Riparte la Bolkenstein. Dx e Sx europee trovano un accordo

[Roberto Buffagn]

Destre e sinistre europee hanno raggiunto un accordo sulla direttiva Bolkenstein. In buona sostanza, la faranno passare un pezzo alla volta.
Qui il rendiconto di Euobserver.com:

Centre-right and socialist MEPs near deal on services law
08.02.2006 - 18:09 CET | By Lucia Kubosova EUOBSERVER / BRUSSELS - The
negotiators of the two biggest groups in the European Parliament on Wednesday (8
February) forged a breakthrough compromise on the controversial services
directive.

"It is a reasonable solution," said the German socialist rapporteur on the bill,
Evelyne Gebhardt, following a series of tough negotiations between centre-right
and socialist groups.

She said the compromise represented a "third way" between efforts to open up the
services sector on one hand and to protect Europe's social model on the other.

The legislation dubbed the "Bolkenstein directive" after its Dutch
ex-commissioner author has come under fire for potentially threatening services
at the heart of public interest, like health and social services, through
cross-border competition.

Its opponents also claim the law could lead to "social dumping," with wages and
social security standards being pushed down.

Stop the war between "principles"
The two key issues - the scope of the directive and the so called "country of
origin" or "country of destination" principle defining whose rules apply - have
dominated the debate between the advocates of liberal and more protectionist
versions of the directive.

Under Wednesday's agreement, the country of origin principle would be
reformulated.

The new version states that while companies have the right to offer their
services in countries other than those where they are set up, the member states
hosting them must remove all the current obstacles the firms might encounter.

"All the rules which are discriminatory, unnecessary or disproportional must
go," said Ms Gebhardt.

Referring to the infamous example, she said "It would mean that a Polish plumber
could offer his services in France, without extra demands by French officers on
his equipment, material or qualifications."

Self-employed plumbers or other professionals could sell their services at a
lower price than their colleagues from the hosting country.

On the other hand, companies sending their workers abroad to provide their
services would be obliged to follow the hosting country's minimum labour, social
and environmental rules, in a bid to avoid "social dumping."

Coverage of umbrella law still unclear
The final verdict on the full coverage of the services directive is still
unclear.

For the moment, the centre-right deputies have agreed to exclude social services
from those governed by the new law, but keep other types of "services of general
economic interest" within its scope.

The socialists insist these services - provided by private companies but in
areas of public interest sectors like health or education - should be fully
exempted.

However, some view the compromise as making the law too weak.

"We have been discussing with several of my colleagues that what is coming up as
a proclaimed 'compromise' is actually a back down from our part, as with so many
exemptions from the directive, it might end up quite empty and useless,"
commented the Czech centre-right MEP, Zuzana Roithova.

All eyes set on Strasbourg
The European Parliament will debate the directive next week in Strasbourg, with
a vote scheduled on 16 February.

The commission will amend the law according to the MEPs' vote results, and then
hand a re-formulated version to the member states.

Optimists argue that EU leaders could then agree on basic political guidelines
concerning the directive when they meet for a spring summit in March

[Traditio]

..come al solito quando bisogna asservirsi ai poteri forti destra e sinistra dimostrano di essere figli dello stesso inferno..

[C@scista]

Chi è Frederick Bolkenstein? Leader del partito liberale olandese, partner dei socialdemocratici nel governo di centro-sinistra di Wim Kok, poi commissario europeo al mercato interno con Prodi, è un economista liberale, che, negli anni ‘80, è stato ministro del Commercio estero e della Difesa.

Ma le sue credenziali di manager della globalizzazione sono ben più ampie e profonde. Ha infatti partecipato al 52° incontro del gruppo Bildenberg, che ha avuto luogo a Stresa nel giugno 2004. E non era una new entry, visto che aveva partecipato anche a quello di Toronto nel 1996. è stato anche revisore della seconda più grande industria farmaceutica del mondo, la Merck, Sharp & Dohme.
Al suo curriculum si aggiungono le stellette di presidente dell’Internazionale liberale, presidente della Atlantic Commission (Olanda), membro della Mont-Pelerin Society. Frits Bolkenstein è stato anche per 16 anni alla Royal Shell Dutsch prima di diventare General director della Chemical Shell.
Insomma, un Prodi olandese, però più bravo. E anche più potente. L’impressione che si ha sui rapporti intercorsi tra i due è che quello che dava le direttive fosse proprio Frits.
La direttiva infatti nasce anche dalla volontà politica oltreché dalla filosofia economica dell'allora Presidente della Commissione europea Romani Prodi
Il Prodi pensiero, infatti, si articola su un paio di tesi che l’economista bolognese ripete incessantemente. La prima è che l’Europa deve creare un’enorme area di “libero scambio” assieme ai Paesi ex comunisti - il vecchio progetto di Kissinger, del miliardario “comunista” Usa Hammer e della Trilateral commission - per rilanciare l’Europa dell’Est. Secondo Prodi e Soros “dobbiamo consentire che essa si integri col nostro mercato comune. Allora occorre fare spazio ai loro agricoltori, ai siderurgici, ai tessili, a quelli della meccanica semplice, in una parola a quei settori in cui l’Est è capace di produrre. In altre parole, l’Unione europea devrebbe aprire i suoi mercati a prodotti concorrenziali in virtù dei più bassi costi di produzione”. Tutte queste chicche, Romano Prodi le consegnava al quotidiano la Repubblica già nel 1994.
Tutto perfettamente in linea con le evoluzioni della politica liberal europea e - ahimè - con i desiderata di Bolkenstein, che con la liberalizzazione dei servizi vuole abbassare gli standard di protezione sociale ai livelli “competitivi” dei Paesi di nuovo ingresso, ex comunisti, dove le conquiste sociali, ovviamente, stanno in netto ritardo...
Ma se Prodi è un ideologo antesignano, Bolkenstein è un operativo e ha le idee chiare su come far sì che i sogni europei di Romano si realizzino. E infatti è anche fiero assertore della cancellazione dei contributi europei all’agricoltura e dei fondi di solidarietà. Lo schema è logico e semplice e chiarisce il significato che il nuovo centrosinistra dà al termine “progressista”: la parte più benestante del mondo deve “progressivamente” cedere quote di mercato ai Paesi meno evoluti, rinunciando alle produzioni elementari per “finanziarizzarsi” sempre di più. Le multinazionali si occuperanno di gestire le produzioni del Terzo mondo commercializzandole nel nostro mercato. “Progressivamente” gli standard di lavoro si verranno incontro... I nostri degenerando ed i loro evolvendo, fino ad un punto di equilibrio che crei un maggiore profitto al vertice. Come no!!!!!!!!

[Roberto Buffagn]

Lo schema è logico e semplice e chiarisce il significato che il nuovo centrosinistra dà al termine “progressista”: la parte più benestante del mondo deve “progressivamente” cedere quote di mercato ai Paesi meno evoluti, rinunciando alle produzioni elementari per “finanziarizzarsi” sempre di più. Le multinazionali si occuperanno di gestire le produzioni del Terzo mondo commercializzandole nel nostro mercato. “Progressivamente” gli standard di lavoro si verranno incontro... I nostri degenerando ed i loro evolvendo, fino ad un punto di equilibrio che crei un maggiore profitto al vertice. Come no!!!!!!!!

Ringrazio per l'esauriente analisi, e completo con un resoconto dei risultati che ha avuto in USA la politica economica mercatista che Prodi applicherà in Italia se saremo abbastanza suicidi da eleggerlo. (da Counterpunch.org)

February 11/12, 2006
Forget Iran, Americans Should be Hysterical About This
Nuking the Economy
By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS
Last week the Bureau of Labor Statistics re-benchmarked the payroll jobs
data back to 2000. Thanks to Charles McMillion of MBG Information
Services, I have the adjusted data from January 2001 through January 2006.
If you are worried about terrorists, you don’t know what worry is.
Job growth over the last five years is the weakest on record. The US
economy came up more than 7 million jobs short of keeping up with
population growth. That’s one good reason for controlling immigration. An
economy that cannot keep up with population growth should not be boosting
population with heavy rates of legal and illegal immigration.
Over the past five years the US economy experienced a net job loss in
goods producing activities. The entire job growth was in service-providing
activities--primarily credit intermediation, health care and social
assistance, waiters, waitresses and bartenders, and state and local
government.
US manufacturing lost 2.9 million jobs, almost 17% of the manufacturing
work force. The wipeout is across the board. Not a single manufacturing
payroll classification created a single new job.
The declines in some manufacturing sectors have more in common with a
country undergoing saturation bombing during war than with a super-economy
that is “the envy of the world.” Communications equipment lost 43% of its
workforce. Semiconductors and electronic components lost 37% of its
workforce. The workforce in computers and electronic products declined
30%. Electrical equipment and appliances lost 25% of its employees. The
workforce in motor vehicles and parts declined 12%. Furniture and related
products lost 17% of its jobs. Apparel manufacturers lost almost half of
the work force. Employment in textile mills declined 43%. Paper and paper
products lost one-fifth of its jobs. The work force in plastics and rubber
products declined by 15%. Even manufacturers of beverages and tobacco
products experienced a 7% shrinkage in jobs.
The knowledge jobs that were supposed to take the place of lost
manufacturing jobs in the globalized “new economy” never appeared. The
information sector lost 17% of its jobs, with the telecommunications work
force declining by 25%. Even wholesale and retail trade lost jobs. Despite
massive new accounting burdens imposed by Sarbanes-Oxley, accounting and
bookkeeping employment shrank by 4%. Computer systems design and related
lost 9% of its jobs. Today there are 209,000 fewer managerial and
supervisory jobs than 5 years ago.
In five years the US economy only created 70,000 jobs in architecture and
engineering, many of which are clerical. Little wonder engineering
enrollments are shrinking. There are no jobs for graduates. The talk about
engineering shortages is absolute ignorance. There are several hundred
thousand American engineers who are unemployed and have been for years. No
student wants a degree that is nothing but a ticket to a soup line. Many
engineers have written to me that they cannot even get Wal-Mart jobs
because their education makes them over-qualified.
Offshore outsourcing and offshore production have left the US awash with
unemployment among the highly educated. The low measured rate of
unemployment does not include discouraged workers. Labor arbitrage has
made the unemployment rate less and less a meaningful indicator. In the
past unemployment resulted mainly from turnover in the labor force and
recession. Recoveries pulled people back into jobs.
Unemployment benefits were intended to help people over the down time in
the cycle when workers were laid off. Today the unemployment is permanent
as entire occupations and industries are wiped out by labor arbitrage as
corporations replace their American employees with foreign ones.
Economists who look beyond political press releases estimate the US
unemployment rate to be between 7% and 8.5%. There are now hundreds of
thousands of Americans who will never recover their investment in their
university education.
Unless the BLS is falsifying the data or businesses are reporting the
opposite of the facts, the US is experiencing a job depression. Most
economists refuse to acknowledge the facts, because they endorsed
globalization. It was a win-win situation, they said.
They were wrong.
At a time when America desperately needs the voices of educated people as
a counterweight to the disinformation that emanates from the Bush
administration and its supporters, economists have discredited themselves.
This is especially true for “free market economists” who foolishly assumed
that international labor arbitrage was an example of free trade that was
benefitting Americans. Where is the benefit when employment in US export
industries and import-competitive industries is shrinking? After decades
of struggle to regain credibility, free market economics is on the verge
of another wipeout.
No sane economist can possibly maintain that a deplorable record of merely
1,054,000 net new private sector jobs over five years is an indication of
a healthy economy. The total number of private sector jobs created over
the five year period is 500,000 jobs less than one year’s legal and
illegal immigration! (In a December 2005 Center for Immigration Studies
report based on the Census Bureau’s March 2005 Current Population Survey,
Steven Camarota writes that there were 7,9 million new immigrants between
January 2000 and March 2005.)
The economics profession has failed America. It touts a meaningless number
while joblessness soars. Lazy journalists at the New York Times simply
rewrite the Bush administration’s press releases.
On February 10 the Commerce Department released a record US trade deficit
in goods and services for 2005--$726 billion. The US deficit in Advanced
Technology Products reached a new high. Offshore production for home
markets and jobs outsourcing has made the US highly dependent on foreign
provided goods and services, while simultaneously reducing the export
capability of the US economy. It is possible that there might be no
exchange rate at which the US can balance its trade.
Polls indicate that the Bush administration is succeeding in whipping up
fear and hysteria about Iran. The secretary of defense is promising
Americans decades-long war. Is death in battle Bush’s solution to the job
depression? Will Asians finance a decades-long war for a bankrupt country?

Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan
administration. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal
editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review. He is coauthor
of The Tyranny of Good Intentions.He can be reached at:
paulcraigroberts@yahoo.comNow Available

[T34]

Destre e sinistre europee hanno raggiunto un accordo sulla direttiva Bolkenstein. In buona sostanza, la faranno passare un pezzo alla volta.
Qui il rendiconto di Euobserver.com:

Centre-right and socialist MEPs near deal on services law
08.02.2006 - 18:09 CET | By Lucia Kubosova EUOBSERVER / BRUSSELS - The
negotiators of the two biggest groups in the European Parliament on Wednesday (8
February) forged a breakthrough compromise on the controversial services
directive.

"It is a reasonable solution," said the German socialist rapporteur on the bill,
Evelyne Gebhardt, following a series of tough negotiations between centre-right
and socialist groups.

She said the compromise represented a "third way" between efforts to open up the
services sector on one hand and to protect Europe's social model on the other.

The legislation dubbed the "Bolkenstein directive" after its Dutch
ex-commissioner author has come under fire for potentially threatening services
at the heart of public interest, like health and social services, through
cross-border competition.

Its opponents also claim the law could lead to "social dumping," with wages and
social security standards being pushed down.

Stop the war between "principles"
The two key issues - the scope of the directive and the so called "country of
origin" or "country of destination" principle defining whose rules apply - have
dominated the debate between the advocates of liberal and more protectionist
versions of the directive.

Under Wednesday's agreement, the country of origin principle would be
reformulated.

The new version states that while companies have the right to offer their
services in countries other than those where they are set up, the member states
hosting them must remove all the current obstacles the firms might encounter.

"All the rules which are discriminatory, unnecessary or disproportional must
go," said Ms Gebhardt.

Referring to the infamous example, she said "It would mean that a Polish plumber
could offer his services in France, without extra demands by French officers on
his equipment, material or qualifications."

Self-employed plumbers or other professionals could sell their services at a
lower price than their colleagues from the hosting country.

On the other hand, companies sending their workers abroad to provide their
services would be obliged to follow the hosting country's minimum labour, social
and environmental rules, in a bid to avoid "social dumping."

Coverage of umbrella law still unclear
The final verdict on the full coverage of the services directive is still
unclear.

For the moment, the centre-right deputies have agreed to exclude social services
from those governed by the new law, but keep other types of "services of general
economic interest" within its scope.

The socialists insist these services - provided by private companies but in
areas of public interest sectors like health or education - should be fully
exempted.

However, some view the compromise as making the law too weak.

"We have been discussing with several of my colleagues that what is coming up as
a proclaimed 'compromise' is actually a back down from our part, as with so many
exemptions from the directive, it might end up quite empty and useless,"
commented the Czech centre-right MEP, Zuzana Roithova.

All eyes set on Strasbourg
The European Parliament will debate the directive next week in Strasbourg, with
a vote scheduled on 16 February.

The commission will amend the law according to the MEPs' vote results, and then
hand a re-formulated version to the member states.

Optimists argue that EU leaders could then agree on basic political guidelines
concerning the directive when they meet for a spring summit in March

Il resto è fuffa...

[Roberto Buffagn]

Il resto è fuffa...

Magari. Questi prima abbassano i prezzi delle prestazioni; poi, eliminano gli ordini professionali (se gli stranieri possono entrare senza aderire agli ordini professionali locali, questi non hanno più senso); poi tolgono valore legale ai titoli di studio (stesso discorso di sopra) e per finire, ci ammollano la Bolkenstein nella sua versione originale e massima. Il tutto, facendo leva sul risentimento delle masse contro i dentisti e i notai milionari. Risultato: magari pagheremo meno il dentista, però ci avranno fregato il servizio sanitario nazionale e l'istruzione pubblica; e non avremo più un ceto medio a base nazionale (non avremo più una nazione). Un affarone, eh?

[Zefram_Cochrane]

vergogna

nessun accordo con questi qua

destra e sinistra sono uguali, e questa ne è la dimostrazione