Realistic alternatives to Brexit

As mentioned in my previous post, Brexit is a watershed moment for the UK, as the leader of the major opposition party, Jeremy Corbin, recently said the Parliament "must get on with the vote and move to consider the realistic alternatives".

On December 11 Brexit vote was postponed, and since then the agreement on the UK's withdrawal and future relations had been unchanged. In this perspective, the British Prime Minister promised a "meaningful vote" will take place in the second decade of January 2019. Mrs. May also underlined that a hard border on the island of Ireland will be avoided, as the Prime Minister won "fresh guarantees" at last EU summit.

Meanwhile, the Electoral Commission is focused on the role played by Russia through social media, which are considerd a powerful tool to affect public opinion. As it is know, more than 80 Million Facebook accounts had been illegally harvested by Cambridge Analitica, a British political consulting firm, that targeted people with messages to modify their voting choices. 

There are evidences that Russia is responsible of  80% of disinformation activities in the EU, as Russian interfereces in the Brexit referendum campaign had been detected. Brexit is obviously viewed as a  weakening of the EU, which is one of Russia's interests.

That's why politicians in the EU should focus on preventing this from happening in the future.

Pressure for a second EU referendum

On December 3rd, Mrs. May's Spokeman made clear there will be no new referendum while she is Prime Minister. Notwithstanding the Prime Minister publicly ruled out another vote on Brexit time and time again, since January 2018 we have seen a build-up of pressure for a second EU referendum. The Prime Minister's deputy David Lidington, and Justice Secretary David Gauke, have been in talks with labour politicians to see if there is support for a second vote or a Norway-style deal. Norway, which is not member of the EU, has a high level of access to EU market and almost the same level of tariff and trade barriers with EU countries. On the other hand, Norway accepts a relevant amount of EU regulations and directives, which include the "four freedoms", the free movement of  goods, services, people and capital.

The British Prime Minister knows that her proposal on Brexit, which has been agreed by 27 EU countries, hasn't the votes needed to get a majority in Parliament. The vote on Mrs May's deal will return to the House of Commons by the end of January 2019. 

If she were to fail to secure the votes required, then a second Brexit referendum could be on the table. Meanwhile, the Scottish National Party and a number of conservative Members of Parliament would back a people vote. At the moment we can still see three scenarios for the future of the UK-UE relationship: accept a negotiated Brexit, stay in the EU or leave with no deal.   

Calling for a second Brexit referendum

There is a growing chorus of voices calling for a second Brexit referendum in the UK. They are related to the ongoing criminal investigation conducted by the UK's Electoral Commission, which is an independent body set up by the UK parliament. It oversees elections, and its investigation includes illegal overspending and illegal use of data during the EU referendum.

It seems that some money which supported the former leader of the UK Independence Party (UKIP), Nigel Farage, was supplied by Arab banks and Russian multimillionaires. Actually, according to the UK's Electoral Commission, there are criminal level of proofs which show that, in the months before the 2016 EU referendum,  Arab banks were invited by the Russian ambassador in the UK to meet a Russian businessman. Consequently, the Electoral Commission is looking at Russian interference and illegal campaign spending during the EU referendum.

General elections or a second referendum

After more than 33 million British voters had decided in favour of leaving, on 29 March 2017 the UK triggered the article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, becoming the first EU member state to do so. Since then the UK has been attempting to strike up a free-trade deal with the EU outside the single-market once it had left the bloc. Under this model, the UK would not have to contribute to the EU budget and would not be bound by the European laws, and applying  regulations and directives concerning immigration, environmental protection, customs, and so on.

Until now, under the terms of EU's customs union, goods that have been legally imported into the bloc can circulate throughout its member states with no further custom checks.

If a trade deal weren't to be agreed between the EU and the UK, a safety net provision would be stated within the withdrawal agreement, with the aim to prevent a hard border being erected between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. As soon as the UK leaves the EU because of Brexit, a physical border could be erected between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. This will raise concerns about the future of the "Good Friday Peace Agreement", a deal signed in 1998, which helped to end conflict in Northern Ireland between nationalists and unionists. The EU single-market covers all members states and four other countries, such Iceland, Norway, Lichtenstein and Switzerland. It allows people, goods, services and money to move as within a single country. Britain would be able to trade freely within the bloc while also striking trade deals with non-EU countries. It would also make financial contributions to the EU budget and accept the free movement of people, goods, services and money.

In this perspective, the UK's Prime Minister believes she is doing the right thing to the country, as Britain needs a deal which protects jobs and borders at the same time. If the UK were to leave the EU with no deal, the country would face deep and grave uncertainty. 

The House of Commons will vote on 11 December on Mrs. May's controversial Brexit deal. And if the Prime Minister were lo lose a vote of that sort of importance, then a question of confidence in her government would be inevitable. Meanwhile, Labour party plays waiting game over general elections or a second referendum.

Potential threats from China, Russia, and America

With the aim to defend the so called old continent from potential threat from other countries, such as China, Russia and America, the French President recently proposed the idea of an European army .

Actually, Emmanuel Macron  thinks that there is a threat of cyber war from the U.S. to Europe, and he wants EU's answers to this threat. On the one hand, he doesn't think the European states have build an army against the U.S., considering that France is a member of the North Atlantic Alliance (NATO), which is an intergovernmental military alliance between North American and Western  European states. On the other hand, French policy makers are aware  about the cyber war, as Europe has already been attacked by China, Russia, and America. 

In this perspective, France is not scared by any threat from U.S. military aggression against Europe, but it is interested in cyber offences by China, Russia, and America. Moreover, the creation of an European army is not a new idea, as it was proposed by the previous French President some years ago.

According to figures, in 2017 Europe's military spending reached 342 Billion Dollars or 20% of global cost, which reached 1,739 Trillion Dollars in the same year.   

A quarter of all the global arms exported is sold to North Africa and Middle East, where some Gulf States, such as Saudi Arabia,  UAE and Qatar, have been increasing weapon expediture in the past five years. For instance, France and Qatar recently confirmed 14 Billion Dollars fighter jet and weapon deal. Consequently, 70 % of Middle East weapon sales are by France, U.K., and U.S., which are so committed in the defence industry, although seven of the world's top ten defence companies are based in America.

It's very worring that members of the U.N. Security Council, that should bring peace to the world, are also the countries selling military machines to the world: unfortunately, most of the global weapon deals  involve five members of the U.N. Security Council.   

Contradictory statements about Khashoggi death

On 19th October, seventeen days after the Khashoggi's disappearance, the Saudi government said the journalist had been killed. 
According to the Turkish government this brutal crime, which hurts the human consciousness, has been planned. The killing of the Saudi journalist continues to provoke reactions around the world, as some EU countries are calling for a credible investigation. Germany has stopped Saudi weapon deal and France has suspended all diplomatic visit to the kingdom. 

The U.S. is adopting negative measures towards Saudi Arabia, although at first President Trump said Saudi explanation was credible, stressing to important relations with the kingdom. He also said that Millions of American jobs are more important than imposing sanctions. 
Meanwhile Saudi government still continues to give contradictory statements. Who ordered Jamal Khashoggi's savage killing? He was killed by eighteen Saudi nationals, who have been detained in Saudi Arabia: who sent them to Turkey? And where is the body? The world needs  answers.
What happened with the Saudi Journalist Jamal Khashoggi tell us that human rights is a major issue in the Arab world and today in Saudi Arabia.

Disappaerance of the Saudi journalist, Khashoggi.

On October 2nd, Jamal Ahmad Khashoggi disappeared while he was in Istambul. According to Turkish officials, the prominent Saudi journalist, who chose to live in self-imposed exile in the U.S., was killed inside the Saudi consulate in  Istambul. It seems that he was butchered by members of a security team working for Saudi Royal family.

As it is known, Saudi government buys a lot of U.S. weapons, and Saudi Arabia sells cheap oil to the United States. From a wider perspective, the country which imports more weapons is the largest exporter of oil. Unfortunately, said trade relationship beween Saudi Arabia and the U.S. means impunity for Mohammad Bin Salman who may feel free to assassinate whoever he wants. 

After saudi Journalist had been killed, Mohammad Bin Salman talked about the possibility of a conspiracy to divide between Saudi Arabia and Turkey. On the contrary, now Saudi Arabia acknowledges Jamal Ahmad Khashoggi died inside the consulate. It's a full reversal from the Saudi government's repeated and vehement denials that anything had happened to the Saudi journalist in the consulate.

Some journalists around the world say the Saudi Prince has become more dangerous than other dictators, such as Qaddaffi or Saddam Hussein, because he has Billion of Dollars to spend in lobbing as well as in consensus. He kidnapped Lebanese Prime Minister Hariri, who was forced to resign, he bombed an entire country, and two months ago he destroyed a schoolbus in Yemen killing forty children.

What  will he do next? He might do anythink thanks to the President Trump who doesn't blame him.

 

Italy's populist budget

Since last week the EU has warned that Italy will end up worse off under the populist government's spending plan. It's easy to see that the EU establishment and its media system define "populist" all  Member states who disagree with their policy about immigration and unemployment. Actually, the new Italian goverment want to raise the public debt by 8.5 Billion, as the Prime Minister would like to introduce jobseeker's payments.  

As it is know, the UK, Germany, Ireland, and other UE countries, have introduced jobseeker's payments and unemployment allowances since very long time. And from 2011 to 2017, while the two previous Italian governments were raising public debt by 400 Billion, the EU and its establishment didn't say anything. The two governments were not defined as populist, and the EU agreed with their policy. On the contrary, after the EU Budget commissioner had said three months ago "financial market would show Italians how to vote",  Italy's "populist" budget began to draw concern from the UE. 

I can't understand who give them the right to say that to the Italian people.

 

Russia and China's war games.

From 11 to 13 September this year Russia and China conducted joint military live fire exercises in Siberian far East. It was the largest war game by Chinese and Russian troops since the 1991, considering that there were three thousand troops, thirtysix thousand tanks and army vehicles, and a thousand of planes and ships.

Russia and China's leaders say they will increase bilateral relations, as boost to ties were announced at Eastern Economic Forum in Vladivostok this month.

Since last decade the two giants have cooperated on various levels, as Moscow is looking to China as alternative Russian energy customer. In this perspective, in May 2015 the two world powers cooperated at a military level in the Mediterranean sea, where their interests coincide: China is interested in its gateway in Greece to distribute goods across central and eastern Europe, and Russia wants to protect its small naval port on the Syrian coast. Moreover, Russia gave a demonstration of power and influence in the Middle East. 

No deal is better than bad deal

London, Gracechurch Street

This week the Director of the International Monetary  Fund, Christine Lagarde, has warned of dire consequences if no deal is reached before 28 March 2018 between the UK and EU, as leaving the EU with no deal would be costly for the British economy. Actually, Mrs. Lagarde has said: "The larger the impediments to trade in the new relationship, the costlier it would be". She has pointed out a black picture if there is no-deal Brexit, considering the negative impact it could have on the UK in terms of "Shock to supply" of goods. In the case of  no-deal Brexit the EU is obliged under WTO rules to impose tariffs on goods which will be imported from the UK.

In 2016 British people would given the option to remain or to leave, but they didn't think how to leave the EU. It has become increasingly clear that people didn't know  what they were voting for, and some people now are regretting having voted the way they voted.   

Being part of the EU or not has been an issue into the UK's political framework for decades. In addition, it isn't easy to understand at this stage how pro-Europe or anti-Europe voices within the parliamentary majority are stronger this days. And while the government is still divided on this issue, EU leaders have warned UK that it can't cherry-pick aspects of membership.

In the meantime, the UK's Prime Minister, Theresa May, who has accused the EU of not treating the UK with respect, has said "No deal is better than bad deal". She knows there is not much time left until the deadline on 28 March next year.

No deal or bad deal

Most people who live in London think there is no consensus about how Britain leaves the EU. Actually, they are afraid of the impact on the public finance and private businesses related either to a "no deal", or a "bad deal" scenario.

In this perspective, the mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, has called for a new vote on membership of the EU, considering that the UK have to leave the EU on 29 March 2019. The Prime Minister, Theresa May, has said a second vote would be an action that betrays British democracy.

Actually, the clock wouldn't strike on 29 March 2019, if all 28 EU member states agreed about a 6-month estension of time.

Furthermore, if we see a "good deal" scenario, other member states, such as Ireland and Greece, will follow the UK out of the EU. 

Three Brexit scenarios

As it's  known, the UK is going to leave the  EU  on 29  March  2019, thanks to 52  percent  of  people  who  voted  in favour of leaving the common  market. And  if  the  UK  and  EU were not  to  reach  a  deal  before  March  2019, consumers and businesses  in England, Scotland, Wales  and Northern Ireland would have to pay more for goods and services.

In other words, a no-deal Brexit would be related to slower processing times for payments between the UK and EU, and custom duties would be paid for goods going to and coming from the European single market. 

At the moment most experts argue there are three possible scenarios:

1. If Mrs May's deal is rejected by the Parliament, the UK would be plunged into crisis.
2. The UK and EU could reach a good deal. In this case little would be likely to change when the UK leaves the EU.
3. According to opinion polls, British society remains deeply divided over Brexit. That's why a second referendum may be "on the table".

With regard to the third scenario above mentioned, we should consider that on 23 June 2016 about 12,000,000 registered voters didn't vote the EU Membership Referendum. We don't know how they would answer the following question: Should the United Kingdom leave the European Union ? And although in June 2016 Leave's margin of victory was 1,269,501 votes, Northern Ireland, Scotland and London voted to remain. 

Friendship treaty between Italy and Libya

In 2008 Italy and Libya signed a friendship treaty with the aim of seeking to turn page on 40 years of bad relationships between the two Mediterranean countries. According to the treaty, Libya would work to stop illegal migrants embarking from its shores. 

Unfortunately, as it is known, the deal was suspended in 2011 after the Libyan dictator, Muammar Qaddafi, was forced from power. And after  Muammar Qaddafi was killed in 2011, smugglers began to send thousands of migrants across the Mediterranean sea to the Italian shores.

Nowadays Italy and Libya are reactivating the friendship treaty signed ten years ago, as the co-operation between the two countries is essential to resolve the immigration emergency and avoid human tragedies.  

US-China trade war will not show a winner

Since May 2018 every social, economic, and political institution, at global level, has been under threat as a consequence of the US biggest protectionist approach. America has imposed $ 34 Billion worth of tariffs on steel and aluminium, and China has responded with its own tariffs on some US goods, including soybeans, chemicals, cars, and medical equipments. That's why there is uncertainty in the US stock market, as investors are moving to haven assets such as bond and gold.

Last week some UE politicians talked about a trade war and potential collapse of the world trade system. Actually the protectionist approach to the US economy will not be related to economic benefits. Americans may protect some jobs, but they will lose for more jobs in the medium term. 

In the long run the US will lose jobs, will lose investments, and will lose its economic power, because over the last three decades America has benefited from trade from East Asia. As above mentioned, on the one hand, China is also taking action and will soon establish commensurate measures, considering that US policies have been used to achieve protectionist goals. On the other hand, China president, Xi Jinping, recently said his country will continue to import EU goods and foreign investments.

It seems that this trade war between the US and China will not show a winner.  

UK's withdrawal process

From 30 March 2019 onwards, the UK will not be a Member State of the European Union. As it is known, more than one year ago the UK notified the European Council of its intention to withdrawal from the European Union, and only a mutual agreement between the EU and UK authorities can change this date.

Since 1957 twenty-two European countries have joined the founding six Members States (Germany, France, Italy, Belgium, The Netherlands and Luxembourg) to become Members States of the European Union. The international organization of European countries was formed after World War II to reduce barriers and increase cooperation among its Member States. Unfortunately, the United Kingdom is the sole Member State ever to withdraw from the Union. After the UK's government had triggered the Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, most Member States of the EU said that Britain would likely try to retain all the benefits of European Union membership without obbligation.

As a consequence, the withdrawal process is unique and unprecedented. The prospect of Britain's withdrawal with no deal shows the impact on future trade relations. That's why most investors are still very cautious concerning their exposure to the British equity market. Actually, it is not clear the final deal that will be negotiated between the UK and the European Union.

In the meanwhile, some British politicians have suggested that Parliament should consider holding a second referendum. According to a survey made by www.bbc.com, "The outcome of any second ballot could well depend on who does and who does not vote", considering that 28% didn't vote in 2016 Brexit referendum.  
As mentioned this week by Gabriela Baczynska, from http://uk.investing.com, there are still too many questions and few answers in talks between the E.U and Britain over the country withdrawal from the international organization of European countries.

Human trafficking through the Mediterranean sea

On Sunday 10 June, Italy's government decided to stop a rescue ship from docking an Italian port. Malta also refused permission for the vessel to dock.

At the moment the rescue vessel, Acquarius, is located next to Malta, and according to International law the ship should go there.

Following France and Austria, Italy also will start to push people back at the border. The key aim is to stop the business of illegal immigration and human trafficking ... it's easy to see why the previous Italian government didn't do the same.  

Illegal immigration will not exist anymore in the EU

During the next two months, some important legislative decrees will be issued by the new Italian Government. The first one is about restrictions on the right of entry and the right of residence.

According to the EU directive 2004/38/EC, each Member State has the right to made restrictions on the ground of public security or public  health. And the adoption of the necessary measures to stop Italy from being "Europe's refugee camp" can't be considered an infringement of the EU law.

A soon as the new Italian Government cuts funds for temporary settlements built to receive refugees, illegal and undocumented immigrants will not exist anymore. Italy will not be the country of first arrival for asylum-seekers.

In addition, most migrants, who arrive in Italy, come from Nigeria, Gambia or Eritrea, and they flee their countries because of civil war or political persecution. They usually try to reach Italian shores through other countries, such as Lybia and Tunisia. And migrants who reach those North African countries are not in trouble and don't need to get away. In other words, they are already granted immunity from political prosecution in Libya and Tunisia. The Italian Government  can't  consider them as  asylum-seekers.

I've heard of "Apartheid Israel"

Since Palestinians began to commemorate the "Nakba" along the Gaza Strip border this month, more than sixty Palestinians have been killed along the Gaza-Israel border, incuding an eight months girl. Some scholars have been arguing that Israel may be charged with genocide and crimes against umanity. They compare Israel treatment of Palestinians to South Africa's treatment of non-whites.   

In 1948 more than 700,000 Palestinians were forced from their homes and land when Israel declared itself a State. And today there are more than 5 Million Palestinian refugees worldwide, who are still demanding to return to their homes after seven decades.

Although the 2002 "Arab Peace Initiative" agreement stated that no settlement can be imposed on Palestinians people without their consent, communities of Jews are still moving to the West Bank, where there are 2,5 Million Palestinians. In addition, there are 1.6 Million Palestinians in Israel, who are marginalized, and 2 Million of Palestinians in Gaza Strip, which may be compared to the Warsaw Ghetto. 300,000 Palestinians are living in Jerusalem, that was officially recognised as capital of Israel on May 14 by the Trump Administration. This morning Paraguay opened its Israel embassy in Jerusalem. It's the second country to follow the United States. Unfortunately, I'm afraid we will see other followers. 

Middle-East's regional fault lines

While the Yemeni civil war is still widely seen as a proxy war between the two regional powers, Saudi Arabia and Iran, an intensive attack  has been launched by Israel on Iranian positions in neighbouring Syria.  

Meanwhile, at least 55 Palestinians have been killed by the Israeli army in the protests along the Gaza-Israel border over the past weeks, and UAE forces have occupied sea gateways and airport on the Yemeni island of Socotra. Yemeni policy makers say UAE army has occupied the island without informing the government. They have also raised the UEA's flag over buildings across the Yemeni territory, in the aim to expand their presence in the Middle East and Horn of Africa.

In addition to this, as mentioned in my previous post, another proxy war between superpowers is now heating up in Syria: on the one hand we can see Russia, Iran and Turkey, on the other hand, the U.S. are followed by Britain and France in support of Israeli and Saudi Arabia interests in ensuring  to stop Iran's regional expansion. 

In this perspective, since June 2017 Saudi Arabia, Egypt, UAE and Baharin have broken diplomatic ties with Qatar, which has improved its relationship with Turkey in economic and military matters. Consequently, the Turkish government is using its ties with Qatar to weaken Saudi influence in the Gulf.

Unfortunately, it seems that regional chaos in the Middle East is set to continue with no solution. 

"Land bridge" through Syrian desert

As mentioned in my previous post, after the U.S. had launched 105 missiles on 12 April, a Pentagon spokeperson said that two chemical weapon facilities in Syria were destroyed. But that wasn't exactly the case. 

According to a Lebanese source, the U.S. pretended to target chemical weapon facilities in South Syria. Actually, they destroyed a weapon convoy headed to Hezbollah group in South Lebanon. The trucks were probably accompanied by Iranian military forces. As it known, Iran has recently succeeded in securing one land corridor that goes through the Syrian desert and then continues to the Lebanese border through Shiite populations centers.

Unfortunately, in the current regional cold war, Syria is the principal conduit for Iranian military and financial assistance to the Lebanese Hezbollah.  

In this picture it's easy to see two important alliances. On the one hand, We can see  Russia, Iran, Turkey and Syria. On the other hand,  the U.S. are followed by France, and Britain in support of Israeli and Saudi Arabian interest in ensuring to stop Iran's regional expansion. 

Action needed to be taken on Syria's future

It isn't easy to understand why the U.S. launched 105 missiles overnight in retaliation for a suspected poison gas attack on Douma, 10 km North from the centre of Damascus. According to the Pentagon, on Saturday 12 April two chemical weapons facilities were targeted.

As it is known, chemical weapons are considered hazardous-waste, and they have to be sent to a specific treatment, storage and disposal. As a consequence, the distruction of chemical weapons facilities is not considered a hazardous-waste management, and it may be really dangerous for the environment and the human health. In December 2001 an American agency  prepared a report, "State hazardous-waste regulatory programs to waste chemical weapons", for the eight U.S. States with chemical weapon storage facilities managed by the U.S. Army.    

In this perspective,  how can the U.S. destroy Syrian chemical weapon sites by a missiles attack? Someone blames the Syrian Government for a suspected gas attack, and one week later creates a polluted environment on the same territory!  

With regards to the suspected chemical attack in Syria, President Trump recently made a question: "what kind of nation wants to be associated with the mass murder of innocent men, women and children?". Maybe the U.S. President forgets that Saudi Arabia doesn't stop killing civilians in Yemen, and Israel makes Palestinian-Arabs protest executions along the Gaza's border ... Saudi Arabia and Israel are both America's allies, and they don't fit the agenda of most of the media.

In my opinion, the U.S. missiles attack on Syria is a way to join the diplomatic activity of Russia, Iran and Turkey on Syria's future, but the three remain united in their desire not to provide advantage to the United States.

Cold war is going on

The attempted assassination of two people on the British soil, on 4th March, may be considered a watershed in terms of global confrontation. According to the British PM it is an infringement of international law and chemical weapons convention, and investigators don't need other evidence. 

Although Russian President said his country hasn't any connection with this case, it seems that the chemical weapon involved was specifically developed by Russia. In this perspective, the attack was a punishment for defection of a man who is a former Russia Intelligence officer. It might be also considered a message to others. 

We are seeing that the most important Western countries are going to prevent Russia from doing that in the future. That's why Britain is acting, and U.S., France and Germany  will likely do the same. 

Actually, cold war is going on, and in some places, such as Syria and Yemen, it is really hot. In the Middle East, for istance, America is supporting Kurdish forces and Russia is supporting governmental forces. At the same time, with regards to Yemen conflict, where we can see a challenge between two regional powers, Saudi Arabia is buying weapons from the U.K. and Iran is allied with Russia.

More than thirty years ago Samuel Hungtington forecasted a clash of civilizations. Unfortunately,  we can say that once again he was really right. 

Cryptocurrencies' free fall

Since the start of 2018 Bitcoin has lost more than 60% of its value, and other cryptocurrencies have done almost the same during last the five weeks. Meanwhile, some Governments in East Asia, such as China and South Korea, have introduced tougher regulation, and India's policy makers want to ban all use of  cryptocurrencies. With regard to the latter announcement, Bitcoin fell by 12.7 % on Friday, 2nd February. 

We mainly know that Bitcoins is a particular implementation of the blockchain technology, the world's leading software for digital assets, which allows market participants to keep track of digital currency transactions without central record keeping. Each computer connected to the network is considered a node that gets a copy of the blockchain, which is downloaded automatically. Consequently, Blockchain's participants can transfer funds and setting trades without the need for a central authority. The network of nodes validates the user's status and the transaction using known algorithms, and combine the latter with other transactions to create a new block of data, which will be added to the existing blockchain.The major innovation is that the technology allows market participants to transfer assets through the internet without the need  for a centralized third party.
Within the context above mentioned, some experts are talking about similarities between cryptocurrencies and other coins. This is not correct, because when we are speaking about the Euro, the Yen or the Dollar, we are referring them to strong economies, efficient taxation systems and central banks, which allow them to create a particolar value. On the contrary, with regards to Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies we have no idea who bake them, and who is behind the their value.

As mentioned by Matin Baccardax, from TheStreet.com, when we own a share of a public company, which is freely traded on a stock exchange, just we have a piece of paper which gives us a small portion of the profit going forward. Neverthless  when we own Bitcoin we don't have anything in terms of dividends or profit. Bitcoin's value only increases when more people participate, and when fewer people  participate the value decreases. This is a structure which create a great deal of risk.

World richest people's economic agenda

It seems that one of the most important topic at World Economic Forum, last week in Davos, was the trend of increasing disparity on the job front, and the need to provide a fair work environment for women and minorities. The political leaders, who gathered at World Economic Forum in Davos, also focused on  jobs in danger of being displaced by technology, but they didn't mention the very big disparities in global wealth and global income. 

In a report published last week, an international confederation of twenty NGO  working to end the injustices that cause poverty, Oxfam International (www.oxfam.org), said that the 82% of the global wealth generated in 2017 went in the most wealthy 1% of the population. Although the World Economic Forum participants announced a target of one million workers over the next three years, we have no choice but to raise tax on richest people in the aim to finance job transition opportunities, new tech-reskilling, education, healthcare, transport services, and so on. What we need to be done, first of all, is to ensure that the richest 1% of world population stop using the global political establishment to further advance its own economic agenda.
A few years ago a French economist, Thomas Piketty, said in his book that as long as the return on capital is bigger than the economy's growth, we will continue to claim that wealth disparity is on the rise. In this prerspective,  an apparently small gap between the return on capital and rate of growth can on the long run have powerful and destabilizing effects on the structure and dynamics of social inequality.

So, if global political leaders  shared the need to reform the financial system, the new wealth wouldn't continue to go to the pockets of the richest 1% of world population. Actually, a progressive tax on capital and income would be a good response to the problem of private capital and its return. A progressive levy on individual wealth would reassert control over capitalism in the name of the general interest while relying on the forces of private property and competition.
Unfortunately, with election of President Trump we have heard very clearly that the US will go backwards on all regulations, all rules, and all tax policies: if richest people become richer, the middle class will disappear. And When super-riches grow unchecked, no one wins, not even the super-rich themselves, in the long run. 

P.S.: according to global inequality report, Jeff Besoz is the world's richest man with a fortune of $ 100 Billion, and only one out of ten of the world's billionaires are women. 

Iran's 2015 nuclear agreement under threat

With regard to the Iran nuclear deal, signed by six global powers and Theran in 2015, US Administration has recently demanded  more sanctions and changes. During a meeting held in Brussels one week ago, the EU Countries reaffirmed their support for the Iranian deal that President Trump has rejected. 

So European States have shown they want to preserve Iran's 2015 nuclear agreement with world powers, which is seen under  threat from the United States. 

But, according to Iran, this is not enough: if US permanent restrictions on Iran were implemented, Theran would be ready to see how the EU would protect their companies dealing in transactions with Iran. It they take actions, Iran will go long with Europeans.