Innovatori Europei

Significativamente Oltre

Federal Constitution for a European Federation

http://i44.tinypic.com/1zoewqb.png

Written by Leo Klinkers and Herbert Tombeur

PREAMBLE

We, the Citizens of Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Germany, Estonia, Finland, France, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Portugal, Slovenia, Slovakia and Spain establish this Constitution for all countries in the Eurozone, and furthermore for each country entering the Eurozone, with the goal of forming a Federation that guarantees freedom, order, safety, happiness, justice, defence of the Federation against enemies, sustainability of the environment as well as acceptance and tolerance of the diversity of cultures, convictions, ways of life and languages of all who live and will live in the territory that belongs to the jurisdiction of the Federation.

 

Article I – The Federation and the Bill of Rights

  1. The European Federation is formed by the Citizens and the States, participating in the Federation.
  2. The powers not delegated to the European Federation by the Constitution, nor prohibited to the States by this Constitution, are reserved to the Citizens or to the respective States.
  3. The European Federation endorses the rights, freedoms and principles as written in the Charter of the Fundamental Rights of the European Union, excluding the principle of subsidiarity, as mentioned in the Preamble of this Charter. The European Federation accedes to the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

 

Article II – Organization of the Legislature

Section 1- Setting the European Congress

  1. The legislature of the European Federation rests with the European Congress. It consists of two Houses: the House of the Citizens and the House of the States, under the name Senate.
  2. The European Congress and its two separate Houses have their residence in Brussels.

Section 2 – The House of the Citizens

  1. The House of the Citizens is composed of the representatives of the Citizens of the European Federation. Each member of the House has one vote. The members of this House are elected for a term of six years by the Citizens of the Federation qualified to vote, united in one constituency. The election of the members of the House of the Citizens takes place each time in the month May, and for the first time in the year 20XX. They enter office at the latest on June 1st of the election year. The members resign on the third day of the month May in the final year of their term. They can be re-elected twice in succession.
  2. Eligible are those who have reached the age of thirty years and are registered as Citizen of a State of the Federation during at least seven years.
  3. The members of the House of the Citizens have an individual mandate. They carry out this mandate without instructions, in the general interest of the Federation. This mandate is incompatible with any other public function.
  4. The right to vote in elections for the House of the Citizens belongs to anybody who has reached the age of eighteen years and is registered as Citizen in one of the States of the Federation, regardless of the number of years of that registration.
  5. The House of the Citizens choose their Chairperson, with the right to vote, and appoint their own personnel.

Section 3 – The House of the States, or the Senate

  1. The Senate is composed of eight representatives per State. Each Senator has one vote. The Senators are appointed for a term of six years by and from the legislature of the States, provided that after three years half the number of Senators resign. The first appointing of the full Senate takes place within the first five months of the year 20XX. The three-yearly appointments to replace half of the Senators takes place in the first five months of that year. The Senators enter their office at the latest on June 1st of the year of their appointment. They resign on the afternoon of the third day of the month May in the final year of their term. The Senators who resign are immediately re-appointable for a further term of three years. Each Senator has one vote. The Rules of Proceedings of the Senate regulate the way of resigning of one half of the Senate.
  2. Eligible as Senator are those who have reached the age of thirty years and who have been registered for a period of at least seven years as Citizen of a State of the European Federation.
  3. The Senators have an individual mandate. They carry out this mandate without instructions, in the general interest of the Federation. This mandate is incompatible with any other public function.
  4. The Vice-president of the European Federation chairs the Senate. He has no right to vote unless the votes are equally divided.
  5. The Senate elects a Chairperson pro tempore who in the absence of the Vice-president, or when he is acting President, leads the meetings of the Senate. The Senate appoints its own personnel.
  6. The Senate holds the exclusive power to preside over impeachments. In case the President, the Vice-president or a member of Congress is impeached the Senate will be chaired by the Chief Justice of the Court of Justice. In case a member of that Court is impeached the President will chair the Senate. No one shall be convicted without a two third majority vote of the members present.
  7. Conviction in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than the removal from office and disqualification from holding any office of honor, trust or salaried office within the European Federation. The convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment according to law.

Section 4 – The European Congress

  1. The time, place and manner of electing the members of the House of the Citizens and of appointing the members of the Senate are determined by the European Congress.
  2. The European Congress convenes at least once per year. This meeting will begin on the third day of January, unless Congress determines a different day by law.
  3. The European Congress settles Rules of Proceedings for its manner of operating.

Section 5 – Rules of Proceedings of both Houses

  1. Each House settles Rules of Proceedings. They regulate what subjects require a quorum, how the presence of members can be enforced, what sanctions can be imposed in case of structural absence, what powers the Chairperson has to restore order and how the proceedings of meetings and votings are recorded.
  2. The Rules of Proceedings regulate punishment of members of the House in the case of disorderly behavior, including the power of the House to expel the member permanently by a two third majority.
  3. During meetings of the European Congress no House may adjourn for more than three days without the consent of the other House, nor may it move its seat outside of Brussels.

Section 6 – Compensation and immunity of members of Congress

  1. The members of both Houses receive a salary for their work, determined by law, to be paid monthly by the Treasury of the European Federation. Next to that they receive a compensation for travel and accommodation expenses in accordance with the real expenses made, and confined to the travels and activities justified by their work.
  2. The members of both Houses are in all cases, except treason, felony and disturbance of the public order, exempted from arrest during their attendance at sessions of their respective House and in going to and returning from that House. For any speech or debate in either House they are not to be questioned in any other location.

Article III – Powers of the Legislative Branch

Section 1 – Way of proceeding to make laws

  1. The House of the Citizens has the power to initiate tax laws for the European Federation. The Senate has the power – as is the case with other law initiatives by the House of the Citizens – to propose amendments in order to adjust federal tax laws.
  2. Both Houses have the power to initiate laws. Each draft law of a House will be presented to the President of the European Federation. If he/she approves the draft he/she will sign it and forward it to the other House. If the President does not approve the draft he/she will return it, with his/her objections, to the House initiating the draft. That House records the presidential objections and proceeds to reconsider the draft. If, following such reconsideration, two thirds of that House agree to pass the bill it will be sent, together with the presidential objections, to the other House. If that House approves the bill with a two third majority it becomes law. If a bill is not returned by the President within ten working days after having been presented to him/her, it will become law as if he/she had signed it, unless Congress by adjournment of its activities prevents its return within ten days. In that case it will not become a law.
  3. Any order, resolution or vote, other than a draft law, requiring the consent of both Houses – except for decisions with respect to adjournment – are presented to the President and need his/her approval before they will gain legal effect. If the President disapproves, this matter will nevertheless have legal effect if two thirds of both Houses approve.

Section 2 – Substantive powers of the Houses of the European Congress
The European Congress has the power:

  1. to impose and collect taxes, imposts and excises to pay the debts of the European Federation and to provide in the expenses needed to fulfill the guarantee as described in the Preamble, whereby all taxes, imposts and excises are uniform throughout the entire European Federation;
  2. to borrow money on the credit of the European Federation;
  3. to regulate commerce among the States of the European Federation and with foreign nations;
  4. to regulate throughout the European Federation uniform migration and integration rules,  what rules will be co-maintained by the States;
  5. to regulate uniform rules on bankruptcy throughout the European Federation;
  6. to coin the federal currency, regulate its value, and fix the standard of weights and measures; to provide in the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and the currency of the European Federation;
  7. to regulate and enforce the rules to further and protect the climate and the quality of the water, soil and air;
  8. to regulate the production and distribution of energy;
  9. to make rules for the prevention, furthering and protection of public health, including professional illnesses and labor accidents;
  10. to regulate any mode of traffic and transportation between the States of the Federation, including the transnational infrastructure, postal facilities, telecommunications as well as electronic traffic between public administrations and between public administrations and Citizens, including all necessary rules to fight fraud, forgery, theft, damage and destruction of postal and electronic information and their information carriers;
  11. to further progress of scientific findings, economic innovations, arts and sports by safeguarding for authors, inventors and designers the exclusive rights of their creations;
  12. to establish federal courts, subordinated to the Supreme Court;
  13. to fight and punish piracy, crimes against international law and human rights;
  14. to declare war and make rules concerning captures on land, water or air; to raise and support a European defense (army, navy, air force); to provide for a militia to execute the laws of the Federation, to suppress insurrections and to repel invaders;
  15. to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying out the execution of the foregoing powers and of all other powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the European Federation or in any Ministry or Public Officer thereof.

Section 3 –Guaranteed rights of individuals

  1. The immigration of people, by States considered to be permissible, is not prohibited by the European Congress before the year 20XX.
  2. The right of habeas corpus is not suspended unless deemed necessary for public safety in cases of revolt or an invasion.
  3. The European Congress is not allowed to pass a retroactive law nor a law on civil death. Nor pass a law impairing contractual obligations or judicial verdicts of whatever court.

Section 4 – Constraints for the European Federation and its States

  1. No taxes, imposts or excises will be levied on transnational services and goods between the States of the European Federation.
  2. No preference will be given through any regulation to commerce or to tax in the sea ports and air ports of the States of the European Federation; nor will vessels or aircrafts bound to, or from one State, be obliged to enter, clear or pay duties in another State.
  3. No State is allowed to pass a retroactive law nor a law on civil death. Nor pass a law impairing contractual obligations or judicial verdicts of whatever court.
  4. No State will coin its own currency or emit bills of credit.
  5. No State will, without the consent of the European Congress, impose any tax, impost or excise on the import or export of services and goods, except for what may be necessary for executing inspections of import and export. The net yield of all taxes, imposts or excises, imposed by any State on import and export, will be for the use of the Treasury of the European Federation; all related regulations will be subject to the revision and control by the European Congress.
  6. No State will, without the consent of the European Congress, have an army, navy or air force, enter into any agreement or covenant with another State of the Federation or with a foreign State, or engage in a war, unless it is actually invaded or facing an imminent threat which precludes delay.

Section 5 – Constraints for the European Federation

  1. No money shall be drawn from the Treasury but for the use as determined by federal law; a statement on the finances of the European Federation will be published yearly.
  2. No title or nobility will be granted by the European Federation. No person who under the European Federation holds a public or a trust office accepts without the consent of the European Congress any present, emolument, office or title of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State.

Article IV – Organization of the Executive Branch

Section 1- Establishing the offices of the President and the Vice President

  1. The executive power is vested in the President of the European Federation. He/she is in office for a term of four years, together with the Vice President who shall also be in office for a term of four years. The President and the Vice President are elected as a duo by the Citizens of the European Federation, which has to that goal one constituency. They are re-electable – forthwith – for one term.
  2. The election of the President and the Vice President of the European Federation will be held on the third Friday in the month of October; the first election in the year 2016. To bridge the period between ratification of the Constitution of the European Federation and the first election of its President and Vice President the European Congress appoints from its midst an acting President. This acting President is not electable as President, nor as Vice President, at the first Presidential election of the European Federation.
  3. Electable for President or Vice President is any person who, at the moment of his candidacy, to be set by federal law, has reached the age of thirty five years, who has the nationality of one of the States of the European Federation and who has been registered as a Citizen of one of the States of the Federation for at least fifteen years.
  4. The President receives a salary for this position, set by the European Congress. The salary shall not be increased nor decreased during the term of his/her presidency, and he/she does not receive any other compensation or in kind from the European Federation, nor from any individual State of the Federation, nor from any other public institution within or outside of the Federation, nor from a private institution or person.
  5. Before the President enters his/her office he/she will pledge, in front of the Chief Justice of the Court of Justice, in the month of January in which his/her office begins, the following oath or affirmation: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of the President of the European Federation and shall to the best of my ability preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the European Federation.

Section 2 – Vacancy and end of the term of the President and the Vice President

  1. The President and the Vice President will be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors. In case of removing the President from office, his/her death or his resignation, the Vice President will become President.
  2. Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President the President will nominate a Vice President who will take the office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of the European Congress.
  3. Whenever the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Chairperson of the House of the Citizens his/her written declaration that he/she is unable to execute the powers and duties of his/her office, and until he/she transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting President.
  4. Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Chairperson of the House of the Citizens their written declaration that the President is unable to execute the powers and duties of his/her office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.
  5. Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Chairperson of the House of the Citizens his/her written declaration that no inability exists, he/she shall resume the powers and duties of his/her office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may provide by law, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Chairperson of the House of the Citizens a new written declaration that the President is unable to execute the powers and duties of his/her office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his/her office, the Vice President shall continue to execute the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his/her office.
  6. The terms of the President and the Vice President will end at noon on the 20th day of January in the final year of their term. The terms of their successors will then begin.
  7. If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President elect is unable to pledge the oath or affirmation or beginning his office, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified. The Congress may by law provide for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the House of Representatives may choose a President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them, and for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the Senate may choose a Vice President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them.

 

Article V – Powers and tasks of the President

Section 1 –Presidential powers

  1. The President is commander in chief of the armed forces, security agencies and militia of the European Federation.
  2. He/she appoints Ministers, Ambassadors, other Envoys, Consuls and all public officials of the executive branch of the European Federation whose appointment is not regulated otherwise in this Constitution and whose offices are based on a law. He/she removes from office all public officials of the European Federation after their conviction of treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors.
  3. He/she may seek the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices.
  4. He/she has the power to grant amnesty and grace for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.
  5. He/she has the power to make treaties, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur.
  6. He/she nominates and appoints judges of the Constitutional Court of Justice and of Federal Courts, by and with the advice and consent of the European Congress.
  7. He/she organizes once per year a consultative referendum among all Citizens of the European Federation with the right to vote in order to obtain the opinion of the European people with respect to the execution of the federal policy domains. The referendum shall be executed under the umbrella of the European Digital Agenda.
  8. He/she organizes a decisive referendum among all Citizens of the European Federation with the right to vote on the question of whether or not the European Federation should accede to, or should co-establish, an international organization with compulsory regulating power, after advice of the Senate about this acceding or co-establishing.
  9. He/she may organize a referendum among all Citizens of the European Federation with the right to vote on a draft law that has met objections by the President according to Article III of this Constitution and about which the Houses of Congress after these presidential objections do not come to an agreement during two years. The term of two years begins as from the first plenary vote in the House that did not initiate the draft law.

Section 2 – Presidential tasks

  1. The President gives the European Congress once per year information about the State of the Federation and recommends measures that he judges necessary.
  2. The President may on extraordinary occasions convene both Houses of the European Congress or either of them, and in case of disagreement between them with respect to the time of adjournment he/she may adjourn them to such time as he/she thinks proper.
  3. The President receives Ambassadors and other foreign Envoys.
  4. The President takes care that the laws are faithfully executed.
  5. The President commissions the tasks of all government officials of the European Federation.

Article VI – The Judicial Branch

Section 1 – Organization
The judicial power of the European Federation is vested in a Constitutional Court of Justice. European Congress may decide to install lower federal courts in States. The judges of the Constitutional Court of Justice as well as those of the lower federal courts hold their office as long as their conduct is good. For their services they receive a salary which during their office cannot be reduced.

Section 2 – Powers of Federal Courts

  1. The federal judicial branch has the power to judge in all conflicts arising under this Constitution; with respect to all laws of the European Federation; to treaties made, or that shall be made under the authority of the European Federation; to all cases affecting Ambassadors, other Envoys and Consuls; to all cases of a maritime nature; to all cases in which the European Federation is a party; to controversies between two or more States, between a State and Citizens of another State, between Citizens of several States, between Citizens of the same State in matters of land in another State and between a State or Citizens of that State and foreign States of Citizens thereof.
  2. The Constitutional Court of Justice has the exclusive power in all cases in which only States, Ministers, Ambassadors and Consuls are party. In all other cases, as mentioned in Clause 1, the Constitutional Court of Justice is the court of appeal, unless European Congress decides otherwise by law.
  3. Except in cases of impeachment, the trial of crimes, as determined by law, will be by jury. These trials will be held in the State where the crime has been committed. If they have not been committed within any State the trial will be held at such place or places as decided by law by European Congress.

Section 3 – High treason

  1. High treason against the European Federation shall only consist of levying war against the Federation, or of adhering to its enemies by giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of high treason without the testimony of at least two witnesses to the crime, or on confession in open court.
  2. European Congress has the power to declare the punishment for high treason, but in no way a verdict of high treason shall lead to attainder or confiscation for the offspring of the convicted person.

 

ARTICLE VII – The Citizens, the States and the Federation

Section 1- The Citizens

  1. The Citizens of each State of the European Federation possess also the Citizenship of the European Federation with all the associated political and other rights. The Citizens of a Member  State are also entitled to all rights and favors of the Citizens of any other State of the Federation.
  2. A minimum of 300,000 Citizens of the European Federation is required to present a draft law to the European Congress. This draft describes only the contours of the goal or is a draft law. It will laid down as a People’s Initiative at the Registry of the House of the Citizens. Congress and the President decide on the receptivity of the People’s Initiative. The House of the Citizens deals with this People’s Initiative according to its legislative procedures. Both Houses of Congress make a final decision regarding this proposal within two years of its registration. In case one House accepts a draft law as a result of this People’s Initiative, while the other House rejects this draft or does not make a decision within the determined time period, the President presents the accepted draft law with the advice of each House regarding this People’s Initiative to the Citizens of the Federation and to the legislatures of the States. In case the presented draft law is accepted, by a simple majority, by the Citizens and by the States, it will become federal law. Should there be no such majority this People’s Initiative is rejected. Should neither House make a decision within the determined time period the President presents the People’s Initiative to the Citizens of the Federation. They decide by simple majority whether the People’s Initiative should be maintained. In case it is maintained the People’s Initiative will be dealt with again by Congress. Congress makes a final decision carrying the overall meaning of the People’s Initiative, under the supervision of the President. Congress determines by law the procedure for dealing with a People’s Initiative without committing itself to substantive conditions.
  3. A person convicted in any State of the Federation for high treason, felony or other crimes, fleeing from justice and found in a different member State, will at the request of the executive authority of the State from which he/she fled, be surrendered to the State with jurisdiction relating to that crime.
  4. Slavery or any form of compulsory servitude, except in case of punishment for a crime for which the said person has been lawfully convicted, will be ruled out in the European Federation or in any territory under federal jurisdiction.

Section 2 – The States

  1. Full faith and credit will be given in each State to the public acts, records and judicial proceedings of all other States. Congress may prescribe by general law the manner in which such acts, records and proceedings will be proved, and the effects thereof.
  2. The States of the European Federation have the exclusive power to regulate matters of Citizenship. A State’s Citizenship is valid in any other State of the Federation.
  3. States may join the European Federation with the consent of a two-third majority of the Citizens of the acceding State, a two third majority of the legislative branch of the acceding States, a two-third majority of the Citizens of the Federation and a two-third majority of each House of the European Congress, in this order. The European Federation takes note of this consent and acts accordingly.
  4. States joining the European Federation after the Constitution having come into force retain their debts and are bound to the laws of the Federation as of the moment of their accession.
  5. Any change in the number of States of the European Federation will be subjected to the consent of a two-third majority of the Citizens of the concerned States, a two-third majority of the legislative branch of all States and a two-third majority of each House of the European Congress, in that order.

 

Section 3 – The Federation

  1. The European Federation will guarantee a representative democracy for each Member State and will protect them against an invasion and, at the request of the legislative branch, or that of the executive branch in case the legislative branch cannot convene, against internal violence.
  2. The European Federation will not interfere with the internal organization of the States of the Federation.
  3. The European Congress has the power to have at their disposal and make all necessary regulations with respect to the territory or other possessions belonging to the European Federation.

Article VIII – Changing the Constitution

The European Congress is authorized to propose amendments on this Constitution, each time a two third majority in both Houses consider this necessary. If the legislative branches of two thirds of the States consider it necessary Congress will hold a Convention with the assignment of proposing amendments to the Constitution. In both cases the amendments will be a valid part of the Constitution after ratification by three quarters of the Citizens of the European Federation, three quarters of the legislative branches of the States and three quarters of each House of the European Congress, in this order.

Article IX – Federal Loyalty

  1. This Constitution and the laws of the European Federation, which will be made in connection with the Constitution, and all treaties, made or to be made under the authority of the European Federation, are the supreme law of the Federation. The judges in every State will be bound hereby, notwithstanding any other regulation in the Constitution or the laws of any State.
  2. The members of the European Congress, the members of the legislative branches of the States and all executive and judicial officers, both of the European Federation and of the States, will be bound by an oath or affirmation to support this Constitution. But no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the European Federation.

 

Article X – Transitional Measures and Ratification of the Constitution

  1. All debts entered and engagements contracted by States before the ratification of this Constitution will remain valid within the European Federation.
  2. The ratification by a simple majority of the Citizens of nine States of the Eurozone will be sufficient for this Constitution of the European Federation to come into force.

 

Pd/ Sabato a Roma l’iniziativa ‘Riprendiamoci il Pd’. Gli Innovatori Europei co-organizzatori

Assemblea pubblica al Nazareno ‘per un centrosinistra che vince’

“Ripartire con franchezza da ciò che è andato storto, per voltare pagina tutti insieme e preparare, a partire dal Congresso, un futuro vincente per il Partito democratico e per tutto il centrosinistra”.

È questo lo scopo di ‘Insieme Riprendiamoci il Pd’, assemblea pubblica di incontro e di ascolto, che è stata convocata da Insieme per il PD presso la sede nazionale del Partito (22 giugno, dalle 10 e 30 alle 16 e 15) per dare un impulso del tutto nuovo alla formazione politica

“C’è la consapevolezza – è scritto nell’invito- che le vicende degli ultimi mesi (in particolare ciò che ha preceduto le elezioni e il caso del Presidente della Repubblica, dalla proposta di Marini alla clamorosa bocciatura di Romano Prodi, “padre fondatore” del Pd) hanno creato disagio, malessere e molta delusione tra gli iscritti e gli elettori democratici, aumentando drammaticamente la distanza tra i vertici nazionali e la base”.

Hanno aderito e sostengono iniziativa alcune delle realtà di base più rilevanti: Oltre a Insieme per il Pd, FutureDem, OccupyPD Roma, Open PD Adesso!, Innovatori Europei, END,-Adesso Donne 3.0. BigBang NetDem.

All’evento interverranno esponenti di molte di queste realtà (hanno confermato, la loro presenza oltre a Giuseppe Rotondo per Insieme per il PD, Giulio del Balzo per FutureDem, Patrizia Cini per OccupyPd, Carlo d’Aloisio Mayo per Open PD, Adesso!, Massimo Preziuso per Innovatori Europei, Alessandro Camiz, per END, Luigi Montano per Big Bang NetDem), ma si sono registrati da tutta Italia per partecipare e prenotare intervento, che dovrà durare al massimo 3 minuti.

Interverranno Sandro Gozi, Michela Marzano, Sandra Zampa, Stefano Boeri. Aderiscono all’iniziativa Pippo Civati, Gianni Pittella, Laura Puppato, Walter Tocci, Patrizia Prestipino e Gennaro Migliore (SEL); parteciperà anche Mario Staderini di Radicali Italiani.

“Gli organizzatori dell’evento — spiega il coordinatore nazionale di insieme per il PD, Giuseppe Rotondo — sono convinti che occorra una nuova fase costituente del Pd e che questa debba passare per il Congresso, come tappa di un cambiamento reale e inizio di una fase politica che rompa con quanto è avvenuto finora e sia un riferimento per l’intero centrosinistra. Ci si può riuscire partendo dalle difficoltà (dalla mancata attuazione dello Statuto del PD), dai malesseri che devono trovare una risposta e dalle idee che possono permettere di costruire un partito e un centrosinistra in grado di proporsi agli elettori e vincere.

L’Assemblea “INSIEME riPRENDIAMOci il PD” vuole rappresentare la prima testimonianza concreta di espressione partecipata ed aperta, capace di far incontrare e mettere a confronto le diverse e preziose risorse umane, spontaneamente organizzate nel territorio e/o nella rete – costituite da iscritti, da amministratori locali, da militanti, da simpatizzanti, da elettori, da ex elettori, da potenziali elettori – che comunque si muovono, o potranno esserne attratte, intorno all’arcipelago “democratico”.

22 giugno, piazza San Giovanni in Roma: sostegno ai diritti dei lavoratori

di Giuseppina Bonaviri su L’Inchiesta

Il 22 giugno a piazza S. Giovanni a Roma saremo presenti assieme alla Rete Indipendente “La Fenice con Bonaviri” e l’Associazione “PerAlternativadisinistra” con i sindacati e le forze di lotta civili in sostegno della difesa dei diritti e della dignità del lavoro.
Mai come ora il nostro Paese ha bisogno di una classe dirigente competente e responsabile che sappia parlare la lingua delle riforme, che non agisca per la difesa di interessi di parte e che intraveda, per quello generale della modernizzazione istituzionale, amministrativa ed economica dell’Italia, nella responsabilità sociale e nella rappresentanza, la chiave di svolta per ripartire dalle criticità dell’emergenza economica. Al centro di tutte le politiche rimettiamo l’occupazione.
Si sa che dai Fondi Ue si reperirà un miliardo per l’occupazione giovanile ed il contrasto alla povertà per le famiglie con un Isee inferiore a 3mila euro annui mentre altri 3 miliardi saranno messi a disposizione delle imprese. 5oomila euro saranno invece destinati alla riduzione del cuneo contributivo per l’assunzione dei giovani per due anni. Nel decreto dovrebbero essere previsti incentivi alla auto-imprenditorialità e ai progetti di cooperative giovanili ed ancora un credito di imposta per l’assunzione dei giovani laureati in materie tecnico-scientifiche di alta qualità.
Andrebbe anche considerato, per un taglio generalizzato del cuneo, una sua diminuzione anche per gli ultra cinquantenni che al momento però non appare garantita con l’individuazione di strumenti innovativi. Sarà obbligo di chi governa puntare all’ammodernamento puntando sul lavoro di qualità non dimenticando la grande fascia dei lavoratori della conoscenza destinati altrimenti a proseguire nella loro fuga all’estero. Il capitale umano torni ad essere al centro del nostro dibattito, dunque incentivando formazione , assunzioni universitarie, codice della scuola, incentivazioni agli enti di ricerca, revisione dell’apprendistato e della flessibilità in entrata. Sbloccare il fondo per la non-autosufficienza, risolvere il problema degli esodati e della rivalutazione delle pensioni segnerà inoltre il passo con la sfida della manifestazione.
Non possiamo permettere che la disuguaglianza continui a crescere, per questo riconnettere partecipazione e decisione farà glissare l’orologio dell’agenda politica nazionale fuori da ipocrisie e funzionamento correntizio verticale.
Ecco allora che ci corre l’obbligo di alcune essenziali precisazioni per quanto riguarda la Ciociara.
Il “Patto per il rilancio dello sviluppo del territorio della provincia di Frosinone” sottoscritto da tutti i componenti il Comitato provinciale per il lavoro e lo sviluppo economico nell’aprile del 2012, dovrà tornare sul tavolo della discussione degli organismi di rappresentanza locali e coinvolgere la Regione Lazio, dalle nuove Direzioni alla Giunta. Con le cancellazioni delle provincie viene meno, a fine anno, un soggetto politico di rappresentanza collettiva del territorio che rafforza l’urgenza di rivolgere un appello al Presidente Zingaretti, in occasione della manifestazione del 22 prossimo, per l’apertura di un tavolo di consultazione che, quanto prima, possa rassicurarci sull’utilizzo dei fondi strutturali 2014-2020 nella programmazione UE senza i quali le imprese del nostro territorio -che pure hanno accettato la sfida della competizione- rischiano di rimanere fuori mercato. Non si può condannare la nostra provincia al sottosviluppo. I ciociari vogliono continuare a sperare e ce la faranno.

#OccupyGezi or Taksim Square?

by Zeynep Gulsah Capan

Define, periodise, prioritise and fit in a narrative.

This is the struggle that characterises the events happening in Istanbul. Who will get to tell the story of #occupygezi and who gets to tell the story mean different definitions, periodizations, prioritisation of issues and narratives than the ones #occupygezi protesters might have initially intended. The last couple of days has seen endless debates about what the events signify and research into which political party do the protesters feel closest to, how do they identify themselves[1] yet how they identify themselves is increasingly getting lost within the polarising discourse of Prime Minister Erdogan. It is not just him though. Even if unintentionally the binary of the modern/traditional, secular/islamist Turkey is being reproduced even within certain sectors of the protest movement.

The cover of Economist demonstrates this point clearly. A democrat or a sultan? It can not be anything else. What is more troubling than the cover (the orientalisation of the debate and reducing it to binaries was something expected of the Western media) is that this cover has been posted on Facebook and Twitter in a congratulatory manner. If the Economist backs your argument you must have been right. Is that really so? Or are we so stuck within Western centric conceptualisations of ourselves that we can’t see the problem with this picture?

KAL’s Cartoon

The reaction to the cover and the interaction with the Western media and the discourses employed is representative of the discourse that seems to be increasing as the protests continue. It is also a discourse that reverts us back to reproducing binaries. The call to the West, the references to ‘backwardness’, the constant discussion of secularist vs islamists, this othering is the reason for the state of Turkey right now. his discourse re(produces) the (in)securities of the pious muslims especially veiled women who were forcefully removed from the public sphere and silenced for decades and still are to an extent.Their fear that this discourse signals the possibility of again having to abdicate their right to freely exist in the public sphere causes them to (re)align themselves with the JDP as the only party that “protects” their rights. .In turn they also, as can be seen in twitter and Facebook, revert back to the discourses of polarisation and re(produce) their own othering, of equating the protestors with the Kemalist establishment that had silenced them for so long and military interventionism. It needs to be pointed out that it is not only the discourse itself but also the hundreds of Turkish flags, pictures of Ataturk and references to being Ataturk’s soldiers are also a source for insecurity. The flag and Ataturk might represent a sense of pride and sign of unity for many but it was also the reason for years of silencing, torture and deaths for others. The (in)security one might feel when they are bombarded with constant images of people with Turkish flags should not be overlooked and it also points out to a continuing problem that the ‘national’ flag itself is a source of ‘othering’.

This process of othering reifies the discourses on polarisation as if this is the only way to make sense of Turkey: modern/traditional, western/eastern, secular/islamist. It is not just the Western gaze that is producing these narratives, Turkey is complicit in this production. The pleas to the Western media to recognise the plight of the protestors while underlying that this is happening because of JDP is not modern, developed, Western enough to be democratic, the constant references to ‘what will the Westerners think of us now’, the endless search for ‘foreign agents’ and foreign involvement to explain the protests, the branding of criticism as only possible if it is allied to military interventionists are all complicit in the production of the discourses on polarisation and reducing the debate about the events in Turkey into clearly delineated and in no way explicatory binaries of modern/traditional, secular/islamist and as the Economist put it: democrat or sultan!!!

The cover and its reception point to a greater problem of defining what is happening in Turkey and how it will be framed; is it #occupygezi or Taksim Square? There have been endless articles discussing whether or not the events can be considered Turkey’s Tahrir Square.[2] This of course would put Turkey within the narrative of Middle Eastern revolts and part of a process of democratization in the Middle East and Third World countries. Or is it part of the Occupy movements that have manifested themselves in Western democracies. Which is it? #Occupygezi or Taksim Square, one or the other, both or neither!

This is a trick question in many ways because whichever way you answer you will be promptly put in a narrative prioritising one dynamic over the other, narrating Turkey as part of one spatial construct over another. One way or another you will orientalise Turkey, simplify its history and obscure many voices. Yet this is the main struggle presently over twitter, over Facebook and in op-ed columns. Who are the protesters (define yourselves), what are your demands (prioritise), what do you represent; fit into a damn narrative!!!!!!! And if you do not choose one and start framing yourselves accordingly soon enough you will be forcefully packaged into one of the readily available ones of modern/traditional, secular/islamist, left/right, establishing order/inciting anarchy, independent republic/foreign agents.

Pick a side, any side!!!

#Occupygezi will have failed if it does end up picking a side, if it does end up in one of the neatly packaged narratives Turkey has of itself. From its start I have been hopeful about the prospects of what this movement (if it can be characterised as such) means for Turkish politics exactly because it does not belong to a side, it is not part of the polarising discourse that aims at and feeds from creating an other, it is not part of a neatly packaged narrative about modernisation or democratisation. It has been coming under attack from all sides exactly because its existence, its success means that politics in Turkey has to change and none of the political actors in Turkey seem to have the vocabulary to engage in a political discourse that is not about reproducing binaries.

I have been using #occupyGezi to characterise the events from the beginning. I frame its beginning (based on the issue (environment, neoliberal policies) and the socio-economic background of the initial protesters (educated, middle-class university students) as part of the Occupy movement that is seen in democratic governments implementing neoliberal policies but it is open to debate whether or not these characterisations can still apply to the tens of thousands protesting today. I also frame it as part of the democratisation of the Middle East region especially with respect to the government’s response and the role of the media. Can it be both at the same time? Does it have to be one or the other? Can it be neither? If it does also demonstrate similarities with the Arab revolts why do I keep calling it #occupyGezi? Maybe that also reveals something about where I stand in the narratives of Turkish politics and it is something I should question. In order to overcome reductionist analyses and reproduction of binaries we have to ask questions that do not have readily packaged answers even to ourselves and maybe then we can start (re)defining what it means to be secular, islamist, modern, traditional without being dependent on binary constructions.

——————————————————————————–

[1] http://t24.com.tr/haber/gezi-parki-direniscileriyle-yapilan-anketten-cikan-ilginc-sonuclar/231335

[2] http://muftah.org/why-the-gezi-park-protests-do-not-herald-a-turkish-spring-yet/, http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2013/06/turkish-spring-protests-istanbul.html

L’uguaglianza estrema

di Raffaele Simone su La Repubblica

Una delle rivendicazioni più insistenti di tutti i movimenti populisti d’Europa è quella della parità totale tra eletti e elettori. Anche il M5S ne ha fatto una delle sue bandiere. Ma a poco a poco quest’atteggiamento egalitario si sta estendendo a tutte le forme di distinzione. Anzitutto quelle funzionali: il capo dello Stato può essere apostrofato come un amico di bevute, gli avversari dileggiati con battute e nomignoli da osteria, le istituzioni trattate come rottami. Tutte le distinzioni si appiattiscono in un’orizzontalità assoluta. Anche il campo delle valutazioni tecniche complesse è colpito dal vento del “tutti uguali!”.

Sebbene il movimento sembri non avere nessun think tank (salvo qualche professore rancoroso), il suo leader e numerosi membri si producono in impegnative esternazioni anche su temi difficili, come la politica monetaria o quella europea. Su che dati si basano queste opinioni? Su che studi? Dagli argomenti del capo, sembrerebbero basati su nulla più di quel che si legge sui giornali o si dice in giro. Insomma, in politica le opinioni generiche cominciano a pesare quanto il sapere tecnico.

Le società democratiche, pur riconoscendo ai cittadini uguaglianza giuridica, civile e di opportunità, preservano gelosamente una varietà di distinzioni tra ordini e ranghi. Il magistrato non può essere sostituito da un comitato di cittadini, il professore dal più bravo dei suoi alunni, il medico da un portantino. Lo spirito di uguaglianza che sta alla base delle democrazie deve dunque ammettere dei limiti. Il grande Montesquieu nell’ Esprit des lois (1748) indicava con folgorante preveggenza che due sono gli eccessi da cui le democrazie devono guardarsi: «Lo spirito di disuguaglianza» ma soprattutto «lo spirito di uguaglianza estrema». Quest’ultimo si ha quando chiunque vuole essere «uguale a colui che ha scelto per comandare. Allora il popolo, non riuscendo a sopportare il potere che esso stesso attribuisce, vuol fare tutto da solo: deliberare per il senato, eseguire le sentenze al posto dei magistrati e esautorare tutti i giudici». Nella «democrazia regolata» si è uguali solo come cittadini; in quella che regolata non è si è uguali anche come «magistrato, come senatore, come giudice…». È chiaro che la richiesta populista di parità senza distinzioni è una delle facce della “uguaglianza estrema” descritta da Montesquieu. Il guaio è che lo spirito di egalitarismo totale dorme nascosto nei tessuti della democrazia, della quale è uno dei “nemici intimi” (secondo la felice formula di Tzvetan Todorov). Il principio democratico contiene infatti un’utopia insopprimibile: l’idea che individui diversi per mille motivi siano uguali dal punto di vista civile, giuridico e politico. Ora, basta prendere quest’utopia alla lettera, non ammettere che si tratta di una “finzione” operativa, per attivare un circuito che porta a rifiutare ogni sorta di distinzione, quale che sia l’ambito a cui si applica. Questa è la fonte della richiesta di uguaglianza estrema che sta alla base del grillismo, in cui agisce anche l’insofferenza, tipica dei populismi, verso le regole della democrazia rappresentativa. In questo panorama qualunque intermediario (dal parlamentare all’amministratore pubblico) è visto come un opportunista, un impostore o un affarista, che lucra vantaggi profittando della delega che ha ricevuto dai cittadini. I populismi contengono infatti una contrapposizione tra il popolo (“noi”) e le élite, e il popolo se lo rappresentano come un’entità omogenea, monolitica, in cui non ci sono differenze di classe o di interesse. È questo popolo che deve esprimere le sue decisioni in politica, senza lasciarle ad altri. Questo è anche il motivo per cui il M5S è così avverso alla mancanza di vincolo di mandato prevista dalla Costituzione, che interpreta come una mera licenza per l’eletto di fare il proprio comodo. Ci sono motivi per considerare inquietante lo “spirito di uguaglianza estrema” già nella sua applicazione alla sfera della rappresentanza. Ma che cosa accadrebbe se la prospettiva disegnata da Montesquieu si realizzasse fino in fondo, se cioè il “popolo” pretendesse di fare non solo il senatore (a questo siamo già arrivati), ma anche il magistrato, il poliziotto, il docente, il giudice?

Le tecnologie del futuro e le città intelligenti

di Massimo Preziuso

Nei giorni scorsi McKinsey ha pubblicato un interessante report dal titolo “Disruptive technologies: Advances that will transform life, business, and the global economy”. Il documento descrive le 12 tecnologie a maggiore impatto potenziale sull’economia mondiale nel 2025, selezionate in un campione di più di 100 potenziali.

Tabella: Stima del potenziale impatto economico delle nuove tecnologie nel 2025 (in migliaia di miliardi di dollari)

Tabella

Fonte McKinsey (Maggio 2013)

Secondo McKinsey la rivoluzione tecnologica in corso da qui al 2025 sarà fortemente centrata sul “digitale” che permetterà – tra le altre cose – di creare business tramite “l’internet mobile” e la analisi dei “big data”, di automatizzare enormi volumi di lavoro manuale ed intellettuale tramite “robot”, di virtualizzare processi reali spostandoli dall’hardware alla “nuvola internet”, di portare la fabbrica in ogni casa con la “stampa 3D” e di connettere “internet” agli “oggetti” trasformandoli in fornitori di servizi.

La tecnologia digitale sta portando inoltre enormi innovazioni nel campo della genomica, con conseguenze potenzialmente illimitate sulla salute e la longevità degli individui.

Queste innovazioni tecnologiche renderanno obsolete grandi parti dell’industria tradizionale e larghe fette di lavoro manuale ed intellettuale, mentre creeranno nuovi business e nuovi lavori, altamente specializzati.

Il trasferimento di enormi potenze di calcolo nella “nuvola”, messe in rete con la pervasività del “mobile internet”, l’intelligenza presente negli oggetti, la presenza di aziende altamente automatizzate  la diffusione di auto a guida automatica, alimentate da potenti “batterie” e da fonti rinnovabili, renderanno la città un ambiente dotato di elevata densità di informazioni, know – how, qualità della vita e creatività. In cui il lavoro si svolgerà in luoghi diversi e in modalità nuove e flessibili.

Un esempio viene dagli Stati Uniti, dove l’effetto dirompente del movimento dei makers è stato riconosciuto dal visionario presidente Barack Obama, che ha annunciato un piano di 3 miliardi di dollari per la creazione di istituti per l’innovazione, i FabLab nati al MIT dal lavoro di Neil Gershenfeld. Laboratori digitali e tecnologici “low cost” in cui si progettano e già si realizzano nuovi modelli di produzione manifatturiera. Dotati di competenze iper specialistiche messe in rete grazie al digitale, saranno questi i luoghi che porteranno alla nascita delle cosiddette “micro – multinationals” (“Race against the machine”, 2011), aziende a struttura operativa micro ma dotate di mercati di riferimento e fatturati di una multinazionale.

Il futuro vive già oggi nelle città intelligenti. Ma per trarne vantaggi netti, esso va compreso prima che arrivi. Soprattutto in paesi come l’Italia, dotati per storia di intelligenza e imprenditoria diffusa, che va finalmente messa a sistema. Grazie alle tecnologie dirompenti.

Alternanza e innovazione

 di Osvaldo Cammarota

Il passaggio dal centrosinistra al centrodestra non ha ridotto l’incapacità del sistema pubblico della Campania a praticare le politiche comunitarie per la coesione e lo sviluppo.

Caldoro accusa Bassolino per i tagli che l’Unione Europea minaccia su alcuni progetti del 2000-2006, ma, al tempo stesso, oggi, l’avanzamento della spesa del 2007-2013 è inferiore al 40% dei fondi disponibili.

Se il centrosinistra è stato poco attento alla qualità della programmazione e dei progetti, si potrebbe dire che il centrodestra non li spende proprio. Sta di fatto che l’inefficacia con cui si utilizzano i Fondi Comunitari è il dato di deprimente continuità, per l’economia e le comunità regionali della Campania.

Volendo trarne qualche insegnamento di valenza sovralocale, dobbiamo necessariamente esplorare le cause più profonde di tutto ciò, andando oltre la banalizzazione personalistica di un dibattito politico sempre più superficiale, litigioso e inconcludente.

Diciamo subito che i fatti richiamati manifestano plasticamente gli effetti della mancata innovazione, nella politica e nell’amministrazione non solo locale. Vediamo perché.

È noto a tutti che l’efficacia delle politiche comunitarie dipende molto dalla qualità con cui i decisori politici compiono le scelte di propria competenza. Quanto più sono partecipate, condivise e fondate sui principi di decentramento e sussidiarietà, tanto più concorrono e contribuiscono al processo di unificazione europea.

Fin quando la politica italiana rimane gravata da vizi di autoreferenzialità, di centralismo dirigista, di contrattazione delle risorse in cambio di consensi, si rimarrà ai margini di quell’Europa che tutti –a parole- vogliono costruire. La questione non riguarda solo la politica locale, investe il sistema politico nel suo insieme. Da questo punto di vista andrebbero meglio esaminate le “chiavi di successo” della breve esperienza di Fabrizio Barca che, in poco più di un anno, ha fatto registrare un consistente incremento, qualitativo e quantitativo, nell’uso dei Fondi a livello nazionale. A ben guardare c’è stato l’accenno di una innovazione di sistema.

Ma “una rondine non fa primavera”. Ne sono consapevoli alcuni autorevoli dirigenti politici (come ad esempio Gianni Pittella e lo stesso Barca), ma non tutti sembrano aver capito che l’innovazione è efficace quando cammina sulle gambe e nella testa di tante persone.

Anche sul piano più strettamente amministrativo serve una radicale e profonda innovazione. Non c’è chi non veda la pesantezza, la farraginosità, la duplicazione di funzioni, gli sprechi di risorse finanziarie, umane e professionali che si registrano in apparati e procedure pubbliche nazionali, regionali e locali. Di questo diremo poco. Se n’è resa conto persino l’Unione Europea, tant’è che un Obiettivo tematico comune della programmazione 2014-2020 è: “Rafforzare la capacità istituzionale e promuovere un’amministrazione pubblica efficiente”. Ma bisogna farlo presto. E ancora una volta il passaggio dalle parole ai fatti è compito della politica e della sua capacità di innovare davvero.

L’aspettativa della nostra Associazione -non a caso “Innovatori Europei”- è che nel travagliato percorso evolutivo del Partito Democratico e di altre forze che si richiamano alle culture riformatrici di sinistra, prevalgano, finalmente, le ragioni di profondi cambiamenti. Senza un adeguato esercizio delle culture comunitarie, l’Italia difficilmente potrà risollevarsi.

È la nostra “ragion d’essere”. Ne faremo oggetto di un rinnovato e libero impegno civile.

Discourses of polarization and the construction of difference (in Turkey)

 written by Zeynep Gulsah Capan

I discussed yesterday in my post , however briefly, the discourses of polarization in Turkey and how it has actually limited, silenced and marginalized voices. Prime Minister Erdogan in his speech yesterday continued his attempts to frame the #occupygezi movement within the discourses of polarization and (re)construct an us/them binary.

He not only reaffirmed his willingness to continue with the project but also that ‘parliamentary democracy was functioning in Turkey’ but also with reference to the protests stated that ‘the aim here is idealogical.’ Furthermore, he states that ‘the first aim is to take the Istanbul Municipality’ referencing the upcoming municipal elections in 2014. He attempts clearly to frame the issue as being against RPP (Republican People’s Party) and reconstitute the binaries of us and them, seculars vs islamists.[1]

He takes this discourse further and states that ‘If this is about holding meetings, if this is a social movement, where they gather 20, I will get up and gather 200,000 people. Where they gather 100,000, I will bring together one million from my party’[2] It is becoming increasingly clear that Erdogan knows that he benefits from continuing discourses of polarization. As long as an issue is framed as being ‘seculars vs islamists’ and ‘us/them’ he can recast it as the Kemalist elite trying to regain their position of power.

The polarization of the discourse and analyzing the events unfolding in Turkey right now by buying into that discourse not only distorts the image of the events and the issues being discussed but also silences the voices of people who want to go beyond the binary oppositions. An example of such an analysis was evident in an analysis posted by BBC yesterday entitled ‘Turkish press slams handling of Istanbul protests’. The article classifies the op-ed columnists as ‘pro-secular’ and ‘Islamist’ pointing out that even the ‘Islamists’ are warning Erdogan about his actions. Imposing a binary on the events, issues and people involved in the #occupygezi movement is a way to reproduce the dominant discourses of polarization. It is a way of reproducing the idea of a Turkey divided into two between ‘seculars’ vs ‘islamists’. Even if the argument is that in this instance ‘islamists’ have agreed with the ‘seculars’, the dividing up itself is a way to reinforce and reproduce the idea of irreconcilable differences.

Contrary to representations based on discourses of polarization, the events that unfolded in the last couple of days has demonstrated that these binary oppositions do not hold and continuing to use them in analyses of Turkey contribute to silencing the opinions of Turkish citizens. If the discourses of polarization and impositions of binary oppisitions to the events in Turkey succeed that the #occupygezi movement will loose its voice again. So any analysis has to clear away from reproducing these discourses  and continuing to underline ‘irreconcilable differences’. Although there are articles that expressly criticise analysis concentrating on these binary oppositions,[3] there are also op-ed columnists on social media[4] that continue to stress these binary oppositions contributing to the silencing of voices.

The below are some photos that have been posted via various social media sites demonstrating that the discontentment being voiced in Turkey is not one that can be reduced to ‘seculars’ vs ‘islamism’.

Revolutionary Muslims joining the protests

The signs read : 'side by side against fascism', 'We can't stand you sober JDP'

 

source

[1] http://t24.com.tr/haber/taksimde-gostericiler-durust-davranmiyorlar-soruyorum-muhattabim-kim/231096

[2] http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/01/us-turkey-protests-idUSBRE94U0J920130601

[3] http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2013/06/istanbul-protests-who-are-protesters-turkey.html

[4] The rumor that veiled protesters were being attacked has been included in T24’s 17 lies spread by the social media article : http://t24.com.tr/haber/gezi-parkiyla-ilgili-sosyal-medyada-dolasan-17-yalan/231137

Chiediamo solo un mondo migliore

La Valle del Sacco

di Giuseppina Bonaviri

Al Consiglio europeo di febbraio 2013 arrivano le decisioni sul budget: all’Italia almeno un miliardo di euro per le città che potranno diventare oltre due miliardi con il co-finanziamento nazionale.

Riqualificazione urbana prioritaria nei fondi Ue: questa la sfida del bilancio 2014-2020. Il Parlamento europeo si è formalmente dichiarato a favore della concentrazione di risorse e strumenti sullo sviluppo urbano sostenibile, insistendo affinché la rigenerazione di aree degradate o dismesse e la riqualificazione edilizia siano confermate tra le priorità di spesa dei fondi strutturali per il periodo 2014-2020. La proposta della Commissione di concentrare su progetti di sviluppo urbano integrato, gestiti dalle città, almeno il 5% delle risorse del Fondo europeo di sviluppo regionale attribuite a ciascun Paese membro è deliberata. In questo settenario le città italiane – soprattutto quelle del Mezzogiorno – potranno,  dunque, accedere ai fondi europei per la rigenerazione urbana per almeno 1,05 miliardi.

Le risorse andranno concentrate su quattro obiettivi qualificanti: 1)abbattere le emissioni di Co2 nelle aree urbane, 2)migliorare l’ambiente urbano rigenerando aree dismesse, 3)promuovere la mobilità sostenibile, 4)sostenere la rigenerazione strutturale ed economica dei quartieri più disagiati.

Si aggiungono a questi dati, per ulteriore rassicurazione, i documenti preliminari per la programmazione 2014-2020 elaborati dall’ex Ministro Fabrizio Barca che include le aree urbane tra gli ambiti d’intervento prioritari nazionali. L’ investimento territoriale integrato consentirà di far interagire, appunto, assi prioritari e programmi operativi diversi con la creazione di una sorta di mini-programma rivolto a più ampi obiettivi. Ciò consentirà da subito di investire risorse su aspetti specifici a partire dall’efficienza energetica degli edifici, dal recupero di distretti industriali in declino o di aree degradate extraurbane.

La strategia seguita si orienta a promuovere interventi integrati coinvolgendo il più possibile le città nella programmazione e nella realizzazione degli investimenti. Tre gli obiettivi fondamentali: -riduzione delle disparità regionali in termini di ricchezza e benessere, -aumento della competitività e dell’occupazione, -sostegno della cooperazione transfrontaliera.

Nei prossimi mesi, tra le prime scelte che ciascun governo sarà chiamato a compiere sui programmi per i fondi strutturali 2014-2020 c’è quella relativa alla selezione delle città e delle aree d’intervento e al ruolo da attribuire alle amministrazioni coinvolte:  una sorta di contratto tra gli attori istituzionali interessati alla gestione dei fondi strutturali che andrà elaborato, condiviso e fatto approvare da Bruxelles.

Il successo degli interventi per lo sviluppo urbano dipenderà soprattutto dalla capacità amministrativa delle città e dalla qualità della collaborazione col governo nazionale e con le Regioni.

Molte le città italiane interessate che già stanno affrontando le criticità dei loro territori con politiche urbane che trasformeranno la presenza di aree dismesse in risorsa ed opportunità di lavoro: la riconversione, infatti, consente alle nostre città di dotarsi di quelle strutture e di quegli servizi necessari ad elevare la qualità urbana e quindi punta al miglioramento della nostra vita quotidiana e della qualità della salute pubblica.

Il recupero delle aree dismesse torni ad essere uno dei temi centrali delle politiche di governo anche del nostro territorio con la realizzazione di Laboratori Urbani, Parchi Urbani o di quartiere, centri polivalenti, teatri tutti luoghi al servizio della cittadinanza. Non potremo permetterci più  di parlare di crisi di modello quando trasformazione urbanistica, sviluppo economico si uniranno al largo consenso sociale.

Nel caso specifico della Valle del Sacco bisognerà articolare da subito un” Sistema Comuni” tracciato sul metodo sulle priorità per vivacizzare una Agenda Urbana che integri i diversi livelli di governo con le politiche settoriali, le risorse finanziarie ordinarie e comunitarie. Assumendo, a nostro avviso, come prioritari i bisogni dei cittadini le amministrazioni locali interessate e quelle centrali dovranno imparare ad ascoltare e tradurre in domanda di ricerca e di lavoro le richieste di sviluppo qualificato e diffuso che sosteniamo con determinazione anche nella presente proposta.

Superare la sovrapposizione/contrapposizione tra politiche ordinarie e politiche aggiuntive con particolare riferimento ad una opzione strategica “Città” vuol dire agire una coesione riferita alla densità e alla pienezza delle relazioni umane che si realizzeranno quando, crescendo le opportunità di sviluppo, si definirà anche il metodo con il quale le politiche di sviluppo devono potersi realizzare nelle periferie.

Il metodo del confronto fra soggetti interni  ed esterni al territorio, a noi sembra,  l’unico.

Da ora, dunque, sarà opportuno iniziare la costruzione orizzontale fra Comuni, sistemi di imprese, cittadini organizzati e contemporaneamente verticali fra i diversi livelli di governo.

La soluzione è solo quella collettiva.

Mi sento fortunata perché intorno a me ce ne sono tante-i. Le Istituzioni non potranno rimanere più immobili alle buone proposte di una base pensante che chiede un mondo migliore.

 

News da Twitter

News da Facebook