Feed aggregator

Russia and Turkey have agreed to take necessary measures to improve relations between the two countries. On June 27, President Putin received a message from his Turkish counterpart, in which Erdogan apologized for killing the pilot of the downed Su-24 Russian bomber. Erdogan also expressed his willingness to restore friendly relations with Russia

A Vajdasági Rádió és Televízió (RTV) újságíróinak és szerkesztőinek egy csoportja panaszt nyújt be a strasbourgi Emberi Jogok Európai Bíróságánál a médiaházban történt leváltások miatt, de a Vajdasági Újságírók Független Egyesülete (NDNV) szerint kiemelt jelentőséget tulajdonítanak az Arežina-ügynek is, amelyet a szerbiai bíróságok előtt folytatnak le.

Fuelled by mounting public concern at the fast-growing number of asylum-seekers and migrants crossing Europe’s borders, the second half of 2015 saw a surge in support for illiberal parties, politicians and policies.

The refugee crisis has been an opportunity to showcase the xenophobia and nativism that is central to illiberalism. Political parties on both the right and the left, and at all points of Europe’s geographic compass, seized the crisis as a chance to build political support. Among many examples, Slovakia’s left-wing prime minister Robert Fico allegedly called migration the ‘ritual slaughter’ of Europe’s nations, while two Alternative für Deutschland MEPs called for police to shoot at refugees entering Germany illegally.

Recent opinion polls show that the radical-right populist Sweden Democrats, who polled 13% in the 2014 parliamentary election, would now win 20% of the vote, just a few percentage points behind the centre-right Moderates and the Social Democrats that have long dominated Swedish politics. The Netherlands’ Geert Wilders – who has called for Islamic male refugees to be locked in camps to prevent a ‘sexual jihad’ – has seen his anti-Islamic Freedom Party surge to 29% support. As well as the publicity offered by the Brexit referendum campaign, fears about rising immigration also gave the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) and its leader Nigel Farage a new lease of life after the party’s disappointing election results last May.

“The refugee crisis was an opportunity to showcase xenophobia and nativism”

Fears about the impact of refugees on Poland’s culture helped the Law and Justice party to power in last October’s election. Poland’s new government was welcomed into office by Hungary’s Viktor Orbán, who dedicated part of his Independence Day speech to lauding Poland’s new illiberal leaders, telling them that ‘we are with you, and we send this message to Brussels: more respect to the Polish people, more respect to Poland!’ Poland’s new leaders followed the Hungarian model immediately, with constitutional amendments limiting the independence of both the courts and the media. After the terrorist attacks in Brussels in late March, the Polish government also announced that it was reversing its initial agreement to take in 7,000 refugees as a part of the EU’s relocation plan.

Similar, albeit milder, limits to democratic freedoms are being deliberated elsewhere. In Latvia, the parliament has debated controversial amendments to the Criminal Code that would make public discussion of changes to the Latvian constitutional order a criminal offense with a prison sentence of up to five years.

This illiberal turn is not a new phenomenon – in 2007, Eurozine debated the rise of ‘Illiberal Europe’. But back then, illiberalism was largely limited to the new east-central European member states of the European Union. Now, though, driven by the refugee crisis, illiberalism has expanded further afield. Indeed, Donald Trump’s campaign for the US presidency has been powered by unexpectedly broad public support for illiberal language and policies such as promises to build a wall between Mexico and the US, and threats to ban Muslims from entering the country.

“Europe’s illiberal parties have been around for several decades pilfering votes from the left and the right”

Is this the end of the liberal democratic consensus that has shaped Europe since 1945? Liberal democracy has protected individual liberties such as the freedoms of speech, assembly and religion. It is underpinned by the laws and norms adopted by key European institutions such as the Council of Europe and Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). But these liberal values are not a necessary or a core part of democracy. States could be less liberal but remain democratic, as leaders like Orbán advocate. Such a consolidation of illiberalism, though, is unlikely for three reasons.

First, Europe’s illiberal parties have been around for several decades but remain relatively small. Their default position is opposition rather than government. They have become an established part of the party systems of many European states by pilfering votes from both parties of the left and the right through their appeal to the economic losers of globalisation – typically working-class men in post-industrial towns – as well as those left bewildered and alienated by the broad cultural shift towards secularism and tolerance of diversity. Except for some central European states, even where support for illiberals has swelled – as it has in the Netherlands – on the back of the refugee crisis, it is still some way short of a majority.

Second, there are significant differences between illiberal politicians in the east and west. Hungary and Poland are generally pro-EU, while Britain’s UKIP exists to be pro-Brexit and Marine Le Pen would withdraw France from not just the EU but also NATO. There are also significant east-west differences in attitudes to drugs, gay rights and other values issues. Illiberals are, well, illiberal – they find it difficult to cooperate with others. Hence, the long-standing problems in forming a stable illiberal – or radical-right populist – party group in the European Parliament. A broad pan-European coalition or movement of anti-refugee parties is unlikely.

Finally, the migrant issue will eventually fade. As the flow of refugees slows down – whether this year or next – the public fear and rage of ‘the other’ that has fuelled illiberal parties and attitudes will diminish. Mainstream parties of the left and right will roll-back the illiberal language they partially stole from the political fringes, and European politics will return to its liberal democratic default. This refugee crisis is an episode of European politics, not the beginning of a return to the institutionalised illiberal politics of the inter-war era.

 

The post Europe’s new populists are frightening – but they won’t last appeared first on Europe’s World.

Les chasseurs de l’opération Chammal poursuivent leurs missions de destruction des capacités de combat de Daech. Ces dernières 48 heures, ils ont mené 5 frappes et détruit plusieurs objectifs, principalement situés dans la province de l’Anbar. Ils ont ainsi directement contribué à maintenir le rythme des opérations des forces irakiennes qui ont poursuivi, dans le week-end, leurs opérations de reconquête des territoires tenus par l’organisation terroriste.

Koalícióra léptek ma a Szerb Haladó Párt (SNS), a Szerbiai Szocialista Párt (SPS) és a Vajdasági Szociáldemokrata Liga (LSV) újvidéki helyi listáinak képviselői, megállapodtak a székváros fejlesztési programjáról, de a funkciók elosztásáról nem esett szó, jelentette be az SNS-es Miloš Vučević, Újvidék polgármestere, aki várhatóan a továbbiakban is marad a tisztségen.

Plenary sessions : The European Parliament held an extraordinary plenary session in Brussels on Tuesday 28 June for MEPs to discuss and vote on a resolution assessing the outcome of the UK referendum and its consequences for the European Union. European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker and Council representatives also took part

Source : © European Union, 2016 - EP

Plenary sessions : The European Parliament held an extraordinary plenary session in Brussels on Tuesday 28 June for MEPs to discuss and vote on a resolution assessing the outcome of the UK referendum and its consequences for the European Union. European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker and Council representatives also took part

Source : © European Union, 2016 - EP

Mercredi 22 juin, la SIMMAD a convié ses investisseurs à une cérémonie militaire, suivie d’échanges informels sur la base aérienne 106 de Bordeaux. 

Auteur de l’article « Brexit : les risques du référendum » paru dans le numéro de printemps 2016 de Politique étrangère (1/2016), Vivien Pertusot, responsable du bureau de l’Ifri à Bruxelles, répond à trois questions en exclusivité pour politique-etrangere.com.

1) Comment expliquer ce vote en faveur du Brexit ?

Le Brexit s’est joué autour de deux questions : le vote anglais et le vote des jeunes. L’Angleterre a largement voté en faveur du Brexit : 15,1 millions d’Anglais ont voté « Leave », tandis que 16,2 millions de Britanniques ont voté « Remain ». Le vote « Remain » doit beaucoup aux votes écossais et londoniens. Toutefois, l’élément déterminant concerne le taux de participation. Celui-ci s’est avéré insuffisant dans les régions pro-maintien. Ainsi, il était inférieur à la participation nationale (72,2 %) dans 23 des 33 circonscriptions londoniennes et a été cinq points inférieurs en Écosse. À l’inverse, le Sud-Est et le Sud-Ouest, majoritairement favorables au « Brexit », ont voté à plus de 76 %.

Le vote des jeunes a également été décisif. Au Royaume-Uni, comme ailleurs, la propension à aller voter évolue avec l’âge. De manière proportionnellement inverse, la tendance au maintien dans l’UE diminue avec l’âge. L’argument selon lequel ce référendum concerne l’avenir des jeunes, aussi rationnel soit-il, a eu l’effet d’un prêche dans le désert. Certaines données sont alarmantes : seuls 38 % des 18-24 ans (pourtant favorables à plus de 70 % au maintien) auraient voté.

2) Quelles crises politiques se dessinent au Royaume-Uni ?

Les partis politiques sont divisés. Les Tories sans surprise, même s’il est possible que la démission de David Cameron d’ici le mois d’octobre permette d’éviter des luttes intestines trop violentes. Cela n’empêchera pas le parti de traverser d’incroyables turbulences. Le prochain leader, et Premier ministre, aura une tâche ardue. Comme précisé dans mon article paru dans Politique étrangère, il ne faut pas négliger l’impact sur les Travaillistes. Le leadership de Jeremy Corbin n’était pas absolu et les démissions en cascade depuis les résultats le confirment : le parti va traverser une période de déchirures internes. Il sort plus affaibli par ce résultat que le parti conservateur.

Reste l’intégrité du Royaume-Uni. La First Minister écossaise Nicola Sturgeon brandit déjà l’hypothèse d’un nouveau référendum sur l’indépendance. Il n’est toutefois pas certain que Londres donne son accord immédiatement à un nouveau référendum : le contexte économique est très défavorable à une indépendance écossaise (la livre et le prix du pétrole sont faibles) et ce serait un vrai risque pour les indépendantistes de précipiter l’affaire. Une réunification de l’Irlande revient à l’ordre du jour, mais le débat est marginal et loin d’être mûr.

 3) Quelles conséquences pour l’Union européenne ?

Il est bien difficile de savoir à ce jour comment le reste des 27 États membres va appréhender le « Brexit ». Le résultat a provoqué un torrent de déclarations et de gesticulations politiques. Relance pour les uns, exemple à suivre pour les autres, temps de réflexion pour d’autres encore… Le risque est de vouloir se précipiter vers une solution qui semble toute prête : intégrer davantage dans certains domaines, quitte à le faire dans un petit groupe. Il est évident qu’il faut réagir, mais la portée du Brexit est telle qu’il pourrait être contreproductif de mettre hâtivement en œuvre des décisions mal pensées et mal expliquées. Le temps des grands projets viendra, mais il doit être préparé. Toute crise ne doit pas automatiquement et immédiatement conduire à plus d’intégration. Seule une vraie réflexion, probablement longue et pénible, peut amener à cette conclusion.

After declaring that Hungary ‘will not be a colony’ and won’t ‘live according to the commands of foreign powers’, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán announced that he is instead building an ‘illiberal democracy’ based on states like China, Russia, Turkey and Singapore. He has curtailed the independence of the judiciary, purged the civil service of those who are not his ardent supporters, introduced new election rules to give himself the advantage and launched a wholesale assault on the freedom of the press. When some of his new laws – such as those criminalising homelessness and ruling-out the possibility of gay marriage – were criticised as unconstitutional, he simply changed the constitution. In his reaction to the refugee crisis, he assumed a position of rabid nationalism, prosecuting asylum-seekers entering Hungary, building razor-wire fences on the borders and flouting the 1951 Geneva Convention on refugees.

The European Union seems absolutely helpless in dealing with these infringements of democracy. When you cannot correct the situation, it seems the best way out is to pretend the problem does not exist. Last December, the EU’s justice commissioner Věra Jourová made it clear this was the case by saying in the European Parliament that Hungary’s illiberal ways are not actually a problem.

The Polish general election in October was won by the extreme populist Law and Justice Party (PiS), which is both on the far right and left because while being positioned on the extreme right of the political spectrum, its economic policies are state-orientated and its behaviour towards opponents is highly authoritarian – strongly reminiscent of the pre-1989 ruling communist party. The PiS has quickly followed in Orbán’s footsteps, paralysing the Polish constitutional court and enfeebling the media. Its assault on democracy has been strongly criticised by the Venice Commission, an advisory body of the Council of Europe, which has decreed that an ongoing constitutional crisis in Poland poses a danger to the rule of law, democracy and human rights. But, as in the case of Hungary, Brussels is more or less powerless.

There have been no such anti-democratic constitutional changes in the other two countries of ‘New Europe’, the Czech Republic and Slovakia, but even these countries have found themselves in the grip of irrational eurosceptic, anti-Muslim and anti-refugee xenophobia over the past year. Slovakia’s (allegedly) social democratic prime minister Robert Fico peddled so much fear and loathing against refugees, of which there are none in Slovakia, that he emerged seriously weakened from the general election on 6th March. Slovak voters did not vote for him, and because of his scare campaign instead put their confidence in extreme right-wing parties. An openly neo-Nazi party has entered the Slovak parliament with 14 seats as a result. In the Czech Republic, too, President Miloš Zeman systematically makes strongly fearmongering statements using factually incorrect information, and the public love him for it. The leader of the Czech “Anti-Islamic Bloc” was even invited to sing the national anthem with the president at a public event last November. The finance minister and first deputy prime minister Andrej Babiš, a powerful oligarch, supports Zeman in this and has also expressed his admiration for Donald Trump’s ‘solution to the immigration problem’.

It is quite remarkable that there is such unity defying liberal, humanitarian and pan-European solutions to the refugee crisis in central and eastern Europe. This includes some of former East Germany, because in Saxony-Anhalt, the anti-Islamist and anti-refugee party Alternative für Deutschland gained more than 24% of the popular vote in the regional elections on 13th March, and Saxony is the birthplace of the anti-Islamic movement Pegida. Large numbers of Czechs, Slovaks, Poles, Hungarians and East Germans now express open defiance towards European values. But what are the sources of this widespread illiberalism?

It is of course well known that since the mass murder of Jews during the Second World War and the wholesale deportation of Germans after 1945, central and eastern European societies have been extremely homogeneous, predominantly white, and have not experienced the multiculturalism that has been common in western Europe for decades. Fear of the unknown is somewhat understandable, especially when unscrupulous media outlets create the impression that Middle Eastern refugees are no different from Daesh terrorists. Social networks such as Facebook are in large part to blame for this as vehicles for the dissemination of alarmist ‘news’ and racist hoaxes. Facebook rarely removes racist hate speech, especially when it is published in eastern European languages, and this has greatly contributed to the normalisation of what was unacceptable only a few years ago. Trapped in an echo-chamber of self-generated fear and hate, most central and eastern Europeans feel that they are genuinely threatened by the unknown ‘other’, and so they grasp for illiberal solutions.

Social and economic frustration is another important factor in illiberalism’s success. Economic development across central and eastern Europe is very uneven, and there are areas that remain very poor. Most of the inhabitants of such regions are in opposition to the political and media elites in their capitals. They disdain the mainstream media, hate Brussels and fully believe all the hoaxes disseminated on Facebook, helping Islamophobic material to quickly go viral. It is this kind of frustration that brought the PiS to power in Poland, that is the source of Czech President Zeman’s high popularity, that has brought neo-Nazis into the Slovak parliament and that sustains Viktor Orbán’s power. After 25 years of low pay, the rule of multinational companies and lecturing from the West, many central and eastern Europeans are fed up. They have assumed the role of a defiant pupil of the West. They no longer want to listen, Czech political scientist Ondřej Slačálek has said, and so they have reverted to nationalism and illiberal values.

There are rough times ahead for the European Union. Nationalist populism is on the rise in both the east and the west, and it is advisable to resist nationalist pressures and defend civic principles at all cost. Maybe it is at this point fitting to think of the predicament of the former Yugoslavia. The moment Yugoslavia abandoned the civic principle after 1989, the whipping up of nationalism on all sides for political advantage led to the brutal war of the 1990s. Is this the same story we will someday be telling about the EU?

The post The dangers of ‘illiberal’ democracy appeared first on Europe’s World.

Si chacun s'entend pour dénoncer le déficit démocratique de l'Union européenne, les réponses envisagées divergent. Pour certains, une priorité se dégage : renforcer le pouvoir du Parlement. / Allemagne, Europe, Démocratie, Parti politique, Politique, Groupe de pression, Néolibéralisme, Autoritarisme - (...) / Allemagne, Europe, Démocratie, Parti politique, Politique, Groupe de pression, Néolibéralisme, Autoritarisme - 2016/02

Depuis 2008, les inégalités sociales n'ont cessé de se creuser aux Etats-Unis. Car, bien qu'elle se vante d'avoir fait baisser le chômage, l'administration Obama s'est moins préoccupée du sort des travailleurs pauvres que du confort des innovateurs de la Silicon Valley. / États-Unis (affaires (...) / États-Unis (affaires intérieures), Économie, Entreprise, Internet, Politique, Technologies de l'information, Technologie, Travail, Groupe de pression - 2016/03

Source : © European Union, 2016 - EP

The Chair of the European Parliament Subcommittee on Human Rights (DROI), Elena Valenciano, made the following statement on the killing of Guatemalan human rights defender Brenda Marleni Estrada Tambito:

"I condemn in the strongest terms the killing of Brenda Marleni Estrada Tambito, member of the Coalition of Workers' Unions of Guatemala (Unión Sindical de Trabajadores de Guatemala) and the Union's Sub-Coordinator of the Legal Aid Commission.

For the full statement seek link below

Press statement
Source : © European Union, 2016 - EP

Mardi 14 juin 2016, une délégation de l’armée de l’air nigériane s’est rendue sur la base aérienne 106 de Bordeaux-Mérignac, où elle a pu découvrir le concept français de « protection-défense » (Prodef) sur une base aérienne projetée. 

C’est est un contrat d’épargne, signé entre deux parties prenantes : un assuré qui a besoin de l’assurance vie et un assureur, une société d’assurance qui prend en main toutes les procédures sur l’assurance vie.

C’est un service qui garantit le paiement d’une somme d’argent appelé capital ou rente, quand un évènement s’est passé et qui est lié à l’assuré comme son décès ou sa survie. Au décès du titulaire du contrat d’assurance vie, ce contrat prend fin.

Inscription dans une assurance vie

La première chose c’est de remplir les documents du contrat comme le formulaire de souscription, les conditions générales ou particulières du contrat. La deuxième chose c’est de faire un premier versement. Après cela, le versement pour alimenter votre compte peut commencer.

Il existe deux types de versements : l’un, le versement mensuel ou versement réguliers; et l’autre c’est le versement libre, vous vous choisirez de verser selon votre propre choix. Il n’y a pas d’âge pour s’inscrire dans une assurance vie mais les versements à partir des 70 ans seront tous taxés aux droits de succession.

Fonctionnalités

Dans le dossier du contrat, il faut mentionner le(s) nom(s) du(es) bénéficiaire(s), car après le décès du titulaire, il(s) héritera (ont) tout l’argent accumulé. Pour les bénéficiaires, il n’est pas nécessaire de payer des droits de succession, mais ils payent des taxes à une certaine somme de 150 000 Euros qui n’a pas de liaison de parenté avec le titulaire défunt.

La souscription dans une assurance vie à un frais comme frais de versement à environ 5 pour cent du somme versée. Elle prélève chaque année un frais de gestion du capital environ un pour cent du capital.

Avantages dans une assurance vie

L’assurance vie est intéressante vu ses atouts : son utilisation est souple, on peut gérer notre argent à tout moment (faire des retraits par exemple) ; une assurance vie est un placement à long terme. Notre épargne que nous avons versée est en sécurité et protégée. Elle a un avantage sur la fiscalité comme sur les droits de succession ou sur les intérêts perçus.
Elle fructifie votre épargne.

Comment récupérer l’argent?

Plusieurs façon de retirer son argent pour les meilleurs assurances vie, à savoir le rachat total désignant à une fermeture total du contrat ; un rachat partiel, consiste à retirer partiellement le capital ; la transformation en rotation en viagère vise à échanger son épargne.