It’s all fire around Theresa May. Jeremy Corbyn has increased the pressure on the UK Premier at a particularly critical moment, during the start of the Brexit negotiations. On the other hand, Gerry Adams, the historic Sinn Féin leader, recently visited Downing Street for the first time in a decade and directly accused May of violating the Good Friday Agreement. According to Adams, the possibility of a governing covenant among the Conservative Party and the DUP (Unionist Party of Northern Ireland) to achieve a majority in the British Parliament, is a rupture of the British Government’ role as guarantor of North Ireland’ peace process. That is not to mention the British Police’s performance on the terrorist attacks, or the recent fire at the Grenfell tower which has been considered by a Labour MP as a ‘criminal negligence.’ After two terrorist attacks in less than three months, the British capital revived the nightmare with the Grenfell tower terrifying fire in the middle of the night.

Last June 22nd was a year later of the Brexit‘s triumph, which won the referendum with only a 3.7% lead. Since then, the wound opened about the EU debate in the United Kingdom is far from being over. This was acknowledged recently by the highest religious authority of the Church of England, Justin Welby, Archbishop of Canterbury since 2013. Welby acknowledges that the political situation created after the last elections, without an absolute majority of Government, “has created an understandable temptation to turn every difference into a question of confidence.” Welby urges British politicians to seek unity and avoiding “the temptation to take domestic advantage at the cost of these events.” He has proposed to the PM to sponsor a commission under the Parliament’ umbrella, in which all parties are willing to achieve a common position before the Brexit negotiations. It would be presided over by a veteran and prestigious politician and away from the current partisan struggles. Some Labour MPs had already advocated a commission like the one proposed by Archbishop Welby. However, it is doubtful whether his idea might please the hard Brexiters inside the Conservative Party.

The fact is that, once the negotiations to carry out Brexit have started, a new word is being recently heard in England: ‘Regretxit‘, which links the term Brexit with ‘Regret’. The polling company YouGov, which was very accurate in its projection of seats that May would lose in the past election, has made a satisfaction survey on Brexit, and the ‘Regrexit‘ is already leading. It must be remembered that in the referendum on this UE leaving issue, the pro-leaving was 51.8%, compared with 48.1% (17.4 million votes against 16.1). One year later, 45% of those surveyed, believe that EU exit will be a historic mistake, exceeding the 44% who still believe that Brexit was successful: 40% believe that the country will be worse after leaving its partners since 1973, and only 25% foresee a better perspective.

The main reason the Brexit was voted was to regain sovereignty, that British decisions are taken by the British. The second reason is the control of immigration. YouGov’s survey made for ‘The Times’ reveals that the economics are right now more crucial than immigration: 58% say that in negotiations with the EU, the European free market must prevail.

The reality is that already now, British households have lost purchasing power; The political crisis is palpable with a very weak government after the last elections; The British negotiating position is very fragile and confusing and, a wave of companies offshoring is expected as the breakthrough progresses. Brexit‘s hyper nationalistic adventure is already punishing the UK. In addition, British society is politically divided in two, divided as never were before. May wanted to celebrate elections to consolidate her power; She failed and lost the absolute majority which had bequeathed from Cameron. She is right now in a fragile minority and highly questioned by her own party. The British Government has never finished defining a clear strategy for Brexit, probably because it does not have it. The Premier outlined her intentions for a tough exit last January: abandonment of the single market and the Customs Union, control of borders and end of EU citizens’ free movement. So, tough exit.

But everything will depend on the pain caused by the Brexit to the UK citizens. The English, despite their pretensions of superiority over the rest of Europe, are usually a practical kind of people, who thinks a lot with their pockets. If the Brexit adventure seriously worsens their lives, they will recant, with a dignified tone and pretending like they have won, but they will step back in the end. If the damages are bearable, an agreement will be sought which will give good access to the EU market and generous quotas of EU citizens arrivals. But since the official start of negotiations in Brussels for Britain’s exit from the EU, the British negotiating chief David Davis, the EU’s exit appointed minister, was thrashed by his EU counterpart Michel Barnier, who has imposed a timetable, schedule and negotiation model. Right now, things don’t look right for Britain. And the rest of the EU will not allow it either.

Policy tightening towards Cuba



We are going to empower the Cuban people and make accountable their regime,” Trump wrote on Twitter, just hours before giving a speech in Little Havana, the neighbourhood where the Cuban exile is concentrated. During the Presidential race, Trump has altered course on Cuba. Last year, during the primary campaign, Trump said that he supportedgovernment efforts to restore relations with the island. Then, at a Miami rally two weeks ago, Trump claimed that Obama should have secured better terms in negotiations with Cuba, and that “unless the Castro regime meets our demands,” he would reverse Obama’s executive orders.

A year and three months after Obama’s visit to Cuba, Trump has visited Miami, the capital of the Cuban diaspora, to reiterate to an exile sector that he will satisfy the campaign promise which he made to the Bay of Pigs war’ veterans, who risked their lives in an incursion to the island in 1961, encouraged and funded by the Government of John F. Kennedy. The president announced in Miami a policy’ tightening towards the island, dismantling a part of the legacy of his predecessor: “Now that I am President I will expose the crimes of the Castro’s, because for the United States a continent is better where there is freedom, in Cuba, in Venezuela, so that people can live their dreams.” The president said that one of his functions is changing the bad treaties, and recalled that of Iran, and that of Cuba: ” The previous government has alleviated the restrictions of travel and commerce and that does not help the Cuban people, it only enriches the Castro regime. We will not remain silent in the face of communist oppression.

 However, the ‘backward’ is just partial, not as the hardest Cuban exile would have liked. The president, despite his anti-Castro speech, keeps up with many of the Obama’s policies toward Cuba. The Obama-era decrees marked a significant difference about the US Companies provision of services increase in Cuba: telecommunications, internet, hotels. Companies like Airbnb announced their new presence on the island. Also, it is particularly visible in these two and a half years the presence of the big airlines and US cruise ships, which started arriving in Cuba in 2016. Trump, who seems to follow the directives of Senator Marco Rubio and Congressman Mario Diaz-Balart, two of the most influential politicians in the Cuban-American community, says what successive administrations of one sign or another have promised in Miami: that sooner rather than later Cuba will be free; That the objective is to promote the autonomy of civil society and to undermine the dictatorship; And that it is urgent to denounce the violation of human rights in Cuba. Nothing new.

On the island side, Raul Castro’s government responded in a message issued in all the Cuban media, “Any strategy aimed to change the political, economic and social system in Cuba, whether it is to achieve it through pressures or using more subtle methods, will be doomed to failure. The necessary changes in Cuba such as those now underway, are part of the island’s economic and socialist model’ update, which the Cuban people will continue to decide sovereignly.” Cuba has also protested yesterday over the US president shamelessness, as last Friday he surrounded himself with terrorists in Miami, when announcing the tightening of his country’s policy toward the island, in a ‘such a grotesque spectacle coming out of the Cold War.’

But any exile is monolithic and the Cuban is not an exception. After 59 years of exile, today more than ever, Cuban-Americans are divided about which is the best way to drive a transition. According to a Florida International University’ survey published in 2016, 63%, in Miami Dade County were against the embargo, and 57% supported the expanding trade relations with Cuba. And a new poll released yesterday by ‘Engage Cuba Coalition’ dismantle the stereotype that of Republicans are opposed to Obama’s policies in relation to the island. In fact, most of the Republican voters want to keep them. But the scope of the new measures is not clear, partly because of the lack of transparency of the Cuban economy. Some experts have criticized the tightening of US policy towards Cuba as a counterproductive one. For Jason Marczack, an expert at the Think Tank Atlantic Council, stated that “the Cuban system has already demonstrated its resistance to US attempts to isolate itself over the past five decades.”

 There will be no change until the Cubans on the island take some action. At least as the Venezuelan people are doing. Nothing which outsiders might decide as Trump now, or Obama before, is going to have a real impact on the Cuban people ‘lives. What does it take for the people of Cuba to wake up, have faith in themselves, and be able to reverse their history? What needs to happen in Cuba for Cubans to show their identity, their self-esteem and take off all their strength forces to make their way to the future? What is needed to say among them, those ordinary Cubans, from all ages and from all parts of the island to rise from the long lethargy in which they are submerged, asleep, hypnotized, paralyzed, and put their proven wit and muscle to work?

Fifty-eight years are gone and the result is apathy, languishment and disinterest over a better life. A decrepit country, people abandoned to their fate, without encouragement, without the will to fight, without goals, encouragement, without blood, dignity and desire. Eleven million of Cubans would wish to leave the island, flee to other lands where they could achieve a more human, more dignified, more possible life. Run away. Go far from the impossible. Sad reality. Cuba, an island which does not produce, full of people who do not work and do not participate. A miserable entelechy product of an abject revolution dedicated to demolishing everything assembled before. The Cuban people must react and fight against the regime that has stolen everything, even their dignity!

The advisers of Venezuelan Chavismo

Every story has a beginning. Every dictatorship has an inspirer. The Venezuelan Chavismo found its origins in Alberto Fujimori, president of Peru during the 90’s, being each other so apparently opposite and very distant ideologically. In April 1992, the Peruvians awoke with the news that there was no longer a Parliament: Fujimori had given a coup, and according to him ‘supported’ by more than 80% of the Peruvian population. Under his regime, Fujimori intervened in all the powers of the State: he placed judges and prosecutors at his whim. All these events were a source of inspiration for Hugo Chávez: to build a model based on the same system.

The relationship between Alberto Fujimori and Hugo Chávez started in 1992 when the Peruvian government offered asylum to the 93 Venezuelan military who participated in the failed coup against then-Venezuelan President Carlos Andres Perez. At that time, Fujimori politically aligned himself with the Chavez’s cause against Carlos Andrés Pérez, and facilitated that coup makers were living comfortably in Lima for almost two years. Fujimori considered himself as a good friend to Chávez, and perhaps that mutual admiration led them to develop great similarities in their way of governing. Both regimes organized the power under an apparent and unreal democracy. Both arranged their political constitutions. Both organized periodic elections which were a farce, just with the purpose of hiding the true authoritarian nature of their governments. Chavez, being President, defended Fujimori after the election results of 2000, even when those were strongly questioned by the OAS and the United States. Caracas, being Chavez and president, gave protection to a fugitive Vladimiro Montesinos until the situation became unfeasible and he had to be handed over to the Peruvian authorities to judge him and condemn him.

The Chavismo had from the beginning a totalitarian DNA. It was guaranteed by the ballot box, but soon eliminated the separation of powers and institutional counterweights (check & balances). It was never an integration project, but it fostered the social confrontation. Chávez could win elections while he was popular, when the oil prices were high; Then he made I through electoral fraud. Now the fraud was not enough, that’s why the elections are simply eliminated.

The advice of the Cuban regime is behind all the strategic decisions made during the Chavismo. The envoys of Fidel Castro provided Hugo Chávez with the engineering necessary to camouflage fraud. Electoral fraud is what Cubans have developed for systems of political participation, but when fraud is insufficient, as happened in the parliamentarians of 2015 because of the avalanche of opposition vote, they have no more prescription than that of Castrism in Cuba: the pure repression. The defencelessness of the citizen; the sadism as their government’ style; the international cynicism, are the facts which appear for years in the news, dialogue or interview which is addressing this tragic everyday’ life.

In a different country, these massive daily citizen’s demonstrations would lead to the fall of the government: the president would leave conscious of having lost the popular support, while is eager to avoid any responsibility for the dead who are falling on the streets because of the confrontations during the demonstrations. There are images which show Maduro dancing salsa, while in behind him you it is possible to see by his window a big demonstration in the Caracas’ streets. His cynicism is unbearable.

But in Venezuela, the game is not just politics. Many of those currently in power are not politicians but criminals: a drug cartel which has stolen huge amounts of public money. It explains why the current regime is willing to violate any human rights to remain in power and not providing any accountability in from of any national and international court of justice.

Death, hunger, absolute shortage of food or vital medicaments… 2015 closed with 28,000 dead because of the violence sowed by Hugo Chávez and whose harvest is that of hate and blood. The Castro-Chavismo sums hundreds of dead to their sinister inventory. Assassinations of so many dissidents whose only fault was to confront the regime.

Those were the origins of the regime which smashes Venezuela and Venezuelan people today. The current situation is stubborn and what was foreseen, is already happening: Maduro has announced that there will be no more elections in Venezuela. The country officially enters the dictatorship which was already de facto being for a long time ago. Nicolas Maduro boldly confirms that his country is basically a dictatorship where there is no separation of powers, and freedoms are seriously restricted. There will be no longer any voting with which to achieve the political change which most of the Venezuelans are claiming in the streets, even with their lives. Only the force can be now the solution. The next few days will be essential to see if Venezuela’s pressure cooker finally explodes.

Are the Populist parties (whether far-right or far-left) alike?

Against all odds, a year ago the British voted for a small minority, to leave the European Union. The fundamental reason, the fear of what comes from outside. A few months later, and against all the forecasts and polls, the Americans elected as President to Donald Trump, who won with a populist message shaking the spectre of fear. He was supported by the European far-right. Finally, next May 7th in the second round of the French presidential election, Le Pen will be the candidate against Macron, having shown that the National Front (FN) has a large electoral base and a structure that could lead her to win in the coming legislative election.

At present, the far-right populist parties are ruling in Hungary and Poland. In other European countries, like The Netherlands and Denmark the populist have been able to achieve a great influence in the political arena. Although this is not a new phenomena, the economic crisis, the Islamist terrorism and the waves of refugees, have been in recent years some key elements which have decisively energized these movements in central and northern Europe .

But the radical-left is ruling as well: The social-democratic traditional parties have been heavily punished in all the past European elections, attacked from those radical-left populist postulates that have achieved positions of government in Greece and Portugal. It is also not a new phenomenon: Juan Domingo Peron invented it in the 1940s in Argentina, and it is now dramatically present in Venezuela, Nicaragua, Bolivia and Ecuador. Cuba is a different situation, it is a communist tyranny. Every few years, when certain economic conditions are met, the populism returns in one shape or another, since both are very similar.

The extreme-right populism is rooted in the richest and most developed societies, and precisely among those outcast popular classes who feel discriminated by the system. This populism is basically based on three concepts: nation, race and religion. According to a recent survey by the Chatham House, the prestigious UK based Institute of International Affairs, 55% of Europeans do not wish any immigration from Muslim countries, being more pronounced in Poland (71%), followed by Austria, Germany and the United Kingdom. In any European country, the percentage has dropped from 32%. The study also shows that the opposition to Muslim migration is particularly intense among older people. It is also divided by educational level: Among those with only secondary education (59% opposition) while those who support policies to curb Muslim immigration, is among University graduates (40%). Far-right populism seeks to protect us from everything foreign to our nation, our race or our religion, and the enemies to beat are the country elites who are responsible of the social and economic changes produced in the last decades and who are represented by the traditional political forces.

Far-left populism arises within the most traditional Marxism: Protecting to those dispossessed by the economic elites, who had manipulated the economy and politics to satisfy their own interests. This is the populism’ phenomenon in Latin America and the movements like ‘SYRIZA’ in Greece and ‘Podemos’ in Spain. But also in France, where the presidential candidate Marine Le Pen accused his adversary Macron: “You are the France of submission,” Le Pen said with scorn; Mr. Macron was merely a heartless banker, in her view, “We’ve seen the choice you’ve made, the cynical choices, that reveal the coldness of the investment banker you have never ceased being.” Such a message could perfectly come from a Chavista party, without going any further.

Facing currently the second round of the French presidential elections, the similarities between Le Pen and the defeated Mélenchon (a tracing of the Spanish party ‘Podemos’, party founded with money coming from the Chavez regime), are also overwhelming: a very significant part of their programs are coincident, both in the background and in the forms. These are not merely casual and anecdotal similarities, but rather coherent programs in their break with a moderately individualistic and internationalist social order: Both aim to submit those individual freedoms to the collective will of the ‘People’; To delegate to the State the future of citizens’ administration and finally, to protect their country from economic threats or external cultural influences.

Certainly, there are a few key elements which make then different. But there are also other equally key elements that objectively bring them closer to Le Pen than to Macron. That is why their relationship is so conflicting: they hate each other, but at the same time their coincidences are too obvious to obviate them.

Today, populism is related with both the radical-left and the far-right. The latter has never masked its intentions: flaunting his anti-immigration convictions, anti-liberal economic system and in defence of traditional values. In that part they differ, absolutely. But both are enemies of the open societies that liberalism has always defended: enemies of private property, universal equality, social self-regulation, globalization, individual freedom and responsibility. None of them defends a broad conception of individual freedom, which constitutes an impassable frontier to the State, in both civil and economic spheres. On the contrary, both promote the primacy of the collective, versus the individual person autonomy, if necessary, using violence. This populism also is strongly popular in the Islamic world where a radical discourse is being made today and is ruling the great majority of those Muslim states.

Both extremism bring the same type of leadership and transgressive language as an essential tool to differentiate themselves from the elites: The populist leaders are political style and language transgressors and they show it, since it is an asset reporting much popularity among their audience. These characteristics lead to consider populism not an ideology but a way of identifying and addressing the political discourse, against those supposed elites unable to represent the so-called ‘people’. Therefore, Populism must be combated intellectually and politically.

And the next is France

Marine Le Pen has two weeks left to try her miracle. The polls predict a defeat against Emmanuel Macron in the second round of the French presidential election in May 7th. The different polls are showing a clear victory of her rival, around 62% against 38%. Macron seems bounded to be the next president of France without even being politically defined. He has no political party to speak of and has never held elected office, but he is one of the front-runners for the French presidency. There is something wondrous about Macron. Nothing important of what is known about him seems strictly aligned in the life’ symmetry. Both candidates are outside the traditional French political paradigm for the first time since World War II. They do not belong to the traditional parties which have formed government since then, neither are Republicans nor Social-Democrats. The Social-Democrat withdrawal is another worrying issue to be analysed at another moment and not only in France, but throughout Europe.

Marine Le Pen is a woman with many edges: to get a glimpse about her, I must refer to a statement she made before the elections, 12 days before the first round, about the Velodrome raid, known in all the history books as ‘La Rafle du Vél d’Hiv’, and which have been very poorly matched by French public opinion but above all, outside France: she denied the responsibility of France, its rulers, its police, its diplomacy and security services in the most famous of the raids of Jews to be deported in the Second World War, one of the most unearthing sinister national ghosts. To understand these statements, it is necessary to place them in a very French context, the difficulty with which France has managed the idealization of the French Resistance, the omission of the collaborationism and, ultimately, all the events derived from the Nazi occupation, from Vichy and De Gaulle’s appeal of June 18th, when France split into two halves which disputed the official legitimacy. The fact was that most of the population were indifferent, or collaborating with the Vichy regime. These are old stories, truly. In fact, Le Pen’s reflection, although dishonest, is typically Gaullist, characteristic of the foundational Gaullism, when the General, forced by the task of building a new republic over the rubble, resentments and defeats of the previous one, exaggerated the narrative about the good resistant French people and attributed them the moral purity necessary to enhance the pride of belonging. Le Pen’s reflection is an anachronism without historical foundation or justification in which a hypothetical France is invented and did not exist, but she would recreate if she finally wins the Presidency.

On the other hand, it is her recent visit to the Kremlin: when the Russian President Vladimir Putin sat at the table with the French right-wing candidate, and he broke the Slav antifascist icon’ suit. What the Cold War divided, is being united by the jihadist attacks, as well as the yearning of Putin and Le Pen to see a divided Europe. Le Pen has officially become the favourite candidate for the Kremlin. Her party FN received a $9 million loan from the Moscow-based First Czech-Russian Bank, while all the European entities turned their backs on her. The National Front (FN) always opposed those sanctions against Russia for its interference in Ukraine. Moscow regrets the ills that affect the EU, but the side effects of the NF are the best ones for Russia. Le Pen is sceptical about NATO and has promised a referendum on France’s presence inside the EU. The same as all populist proposal, nothing new. A ‘Frexit’ would disrupt the political power of the EU. Perhaps that is why the Russian Foreign Minister, Sergei Lavrov, defined Le Pen as “realistic, or anti-globalist” a compliment extended to Donald Trump, and to all the club members as well. Anti-EU, anti-Euro, anti-NATO, against the elites, against the finances world, pro- nationalizations, against the international trade liberalization agreements… Looking to paragraphs of the populist formations programs, many voters would not be able to differentiate them or which country are these referring to.

Marine Le Pen has fifteen days left to capture all those pissed off French. She already has the slogan for the second round: “I am the candidate of the people“. Nothing original and typically populist. She also knows that she must go all out and intensify her attacks against Macron: ‘the people’s candidate’ against the favourite of finance, banks, CAC 40, the press, the ‘establishment’ … The head of the FN cannot surrender yet without trying another ‘Trump effect’. The FN has won more than seven million votes in the first round. It is the party that has the strongest voters base. Volatility is not a disease which might affect to Le Pen.

For Marine, as she likes to be called, the confrontation with Macron will oppose with well-differentiated arguments: nation against European Union; Protection against liberalism; Patriotism against internationalism; Identity versus diversity; ‘The people’ against the elites. Like Donald Trump, the leader of the National Front (FN) has found the perfect channel to reach the public, to transmit her messages and political slogans and, at the same time, to avoid the criticisms and attacks from many newspapers and TV channels. Her secret weapon are the social networks. The traditional media, also in the very civic and cultured France, face a growing discredit.

The traditional right and left old and mangy, of Fillon and Jean-Luc Mélenchon, this time have remained outside. They have been sharing the representation of a melancholic citizenship who denies the risk, the doubt and the frictions of an open society. Le Pen thinks she’s something else, something fresh and new. Those disenchanted, pouting voters, is what FN can aspire to. But Marine Le Pen may have exhausted the adhesion voting in the first round. Neither the ‘Trump effect’ nor Putin’s moral help, seems sufficient to defeat Emmanuel Macron. The destruction of the old political paradigm has just begun and, of course, renewal will not be easy.

Turkey: The Coup has been completed



The US President, Donald Trump called to his Turkish counterpart Recep Tayyip Erdogan to congratulated for his “Pyrrhic victory” during the last Sunday’s referendum, despite the big criticism coming from the international observers. The Turks approved on Sunday in a minor victory a constitutional reform promoted by Erdogan which will allow him to extend his mandate until 2034, and replace the parliamentary system which has characterized the Turkish democracy, by a presidential system. Large cities such as Istanbul, Ankara, Bursa and Izmir strongly rejected such a reform, but it has been largely supported in rural areas where ‘a strong leadership’ was preferred.

President Erdogan was looking for this wished election date for years; it was for him the possibility of seizing such a great an unknown power in Turkey since the times of the mythical founder of the Republic, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk. Erdogan arranged everything in his favour not only to get the approval of his constitutional amend, but also to achieve it with a big great result. The seriousness of his face during the first public intervention after knowing the first election results, left no room for doubt. “The referendum has been won, but no victory has been achieved,” Abdulkadir Selvi, a columnist close to the Islamist AKP (Justice and Development Party and Erdogan’s) government, wrote in the daily newspaper ‘Hürriyet’. And It didn’t happen because of a lack of resources: Erdogan has well exploited the last attempted coup: the massive subsequent purges, with about 50,000 imprisoned, seemed to pave the way for his absolute victory.

The Republican People’s Party (CHP),of social-democratic ideology and main opposition party in Turkey, announced on that it will call for the cancellation of Sunday’s referendum. The Turkish political analyst Semih Idiz stated, “In the end, Erdogan has gotten his way and got the system he wanted, but it is not the victory he was hoping for. Erdogan asked for at least 60% of  people’ support during the campaign, which would have given real legitimacy to his executive presidency.” Finally, it has remained at 51.41%.The opposition has not acknowledged these results and announced that they will be impugn them at the Constitutional Court.

The referendum on Constitutional reform in Turkey has also triggered a reactions’ wave across Europe. The idea that Erdogan is walking in the opposite direction of the European values, ​​is the most repeated thesis, and although in this reform does not appear anything referring to the re-establishment of the death penalty, which is the limit that all EU countries and institutions have designated as insurmountable, the way in which this referendum has been carried out and the political consequences arising from the outcome, are viewed in Europe with much scepticism and as a bad affair. The most obvious symptom has been the OSCE and Council of Europe election observers’ conclusions, who have formally pointed out that the referendum which has decided to reinforce the powers of President Erdogan, has not taken place under conditions of the required democratic impartiality. It is not often that a mission of election observers makes such a drastic statement about an election process, especially being Turkey a member of the Council of Europe.

From countries such as Belgium and the Netherlands, warnings have already been made to Erdogan about the use he might make of the election’ result, and they are analysing the possibility of limiting the maintenance of Turkish nationality to those migrants who have acquired as well that of their country of residence: they must either renounce to their Turkish nationality or lose the acquired nationality, i.e., Belgian or Dutch.

If it were not enough, Erdogan referred to the possibility of calling a new referendum, this time on Turkey’s accession to the EU, with the clear intention of asking the Turks to vote against it. In addition, another vote on the re-instatement of the death penalty.

Recep Tayyip Erdogan removed his democratic ruler’ mask long time ago. From the failed ‘coup’ or better, ‘self-coup’, we have witnessed the spectacle of an autocratic and threatening Turkey. It began by the blackmailing to the EU with the refugee crisis, while he was embracing with other autocratic leaders or dictators in front of the spotlights. Thousands of people have since been arrested, detained and expelled from their jobs for their alleged involvement in the coup, without a single evidence. A whole purge to strengthen Erdogan’s power. The red alarm’ lights have long been lit around Erdogan, especially after those incidents with the Dutch and German authorities during last March.

With this new authority’ twist, the president of Turkey has consummated the betrayal of those who elected him through the ballot box and to the thousands of citizens who went into the streets to preserve the democratic order.

Erdogan plans to dismantle the democratic regime and all the political plurality which had been reached by the transcontinental nation, minimizing or just finishing with his political opposition. He wants an Islamist Turkey just for him: a country which he can handle like that Ottoman empire he has been dreaming his whole life. Bye-bye Atatürk!

Brexit & Gibraltar



Following the takeover of  United Kingdom positions, the other 27 states and the European Council, the Euro Chamber has imposed its own conditions and requirements for the Brexit negotiations. A list of conditions including the absence of any reference to Gibraltar. Moreover, the European Union determines that the future status of Gibraltar must be agreed between the UK and Spain. And it is not a coincidence. In the draft of the European Council guidelines, the now famous clause 22 states that “no agreement between the EU and the UK could be applied in the territory of Gibraltar without an agreement between Spain and the UK.” The speech of EU leaders like Manfred Weber has reminded that Spain’s interests are those of the EU, regarding this dispute. The EU have finally admitted a certain fact: The Rock is an English possession overseas and its status is to be negotiated between the colonial power, the UK, and the colonized, Spain.

The Rock was occupied by troops of the UK on August 4th, 1704, when an Anglo-Dutch fleet commanded by Admiral George Rooke, seized Rock. Rooke, aware of the strategic importance of the Gibraltar isthmus, ordered the English flag to be raised. The conquest was ‘legalized’ by the Treaty of Utrecht. The document, signed by Anne Stuart, Queen of England, and Philip V of Spain, states: “The Catholic King, by himself and by all his successors, gives by this treaty to the Crown of Great Britain the full and entire property of the city and castle of Gibraltar, together with its port, and the defences and fortresses that belong to it.

The Treaty of Utrecht makes no reference to any border boundaries or jurisdictional waters. Only granted to England the town of Gibraltar and the Spanish forts built for its defence. The English expelled the local population who took refuge in the vicinity, creating what is now the little village of San Roque. Then, the British authorities repopulated the Rock with people brought from Malta, Cyprus and North Africa. In 1830 England unilaterally granted to Gibraltar the status of a Crown colony. Today, Gibraltar is almost the only colonial symbol of the old British Empire. According to the UN, the colonial situation of Gibraltar destroys the unity and territorial integrity of Spain, and its maintenance is contrary to the Charter of the United Nations. That is why the UN has repeatedly urged the UK to end its presence in the Rock.

I am surprised by the astonishment of the English people by the UE declarations to these facts, including the left-wing daily The Guardian, after the EU decision to recognize something as elementary as Gibraltar is a colony. That is not said by Spain but by the United Kingdom itself, as by Parliament’s Act, the sovereignty of the Rock is in Westminster and its legal status is that of ‘overseas territory’, something similar to other small territories under English sovereignty dispersed by the world, with no other difference than the clause of reversion of Gibraltar to Spain, provided by the Treaty of Utrecht. It is also say by the UN, which puts Gibraltar among the territories to decolonize, which does not happen with Ceuta or Melilla, for example.

The tabloid newspaper ‘The Sun’, showing the xenophobia daughter of the Brexit, has decided to launch its vomiting campaign in defence of Gibraltar, painting the front the Rock with the Union Jack and giving to their readers a bilingual poster where announces “Hands off Our Rock / Our Rock Is Not Touched “. The Sun´ columnist Kelvin Mackenzie, has named the Spaniards “follaburros” (fuck asses), urging to his compatriots to prepare for a good old fight and even dared to suggest the expulsion of those Spaniards currently residing in the UK, (“Say goodbye, Manuel“). “Up yours senors!”, which can be translated as “fuck up, gentlemen” aimed at the “meddlesome leaders” of Spain and EU, about Gibraltar´ legal status for the future. He seems to have forgotten that in Spain are more than 300,000 British citizens as residents. Absolutely unfortunate all, especially coming from a people who think so high and civilized about themselves!

Gibraltar was just one of the many reasons why the UK should not have leave the EU. One might expect from a mature and responsible country that, instead of nourishing the populism, both from Gibraltar and from the public opinion, it should remember these evidences. Gibraltar is a dispute as old as convoluted which has to be resolved by Spanish-British negotiations. It is clear that the Gibraltarians are very nervous, while the old Tory guard redoubled the war´ drums. Their nervousness is understood, like the warmongering of the old Tory guard, who dreams of reviving imperial glories by sending the Navy to Gibraltar, as they did in the Falklands. But Theresa May’s position is weak.

There is no need to invade Gibraltar, not even closing its border. It will suffice to apply its legal rules because, according to the advantages London has negotiated, it is not included in the Schengen Treaty as internal borders within the EU, which has allowed it to have the fourth per capita income in the world and, to be like the rest of the British colonies, real tax havens. The strict application of that treaty would suffice for such advantages to disappear. The UK must accept the evidence about this matter. It should not be difficult in a country which used to have such an immense empire. After all, if UK could return India to its people, could well return Gibraltar to the Spaniards. The people from Gibraltar want to maintain their current status as an English colony forever is understandable, they have in it a privileged standard of living. But that Europe would accept and defend the maintenance of a colonial order on the territory of a member country was unacceptable and offensive.

The Gibraltarians say they want to be British and European. Until now it was possible. Now they must choose. With regards to the English, we know that for them the only thing which counts are their interests, and that is precisely what the Gibraltarians fear the most. From now on their xenophobia, their abject insults, their ridiculous threats, or their alleged superiority to the rest of the world will not do any good. Long live the Brexit!

Coup d’état in Venezuela

The Venezuelan Supreme Court’ decision to call off the Parliament’ powers and as a result, to grant extraordinary powers to Nicolas Maduro, is an unprecedented event which constitutes a real coup d’etat. According to this undemocratic ruling, seven judges appointed by the Chavism will replace the 167 deputies elected by the Venezuela people in the elections of December 2015. In addition, the deputies are withdrawn of any parliamentary immunity.

The PM members of the National Assembly agree in qualifying the Supreme Court statement 156 as a coup which has given the regime of Nicolas Maduro to consolidate the current dictatorship. The Supreme Court of Justice is the Maduro’s legal arm dedicated to boycott all the decisions emanating from the sovereign parliament. It has issued some 46 rulings against all the legislative acts issued by these representatives of people’s sovereignty. In the meantime, those Chavistas supporters shouted in the streets a battle-cry: “And it will fall, and it will fall, this Assembly will fall!“.

Juan Miguel Matheus, representative of the party ‘Primero Justicia’, stated, “against the legal and arbitrary fiction of the Supreme Court, there are the people of Venezuela and the National Assembly as the real and only representatives of the nation.” The Venezuelan opposition leader Leopoldo Lopez, who has been imprisoned for several years in a farce trial, as it was confirmed by the judge who led the court which tried him, said that what happened is the formalization of the dictatorship, “Today, through an illegal and illegitimate statement, The High Court of Justice formally decreed the dictatorship in Venezuela that we have denounced since 2014.

The Organization of American States (OAS) has begun to intervene in the search for a solution which will reduce the harsh conditions for the Venezuelan people while the Chavism is in agony. Right now, many democratic governments, from the EU, USA, Argentina and Peru, that has even withdrawn its ambassador in Caracas, have condemned the self-coup which constitutes another step of the authoritarian drift that has turned Venezuela into a tyranny. The Secretary General of the OAS, Luis Almagro restated that the fact that the Supreme Court got attributed the functions of the Legislative “is a procedure that does not acknowledge of any of the most basic guarantees of a due process.” Unsurprisingly, Nicolas Maduro’s response was as always, that of attack and insult. And of course, from Cuba are supporting Maduro. Ludicrous.

Maduro’s coup against the Venezuelan parliament is a fact which marks a point of no return of the dictatorship, and requires that the Venezuelan people, the civil society, parties and, above all, the MP’s, to initiate a process of mobilization and a democratic and civic resistance, to face this coup and regain their national sovereignty. If there is no parliament, there is no people’s sovereignty and no a democratic state. Yesterday, those Supreme Court Members decreed the death of the Congress, but in recent months they have already been closing the media, universities, shops, political parties and unions.

The Chavism is living its last moments in the biggest of the tumbles, with the economy paralyzed and the institutional structure devastated by corruption. But during the agony is when a mortally wounded animal becomes more dangerous. Venezuela is a narco-dictatorship system, a criminal organization which oppresses and punishes the Venezuelan people. Its current leader is not prepared either ethically, politically or intellectually to control the reins of the once rich Latin American country. It is a matter of emergency to end with the tyranny, an indecent regime, a political farce which will lead nowhere, except the most devastating catastrophe for Venezuelan people.

What is wrong with the South European countries?


One of the characteristics of any politician leading over an intergovernmental body should be the ability to get along with all the country members which such a leader is representing. Something that, to the Euro Group President the Dutch Jeroen Dijsselbloem, has forgotten for the last days. Dijssembloem has an oblivion about the institutional character of his position when, with the greatest seriousness and without any irony’ hint, he pointed out during an interview in the Frankfurter Allgemeine, about the Southern European countries, “the Northern European countries have had enough solidarity with those countries affected by the crisis of the Euro, while those in the south were spending the money which were given in drinks and women.” Liqueur and women. A comment loaded of stereotypes and prejudices improper of a person in such a position for the Eurozone.

It is not a bad comparison for a citizen of the Netherlands, where marijuana is smoked in the well-known coffee shops and the windows of the brothels in Amsterdam are a famous tourist claim, according to their old harbour tradition. But above all, it is an expressive example of lack of solidarity which is not very appropriate for a Social-Democrat. Dijsselbloem is a member of the PvDA, the Labour Party, which has been blown up in the recent Dutch elections. He is a leftist politician. And he is also responsible for a European institution.

 Dijsselbloem compounded his mistake in the European Parliament the next day, when he refused to apologize for these insulting phrases, as some MEPs demanded. The pressure on the Dutch increased and spread, as it could not be otherwise, to all governments in southern Europe. The former Italian Prime Minister, Mateo Renzi, named his words as “stupid” and called for his immediate resignation. Portugal’s prime minister, Antonio Costa, added to the criticism and called Dijsselbloem words “racist, sexist and xenophobic. Mr. Dijssselbloem must resign of his current position.” Even his common political family, the Social-Democrats, have criticised calling him “a neoliberal Socialist, macho and racist.” The rain of insults took completely unprepared and very touched to one of the politicians with more weight and projection within the EU, an austere and rigorous moralist who since 2013, has taken the realms of the Eurozone.

In his country, The Netherlands, people are surprised by Dijsselbloem’ remarks, but also by the reactions he got. The Dutch believe that the accusations of racist and especially of macho are out of place. They defend him as a very honest person and one of the most genuine and decent politicians, who is used to tell the truth to the face. “I am sorry that anyone was offended by my comment, it was direct and can be explained by the strict Dutch Calvinist culture. I know it is not something which is always understood and appreciated throughout Europe,” he said reluctantly in a forced apology recently.

Such a message and this kind of moral superiority are not something new, surprisingly. I have listened to it and suffered myself several times. Since the beginning of the Euro crisis, the leaders of half a dozen countries, have tattooed on their DNA “The Protestant ethics and the spirit of capitalism” of Max Weber, making comparisons and dubious taste joking over the lazy southern neighbours while not working, are spending themselves the money of the hardworking Bavarian or Dutch savers in Fiesta. Although afterwards, these North Europeans do not hesitate to vacation in those lazy Southern countries, fascinated by their culture, art and beautiful nature, climate, their clean and blue seas, their food and way of life. And they occasionally enjoy there in a not very quiet and civilized way, even embarrassing sometimes for the local populations.

The dangerous pressure of the Populism is breaking the cohesion principle and rethinking the traditional European sense of solidarity, by understanding them as issues nowadays. Trump acting in the US with the latino immigration restrictions, and the obligation to those US companies to invest from and inside the US; The Brexit which has officially started; The populist Wilders, who was about to win the recent elections in The Netherlands, promising to the constituents to leave the EU, and redistributing the national income among their nationals of origin, nationals which must be of three or more generations. The populism has also spread to the left South European political parties thought: a false Populist far-left ideology which only admits the redistribution within the limits of its village, or the country. In Italy, Beppe Grillo wants to leave the EU, also Marine Le Pen in France. In Spain, the Catalan independentists claim that of they are tired of financing the subsidies of the Andalusian bums, idler folks, who are spending their lives in the sun and singing flamenco, in their romerias and fairs, as everyone knows.

Dijsselbloem has his current position in jeopardy already for a while, although he has held on it very good, supported by the difficult equilibrium of the ‘Brussels partitocracy‘. In this community environment, which is in fact an important ideological lobby, his mentality and approach has many supporters.  But it has not helped enough, because seventy MEPs, mainly from the European People’s Party, have sent a letter calling for his resignation due to his biased, racist and sexist comments. Dijsselbloem should not remain for another day leading the Eurogroup. He has justified his words by the “Dutch direct speech“, while those MEPs consider that of “Calvinist culture has nothing to do with disparaging other people. Unbiased and having respect for values ​​such as equality, must be the first obligation of any European leader. ” Certainly, the Dutch are very direct, but that does not mean that they are offensive. In fact, they tend to be very tolerant and politically correct, perhaps too much, and perhaps with whom they should not be ….

Venezuela: The Chavismo, or dying by killing


The current political regime in Venezuela, the Chavismo, is in its last stage. But while it is agonizing, it is jeopardizing the health and even the lives of many of its citizens. At the end of 2013, the Venezuelans began to experience the scarcity and the shortage of the basic products, with the consequent queuing at the supermarket’ entrances to get food. The issue has already exploded today. According to one of the main Hugo Chavez advisers in economic affairs and Chavismo’ ideologue, Heinz Dieterich Steffan, “The economic crisis has become a terminal political crisis for Maduro. In less than two years, a troika of inept and overbearing people has squandered the popular struggle’ heritage, discrediting Socialism of the 21st century’ alternative.” Dieterich was the creator this concept, ‘Socialism of the 21st century’, concept which Hugo Chávez used for his political ground.

The recent French agency AFP report is reflecting the desperation of an increasing number of Venezuelans to bring something to their mouths, having to dig in the garbage to eat. Thousands of people, assessed in 10% of the population, have found in the trash their pantry to fight hunger and misery. 81.8% of Venezuelan households live in poverty and 51.5% do so in extreme poverty, according to the findings of the National Academy of Economic Sciences, based on the surveys of several prestigious universities. Venezuela has become one he most miserable economies on the planet, according to the Bloomberg ranking. And the one of greater inflation and recession, so pronounced that of 93% of the Venezuelans can’t buy the food they need with their salaries.

The ‘Bolivarian’ bureaucrats are pointing a different view about the country: “There is more money available, it is a democratization of the consumption. That is the reason of the shortages, now people have more means to consume.” The Chavismo uses this argument, surprising and shocking many Venezuelans: the official deputy Mario Arias affirmed that the serious general shortage which the country is suffering is because “there is a greater demand, it is evident. If a person is queuing to buy is because has money in his pocket. As a result, there is more demand because there are more resources available. While there are queues in the supermarkets and in the stores, it is because people have more money and, consequently, there is an increase in demand.” Simply incredible.

Denying the situation, the Bolivarian regime of Nicolas Maduro, far from changing the situation, is aggravating it. It maintains strict price controls, the nationalization of companies and productive sectors, as well as the intervention and rationing of food, whose application is further aggravating the scarcity issues, creating hyperinflation and falling in the production. The Venezuelan administration is using this chaos to implement new measures of social control, such as the new ‘Patriotic Card’, a food supply card with which aspires to identify the population who supports the regime, as some opposition leaders have claimed. The control over the citizens, forced to buy according to their identification number, is a modern version of the famous Cuban supply card. According to Dieterich, economic affairs’ Chávez ideologue and a person well known for his leftist positions, “By forcing Venezuelan citizens to present these identity documents, undergo in biometric checks, violating their civil rights, the regime is humiliating the citizens, and exhibiting the state’ police face.”

These images of children, youth or parents digging in trash bags thrown in the streets of Caracas, looking for something to eat is what illustrates the best the economic legacy after almost two decades of the Chavista regime. The continued violation of human and civil rights in Venezuela, which I have denounced so many times, has been linked to hunger lately. It is a great drama which is already affecting to thousands of Venezuelans while the Government of Maduro tries to rest importance, and even making jokes in public about the food scarcity.

The case of Venezuela is not the only state with an immensely rich’ land by its natural resources, which has a high level of poverty and a very low per capita income. But earlier, Venezuela did not have that poverty among most of the population, in fact, the country received many immigrants. Beyond any logic, the Chavista regime has taken Venezuela to this extreme situation, in a country where there was a broad middle class. Now, the food shortage has claimed dozens of children lives so far, already this 2017 year.

Maduro’s government has tried to hide this information abroad by all means, as well as silence the press. But Venezuelan citizens while using the social networks, have been protecting those Venezuelan journalists who are trying hard to inform about it. The work they do, besides respect, deserves to be projected inside and outside the country. The joint effort of journalism’ professionals as well as that of these citizen reporters has made to the world to be aware, awake and conscious about the Venezuelan crisis.

The History judges by their facts to all the regimes. In the political arena, the imprisonment with which the Chavista regime punishes his opponents, as well as the permanent violation of Venezuelans civil rights, embodies the absence of freedom. And in the economic field, the malnutrition of children and photographs which show the famine of the population, speak for themselves. The   is a tyranny already in the terminal phase. But it is intolerable and beyond all bearing that, in its delirious going forward, the regime keeps punishing to all Venezuelan people. The world must know it.