Câmara de Lisboa já não vai reabilitar Praça da Figueira e Largo do Rato neste mandato

Câmara de Lisboa já não vai reabilitar Praça da Figueira e Largo do Rato neste mandato

3/3/2016, LUSA / OBSERVADOR

Câmara de Lisboa informou que a reabilitação da Praça da Figueira e do Largo do Rato, que assenta no reordenamento do trânsito e em mais espaço para os peões, não vai ser feita neste mandato.

A Câmara de Lisboa informou esta quarta-feira que a reabilitação da Praça da Figueira e do Largo do Rato, que assenta no reordenamento do trânsito e em mais espaço para os peões, não vai ser feita neste mandato.

Falando na reunião descentralizada do município, na qual estão a ser ouvidos moradores da Misericórdia, Santo António e Santa Maria Maior, o vereador do Urbanismo anunciou que os projetos para a requalificação “duas praças especiais” vão ser concretizados, no âmbito do programa “Uma praça em cada bairro”.

Contudo, “neste mandato, não vamos conseguir executar a obra” como estava previsto, admitiu Manuel Salgado. No que toca à Praça da Figueira, na freguesia de Santa Maria Maior, será “lançado um concurso de ideias” para a sua reformulação, disse.

De acordo com a informação disponível no ‘site’ da autarquia, prevê-se que aqui haja uma “reformulação do sistema de circulação”, mais “espaço público pedonal na área central da praça” e ainda “mobiliário urbano de estadia”. Quanto ao Largo do Rato, em Santo António, “a situação é mais complicada”, reconheceu Manuel Salgado.

Neste largo, com uma área de intervenção de 12,9 mil metros quadrados, vai ser reorganizada a circulação, “reduzindo o espaço dedicado ao transporte individual” e aumentando “a área pedonal”. Prevê-se, também, o “reforço da ligação entre os diversos transportes públicos” – criando condições para “a circulação de bicicletas e [para] a reposição da linha do elétrico” -, a “introdução de áreas verdes” e ainda a “eliminação do estacionamento abusivo”.

Manuel Salgado referiu que este largo “é um eixo vital para a cidade”, no qual é “praticamente impossível atravessar”. Desta feita, “o fluxo do tráfego tem de ser garantido em segurança”, defendeu o responsável, adiantando que a Câmara está a “desenvolver um estudo” sobre o trânsito, de forma a criar a solução técnica e a deixar “tudo pronto para ser executado no próximo mandato”.

Manuel Salgado deu ainda conta de que, ao abrigo do programa “Uma praça em cada bairro”, já se iniciaram três obras, duas já foram adjudicadas e outras sete estão em fase concurso. “As restantes praças, com exceção do Largo do Rato e da Praça da Figueira, […] vão para obra em meados de 2016”, concluiu.

Na reunião, que decorre no Museu da Farmácia, a autarquia foi também questionada sobre a situação do Mercado do Rato, para onde está prevista a construção, por parte da Empresa de Mobilidade e Estacionamento de Lisboa, de um parque de estacionamento com 310 lugares.

Em resposta, o vice-presidente do município, Duarte Cordeiro (PS), assegurou que será encontrada uma solução para realojar a Associação Boa Vizinhança, que ali está sediada, bem como para outros dois estabelecimentos de restauração e cafetaria.

“Já tivemos oportunidade de falar com restantes [comerciantes] e a maioria não deseja continuar”, informou o autarca, frisando que vão ser calculadas “as indemnizações pelo período em que estiveram no mercado”. Duarte Cordeiro revelou ainda que está a ser estudada a “possibilidade de complementar o projeto do parque com outros projetos”, reivindicação feita pela Junta de Santo António.

The dilemmas of the diplomats tasked with saving the European Union

The dilemmas of the diplomats tasked with saving the European Union

David Cameron wants EU diplomats to stay out of UK debate and the UK media but for some, such as François Hollande, it is impossible to avoid

Patrick Wintour

Thursday 3 March 2016 07.00 GMT

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/mar/03/battle-brexit-european-politicians-rock-and-a-hard-place

The battle for Brexit, like the Battle of Waterloo, may ultimately be won or lost on the playing fields of Eton between two famous old boys, David Cameron and Boris Johnson. But that does not mean European, and American, politicians will be entirely absent from the pitch in the next three months. Indeed, they could play a critical role both by what they say and how effectively they manage to run the European Union in the months ahead.

The question for overseas diplomats is in which role can their leaders best prevent Brexit. Should the UK’s EU partners cast themselves as concerned but mute bystanders, or instead intervene, as David Cameron did in the Scottish referendum, passionately expressing their love and begging a restless partner not to leave the marital home?

There is no doubt that EU heads of state want the UK to reject Brexit, so avoiding a political and economic crisis at a time when Europe, gripped by the migration crisis, simply cannot afford more disruption. Britain, as the world’s fifth-largest power, adds to the heft of the EU, and its pragmatism increases its diversity. Many are worried about the contagion of referenda spreading through Europe.

But the question for Downing Street is whether the British respond well to a succession of European leaders with thick accents, and variable grasp of the English language, appearing to tell them how to vote.

In a debate about national sovereignty, the voices of European elites, sometimes short of pitch perfect to the British debate, could prove counterproductive.

The European Commission has taken a virtual vow of silence and is culling any directives that could, for example, be seen as a threat to the British tea bag. Anand Menon, professor of European politics at King’s College, reports: “In Brussels, senior figures in all the institutions have been told not to denigrate Cameron’s deal, or suggest it is not binding in law. There was a bit of that after the summit, but it has now stopped. It is also inadvisable that there are set-piece speeches setting out their love for Europe”.

But British pro-Europeans such as Lord Mandelson are urging the UK’s European partners to find a balance between warning of the dangers of Brexit in terms of access to the single market and trade deals without sounding bullying. Lord Mandelson said: “The referendum is a purely British decision and no one would expect others to advise us how to vote. Our European partners want us to stay in the EU and so it would not be surprising for them to say so and explain why Europe should not be weakened by Britain’s exit.”

He added: “There are also figures in Brussels who are very much on the reform wavelength and share Britain’s economic outlook, but the difficulty is, would British newspapers report them without distorting what they say?”

The Downing Street judgment is that it is unavoidable world leaders are recruited to the cause, so long as it is coordinated with Number 10. The recent explicit statement by G20 finance leaders in China that Brexit would be a threat to the world economy was inserted at the request of the chancellor, George Osborne. Barack Obama, still a trusted voice in the UK, will use his visit to Europe in the spring to reach out and urge Britain to stay in the EU. This is not just a favour to Cameron. Belatedly there is a recognition in Washington of the strains inside the EU caused by the migration crisis.

In a bid to corral the intervention, David Cameron’s Downing Street adviser Daniel Korski met senior diplomats from the 27 other EU states in London last Friday to take them through the UK government campaign, and urge them to think carefully about their role.

Korski urged diplomats that EU politicians should think twice before publicly belittling or criticising the deal achieved by Cameron in Brussels. François Hollande, the French president, was mentioned as being pretty dismissive of the deal. Korski suggested that Number 10 might be consulted prior to any speeches or other big statements even if they are aimed at domestic audiences as they may have an impact on the UK debate, according to reports.

“It is just sensible that people realise that what they say in their own countries can have an impact here – to be aware that there’s an impact in the UK. If a leader stands up and says something to their own parliament, it won’t just play in their own domestic media, it will make it to the UK.”

But some diplomats are tentatively dipping their toe in the British debate.

The German ambassador, Dr Peter Ammon, has held discreet breakfasts with British journalists to underline the importance of the UK to Germany. This week he was even on the campaign trail telling a London symposium that the choice was voting with your head or heart. “I want the Brits to keep their heads,” he said. “The romantic dream of restored sovereignty would turn out to be a pipe dream, because in a world of globalised political decision-making as well as globalised production chains and globalised financial markets, it could mean less power over your country’s fate, not more”. But Ammon was also modest enough to acknowledge the limits of his persuasive powers. “I realise most Brits do not wake up each morning asking themselves what do the Germans think.”

It is likely that there will also be a string of European finance ministers such as Italian finance minister Pier Carlo Padoan and his German counterpart Wolfgang Schaeuble travelling through London to make their warnings about Brexit.

The dilemma comes to a head in its most acute form on Thursday when David Cameron and François Hollande meet for the annual Anglo French summit in Amiens.

The Elysée is aware the number one question for the British press at the summit is whether Hollande agrees with Cameron that in the event of Brexit, the French would be inclined to tear up the bilateral treaty signed in 2003 that allowed the UK border effectively to be moved to Calais.

In short, will Hollande agree with Cameron that Brexit means the “Jungle”, or the “swarm”, moves from Calais to the Kent coast? The warning has been denounced by leading eurosceptics such as David Davis and Liam Fox as scaremongering.

Hollande could simply say, as has the British ambassador to London, that the French reaction is unknowable and instead focus on the recent measures the security forces have taken this week to reduce the camp’s size, disperse more refugees to new centres elsewhere in France, speed up the processing of asylum claims and improve security around the Channel tunnel entrance.

But Cameron, eager to highlight the threat to UK borders in the event of Brexit, will hope Hollande will stand up his warnings about the consequences of Britain leaving the EU.

Hollande is under conflicting domestic pressure. The left of his party is threatening to block him from standing in next year’s elections, fed up with his shift to the right. But Alain Juppé, the mayor of Bordeaux and the man at present most likely to win the presidential elections in June, has recently visited Calais and denounced it as unacceptable.

Juppé’s political ally in the region, Xavier Bertrand, the recently re-elected president of the Nord-Pas-de-Calais-Picardie region, has repeatedly said the Le Touquet agreement would be torn up if Britain left the EU. He said: “If Britain leaves Europe, right away the border will leave Calais and go to Dover. We will not continue to guard the border for Britain if it’s no longer in the European Union.”

By contrast, Hollande’s own interior minister, Bernard Cazeneuve, appeared to reject different solutions. In October, he said: “Calling for the border with the English to be opened is not a responsible solution. It would send a signal to people smugglers and would lead migrants to flow to Calais in far greater numbers – a humanitarian disaster would ensue; it is a foolhardy path and one the government will not pursue”.

So Hollande is between a rock and a hard place. Whatever he says he will offend one side or other in the Brexit debate. He is unlikely to be the last European politician to face this dilemma in the months ahead.

Corbyn is Cameron’s real Brexit headache

Corbyn is Cameron’s real Brexit headache

Why London’s mayor will struggle to kill the Cameron show.

By MATTHEW GOODWIN 3/3/16, 5:32 AM CET

http://www.politico.eu/article/jeremy-corbyn-gives-david-cameron-more-of-a-headache-than-boris-johnson-on-brexit-referendum/

LONDON — Those who want Britain to leave the European Union received a major boost last week when Boris Johnson, the mayor of London and a Conservative MP, joined their camp. Hot on the heals of David Cameron’s renegotiation with EU leaders in Brussels, Boris’ announcement was hailed in Westminster as a game-changer. Such was the “Boris effect” on Brexit anxiety that the pound plummeted to its lowest level against the dollar in seven years. Euroskeptics were back in the game.

Yet while those campaigning for a Leave vote are still jubilant, a close reading of how arguments play on each side suggests that Cameron and Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn could more than counter Boris’ move — provided they work together.

The significance of Boris

Looked at in one way, Boris’ decision to align with Leave has become even more significant since he declared his hand. Following Britain’s renegotiation there has been no noticeable rise in public support for remaining in the EU. It was not supposed to be this way. Prior to the announcement of Cameron’s reform package many voters had indicated to pollsters that they would approve of a renegotiation that delivered restrictions on benefits for EU migrant workers, opt-outs from “ever closer union” and protections for non-eurozone countries. But none of the polls conducted since the end of the renegotiation have uncovered a significant shift towards Remain.

While Euroskeptics have not seen an upsurge of support either, they can claim to have neutralized the anticipated bounce for Remain. Either voters were not paying that much attention to the renegotiation to begin with or they have concluded that the wrangling has not made much difference to their vote. Whatever the reason, any hope Remainers had of using the deal to convert wavering moderates looks misplaced.

More worrying for Cameron is that the lack of any discernible bounce in support also applies to his own Conservative Party supporters. It appears that rank-and-file Tories have also not been won over by their leader’s efforts to extract concessions from Brussels. On the contrary Conservatives remain seriously divided on the referendum, typically breaking 45-35 in favor of Leave with the remainder undecided. A YouGov poll of Tory members for the Times on Wednesday put Remain at 31 percent and Leave at 59 percent. Put another way, among all voters who intend to vote for Britain to Remain in the EU only around one in four voted Conservative at the 2015 general election.

This is where Boris could prove highly significant. Between now and June the charismatic populist could repeatedly undermine Cameron’s quest to bring as many of these Conservatives as possible over to Remain.

A crowded field

Yet while Boris could make life extremely difficult for Cameron, his effect on the overall race may prove exaggerated. Consider the messenger and the message. There is no doubt that Boris is popular. For a referendum on an issue that has never excited British voters as much as it has Tory MPs, it is significant that Boris enjoys recognition among the politically disengaged. Recent polling by Ipsos-MORI suggests that around one in three of all voters, regardless of how they intend to vote in June, think that the London mayor will be important when they are deciding how to vote. Boris also holds sway among key politically disinterested moderates — who could represent as much as 40 percent of the electorate. But he is also not the only messenger voters are listening to.

Euroskeptics face a risk that the benefit of Boris will be “crowded out” by a handful of pro-Remain politicians who are also seen as influential voices. This is heightened by the fact that the reach of other prominent Brexiters, notably U.K. Independence Party leader Nigel Farage, is limited to existing, mainly old Leavers. Consistent with other surveys, the Ipsos-MORI data shows Boris surrounded by a cluster of pro-Remain politicians who also hold respectable ratings — Corbyn, Chancellor George Osborne, Scottish nationalist leader Nicola Sturgeon and Home Secretary Theresa May.

For every intervention from Boris or his largely unknown Euroskeptic cabinet colleagues there will be two or three from pro-EU figures who carry significant weight. Boris is especially likely to be overshadowed by Cameron who is — far and away — the most influential messenger in this debate.

Around half of voters leaning toward Remain, and two fifths of those leaning towards Leave or undecided, consider Cameron an important influence. It is also worth pointing out that in our own research we found that Cameron also helps drive support for Remain among Labour and Liberal Democrat voters, pushing their already strong support for staying in the EU to new heights — although he will still need Corbyn’s help to build a commanding majority.

That Cameron is a strong and influential messenger explains why the Remain camp is putting his face on everything, and probably plans to mobilize younger left-leaning progressives by contrasting Cameron and Corbyn with a more divisive figure: Do you want Farage to decide your future?

The problem with the sovereignty argument

Like many Euroskeptics who converted to the cause during the 1990s Boris hopes to cut through by doubling down on the sovereignty argument. His motive for backing Leave was reflected in his question to Cameron in the House of Commons during their first exchange after Boris came out for Out: “In what way does the renegotiation return sovereignty to Britain’s Houses of Parliament?”

If this continues and progressive voters stay at home then the probability of a Brexit vote increases significantly.

Arguments over sovereignty, though popular on the Conservative fringe, are likely to be insufficient to turn Britain’s large number of Euroskeptics into withdrawalists. As revealed last week in findings from the new British Social Attitudes survey, there are essentially two arguments that Outers need to win if they are to fulfill their Brexit dream. First, they need to mobilize widespread public angst over the perceived threat that the EU poses to British identity. This feeling of identity threat is not insignificant — 47 percent of Brits share this concern. But the research also shows clearly why only tapping into these anxieties over threatened identity — and even more narrowly the question of sovereignty — may fail to push someone with Euroskeptic views into voting for Brexit.

To support quitting altogether, voters need to be convinced of the economic case for leaving. Among those who feel that the EU threatens their identity and believe that Brexit would be economically beneficial, support for leaving the EU surpasses 80 percent. But among those who only feel the latter and not the former, Brexit remains a minority view, supported by around 40 percent. This would suggest that between now and June 23 Euroskeptics need to devote less time to fairly obscure constitutional points and more to addressing the fact that only one in four voters currently believe that the economy would be stronger after Brexit. This is their fundamental challenge and it is one that Boris and the skeptics must overcome if they are to win.

Could Corbyn help Cameron?

Without a majority of his own voters, Cameron’s strategy hinges on his ability to mobilize a very different base of support to that which won him last year’s general election, namely younger, socially liberal progressives who lean toward Labour, the Liberal Democrats or the Scottish National Party. This is not impossible but it is a riskier path up the mountain.

Many of these Remain voters turned out against Cameron at the 2015 general election and have been repelled by his rhetoric on migrant workers, his response to the refugee crisis and his party’s austerity drive and divisions over Europe. This is where Jeremy Corbyn — one of the most unpopular Labour leaders of all time — becomes important.

Corbyn need not agree with Cameron’s message. But he will need to start sounding far more enthusiastic about the case for remaining in the EU if he is to help Conservatives mobilize Left. So far the Labour leader has sounded far from convincing, which could be deeply problematic. In sharp contrast to the pro-EU passion of previous Labour leaders like Tony Blair or Ed Miliband, Corbyn sounds like a reluctant passenger, first criticizing the EU for “operating like a free market” and now failing to turn up the volume when making his case for keeping Britain in.

If this continues and progressive voters stay at home then the probability of a Brexit vote increases significantly. Cameron may thus want to spend less time worrying about Boris and more time thinking about how to energize Corbyn.

Professor Matthew Goodwin, University of Kent, Senior Fellow at Chatham House and with the ESRC ‘UK in a Changing Europe’ programme. He tweets @GoodwinMJ

American neocons declare war on Trump

US ELECTION 2016

American neocons declare war on Trump

Prominent Republican hawks are debating whether to hold their noses and vote for Clinton instead.

By MICHAEL CROWLEY 3/3/16, 7:44 AM CET

http://www.politico.eu/article/neocons-declare-war-on-donald-trump-us-election-2016-presidential-campaign-republican-president-news/

Donald Trump calls the Iraq War a lie-fueled fiasco, admires Vladimir Putin and says he would be a “neutral” arbiter between Israel and the Palestinians. When it comes to America’s global role he asks, “Why are we always at the forefront of everything?”

Even more than his economic positions, Trump’s foreign policy views challenge GOP orthodoxy in fundamental ways. But while parts of the party establishment are resigning themselves or even backing Trump’s runaway train, one group is bitterly digging in against him: the hawkish foreign policy elites known as neoconservatives.

In interviews with POLITICO, leading neocons — people who promoted the Iraq War, detest Putin and consider Israel’s security non-negotiable — said Trump would be a disaster for U.S. foreign policy and vowed never to support him. So deep is their revulsion that several even say they could vote for Hillary Clinton over Trump in November.

“Hillary is the lesser evil, by a large margin,” said Eliot Cohen, a former top State Department official under George W. Bush and a strategic theorist who argues for a muscular U.S. role abroad. Trump’s election would be “an unmitigated disaster for American foreign policy,” Cohen said, adding that “he has already damaged it considerably.”

Cohen, an Iraq war backer who is often called a neoconservative but said he does not identify himself that way, said he would “strongly prefer a third party candidate” to Trump, but added: “Probably if absolutely no alternative: Hillary.”

In a March 1 interview with Vox, Max Boot, a military historian at the Council on Foreign Relations who backed the Iraq War and often advocates a hawkish foreign policy, said that he, too, would vote for Clinton over Trump. “I’m literally losing sleep over Donald Trump,” he said. “She would be vastly preferable to Trump.”

Cohen helped to organize an open letter signed by several dozen GOP foreign policy insiders — many of whom are not considered neocons — that was published Wednesday night by the military blog War on the Rocks. “[W]e are unable to support a Party ticket with Mr. Trump at its head,” the letter declared. It cited everything from Trump’s “admiration for foreign dictators” to his “inexcusable” support for “the expansive use of torture.”

The letter was signed by dozens of Republican foreign policy experts, including Boot; Peter Feaver, a former senior national security aide in George W. Bush’s White House; Robert Zoellick, a former deputy to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice; and Dov Zakheim, a former Bush Pentagon official; and Kori Schake, a fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution and a former Bush State Department official.

Several other neocons said they find themselves in an impossible position, constitutionally incapable of voting for Clinton but repelled by a Republican whose foreign policy views they consider somewhere between nonexistent and dangerous — and disconnected from their views about American power and values abroad.

“1972 was the first time I was old enough to vote for president, and I did not vote. Couldn’t vote for McGovern for foreign policy reasons, nor for Nixon because of Watergate,” said Elliott Abrams, a former national security council aide to George W. Bush who specializes in democracy and the Middle East. “I may be in the same boat in 2016, unable to vote for Trump or Clinton.”

Weekly Standard Editor Bill Kristol, something of a dean of Washington neoconservatives, said he would seek out a third option before choosing between Trump and Clinton.

“If it’s Trump-Clinton, I’d work with others to recruit a strong conservative third party candidate, and do my best to help him win (which by the way would be more possible than people think, especially when people — finally — realize Trump shouldn’t be president and Hillary is indicted),” Kristol wrote in an email.

Kristol and Abrams have advised Florida senator Marco Rubio, the preferred choice of several neoconservatives, who admire his call for “moral clarity” in foreign policy and strong emphasis on human rights and democracy.

Alarm brewing for months in GOP foreign policy circles burst into public view last week, when Robert Kagan, a key backer of the Iraq War and American global might, wrote in the Washington Post that a Trump nomination would force him to cross party lines.

“The only choice will be to vote for Hillary Clinton,” Kagan warned. “The party cannot be saved, but the country still can be.”

In an interview, Kagan said his opposition to Trump “has nothing to do with foreign policy.”

Trump

“What it has to do with is the health and safety of American democracy,” he added. “I don’t even know what Donald Trump’s foreign policy is. I don’t think anybody does.”Though Trump’s foreign policy views don’t fit any familiar category, he has outlined several clear positions at odds with neoconservative doctrine.While neoconservatives believe America plays a unique role in defending global order and Western values, Trump has long complained about America’s military presence abroad and the protection the U.S. provides to prosperous allies like Saudi Arabia, Japan and South Korea.

Neocons depict Russian President Vladimir Putin as a sinister tyrant challenging America; Trump calls Putin a strong leader with whom he’d “get along very well” and proposes a more cooperative relationship with Moscow.

Neocons believe the U.S. must forcefully defend Israel. But while Trump insists his presidency would be “the best thing that could ever happen to Israel,” he has alarmed pro-Israel Republicans with his pledge to be a “neutral” arbiter in talks between Israel and the Palestinians.

Trump has shown little interest in the neoconservative cause of an interventionist foreign policy guided by principles like democracy and human rights. And he says the neocon project of invading Iraq may have been “the worst decision” in presidential history.

Some conservative foreign policy insiders opposed to Trump stop short of saying they would vote for Clinton, despite elements of her foreign policy record, such as her 2002 Senate vote to authorize force against Iraq, that they find appealing.

“I could never vote for Clinton under any circumstances,” said Abrams.

“I would ask Bob [Kagan] what job he thinks Sidney Blumenthal will have at the NSC before pulling the lever for Clinton,” he added — a reference to the longtime Clinton adviser and bete noir of the right.

Danielle Pletka, a defense expert at the American Enterprise Institute said she, too, would seek some alternative to Trump and Clinton.

“[W]hile I will never vote for a Democrat in wolf’s clothing like Trump, I will also never vote for a candidate as dishonest, as rapacious, as Hillary Clinton,” she wrote in an email. “My vote is a precious thing, and while I will certainly go to the polls, if those are my choices, I will write someone in. And no, it won’t be Bloomberg. :)”The word “neoconservative” is subject to interpretation, and some conservatives consider it pejorative. Originally used to describe Democrats who adopted hard-line anti-Communist views during the Cold War, the word’s colloquial meaning roughly amounts to “hawkish GOP foreign policy intellectual.”Neocons have shown little enthusiasm for Texas Senator Ted Cruz, who has singled them out for scorn. Speaking to Iowa voters in December, Cruz bashed what he called the “crazy neocon invade-every-country-on-earth and send our kids to die in the Middle East” element of his party.

Cruz has also attacked Rubio in debates for supporting military action to topple Middle Eastern dictators in Libya and Syria, and has said the world was better off with former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein in power.

But the neocons reserve special scorn for Trump.

“A Trump presidency would represent the death knell of America as a great power,” Boot writes in the March 7 issue of the Weekly Standard, along with Council on Foreign Relations economist Benn Steill.

Steill and Boot — who also has advised Rubio — call Trump “singularly ill-equipped to manage the resulting turmoil” from his policies. They recall the September radio interview in which Trump confused the Kurds with Iran’s elite military Quds force and admitted he was unfamiliar with the leaders of major Islamist terror groups.

Cohen also added that he doesn’t oppose Trump solely on foreign policy grounds, calling the Manhattan mogul “the most dangerous demagogue in American politics in my lifetime.”

Several other prominent neoconservatives, including former Bush Pentagon official Paul Wolfowitz and Liz Cheney, daughter of former vice president Dick Cheney, did not respond to requests for comment.

Authors:

Michael Crowley  

EU rejects call for security mission in the Balkans / Brussels and European capitals scramble for solutions ahead of the next emergency summit on migration.

EU rejects call for security mission in the Balkans

Brussels and European capitals scramble for solutions ahead of the next emergency summit on migration.

By JACOPO BARIGAZZI 3/2/16, 5:16 PM CET

http://www.politico.eu/article/eu-rejects-call-security-mission-in-balkans-mogherini-eeas-balkan-route-refugees-migration-schengen/

“Patience is running out while populist forces are coming to the fore” — Donald Tusk

The EU’s diplomatic arm rejected calls for a security mission in the Western Balkans to curb the flow of migrants into Europe, saying in a document obtained by POLITICO it would be inappropriate to intervene in countries “with strong institutions.”

While the European External Action Service dismissed the idea of deploying EU troops and other security personnel to help control refugees, calling it unworkable, the fact that it was even being considered shows the lengths to which officials are willing to go to break Europe’s political deadlock on migration.

In recent weeks pressure on leaders has increased and rhetoric has heated up as countries re-impose border checks, abandon commitments on controlling the flow of refugees, and struggle to deal with the human and political cost of the crisis.

Officials and diplomats are still working on several initiatives ahead of the March 7 migration summit, including a push to restore “the full functioning” of the passport-free Schengen area and a new commitment announced Wednesday to spend €700 million on humanitarian aid to help EU member countries, mainly Greece, deal with the refugee influx.

Austria, whose hardline stance on migration has put it at odds with other EU countries, had been pushing for the EU to explore using military and civilian staff in the Balkans to help identify refugees, screen migrants and provide humanitarian assistance, according to diplomats, with an emphasis on the need for a military presence.

The Western Balkans already have a “solid state control and strong institutions,” the EEAS wrote.

“The question of border protection, the question of hotspot[s] is of course also the question of military cooperation,” Hans Peter Doskozil, Austria’s defense minister, told the APA news agency in February. A civil-military mission could be set up quickly, he said, adding that Austrian soldiers could be deployed to Greece, Serbia or Macedonia.

The EU currently runs such operations, known as Common Security and Defense Policy missions, to fight smugglers in the Mediterranean and help tackle migration problems in Niger. But in the document obtained by POLITICO, the EEAS said the idea was not an option in the Western Balkans. In the countries affected by the migration flow, there is already “solid state control and strong institutions,” and the EU cannot intervene, the document stated.

The EEAS acknowledged that EU support may be needed to ensure proper identification and screening of migrants, but said existing EU plans and Frontex, the EU’s border agency, “seem to offer more effective and politically appropriate solutions.” The EEAS document also noted that “at present no Western Balkan countries have presented such a request and it seems unlikely that any of them would.”

Instead, the focus this week has been on stressing the importance of keeping the Schengen system of open internal borders and on strengthening control of external frontiers. According to one official, this is a line on which Vienna and Brussels may have found common ground.

Frustration

The Commission’s proposal to shore up the beleaguered Schengen agreement is included in a new report that diplomats said would be sent to national capitals ahead of a discussion at Monday’s summit.

A Pashtun Aghan refugee upon arrival in Serbia after spending a few days in the Bulgarian forests

The EEAS report says “steps must be taken” to remedy serious deficiencies on the Greek external border, calls for an end to the “wave through” approach some countries have taken to refugees on the move, and warns member countries that they need to comply with EU law and stick to a “coordinated approach” to the crisis and avoid the “current patchwork of unilateral decisions.”

The report also issues a stark warning about the consequences of Schengen falling apart. The Commission has estimated that “the full reestablishment of border controls” within the Schengen area would cost the EU economy between €7 billion and €18 billion annually.

“Patience is running out while populist forces are coming to the fore” — Donald Tusk

European Council President Donald Tusk hammered the “Back to Schengen” message on a tour of Balkan capitals this week.

In Austria, which he called the “eye of the storm” in the migration crisis, Tusk acknowledged that “the level of frustration” with the EU’s inability to make progress on the issue is increasing.

“Patience is running out while populist forces are coming to the fore. Yet it is precisely in moments like these that we need to keep our cool,” Tusk said. “I know that restoring effective controls on the borders is not an easy decision. But the truth is that there is no alternative to it.”

Monday’s meeting of EU leaders comes as tensions rise on several fronts. Relations between Austria and Greece were especially strained last week after Athens recalled its ambassador to Vienna in protest at moves to make it more difficult for migrants to head north across Europe.

Arguing between the two countries bogged down the last summit discussion on migration, over a dinner of EU leaders two weeks ago — reaching a point at which Greek Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras said he wouldn’t stand for his country being cordoned off as a camp for refugees if other EU members along the route sealed off their borders.

Diplomats say they want to avoid similar scenarios at Monday’s emergency summit — as well as a scheduled meeting of EU leaders set for March 17. Both of those upcoming meetings have been described by European leaders, yet again, as “make or break” for the EU’s effective response to the migration crisis.

Kalina Oroschakoff and Hans Joachim von der Burchard contributed to this article.

Câmara acusada de beneficiar promotor da torre de Picoas

O vereador do Urbanismo reconheceu que o promotor cravou estacas num terreno do município

Câmara acusada de beneficiar promotor da torre de Picoas

O vereador do Urbanismo reconheceu que, tal como tinha denunciado o BE, o promotor fez obras num terreno que não lhe pertencia. E acrescenta que a infracção só foi detectada depois de várias fiscalizações

Inês Boaventura / 2-3-2016 / PÚBLICO

A actuação da câmara no caso da torre de 17 andares em Picoas esteve debaixo de fogo na Assembleia Municipal de Lisboa, onde se ouviram criticas pela suposta atribuição de benefícios ao promotor do projecto e por alegadamente se permitir que este viole as regras urbanísticas. Até Helena Roseta optou por não assumir o lugar de presidente da mesa para fazer uma intervenção, na qual condenou aquilo que considerou ser “uma falha grave” na fiscalização da obra.

Em causa está o facto de o promotor deste empreendimento ter feito obras numa parcela de terreno na Av. Fontes Pereira de Melo que não é propriedade sua, mas sim da câmara. Esta situação tinha sido denunciada pelo Bloco de Esquerda na reunião da assembleia municipal que se realizou há duas semanas, ocasião na qual o vereador do Urbanismo pouco mais disse do que garantir que as obras nessa frente de trabalho estavam paradas. Ontem, Manuel Salgado foi mais longe e reconheceu que o promotor cravou estacas num terreno do município. A desafectação do domínio público municipal desse terreno, com vista à sua posterior cedência ao promotor em questão, foi já proposta e aprovada pela câmara, mas carece ainda de aprovação da assembleia municipal.

Segundo o vereador, essa “infracção” foi detectada no início de Dezembro, depois de ter passado despercebida em várias fiscalizações anteriores. “Andou mal, muito mal o dono da obra”, constatou Manuel Salgado, garantindo que, assim que foi assinalada a situação, foi determinada a paragem dos trabalhos na frente de obra da Av. Fontes Pereira de Melo. E por que é que a obra não foi embargada? “Porque o dono da obra acatou imediatamente”, justificou o vereador, segundo quem foi já decidido “proceder à abertura de um processo contra-ordenacional, por obras sem autorização”. “Não podemos permitir que situações destas se repitam”, rematou.

As explicações de Salgado não foram suficientes para convencer boa parte dos deputados da assembleia municipal. Entre eles o bloquista Ricardo Robles, segundo quem não só os trabalhos que alegadamente estavam parados continuaram a ser feitos como o promotor “avançou também para dentro do domínio público” numa outra frente de obra, na Av. 5 de Outubro. Para o deputado, que já por várias vezes criticou a forma como o executivo presidido por Fernando Medina tem conduzido este processo, este “é um caso que começa a ter dimensões graves”. “A câmara não deve ser um parceiro que permite tudo o que vai para além das regras”, disse ainda, criticando “o tratamento absolutamente excepcional deste projecto” e o “benefício” atribuído ao promotor em questão.

Também muito crítica foi Margarida Saavedra (PSD), que considerou que a atribuição pela câmara do estatuto de obra com excepcional interesse municipal fez com que este projecto fosse “dispensado do cumprimento de uma série de preceitos”. “A lei aplica-se a todos”, sublinhou, alertando que, a não ser assim, se está a comprometer a “equidade” que deve existir. Defendeu ainda que, no que às “obras clandestinas” diz respeito, “a culpa não pode morrer sozinha”. Acrescentando que “tudo indica” que esta situação tenha tido “a conivência da câmara”, Margarida Saavedra sustentou que a autarquia “não se pode furtar das culpas”.

Ouviram-se ainda criticas de Miguel Santos, do Pessoas-AnimaisNatureza, e de Modesto Navarro, do PCP, bem como de Helena Roseta, que foi eleita na lista do PS. Condenando a “falha grave” que existiu na fiscalização, a autarca dos Cidadãos Por Lisboa afirmou: “Há que tomar providências para sermos especialmente exigentes nos projectos que têm especial relevância”.

Em resposta aos deputados, Salgado fez saber que vai enviar para o órgão presidido por Roseta “todo o processo” da torre de Picoas, para que os deputados possam fazer a sua “auditoria”. O vereador frisou ainda que o facto de se considerar que este edifício tem excepcional interesse “não o isenta do cumprimento escrupuloso de toda a regulamentação urbanística”. Segundo acrescentou depois ao PÚBLICO, “a única coisa em que [essa distinção] se traduziu foi na possibilidade de o promotor recorrer aos créditos de construção” para aumentar a edificabilidade.

E depois da União

SIM … Na opinião do VOODOCORVO estamos lentamente e progressivamente a fabricar o “impossível” e o “inominável” … a desconstrução da União Europeia tal como a conhecemos.

O único princípio que poderá ser ainda salvo será o da “Unidade em Diversidade”, "modelo Inglês" e não só … As Nações irão organisar-se novamente em vários núcleos de empatia, identidade e interesses . O núcleo do Norte. O núcleo do Leste. O núcleo dos Balkans.

Mais uma vez o futuro da Europa determinado pela Alemanha. Pelo terrível e colossal erro de avaliação de Merkel que abriu a caixa de Pandora, abertura causada por um Idealismo irrealista e provocando a libertação de todas as suas irracionalidades e energias, impossíveis de gerir.

Isto, e uma crise de prestígio das elites Europeias aprisionadas por uma ideologia exclusivamente financeira, dominada pelo modelo neo-liberal e o seu triunfo do Materialismo.

Que acontecerá a Portugal como Nação ? SIM há que pensar estratégicamente o impossível afim de estar preparado para ele.

OVOODOCORVO

–------------------------------------------------------------------------

OPINIÃO

E depois da União

GUSTAVO CARDOSO 01/03/2016 -PÚBLICO

Alguém acredita que dentro de seis anos deixará de haver União Europeia (UE)? Sim, eu acredito que pode deixar de haver uma União como a que nos trouxe até aqui.

Em 1983, em plena crise da instalação de mísseis nucleares americanos Pershing na Europa, ninguém acreditava que a URSS e o muro de Berlim cairiam dentro de alguns anos. No entanto, passados apenas seis anos cairiam, mudando o curso da história e fazendo-o perante a incredulidade do nosso olhar vidrado nos directos televisivos.

Tudo isto vem a propósito da necessidade de pensar o "impossível" antes que ele aconteça, ter uma posição pronta face ao não expectável e relembrar o passado nas suas múltiplas faces.

Pensemos em algo "impossível", algo que não se pode dizer se se for governante ou deputado num país da UE por poder influenciar os "mercados", mas que pode ser dito na conjugação da ucronia e da prospectiva.

Pensemos no "futuro fim da União Europeia" à luz do ocorrido nos anos 1980 na Europa e regressemos por momentos até esses anos. Pensemos na série televisiva "Deutschland 83", uma produção alemã que retrata a vinda de um jovem de 24 anos da Alemanha Democrática para a Alemanha Federal como espião da STASI.

O mais interessante dessa série não é a trama de espionagem, que é cativante, mas sim mostrar-nos a vida nas alemanhas dos anos 1980e fazer-nos lembrar que os noticiários de então faziam conviver o nosso jantar com uma provável guerra nuclear táctica na Europa ao mesmo tempo que nos davam conta das manifestações pacifistas.

Há coisas que regressam até nós vindas dos anos 19801, como os ténis Stan Smith, mas há outras coisas que esquecemos provavelmente por acharmos que não se repetirão.

Normalmente, diz-se que a Europa se salva sempre no último momento, que o seu futuro se constrói ao estilo do "pontapé para a frente e fé em Deus" e que essa é a matriz da construção europeia e que tudo termina sempre bem.

O problema com esse argumentário é que ele encontra reforço no sucesso do passado, ao bom velho estilo do "como sempre nos safámos, porque não haverá de acontecer o mesmo agora?" No entanto, o mesmo argumento pode ser utilizado ao contrário.

Aquilo que não se consegue imaginar vir a acontecer tem sempre mais probabilidade de poder acontecer, pois quando não se imagina não se procuram exemplos semelhantes no passado.

Por exemplo, é mais fácil imaginar a continuidade da União Europeia do que, tal como no passado aconteceu à União Soviética, a sua desagregação. Tal, sucede não porque a probabilidade não exista, mas porque preferimos não colocar a hipótese de que algo em que hoje vivemos possa deixar de existir.

Os grandes temas noticiosos da passada semana poderiam parecer não ter nada a ver com a continuidade da União Europeia. No entanto, quando falamos do orçamento português estamos a falar da continuidade da UE, quando falamos em Novo Banco e lesados do GES idem e quando se conjuga "Britan" e "Exit", obtendo "Brexit", estamos a falar de uma outra UE.

Se, incrivelmente, assistirmos ao desaparecimento da União, tal como ela é hoje, deve Portugal continuar na União? Devemos juntar-nos aos nossos parceiros ingleses que entretanto saíram? Mudar o Euro pela Libra?

Talvez, simplesmente, seja boa ideia, de vez em quando, fazer perguntas fora do contexto para podermos antecipar o momento em que o contexto muda, só para não sermos nós "antecipadamente" mudados por ele.

Gustavo Cardoso é Director do Barómetro de Notícias do ISCTE-IUL e investigador do College d'Études Mondiales na FMSH Paris