European Union

OPINION on artificial intelligence: questions of interpretation and application of international law insofar as the EU is affected in the areas of civil and military uses and of state authority outside the scope of criminal justice
Committee on Foreign Affairs
Urmas Paet

Source : © European Union, 2020 - EP

On 14 July, the Members of the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Subcommittee on Security and Defence will hold an exchange of views with Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer, Federal Minister of Defence of Germany, on the priorities of the German Presidency of the Council of the European Union. The Minister and MEPs will discuss the upcoming challenges and possible solutions, as Germany takes over the rotating presidency of the Council in a very challenging moment for the European Union.
Meeting documents
Source : © European Union, 2020 - EP

Some people say it was undemocratic for Britain to join the European Community in 1973 because ‘the people’ weren’t asked in a referendum. But that’s not how decisions are made in Britain.

In the UK, referendums are usually nothing more than opinion polls. They are not legally binding and therefore not capable of making decisions.

Indeed, both the 1975 and 2016 referendums on whether the UK should remain a member of the European Community were not binding votes, but simply a ‘poll’ of the country’s ‘opinion’.

A general election has far more democratic legitimacy and legality than a referendum.

In this country, it’s our Parliament that is sovereign and Parliament gains that power through the voting public.

General elections represent legally binding votes that give authority to a party or parties to form a government.

 REFERENDUMS VERSUS PARLIAMENT

Referendums are flimsy affairs compared to general elections.

Parliament had the legal and democratic power to reject the ‘advice’ of the 2016 referendum if it so chose.

Even if we’d had another referendum, it would have been another advisory vote. Only Parliament can make the final decision (a key point confirmed by a ruling of the Supreme Court).

Since it is Parliament in our country that is sovereign, it is clearly the case that a vote to give power to one party or another in a general election is far superior to an ‘advisory’ referendum result.

And there’s another thing: Referendums are lousy ways to make democratic decisions, especially compared to how our representative Parliament works.

• When making a decision, our Parliament has many debates, multiple votes, often over several months, based on full information, with opportunities to consider updated information throughout the process, and with the democratic power to amend or abandon the decision at any stage.
• By contrast, in the referendum on 23 June 2016 we, ‘the people’, only had one vote, on one day, on a simplistic binary choice of only two words, without sufficient information (on the contrary, a lot of misinformation), without any opportunities to consider updated information, and with no democratic opportunity to amend or abandon the decision.

That can hardly be described as a democratic process, let alone a good way to make big decisions.

 MANIFESTO PROMISES

The decision to join the European Economic Community (now called the European Union) was confirmed by ‘the people’ voting for parties that offered that in their manifestos in general elections.

 WHEN IN 1961, Conservative Prime Minister, Harold Macmillan, applied for the UK to join the then European Economic Community, ‘the people’ had given him a mandate to do so in the 1959 general election.

The Tory manifesto for that election stated:

‘our aim remains an industrial free market embracing all Western Europe’.

 WHEN IN 1967, Labour Prime Minister, Harold Wilson, applied again for the UK to join the European Community, ‘the people’ had given him a mandate to do so in the 1966 general election.

The Labour manifesto for that election stated:

‘Labour believes that Britain, in consultation with her E.F.T.A. partners, should be ready to enter the European Economic Community, provided essential British and Commonwealth interests are safeguarded.’

 WHEN IN 1973, Conservative Prime Minister, Edward Heath, negotiated Britain’s membership of the European Community, ‘the people’ had given him a mandate to do so in the 1970 general election.

The Conservative manifesto for that election stated:

‘If we can negotiate the right terms, we believe that it would be in the long-term interest of the British people for Britain to join the European Economic Community, and that it would make a major contribution to both the prosperity and the security of our country.’

The manifesto added:

‘The opportunities are immense. Economic growth and a higher standard of living would result from having a larger market.’

 PARLIAMENT’S DECISION TO JOIN

Having negotiated the terms of membership, Edward Heath could not then unilaterally make the decision to go ahead and join.

The Tory manifesto promised:

‘As the negotiations proceed, we will report regularly through Parliament to the country.’

Ultimately, it was the decision of Parliament – not Mr Heath – on whether to join the European Community.

Following 300 hours of debate, Parliament voted for the UK to accept the terms of membership as confirmed in the European Communities Act 1972.

Consequently, Britain became a member of the European Economic Community (EEC) from 1 January 1973.

Was it a legitimate, democratic decision? Yes, of course.

Decisions in the UK are decided by our representatives in Parliament; a system of democracy that has served this country relatively well for hundreds of years.

After all, we have not had referendums to decide whether to join or leave the United Nations, or NATO, or the European Convention on Human Rights, or to agree to over 14,000 international treaties, including EU treaties.

These were rightly decisions of our democratically elected Parliament and government*. If not, the British public would have to spend almost every week of their lives voting in referendums, and what then would be the point of MPs?

(*Albeit, still using an outmoded voting system of first-past-the-post, which can mean election results that are not representative of the nation as a whole.)

 RECENT MANIFESTOS

What about recent decisions regarding our membership of the European Union? This is where the track record becomes murky.

 WHEN IN 2016, Conservative Prime Minister, David Cameron, organised an in/out referendum on our EU membership, ‘the people’ had given him a mandate to do so in the general election of 2015.

The Conservative manifesto for that election stated:

‘We will legislate in the first session of the next Parliament for an in-out referendum to be held on Britain’s membership of the EU before the end of 2017…

‘We will honour the result of the referendum, whatever the outcome.’

That 2015 manifesto, however, didn’t specify at all what kind of Brexit Britain would have in the event of Leave winning.

On the contrary, the manifesto promised:

‘We are clear about what we want from Europe. We say: yes to the Single Market.’

The other problem with the 2015 manifesto is that whilst the Tories could make a political pledge to honour the referendum, they could not bind Parliament to agree to the result of an advisory-only referendum.

This became an issue when the next Conservative Prime Minister, Theresa May – still acting under the auspices of the 2015 manifesto – tried to treat the EU referendum as if it had made a legally binding decision.

Consequently, Parliament was not given an opportunity to have a specific debate and vote to decide whether to accept the ‘advice’ of the referendum for the UK to leave the EU.

The then Brexit Secretary, David Davis, erroneously advised Parliament that such a Parliamentary decision wasn’t necessary, as ‘the decision’ to leave had already been taken by the referendum. [Source]

Even though the Supreme Court had already ruled that the referendum was not capable of making any ‘decision’.

 WHEN IN 2017, Conservative Prime Minister, Theresa May, promised to deliver Brexit, it’s a moot point as to whether ‘the people’ had given her a mandate to do so, as in the 2017 general election, the Tories lost their majority entirely.

The Conservative manifesto for that election promised:

‘The best possible deal for Britain as we leave the European Union delivered by a smooth, orderly Brexit.’

The manifesto also pledged:

‘a deep and special partnership with the European Union.’

In that manifesto there was no mandate sought for Britain to leave the EU without a deal, let alone to suffer a ‘disorderly’ Brexit.

It meant that the next Tory Prime Minister, Boris Johnson – whilst still under the auspices of the 2017 manifesto – had no authority from ‘the people’ to state that Britain would leave the EU, ‘do or die, deal or no deal’.

 WHEN IN 2019, Conservative Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, promised to get Brexit done, ‘the people’ had given him a mandate to do so in the general election of that year.

The Conservative manifesto of that election promised on Brexit:

‘a great new deal that is ready to go’.

In that manifesto there was no mandate sought for Britain to leave the EU without a deal.

The ‘great new deal’ – which was passed by Parliament in January – included a political declaration promising close collaboration with the EU and a ‘level playing field’ to enable free and fair trade between the UK and the EU.

Boris Johnson personally signed the agreement.

But now the government has retracted on that deal.

The EU’s chief Brexit negotiator, Michel Barnier, said last month:

“In all areas, the UK continues to backtrack on the commitments it has undertaken in the political declaration.”

The UK is now rapidly heading towards a no-deal Brexit – an outcome for which there is no mandate from the British electorate.

 WHAT NEXT?

The next general election is to be held on 2 May 2024.

That is the next scheduled democratic event when the Brexit decision could be legitimately challenged, changed, or even overturned by a vote of ‘the people’.

Could a general election reverse Brexit, or at least forge a closer relationship with the EU than the one now being instigated by the Tory government?

Yes, of course.

In less than four years, the course of Brexit could be turned on its head if a political party wins power with a manifesto pledge to do just that.

 Photo: Conservative Prime Minister Edward Heath, on the steps of 10 Downing Street, after winning the 1970 general election.

• What happened to Boris Johnson’s ‘oven-ready’ deal? 2-minute video

• Follow my journalism page on Facebook: Jon Danzig writes
• My campaign page on Facebook: Reasons2Rejoin
• And LinkedIn

________________________________________________________

• Join the discussion about this article on Facebook:

The post In Britain, general elections are how ‘the people’​ decide appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

AMENDMENTS 1 - 351 - Draft report Recommendation to the Council and the Vice-President of the Commission / High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy concerning the Implementation and governance of Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO)
Committee on Foreign Affairs
Radosław Sikorski

Source : © European Union, 2020 - EP

Trouver le bon casino qui vous fera gagner de l’argent, c’est la quête de tous les joueurs de casinos en ligne. Magical Spin casino, un nom qui promet mille et une merveilles. Est-ce bien le cas pour tous les joueurs ? Nous avons effectué les tests habituels pour dégager un avis objectif pour vous.

Un petit bout d’histoire

Le casino Magical Spin nous vient de l’année 2017. Vous devez l’existence de ce casino à la société Betrust Entertainment. Cette dernière est enregistrée légalement sur le territoire du Curaçao. Ce sont les autorités de ce même pays qui a procuré sa licence d’exploitation des jeux en ligne au site. Pour en savoir plus sur le casino, il faut se fier à sa réputation. Ou si vous voulez d’autres informations plus fiables, retrouvez cet avis sur le casino magical spin.

Magical Spin casino vous en met plein les yeux

Déjà avec son thème violet-mauve, on se sent plongé dans un monde assez féérique quelque peu féminin. Cela dit, le site ne s’arrête pas là pour vous intéresser. Les jeux et les bonus fusent sur la plateforme.

Deux milliers de titres et plus

Si vous êtes venu vous amuser sur Magical Spin casino, vous aurez de quoi vous occuper avec ses 2500 jeux.

L’on pourrait se dire qu’avec tant de titres, on a plus de chance de tomber sur des jeux de mauvaise qualité. Mais ce n’est pas le cas, parce que le casino est en partenariat avec les meilleurs éditeurs de tous les temps. Les plus passionnants sont les jeux en live. Vous pouvez en compter 134. Les machines à sous et autres jeux de casino classiques sont tout aussi intéressantes.

Un bonus de bienvenue plus qu’alléchant

Sur vos trois premiers dépôts, vous pouvez bénéficier d’un bonus de bienvenue qui plafonne à 3000 €. Est-ce de la poudre aux yeux ? Pas exactement, le bonus n’est soumis à aucune condition de mise. Néanmoins, il faut considérer le fait qu’il n’est pas possible d’encaisser le montant du bonus.

D’autres formules de bonus pourraient vous intéresser, comme sur casino MrXbet. Il ne tient qu’à vous de prendre ou laisser selon la façon dont vous voulez mener votre jeu. D’autres bonus journaliers et hebdomadaires existent également sur le site en plus de plusieurs offres occasionnelles.

Quelques petits points faibles

Même au pays des merveilles, il y a quelques points noirs qui attirent l’attention. Les conditions de mise sur les bonus et promotions autre que le bonus de bienvenue sont quelque peu changeantes à notre goût. Il faut à chaque fois s’informer pour ne pas s’y perdre.

D’un autre côté, on rapporte également quelques difficultés à faire des gains et à les retirer. Il ne faut pas s’étonner non plus d’accusations plus graves encore, c’est commun à tous les casinos.

Notre bilan sur Magical spin casino

Le site a beaucoup à offrir en termes d’expérience de jeu et d’offres. C’est tout à notre plaisir. D’un autre côté, il faut agir avec parcimonie avec l’argent parce que l’équité du jeu fait planer un peu le doute. Faire encore plus attention aux conditions de mise pour espérer encaisser vos gains.

De nos jours, le marché de courtier en ligne ne cesse de s’accroître. D’où la naissance de la plateforme xtb. Sa création a été concrétisée en 2004 par le changement du célèbre site de courtage X-Trade en xtb. Elle est localisée en Pologne, et ce site a déjà remporté le titre du meilleur broker par le Money Markets Journal.

Quelques comptes sur xtb

Une fois que vous êtes inscrits sur le site de xtb, vous aurez accès aux différents comptes proposés par la plateforme. Une raison de plus de juger l’efficacité de MetaTrader 4 et Xstation.

Quelques exemples de comptes, mis en avant, à travers xtb sont :

• le compte démonstration
• le compte standard et le compte pro

Si nous attaquons au compte démonstration, comme son nom l’indique, vous aurez la possibilité de mettre en pratique le système de trading en ligne.

L’inscription proprement dite auprès de xtb

À titre d’information, toute inscription auprès d’un site boursier est similaire. Compte tenu de ce courtier en ligne, il vous suffit de vous connecter immédiatement au sein de la page du site. Ensuite, vous devez suivre toutes les instructions requises pour valider votre inscription. À l’occurrence, vous attendez l’aval de xtb afin de vous investir sur le marché organisé. Par contre, pour terminer votre adhésion pour ce courtier en question, il est indispensable d’envoyer à xtb vos dossiers complets.

Le contrôle systématique des comptes ouverts et l’utilité des spreads avec les pips chez xtb

Le courtier dispose d’un système de contrôle systématique des comptes et des spreads avec pips.

Contrôle systématique des comptes ouverts sur xtb

Afin d’avoir un compte actif dans cette plateforme, les négociateurs financiers sont contraints de suivre ses directives. Les nouveaux traders doivent fournir tous les documents essentiels exigés par le site, et cela peut aller jusqu’à ceux de leur domicile fixe. Ceux-ci serviront à xtb de vérifier l’identité de ces traders en question.

Utilité des spreads et pips

En principe, dans un marché organisé, il est nécessaire de déterminer les spreads et pips. Ceux-ci vont permettre aux acheteurs ou vendeurs de titres financiers de se préparer pour des gains ou des pertes sur le trading. Quant à xtb, les spreads peuvent atteindre une hauteur de 200 : 1 avec 0.3 pips.

Avis et verdict final sur xtb

Avec ses 14 années d’expérience dans le trading, xtb peut devancer ses pairs dans ce secteur. Les clients ont aussi l’avantage de négocier à l’achat ou à la vente de milliers de titres financiers.

De nos jours, chaque trader, qui souhaite s’investir dans un lieu de change, est en quête d’un meilleur broker forex. Qui dit broker forex dit la place de monnaie d’échange. En revanche, le marché n’a pas son lieu d’être au niveau terrestre, mais auprès des sites de trading. Ainsi, les investisseurs doivent se renseigner sur les courtiers en ligne avant de faire un placement d’argent chez eux.

Qu’en est-il de la légalité d’un broker forex ?

Un meilleur broker forex est tenu de respecter les législations en vigueur, malgré l’ampleur des sites de trading en ligne. Ceci n’empêche qu’ils soient tous fiables. De ce fait, les négociateurs en bourse sont contraints de faire preuve de vigilance, afin de ne pas faire une fausse route. Une négligence de la régulation des plateformes financières risque d’affecter la santé financière du trader en question. Vous devez affiner votre recherche en commençant à lire l’article sur le meilleur broker forex. Il en existe pas mal, sur Internet, qui paraît tout beau pour être vrai.

L’image du broker forex

Toutefois, certains traders pensent que si le site financier possède une licence pour exercer son métier, il sera fiable. Mais cela ne prouve point la fiabilité de la plateforme en question. Vous ne devez pas vous tromper sur toutes les lignes. Il est fort possible que le courtier détienne une licence venant de l’AMF, mais qu’il commet des actes illégaux envers ses principaux clients. Vous pouvez vous diriger vers cet article pour plus de détails.

Il est important de considérer les plaintes déposées contre les brokers en ligne ou des poursuites en justice qu’ils ont subies. Dans ce cas, le trader est tenu de porter son attention envers ces divers points.

Recommandations des clients et supports de formation dispensés par le courtier forex

Même si la plateforme d’échange est légale et digne de confiance, ces points ne seront pas suffisants pour juger son efficacité. Il est indispensable de voir les recommandations des clients. Un autre point, qui est tout aussi important, est les supports de formation dispensés par le courtier forex. Vous pouvez essayer fxpro pour analyser la crédibilité de ce courtier en ligne. En considérant ces divers éléments, vous ne risquez pas de perdre beaucoup d’argent auprès de votre site plébiscité.

Recommandations des clients

Au moyen de l’Internet, il est plus facile de vérifier les sites et les forums qui émettent les recommandations des clients concernant certains courtiers. Auprès de ces plateformes, les traders racontent leurs expériences vécues dans les plateformes d’échange ou les réprimandes pour certains brokers. Par contre, les suggestions des traders influent sur les fonctionnalités, les formations proposées par les sites de trading.

Supports de formation dispensés par le courtier forex

A priori, les négociateurs de titres financiers ont le droit de critiquer le courtier par rapport aux formations qu’ils accordent aux clients. En général, les courtiers honnêtes et stables proposent des supports tutoriels aux utilisateurs. Ils permettent à ces derniers de pouvoir découvrir davantage le fonctionnement du trading en ligne. Les fonctions des sites boursiers ne se limitent pas aux offres d’outils financiers aux clients.

Classement des meilleurs brokers forex

Les clients choisissent les brokers forex en fonction de :

• Leur légalité
• Leur image
• Leur niveau des bénéfices qu’ils peuvent réaliser auprès de ces sites

Ils ne vont pas quand même rester sur des plateformes où il est quasiment impossible de faire des retraits d’argent. Ils les quitteront quand il y a des erreurs de chargement à chaque fois qu’ils passent un ordre d’achat ou de vente des devises. Parmi les sites les mieux notés en trading sont Alvexo, Avatrade, Pepperstone et XM.

Polish Presidential run-off will take place on the 12 of July, that is tomorrow,  between the incumbent President Andrzej Duda, who won the first round of the presidential election on the 28  of June, and Warsaw Mayor Rafał Trzaskowski, who is the Civic Platform (PO) candidate, finishing second. 

The question is what will be the future of Rule of Law in Poland in light of who gets elected on Sunday’s election.

The current state of Rule of Law in Poland under the Law and Justice Party’s ruling since 2015 is far from offering any hope for the future. The current government through series of measures and legislation has undermined and eroded the Rule of Law in Poland.

V-Dem Democracy Report of 2020 refers to Poland as having autocratised the most over the last ten years among other countries like Hungary and Turkey. The ruling Law and Justice Party (PiS), in power since 2015, is forcing legislation that is not complying with the EU’s Rule of Standards, and ultimately is eroding democratic standards in Poland. On the question of whether it has a independent Judiciary,  Poland scored  1 on the scale of 4 in Freedom House’s annual report of 2020, which is pretty dismal.

In 2017 the Justice Minister was given the power to appoint and dismiss presidents and deputy presidents of courts, instead of them being elected by the Judiciary. Furthermore, lower retirement ages for the Supreme Court came into force, effectively meaning that 27 out of 73 judges had to step down in July 2018.  

Other parts of the new Supreme Court law created powerful new chambers—the Chamber of Extraordinary Control and Public Affairs (responsible for declaring the validity of elections), and the Disciplinary Chamber.   

Furthermore, in 2019, the Supreme Court’s Labor Chamber promptly ruled that the National Council of the Judiciary is not an impartial and independent body, and the Disciplinary Chamber is not a court within the meaning of EU and national law. In response, the PiS rushed legislation through the Sejm, the lower house of the bicameral parliament of Poland, to strengthen and expand disciplinary measures to punish individual judges who questioned the validity of the National Council of the Judiciary.  

In academic circles, as well as at the EU institutional level and among policy analysts, the situation in Poland concerning the independence of Judiciary and other policy choices made by the PiS related to the media and academia, which are not in the remit of this blog, is alarming. ‘Backsliding on democracy’, ‘drift towards illiberal democracy’, and ‘rule of law crisis’ are some of the adjectives used to describe the situation in Poland. 

My first question is if Trzaskowski wins the run-off on Sunday,  can he stop PiS in eroding the independence of Judiciary in Poland?

The short answer is:  Yes. 

The supporting conditions and constitutional powers granted to the President of the Republic of Poland could make Trzaskowski’s significantly strong and effective in ste

Warsaw mayor Rafal Trzaskowski is supported by Civic Platform, a liberal right-of-centre party © Omar Marques/Getty

ering Poland to an opposite direction. To one where fundamental principles of Liberal Democracy are respected and protected, like the Rule of Law.

The paragraphs 3-5 of the Article 122 of the Constitution of Republic of Poland stated: (3)The President of the Republic may, before signing a bill, refer it to the Constitutional Tribunal for an adjudication upon its conformity to the Constitution. The President of the Republic shall not refuse to sign a bill which has been judged by the Constitutional Tribunal as conforming to the Constitution. (4) The President of the Republic shall refuse to sign a bill which the Constitutional Tribunal has judged not to be in conformity to the Constitution. (5)  If the President of the Republic has not made reference to the Constitutional Tribunal in accordance with para. 3, he may refer the bill, with reasons given, to the Sejm for its reconsideration. If the said bill is repassed by the Sejm by a three-fifths majority vote in the presence of at least half of the statutory number of Deputies” .                  

The above  means that when Trzaskowski receives a bill from the Sejm, he has the power, granted by the Constitution, as shown above, to refer the bill to the Constitutional Court to check it is in conformity with the Constitution. Additionally, because the PiS government does not hold a majority of 3/5 in the Sejm, the President’s veto of the Government’s bills could not be overturned. Thus Trzaskowski could block the PiS’s bills that are not in conformity with the Constitution, as well as those against his liberal values. Ultimately he could protect the fundamental values of liberal democracy; with this assured, optimism about the Rule of Law could be reinstated in Poland.

However, Trzaskowski’s vetoes of the PiS’s bills or legislative initiatives could force Jarosław Aleksander Kaczyński’s hand, Chairman of the PiS, country’s de facto ruler, to call for an early General Election. Dr. Ben Stanley, a political scientist at SWPS University of Social Sciences and Humanities in Warsaw, said that Kaczyński would have little patience for Trzaskowski’s vetoes and predicts escalation of hostilities between Trzaskowski and Kaczyński, if the former is elected on Sunday. By this, a brake on backsliding on Liberal democracy would be achieved. However, conflict, hostility and disunity between the President and the Government would take root in the Polish politics that could produce a dysfunctional government.Â

My second question is if Duda wins, will he stand against the PiS’s policy initiative that is not compliance with the Rule of Law standards of the EU?

My short answer is: No.

Andrzej Duda, incumbent PiS President and seeking re-election © Wojciech Olkusnik/EPA-EFE

If Duda is elected on Sunday, I think the PiS’s administration will first take a deep breath since the neck and neck race between Duda and Trzaskowski made them extremely nervous in that they run a smear campaign against their opponent, something academics will write about for a long time coming.

While one would expect the PiS to moderate their policy plans so that they could accommodate the rest of the country in their ranks, I do not anticipate that to happen. Not only because I feel the sense of deja vu when I am questioning if the PiS would moderate, but because of my expertise in Turkish and Hungarian politics, countries that are not regarded as democracies by the Freedom House anymore. I feel that the PiS would only impose its illiberal legislation proposals on the Poles in many areas of life in the coming 3-5 years to enhance their grip on power, which inevitably result in weaker democracy and the Rule of Law.

The post Should you feel Optimistic or Gloomy about the Rule of Law in Poland in light of Presidential Run-Off appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

Fxpro est un site de trading qui a vu le jour en 2006. En effet, ses services sont focalisés sur le Forex et le CFD. Ses tâches consistent à mandater ses clients au sein du Forex, mais également à négocier des actifs financiers grâce aux CFD. Pour ce faire, cette plateforme joue deux rôles principaux comme celui d’un broker « No Dealing Desk » et celui d’un « market maker ».

Les comptes d’adhésions sur Fxpro

Fxpro est une plateforme ayant une multitude de volets à explorer visant à offrir des bénéfices aux traders. Ils sont aux nombres de cinq. Ses comptes sont en relation avec le site où le trader exerce son politique de négociation. Vous pouvez vérifier ce propos via ie-smart.eu. Notons quelques exemples, le compte Metatrader 4 et celui du Metatrader 5. En ce qui concerne le compte Metatrader 4, les négociateurs financiers peuvent s’investir sur le marché organisé grâce à deux références de commissions. Ce qui les différencie surtout au niveau du spread et de la commission à payer.

Comment s’organisent le dépôt et retrait auprès de Fxpro ?

Cette plateforme met à la disposition des investisseurs diverses options de dépôt et de devises. A priori, tous les sites de trading adoptent cette stratégie afin d’attirer plus de clients et de les motiver à s’investir auprès d’eux. De ce fait, afin de générer des profits au sein du courtier, vous êtes tenus à payer une somme minimale de 500 euros. Pour cela, le virement bancaire, les cartes bancaires et les comptes virtuels comme Skrill et Neteller sont tous acceptés.

Frais de transaction et plateformes tradables chez Fxpro

Dans l’univers du trading, il est primordial de connaître les frais de transaction et les plateformes de trading. Cela permet de tirer vos bénéfices en passant des ordres d’achat et de vente dans un site de change.

Frais de transaction déduits chez Fxpro

Forex est un lieu sûr pour les marchés de changes. Tous les courtiers en ligne trouvent leur place auprès de celui-ci, y compris Fxpro. Quant aux frais de transaction pour le trading, chaque plateforme de change fixe des spreads et commissions pour chaque opération effectuée. Ce qui lui permet d’avoir plus de trafic sur le marché organisé. Ainsi, le spread fixe au sein de Fxpro est de 1.6 pips contre 2 pips pour d’autres courtiers en ligne. Pour les spreads à compte variables, le nombre de pips est de 0.3.

Plateformes tradables de Fxpro

En négociant des actifs financiers dans ce site boursier, vous avez trois options de plateformes de trading. Elles comprennent le MetaTrader 4, le MetaTrader 5 et le CTrader. Sachez que vous avez également la possibilité de trader, soit à l’aide d’un PC, soit via un appareil portable. Concernant MetaTrader 4, c’est l’unique plateforme le plus utilisée des traders dans l’industrie du Forex et des CFD.

Notre avis fondamental sur Fxpro

Fxpro est une plateforme de change, qui est la plus appréciée chez Forex. Celle-ci présente un avantage pour les clients en vue de les offrir de nombreuses paires de devises.

Brexit is based on blatant mistruths and lies. You may not believe this now, but we will all believe it next year, when Brexit finally arrives, cold, clammy and callous, naked and exposed.

Every reason given to leave was a stinking falsification. When, one day, there is a public inquiry into how our country was conned, there will be gasps into how conniving, cunning politicians managed to get away with it.

Lies, lies and more lies. That’s how Leave won.

In summary:

 MORE SOVEREIGNTY? Nonsense. We’ll get less. In the EU, we gained a share of sovereignty of our continent. Outside the EU, we’ll still live on a planet and have to obey thousands of international laws and treaties.

We share sovereignty with NATO, for example. Is that a reason to leave it?

 FEWER MIGRANTS? Really? Just think about it. Most EU migrants in Britain have been in gainful employment, doing jobs that we simply don’t have enough Britons to do, and making a massive NET contribution to our Treasury and economy.

Migrants come here for jobs – and if there are no jobs, they mostly don’t come, or don’t stay.

 MORE HOUSES, SCHOOLS AND HOSPITALS? Think again. Britain has a chronic shortage of skilled workers. Without EU migrants, we’ll have fewer builders, teachers, doctors and nurses.

Migrants are not the cause of our problems. Blaming them just excuses successive UK governments from investing sufficiently in our country.

 GET OUR COUNTRY BACK? We never lost it. If being in the EU means losing your country, why aren’t the 27 other EU member states planning to leave?

(Really, none of them are: support for the EU is the highest it’s been in 35 years).

 OUR OWN LAWS? The vast majority of laws in the UK are our laws and passed by our Parliament in Westminster, otherwise it would have nothing to do.

But in the EU, we benefit from laws and regulations for our continent that no single country alone could ever achieve.

Could our UK government have got mobile phone companies to scrap exorbitant roaming charges across the entire EU? To take Google to task for “abusive practices”? To ensure generous compensation for delayed flights across our continent? Of course not.

It took the might of 28 EU countries working together to achieve that, and so much more.

 THE EU IS RUN BY FACELESS BUREAUCRATS? Another lie. The EU is a democracy, run and ruled by its members, the 27 countries of the EU, along with its democratically elected European Parliament.

The European Commission is the servant of the EU, not its master, and the European Parliament has the power to choose, and dismiss, the entire Commission.

THE CASE FOR BRETURN Before Brexit, no member state had ever left the EU. And no other member state is planning to leave now.

That’s hardly surprising. All the reasons to be an EU member are based on true, tangible and tested benefits over many decades.

In summary:

 PROFITABLE: EU membership is profitable – in real terms it cost Britain nothing to belong to the EU. On the contrary, we got back many times the cost of the annual membership fee. Being in the EU made us better off.

The CBI has calculated that EU membership was worth around £3,000 a year to every British family — a return of nearly £10 for each £1 we paid in.

[Source: CBI Report: Our Global Future, page 11:]

 PEACE: It’s the structure of the EU that has helped to ensure that no shots have ever been fired between member states. That’s an enormous achievement for a continent that was previously used to violence, wars and subjugation as the way to ‘settle’ issues.

In 2012, by a unanimous decision of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, the EU won the Nobel Peace Prize for advancing the causes of peace, democracy and human rights in Europe for over 60 years.

 FREEDOMS: The EU gives members freedom across much of our continent.

EU citizens enjoy the right to live, work, study or retire in any EU and EEA country – including access to state healthcare and education when working in those countries. That’s a precious right, that took decades to achieve.

The EU also gives members the right to free AND frictionless trade between member states, which has helped to maintain Europe as the planet’s richest continent.

The loss of these freedoms will be increasingly devastating for Britain and Britons.

Almost half of ALL our exports, and just over half of ALL our imports, go to and come from the EU. Nowhere else in the world comes even close.

The EU has an iron tariff wall against non-members. Outside of the EU, we are on the wrong side of that wall.

Even non-European countries that have negotiated ‘free trade’ agreements with the EU don’t enjoy full free trade access to Europe’s internal market, as Britain did as an EU member.

DEMOCRACY: EU members have a democratic say, votes and vetoes on the running and future direction of our continent.

Outside the EU, Britain can only look on as those decisions are made without us – even though those decisions will affect us just as much, whether we’re in the EU or not.

Leaving means losing sovereignty, not gaining it.

 POWER: The EU is the world’s largest and most successful trading bloc, and the world’s biggest exporter and importer of manufactured goods and services.

The EU is one of the world’s top three economies, alongside the USA and China.

The Euro, in record time, has become the world’s most traded and trusted currency, alongside the US dollar.

All that gives the EU huge power, reach and muscle – enabling it to negotiate the best free trade agreements with other countries on behalf of its members.

Outside the EU, Britain is unlikely to get trade deals as good as, let alone better than, the free trade agreements we had as an EU member covering over 70 countries.

In any event, it will take years, maybe decades to find out.

 PROTECTION: EU laws protecting the rights of workers, consumers and travellers across our continent are probably among the most important EU membership benefits.

For example, 4-weeks paid holiday a year; the 48-hour working week; anti-discrimination law; guaranteed rights for agency workers; guaranteed worker consultation – all of these protections largely exist because of the EU.

No single national government can assure safety and protection across our continent. It needs the reach of a pan-European intergovernmental organisation to achieve that (albeit with the democratic consensus of member states).

Britain enjoys cleaner beaches as a direct result of EU directives on protecting the environment. Before those directives, successive British governments were not interested in cleaning up our beaches.

In addition, the EU is leading the world in tackling climate change – something that individual countries alone simply can’t undertake.

The government’s post-Brexit plan is to take away the rights of British citizens to sue them over issues such as workers’ rights, environmental policy and business regulation. This right to sue our government on these issues was something we only enjoyed under EU law.

There will be many other rights lost as a direct result of Brexit.

 STRENGTH: In a world dominated by the USA, China and Russia, Britain is dwarfed on its own. Being part of the EU gives us a bigger say and more strength on the global stage than as a small country out-at-sea and going-it-alone.

We could instead become closer to the USA – but is that what we really want?

……………………………………………..

When Brexit arrives for real, from 1 January 2021 onwards, we will be poorer, and with less sovereignty, fewer rights and protections, restricted trade, and diminished power.

The case for Breturn – Britain returning to the EU as a full member – is overwhelming.

It may take years to achieve a democratic reversal of Brexit, but it’s a worthwhile fight.

In a democracy, losing doesn’t mean having to give up. Ask Brexiters, they know.

We can win next time. We just have to ensure we get a next time.

 

• Follow my journalism page on Facebook: Jon Danzig writes
• My campaign page on Facebook: Reasons2Rejoin
• And LinkedIn

________________________________________________________

The post Breturn versus Brexit appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

Commenting on the draft conclusions for the 17 July EU summit, EP’s negotiators disagree with additional cuts to the long-term EU budget and urge the European Council to improve the text.
Committee on Budgets

Source : © European Union, 2020 - EP

Commenting on the draft conclusions for the 17 July EU summit, EP’s negotiators disagree with additional cuts to the long-term EU budget and urge the European Council to improve the text.
Committee on Budgets

Source : © European Union, 2020 - EP

The Commission should update its guidelines to select priority energy projects that are fully in line with its climate policy, said Parliament.
Committee on Industry, Research and Energy

Source : © European Union, 2020 - EP

MEPs discussed German Council presidency goals and the need for a greater EU role in public health and adopted new rules for the road transport sector during the 8-10 July plenary.

Source : © European Union, 2020 - EP

Interconnected registers of beneficial owners, a preventive blacklisting policy and effective sanctions are among tools proposed by MEPs to stop money laundering.
Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs

Source : © European Union, 2020 - EP

COVID-19 has highlighted the need to give the EU a far stronger role in the area of health, MEPs say in a resolution on the EU’s future public health strategy.
Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety

Source : © European Union, 2020 - EP

To develop, authorise and make safe COVID-19 vaccines available more easily, MEPs today adopted a temporary derogation from certain rules for clinical trials.
Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety

Source : © European Union, 2020 - EP

As energy from renewable sources is increasingly part of the European energy mix, MEPs propose ways to step up storage solutions such as hydrogen or home batteries.
Committee on Industry, Research and Energy

Source : © European Union, 2020 - EP

Committee meetings, Brussels

Source : © European Union, 2020 - EP

Parliament gave its green light to top up support to refugees and host communities in Turkey, Jordan and Lebanon in response to the Syrian crisis.
Committee on Budgets

Source : © European Union, 2020 - EP