Corbyn afirma o seu patriotismo e anuncia luta cerrada à austeridade

Corbyn afirma o seu patriotismo e anuncia luta cerrada à austeridade

Novo líder trabalhista promete liderança inclusiva mas sublinha que a sua eleição foi um voto pela mudança

O Reino Unido, disse o líder trabalhista, “assenta no jogo limpo para todos e na solidariedade”

Ana Fonseca Pereira / PÚBLICO / 30-9-2015

Acusado pelos conservadores de ser “uma ameaça à segurança nacional” do Reino Unido, denunciado nos tablóides por não ter cantado o hino, criticado dentro e fora do partido pelo regresso ao discurso ideológico dos anos 1980, o novo líder trabalhista aproveitou a sua primeira grande intervenção política para garantir que os valores pelos quais se bate são os mesmos em que assenta a sociedade britânica.

Duas semanas depois do “terramoto político” que constitui a sua eleição, o Labour não está pacificado, mas o congresso anual do partido decorre num clima longe da guerra civil que os mais críticos da nova liderança anteciparam. Jeremy Corbyn não convenceu os congressistas a debater o futuro do arsenal nuclear do país (que ele quer abolir) e o seu governo-sombra está dividido sobre a participação britânica nos ataques aéreos contra o Estado Islâmico na Síria. Mas os herdeiros do New Labour têm sido moderados nos ataques, talvez seguindo as instruções de Peter Mandelson, ex-ministro e aliado de Tony Blair, que os aconselhou a esperarem pelos maus resultados do partido nas urnas.

Corbyn, à imagem do primeiro debate no Parlamento após a eleição, opta por ignorar as quezílias e o que diz ser a velha maneira de fazer política. “Não vou impor a minha visão. Não acredito que alguém tenha o monopólio da sabedoria”, disse no seu discurso aos congressistas, em que defendeu uma política “mais gentil e inclusiva”, com programas trabalhados a partir das bases.

Aos mais distraídos, porém, recordou que foi eleito com 59% dos votos frente a outros três candidatos. “Foi um voto pela mudança” e não apenas na forma de fazer política. “Deixem-me ser claro, sob a minha liderança o Labour vai desafiar a austeridade”, assegurou, criticando os cortes nos benefícios sociais às famílias e os planos do Governo para reduzir os impostos aos mais ricos. “Os conservadores dizem que a segurança da economia e das famílias está em risco connosco (...), mas onde está a segurança para as famílias que não conseguem pagar uma casa, para os que têm dificuldades em cuidar dos idosos ou para os jovens afastados do mercado de trabalho?”

A intervenção, perante uma sala a abarrotar mas sem os artifícios que se tornaram habituais nos congressos, foi parca em propostas concretas. Corbyn quis sobretudo mostrar que, ao contrário do que afirma o Governo e os seus opositores,” as pessoas não têm nada a temer com ele”, explicou à BBC Lucy Powell, porta-voz dos trabalhistas. O Reino Unido, disse o líder trabalhista, “assenta no jogo limpo para todos, na solidariedade, no [princípio] de que não se passa para o outro lado do passeio quando há alguém com problemas”. “Estes valores comuns britânicos são a razão fundamental pela qual amo este país e a sua gente. Foi com base nestes valores que fui eleito”, sublinhou.

Minutos antes do discurso, numa entrevista à televisão norte-americana CBS, o primeiro-ministro, David Cameron, disse que o principal partido da oposição “está a retirar-se para as montanhas” e, logo a seguir, os tories acusaram Corbyn de insistir em políticas despesistas que “iriam destruir a economia”. Alguns comentadores notaram que houve poucas referências a questões como a imigração, a Europa ou o serviço nacional de saúde, que estão entre as prioridades para os eleitores. Mas os seus apoiantes mostraram-se entusiasmados. “Ele mostrou-nos que a política pode ser diferente. A sua visão de uma sociedade mais gentil e humana vai apelar às muitas pessoas que se sentem ignoradas por Westminster”, disse à BBC o secretário- geral da Unison, a segunda maior central sindical britânica.

Preocupados, moradores e CDS exigem debate sobre obras previstas para o Saldanha e Picoas

Preocupados, moradores e CDS exigem debate sobre obras previstas para o Saldanha e Picoas

JOÃO PEDRO PINCHA /29/9/2015, OBSERVADOR

Ninguém os informou sobre nada do que está previsto para a zona, queixam-se os moradores, que pedem a suspensão do projeto. Vereador centrista acusa Fernando Medina de apenas querer deixar obra.

Os moradores das Avenidas Novas e da zona de Entrecampos, em Lisboa, queixam-se de não terem sido ouvidos relativamente à intenção da autarquia de fazer obras profundas no chamado “eixo central da cidade”, nomeadamente em Picoas, no Saldanha e nas avenidas Fontes Pereira de Melo e da República. Os habitantes dizem ter sido apanhados de surpresa e exigem um debate público mais alargado, no que são apoiados pelo vereador do CDS, João Gonçalves Pereira.

Segundo a proposta aprovada no início de setembro, a face de Picoas e da Praça Duque de Saldanha deverá ser radicalmente alterada com a eliminação de faixas de rodagem e de lugares de estacionamento que serão ocupados por passeios mais largos, árvores, ciclovias e esplanadas. Também na Fontes Pereira de Melo e na Av. da República (até ao cruzamento com a Elias Garcia) estão previstas intervenções que preocupam as pessoas que ali vivem.

“Desconhecendo os efeitos, as causas e as consequências desta intenção, e cientes de todos os riscos e prejuízos desta intervenção, os moradores e comerciantes das zonas afetadas exigem a suspensão do processo até que possam ser ouvidos e dar o seu contributo”, lê-se num comunicado escrito pelas associações de moradores das Avenidas Novas e da Praça de Entrecampos depois de uma reunião que tiveram na segunda-feira à noite.

O vereador do CDS na câmara de Lisboa esteve presente na reunião e diz partilhar da ” enorme preocupação” das pessoas, especialmente no que diz respeito à “questão do estacionamento”. João Gonçalves Pereira afirma que o vereador do Urbanismo, Manuel Salgado, lhe garantiu que se perderiam 140 lugares de parqueamento com as obras, mas queixa-se de que as perguntas que dirigiu à câmara sobre o tema no início do mês ainda não tenham tido resposta.

“Estamos a falar de uma obra que não afeta só as freguesias de Avenidas Novas e de Arroios”, salienta o centrista, que lembra que a zona em causa fica “no coração da cidade de Lisboa, onde milhares de pessoas circulam, milhares de pessoas trabalham e milhares de pessoas vivem.” Por isso, defende que não se pode decidir sobre o assunto de ânimo leve:

“Toda a população de Lisboa se devia interessar por isto. Isto deveria obrigar a um amplo debate”, explica João Gonçalves Pereira ao Observador, sugerindo que “propostas e projetos que vêm de trás” — como a ideia de Santana Lopes de criar um túnel no Saldanha — sejam também considerados para a discussão.

Não haver debate nenhum, afirma, é que não pode ser. “Isto é uma democracia, não é uma tirania. O dr. Fernando Medina não é o dono da cidade”, atira, acusando o presidente da câmara de apenas querer cumprir “um mero calendário eleitoral”, para “chegar a 2017 com obra feita”. Numa entrevista ao Expresso aquando a discussão destas obras em reunião de câmara, Medina garantiu que “a generalidade dos projetos [do programa Uma Praça em Cada Bairro, no qual este se insere] avança e ficará concluída dentro deste mandato”. O vereador centrista está, porém, empenhado em impedi-lo. “O CDS utilizará todos os meios políticos e democráticos que estiverem ao seu alcance para travar este processo”, afiançou.

O tema deverá ser um dos pontos quentes da reunião pública da Câmara Municipal de Lisboa esta quarta-feira. Já as associações de moradores marcaram uma nova reunião, desta vez com a presença de Manuel Salgado, para a próxima terça-feira, 6 de outubro.

United Nations: Putin says he can work with Obama despite trading barbs on Syria and Isis

United Nations: Putin says he can work with Obama despite trading barbs on Syria and Isis

Russian leader more conciliatory after speeches in which he applauds Assad regime while Barack Obama condemns ‘might makes right’ doctrine

Monday 28 September 2015 22.30 BST Last modified on Tuesday 29 September 2015 03.27 BST

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/27/putin-russia-syria-assad-propaganda-gangster

Vladimir Putin emerged from a rare face-to-face meeting with Barack Obama on Monday night, saying Russia and the US could find a way to work together on Syria, despite deep differences over the country’s leadership.

The US-Russian summit lasted 94 minutes, more than half an hour longer than planned, on the sidelines of the United Nations general assembly where the two leaders had traded barbs only hours before, particularly over the future of the Syrian leader, Bashar al-Assad.

Speaking to Russian journalists after the meeting, Putin said the two had found at least some common ground on the four-year conflict.

The Russian leader described the conversation with Obama as “very constructive, businesslike and very frank”.

“We had some points in common, and we had differences,” Putin said, according to a translation by the Russia Today satellite channel. “I think there is still a way we can work together on the problems we all face.”

He rejected calls earlier in the day from Obama and the French president, Francois Hollande, for Assad to stand down as part of a concerted campaign against Islamic State and other violent extremists.

“I respect my colleagues, the US president and the French president, but I don’t think they are Syrian citizens, so I don’t think they should be deciding on who should lead Syria,” he said.

However, Putin showed more flexibility than he had in his general assembly speech, acknowledging that political reform in Damascus could be part of a solution, but indicated that Assad would be a willing participant in that change.

“There can be simultaneous, political change, but President Assad has already said he agrees with that,” Putin said.

A senior US administration official later said the meeting between the two presidents had been “business-like” and “focused”.

“This was not a situation where either one of them was seeking to score points in a meeting,” the official said. “I think there was a shared desire to figure out a way in which we can address the situation in Syria.

“We have clarity on their objectives. Their objectives are to go after Isil and to support the government.”

Earlier in the day, Obama and Putin had clashed in an exchange of blunt rhetoric as they vied for global leadership on Syria and the fight against Isis.

Russian president Vladimir Putin and US president Barack Obama shake hands for the cameras before the start of a bilateral meeting at the United Nations. Photograph: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

It was a verbal duel that was reminiscent of some of the tensest episodes of the cold war.

In a throwback to that era, the Russian president, making his first appearance at the general assembly for a decade, was not in the chamber during Obama’s address. He was shown on Russian television walking down the steps of his official plane just as Obama began his address. He arrived at the UN headquarters in midtown Manhattan just after the US president had left the podium.

Likewise, when Putin was speaking, the US presence was reduced to relatively junior officials. And Ukrainian officials walked out during the Russian address.

The most contentious and divisive issue of all was over the continuing slaughter in Syria, the rise of Isis and the mass exodus of refugees from the conflict. And at the core of the US-Russian power struggle was the fate of Bashar al-Assad and whether he is the root of the problem or part of the solution.

It is a fundamental difference that has prevented concerted international action on Syria for the entirety of the four-year war, which has cost the lives of over 250,000 Syrians and driven more than 11 million from their homes. On Monday, against the green marble backdrop of the general assembly podium, the rift appeared as debilitating as ever.

Obama was first of the leaders to speak. He assailed states who gave in to the temptation of a “might makes right” philosophy.

Obama and Putin toast during a luncheon hosted by United Nations secretary-general Ban Ki-moon. Photograph: Rex Shutterstock

“In accordance with this logic, we should support tyrants like Bashar al-Assad who drops barrel bombs to massacre innocent civilians because the alternative is surely worse,” Obama said in remarks clearly aimed primarily at Putin, who has repeatedly insisted that defeat of Isis can only be achieved by support of the “legitimate government” of Syria.

The US president indicated that he was ready to talk with everyone, including Russia and Iran, in seeking common ground on the issue, but equally clearly laid out US red lines, the most important of which was transition away from Assad.

“Yes, realism dictates that compromise will be required to end the fighting and ultimately stamp out Isil. But realism also requires a managed transition away from Assad and to a new leader, and an inclusive government that recognises there must be an end to this chaos so that the Syrian people can begin to rebuild,” he said.

Obama’s address was also an ode to the twin virtues of democracy and diplomacy, interwoven with admissions of when the US had fallen short of those ideals, in the invasion of Iraq, and the xenophobia that has risen to the surface in the nation’s current political discourse.

Putin’s address was different in tone. While Obama had repeatedly paused for dramatic effect, the Russian leader galloped through his lines. The American president talked optimistically about the common aspirations that united all peoples; Putin struck darker, conspiratorial notes.

He noted how Isis had drawn its strength from former Iraqi servicemen made jobless by the US-led invasion in 2003 and then by the western bombing of Libya that led to the destruction of the Gaddafi regime in Tripoli. He suggested that the religious extremists were sent deliberately into Syria by unnamed powers to destroy the secular, anti-western government in Damascus.

In his speech Putin showed no sign of willingness to compromise on Assad’s fate, not even conceding that Damascus might be ripe for “reform” after Isis was defeated – a more conciliatory formula put forward by the Iranian president, Hassan Rouhani. Instead, he increased his praise for the regime, which he said was “fighting valiantly against terror face to face in Syria”. Furthermore, he said, the Syrian forces had been struggling almost alone up till now.

Putin not only presented a rival narrative for the Syrian conflict – he also offered an alternative mechanism for dealing for it. The Russian leader will have left New York by the time Obama chairs a summit on combating Isis and violent extremism on Tuesday. Putin did not mention it. Instead, he called on UN member states to take part in a ministerial meeting convened by Russia in its current role as president of the UN security council, which would lead to a new UN resolution on combating Isis, presumably built around support for the Damascus regime.

On the evidence of the opening morning of a week’s worth of speeches at the general assembly, Putin had gathered some momentum. In her brief remarks on Syria, the Brazilian president, Dilma Rousseff, blamed only Isis and “associated groups” for the violence. The Chinese president, Xi Jinping, did not mention Syria by name but stressed the importance of respect for national security as a pillar of the UN charter.

However, the French president, Francois Hollande, stuck to Paris’s position that Assad could have no part in a postwar Syria.

“Bashar al-Assad is the source of the problem. He cannot be part of the solution,” Hollande says. “Just because a terrorist group also carries out massacres doesn’t mean that pardons or amnesties the regime which created this situation...You can’t make the victims and the executioner work together.”

When his turn came, Rouhani blamed the US military campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan and its support for Israel for creating an environment for terrorism to flourish. In earlier remarks on Sunday, he had stuck to a line on Syria that was close to the Russians’, calling for the fight against Isis to take precedence over any aspirations for reform in Damascus. But in the debating chamber on Monday, he opted to stay out of the US-Russian clash, with all its cold war echoes.e>

Artur Mas na corda bamba / Rajoy perdeu, Mas não ganhou e o Cidadãos afirma-se como alternativa / JORGE ALMEIDA FERNANDES

Artur Mas na corda bamba

DIRECÇÃO EDITORIAL 28/09/2015 / PÚBLICO

Em Espanha, foi muito notada a cara tensa com que o líder da Catalunha, Artur Mas, apareceu em público, no domingo à noite, para o discurso de vitória. Foi uma vitória estranha, de facto. Os independentistas ganharam as eleições, mas perderam o seu plesbicito. Artur Mas ganhou mas é um líder na corda bamba. Tem vários problemas. O primeiro é que não conseguiu a maioria absoluta sozinho. Precisa da CUP (Candidatura de Unidade Popular), que ganhou dez lugares no Parlamento. O segundo problema é que a CUP, além de ser um partido anticapitalista de esquerda radical, é contra… Artur Mas. Na noite eleitoral vimos de um lado Mas a celebrar a vitória com os seus seguidores e noutro o líder da CUP a dizer que Mas “não é imprescindível”. Os aliados não estão sequer de acordo sobre o que aconteceu na noite eleitoral: Artur Mas diz que os catalães querem sair da Espanha e que a sua proposta foi legitimada; a CUP diz que “não se ganhou o plebiscito” e por isso é contra uma saída unilateral. Eleições confusas, resultados complexos, futuro próximo uma incógnita.

Rajoy perdeu, Mas não ganhou e o Cidadãos afirma-se como alternativa

JORGE ALMEIDA FERNANDES 28/09/2015 - PÚBLICO

As eleições-plebiscito permitem duas leituras conforme se olhe o número de deputados ou de votos. A independência não pode assentar num voto minoritário

A primeira leitura dos resultados das eleições catalães de domingo mostra que a Catalunha é uma sociedade fracturada, partida em duas comunidades quase equivalentes. O soberanismo está solidamente implantado mas ainda longe de constituir uma maioria indiscutível. Na expressão do jornalista Lluís Bassets, “a força do secessionismo é enorme mas a independência não está mais próxima”. Há dois derrotados: Artur Mas, presidente da Generalitat (governo autonómico), e Mariano Rajoy, presidente do Governo e líder do Partido Popular. O segundo acto do drama joga-se nas eleições espanholas previstas para Dezembro.

Sendo formalmente umas eleições legislativas autonómicas, foram transformadas num “plebiscito” sobre a independência, o que permite a dupla leitura dos resultados. Se olharmos o número de deputados, o conjunto das duas formações independentistas venceu com maioria absoluta, somando 72 mandatos (em 135 deputados). Se as lermos em termos de “plebiscito” sobre a secessão, o desfecho indica um desaire de Mas e dos separatistas, cujo total de votos, 47,7%, ficou abaixo dos sufrágios anti-independência que somaram 50,6.

A leitura em termos plebiscitários foi imposta por Mas e pela aliança Juntos pelo Sim. “Estas eleições serão lidas como um plebiscito”, reafirmou Mas no próprio dia do voto. Também António Baños, cabeça de lista da Candidatura de Unidade Popular (CUP, independentista e anticapitalista), acrescentou que eram necessários “pelo menos 50%, porque estas eleições são um plebiscito”.

O carácter plebiscitário das eleições visava legitimar a aceleração do processo de independência e tornar possível lançá-lo com uma maioria parlamentar tangencial e até com menos votos do que os dos anti-independentistas. A Convergência, de Artur Mas, a Esquerda Republicana da Catalunha (ERC), de Oriol Junqueras, e associações nacionalistas, como a Assembleia Nacional Catalã e a Òmnium Cultural, formaram a aliança Juntos pelo Sim. Segundo o “roteiro” de Mas e Junqueras, se obtivessem a maioria absoluta (68 mandatos), o parlament de Barcelona aprovaria dentro de seis meses uma Declaração Unilateral de Independência (DUI), começaria a construção das futuras instituições estatais, elaboraria uma Constituição e completaria a secessão através de um referendo no prazo de 18 meses.

A derrota em número de votos põe em causa a legitimidade deste “processo” de independência.

A derrota de Mas

O presidente catalão perde em várias frentes. Em primeiro lugar, a Convergência e a ERC somavam 72 mandatos no anterior parlamento. Agora somam apenas 62, o que os torna dependentes da CUP, uma formação nacionalista e anticapitalista que passou de 3 para 10 deputados e que não parece querer ir a reboque de Mas.

A CUP contesta o nome de Mas para presidir ao próximo governo — tal como de qualquer figura ligada à “política de austeridade ou à corrupção” — e contesta o calendário político do president: “Não podemos fazer a DUI porque não ganhámos o plebiscito.” É preciso vencer em mandatos e votos. O seu cabeça de lista, Antonio Baños, reafirmou que “o independentismo na Catalunha é a opção maioritária e o caminho a seguir”, apelando à desobediência às leis espanholas “em colisão com a soberania popular catalã”.

Explicou há dias o nacionalista Josep Ramoneda: “O bloco independentista deve ter consciência da relação de forças. Deve saber que não dispõe de suficiente capacidade legal e de coerção para impor uma ruptura unilateral. Deverá pensar em ganhar apoios porque a sua força consiste em alcançar uma maioria indiscutível. Neste caminho, o referendo é a aposta mais adesão gera na sociedade catalã.”

Artur Mas apostava ontem numa fuga para a frente, prometendo uma rápida aprovação da DUI. Mas começará por ser complicada a constituição do governo. Está refém do radicalismo da CUP. A ingovernabilidade ameaça a Catalunha. Alguns prevêem que a pressão nacionalista na rua regresse em força, sob impulso da ANC.

Contados os votos, “há vencedores e vencidos”, observava ontem o escritor Jorge Reverte. “E, sobretudo, há legitimidades e legitimidades que não desapareceram. Legitimidades e sensibilidades. Temos um conflito na Catalunha para muito tempo.”

Enric Juliana, director adjunto do La Vanguardia, de Barcelona, interpreta as eleições como uma desaire de Mas e uma manifestação de força do soberanismo catalão que, no entanto, ainda não tem “massa crítica suficiente” para fazer a DUI. “A grande maioria desta sociedade quer mudanças em relação ao poder central, sem apostar tudo numa ruptura imediata. O Governo de Espanha tem um problema.”

A alternativa Cidadãos

Nada será como dantes, assinalam analistas. O velho sistema político catalão está a desmoronar-se. A maciça afluência às urnas é uma das grandes novidades, significando o novo empenhamento dos eleitores nascidos fora da Catalunha e que agora exigem ter uma palavra a dizer. A dinâmica política na Catalunha está a mudar.

A estratégia de Rajoy, a pensar nas eleições legislativas e no voto “espanhol”, assegurando o papel de guardião da unidade nacional, sofreu um colapso. O Partido Popular caiu a pique (desceu de 19 para 11 lugares). Quem hegemonizou a mobilização anti-nacionalista não foi o PP. Foi o partido Cidadãos, de Alberto Rivera, que passa a ser a segunda força no parlament com 25 deputados. Sublinha Juliana: “Defendem a unidade de Espanha e reformas liberais. Ganhou mais do dobro do número de mandatos do PP numas eleições cruciais. Para muitos espanhóis, o defensor mais moderno da unidade de Espanha é este jovem partido. (...) É uma má notícia para Rajoy. Muito má.” O presidente do Governo falou ontem aos espanhóis mas nada disse de novo. Pablo Casado, porta-voz do PP, não foi mais brilhante: “Evidentemente, na Catalunha tudo continua na mesma.”

O 27-S não é o fim da partida. Marca a entrada na campanha eleitoral espanhola. Os seus efeitos são ainda desconhecidos. Dez presidentes regionais apelaram ontem à abertura do diálogo entre Madrid e Barcelona. Todos os olhares se voltam para as legislativas, depois das quais será inevitável reabrir o debate constitucional.

Madrid and Brussels try to downplay Catalan vote

Madrid and Brussels try to downplay Catalan vote

Political fallout uncertain from big win for pro-independence parties.

By MAÏA DE LA BAUME AND HANS VON DER BURCHARD 9/28/15, 2:06 PM CET Updated 9/28/15, 5:44 PM CET http://www.politico.eu/article/madrid-brussels-downplay-catalan-vote-election-spain/

After pro-independence parties gained a majority of seats in Catalonia’s regional parliament in Sunday’s election, politicians in Madrid and Brussels scrambled to downplay talk that the outcome would undermine Spanish unity and create another political crisis for the EU.

“No Spanish citizen, wherever he or she lives, can be beyond the reach of the Spanish government,” Spanish Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy said Monday, adding that the independence movement’s proposals did not conform with Spanish law.

“As long as I’m Spanish prime minister, I won’t discuss Spanish unity, national sovereignty or the equality, rights and liberties of all Spanish people.”

Pro-independence parties received an absolute majority of 72 seats in the regional parliament, which has 135 seats in total, but failed to achieve a majority in vote shares, where they reached only 48 percent.

While Catalonia’s region president Artur Mas, leader of the pro-independence movement Junts pel sí (“Together for Yes”), spoke on Sunday evening of “a double victory, for the Yes and for democracy,” interpretations of the vote result were mixed.

With an outcome of 62 seats, Junts pel sí performed worse than expected by many pre-election polls, and would need a coalition with the Candidatura d’Unitat Popular (CUP), a far-left, pro-independence party which won 10 seats, to govern.

But the CUP quickly made it clear that it wouldn’t back Mas remaining president of the region and was not in favor of declaring independence from Spain unilaterally, as Mas has promised.

“We did not win the plebiscite, so there will be no unilateral declaration of independence,” said CUP leader Antonio Baños, referring to the fact that Junts pel sí and CUP jointly received only 48 percent of the votes, although they would still have an absolute majority by seats if they formed a coalition.

Another major obstacle between the two groups is that while Mas’ movement wants to pursue a pro-European course, the CUP has said an independent Catalonia should leave the EU and the euro.

The Catalan vote, with all its uncertainties, comes at a difficult moment for the EU, which is already struggling with divisions among its 28 members over migration policy and a looming U.K. referendum on a possible separation from the bloc before 2017.

European Commission spokesperson Margaritis Schinas said he would not comment on regional elections. President Jean-Claude Juncker “was informed about the result but did not have any contact with Catalan or Spanish authorities so far,” Schinas said.

Gianni Pittella, the president of the center-left Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats group in the European Parliament, said the vote was “a regional election and not a referendum on independence.”

“The real challenge is not fragmenting national states but to make together the whole of Europe stronger,” Pittella said. “The demands for further autonomy can be fulfilled but within the national unity.”

The center-right European People’s Party group made a similar statement, arguing that it did not wish to comment on “regional elections.”

The Scottish National Party (SNP), which has been pushing for independence from the U.K., also reacted to the vote in a restrained way.

“We are very interested in what is going on there,” said Alyn Smith, a Scottish MEP from the SNP. “But there is no domino effect. Catalonia is unique. Its history, its geography, its linguistic effect makes it unique.”

Amadeu Altafaj, the Catalan government’s permanent representative to the EU, outlined to POLITICO Monday the next steps for his government, which wants to achieve independence from Spain within the next 18 months.

“We plan to create a tax administration, a central bank, and to nominate our own judges. Our own defense might follow later,” he said. “But in parallel we will be seeking talks and negotiations with the government in Madrid and the EU institutions.”

This article was updated to include comments by the head of the CUP.

Jakob Hanke contributed to this article.

Authors:

Maïa de La Baume and Hans von der Burchard  

Catalonia votes ‘no’

Catalonia votes ‘no’

We need to resist the glib conclusions of self-serving Catalan separatists.

By RAMÓN PÉREZ-MAURA 9/28/15, 5:23 PM CET Updated 9/29/15, 6:31 AM CET

http://www.politico.eu/article/catalonia-votes-no-independence-madrid-rajoy-mas/

MADRID — Catalonia, the north-eastern region in Spain, held a regional election on Sunday. Its legal purpose was to elect a regional assembly that should elect a new regional government. But the outgoing president and his political mates decided this would not be the real purpose of the vote. It would actually be a vote on the region’s independence from Spain.

To achieve that goal, he decided not to run on the usual party list but, rather, set up a coalition between his party, Convergencia — a center-right party that has held power for 27 out of the last 35 years of regional government — and Esquerra Republicana de Catalunya (ERC), a diehard left-wing pro-independence party. The coalition was named Junts pel Si — “Together for Yes” (to independence). And they announced that the election wouldn’t just be a regional election, but rather a plebiscite — an illegal one, by every measure — on independence.

* * *

In the outgoing parliament, the sum of both parties added up to 71 seats, the figure for an overall majority being 68. For this election they brought into their coalition various groups of citizens who favor a breakaway from Spain. So the coalition looked set to attain an outstanding majority in favor of that goal. The result was not such. They got 62 seats. Nine seats less than they had before they set up the coalition for independence. And they have the chutzpah to call that a huge success.

It is true that if they add to their mix the party that came in fifth, Candidatura d’Unitat Popular (CUP), an extreme left-wing party that got 10 seats, they will have an outright majority in favor of independence, even though the three parties involved now have fewer seats than they had in the outgoing assembly. But has anyone ever heard of a plebiscite whose result is decided not on an enumeration of people’s votes, but on a count of members of parliament?

The pro-independence parties don’t want the actual votes counted toward the purpose of a unilateral breakaway, and that’s understandable. They only got 47.32 percent of the vote, against the 52.01 percent that went to parties that had clearly stated their opposition to independence.

It can be said without doubt that if those who called the election want to claim it was a plebiscite, they have a clear answer: Catalonia voted “no.” Furthermore, out of the people who had the right to vote — the total electorate, in other words — only 30 percent voted for the parties who were calling for independence from Spain.

* * *

There is another reading to this result, and that is that the problem of secession in Spain probably just got bigger. Nationalist parties have one main reason for their existence: confrontation, or a search for someone who can be defined as “the enemy.” When these parties run their business within a country in which they feel they are aliens, it’s very easy to play politics. They can always blame the central power, the national government, for their problems. They will make a living out of asking for bigger and more outlandish concessions from the national government.

Ever since General Franco died in 1975 and the regional institutions of Catalonia were established, the only goal the Catalan people have seen their parties promote has been “what can we get Madrid to give us.”

Catalonia today is a region with more powers than any federal state in the world. Any comparison with the Free State of Bavaria or the California Republic will prove that Catalonia has a bigger grip on power than them in any area of life and governance. So, when people say more dialogue is needed, and that a different way must be found to better fit Catalonia in Spain, the reply should be that such a way can’t be found with parties that reside in a cul-de-sac.

Many Catalans have demonstrated a xenophobic attitude toward the rest of Spain. They want to be regarded as different, a people apart, and this isn’t possible if they only have a regional government like 16 other regions in Spain. They don’t want to be just another region in this Spanish lot. They have to be above the rest. But in a democracy it’s very difficult to have first- and second-class citizens.

* * *

Over the years Artur Mas, the current president of the Generalitat of Catalonia, has led the region into clashes with the rest of Spain and the rest of Europe. We have seen all relevant EU leaders proclaiming their support for a united Spain and threatening Catalonia with exclusion from EU institutions.

When leaders like Juncker, Hollande, Merkel and Cameron look at what was brewing in Catalonia, they can easily imagine what may happen with Scotland, Bavaria or Corsica if they leave an open door for those who broke away from an EU member state. It is a well known fact that no new members are admitted into the EU without unanimous acceptance. Which would, of course, exclude Catalonia for decades to come. It would be unimaginable to think of Spain voting in favor of its breakaway region rejoining the club.

But even though the No vote won the day in Catalonia on September 27, this is still a major crisis for Spain. The pro-independence parties want more concessions from the central government and there is nothing left to give short of independence itself.

The only reason some Catalans have to demand secession is that they are unhappy within their current borders. That is to say, they are the only people who see any borders within the EU. And that’s because they have mental borders, not physical ones. And having been led into such state of blindness that they haven’t realized the real borders will be set up by secession, not their current status as citizens of Spain, a major country within the European Union.

Ramón Pérez-Maura is editor at large of ABC, the Spanish daily.

Authors:

Ramón Pérez-Maura  

Student commutes to University of London from Poland to save money on accommodation rent

Student commutes to University of London from Poland to save money on accommodation rent

Aftab Ali Student Editor Monday 28 September 2015 11:40 BST

http://www.independent.co.uk/student/student-commutes-to-university-of-london-from-poland-to-save-money-on-accommodation-rent-a6670016.html

Ever wonder why you pay so much rent for accommodation in London? Think you have a long and challenging commute in the morning on top of this too? Think again.

One student has revealed how life in The Big Smoke is so expensive that he flies 1,000 miles into his lectures at the University of London every week – from Poland.

Originally from Hampshire, anthropology major Jonathan Davey explained to The Mirror how renting a room near the university would have cost him up to £880 each month. But, after travelling throughout Europe last year, the 23-year-old now pays just £2,100 each year which includes pre-booked return flights, transport to and from the airport, and a weekly rent amount of just £35.

Leaving the port city of Gdańsk and flying into Luton at 6am every Wednesday, the student told the paper he stays in either cheap hostels or with friends until Friday before heading back to his Polish hostel at the weekend.

Describing how the cost of living for students is crippling and how he knows he is thousands of pounds better off living in Poland, Mr Davey added how the quality of life in Poland is much better than being in the UK.

Despite admitting how his parents think he is mad, he said: “I’ve shown them the figures and they can see I’m saving a fortune.”

The student’s move has only further highlights the accommodation crisis taking hold in London. Recently, the Sutton Trust published a report highlighting how bright, young people – especially those from disadvantages background – are being priced out of the city’s housing market – despite London being the top place in the country for law, medicine, media, and finance jobs.

Urging all 2016 mayoral election candidates to consider ways to address the issue, the authors of the report warned of the worrying implications for social mobility.