Pochi giorni fa (la data sul documento è del 23 gennaio 2017, ma gli 'iter euro-commission-parlamentari' non si realizzano istantaneamente) la Commissione Europea ha 'comunicato' al Consiglio ed al Parlamento europeo
una proposta per le limitazioni all'uso dei contanti. Il documento completo è qui: link . Per chi non vuole leggerselo tutto, in fondo al post c'è l'estratto di alcuni dei passaggi più significativi. Naturalmente, la scusa è il terrorismo. Poco tempo fa, la scusa era l'evasione fiscale. Ma la verità è un'altra.
una proposta per le limitazioni all'uso dei contanti. Il documento completo è qui: link . Per chi non vuole leggerselo tutto, in fondo al post c'è l'estratto di alcuni dei passaggi più significativi. Naturalmente, la scusa è il terrorismo. Poco tempo fa, la scusa era l'evasione fiscale. Ma la verità è un'altra.
Zerohedge ha sviluppato l'argomento in varie date e qui voglio in qualche modo 'unire gli anelli della catena'.
Bisogna anche ricordare l'agenda del Bilderberg del 2016 (cybersecurity)... O no? Perche?
La verità è molto semplice:
siamo 'presi' da impegni quotidiani, dal lavoro, dai figli, dagli amici e tutto il resto... e così non riusciamo mai a 'salire in cima al monte', ad alzare la testa e rivolgere lo sguardo al panorama sotto di noi, per vedere dove (e come) viviamo in realtà.
La realtà è che critichiamo la Russia comunista o la Germania nazista per il passato... e non vediamo davanti a noi. Oggi è peggio. Il 'sistema' è molto più totalitario; i controlli sono molto più stretti ed accurati, quasi 'totali' (è quello il significato della parola 'Governo Totalitario'). Più totale di così non si può. O ci manca veramente molto poco. 'Poco' significa una generazione o due ancora. Il tempo di 'far perdere la memoria' dei nostri nonni ai più giovani. Non aggiungo altro, perchè è qui sotto, evidenziato in vario modo.
Felicità
Enzo
Enzo
Plan 2016 028 Cash Restrictions
- Third Anti-Money Laundering Directive covering dealers in high-value goods, such as works of art, precious stones or auctioneers, which requires that they apply customer due diligence measures, identification of customers and keeping records of transactions when receiving cash payments of €15,000 or more.
- The Fourth Anti-Money Laundering Directive, adopted in May 2015 and which is due to be transposed by June 2017, confirms the vulnerability of large cash payments to money laundering and terrorist financing and with this in mind, has extended the scope of application of customer due diligence measures to cash payments of €10,000 or more. The initiative has also direct linkages with the Proposal for an amendment of the Regulation on the controls of cash entering or leaving the Community (COM (2016) 825) and both frameworks should be coherent. In general, it is important to remember that cash is also the most accessible means of payment, and remains widely used. An important part of the public regards payment by cash as a personal freedom. Any change of policy would therefore be quite sensitive, and should start from the assumption that many could oppose restrictions on the use of cash and that such opposition could be built on sensible arguments.
- The Fourth Anti-Money Laundering Directive, adopted in May 2015 and which is due to be transposed by June 2017, confirms the vulnerability of large cash payments to money laundering and terrorist financing and with this in mind, has extended the scope of application of customer due diligence measures to cash payments of €10,000 or more. The initiative has also direct linkages with the Proposal for an amendment of the Regulation on the controls of cash entering or leaving the Community (COM (2016) 825) and both frameworks should be coherent. In general, it is important to remember that cash is also the most accessible means of payment, and remains widely used. An important part of the public regards payment by cash as a personal freedom. Any change of policy would therefore be quite sensitive, and should start from the assumption that many could oppose restrictions on the use of cash and that such opposition could be built on sensible arguments.
Options that take account of new technological developments:
In view of the development of cryptocurrencies and the existence of other means of payments ensuring anonymity, an option could be to extend the restrictions to cash payments to all payments ensuring anonymity (cryptocurrencies, payment in kinds, etc.). On the other hand, restrictions on cash payments could promote the development of alternative payments technologies compatible with the non-anonymity objective pursued.
The introduction of harmonised EU wide restrictions should prevent the distortions of competition (uneven playing field) occurring when restrictions exist only in some Member States and affect businesses unevenly within the internal market. Regarding the fiscal policy, the likely positive impact on money laundering and tax fraud is expected to be positive by increasing fiscal revenues.
Likely social impacts:
Receipts of payments in cash constitute a cost-free and credit-risk store of value facilitating people to buy goods of high value such as cars. Similarly, relying on cash has been shown to limit the risk of excessive spending and indebtedness. A proposal in this area would also contribute, together with other policies against organised crime, terrorism and terrorism financing, to the security of European citizens and the European society as a whole.
Likely impacts on fundamental rights:
While being allowed to pay in cash does not constitute a fundamental right, (!!!!!! n.da.) the objective of the initiative, which is to prevent the anonymity that cash payments allow, might be viewed as an infringement of the right to privacy enshrined in Article 7 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.
However, as complemented by article 52 of the Charter, limitations may be made subject to the principle of proportionality if they are necessary and genuinely meet objectives of general interest recognised by the Union or the need to protect the rights and freedoms of others. The objectives of potential restrictions to cash payments could fit such description. It should also be observed that national restrictions to cash payments were never successfully challenged based on an infringement to fundamental rights.
(Need to be challenged as an infringement on Fundamental rights in order to be a successful protest ?? n.d.a.)
In view of the development of cryptocurrencies and the existence of other means of payments ensuring anonymity, an option could be to extend the restrictions to cash payments to all payments ensuring anonymity (cryptocurrencies, payment in kinds, etc.). On the other hand, restrictions on cash payments could promote the development of alternative payments technologies compatible with the non-anonymity objective pursued.
The introduction of harmonised EU wide restrictions should prevent the distortions of competition (uneven playing field) occurring when restrictions exist only in some Member States and affect businesses unevenly within the internal market. Regarding the fiscal policy, the likely positive impact on money laundering and tax fraud is expected to be positive by increasing fiscal revenues.
Likely social impacts:
Receipts of payments in cash constitute a cost-free and credit-risk store of value facilitating people to buy goods of high value such as cars. Similarly, relying on cash has been shown to limit the risk of excessive spending and indebtedness. A proposal in this area would also contribute, together with other policies against organised crime, terrorism and terrorism financing, to the security of European citizens and the European society as a whole.
Likely impacts on fundamental rights:
While being allowed to pay in cash does not constitute a fundamental right, (!!!!!! n.da.) the objective of the initiative, which is to prevent the anonymity that cash payments allow, might be viewed as an infringement of the right to privacy enshrined in Article 7 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.
However, as complemented by article 52 of the Charter, limitations may be made subject to the principle of proportionality if they are necessary and genuinely meet objectives of general interest recognised by the Union or the need to protect the rights and freedoms of others. The objectives of potential restrictions to cash payments could fit such description. It should also be observed that national restrictions to cash payments were never successfully challenged based on an infringement to fundamental rights.
(Need to be challenged as an infringement on Fundamental rights in order to be a successful protest ?? n.d.a.)
Nessun commento:
Posta un commento