![]() |
The results are in... |
19 September 2023
Pipì a Pechino
08 July 2023
Speed awareness class
25 June 2023
lettera alla mamma per il suo 100° compleanno
02 June 2023
Making zonzi in Hunan, China
15 May 2023
10 May 2023
Recensione libro: Debora 2009 (2013) di Debora Gatelli, ****
Sinossi
Tre biciclette attraversano il nord del Senegal alla ricerca di emozioni forti e alla scoperta di nuovi orizzonti. Un viaggio spontaneo, senza troppi programmi, guidato dagli eventi e dagli incontri che ogni nuovo giorno e' pronto ad offrire.L'autrice ha scritto queste pagine soprattutto per se stessa, per non lasciare che la memoria evaporasse, per rivivere il viaggio una seconda volta apprezzando nuovamente ogni passaggio nel cercare le parole per descriverlo.
Debora Gatelli spera comunque che questa sorta di diario di viaggio possa essere una lettura piacevole anche per chi, come lei, e' un amante dell'Africa, dei viaggi alternativi, dell'avventura, della vita.
Recensione
Un piccolo libro che ti prende per mano e ti porta in giro in bicicletta per il Senegal con tre ragazzi carichi di spirito di avventura e adattamento. Poche pagine che però bastano a stuzzicare la curiosità, per il paese, per il viaggio in bicicletta e per un modo originale per scoprire qualcosa dentro di noi che non sapevamo di essere.
Una piacevole e scorrevole lettura nello stile diario di viaggio. Forse sarebbe stato utile avere qualche approfondimento in più, ma sarebbe stato un altro tipo di libro.
08 May 2023
08 April 2023
Back in Hong Kong
15 September 2022
Il Passaporto / The Passport
British passport:
1. Take photo with phone, verify it's good enough on HM Passport Office's website and upload
2. Fill out ONE form
3. Ask a British citizen who is not related to us to certify online who we are
3. Go to Post Office and send the filled out form, a birth certificate and proof of my "settled status" (letter from Home Office received when I applied for settlement under the UK/EU brexit agreement)
4. Pay £ 49 by credit card online
5. Wait 5 weeks average (4 for Luigi and 6 for Arturo)
6. Passports arrived in the post by registered mail for free
7. Passports are valid for 5 years
8. All my documents I had sent to HMPO are returned by certified mail for free
9. Throughout the process HMPO sent me emails and SMS with updates on progress: application started, docs received, application approved, passport being printed, passport sent to you.
Total cost for 1 passport: £ 49 fee + 6 postage = £55, ie £ 11 per year of validity.
Italian passport:
2. Fill out TWO forms
3. Get a professional person (in casu, our dentist) to sign another form to certify we are we and our sons are ours
4. Go to Post Office and pay £ 98 (exactly TWICE the UK passport fee) + £ 12 service charge = £ 110 IN CASH ONLY to get a paper "Postal Order"
5. Have original British birth certificate translated and legalized (£ 30) by Home Office
6. Go to Italian Consulate in person so my non-EU wife can sign a form in which she agrees to passports being issued to our sons (when she went there they told her the dentist's document was not necessary, they could have certified, but that was not clear on their website)
7. Send everything to Consulate by special delivery (£ 6). Mind you: when my wife went to the consulate she had a complete application file, photos, letters, forms etc, but they would not let her just drop the application there. It had to be sent by post "because it must be registered" (protocollata). Not clear why you can not protocollare a document that is handed over by an Italian citizen instead of a British postman. So I walked 400 meters to the nearest post office to post the envelope to the Consulate.
8. Wait 16 weeks.
9. Passport arrived in the post by registered mail in the pre-paid envelope we bought (£ 7.65)
10. Passport is valid for 3 years
11. Documents sent to Consulate (original birth certificate, etc) were NOT returned (one birth certificate costs us £ 11)
12. Throughout the application process I never received any update on progress.
Total cost for 1 passport: £ 16 + £ 110 + £30 + £6 + 7.65 + £11 = £ 172, ie £ 57 per year of validity
So an Italian passport for a child:
a) costs over three times as much as a British passport (five times more if you take into account the shorter period of validity)
b) requires three trips in person (to Consulate, photographer's shop and Post Office) vs one trip to Post Office for UK passport
c) takes more than twice as long to receive
d) is valid for a bit more than half as long as a British passport
I never received any update on progress by the Italian consulate.
-----------
ITALIANO
I miei figli Arturo e Luigi sono cittadini italiani e britannici dal momento della loro nascita. (Avrebbero potuto anche essere cittadini cinesi, ma avrebbero dovuto rinunciare alle altre due cittadinanze.) Così abbiamo deciso di richiedere entrambi i passaporti. Ecco cosa si deve fare.
Passaporto britannico:
1. Scatta una foto con il telefono, verifica che sia sufficientemente buona sul sito web di HM Passport Office e caricala sullo stesso sito
2. Compila UN modulo
3. Chiedi ad un cittadino britannico non parente di certificare online chi siamo noi genitori
3. Vai all'ufficio postale e invia il modulo compilato, un certificato di nascita e la prova del mio "settled status, cioè residente permanente" (lettera del Ministero degli Interni ricevuta quando ho richiesto la transazione ai sensi dell'accordo brexit Regno Unito/UE)
4. Paga £ 49 con carta di credito online
5. Aspetta in media 5 settimane (4 per Luigi e 6 per Arturo)
6. I passaporti arrivano gratuitamente per posta a casa tramite raccomandata
7. I passaporti hanno una validità di 5 anni
8. Tutti i miei documenti che avevo inviato a Her Majesty's Passport Office mi sono stati restituiti gratuitamente tramite ulteriore raccomandata
Costo totale per 1 passaporto: £ 49 tassa + 6 spese di spedizione = £ 55, ovvero £ 11 per anno di validità.
Passaporto italiano:
1. andare in uno studio fotografico professionale per scattare immagini e stamparle (£ 16)
2. Compila DUE moduli
3. Chiedi a un professionista (in casu, il nostro dentista) di firmare un altro modulo cartaceo per certificare che noi siamo noi e i nostri figli sono nostri
4. Vai all'ufficio postale e paga £ 98 (esattamente il DOPPIO della tassa per il passaporto del Regno Unito) + £ 12 spese di servizio = £ 110 SOLO IN CONTANTI per ricevere un "Vaglia postale" cartaceo
5. Far tradurre e legalizzare il certificato di nascita britannico originale (£ 30) dal Ministero degli Interni
6. Andare di persona al Consolato italiano così che mia moglie extracomunitaria possa firmare un modulo in cui acconsente al rilascio dei passaporti ai nostri figli (quando è andata lì le hanno detto che il documento della dentista non era necessario, avrebbero potuto autenticarci loro in consolato, ma non era chiaro sul loro sito web)
7. Spedisci tutto al Consolato con consegna speciale (£ 6). Quando mia moglie è andata al consolato aveva tutte le carte pronte, ma non le hanno consentito di depositare la domanda. Bisognava inviarla per posta "perché deve essere protocollata". Non è chiaro perché non si possa protocollare un documento che viene consegnato da un cittadino italiano invece di un postino inglese.
8. Attendi 16 settimane
9. Il passaporto arriva per posta tramite raccomandata nella busta prepagata che abbiamo acquistato (£ 7,65)
10. Il passaporto ha una validità di 3 anni
11. I documenti inviati al Consolato (certificato di nascita originale, ecc.) NON vengono restituiti (un certificato di nascita costa £ 11)
Costo totale per 1 passaporto: £ 16 + £ 110 + £ 30 + £6 + 7,65 + £ 11 = £ 172, ovvero £ 57 per anno di validità
Durante tutto questa procedura HMPO ci ha sempre informati per sms e email dello stato di avanzamento della pratica: domanda ricevuta, documenti ricevuti, autentica del cittadino britannico OK, passaporto in produzione, passaporto spedito. Da parte italiana silenzio.
Quindi un passaporto italiano per un bambino:
a) costa oltre il triplo di un passaporto britannico (cinque volte di più se si tiene conto della minore durata del periodo di validità)
b) richiede quattro viaggi di persona (al Consolato, dal dentista, al negozio di foto e all'ufficio postale) rispetto a un viaggio all'ufficio postale per il passaporto del Regno Unito
c) impiega più del doppio del tempo per essere stampato e spedito
d) è valido per poco più della metà del tempo di un passaporto britannico
e) invece di essere informati dello stato della pratica bisogna solo aspettare fiduciosi
24 August 2022
Recensione libro: Vivo Altrove (2010) by Claudia Cucchiarato, ****
Sinossi
Gabriele, ingegnere navale a Oslo, Davide che fa l'autore teatrale a Berlino, Giulia che sta a Barcellona, canta in una band, e ha avuto un colpo di fortuna... Sono l'Italia fuori dall'Italia. Sono i giovani, sempre più numerosi, che hanno scelto di vivere lontani da casa, alla ricerca di un lavoro che qui non hanno trovato, o di una vita diversa. Questo libro racconta le loro storie, che sono piene di vitalità e venate di malinconia, scanzonate, tenere, in fondo preoccupanti. Sono il ritratto di un paese virtuale, e di un futuro, forse, mancato: perché il paese che questi ragazzi hanno deciso di abbandonare continua a non ascoltarli.
Recensione
Una serie di storie personali di intraprendenti giovani italiani costretti ad emigrare per poter essere professionalmente apprezzati. Ci sono passato anche io, e molti miei amici. Una volta emigravano i braccianti con la valigia di cartone, oggi oltre i due terzi degli italiani che emigrano sono laureati. Scritto nel 2010 ma sempre valido!
21 August 2022
Book Review: The Good German of Nanking (1998) by John Rabe, edited by Erwin Wickert, *****
16 August 2022
Poesia di Pablo Neruda per chi viaggia, chi ama la musica e chi sceglie la propria strada
Lentamente muore
Lentamente muore chi diventa schiavo dell'abitudine, ripetendo ogni
giorno gli stessi percorsi,
chi non cambia la marcia,
chi non rischia e cambia colore dei vestiti,
chi non parla a chi non conosce.
Muore lentamente chi evita una passione,
chi preferisce il nero su bianco
e i puntini sulle "i" piuttosto che un insieme di emozioni,
proprio quelle che fanno brillare gli occhi, quelle che
fanno di uno sbadiglio un sorriso, quelle che fanno battere il cuore
davanti all'errore e ai sentimenti.
Lentamente muore chi non capovolge il tavolo,
chi e' infelice sul lavoro,
chi non rischia la certezza per l'incertezza per inseguire un sogno,
chi non si permette almeno una volta nella vita di fuggire ai
consigli sensati.
Lentamente muore chi non viaggia,
chi non legge,
chi non ascolta musica, chi non trova grazia in se stesso.
Muore lentamente chi distrugge l'amor proprio, chi non si lascia
aiutare; chi passa i giorni a lamentarsi della propria sfortuna o
della pioggia incessante.
Lentamente muore chi abbandona un progetto prima di iniziarlo,
chi non fa domande sugli argomenti che non conosce, chi non
risponde quando gli chiedono qualcosa che conosce.
Evitiamo la morte a piccole dosi, ricordando sempre che essere
vivo richiede uno sforzo di gran lunga maggiore del semplice fatto
di respirare.
Soltanto l'ardente pazienza porterà al raggiungimento di una
splendida felicità.
24 May 2022
A strategic view on the war in Ukraine
The war is in full swing and looks set to last for a while. The outcome is uncertain, but Russia has certainly failed in its main goal: to deprive the invaded country of the ability to manage its own identity. Nonetheless, it may still be able to occupy slices of Ukrainian territory permanently, enough to be able to declare victory. Be that as it may, now the time has come, after overcoming the initial shock and the immediate response measures in terms of economic sanctions on Russia and aid to Ukraine, to think about the long term.
Three strategic issues are of primary importance in light of the ongoing tragedy: the consequences for the European Union, the repercussions on the role of nuclear weapons and the future of relations with Russia. On these issues a reflection is urgently needed for the long term, beyond current events, in order to be ready to act deliberately, and not emotionally, when the conflict ends. This reflection is lacking so far.
European Union
What are the strategic implications of the conflict for the EU? The first is that security in Europe can no longer be taken for granted, as too many thought after the end of the Cold War, and that we must return to focus our attention on it. One cannot think only of trade and cultural exchanges, because, sos did common wisdom suggest, the time of wars had passed.
In the first place, therefore, when the guns are silent we will not be able to go back to doing everything as before. For decades we have believed, I for one, that creating interdependence with potential adversaries would foster mutual interest in peace: my first research work after university, in 1982, was on the Urengoy pipeline that was being built to bring gas from the USSR to Western Europe, "piercing" the Iron Curtain. Europe built it against the opinion of the Reagan administration which instead claimed it was dangerous to create this dependence on Soviet supplies. (The Americans, however, were very ready to sell their raw materials to Moscow, starting with food.) Since then, the gas pipelines from the USSR / Russia to Europe have multiplied. I still believe that interdependence is the right, and perhaps obligatory, path for the future, but it seems obvious to me that it needs to be rethought through a greater diversification of energy sources and suppliers.
The second is that security costs money, which we have always known but which we have ignored in recent decades. In my opinion, Europe does not spend so little (the debate has been going on for decades, I will not get into it here) and in any case it can afford to do more. But it certainly spends unwisely because the economic effort is distributed in an inefficient way among 27 different armed forces, with obvious waste for fixed costs, imperfect standardization and interoperability, duplications, which could be eliminated if you had a European army, a European navy and a European aviation. Spending more without improving how you spend would not be an efficient use of resources. And I come to the third point.
The third strategic consequence of the Ukrainian conflict for Europe is that from a political, economic and military point of view the current conflict affects the Union as a whole. The pipelines all start from Russia but, apart from Nord Stream which goes straight to Germany, the others supply various member states. And in any case, gas is a fungible resource. If France is more protected by its nuclear power plants, while Italy and Germany remain more dependent on gas pipelines with Russia, all countries are suffering from the upheavals and inflationary effects of the current crisis on the energy market. There are no safe member states. More generally, if Poland and Romania are on the border of the armed confrontation, the repercussions clearly affect even more distant states such as Portugal and Ireland.
And therefore it is the Union as a whole that must take charge of the defense of the member states, always in coordination with the transatlantic allies in NATO but with autonomous capabilities. Two events of last year, the creation of the AUKUS and the withdrawal from Afghanistan, decided unilaterally by the USA, make this conclusion even more evident.
Brexit has removed one of the main obstacles to the creation of a common European defense, as the British were always opposed to any initiative that could create even the impression of a European defense capability independent of the USA. Besides, for the United Kingdom and the United States the link among the Five Eyes (USA, United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and New Zealand) has always been more important than that with NATO allies.
The war in Ukraine should remind us of the urgency of proceeding with the institutionalization of European security. It's obvious, at least it is to me, that the European link with the US in NATO should remain, but on a more balanced if not exactly equal level. A bit like today's relationship between the euro and the dollar, the the European Central Bank vis-à-vis the Federal Reserve.
The history of the euro gives us a useful trace: some countries start, others follow and those that do not follow remain outside, marginalized. Today the governments of Germany, France, Italy and Spain, which happen to be in political sync on the subject, could create the core of the common defense. Perhaps, after his re-election, Macron, free from constraints during his last term, will be more active.
This must also be true in the field of nuclear deterrence: Macron's France is pro-European, but it stops when we talk seriously about common defense and in particular about nuclear arms. In reality, there is no conceivable scenario in which France is threatened to the point that the national deterrent would become relevant without the other countries of the Union being threatened at the same time. It will be said that no country, and in particular France, an EU nuclear power and permanent member of the UN Security Council, would give up national sovereignty in the matter, to pool it into European sovereignty. But it was also accepted wisdom for years that Germany would never give up the Deutsche Mark. Germany did, and France should.
Nuclear weapons
Since the beginning of the Russian invasion, the Kremlin has launched not so veiled threats to use nuclear weapons, although statements have remained predictably vague as to how, against which targets and why. Assuming that this use does not occur, we should still rethink the role of nuclear weapons for the future. It could be argued that the rationale for owning a nuclear arsenal is strengthened: Western countries have gone to great pains since before the invasion to make it clear that they would not go to war with Russia over Ukraine. Biden almost shouted at the press conference: "We will not fight Russia over Ukraine." And this, it is not difficult to deduce, is because Russia, even if its armed forces are looking rather shambolic, is a nuclear superpower. And by the same reasoning it is likely that, if Russia had not had a nuclear arsenal in reserve, it would not have even attempted the Ukrainian adventure.
Perhaps someone in Ukraine regretted having renounced the nuclear weapons that the dissolving USSR had left on Ukrainian territory: if Kyiv had kept them perhaps today there would be no war in the country. It is a false question: those weapons were indeed on Ukrainian territory, but always under strict control of the Russians, and the KGB in particular. But the Ukrainians could have built their own, and they didn't. In return, they received empty promises of support for their independence and territorial integrity from Russia, the US and the UK.
What if Russia, humiliated on the ground by the Ukrainian army rearmed by the West, finally decides to launch some nuclear weapons against the Ukrainians? It would be a bizarre decision, given that Putin keeps saying on TV that Ukrainians are brothers who need to be freed from a ruling Nazi clique, but Putin has accustomed us to bizarre decisions. At that point what to do? A Western nuclear response, which could only be an American retaliation, would not be rational.
If the US responded with nuclear weapons, it would create a completely new situation: a NATO country that uses the extreme weapon not to protect its own survival, and not even that of an allied country, but of a third country, even if a friendly one. And what could these weapons be used against? Presumably not against Ukrainian territory, since the aim is to defend Ukraine, not destroy it. Maybe against Russian ships bombarding from the Black Sea? Perhaps, even if given the humiliating end of the Moskva it doesn't seem it would be necessary. Maybe then against targets on Russian territory? And if so, what would stop the Russians from responding against the Americans, perhaps first against US bases in Europe, as a foretaste and harbinger of an attack on US territory? Those who think they can control this type of escalation are deluding themselves, illustrious experts have tried for decades and never came up with a plausible scenario.
I am not in favor of NATO's nuclear disarmament, but in this Ukrainian crisis I see no conceivable scenarios that make a rationally useful use of these weapons conceivable. So we might as well say it right away, maybe it could help lower the tension. There is always time to change our mind, if the situation changes.
Another point is the impact of the ongoing war on nuclear proliferation (the spread of nuclear weapons to additional new countries): a potentially proliferating country right now sees that owning nuclear weapons pays off, so it has more incentives to get them. Instead, defeating Russia without using these weapons, even if Russia uses them, would be the best way to strengthen the non-proliferation regime.
Relations with Russia
At the cost of looking inappropriate, given the tragic nature of the moment, I think it is not premature to start thinking about how to set up relations between the West and Russia at the end of the war. All wars end and then one has to think about how to build peace. Better to think about it before and be ready when the time comes.
At the end of the war, Russia will still be there, even if I don't think Putin will stay at the helm for long. We are talking about 145 million people, the largest country in the world, full of raw materials of all kinds and an important market for our products. A nation of great culture that perhaps suffers from the fact it did not participate in either the Renaissance or the Protestant Reformation, two elements of great progress and emancipation in Central and Western Europe. Thinking of isolating Russia in the long run would certainly be counterproductive and probably impossible, especially for Europe.
On the economic side, giving up Russian raw materials would be very difficult. The Financial Times wonders if Europe can be weaned from Russian gas and concludes: "With the contents of the EU plans spanning from plausible to wildly unrealistic, many energy experts warn that painful last resorts - energy rationing and blackouts this winter - are a near inevitability if Europe is truly serious about kicking its Russian gas habit. "
And in any case, a literal cut of the Russian gas pipelines would only put Europe in the hands of other suppliers who are not necessarily more reliable. As we develop renewables and rethink nuclear power plants, caution would like us to be careful about cutting off with Russia altogether. Even Janet Yellen, Minister of the Treasury of Biden, told the Financial Times that "Medium term, Europe clearly needs to reduce its dependence on Russia with respect to energy, but we need to be careful when we think about a complete European ban on say, oil imports. "
Giving up the Russian market would also have a recessive economic effect, as Russia is a significant outlet for European products. And then we would risk alienating more than has already happened not so much the regime as the Russian people. In the past decades, western hostility towards Russia (partly real, partly amplified by the Moscow propaganda) has diminished the enthusiasm that the Russians had for the West immediately after the dissolution of the USSR. The consequences of this would hardly benefit the West, and in particular Europe, even after Putin. It would be a paradox if a more democratic Russia became more anti-European at the same time.
On the political side, if we look at the teaching of history, we should think of Germany, defeated in two world wars: after the first it was humiliated, mistreated, vilified, above all isolated, and the conditions were created for the rise of Nazism. After the second it was punished and even divided in two but immediately readmitted into the assembly of European and Western countries, suffice it to recall that West Germany was a founding member of the first European Community (Coal and Steel) in 1950, only 5 years after the defeat of Hitler, and after another 4 years she was admitted to NATO. East Germany, occupied by 22 divisions of the Red Army, was also included by the Soviets in the context of the Warsaw Pact and the Comecon. I think we need to think from today not so much whether, but how to integrate the future Russia in a context of European and international cooperation.
If we want to go a little further back in time, let's think of post-Napoleonic France: after Waterloo, once the aggressive dictator was sent to St. Helena and neutralized, France was immediately readmitted to the concert of nations and participated in the Congress of Vienna Congress in 1815, invited by Metternich and the other victors, and helped to create a new order in Europe which ensured, more or less, a century of peace. We can only hope that a new Talleyrand will emerge in Russia: first a priest, then a revolutionary, then Napoleon's right arm and finally minister of restoration. He was not a champion of consistency but he served the purpose of reintegrating France into Europe.
The global situation must also be taken into account. Bismarck used to say that when you have two adversaries, your relations with each of them must not be worse than those they have with each other. Simple political arithmetic. Today, China must be taken into account, and increasingly India. Nixon (skilfully led by Kissinger) understood this well, and went to Beijing to meet Mao and re-establish relations, despite the fact that the two were politically poles apart and Mao was guilty of horrendous crimes. And at the same time Nixon and Kissinger negotiated détente with the Soviets, over disarmament and trade, and the US and the USSR even sent the first astronauts together into space on a historic joint mission.
The US today does not apply Bismarck's teaching, nor does it follow Nixon's example. For thirty years, perhaps in an effort to remain the world's only superpower, as it actually was for a short time after the Cold War, it puts pressure on Russia and China simultaneously, with the result of pushing them into each other's arms. London will follow Washington, as it always does, but the European Union must be careful. As I said above, the fact of being divided weakens us, vis-à-vis the Russians and the Chinese but also in negotiating a common position with the Americans. Washington doesn't take Brussels seriously because, as Kissinger said decades ago, "if I want to talk to Europe, what telephone number should I call?" (The modest Borrel, who adorned with the pompous title of EU High Representative for Foreign Policy, has no influence, let alone power.)
It would be a colossal mistake to continue to help consolidate an axis between Moscow and Beijing. And to prevent this from happening, it will be necessary to make some compromises with both, while holding on to vital issues (Ukrainian sovereignty, Taiwan) and avoiding to embark on a counterproductive and futile campaign of isolation against both of them at the same time. Also, it will be necessary to diligently cultivate relations with India, a country in great economic and demographic growth, which is also democratic but which will certainly never be willing to slavishly follow the West.
13 May 2022
Il certificato di nascita
I miei figli, in quanto io cittadino italiano residente permanente a Londra, sono nati con due cittadinanze: italiana e britannica. (Avrebbero anche quella cinese dalla madre, vedremo.)
Per la registrazione all'anagrafe di Londra:
1. prenotare online un appuntamento in comune (avuto 2 settimane dopo la nascita, cioè oggi).
2. recarsi all'appuntamento, dichiarare la nascita (esibire il libretto sanitario emesso dall'ospedale al momento della nascita è facoltativo), pagare 11 sterline e ritirare il certificato caldo di stampante.
Fatto.
--------------
Per la registrazione in Italia, la documentazione necessaria deve includere:
1. Modulo di richiesta compilato in tutte le sue parti;
2. Atto di nascita integrale e originale;
3. Legalizzazione dell’atto di nascita integrale e originale;
4. Traduzione in lingua italiana effettuata da un traduttore professionista;
5. Legalizzazione di tale traduzione (per atti non britannici);
6. Fotocopie dei documenti dei genitori;
7. Eventualmente, fotocopie di documenti di identità stranieri della persona a cui l’atto di nascita si riferisce.
Procedure diverse si applicano a seconda del Paese che ha prodotto l’atto di nascita e del tipo di atto presentato.
Il sito del Consolato Generale d'Italia riporta le seguenti PROCEDURE PIÙ COMUNI
Che iter devo seguire per far trascrivere in Italia un certificato di nascita prodotto nel Regno Unito?
· Richiedere al Registry Office una copia conforme all’originale dell’atto di nascita integrale (Full Birth Certificate)
· Inviare l’atto al Legalization Office per farvi apporre l’apostilla
· Fare eseguire da un traduttore professionista una traduzione in italiano dell’atto (elenco non esaustivo dei traduttori)
· Fare le fotocopie dei documenti di identità dei genitori ed eventualmente di documenti stranieri della persona a cui l’atto si riferisce
· Compilare il modulo di richiesta
· Spedire tutta la documentazione, tramite Tracked Mail, all’Ufficio di Stato Civile del Consolato Generale d’Italia a Londra.