Friedrich Merz: New German Chancellor?

Labour liars promised no new taxes and no tax rises. Friedrich Merx promises tax cuts to return government expenditure under control. Will he keep his promises if he is de facto the new German Chancellor?

The United States of America and its pirate policies is Germany's main enemy. As Alternative für Deutschland has insistently said 'Ukraine ist nicht in unserem Interesse'. Germany needs energy and must not prostitute itself against German interests.

Soviet troops left, but Germany is still under American occupation and the time is long overdue for American troops to be thrown out of Germany.

A sovereign Germany must be a Germany for the German Peoples. German foreign policy must only exist to benefit German interests without being attached to the American Chariot like slaves were chained to the Roman conquerors.

All Syrian refugees must be thrown out. Since President Assad is no more, there is no justification to keep them in Germany, occupying space that belongs to the German Peoples.

Deutschland, Deutschland über Alles. Germany represents 24 per cent of the European Union economy. In fact, German sweat is subsidizing countries that act against German interests. This state of affairs is like the Versailles Pakt and war reparations. 

In fact, German speakers of CDU have been calling for Germany to leave the European Court of Justice that forces Germany to accept what is unacceptable and most importantly Germany needs a trully German Constitution, not the shameful Constitution imposed on the German Peoples by foreign powers.

We await the new Federal Elections and we do hope that German Nationalists do well in these elections to put Germany First.

Die Welt braucht ein neues und starker Deutschland. 

Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez: agreement with Catalunya's politicians generates political disquiet

Agreement with Catalunya's politicians including an amnesty was a necessary condition to ensure that he had enough support to remain as Spanish Prime Minister, but it does not come without political disquiet.

Just a short time ago, Catalunyan politicians were persecuted and even imprisoned for daring to organise an independence referendum. There is also the issue of Catalunya's debt to be declared fully paid. 

There is discontent in Spain regarding such agreements. Some said that those who were declared to have violated the Spanish Constitution are now being pardoned as a way to ensure political continuity.  There are also those who say that the agreements were an essential part of a deal to maintain political stability in Spain as a whole.

It is difficult to foresee the outcome of the present political impasse. Will the agreement re-ignite the independence process or was the agreement reached with pre-conditions that could prevent another referendum? Was a financial package for Catalunya a way to buy time? As long as the agreements do not lead to yet another political crisis, Pedro Sanchez should feel that it was the right option in a country in which absolute majorities seem to be a thing of the past.

Spain is not alone. Just hours ago, Netherlands went through an electoral process with the aim of choosing a new Prime Minister.  Being a majority is no guarantee. Because of political fragmentation, the political party that got more votes (more than 30 per cent) is by no means assured of being able  to choose the next Dutch Prime Minister.

In Germany, the survival of the ruling coalition led by Olaf Scholz is by no means guaranteed and we have a long way to go before the next Federal Elections due to take place in 2025. In recent state elections, CDU seemed to recover although only a little and Alternative fur Deutschland has reached more than 21 of popular support.

We could go on reviewing what is happening in different countries of the European Union and finding similar situations across the board.

Argentina's difficult political balance, Mercosur and trade alliances beyond Latin America

With three digit inflation rates and decades of stagnation, forty years of democracy could mean absolutely nothing. In an election in which there were record numbers of voters, the incoming President Javier Milei got outstanding support accross the entire country with equally record numbers of provinces that came out to support him. 

It is not going to be an easy task. In fact, in Parliament opposition forces still have a commanding majority that could block every single attempt to change Argentinian politics and economics. The risk is that if more than 13 million voters that supported Javier Milei come to see Parliament as a sedicious force that stands on the way preventing changes then Parliament itself will be in trouble. Could government by decree become an alternative from the very beginning?

Argentinian Constitution extract

CHAPTER III Powers of the Executive Branch Section 99.- The President of the Nation has the following powers: 1.- He is the supreme head of the Nation, head of the government and he is politically responsible for the general administration of the country. 2.- He issues the instructions and rules necessary for the enforcement of the 16 laws of the nation, without altering their spirit with regulatory exceptions. 3.- He takes part in the making of laws according to the Constitution, promulgates them and has them published. The Executive Power shall in no event issue provisions of legislative nature, in which case they shall be absolutely and irreparably null and void. Only when due to exceptional circumstances the ordinary procedures foreseen by this Constitution for the enactment of laws are impossible to be followed, and when rules are not referred to criminal issues, taxation, electoral matters, or the system of political parties, he shall issue decrees on grounds of necessity and urgency, which shall be decided by a general agreement of ministers who shall countersign them together with the Chief of the Ministerial Cabinet.

The Constitution seems to indicate that only in exceptional circumstances the President can issue decrees and that 'The Executive Power shall in no event issue provisions of legislative nature, in wichi case they shall be absolutely and irreparably null and void.'. 

It is explicitly clear that the last and final word on legislative matters lies in Parliament and it is a Parliament in which the political party supporting the President directly will have 38 representatives in the House of Reprentatives of a total of 257 and in the Senate the number of Senators directly supporting the President will be 6 out of 72. Unavoidably, the President will have to seek support of other political parties to be able to pass any bills.

Given these numbers, all the scaremongering promoted by opponents of Javier Milei is totally unjustified. It is most probable that Mauricio Macri (Former President) and Patricia Bullrich (Former Minister under Mauricio Macri) of Juntos por el Cambio (Together for Change) will have a major say. 

The bone of contention will be that Javier Milei's electoral allies will have the seats that Javier Milei needs to govern and Javier Milei will be able to say that despite not having enough seats he has the popular mandate and that people supported his electoral platform.

If the President can manage to transform an electoral coalition into a governing coalition then there will be a peaceful working political transition. If the President does not manage to transform an electoral coaliton into a governing coalition then there will be political upheaval leading to dangerous political uncertainties.

In Uruguay, there are divisions in terms of supporting or not supporting Javier Milei. For example, Frente Amplio (Broadfront) in opposition was more inclined to support the losing candidate Sergio Massa. In Brazil, President Lula came openly in support of Sergio Massa. Javier Milei for starters indicated that he wanted to get rid of Mercosur - something he might not achieve given the fact that he will be effectively in coalition with Mauricio Macri and Patricia Bullrich.

Uruguay has expressed that it wants ever closer trade relations with China, independently of its membership of Mercosur. Argentina itself has plans to incorporate Chinese communications technology. Brazil is seeking a new alignement having become a supporter of new trade arrangements that will bring the country closer to economies linked to the Russian Federation and China.

In spite of the fact that there are other Latin American economies linked to Mercosur, Argentina, Brazil and Uruguay are the core of the trading block.

What do people really want? Mainstream political parties might not be the answer

Mainstream political parties might not be the answer.

There were Whigs and Tories, Conservatives and Liberals and later on Conservatives and Labour and Liberals. Britain keeps changing and this is only natural. The system kept evolving. There was a time when only those with a certain income could vote. There was a time when women couldn't vote. The system hasn't been the same. It has changed and needs to keep changing to accommodate new realities.

First-past-the-post might no longer be the answer. In fact, when the London Assembly was conceived the system chosen included a vote per constituency and a London-wide vote. You vote for your chosen candidate at local level and you also vote for a party-candidate regardless of where you live within the Greater London Region.

In time, political parties have become Vote Cooperatives - a blend of people who might have diametrically opposed views on practically every issue and only come together under a label in order to get elected. This is an anomaly that leads to people voting for ideas that they reject simply because they come under the same banner ie Conservative, Labour.

Anna Soubry and Jacob Rees-Mogg (Conservative Party) and Hilary Benn and Jeremy Corbyn (Labour Party) got elected under the same banners and the present crisis didn't come out of nowhere. It was made by the way political parties are organised. Vote Cooperatives lead to confusion and crisis. Journalists and politicians talk about splitting political parties and mention it saying that it would be a catastrophic event. In fact, splitting political parties would be the best thing that could happen because it will clearly show the electorate what political parties really and truly stand for.

For many years, it has been said that the House of Lords is unrepresentative because its members are not elected. The House of Commons is unrepresentative because political parties are marred in confusion. When you vote Conservative or Labour, what are you actually voting for?

We could have several political parties with clear political agendas. We could have two elected chambers - a Senate and a House of Representatives. Senators would be elected nationally and Representatives would 'represent' local constituencies and a specifically written Constitution for everybody to know what the rules are. We could introduce a ballotage system. Senators and Representatives would come out of the first round of elections and a President and Vice-President would be elected after the second round to ensure that they have both cross-party political support.

Einstein defines 'Insanity' as the attempt to get different results using exactly the same methods. We can trust Providence to give us a strong leader or we change the electoral system and have a written Constitution.

The political system is in crisis and it will not be mended because Britain has changed and the political system is very much anchored in the past.

Devolution created a whole set of contradictions that included a Scottish Parliament, a Welsh Assembly and a Northern Ireland Assembly (hasn't been working for more than a year) but failed to create an English Parliament. Devolution should have been about creating a Federal System. You could have National Parliaments and a Federal Parliament in which all nations could be represented. Unfortunately, expediency and a rush to introduce patches instead of generating a coherent political reality has led to paralysis. Driven by circumstances, the Westminster Parliament is forced to introduce legislation to deal with issues that the Northern Ireland Assembly should be dealing with and it isn't dealing with.

Looking at London and the way London is governed, there are virtually power monopolies and no working Opposition. There are no effective power balances. Boroughs are effectively Feudal States and on top of the Boroughs structure there is a London Assembly with limited attributions. Overlapping authorities create costly confusion and limit accountability. So call Safe Seats are the opposite of a working democracy. We have a system in which - in most cases - you already know who is going to win before the election ever takes place.