Vol. 139 Venezuela e PDVsa : Esperanza d'Escobar
- Stato
mv62
Orsolina
- Registrato
- 18/6/07
- Messaggi
- 20.416
- Punti reazioni
- 873
Domani sarà una giornata di attesa per questo weekend dove ne vedremo delle belle perciò non penso ci saranno grossi movimenti ,alcuni rischieranno,altri meno.
Potemkin
Nuovo Utente
- Registrato
- 25/7/17
- Messaggi
- 5.008
- Punti reazioni
- 1.467
Donald se vuole dispone dell'arma segreta: Melania. Durante la cena ufficiale gli ha fatto fare piedino a Kim
Carib
rerum cognoscere causas
- Registrato
- 1/12/04
- Messaggi
- 20.769
- Punti reazioni
- 4.818
io credevo di trovarmi a discutere con creditori del Venezuela.. felici di vedere prezzi in forte salita, e speranzosi di una soluzione accettabile per la ristrutturazione del debito.
Che Maduro non paghi, lo sanno pure i sassi, direi.
Gioxx
CedoLazio Club
- Registrato
- 25/8/14
- Messaggi
- 10.265
- Punti reazioni
- 2.193
appunto!
- Registrato
- 22/12/13
- Messaggi
- 2.958
- Punti reazioni
- 179
..Ma tu “voli”troppo in alto..almeno per me..sempre in aereo..in giro per il mondo...con un patrimonio dove “diversi milioni di nominale pdsva..sono il 2-3% del tuo asset..”..Qui..almeno io..siamo alla buona..un po’ “caciottari”
..il confronto..viene male..
..la rosa dei venti
Nuovo Utente
- Registrato
- 26/3/16
- Messaggi
- 1.593
- Punti reazioni
- 115
Non dirlo a me !!! Io oltre a non aver incassato cedole , ho 36k di minus e un'altra decina di migliaia di Loss virtuale .
Ho lavorato sodo per ottenere questo risultato altrimenti avrei avuto 120k di minus e le cedole fregate .
Pensa come mi sento dopo anni di investimento in cui ci ho smenato 1500€ con Mps e una cedola da Oi brasil .
Un gran ********** è riuscito a fregarmi !
mi trovi d'accordo
Fesso
Leonessa
- Registrato
- 21/3/14
- Messaggi
- 1.450
- Punti reazioni
- 167
Aran Akbar...
yyvhes
Nuovo Utente
- Registrato
- 7/1/07
- Messaggi
- 2.135
- Punti reazioni
- 336
infatti io ho parlato di sostegno sostanziale a Maduro. E' un caso che del nome 'MADURO' non vi sia traccia nel comunicato cinese? Si parla genericamente di 'governo' e soprattutto di dialogo - col richiamo alla Costituzione che chiama in causa Guaidó - e nessuna presa di distanza da usurpatori/golpisti come invece per le dichiarazioni di Russia e Turchia.
Ultima modifica:
yyvhes
Nuovo Utente
- Registrato
- 7/1/07
- Messaggi
- 2.135
- Punti reazioni
- 336
Nonetheless, we believe the action responds to bondholders’ necessity to not stay behind the actions of other groups of interested parties, which have already started the persecution against important assets like CITGO.
This situation complicates the panorama for Venezuela, which practically has enjoyed a year of grace and now has all eyes over CITGO and even its oil production.
However, creditors also have an important inconvenience when it comes to a mediation scenario, as current US sanctions against Venezuela prohibits any US person to hold any type of negotiation with any Venezuelan party related to the government.
We don’t expect any announcements or recognitions from the government in the short-term. But if the action of this USD8bn group replicates among other creditors, and it goes public, then the government will be obligated to address the issue. But, under Maduro’s figure, the solution will not be optimal for bondholders or the country.
This situation complicates the panorama for Venezuela, which practically has enjoyed a year of grace and now has all eyes over CITGO and even its oil production.
However, creditors also have an important inconvenience when it comes to a mediation scenario, as current US sanctions against Venezuela prohibits any US person to hold any type of negotiation with any Venezuelan party related to the government.
We don’t expect any announcements or recognitions from the government in the short-term. But if the action of this USD8bn group replicates among other creditors, and it goes public, then the government will be obligated to address the issue. But, under Maduro’s figure, the solution will not be optimal for bondholders or the country.
yyvhes
Nuovo Utente
- Registrato
- 7/1/07
- Messaggi
- 2.135
- Punti reazioni
- 336
come facevo notare ieri....
oggi Bloomberg scrive:
Call U.S. Move on Venezuela What It Is: Regime Change
The legal justification used by the State Department to recognize the opposition leader doesn’t hold water.
The U.S. and about a dozen other countries recognized opposition leader Juan Guaidó as the legitimate president of Venezuela on Wednesday, even as President Nicolás Maduro maintained his grip on the office.
But is that even a thing? Under ordinary principles of constitutional and international law, can one country simply declare that someone who manifestly isn’t the president of the country actually is, and act accordingly?
Well, no. Not really. Maduro is a terrible president who has not only broken the Venezuelan economy but also repeatedly broken the Venezuelan constitution himself. His re-election in 2018 by a reported 67.8 percent wasn’t free or fair. It’s defensible as a matter of foreign policy for the U.S. to seek his ouster.
But the constitutional argument that Maduro isn’t really president is nothing more than a fig leaf for regime change. Even as fig leaves go, it’s particularly wispy and minimal. The U.S. policy is, in practice, to seek regime change in Venezuela. It would be better to say so directly.
It may seem convenient now for the U.S. to hide its objective behind a constitutional argument. In the long run, however, it’s far from clear that President Donald Trump’s administration should be embracing a legal argument that invites foreign countries to rely on doubtful interpretations of the local constitution and declare that they know who the president genuinely is. That kind of argument can be flipped against governments the U.S. wants to support — or even, albeit symbolically, the U.S. itself.
The policy argument in the U.S. should be about the genuinely important question of whether the U.S. should pursue regime change in a Latin American country. That debate shouldn’t be obscured by the implausible, technical suggestion that the U.S. is actually just recognizing the legitimate government there.
The official State Department declaration of recognition for Guaidó cites Article 233 of the Venezuelan charter, one of the world’s longest. Beyond that, it doesn’t give much legal justification.
In fact, Venezuela’s constitution doesn’t allow for impeachment by the National Assembly, of which Guaidó is the leader. Instead, it specifies that the president can be recalled by popular vote.
Article 233 doesn’t say that the assembly can remove the president. It just says that the president of the National Assembly can fill the office of the presidency for 30 days if the president “shall become permanently unavailable to serve.” It lists the bases for permanent unavailability, which include removal from office by the Supreme Tribunal of Justice, physical or mental disability, or abandonment of office.
None of those conditions has been met. In an op-ed article in the Washington Post, Guaidó offered the brief argument that “there’s no legitimately elected president,” presumably because Maduro’s election was tainted. But nothing in the constitution says that that decision is up to Guaidó or the National Assembly.
Guaidó also cited two other articles of the constitution, 333 and 350. The first calls on citizens to restore the constitution if it isn’t being followed. That’s more a nice sentiment than a legal duty. The second calls on the people to reject a government that violates democratic values and human rights — ditto.
The State Department didn’t consider these other constitutional arguments even worth a mention, which tells you something about their weakness.
So if the constitutional argument for Guaidó being the legitimate president is so weak, what about the authority of foreign countries like the U.S. to recognize him?
It’s an established principle of international law that governments have the right to recognize each other. Suppose there was a genuine civil war within a country, and a dispute about which government was a legitimate one. It would be up to each foreign state to make its own determination. So there’s no power that can tell the U.S. or the other countries that recognized Guaidó that they must reverse themselves.
What’s more, in the U.S., recognition is treated as a political act. The executive branch is given near-total deference to decide what governments it wishes to recognize under a recent Supreme Court decision, Zivotofsky v. Kerry, that dealt with the State Department’s policy of listing Jerusalem, and not Israel, as the birthplace on passports of Americans born in the city. So the Trump administration’s decision can’t easily be second-guessed by Congress.
Most of the time, however, the U.S. makes some effort to justify its recognition decisions. That’s where the fig leaf of Article 233 comes in — and where its inadequacy matters.
Imagine that the U.S. wants to support a government under threat, like, for example, the government of Ukraine when Russian President Vladimir Putin was invading Crimea. When that happens, the U.S. insists vociferously that its ally is a sovereign state and that no other government can de-recognize it.
When the U.S. plays fast and loose with recognition, it undercuts its moral authority in such situations.
In the extreme case, you can imagine U.S. opponents announcing that Trump isn’t president, because they think he’s guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors — even though he hasn’t been impeached by the House and removed by the Senate. Those are, after all, just procedures — like the procedures of the Venezuelan constitution that the American declaration flouts.
To be sure, declaring that Trump wasn’t the president would put a country at odds with the U.S. Americans would consider it an effort at regime change.
That’s exactly what the U.S. is doing in Venezuela. Everyone in Venezuela knows it, whether they support Maduro or Guaidó. In this case, we would all be better off with the truth.
Bloomberg - Are you a robot?
oggi Bloomberg scrive:
Call U.S. Move on Venezuela What It Is: Regime Change
The legal justification used by the State Department to recognize the opposition leader doesn’t hold water.
The U.S. and about a dozen other countries recognized opposition leader Juan Guaidó as the legitimate president of Venezuela on Wednesday, even as President Nicolás Maduro maintained his grip on the office.
But is that even a thing? Under ordinary principles of constitutional and international law, can one country simply declare that someone who manifestly isn’t the president of the country actually is, and act accordingly?
Well, no. Not really. Maduro is a terrible president who has not only broken the Venezuelan economy but also repeatedly broken the Venezuelan constitution himself. His re-election in 2018 by a reported 67.8 percent wasn’t free or fair. It’s defensible as a matter of foreign policy for the U.S. to seek his ouster.
But the constitutional argument that Maduro isn’t really president is nothing more than a fig leaf for regime change. Even as fig leaves go, it’s particularly wispy and minimal. The U.S. policy is, in practice, to seek regime change in Venezuela. It would be better to say so directly.
It may seem convenient now for the U.S. to hide its objective behind a constitutional argument. In the long run, however, it’s far from clear that President Donald Trump’s administration should be embracing a legal argument that invites foreign countries to rely on doubtful interpretations of the local constitution and declare that they know who the president genuinely is. That kind of argument can be flipped against governments the U.S. wants to support — or even, albeit symbolically, the U.S. itself.
The policy argument in the U.S. should be about the genuinely important question of whether the U.S. should pursue regime change in a Latin American country. That debate shouldn’t be obscured by the implausible, technical suggestion that the U.S. is actually just recognizing the legitimate government there.
The official State Department declaration of recognition for Guaidó cites Article 233 of the Venezuelan charter, one of the world’s longest. Beyond that, it doesn’t give much legal justification.
In fact, Venezuela’s constitution doesn’t allow for impeachment by the National Assembly, of which Guaidó is the leader. Instead, it specifies that the president can be recalled by popular vote.
Article 233 doesn’t say that the assembly can remove the president. It just says that the president of the National Assembly can fill the office of the presidency for 30 days if the president “shall become permanently unavailable to serve.” It lists the bases for permanent unavailability, which include removal from office by the Supreme Tribunal of Justice, physical or mental disability, or abandonment of office.
None of those conditions has been met. In an op-ed article in the Washington Post, Guaidó offered the brief argument that “there’s no legitimately elected president,” presumably because Maduro’s election was tainted. But nothing in the constitution says that that decision is up to Guaidó or the National Assembly.
Guaidó also cited two other articles of the constitution, 333 and 350. The first calls on citizens to restore the constitution if it isn’t being followed. That’s more a nice sentiment than a legal duty. The second calls on the people to reject a government that violates democratic values and human rights — ditto.
The State Department didn’t consider these other constitutional arguments even worth a mention, which tells you something about their weakness.
So if the constitutional argument for Guaidó being the legitimate president is so weak, what about the authority of foreign countries like the U.S. to recognize him?
It’s an established principle of international law that governments have the right to recognize each other. Suppose there was a genuine civil war within a country, and a dispute about which government was a legitimate one. It would be up to each foreign state to make its own determination. So there’s no power that can tell the U.S. or the other countries that recognized Guaidó that they must reverse themselves.
What’s more, in the U.S., recognition is treated as a political act. The executive branch is given near-total deference to decide what governments it wishes to recognize under a recent Supreme Court decision, Zivotofsky v. Kerry, that dealt with the State Department’s policy of listing Jerusalem, and not Israel, as the birthplace on passports of Americans born in the city. So the Trump administration’s decision can’t easily be second-guessed by Congress.
Most of the time, however, the U.S. makes some effort to justify its recognition decisions. That’s where the fig leaf of Article 233 comes in — and where its inadequacy matters.
Imagine that the U.S. wants to support a government under threat, like, for example, the government of Ukraine when Russian President Vladimir Putin was invading Crimea. When that happens, the U.S. insists vociferously that its ally is a sovereign state and that no other government can de-recognize it.
When the U.S. plays fast and loose with recognition, it undercuts its moral authority in such situations.
In the extreme case, you can imagine U.S. opponents announcing that Trump isn’t president, because they think he’s guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors — even though he hasn’t been impeached by the House and removed by the Senate. Those are, after all, just procedures — like the procedures of the Venezuelan constitution that the American declaration flouts.
To be sure, declaring that Trump wasn’t the president would put a country at odds with the U.S. Americans would consider it an effort at regime change.
That’s exactly what the U.S. is doing in Venezuela. Everyone in Venezuela knows it, whether they support Maduro or Guaidó. In this case, we would all be better off with the truth.
Bloomberg - Are you a robot?
Reliant
Nuovo Utente
- Registrato
- 5/1/16
- Messaggi
- 777
- Punti reazioni
- 125
ventodivino
CHIAGNI & FOTTI
- Registrato
- 29/11/15
- Messaggi
- 2.252
- Punti reazioni
- 533
Non hai letto bene la Costituzione bolivariana.
C'è un articolo che dice che se gli Stati Uniti riconoscono Presidente Guaidò questo è un problema non da poco.
Specialmente se gli USA sono la prima fonte di sopravvivenza del governo Maduro (con i loro dollaroni in contropartita dell'oil).
Maduro questo articolo lo conosce bene, altrimenti Guaido sarebbe già stato , doverosamente, arrestato.
PS
come fai notare chi fa appelli "al dialogo" sostanzialmente appoggia (o non si oppone) un governo di transizione.
Se Maduro è il Presidente, l'altro è un golpista.
E con i golpisti non si dialoga, si cacciano in galera.
Se se ne è capaci.
silmamb
MASSIMO DELTA
- Registrato
- 16/7/15
- Messaggi
- 17.634
- Punti reazioni
- 585
il cognome che porta non e' di buon auspicio.. GUAI DO'..
azz.. ci mancano anche altri GUAI.. !!!
- Stato