become alarmed by spiralling costs, with fears the budget could
exceed £100bn – even with the Leeds element having been scrapped in 2021.
Harper
refused to be drawn on “speculation in the media” about the line potentially
stopping in the Midlands, during a round of broadcast interviews on Saturday.
“If the
government has anything to say, we’ll say that in the usual way, in due
course,” he said.
The prime
minister dodged dozens of questions on the future of the second phase of HS2
during interviews this week, choosing instead to focus on his administration’s
investment in road and bus travel.
sexta-feira, 29 de setembro de 2023
Italy pulls the brake on 11th-hour migration compromise
Italy pulls the brake on 11th-hour migration
compromise
Germany had previously held up the process over human
rights concerns.
BY GREGORIO
SORGI AND JACOPO BARIGAZZI
SEPTEMBER
28, 2023 8:02 PM CET
https://www.politico.eu/article/italy-germany-migration-deal-pull-break-compromise/
BRUSSELS —
Italy is now dragging its feet on the final plank of the EU’s flagship
migration reform — after Germany agreed to a long-awaited compromise.
During a
meeting of EU interior ministers, Rome in an unexpected last-minute move placed
a decision over the so-called crisis regulation on hold, crushing hopes of
reaching a deal by the end of the day.
Yet the EU
home affairs chief Ylva Johansson guaranteed that EU ambassadors will sign off
the agreement in the days to come.
“We are
very close to find the final decision in a few days,” Johansson said in a
Brussels press conference after the meeting alongside Spanish Interior Minister
Fernando Grande-Marlaska Gómez.
The
minister from Spain, which currently holds the rotating presidency for the
Council of the EU, said that “points of details can be fine tuned,” echoing
that, “We hope to finalize general approach over the coming days.”
A
breakthrough on this issue would pave the way for an agreement on reform of EU
asylum policy before the European election in June — after almost 10 years of
failed reform attempts.
“Italy
didn’t say no … it has just asked for time,” said Italian Foreign Minister
Antonio Tajani, speaking at a press conference in Berlin alongside his German
counterpart Annalena Baerbock. Tajani added that more time is needed “to
examine the content of this proposal from a legal point of view.”
Although no
vote was on the agenda, ministers at their Thursday meeting had set out to
reach a political agreement.
Earlier in
the day, Germany’s center-left government dropped its veto over the deal,
facilitating an agreement on the crisis regulation that details how EU border
countries handle people seeking asylum during spikes in migration. The Greens —
which belong to the German governing coalition — initially demanded the
exemption of minors from border checks and opposed attempts to water down
migrants’ rights in times of crisis.
“Today, we
will be taking this compromise,” Germany’s Interior Minister Nancy Faeser told
fellow EU interior ministers during a public session in Brussels in the
morning.
Germany
dropping its veto means that technically, the deal should have enough votes to
pass. But three diplomats, granted anonymity in order to speak freely, said
that without Rome on board, any agreement is politically impossible. Italy has
recently seen new peaks of migrant arrivals from North Africa via the
Mediterranean Sea.
In a series
of last-minute concessions intended to appease the German Greens, the Spanish
Council presidency proposed a text that offered stronger human rights
guarantees for migrants. But Italy had doubts over the new language, two other
diplomats said.
In
particular, Italy objected to softer wording on migrant rescue missions that
was added to the most recent draft of the agreement, seen by POLITICO,
according to the same two diplomats.
Such
nongovernmental organizations are a thorn in the side of Italy’s right-wing
government, which is at loggerheads with Berlin over the German government’s
funding of humanitarian rescue missions off the Italian coast.
EU
ministers are facing mounting pressure to approve a deal amid surging migrant
arrivals to Italy and ahead of European elections next year. The European
Parliament last week blocked talks on key files of the EU’s migration pact,
including the crisis regulation, in an attempt to compel member countries to
approve it as soon as possible.
Hans Von
der Burchard contributed reporting from Berlin.
