09.08.2021
Obligatory or not. That is the question?
What’s all this fuss about, whether making Covid vaccinations obligatory to all nurses and Doctors, Care Workers, etc?
I personally remember the time when one evening per Week was dedicated from the public, clapping, banging pots and pans etc... as our appreciation and solidarity to the nurses and doctors.
I also remember, nurses and doctors being interviewed on television, saying how vulnerable they are to this disease and that they have not enough personal safety clothing and masks. That had to be disposed of after visiting a patient. We also heard sad stories from them, where they had lost colleagues to the disease and others were in ICU’s. Yet, the best way to protect oneself and others is to get vaccinated. Why are they against having to get vaccinated? Did they lie to us back then or where those stories just made up from the Media?
We are sometimes told that we are being selfish if we are not vaccinated. We also need to show certification (Digital Pass) to enter some places. Even the staff there must do the same. Well, how come I can go to hospital, be there a couple of weeks, and not knowing whether the doctors, specialists, nurses have been vaccinated. Although I am sure that companies working for hospitals, like cleaners must be vaccinated.
I would like to extend this it to all front-line workers. Should it also be obligatory?
Have many of you decided to vaccinate your children back in the day so that they could go to Kindergarten? Would you ask from a babysitter or au pair for a health certification before employing?
================================================================
27.07.2021
China’s incredible high-speed rail network.
At the beginning of the 21st century, China had no high-speed railways.
Slowly, mostly uncomfortable trains once dragging itself across this vast country, with a low average speed making journeys such as Shanghai-Beijing really was a test of endurance.
Today in 2021, it's a completely different. Gone are those endurance tests of yesteryear. China has become and that by some distance, the world's largest network of high-speed railways.
No fewer than 23,500 miles (37,900 kilometers) of lines crisscross the country, linking all major cities, have all been completed since 2008.
Admirably, it took the Chinese half of that total to complete in the last five years alone, with a further 3,700 kilometers that were due to open in the coming months of 2021. The network is expected to double in length again, to 70,000 kilometers, by 2035.
With maximum speeds of 350 kph (217 mph) on many lines, intercity travel has been transformed and the dominance of airlines has been broken on the busiest routes.
By 2020, 75% of Chinese cities with a population of 500,000 or more have a high-speed rail link.
Spain, which has Europe's most extensive high-speed network and occupies second place in the global league table, is a minnow in comparison with just over 2,000 miles (3,200 kilometers) of dedicated lines built for operation at over 155 mph (250 kph).
In contrast, the UK currently High Speed 1 (HS1) has just 67 miles (107 kilometers), with HS2 under construction will amount to 150 miles (240 kilometers) while the United States has only one rail route that (just about) qualifies for high-speed status. Amtrak's North East Corridor, where Acela trains currently top out at 149 mph (240 kph) on expensively rebuilt sections of existing line shared with commuter and freight trains.
In Germany, 30 years ago, on June 2, 1991, the first ICE train (ICE 1 – Intercity-Express 1) made its maiden voyage across a German railway between Hamburg and Munich. It could reach speeds of up to 174 mph (280 kph). However, despite being on fourth generation of high-speed service ICE 4 trains, the high-speed rail network of some 808 miles (1,300 kilometers) is still relatively small.
The high-speed rail network in Germany was integrated into Germany’s pre-existing railway network. This means that high-speed ICE trains often have to run on the same lines as slower, regular trains, such as long-distance trains or freight trains, which often leads to delays.
High-speed trains can only travel at a maximum top speed of 186 mph (300kph) on certain specific stretches of railway in Germany, meaning that the ICE 3 + 4 trains are not permitted to travel at their maximum speed of 205 mph (330 kph) in the country.
There are still large gaps in Germany’s high-speed network, which highlights the need for an expansive transport policy that makes rail travel a priority. Despite the federal government taking steps to modernize and improve Germany’s rail network and facilities, with only around 808 miles (1,300 kilometers) of high-speed rail, the situation will continue to have a detrimental effect on certain areas of society, like commuting, or the transportation of goods across the country.
A symbol of economic power.
China's ambition is to make high-speed rail the mode of choice for domestic long-distance travel, but these new railways have a much greater significance. Much like Japan's Shinkansen in the 1960s, they are a symbol of the country's economic power, rapid modernization, growing technological prowess and increasing prosperity. It is also a powerful tool for political influence, social cohesion and not forgetting the integration of regions with distinct cultures into the mainstream.
'It integrates the vast national market,'" says Dr. Olivia Cheung, research fellow at the China Institute of the University of London's School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS).
"It extends beyond just simply connecting existing towns, but existing towns with new mega-towns that are being constructed from scratch. A famous example in which President Xi takes a lot of pride is the Xiong ‘an New Area in Hebei province, around 60 miles southwest of Beijing."
Sounds familiar?
China is indeed repeating railway history; many early railways in North America, Europe and the colonies of the European empires were built with similar goals.
The development of railway networks in Russia, most notably the Trans-Siberian Railway, Prussia, France, Italy and the British Empire, among others, were strongly influenced by political and military demands as well as economic development.
What took decades in the 19th and early 20th centuries is being achieved in just a few years by China.
The Chinese have created an entire high-speed rail network on an unprecedented scale, often faster and certainly more reliable than Chinese domestic flights, which is an argument for a more friendly environment.
Impressive is not only the sheer size of some of the new stations, but also the efficiency with which the system moves vast numbers of people, all with a reserved seat and increasingly without the need for paper tickets. Once booked, a swipe of your ID card or passport at the ticket gates is all you need to travel. Fares start from as little as $13.
China initially relied on high-speed technology imported from Europe and Japan to establish its network. Global rail engineering giants such as Bombardier, Alstom and Mitsubishi were understandably keen to co-operate, given the potential size of the new market and China's ambitious plans.
However, over the last decade, it is domestic companies that have developed into world leaders in high-speed train technology and engineering, thanks to the astonishing expansion of their home network, despite its tremendous variations in terrain, geology and climate have presented the country's railway engineers with incredible challenges. China's engineers have quickly developed extensive expertise in driving railways over, under and through whatever terrain lies in their path.
For anyone used to the scope of traditional railway projects, the statistics mentioned below are mind boggling.
Construction of the 506 miles (815 kilometer), $13.5 billion Zhengzhou East-Wangzhou line was completed in less than five years.
When the new 112 miles (180 kilometer) Xuzhou-Lianyungang line opened in February, it completed a continuous 2,169 miles (3,490 kilometer) high-speed rail connection between Jiangsu province and Urumqi, in the Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region.
Heading north from the capital, trains now complete the 1,056 miles (1,700 kilometer) Beijing-Harbin route in just five hours, requiring an average speed of 212 mph (340 kph).
By late 2020, China National Railways was operating more than 9,600 high-speed trains per day, including the world's only high-speed overnight sleeper services on selected longer-distance routes.
On some routes, more than 80% of the track is elevated, soaring above densely packed cities and valuable agricultural land on endless concrete viaducts. More than 100 tunnels, each over 6.21 miles (10 kilometers), have also been bored, along with spectacular long-span bridges thrown over natural obstacles such as the Yangtze River.
On the other hand, the “Willy Brandt International Airport” in Berlin (Germany) was and is also mind boggling, First dreamed up in 1990, shortly after the fall of the Berlin Wall and German reunification, it took six years to settle on a spot to build. The official groundbreaking didn't happen for another decade.
It finally did open on the 31 October 2020, 14 years after construction started and 29 years after official planning was launched. Critics wondered whether an airport designed in the early 2000s is compatible with the technology and travel habits of 2020 and beyond?
Germany's rail company, Deutsche Bahn, had no immediate plans to offer a high-speed rail connection, as other major German airports enjoy. Just one long-distance train will stop at Berlin; otherwise, passengers will have to take commuter or regional rail into Berlin and change at the central station for onward travel or go the climate-unfriendly route by connecting to a domestic flight.
Government officials including Chancellor Angela Merkel had to face some travel inconvenience, too. When Germany moved its capital from Bonn to Berlin after reunification, its fleet of aircraft did not come along, due to lack of space at Berlin's smaller airports.
The new Airport was supposed to change that, but Germany's armed forces, the Bundeswehr, says there is only enough space to keep seven of its 19 planes there. The rest will have to keep flying in, empty, from the Cologne-Bonn Airport, from the other side of the country, to pick up VIP passengers, much to the dismay of climate activists and government accountants. Well at least it is new!
China teaches the West a high-tech demonstration in efficiency.
Not satisfied with pushing the boundaries of speed, endurance and civil engineering, Chinese companies are among the first in the world to introduce new technology such as autonomous (driverless) train operation and advanced signaling and control technology.
These so-called “bullet trains” which for example connects Beijing and Zhangjiakou in northern Hebei province can reach speeds of up to 217 mph (350 kph), making them the world's fastest autonomous trains.
The new route, opened in December 2019 as part of preparations for the Beijing 2022 Winter Olympic and Paralympic Games, has reduced travel time for the 108 miles (174 kilometer) journey from three hours to less than 60 minutes. The fastest trains complete the trip in just 45 minutes.
Built in just four years, the line has 10 stations serving two of the major Winter Games venues, plus another at Badaling Changcheng providing faster access for tourists to the Great Wall of China. The latter is the world's deepest high-speed railway station, situated 102 meters (335 feet) underground.
Passenger saloons on the autonomous trains have expanded storage areas for winter sports equipment, seats with 5G touchscreen control panels, intelligent lighting, thousands of safety sensors and removable seats for passengers in wheelchairs. Facial-recognition technology and robots are used in stations to assist travelers with navigation, luggage, and check-in.
Enormous new stations serving the major cities on the high-speed network are more reminiscent of airport terminals, with acres of spotless polished marble and glass, enormous information screens and lounges where passengers are held until their train is called. No loitering on cold and windy platforms here!
The new Olympic line gives some clues as to the future direction of rail travel in China and beyond, but technological boundaries are also being pushed in other areas.
In late 2020, China's state-owned rail engineering colossus CRRC, examined a prototype of a very high-speed electric train designed for international routes capable of operating and not just reaching speeds as high as 249 mph (400 kph). Not only is it claimed to operate in temperatures ranging between -50C and +50C, it features newly developed gauge changing wheelsets that will allow it to run direct into Russia, Mongolia and Kazakhstan, which use a wider track gauge than China's standard 1,435 mm. More ambitiously, the ability to change gauges could also create the possibility for direct trains to India and Pakistan via Myanmar and Bangladesh.
Although its trains are now among the fastest in the world, China is also spending billions of dollars on maglev (magnetic levitation) technology, which will allow it to operate passenger services at up to 385 mph (620 kph), well beyond the current limits of steel wheels on steel rails.
Germany had developed the Transrapid, a maglev train system. The Transrapid reaches speeds of up to 340 mph (550 kph). The Emsland (lower saxony) test facility, with a total length of 19.6 miles (31.5 km), operated in until 2011 when it was closed and in 2012 its demolition was approved!
Two lines are currently under construction totaling around 170 miles (274 kilometers), Shanghai-Hangzhou in Zhejiang province and a 68 mile (110 kilometers) underground route linking Guangzhou and Shenzhen, the two biggest cities in the densely populated Pearl River Delta region. It is expected that the latter will eventually extend to Kowloon in the former British territory of Hong Kong.
These projects build on experience gained with the German-backed Shanghai Airport maglev line, which opened in 2003, and is currently the only line of its kind in public operation.
Taking a typically pragmatic approach to raising the speed of land transport, China sees maglev as a better option than the much hyped, but unproven Hyperloop for bridging the gap between high-speed rail and air on long-distance routes.
Meanwhile whilst the UK argued about building the High Speed 2 network, China has created a nationwide high-speed-network.
=========================================================================
21.03.2021
Corona Virus is a mystery.
Even a year on, do you belong to the group of people, who do not know where you stand concerning this subject? Do you believe or not believe that an epidemic or pandemic is taking place? Is there a hidden agenda, or is it just pure nonsense?
Now the word Pandemic, derives from the Greek “Pan” meaning All and “Demos” meaning people. So, the whole people. In Germany, the rules applies: if around ten to twenty percent of the population falls ill to a certain disease, then it is an epidemic. If it effects the whole world, then it is a Pandemic.
The current population of Germany is 83,974,794 as of Friday, March 19, 2021. On the 19. March 2021 there were 15.476 new cases registered. (source: JHU, CSSE COVID-19 Data.) bringing it up to a total of 2.654.734. That’s ca. 3.2 % of the population, that have or are suspected of having Covid-19 according to these rules and figures, it is not justifiable to call it an Epidemic. The Worldwide population is 7.9 billion as of March 2021 according to the most recent United Nations estimates elaborated by “Worldometer”. There are presently 121.882.440 cases, that means ca. 1.5% have or are suspected of having Covid-19. You may have noticed that I also mentioned suspected of having, this is due to the fact, that there are such things when testing as false positives.
Do we have a health crisis problem? Sadly, many people have died with and only from Covid-19. Despite being a year on into the “epidemic”, we still have no transparency from our respective governments. Do these figures really certify an Epidemic or a Pandemic? Cancer and cancer related deaths worldwide amounted to 10.000.000 announced in March 2021 on the WHO Website. 442.000.000 people have Diabetes Worldwide and deaths relating to this, amount to 1.600.000 a year and are steadily increasing. All these deaths are very tragic, but here I am just comparing our Covid-19 Epidemic deaths to other causes of death worldwide. Those awful pictures that the Media showed us, of all those coffins being stacked up, the overfilled hospitals, how many people have died are still very much present in our minds but yet, the German newspaper FAZ (Frankfurter Allgemeine) on the 20th July 2020 had the headline “Undertakers in short-time work!” How could that be? a Funeral Parlor is registering short-time work and the workers are receiving allowances? I know it sounds macabre, but for the Funeral Parlor “Frye” from Frankfurt it was reality. Apparently, the family business with two locations has existed since 1971, and business has not been as slow as it is now for a long time.
“Far fewer people have died than usual” said the owner Karin Frye. “As nice as that is, it means a terrible loss for us.”
Frye usually takes care of fifteen funerals a month, but since the “pandemic” broke out in late February 2020, there have been only five. That is why she has sent her employees on short-time work.
“Two-thirds less income, and the costs remain the same,” complained Frye.
You can read it here:
A month later the, the NRZ (Neue Ruhr Zeitung) reported on the 20.08.2020, that according to the Funeral Parlors in the region NRW (North Rhine Westphalia), between June and July, fewer people have died, than in the previous year, same timeframe, despite the Corona “pandemic”.
A very close person to me, was unfortunately committed into hospital after having a circulatory collapse, he was weak and had suffered temporary memory loss and so they decided to take him to hospital. Apart from having a clot, and his heart being weak, surgery would be required soon for a pacemaker implant. When he told me that he was also tested positive for Corona, I feared for the worse. It was not without cause, I mean a man in his late seventies, had just undergone a circulatory collapse, weak and needing a pacemaker for his heart. You would think that another severe battle awaits him. Well, I am very pleased to say, that he did not even cough. Is that circumstantial of just another case of a false positive or does his immune system seem to be “nuclear”? I ask provocatively. Admittedly I am no medic, so please do not take my word for it. I have no medical experience or indeed a medical declaration as to why?
There are still many questions left unanswered and some are not easy to answer. I am still at the crossroads, I do not know which way to turn, frankly I do not know what to believe in. Do you?
I wrote back in December 2020 in my Blog, about whether the vaccination for Covid-19 will be obligatory or not.
Let’s imagine, that I decided not to get vaccinated. What consequences will most probably take place? Politicians argue that it is our civil duty to get vaccinated. How would employers act towards you? Assume that your employer says, it is your decision, we have no problem how you chose. The next logical step would be, how would your colleagues at work react towards you? I am sure, that you would be subject to mobbing. What about going into the canteen? What about your children? You cannot attend, school sports etc. unless you have the jab. You might not even be allowed to board a plane or ship to go on holidays. No, you are not obligated, but it is well worth your while getting the jab.
Thousands of people nationwide protested against Corona measures. Why is it, that on the 19th March, many demonstrations throughout Germany took place and the mainstream TV did not report on this? Programs like RTL etc. Thousands took to the street of Dresden. 12 Policemen were injured, and 47 offenses were committed. 915 people were told to leave, 943 reports of infringement against the Corona regulations of Sachsen. There were about 1800 Police there. In Stuttgart hundreds demonstrated against a year of Lockdown politics, regarding the closing of schools, Isolation, and bankruptcies and all under the motto “That’s Enough”. In Hannover, there were 800 demonstrating under the same motto “That’s Enough”. In Berlin up to a thousand and at the Düsseldorf state parliament, around 2000 people, as well as a motor home parade. The people there held a large banner which read,”Begeht Gedankenverbrechen” (Committing crimes for thinking). In Munich, police split up a demonstration of several thousand people in the near of the Bavarian state parliament, due to not sticking to the regulations of Corona like social distancing and some not wearing masks and finally, the permitted number of participants had been exceeded. On the 19th March, I noticed that in demonstrations for “Friday for Future” were not intervened due to some of the above reasons. Why?
The following day however, Euronews (DE) mentioned, that in the Netherlands a demonstration took place, where people were arrested, and police were injured. Still no mention of what took place in Germany. Even a couple of days later, no mention of the other demonstrations though. Why is that?
What did some of our local politicians say to the Corona demonstrations? Well they did not say, but tweeted, as this was only covered on social media. Nothing was mentioned about peoples worries and their disillusions of the Covid-19 politics. Here what was mentioned:
“So-called "Querdenkers" (lateral thinkers) show their true colors: Violent extremists at work.”
Saxony’ CDU General Secretary Alexander Dierks.
Saxony’s SPD leader and deputy of government Martin Dulig expressed his shock. “Everyone who takes part in this forbidden demo is committing crimes. Corona is not stopped this way, on the contrary! Here we are playing with everybody’s health”.
On ZDF’s internet side, they wrote:
“A year after the start of the pandemic in Germany, the Stuttgart-based initiative “Lateral Thinking” called for demonstrations across the country for Saturday, 13.03.2021. At their meetings in the past year, conspiracy theoretical speeches were loud and right-wing extremists mingled with the demo participants.”
I think that the reporting is biased and not fair. When the Media report about football hooligans attacking the police, fighting, destroying premises, causing chaos, they are particularly careful to differentiate and say, “they are not fans” or “it is just a minority of the fans, a true fan would not do that”. Yes, they are quite right, but I am sure that there were many legitimate demonstrators that took their thoughts and sorrows to the streets of Germany and elsewhere. It seems that the government is worried that even more of the public will start to think for themselves, and admittingly being in agreement with the protestors. Events like these are not often covered by the mainstream media or the big players in German politics, either mentioning nothing or concentrating only when applicable to extreme-right wing supporters who used this demonstration to obtain a platform, note, that they do not use the words "minority of protestors".
However, after living over 30 years in Germany, people are beginning not to be blinded from politicians, trying to talk of past topics, intending them to feel guilty and in being in danger of repeating the times, that left Germany with a bloody stain on its recent history. I waited five days to see if the prime-time television would bring this up. Unfortunately, not. The following day however, the TV news channel, Euronews (German Version) did mentioned, that in the Netherlands a demonstration took place, where people were arrested, and police were injured. This was not the first time there a been demonstrations in the Netherlands this year, in fact in January 2021, the Netherlands, together with Belgium, Slovenia, Czechia, Austria, Hungary and Bulgaria all had demonstrations. On the 30th January people gathered in Denmark’s second largest city Arhus protesting against restrictions being imposed.
Just want to add something about people thinking differently. It was reported in the German newspaper FAZ (Frankfurter Allgemeine) in Internet on the 11th January at 11:56 am, that Bavaria`s first Minister Markus Söder warned against extremism in the population. He speaks of terror groups that could form and calls it “a kind of Corona-RAF”.
For those of you, who have not heard of the “RAF”, they were a German extreme left terroristic group, called “The Red Army Faction”. (Die Rote Armee Fraktion), maybe the name “Ulrike Meinhof” might jog your memory. The Red Army Faction was a left-wing extremist terrorist organization in Germany. That is what he publicly said, now if he is truthfully worried about this, how many people is he putting fear into?
Today, the 21st March on Euro news, there have been reports of Demonstrators, who almost simultaneously, took to the streets in their thousands in several European countries to express their rejection of the corona restrictions. Protestors clashing with police in London. It was not just only in London, but in other European cities of Austria, Croatia, Serbia, Romania, Sweden, Finland, and Switzerland. One also caught a glimpse of a banner with the words, “Stop Reset.” In Stockholm a banner being held up, read, “MEDIA IS THE VIRUS”. Before the Helsinki rally, some 300 people chanting slogans like “Let the people speak!” and carrying placards with phrases such as “Facts and numbers don’t add up” marched through the streets of the city, ending up at the parliament building. The police said that social distancing was not being observed. In Germany, there were 20.000 demonstrators, journalists reported, that the majority of the protestors were not wearing masks. The police used pepper spray and then later the water cannon. There was also critic, that the police did not at times intervene against the corona deniers. Several reporters reported of violent attacks on the press. This all took place on Saturday the 20th March. Again, I am going to make a point of watching prime-time News on TV, to see how it is covered, if at all.
Sometimes you cannot help feeling, whether if this is a scare mongering campaign for other purposes which we do not know about? What other purposes? Some answer this with “Agenda Reset 2030”, but that is another topic, for another time.
Why is it, that the Media, whether being in Germany, France or Spain etc. seem to be showing the same Information on their news channels? Every day, they show, how many people have died, how many have been infected, how many are in Intensive care? This has been a daily report for over a year. At times, there seems to be no other news out there.
Why are the Media not listening to the people? Where is the investigative journalism? Where is a reporter personality like Bob Woodward (Watergate Affair, which bought down Nixon), or award-winning journalist Christiane Amanpor, a British-Iranian journalist? These are just a couple to mention. Even Günther Wallraff, who happens to be Germany’s most famous investigative journalist. Where are they?
Journalists do have Ethical responsibilities. Some aspects of a journalist's job are not subject to any kind of law but are just as important. Journalists must strive to present an accurate, well-balanced explanation of the stories they cover. For example, they have an obligation to present all sides of an issue, and to conduct extensive research and talk to several sources knowledgeable about the subject. If they present only popular or government opinion, or if they conduct minimal research without fully exploring the subject, they don't give readers and viewers the information they need to understand the implications of the event or issue. Why do you hold back? Educate us!
With regards to the government, well, the people put them there and the people can take them away. Exercise your right, as long as you have the right to do so. Remember, how the EU governing bodies are all set up, you as the public have no say in it whatsoever.
The Media and politicians seem to forget that, nobody has a monopoly on political wisdom. A refusal to listen to competing arguments, an exercise in arrogance, rests on the assumption that we have nothing to learn from our fellow citizens. The beliefs of our democracy reject the concept of human infallibility and reflect the understanding that public policy can be improved through the process of discussion. Listening to an opposing position or dissenting opinion may lead us to reconsider the merits of our own position and, perhaps, affirm the strength of our convictions. Alternatively, it may also persuade us to recognize the deficiencies in our position and improve upon it or embrace a different view. Everyone gains when we participate in this educational process
==============================================================
13.01.2021
China and the EU agree on investments agreements
(Top l-r) Xi Jinping, President from China, Charles Michel, President of the European Council,Chancellor Angela Merkel (Below l-r), Emmanuel Macron, President von Frankreich, und Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission, during a video conference.
Source: Johanna Geron/dpa
The agreement is intended to improve market access for European companies in China, ensure fair competition and open new business opportunities
China had made surprising concessions
“The world after the pandemic needs a strong relationship between the EU and China,” wrote Commission President von der Leyen on Twitter. “But that requires cooperation and trust, also in trade and investment.” The EU has the largest open market in the world. “But we value reciprocity and fair competition.”
Who do you think, you are kidding Ms. von der Leyen? There are no shared values to a country with such a horrific record on Human Rights and Democracy and you and the EU-Electorate know that. Look no further than its political opponents in the so-called free Hong Kong, with its “two party system” and not forgetting the country’s massive enslavement of its Muslim minorities.
The breakthrough came after China made new promises on labor rights. The communist leadership has promised to undertake “permanent and sustained efforts” to ratify two conventions of the international labor organization ILO against forced labor, according to an internal briefing to the EU member states.
This may seem as something of a marvelous concession, however this also is deceptive, because it provides absolutely no certainty of the EU enforcing these standards, let alone ensuring Chinese compliance of them.
I do not think that Joe Biden’s administration will be fooled by the EU, claiming to be friends of the Americans and valuing the values of freedom, liberty and democracy whilst helping themselves to a big slice of Chinese cake. For years now we have been feeding that beast that one day will eat us!
It is not that long ago, when the EU were demanding time and time again during the Brexit talks, a “Level Playing Field” It’s a term we’ve heard a lot over the past year. The level playing field is a trade-policy term for a set of common rules and standards that prevent businesses in one country gaining a competitive advantage over those operating in other countries previsions on labour standards, environmental and rules and regulations that cover environmental standards such as restrictions on the amount of pollution certain industrial processes are allowed to produce. and labour law and on the other side of the table you have China, with its market rigging, its terrorization of Hong Kong and its attempt to destabilize the West. Human Rights has already been mentioned. One can quickly conclude that the EU do not care for their values, but for their own commercial interest, led by the people shown in the photo above.
In 2020, an average of 1.5 billion euros in goods were traded between the two sides.
Unfortunately, that seems to be price of their values.
=================================================================
21.12.2020
Deal or No Deal?
Its always the French!
The UK's applications to join in 1963 and 1967 were vetoed by the President of France, Charles de Gaulle.
In 2020, France (Macron) has warned that it will veto any trade deal between the EU and UK unless it meets its requirements. That also is "Cherry Picking."
=================================================================
21.11.2020
"Habemus Corona Vaccination"
A vaccine finally seems to be on the horizon! After so many battles and many victims against Covid 19, we can now win this war. It's time to be positive and hope, or is it
What do we know about this vaccine or, in other words, what do they not tell us?
We know this vaccine has to be stored at -72 degrees. Besides being a logistical nightmare, the distribution points require freezers. Where are the distribution points? Hospitals, clinics, barracks or even our family doctor? Are the freezers delivered to the general practitioners?
i think they made it clear to us who got what first with whom. But I believe that the main politicians, starting with the Minister of Health, should be the first to be injected with the vaccine, which shows their belief in the vaccine. Set a good example. That gives the public confidence.
What are they not telling us?
What does the vaccine do? Well, it prevents the disease from breaking out in us, it fights it. However, it does not prevent us from getting infected with the disease. What still needs to be clarified is, are we then carriers of this virus and thus spread it further?
Will it be mandatory?
They say no, but my understanding says it is more than likely it will?
I wouldn't be surprised if they started with a so-called "light" version. Obligatory for educational institutions, retirement homes and hospitals, as well as the associated staff. Gastronomy, food establishments. Followed by, travellers and the tourism industry, a sort of vacccination booklet
Transparency.
As before, where is the transparency? We can't have a say, or do you know, of the total dead, how many died with or from Covid?
The dead, the infected that are treated at home, those in intensive care units, and most recently those who have been infected but are not showing any symptoms. How old are they? Are there more men than women? More adults than children? Even races (may we say that?), although all can be affected, is it evenly spread? or, for example are Asians more affected than Hispanics, or are there more North Europeans or South Europeans? Were the infected, healthy prior to contracting it? Did autopsies take place of all the deceased to bring about the statistics?
The above might shock you, but I am someone who would like to know in order to understand Covid and the measures chosen by our government to fight this virus.
Stay healthy.
=================================================================
14.11.2020
Time to say goodbye Mr. President.
Donald Trump it is time to go. I know you are somebody who does not like to lose, but hey you lost the count. Go now gracefully, it will do you good.
You will become another Ex-President. Yes you lost the count, but what millions of people around the globe do not realize, mainly due to the reporting of the evermore becoming “Left” Media is that you are still very popular and it will not surprise me if you will try once again or more than likely support either your daughter or son in the next Presidential election. Presently, I truly believe in that.
People may laugh, or in some cases cry, but I generally observe and take in, what sometimes the majority will not like to toil with. Where are my arguments supporting these thoughts?
Trump is very popular, despite the Media, CNN, CBS, Washington Post, etc. All left leaning news outlets, have been bashing him since he was a candidate and specifically in his term of office, made a killing in sales, even Ex-Presidents, Film stars and other stars made their opinions publicly known about him. There was/is still a lot of hate.
In my opinion, the Republicans not the Democrats won. Why? Who has the Senate? The Republicans, and that is sometimes more important than who is sleeping in the White House.
Interesting to see, what will become of the Media now, their Top Sales incentivator (if I may use that word) is no longer there. What will they do now? You see most of the Media in the US, CNN, CBS, NBC, ABC all lean to the left, the American public really have no alternative other than FOX. Who do they turn to, when they have other thoughts or are open to other qualified opinions?
I found this in Wikipedia, which I found interesting:
“A May 2017 study from Harvard University's Kennedy School’s Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy of Trump's first 100 days in office identified a negative tone in coverage. The study found that 93% of CNN & NBC coverage of President Trump during the period was negative. The survey also found 91% of CBS coverage was negative and that 87% of New York Times coverage was negative during Trump's first 100 days. Research finds that Fox News increases Republican votes and makes Republican politicians more partisan.
An October 2018 Rasmussen Reports poll of 1,000 likely voters found 45% of Americans believed that when most reporters write about a congressional race, they are trying to help the Democratic candidate. Alternatively, only 11% believed that most reporters aimed to help Republican candidates.”
================================================
08.11.2020
Thank you Media!
Well we finally know who the President is.
I cannot remember when it took so long, or how biased the Media, has been. By biased I must say TV Programs, like here in Germany or even Sky News in the UK.
Okay I get it, Donald Trump is no Statesmen, his manner and style truly upset people. But he does understand the ordinary people, how they are pushed aside from the big corporates. That is why maybe why he is not at ease with a Lockdown. If you cannot go shopping, what are you most likely to do? Shop via Internet and how profitable will this be for Amazon? Remember, over 69 million people voted for him. That is more than the population of France, Spain or Italy and I am no means a supporter of his or indeed Joe Biden, In fact, I find it very disturbing, that such a great country like the United States with a vast population, can only come up with these two candidates. One of them is 77 years old! Maybe it is because nobody wants the job anymore.
But what I do not like. Is how the Media have been one sided all the way, well ever since back in 2016, They were against Trump from the start. Do you remember how they accused the Russians of tampering, meddling with the votes? Without haven any proof and then have the audacity, years later to ridicule Trump when he says there is something not correct with the votes coming in by mail. They should not be counted. The Media said he has no proof and still he is saying these things in public. Well just like you guys did a few years back. The Media and others could bring no proof of that throughout his Presidency, the Media were also part of trying to get him impeached. It did not work out and why? Well just like the same also goes now for Donald Trump, if you accuse somebody of electoral fraud, you must prove it. Politicians here in Germany, were going on about Donald Trump breaking the electoral democratic way.
Why is Donald Trump and his campaign team, against all these late votes being counted? Well they are Postal Votes, and this system is open to fraud.
The once Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Tony Blair, introduced to his fellow citizens, Postal Voting. Now it was back then as indeed now very controversial, open to manipulation, there were problems of verification. In the last past twenty years or so, because of this a number of people across the country, including Tower Hamlet (There were 164 allegations of electoral fraud and malpractice during the 2014 electoral votes) and then, there was that scandal in Birmingham, where a Warehouse was being used as a fraud factory. Three Labour candidates for the Aston ward, Birmingham, were caught “red handed”, carrying out postal fraud and altering ballot papers. They were also filling in blank papers which they had collected from householders.
The presiding Judge identified 15 types of fraud which included thousand of votes in favour of Labour where the signature of the purported voter differed from that on the application for a postal vote and wholesale theft of ballot papers which corrupt Postmen had handed over sacks of postal ballots to Labour candidates. Young boys had been paid to steal postal ballots from letterboxes and that bags full of postal votes had arrived late for the count, but where included without question in the Poll. Does the latter sound familiar? Could this happen elsewhere? No, we live in a true democracy.
France does not allow Postal Voting, because they are aware of the risks.
Now, if the Republicans find evidence and it goes to the Supreme Court, what will happen? I do not know. Will there at all be a President for the inauguration on January the 20th? I do not know. I can say this though, if there is not a President at this time, then Donald Trump will stay where he is, due to the 12th Amendment of the US Constitution.
Another thing the Media said here in Germany, was that the US Stock Exchange, started to do well as soon as Joe Biden started making progress. In fact what they hid from you, was the fact that the Stock Exchange were responding well, because of the fact, that the Democrats did not have the Senat, and therefore the market knew that Joe Biden would not be able to get his massive Tax heists and other damaging economic (socialist) measures through.
I also find it strange, how the Media have not been showing us all the facts, they so like to do and shown us the side of Joe Biden, which can be worrying. What side? Well let’s put aside that he is 77 years old. What about his mental state? When asked about his mental state, Joe Biden got not finish the sentence of his answer. He called Donald Trump George (Bush), in one of his speeches to become President, he said that he was applying for the Senator Post.
There is also something else that I find can be quite disturbing nowadays. He tends to touch women, when clearly, they are very uncomfortable with it, He does not even stop at children. I wonder how the people are going to react to that, if he does it as President.
Here are some links in You Tube. See for yourselves.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-iSAh3haVtY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPr28nAuaaQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q61PwdaWr2I
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NuIjn6EEIV8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q61PwdaWr2I
No matter what, the next Presidency will be interesting.
=========================================================================
07.08.2020
Scottish schoolchildren are to set to protest outside the SQA headquarters in Glasgow over their 'postcode lottery' exam results.
What are the schoolchildren complaining about? Well it seems enough to gather in the city centre today over accusations that pupils were downgraded because of their school's past achievements than personal predictions.
As you may know, pupils had an exam-free academic year after schools were closed during the coronavirus pandemic.
The past rate for students coming from the most deprived areas was reduced by 15.2% from teacher estimates after the exam board's moderation. Unbelievable! Of course this set the parents and pupils off and as they made their feelings known on social media, claiming that had been unfairly targeted because of their school's location, not their ability.
Of course, they are being wrongfully graded down on their results because their schools, obviously from those affected, are located in areas of deprivation.
Ms. Nicola Sturgeon (SNP), the nationalist First Minister, has in fact defended the SQA amid the controversial results after the 'moderation' process reduced the pass rate of the poorest Higher pupils by more than twice of the richest. Meanwhile pupils from the most affluent backgrounds had their past rate dropped by 6,9%.
But, the First Minister insisted the system helped to maintain the, wait for it..'credibility' of results. She also added that without the moderation, a 19,8% increase of the pass rate among the poorest fifth of pupils would have been "unprecedented and therefore not credible".
And before I forget, those attending have been informed on the importance of social distancing and the wearing of face coverings.
And before I forget, those attending have been informed on the importance of social distancing and the wearing of face coverings.
Well there you have it!
===============================================
28.07.2020
Spain could get
€140 billion from EU’s Covid-19 recovery plan, if the EU Parliament gives its
thumbs up.
Spain could be assigned €77 billion in grants and €63
billion in loans from a €750 billion Covid-19 recovery program that was
announced by the European Commission on Wednesday 22nd July.
EU sources said that Spain may be getting a total of €140 billion to help prop up its economy, which is expected to contract by anywhere between 9% and 13% as a result of the coronavirus lockdown, according to the Bank of Spain.
This would indeed make Spain the second top beneficiary of the financial assistance after Italy, EU sources told the EFE news agency.
The biggest question is, will this money be placed where it desperately required or will the big business and government, being either national or regional also get there slice of the cake?
By year 2050, according to the Department of Economic and
Social Affairs of the UN, it is estimated that there will be 9.8 billion people
living on this planet. Feeding these people will mean massive changes in the
production, distribution, and stability of food products. Some countries can
think more about producing and using more its own produce, to help the climate
and environment. Another important aspect is that cropland and population are
not uniformly distributed. For example, China has only 1.4% of the world’s
productive land but 20-25% of the world’s population.
By consuming more local produce, than exotic fruit and
vegetables you are playing more of a part, towards climate and environment than
you realized and smile the next time a cow lets out wind.
I am all for protecting our planet and still confused with the activists and the government and warning from the experts around our globe about the dangers of climate change.
Despite the high level of sophistication of the safety systems of nuclear power plants the human aspect has always an impact. Facing an unexpected event or managing a nuclear accident like Chernobyl (indecently, the worst nuclear accident in history) or Fukushima, where wrong decisions were made during the management and highly questionable operations carried out were so catastrophic, that led to countries thinking twice about nuclear energy and some have or plan to close nuclear plants.
One of the main disadvantages is the difficulty in the management of nuclear waste. It takes many years to eliminate its radioactivity and risks
As stated before, I believe that we can reach necessary reductions of greenhouse gas emissions by utilizing new technology and introducing new ways of thinking. We should not solve it by doing less, we should solve it by doing more. A European country has shown how it should have been tackled whilst constantly innovating. That country is Sweden.
Sweden’s reputation as an environmental pioneer began with a number of proactive moves as far back to the 1960s and 1970s. Recognising a loss of limited natural resources, Sweden was the first country to establish an environmental protection agency, and that in 1967!
In 1972 Sweden hosted the first UN conference on the environment, which led to the creation of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the leading global environmental authority to this day.
The Stockholm Convention (2001), a global treaty aimed at phasing out the production and use of persistent organic pollutants, was largely a Swedish initiative. Waste management, acid rain prevention, sustainable city planning, and recycling are other environmental areas in which Sweden have made progressive headway and challenged the status quo.
Sweden continues to create momentum and is looking to intensify negotiations at international settings such as the annual United Nations Climate Change Conference. Sweden’s stance is that a sustainable and secure energy supply is best achieved by focusing on long-term energy efficiency and a greater supply of renewable energy.
Perhaps what sets Sweden apart is a combination of citizen engagement, high ambition levels and international solidarity. Even when ranked as one of the most sustainable countries in a number of international indices, the focus is not on what has been accomplished but rather on what remains to be done.
Largely this comes from a public that is keenly aware of and concerned with environmental issues and used to stand up for its own clean water and air. Air pollution (PM10) in urban areas of Sweden is at 10.2 micrograms per cubic metre compared with the OECD average of 20.1. In the 2015 Standard Eurobarometer survey, 26 per cent of Swedes note environment and climate change as a main concern, compared with 6 per cent at EU level.
Climate change caused by the emission of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases is one of the foremost global environment problems today. Since Sweden accounts for less than 0.2 per cent of total global emissions, the country could easily have gone unnoticed in the climate debate. Instead, Sweden has chosen to do more than many other countries on issues regarding energy and the climate.
Recognising that scientific research has become more uniform in its message about climate change resulting from human activity, the government is continuing to set clear domestic goals for the future regarding pollution, clean air, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and energy efficiency.
Sweden’s goal to reduce GHG emissions compared with 1990 by 40 per cent by the year 2020, and to have a vehicle fleet completely rid of fossil fuels by 2030 are stepping stones to the overarching goal of a society with no net GHG emissions by the year 2050.
That is Sweden’s commitment under Roadmap 2050, an EU initiative whose objective is to reduce GHG emissions by at least 80 per cent below 1990 levels for all of EU.
To accomplish the 40 per cent reduction in GHG emissions by 2020, emissions would need to decline by an additional 20 million tonnes. According to current projections, emissions will have decreased by about 16 million tonnes in 2020, so in order to speed up the reduction the government has to come up with more drastic measures.
Looking further ahead, however, a recent study by the Swedish National Institute of Economic Research found that Sweden has strong chances of reaching the 2050 goal, thanks both to developments in the economy and to political incentives.
Besides moving to less carbon-intensive means of producing energy, efficiency has been a major focus in Sweden. By 2020 the government goal is to make energy use 20 per cent more effective compared with 2008.
One move first introduced in 2005 has been to offer tax reliefs to power-intensive industries in exchange for their drawing up energy plans and taking steps to reduce energy use.
For households, government information on how to save energy is widely available. Each municipality – there are 290 in Sweden – has an energy adviser to whom people can turn for help and guidance. Advice is available on topics such as replacing windows, using low-energy lights and switching to different heating systems.
Another way in which Sweden is trying to lead the way to a more sustainable planet is through innovative sustainable solutions. Expenditure on R&D (research and development) represented 3.3 per cent of GDP in 2013, the fourth highest percentage in the OECD.
According to the OECD Environmental Performance Review 2014, Sweden is one of the most innovative countries when it comes to environment-related technology. Investments in environmental R&D have made Sweden an innovation leader for several clean energy technologies, including biofuels, smart grids and carbon capture and storage.
As a result of these investments, Sweden has developed a competitive advantage in technologies related to sustainability. In 2014, Sweden ranked fourth in the Global Cleantech Innovation Index.
In the mid-1990s, Stockholm decided to turn former industrial area Hammarby into a forerunner of sustainable city planning. Sustainability was incorporated into all aspects of the new neighbourhood Hammarby Sjöstad, from smart electric grids to public transport, bike friendliness and waste management.
The regeneration of a similar depreciating area in Malmö called Västra hamnen (Western Harbour) began in 2001.
Today, it is a carbon-neutral neighbourhood. Taking city planning to new green heights, the district uses an aquifer thermal energy storage system to store water collected during the summer and pump it up with wind energy to heat the homes during the winter. The chilled water is then reused to cool buildings in the summer.
Volvo Group
• Developing truck prototypes with substantially lower fuel consumption compared with a corresponding truck today.
• Volvo CE will develop and demonstrate technologies with considerable efficiency improvements.
• Encourage and help ten selected suppliers to improve energy efficiency.
• Starting up a so-called City Mobility concept in at least five cities. City Mobility is the collective term for an offering in which Volvo Buses collaborates with cities and regions to find the best and most energy-efficient public transport solution. One example is to plan for the infrastructure required for electric city buses.
• Hosting the Construction Climate Challenge (CCC) that aims to create a dialogue with construction industry representatives, academia and politicians, as well as providing funding for new research and share existing knowledge and resources to help the industry make a difference for generations to come.
Electric Cars. Lithium-ion is that a solution?
Summary: The case against the proposed Withdrawal Agreement on 1 page
1. We would hand over £39 billion of taxpayer’s money with nothing guaranteed in return. Under the proposal the UK would agree a financial settlement with the EU of c.£39 billion, made up of various elements, including continued EU budget contributions during the transition period (up to December 2020), contributions to unfunded EU commitments and EU pensions. Despite offering this vast sum of British taxpayer’s money the United Kingdom is not guaranteed any future trading arrangements, which are still to be negotiated.
2. The UK will remain a ‘rule taker’ over large areas of EU law. The UK will continue to be bound by EU laws in vital areas such as social policy, environmental policy and employment policy, i.e will obey EU laws, but have no further influence over how they are drafted. We will thus become a ‘rule taker’ and will have surrendered our sovereignty in these critical areas.
3. No exit from a ‘backstop’ Customs Union. The agreement establishes a ‘joint committee’ which will oversee the UK’s ability to proceed to a future trade relationship. If this relationship cannot be agreed by both parties the UK will enter a so called ‘backstop’ Customs Union with the EU, despite many public assurances to the contrary and directly at variance with the Conservative Party’s 2017 General Election manifesto. We could only subsequently leave the Customs Union with the agreement of the EU. While we remain in a Customs Union we would be unable to strike international trade deals without the EU’s permission.
4. The Agreement creates internal borders within the UK. Northern Ireland would become a ‘rule taker’ in further areas such as goods, agricultural products and VAT compared to the rest of the UK. This threatens the internal integrity of the United Kingdom and is completely unacceptable to the Democratic Unionist Party on whom the Conservative Party now rely for a majority in the House of Commons.
5. The European Court of Justice (ECJ) will remain in control of the agreement and large areas of EU law directly effective in the UK. The ECJ will remain as the final arbiter of the agreement and of the EU laws the UK will be subject to.
EU sources said that Spain may be getting a total of €140 billion to help prop up its economy, which is expected to contract by anywhere between 9% and 13% as a result of the coronavirus lockdown, according to the Bank of Spain.
This would indeed make Spain the second top beneficiary of the financial assistance after Italy, EU sources told the EFE news agency.
The biggest question is, will this money be placed where it desperately required or will the big business and government, being either national or regional also get there slice of the cake?
How would you as Citizen of Spain asses the adequacy of Spanish authorities’ anticorruption efforts, and the
impact of ongoing political instability on perceptions of governance and
corruption in Spain?
Surveys suggest that corruption is one of the major concerns for Spanish
citizens, as many as 94% people asked, believed that the problem is widespread.
Political
corruption is a large concern in Spain. Political corruption is defined as the
action or inaction of one or more real persons managing public resources for
their own or a third party's benefit to the detriment of all the citizens they
should serve and benefit.
In July 2018, the European Green Party released an eye-opening report
identifying the costs of corruption across the EU. In Spain, corruption costs
amount to EUR 90 billion annually, or 8% of GDP, according to the report. Now how
does this reflect on the €140 billion recovery plan?
There are many high profile cases in Spain, whether it is “Púnica”, or
“Palau de la Música” even the most famous “Gurtel”. The Púnica, Gurtel and
Palau de la Música cases all have something in common, a lack of oversight of
public officials at the local and regional levels. Spain’s “Watergate Affair,
was “Gurtel” The investigative operation was
given the interesting name Gurtel in a cryptic reference to one of the
principal suspects, a certain Francisco Correa Sánchez (correa as a
Spanish word means belt in English, Gürtel in German).
“Púnica”
Now this case concerned a
kickbacks-for-government-contracts scheme involving local-level political
leaders, mainly members of Spain’s Popular Party (PP), and Spanish businessmen.
The funds defrauded amounted to EUR 250 million over a two-year period,
according to an October 2014 report on Spanish mainstream newspaper “El Mundo”.
Francisco Granados, who served as secretary general of the PP’s Madrid branch
from 2004 to 2011, and David Marjaliza, a businessman and Granados’ friend,
were at the center of the Púnica investigation.
The investigation implicated about 50 individuals and 12 municipalities. In
October 2014, Granados and Marializa were arrested for their roles in the
scheme and were sentenced to pretrial detention. Both men were released on bail
after spending several months in prison. In December 2017, the Spanish National
Court issued a two-year prison sentence against Granados because he had
received a tip from a law enforcement agent about the Púnica investigation. In
March 2019, the Spanish Supreme Court approved the 2017 National Court’s
ruling.
In September 2019, it was reported that former presidents of the Madrid
region Esperanza Aguirre (2003 to 2012) and Cristina Cifuentes (2015 to 2018)
were also being investigated within the context of Púnica for their alleged
involvement in an illegal funding scheme for the Madrid branch of the Popular
Party between 2003 and 2014. The Púnica investigation is still going on.
Palau de la Música
Between 2000 and 2009, Fèlix Millet, president of the Catalan Palace of
Music (Palau de la Música) and his right-hand man and general manager of the
entity, Jordi Montull, defrauded the institution of approximately EUR 23
million. They used the money to pay for extravagant family vacations, their
daughters’ weddings, and home renovations, among other private expenses.
Investigations showed that the Palace was involved in a
kickbacks-for-contracts scheme involving Ferrovial (a leading national
construction conglomerate) and Catalan political party Convergència Democràtica
de Catalunya (CDC). Between 1999 and 2009, Ferrovial paid bribes amounting to
EUR 6.6 million, or 4% of the value of public contracts, which were split as
follows: 2.5% to CDC and 1.5% to Millet and Montull (of which the former kept
80% and the latter 20%).
In January 2018, the Provincial Court of Barcelona sentenced Millet to nine
years and eight months in prison and ordered him to pay a fine of EUR 4.12 million.
Montull was sentenced to seven years and six months and became a EUR 2.9 million
fine. CDC was ordered to reimburse the illegal bribes received; and the party’s
treasurer, Daniel Osàcar, was sentenced to four years in prison and ordered to
pay a EUR 3.7 million fine. Pedro Buenaventura and Juan Elízaga, (Ferrovial
executives) involved in the scheme, were absolved because the statute of
limitations had passed. The case was escalated to the Supreme Court, which has
not yet issued its ruling
Gürtel
The Gürtel case, which has been described as “Spain’s Watergate” this was
another kickbacks-for-contracts scheme, this time involving Spanish businessman
Francisco Correa and local leaders of the PP, mainly in Madrid and Valencia.
Luis Bárcenas, as the PP’s treasurer, was at the center of the scheme. Gürtel
investigators uncovered Bárcenas’ notebooks, which contained details about
bribes paid to PP officials and bribes used to illegally fund the party. The
funds defrauded amounted to EUR 123 million between 1999 and 2005, according to
Spanish business publication "El Confidencial".
Significantly, Mariano Rajoy was called to testify as a witness during the
legal proceedings. Rajoy who was the then sitting Prime Minister, was not
implicated as a co-conspirator, but was called to testify as part of a criminal
investigation.
On May 24, 2018, the Spanish National Court sentenced Correa and Bárcenas
to 51 and 33 years in prison, respectively. Bárcenas was also ordered to pay a
EUR 44 million fine. In all 29 people were convicted including a number of senior
officials from the PP, to a combined 351 years of imprisonment (Politico, May. 2018). The “PP” was ordered to pay a fine of EUR 240,000 because it profited from
the scheme.
A day after the National Court’s ruling, the main opposition party, the
Socialist Party (PSOE), filed a motion of no-confidence against Rajoy, who was
consequently ousted on the 1st June 2019 due to the numerous
findings of corruption in his party.
It was Spain’s biggest corruption case, 40 people
stood trial. Among them several politicians and businessmen, including three
former treasurers of the ruling Popular Party (PP) and even former Prime
Minister Rajoy himself was involved in it, although not as an accused.
Group
of States against Corruption (GRECO) calls for an overall anticorruption
strategy and effective implementation of laws in Spain
In an evaluation report published from the
Council of Europe’s Group of States against Corruption (GRECO) called on Spain
to develop a comprehensive anticorruption strategy, and to improve its legal
framework to prevent corruption in top governmental functions and law
enforcement agencies. This report was published together with a compliance
report acknowledging Spain’s progress in the implementation of its
recommendations on corruption prevention in respect of parliamentarians, judges
and prosecutors, but also calling for further progress.
The report on corruption prevention amongst top
executive functions of government and law enforcement agencies acknowledges
that the Spanish authorities have made positive efforts in recent years to
adopt and amend anticorruption laws and regulations; however, oversight and
accountability are their weakest aspect. A wide gap existed between the
legislation and its implementation in practice.
GRECO recommended making determined improvements on
transparency and conflict of interest prevention for high ranking government
officials, including political advisors – a category of persons which currently
falls into a grey area. It also states that the independence, powers and
resources of the Office for the Conflict of Interest (Oficina de Conflictos de Intereses)
and the Council for Transparency and Good Governance (Consejo de Transparencia y Buen
Gobierno) had to be significantly upgraded.
Furthermore, GRECO also called for stricter rules and
procedures to deal with risks of revolving doors when government officials leave
their functions to work in the private sector and lobbying. Likewise, the
system for criminal responsibility of top officials (aforamiento) should be
reviewed.
As regards law enforcement agencies, GRECO also called
on the National Police and the Civil Guard to improve their internal corruption
prevention mechanisms, particularly through better assessment and management of
risks and the reinforcement of ethical standards and their communication.
Greater transparency, objectivity and fairness are recommended in relation to
career-related processes and the allocation of bonuses, medals and other
benefits.
GRECO trusts that the 19 recommendations included in
its report will assist the Spanish government in its anticorruption agenda. The
implementation of these recommendations will be assessed by GRECO in 2021.
In its follow up report evaluating progress on the
implementation of the 11 recommendations concerning parliamentarians, judges
and prosecutors issued in a 2013 evaluation report, GRECO concluded that due to
the progress achieved, Spain´s level of compliance is no longer “globally
unsatisfactory” and therefore no longer subject to its non-compliance
procedure.
This positive development had taken place following
the steps of Parliament to enhance its integrity framework by adopting ethical
standards and coupling them with a dedicated body for their implementation.
Additional disclosure requirements for deputies were introduced. Nevertheless,
GRECO expects more determined action regarding lobbying regulation.
GRECO also acknowledges several novelties aimed at
infusing greater transparency and accountability into the judicial system. It
however calls for further improvements to be made regarding the appointment
system of the General Council of the Judiciary (CGPJ) and top ranks of the
judiciary.
GRECO concludes that the country has fully implemented
two out of eleven recommendations. Eight recommendations have been partly
implemented and only one recommendation remains not implemented.
Transparency
International Global Corruption Barometer 2013 showed that the surveyed
households consider political parties, Parliament and the judiciary the most
corrupt institutions.
In fact, still the
Spanish population considers corruption their second biggest problem, only
eclipsed by unemployment.
I hope that the
money goes to where it should.
=================================================
13.07.2020
To all the soccer players and Formula 1 drivers that/who took/take the knee:
Why do you attend World Cups or Circuits in some countries that are not known as tolerant towards, Blacks, Gays, Lesbians etc..? Why not take the knee in these countries? Hamilton accused some drivers of being silent, by not taking the knee. Funnily enough these sport stars (including Hamilton) and national associations, are all silent. Are they hypocrites?
=================================================
28.08.1963
Martin Luther King, Jr.
I Have a Dream
delivered 28 August 1963, at the Lincoln Memorial, Washington D.C
"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. "
06.07.2020
How could we get it so wrong. Your children Martin, and your grandchildren, are now being positively judged by millions, just because of their colour of their skin and not by the content of their character.
=================================================
07.08.2019
EU Climate and Energy Policy.
Climate action
is one of the European Union's political priorities. In the Paris Agreement of
2015, the international community committed to limiting global warming to below
two degrees Celsius, or less than 1.5 degrees Celsius if possible, compared to
pre-industrial levels. The goal is to limit the negative impacts of climate
change.
To achieve a climate-friendly
economy, the EU is basing its approach on overarching targets, EU-wide measures
and binding national climate targets. Germany plays an active role in shaping
European climate policy.
US, EU Sign Beef Deal
President Donald
Trump and European Union officials signed an agreement at the White House that
will nearly triple the volume of duty-free beef exports to Europe over time.
Again, what was
the EU’s policy on Climate and Energy? To achieve a climate-friendly economy. Now,
that is a good way to achieve it.
=================================================
03.07.2019
If we want a better
climate and an environment, then we all “have to come clean”.
We are being
confronted with climate and environmental issues every day. On the news or special programs on the tv or radio
and not forgetting the newspapers. Even the youth in Europe are getting
involved, they have responded to the Swedish climate protection activist Greta
Thunberg, whose personal commitment to a consistent climate policy is attracting
international attention. The “School Strikes for the Climate” that she has
triggered has grown into a popular movement, called “Fridays for Future”. Without
permission from their schools, pupils decide not to attend school and demonstrate
through towns and cities like Berlin with other contemporaries. It was
noticeable though, that when the schools broke up for the Easter holidays, no
demonstrations took place. I wonder how many of them flew off to a nice sunny
place with their parents?
How many times have
you heard, that we need to get rid of Diesel Cars, eat less meat etc. There is
however much more to the climate change and environment that we are generally
informed about and is not spoken about, maybe due to diverse lobbies? Who
knows?
Many governments are
encouraging 5G Internet, mentioning that the industry will profit from it. I am
sure that the youth taking part in “Fridays for Future” will also be delighted
in being able to surf in the internet much faster than before.
The plan is, that every
city will be retrofitted with this technology, the side effect is that many
more “Cell Towers” for 5G will be needed than before. All cell towers emit
Radio Frequency (RF) Radiation. 5G cell towers are much more dangerous, than
the previous versions. Why? Well apart
from that 5G has an ultra-high frequency und ultra-high intensity, unfortunately
since the shorter length of millimeter waves (MMV) used in 5G do not travel as
far, (or indeed through objects), with the current number of cell towers available,
the cell signal will not be reliable. To compensate for this, many more mini
cell towers must be installed. Some of you, may even have a 5G mini cell tower.
They are known as WiFi routers. Just
like a cell tower, a WiFi router emits at full power 24 hours a day 7 days a
week, or as long as you have it turned on. A microwave oven uses 2.45 GHz
frequency to cook food. The new 5G WiFi routers that are available now use the
60 GHz, 5 GHz and the 2.4 GHz frequencies. So, having one of those routers is
really like having a 5G mini cell tower inside of your home. 1G, 2G, 3G
and 4G use between 1 to 6 gigahertz frequency. According to Kevin Mottus from
the California Brain Tumor Association, 5G will use between 24 to 90 gigahertz
frequency. Within the RF Radiation portion of the electromagnetic spectrum, the
higher the frequency the more dangerous it is to living organisms.
The dangers of 5G extends to the planet too.
Equally disturbing, 5G technology puts
environmental health at risk in several ways.
First, MMWs may pose a serious threat to
plant health. A 2010 study showed that the leaves of aspen seedlings exposed to RF Radiation
exhibited symptoms of necrosis, while another Armenian study suggested
low-intensity MMV’s cause “peroxidase isoenzyme spectrum changes”–basically a
stress response that damages cells–in wheat shoots. Plant irradiation is bad
news for the planet’s flora, but it’s bad news for us, too: it could contaminate our food supply.
Second, the 5G infrastructure would pose a threat to our planet’s
atmosphere. Network implementation will require the deployment
of many, short-lifespan satellites via suborbital rockets propelled by
hydrocarbon rocket engines. According to a 2010 California study,
launching too many of these babies will vomit enough black carbon into the
atmosphere to pollute global atmospheric conditions, affecting distribution of
ozone and temperature. Worse, solid-state rocket exhaust contains chlorine, an
ozone-destroying chemical. How can any government seriously concerned about
climate change allow for this?
Third, 5G will potentially threaten natural ecosystems.
According to several reports over the last two decades–some of which are
summarized here–low-level, non-ionizing microwave radiation
affects bird and bee health. It drives birds from their nests and causes plume
deterioration, locomotion problems, reduced survivorship and death. And bee
populations suffer from reduced egg-laying abilities of queen bees and smaller
colony sizes. More evidence of ecosystem disruption comes from this 2012 meta-study, which indicates
that 593 of 919 research studies suggest that RF Radiation adversely affects
plants, animals and humans.
It bears repeating: 5G is bad news for all living
creatures and the planet we share. So why has this not generally known to the public? Conspiracy enthusiasts may suggest; because
a tiny percentage of people will gain an awful lot of money, is one reason. And
because companies and governments will be given unprecedented amounts of power
over civilians is the other.
Eat less Meat has been suggested, firstly due to our health, but now
even more so, it that will help the climate. I honestly ask myself, are my non-eating
meat planet inhabitants largely responsible for this? Here are some “food for thought” topics for
all of you that enjoy fruit and vegetables.
Have you ever thought
of, if your diet consisted mostly of local produce, this would have an immense
impact on the climate/environment that we could most probably get our diesel
cars out of the garage and go for a spin. It is incredible, that a banana, that
come from Tenerife costs more in Spain, that a banana coming from Costa Rica or
Ecuador does. Which banana has created the biggest carbon footprint?
Sweet potatoes. We have been
told that sweet potatoes are healthier that our common potatoes, so people that
are dieting and avoiding their carbs for healthy reasons tend to grab the sweet
potatoes. You can even buy sweet potato frozen fries at the discounter. I ask
you, who needs sweet potatoes in Europe? Did you ever miss them as a child
growing up?
But it is not just
about the transportation and the CO2 emissions. There are several important issues in agricultural food
production and consumption that have significant impacts on the
environment and human health such as soil bio diversity, desertification,
water use and water pollution, energy, climate change,
chemicals, food safety and biotechnology.
Avocados – Chile is one of
the main exporters of this superfood, along with Mexico and Peru. According to
official data, exports in 2017 reached 159,700 tons of avocados -- 32,000 tons
more than in 2016. Avocado has become the crop of choice to satisfy growing
demand for nutritious super-foods in the United States and Europe. Farmers have
rooted out traditional potato, tomato and fruit tree plantations in favor of
what is known around here as "green gold". In the province of Petorca
surrounding Calle Larga, some 16,000 hectares are given over to the cultivation
of avocados; in the 1990s, avocado cultivation accounted for only 2,000
hectares. To put it into perspective,
every hectare of avocado needs 100,000 liters of water a day, "equivalent
to the consumption needs of 1,000 people” according to Rodrigo Mundaca, founder
and spokesman of Modatima, an organization set up to defend water rights.
Rivers ran dry. The local rivers, the Ligua and Petorca, have trickled down to
dry riverbeds, where once locals swam and fished for shrimp.
"Here we have 10-year-old children who have never seen a river,"
said Mundaca. Without water from the rivers, the whole hydrological cycle has
been altered: there's no evaporation, no cloud formations, no rain, said the
agricultural engineer.
In Cabildo, one of the province's biggest towns, water for the 22,000
population is brought in by tanker-truck.
"We are spending the valley's savings book," said Carolina
Vilches, in charge of Petorca municipality's water services. The agribusinesses
take a different view. Cabilfrut, one of the local avocado producers, described
the allegations as "totally false." Karina Torres has spent more than
seven years without running water in her home in central Chile. Yet, across the
road, water flows in abundance to irrigate thousands of hectares of avocados.
It's one of the paradoxes of this South American country's push for
progress. With water growing ever scarcer, glistening green cash crops are
taking precedence over a local town's claims to the supply. Last year's rains
brought a little relief to the town of Calle Larga, in a subtropical zone 150
kilometers (90 miles) northeast of Santiago. Briefly, water flowed from taps
again. Karina could shower and water the few animals that survived the
prolonged drought. Villagers also blame thriving local agriculture businesses,
mostly avocado growers, for exacerbating the shortage of water. The lack of
water has destroyed family run farms and their livestock, forcing farm workers
to migrate to other areas of the country in search of work, particularly in
mining. Without rivers, wells are being dug deeper across the province of
Petorca. Meanwhile, agribusinesses build up reservoirs at the head of the local
valley to guarantee a steady supply of irrigation water. Nobody wastes a drop.
Water used to wash the dishes or clothes is reused for irrigation or for
bathing. Agrochemicals used in the plantations have seeped into the ground
water, a growing threat to health, warned Vilches. The state has an obligation
to supply drinking water to rural areas under the Rural Potable Water (APR)
scheme. But that has posed its own
problems for locals, as farmers have built illegal pipelines near those wells
to divert the water.
Who demonstrates on our streets against Global Trading? No EU summit or UN summit or climate Conference
would seek to put limits to global trading. The more the merrier, lets make money,
as long as the resources are there and then find other reasons for blame.
=================================================
18.02.2019
BREXIT AND THE HARD BORDER
The hard
border scenario has been mentioned around the media and politicians alike for a
very long time.
Now what
does a hard border mean? It is a border between countries, that is
strongly controlled and protected by officials, police, or soldiers, rather
than one where people are allowed to pass through easily with few controls:
It is very
strange, that even the EU speak about this and that they want to protect Ireland
wanting to prevent it, but still say that a border is required separating the EU
from a third country, to protect itself. Why is it strange you may ask yourselves?
Well for one, no politician, not even in the EU have told the Catalans, that should
they separate themselves from Spain, they are no longer in the EU, ergo that a
border will have to be made between Spain and Catalunya and with France as
well. The same would apply to the Basques. What about Spain and Gibraltar.
There was a
country within the EU that defended the EU borders during the migration crisis
and that was Hungary. Mr. Orban decided to put up fences and sent patrols. This
was highly criticized by the EU.
One country
in the EU said to the immigrants in 2015, come over, our borders are open, no
checks were made.
Suddenly, it
does seem that the English have become personae non gratae. The politicians in
the EU are warning other countries of the raise of nationalism and that we
should be aware of the nationalist. How come that no leader has something
against the SNP – Scottish National Party? What about the Catalunya, there they
are called separatists? Its all in the wording folks.
If the EU
do not want to punish Britain, then what would it be like if they wanted to?
=================================================
12.02.2019
Mr.Tusk, here is that special place in Hell......
=================================================
08.01.2019
Climate Change. - We should not solve it by doing less, we should solve it by doing more.
I am all for protecting our planet and still confused with the activists and the government and warning from the experts around our globe about the dangers of climate change.
Where does one start?
How far does one go? Is it just the average Joe Blog that has to make an effort
or just suffers under it?
I believe that we can reach
necessary reductions of greenhouse gas emissions by utilizing new technology
and introducing new ways of thinking. We should not solve it by doing less, we
should solve it by doing more.
Global trade? What is
the Carbon dioxide footprint resulting from this?
Who has a dog?
Who has a car or even
two cars?
Your well earned two
weeks holidays, flying to some nice spot?
I think that each
country and companies, especially global players can do much more. Why has the
government not put their foot down on companies in trying to find another source
of energy? Some car manufacturers found it necessary to deliberately fool its
clients and State and manipulated the results of emissions. In some countries
like Germany, it is still being disputed whether the car owners have to pay for
the amendment needed for the car once bought as being advertised and sold using
the emission test results. We must pay for their obvious intended manipulation
scam. The German government handed out an immense fine to the car manufacturers,
they will become their money, so no further action is needed on their side. We
the consumers are alone. Instead of demanding from the car manufacturers to
repair the cars in such a way that they meet the standards as to which they
were once sold. No, instead Cities have issued a driving ban for all diesel cars
with emissions lower than below a Euro Norm 5. In Stuttgart alone, around 72000
cars, will be affected. A driving plan is also in the pipeline for cars having
a Euronorm 5, depending on the clean air package. Problem solved?
Baden-Württemberg's state capital has been fighting
for years against excessive pollution of the air with pollutants. The given EU
limits are being exceeded again and again. While particulate matter pollution
has recently decreased, nitrogen dioxide levels are still well above the limit.
The source of nitrogen dioxide is above all the car.
The state of Baden-Württemberg has tried in vain to
avert the driving bans in court. Many other cities and towns are following its
example.
Of course, if you drive these designated areas you
will be promptly fined. Pleased that another way to increase capital intake by milking
motorist has been found. Problem solved?
They wish to decrease the nitrogen dioxide levels, as
they are well above the limit. Has anybody told these intelligent people, that
although the readings might go down, in the city, because the so called dirty
cars are being diverted down the same routes, surely the levels in the now
frequently more driven roads here will be significantly higher. The main
prerogative is that where the measurement equipment is, the readings will be
better, therefore Germany and the EU are happy, the clean air package works,
Germany will not be reprimanded or fined from the EU. It is almost a farce that
the government fine the car manufacturers for false readings, when they in turn
are manipulating results.
What is the ever increasing and wanted global trade? Yes,
it is nice to trade, but whilst the climate change activist eats his/hers Avocado,
or decides to make a smoothie, with Mangos, Papaya, lychees and other exotic
fruits, do they stop to think, what a journey the fruit has behind it. What
about the greenhouse gas emissions there? Where the demand is, it will be
supplied.
You may have got a dog for Christmas. A lovely and
loyal companion, it does not judge you but loves you just the way you are. What
about the carbon dioxide here? You may be a cat lover, keep chickens. What about
cows? Dogs and cats are responsible for a quarter of the
greenhouse gas emissions caused
by animal agriculture, which adds up to a whopping 64 million tons of carbon-dioxide equivalent emitted in
the production of their food. Still, I do not want to give up my dog, cat and
so on.
Two
weeks holiday in Mallorca, just flying from Heathrow contributes 0,23 tons of
carbon dioxide. Well, I want my holiday!
Again,
how far does one go in keeping the planet green? I believe that we can reach necessary reductions of greenhouse gas
emissions by utilizing new technology and introducing new ways of thinking. We
should not solve it by doing less, we should solve it by doing more,
I
think that although I am a small pawn in this saving the planet cause, governments
and businesses can achieve much more than us. Do not start complaining about a
Nanny State, they are already involved with issues such as obesity, Alcohol,
Mental Health, Smoking...
Countries
should encourage its citizens to eat and buy mostly local produce fruit and
veg. Awareness programs, starting from children. Get the children involved, so
that when they get older, they are used to living and thinking about the
environment. If the technology costs so much, that the price of avocados,
mangos etc. increase, then that is fine. Demand is less, therefore fewer
transports. What about the poorer farmers in those countries though. Okay we
could decrease the import tariffs, we have on their goods, or just be deaf to
the cries of the farmers in South America and hope that the grow another
produce or find another market. Of course, protective states like the EU,
exercise tariffs on these products, in order to protect their own.
If
the cucumber is not up to EU standards, because of its shape, sell at a cheaper
price. I personally would not mind buying carrots or apples cheaper, just
because it was not perfect in size and shape. Think about the poorer families,
they would reconsider buying this sort of produce, instead of cheap, ready-made
meals or frozen fries.
The
government should compel all motorized manufacturers to make a more “cleaner” vehicles
car, they have to be made aware of their responsibility to this planet. Those
leading the race, reward them with Tax Incentives, those showing no interest
Tax them heavily. Reward Freight Forwarders and consumers buying environmentally vehicles
or switching to train. Build the infrastructure for it all.
Airlines
could sell tickets, where the price of a train ticket to the airport is
included. Does the government honestly believe, that when they increase the kerosene tax it will cause a reduction of flights. Do they think, that we are dumb? The airlines give the costs further to the consumers and the government takes more money in taxes.
Fighting
air pollution in the Cities and towns. Introducing Park + ride free or cheap
Shuttle services to the town centre. Healthier City planning. Taxing 4x4
heavily if needed. Incentives for homeowners to use Solar Panels, not just for
using lights, but also for Heating.
Despite
all of this, I cannot help thinking, whenever, I travel with the car, (I am a
sinner, I drive Diesel) on the motorways, through Germany, France, Spain, Italy
and England, I cannot stop thinking, how green the trees are and how nice the
countryside is.
We always seem to be
the losers and have to pay for everything, that the government and experts get
wrong or even manipulate.
Maybe if the
government and companies had done more and that much earlier, I would not have
to think about the CO2 footprint of my dog and wonder about my next two weeks
holiday in Greece, although in all honesty I do not.
Fact is, that many European
governments and the EU have slept for years and are far behind in consequently
reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Of course, one could argue about the
advantages of nuclear
energy. The generation of electricity through nuclear energy reduces the amount of energy generated from fossil fuels (carbon and petroleum). Less
use of fossil fuels means lowering greenhouse gas emissions (CO2 and
others). However it must be said
that Much of the consumption of fossil fuels is due to road transport, used in engines (cars, trucks, etc.).
Despite the high level of sophistication of the safety systems of nuclear power plants the human aspect has always an impact. Facing an unexpected event or managing a nuclear accident like Chernobyl (indecently, the worst nuclear accident in history) or Fukushima, where wrong decisions were made during the management and highly questionable operations carried out were so catastrophic, that led to countries thinking twice about nuclear energy and some have or plan to close nuclear plants.
One of the main disadvantages is the difficulty in the management of nuclear waste. It takes many years to eliminate its radioactivity and risks
As stated before, I believe that we can reach necessary reductions of greenhouse gas emissions by utilizing new technology and introducing new ways of thinking. We should not solve it by doing less, we should solve it by doing more. A European country has shown how it should have been tackled whilst constantly innovating. That country is Sweden.
Sweden’s reputation as an environmental pioneer began with a number of proactive moves as far back to the 1960s and 1970s. Recognising a loss of limited natural resources, Sweden was the first country to establish an environmental protection agency, and that in 1967!
In 1972 Sweden hosted the first UN conference on the environment, which led to the creation of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the leading global environmental authority to this day.
The Stockholm Convention (2001), a global treaty aimed at phasing out the production and use of persistent organic pollutants, was largely a Swedish initiative. Waste management, acid rain prevention, sustainable city planning, and recycling are other environmental areas in which Sweden have made progressive headway and challenged the status quo.
Sweden continues to create momentum and is looking to intensify negotiations at international settings such as the annual United Nations Climate Change Conference. Sweden’s stance is that a sustainable and secure energy supply is best achieved by focusing on long-term energy efficiency and a greater supply of renewable energy.
Public awareness
Perhaps what sets Sweden apart is a combination of citizen engagement, high ambition levels and international solidarity. Even when ranked as one of the most sustainable countries in a number of international indices, the focus is not on what has been accomplished but rather on what remains to be done.
Largely this comes from a public that is keenly aware of and concerned with environmental issues and used to stand up for its own clean water and air. Air pollution (PM10) in urban areas of Sweden is at 10.2 micrograms per cubic metre compared with the OECD average of 20.1. In the 2015 Standard Eurobarometer survey, 26 per cent of Swedes note environment and climate change as a main concern, compared with 6 per cent at EU level.
Aiming high
Climate change caused by the emission of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases is one of the foremost global environment problems today. Since Sweden accounts for less than 0.2 per cent of total global emissions, the country could easily have gone unnoticed in the climate debate. Instead, Sweden has chosen to do more than many other countries on issues regarding energy and the climate.
Recognising that scientific research has become more uniform in its message about climate change resulting from human activity, the government is continuing to set clear domestic goals for the future regarding pollution, clean air, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and energy efficiency.
Roadmap 2050
Sweden’s goal to reduce GHG emissions compared with 1990 by 40 per cent by the year 2020, and to have a vehicle fleet completely rid of fossil fuels by 2030 are stepping stones to the overarching goal of a society with no net GHG emissions by the year 2050.
That is Sweden’s commitment under Roadmap 2050, an EU initiative whose objective is to reduce GHG emissions by at least 80 per cent below 1990 levels for all of EU.
To accomplish the 40 per cent reduction in GHG emissions by 2020, emissions would need to decline by an additional 20 million tonnes. According to current projections, emissions will have decreased by about 16 million tonnes in 2020, so in order to speed up the reduction the government has to come up with more drastic measures.
Looking further ahead, however, a recent study by the Swedish National Institute of Economic Research found that Sweden has strong chances of reaching the 2050 goal, thanks both to developments in the economy and to political incentives.
Energy efficiency
Besides moving to less carbon-intensive means of producing energy, efficiency has been a major focus in Sweden. By 2020 the government goal is to make energy use 20 per cent more effective compared with 2008.
One move first introduced in 2005 has been to offer tax reliefs to power-intensive industries in exchange for their drawing up energy plans and taking steps to reduce energy use.
For households, government information on how to save energy is widely available. Each municipality – there are 290 in Sweden – has an energy adviser to whom people can turn for help and guidance. Advice is available on topics such as replacing windows, using low-energy lights and switching to different heating systems.
Sustainable solutions
Another way in which Sweden is trying to lead the way to a more sustainable planet is through innovative sustainable solutions. Expenditure on R&D (research and development) represented 3.3 per cent of GDP in 2013, the fourth highest percentage in the OECD.
According to the OECD Environmental Performance Review 2014, Sweden is one of the most innovative countries when it comes to environment-related technology. Investments in environmental R&D have made Sweden an innovation leader for several clean energy technologies, including biofuels, smart grids and carbon capture and storage.
As a result of these investments, Sweden has developed a competitive advantage in technologies related to sustainability. In 2014, Sweden ranked fourth in the Global Cleantech Innovation Index.
Stockholm
In the mid-1990s, Stockholm decided to turn former industrial area Hammarby into a forerunner of sustainable city planning. Sustainability was incorporated into all aspects of the new neighbourhood Hammarby Sjöstad, from smart electric grids to public transport, bike friendliness and waste management.
Malmö
The regeneration of a similar depreciating area in Malmö called Västra hamnen (Western Harbour) began in 2001.
Today, it is a carbon-neutral neighbourhood. Taking city planning to new green heights, the district uses an aquifer thermal energy storage system to store water collected during the summer and pump it up with wind energy to heat the homes during the winter. The chilled water is then reused to cool buildings in the summer.
Volvo Group
Volvo Group joined the WWF Climate Savers programme in 2010. Their Chief
Sustainability Officer Niklas Gustafsson, who has spent almost 30 years at the
company, spoke at the Climate Savers Business Event about their engagement on
the road to Paris and their role and ambition within climate leadership.
As former CEO of Volvo Gyllenhammar said back in 1972: ‘We are part of the
problem but we want to be part of the solution.’ That was a very bold statement
from an automobile company at the time.
Volvo cuts emissions by reducing fuel consumption and investing in
renewable fuels and electrical vehicles. On a social level, Volvo collaborates
with various actors ranging from national governments to citizens and
universities. On an economic level, Volvo creates growth, jobs and (through
their products) contributes to an enhanced quality of life.
Volvo has just completed their first five years as a member of the Climate
Savers programme, exceeding the targets they set back in 2010.
Gustafsson shared the company’s new Climate Savers commitments, which are
to:
1. Reduce emissions from their production and logistics functions;
2. Reduce emissions from Volvo products;
3. Take part in initiatives to push climate saving developments in their sector.
2. Reduce emissions from Volvo products;
3. Take part in initiatives to push climate saving developments in their sector.
Gustafsson shared an example of one of Volvo’s newest innovations: electric
buses, which will be inaugurated shortly in Gothenburg, Sweden. A couple of
years ago, Volvo Group’s CEO Leif Johansson said that fully electric buses
would be reality soon – but others weren’t convinced.
• Developing truck prototypes with substantially lower fuel consumption compared with a corresponding truck today.
• Volvo CE will develop and demonstrate technologies with considerable efficiency improvements.
• Encourage and help ten selected suppliers to improve energy efficiency.
• Starting up a so-called City Mobility concept in at least five cities. City Mobility is the collective term for an offering in which Volvo Buses collaborates with cities and regions to find the best and most energy-efficient public transport solution. One example is to plan for the infrastructure required for electric city buses.
• Hosting the Construction Climate Challenge (CCC) that aims to create a dialogue with construction industry representatives, academia and politicians, as well as providing funding for new research and share existing knowledge and resources to help the industry make a difference for generations to come.
Products 2015-2020
A cumulative reduction of emissions
from products and production by at least 40 Million tons of CO2 by 2020
compared with 2013.
Production 2015-2020
Improving energy efficiency in
production by implementing energy saving measures giving 150 GWh/year in
savings. This corresponds to 8% of the energy use in Volvo Group’s production
sites
Transport 2015-2020
Reducing CO2 emissions per produced
unit from the Volvo Group freight transport by 20% by 2020.
Electric Cars. Lithium-ion is that a solution?
Li-ion
batteries’ biggest problem may be their tendency to combust—remember the recall
of 500,000 hoverboards and then the infamous early version of Samsung’s Galaxy
Note 7? The ions inside Li-ion batteries can react if the wall between them is
compromised, generating enough heat to potentially catch fire. Manufacturers
have mitigated such issues in most applications, but the problem can still rear
its ugly head when improperly discarded Li-ion batteries are exposed to
pressure and heat in a landfill or recycling facility that can stimulate
combustion. Therefore, it’s so important to properly dispose of Li-ion
batteries (or products containing them) at hazardous waste or battery recycling
locations.
Where do the companies
get the Lithium for their Lithium-ion batteries?
Worldwide, companies
are racing to get Lithium, even Investors are being told to invest in Lithium.
China now effectively controls half the world’s lithium production. Even in
India, over a dozen companies ranging from auto component manufacturers to
power and energy solutions providers. Companies like Greenfuel Energy
Solutions, although what is green about it, I really do not know.
Lithium extraction
does indeed take an environmental toll, from the process of pumping briny
groundwater containing lithium carbonate out of the ground and leaving it in
pools so the excess water can evaporate. But the main environmental consequence
of this is large amounts of water used to bind to the lithium to facilitate
extraction.
That means we are wasting
our groundwater.
While it’s
true that chemicals are used to refine lithium after it is collected, potential
dangers compared to those from fracking, which involves pumping harsh chemicals
underground to break up shale layers to free natural gas, which can lead to
groundwater pollution and even cause minor earthquakes.
Tahua, Bolivia. Salt miners load a
truck with lithium-rich salt. The ground beneath Bolivia’s salt flats are
thought to contain the world’s largest reserves of the metal. (The Bolivian
Andes may contain 70 per cent of the planet’s lithium.) Many analysts argue
that extracting lithium from brine is more environmentally friendly than from
rock. However, as demand increases, companies might resort to removing lithium
from the brine by heating it up, which is more energy intensive.
In South America, the biggest problem
is water. The continent’s Lithium Triangle, which covers parts of Argentina,
Bolivia and Chile, holds more than half the world’s supply of the metal beneath
its otherworldly salt flats. It’s also one of the driest places on earth.
That’s a real issue, because to extract lithium, miners start by drilling a
hole in the salt flats and pumping salty, mineral-rich brine to the surface.
But there’s a problem. As the world
scrambles to replace fossil fuels with clean energy, the environmental impact
of finding all the lithium required to enable that transformation, I am
convinced that this will become a very serious issue in its own right. “One of
the biggest environmental problems caused by our endless hunger for the latest
and smartest devices is a growing mineral crisis, particularly those needed to
make our batteries,” says Christina Valimaki an analyst at Elsevier.
Then they leave it to evaporate for
months at a time, first creating a mixture of manganese, potassium, borax and
lithium salts which is then filtered and placed into another evaporation pool,
and so on. After between 12 and 18 months, the mixture has been filtered enough
that lithium carbonate – white gold – can be extracted.
It’s a relatively cheap and effective
process, but it uses an immense amount of water – approximately 500,000 gallons
(1.892.705,89 litres) per ton of lithium. In Chile’s Salar de Atacama, mining
activities consumed 65 per cent of the region’s water. That is having a big
impact on local farmers – who grow quinoa and herd llamas – in an area where
some communities already must get water driven in from elsewhere!
There’s also the potential – as
occurred in Tibet – for toxic chemicals to leak from the evaporation pools into
the water supply. These include chemicals, including hydrochloric acid, which
are used in the processing of lithium into a form that can be sold, as well as
those waste products that are filtered out of the brine at each stage. In
Australia and North America, lithium is mined from rock using more traditional
methods, but still requires the use of chemicals in order to extract it in a
useful form. Research in Nevada found impacts on fish as far as 150 miles
downstream from a lithium processing operation.
Of course,
alternatives to Li-ion batteries do exist with huge potential, but none are
economical enough to produce yet to be anywhere near ready for mass production.
Some of the most promising include batteries made from sodium-nickel chloride,
silver zinc or aluminum graphite. But the expense of the raw materials and the
immaturity of the production processes will keep these emerging battery
technologies on the drawing board for years to come while lithium ion continues
to dominate the market.
What do you think the electric cars
will run on?
=================================================
24.12.2018
A
wonderful winter morning in today's world.
07:00 -
Just finished building a snowman in the front garden.
I hope
that the world changes and soon.
=========================================================================
21.11.2018
The Draft Withdrawal Agreement, nearly 600 pages long. Have you read it? You may want to read a shorter version, which may be of importance to you.
With courtesy from the ERG.
Your Right to Know:
The Case against Chequers and the Draft Withdrawal Agreement in plain English.
Summary: The case against the proposed Withdrawal Agreement on 1 page
1. We would hand over £39 billion of taxpayer’s money with nothing guaranteed in return. Under the proposal the UK would agree a financial settlement with the EU of c.£39 billion, made up of various elements, including continued EU budget contributions during the transition period (up to December 2020), contributions to unfunded EU commitments and EU pensions. Despite offering this vast sum of British taxpayer’s money the United Kingdom is not guaranteed any future trading arrangements, which are still to be negotiated.
2. The UK will remain a ‘rule taker’ over large areas of EU law. The UK will continue to be bound by EU laws in vital areas such as social policy, environmental policy and employment policy, i.e will obey EU laws, but have no further influence over how they are drafted. We will thus become a ‘rule taker’ and will have surrendered our sovereignty in these critical areas.
3. No exit from a ‘backstop’ Customs Union. The agreement establishes a ‘joint committee’ which will oversee the UK’s ability to proceed to a future trade relationship. If this relationship cannot be agreed by both parties the UK will enter a so called ‘backstop’ Customs Union with the EU, despite many public assurances to the contrary and directly at variance with the Conservative Party’s 2017 General Election manifesto. We could only subsequently leave the Customs Union with the agreement of the EU. While we remain in a Customs Union we would be unable to strike international trade deals without the EU’s permission.
4. The Agreement creates internal borders within the UK. Northern Ireland would become a ‘rule taker’ in further areas such as goods, agricultural products and VAT compared to the rest of the UK. This threatens the internal integrity of the United Kingdom and is completely unacceptable to the Democratic Unionist Party on whom the Conservative Party now rely for a majority in the House of Commons.
5. The European Court of Justice (ECJ) will remain in control of the agreement and large areas of EU law directly effective in the UK. The ECJ will remain as the final arbiter of the agreement and of the EU laws the UK will be subject to.
In summary, the combination of these measures means the United Kingdom will have not left the European Union but will instead be ‘half in and half out’. This will mean that we will become a ‘vassal state’ many of whose laws will have been created abroad and over which we have no influence. This is completely against the spirit of the 2016 referendum in which 17.4 million UK citizens voted to leave the European Union.
Background
The UK Government / EU draft withdrawal agreement, under Article 50, was published on the 14 November 2018. The withdrawal agreement runs to 585 pages. This is almost twice as long as the 300 pages of the 2008 Lisbon Treaty. The draft withdrawal agreement was published alongside a draft political declaration on a permanent ‘future framework’ UK/EU relationship.
Final EU agreement on the withdrawal agreement will be subject to the approval of an "enhanced qualified majority" of EU Member States and the European Parliament.
In the UK, the House of Commons will be given a ‘Meaningful Vote’ on whether or not to approve the draft agreement and future framework. If this is approved by the House of
Commons (which currently seems highly unlikely) Parliament will then need to pass a
Withdrawal Agreement and Implementation Bill, in order to ratify what would become a legally binding international Treaty.
Key issue 1 – NOT taking back control of our money
Under the proposed agreement the UK would agree to pay to the EU a sum of approximately
£39 billion. This would comprise a number of parts, including continued EU budget contributions during the transition period up to December 2020; unfunded EU commitments (known as Reste à Liquider or RAL – where the EU has committed to future projects it has not yet funded), and EU pensions, including for EU Commissioners and civil servants.
Having been through a period of considerable austerity in Britain, it seems difficult to justify paying such a huge amount of money, while the United Kingdom is not guaranteed any future trading relationship in return, as this is still to be subsequently agreed. This hardly constitutes taking back control of our money – rather it is handing over vast amounts of our money, for nothing in return and which could be better spent at home.
Key issue 2 – NOT taking back control of our laws
Under the proposals the UK would continue to be bound by EU laws in a number of critical areas, such as social policy, environmental policy, employment policy and customs. We will thus become a ‘rule taker’, which means we would have to continue to obey EU laws in these areas but having surrendered any influence over how they are drafted.
Furthermore, under the agreement the European Court of Justice will be the final arbiter of EU laws in power in the UK, putting our Courts, even our Supreme Court, in a junior position.
Key issue 3 – Being locked in a Customs Union without the ability to leave
Under the proposed agreement a ‘Joint Committee’ of both the EU and UK would be established to oversee the UK’s path to a future trade relationship – which has yet to be negotiated. However, if this relationship cannot be satisfactorily agreed by both parties the UK would be forced to enter a so called ‘backstop’ Customs Union with the EU. While we remain in a Customs Union (as we are at present) the UK would be unable to strike international trade deals with other countries such as the USA or China or indeed, any other country.
Moreover, and critically, once we enter the backstop we cannot leave without the consent of the European Union. This would be a major surrender of our sovereignty, despite repeated public assurances in Parliament to the contrary. It would also be directly at odds with the Conservative Party’s 2017 General Election manifesto that stated unequivocally that following the referendum "we will no longer be members of the single market or customs union".
Key issue 4 – Undermining the integrity of the United Kingdom
The agreement creates internal borders within the United Kingdom, as Northern Ireland, if we enter the backstop, would be treated separately to the rest of the UK. Specifically, Northern Ireland would become a rule taker in further areas such as goods, agricultural products and VAT. This would create ‘a border down the Irish Sea’, despite repeated assurances to Parliament that no British Government would ever contemplate this.
The draft agreement contains a separate Protocol including clauses specific to Northern Ireland not affecting the rest of the UK. Treating Northern Ireland separately from the UK would only encourage separatism in Scotland, to the detriment of our United Kingdom.
The separate treatment of Northern Ireland from the rest of the United Kingdom is unacceptable to the Democratic Unionist Party (the DUP) on whom the Conservative Party now rely for a working majority in the House of Commons. If the DUP were to withdraw their support from the Conservative Party, because of these proposals, the Government would collapse.
Key issue 5 – The Agreement would be overseen by the European Court of Justice, not the UK Supreme Court.
Under the proposals the European Court of Justice (ECJ) will remain in control of the agreement and those areas of EU law that remain effective in the UK. The ECJ will remain as the final arbiter of the agreement and of the EU laws the UK will be subject to. Again, this is wholly against the spirit of the referendum.
A better alternative - a "Super Canada" Free Trade Deal
The European Research Group (ERG) has argued for some time for a far better alternative which is an advanced Free Trade Deal, known as ‘Super Canada’ (or Canada+++). The Group has spent months trying to persuade the Prime Minister and senior pro EU officials in 10 Downing Street that this would present a superior alternative for the United Kingdom to Chequers and what is now the draft withdrawal agreement. However, these efforts have proved unsuccessful to date – and the Prime Minister appears completely wedded to the current proposals.
The ERG published a paper explaining the case for its alternative at the 2018 Conservative Party Conference. (‘Why an advanced Free Trade Deal – Super Canada – is superior to the Chequers proposal’). In addition, the Institute for Economic Affairs (IEA) has also published a highly detailed 134 page report this autumn, explaining in precise economic terms, how such an arrangement (which they call PlanA+) would work in practice.
In essence, Super Canada would involve taking an existing EU Canada trade agreement, which was signed in 2016 and updating this framework by adding on some additional elements, such as a security protocol and a protocol on data. The EU Canada agreement took several years to negotiate but this means that most of the ‘heavy lifting’ has already been done and many of the key issues have previously been thrashed out in a manner the EU has already agreed to.
A Super Canada trade agreement would not involve being in the Single Market or Customs Union and would not leave the UK subject to the authority of the European Court of Justice.
It would therefore honour the spirit of the 2016 referendum and the clear instruction to politicians from 17.4 million people that we should leave the European Union. It would also, incidentally, comply with the Conservative Party’s 2017 General Election Manifesto commitment, on which almost every sitting Conservative MP was elected to Parliament by their constituents. (A handful of Conservative MPs qualified their election addresses on this issue).
Conclusion
For the reasons explained in this paper, Chequers and the associated withdrawal agreement mean that the UK would not, in reality, leave the European Union. Instead we would be left, effectively "half in, half out" (which the Prime Minister specifically warned against in her Lancaster House speech in January 2017).
The aim of this paper has been to explain to the people of the United Kingdom in plain and simple English, what these complex legal proposals really mean for the future of this country. They would mean, in short, that we had surrendered our destiny and breeched the spirit of the 2016 referendum. This is why the ERG is so strongly opposed to them.
APPENDIX
The Agreement in more detail
Internal NI/GB border: The backstop provides for an all UK Customs Union and regulatory and other alignment in Northern Ireland. This would mean that goods from Northern Ireland entering the EU market via Ireland would be EU compliant. Goods from Great Britain would not be. This would entail checks on GB goods going into Northern Ireland to ensure they do not enter the EU’s single market.
For this reason, Article 7 of the Ireland / Northern Ireland Protocol guarantees "unfettered market access for goods moving from Northern Ireland to the rest of the United Kingdom", but not the other way around.
No backstop exit: The ‘backstop’ in the Ireland / Northern Ireland Protocol, is on the face of it supposed to be temporary. However, the decision on when it might end is not one the UK can take alone.
Article 1 (3) of the protocol gives the following condition for when the backstop can end: "This
Protocol sets out arrangements necessary to address the unique circumstances on the island of Ireland, maintain the necessary conditions for continued North-South cooperation, avoid a hard border and protect the 1998 Agreement in all its dimensions."
Article 20 of the Protocol sets out when these conditions can be met: "If at any time after the end of the transition period the Union or the United Kingdom considers that the Protocol is, in whole or in part, no longer necessary to achieve the objectives set out in Article 1 (3) and should cease to apply"... "the Joint Committee shall meet at ministerial level to consider the notification."
How the European Court of Justice will remain in control: The European Court of Justice (ECJ), will be given jurisdiction to rule over the withdrawal agreement including the transitional period, the potentially-permanent ‘backstop’ and the financial settlement.
The ‘backstop’ would tie the UK into a Customs Union with the EU where its customs rules, external trade policy, regulations in Northern Ireland and - via the ‘non-regression’ clauses - social, environmental, employment and state aid policy, would all be decided in the EU.
The financial settlement would cost the UK c.£39bn with the final sum adjudicated by the ECJ. This sum would not be conditional on gaining a final permanent trade agreement. It would be payable even if the UK remained trapped in the ‘backstop’.
Also under the ‘backstop’, Northern Ireland would be subject to EU regulations, (remaining in the Single Market for goods) while the UK would not. This would create internal UK borders down the Irish Sea (as well as regulatory borders at Calais and other UK/EU borders).
The European Court of Justice’s jurisdiction in the Agreement.
The jurisdiction of the ECJ stems from the following articles:
• Over the Transition Period: Article 4(1) "The provisions of this Agreement and the provisions of Union law made applicable by this Agreement shall produce in respect of and in the
United Kingdom the same legal effects as those which they produce within the Union and its Member States."
• On cases arising under the Transition period for 4 years afterwards: Article 87"the European Commission may within 4 years after the end of the transition period, bring the matter before the Court of Justice of the European Union.."
• Over EU Citizens rights: Article 150:"References to the Court of Justice of the European Union".. "which commenced in the first instance within 8 years from the end of the transition period.."
• Over the financial settlement: Article 160:"Articles 258, 260, and 267 TFEU shall apply on respect of the interpretation and application of applicable Union law referred to in Article 136 and Article 138 (1) or (2).." Articles 136&138 relate to the financial settlement.
• Ultimately over the arbitration panel set up under Article 171: Article 174:"The Court of Justice of the European Union shall have jurisdiction to give such a ruling which shall be binding on the arbitration panel.."
• Over the ‘backstop’: Article 14 (1) of the Ireland/Northern Ireland Protocol "the authorities of the United Kingdom shall be responsible for implementing and applying the provisions of Union law made applicable by this Protocol.."
• Over the ‘backstop’: Article 14 (4) of the Ireland/Northern Ireland Protocol "In particular, the Court of Justice of the European Union shall have jurisdiction as provided for in the Treaties.."
It binds the UK into EU social, environmental, employment and state aid policies: Annex 4 of the Ireland / Northern Ireland protocol sets out a number of ‘non-regression’ clauses that will bind the UK into following EU polices including ‘common standards’ on environment, social and labour Law, taxation and state aid directly under the ECJ.
26.10.2018
Kiera Knightley - She banned her daughter from watching Cinderella.
Ego requiem meam doleat
==========================================================================
03.10.2018
My thoughts are, that we have gone overboard with Political Correctness, but if we dare to question it, our ideas and thoughts and character are from some people categorized as populist or even right-wing. They are the same people that do not even know when to draw the line and by satisfying the few, the majority however, are ignored. It is people like those, who endanger our society.
Let us start with the "Founding Fathers". Unbelievably, this word has been considered as being sexist and has been replaced by "Founders". That there were no female leaders in the US at that time is irrelevant.
John Lewis is a chain of stores throughout the United Kingdom. John Lewis was the first British retailer to remove gender labels from his children's clothing. The department store chain has not only removed "girls" and "boys" labels from their clothes, but also eliminated the individual areas in the stores. John Lewis own brand kids clothing will now simply say "Girls & Boys" or "Boys & Girls." School uniform is the only type of clothing, that has not yet been changed, but it will. The dress style has not changed - you will still find flower dresses and skirts, but the dealer simply proves that both girls and boys can wear them. They also unveiled a new unisex children's clothing line, with dinosaur print dresses and spaceship tops. In the past, many other retailers have had the political incorrect “finger” pointed at them for their sexist clothes.
What political correctness has achieved is to have scared writers, comedians, artists and politicians to address specific issues. Unique viewpoints and voices have been made silent. It has led teachers to be on their toes for fear of losing their jobs; silenced students/pupils who want to create new knowledge or want to create something new with their knowledge - they are too busy thinking about, whether their actions are offending people, and therefore stop talking, whilst the ignorant and hateful get louder. It limits intellectual discussions and thoughts.
What I am referring to, is the paralysis that we feel now because we are afraid to offend. We can no longer talk about current events, politics, race, religion, or sexuality without the fear of being misinterpreted or declared ignorant or insensitive.
========================================================================
25.09.2018
========================================================================
“It’s more difficult to avoid sugar than you think,”
Through the Media, we are almost confronted every day, that we are consuming too much sugar. In many cases, sugar is found in products you wouldn’t suspect and under names you wouldn’t recognize. What can we do about this? Are we left alone in this fate? What about the food industry? How can we educate ourselves? Does the government inform us?
1. We would hand over £39 billion of taxpayer’s money with nothing guaranteed in return. Under the proposal the UK would agree a financial settlement with the EU of c.£39 billion, made up of various elements, including continued EU budget contributions during the transition period (up to December 2020), contributions to unfunded EU commitments and EU pensions. Despite offering this vast sum of British taxpayer’s money the United Kingdom is not guaranteed any future trading arrangements, which are still to be negotiated.
2. The UK will remain a ‘rule taker’ over large areas of EU law. The UK will continue to be bound by EU laws in vital areas such as social policy, environmental policy and employment policy, i.e will obey EU laws, but have no further influence over how they are drafted. We will thus become a ‘rule taker’ and will have surrendered our sovereignty in these critical areas.
3. No exit from a ‘backstop’ Customs Union. The agreement establishes a ‘joint committee’ which will oversee the UK’s ability to proceed to a future trade relationship. If this relationship cannot be agreed by both parties the UK will enter a so called ‘backstop’ Customs Union with the EU, despite many public assurances to the contrary and directly at variance with the Conservative Party’s 2017 General Election manifesto. We could only subsequently leave the Customs Union with the agreement of the EU. While we remain in a Customs Union we would be unable to strike international trade deals without the EU’s permission.
4. The Agreement creates internal borders within the UK. Northern Ireland would become a ‘rule taker’ in further areas such as goods, agricultural products and VAT compared to the rest of the UK. This threatens the internal integrity of the United Kingdom and is completely unacceptable to the Democratic Unionist Party on whom the Conservative Party now rely for a majority in the House of Commons.
5. The European Court of Justice (ECJ) will remain in control of the agreement and large areas of EU law directly effective in the UK. The ECJ will remain as the final arbiter of the agreement and of the EU laws the UK will be subject to.
In summary, the combination of these measures means the United Kingdom will have not left the European Union but will instead be ‘half in and half out’. This will mean that we will become a ‘vassal state’ many of whose laws will have been created abroad and over which we have no influence. This is completely against the spirit of the 2016 referendum in which 17.4 million UK citizens voted to leave the European Union.
Background
The UK Government / EU draft withdrawal agreement, under Article 50, was published on the 14 November 2018. The withdrawal agreement runs to 585 pages. This is almost twice as long as the 300 pages of the 2008 Lisbon Treaty. The draft withdrawal agreement was published alongside a draft political declaration on a permanent ‘future framework’ UK/EU relationship.
Final EU agreement on the withdrawal agreement will be subject to the approval of an "enhanced qualified majority" of EU Member States and the European Parliament.
In the UK, the House of Commons will be given a ‘Meaningful Vote’ on whether or not to approve the draft agreement and future framework. If this is approved by the House of
Commons (which currently seems highly unlikely) Parliament will then need to pass a
Withdrawal Agreement and Implementation Bill, in order to ratify what would become a legally binding international Treaty.
Key issue 1 – NOT taking back control of our money
Under the proposed agreement the UK would agree to pay to the EU a sum of approximately
£39 billion. This would comprise a number of parts, including continued EU budget contributions during the transition period up to December 2020; unfunded EU commitments (known as Reste à Liquider or RAL – where the EU has committed to future projects it has not yet funded), and EU pensions, including for EU Commissioners and civil servants.
Having been through a period of considerable austerity in Britain, it seems difficult to justify paying such a huge amount of money, while the United Kingdom is not guaranteed any future trading relationship in return, as this is still to be subsequently agreed. This hardly constitutes taking back control of our money – rather it is handing over vast amounts of our money, for nothing in return and which could be better spent at home.
Key issue 2 – NOT taking back control of our laws
Under the proposals the UK would continue to be bound by EU laws in a number of critical areas, such as social policy, environmental policy, employment policy and customs. We will thus become a ‘rule taker’, which means we would have to continue to obey EU laws in these areas but having surrendered any influence over how they are drafted.
Furthermore, under the agreement the European Court of Justice will be the final arbiter of EU laws in power in the UK, putting our Courts, even our Supreme Court, in a junior position.
Key issue 3 – Being locked in a Customs Union without the ability to leave
Under the proposed agreement a ‘Joint Committee’ of both the EU and UK would be established to oversee the UK’s path to a future trade relationship – which has yet to be negotiated. However, if this relationship cannot be satisfactorily agreed by both parties the UK would be forced to enter a so called ‘backstop’ Customs Union with the EU. While we remain in a Customs Union (as we are at present) the UK would be unable to strike international trade deals with other countries such as the USA or China or indeed, any other country.
Moreover, and critically, once we enter the backstop we cannot leave without the consent of the European Union. This would be a major surrender of our sovereignty, despite repeated public assurances in Parliament to the contrary. It would also be directly at odds with the Conservative Party’s 2017 General Election manifesto that stated unequivocally that following the referendum "we will no longer be members of the single market or customs union".
Key issue 4 – Undermining the integrity of the United Kingdom
The agreement creates internal borders within the United Kingdom, as Northern Ireland, if we enter the backstop, would be treated separately to the rest of the UK. Specifically, Northern Ireland would become a rule taker in further areas such as goods, agricultural products and VAT. This would create ‘a border down the Irish Sea’, despite repeated assurances to Parliament that no British Government would ever contemplate this.
The draft agreement contains a separate Protocol including clauses specific to Northern Ireland not affecting the rest of the UK. Treating Northern Ireland separately from the UK would only encourage separatism in Scotland, to the detriment of our United Kingdom.
The separate treatment of Northern Ireland from the rest of the United Kingdom is unacceptable to the Democratic Unionist Party (the DUP) on whom the Conservative Party now rely for a working majority in the House of Commons. If the DUP were to withdraw their support from the Conservative Party, because of these proposals, the Government would collapse.
Key issue 5 – The Agreement would be overseen by the European Court of Justice, not the UK Supreme Court.
Under the proposals the European Court of Justice (ECJ) will remain in control of the agreement and those areas of EU law that remain effective in the UK. The ECJ will remain as the final arbiter of the agreement and of the EU laws the UK will be subject to. Again, this is wholly against the spirit of the referendum.
A better alternative - a "Super Canada" Free Trade Deal
The European Research Group (ERG) has argued for some time for a far better alternative which is an advanced Free Trade Deal, known as ‘Super Canada’ (or Canada+++). The Group has spent months trying to persuade the Prime Minister and senior pro EU officials in 10 Downing Street that this would present a superior alternative for the United Kingdom to Chequers and what is now the draft withdrawal agreement. However, these efforts have proved unsuccessful to date – and the Prime Minister appears completely wedded to the current proposals.
The ERG published a paper explaining the case for its alternative at the 2018 Conservative Party Conference. (‘Why an advanced Free Trade Deal – Super Canada – is superior to the Chequers proposal’). In addition, the Institute for Economic Affairs (IEA) has also published a highly detailed 134 page report this autumn, explaining in precise economic terms, how such an arrangement (which they call PlanA+) would work in practice.
In essence, Super Canada would involve taking an existing EU Canada trade agreement, which was signed in 2016 and updating this framework by adding on some additional elements, such as a security protocol and a protocol on data. The EU Canada agreement took several years to negotiate but this means that most of the ‘heavy lifting’ has already been done and many of the key issues have previously been thrashed out in a manner the EU has already agreed to.
A Super Canada trade agreement would not involve being in the Single Market or Customs Union and would not leave the UK subject to the authority of the European Court of Justice.
It would therefore honour the spirit of the 2016 referendum and the clear instruction to politicians from 17.4 million people that we should leave the European Union. It would also, incidentally, comply with the Conservative Party’s 2017 General Election Manifesto commitment, on which almost every sitting Conservative MP was elected to Parliament by their constituents. (A handful of Conservative MPs qualified their election addresses on this issue).
Conclusion
For the reasons explained in this paper, Chequers and the associated withdrawal agreement mean that the UK would not, in reality, leave the European Union. Instead we would be left, effectively "half in, half out" (which the Prime Minister specifically warned against in her Lancaster House speech in January 2017).
The aim of this paper has been to explain to the people of the United Kingdom in plain and simple English, what these complex legal proposals really mean for the future of this country. They would mean, in short, that we had surrendered our destiny and breeched the spirit of the 2016 referendum. This is why the ERG is so strongly opposed to them.
APPENDIX
The Agreement in more detail
Internal NI/GB border: The backstop provides for an all UK Customs Union and regulatory and other alignment in Northern Ireland. This would mean that goods from Northern Ireland entering the EU market via Ireland would be EU compliant. Goods from Great Britain would not be. This would entail checks on GB goods going into Northern Ireland to ensure they do not enter the EU’s single market.
For this reason, Article 7 of the Ireland / Northern Ireland Protocol guarantees "unfettered market access for goods moving from Northern Ireland to the rest of the United Kingdom", but not the other way around.
No backstop exit: The ‘backstop’ in the Ireland / Northern Ireland Protocol, is on the face of it supposed to be temporary. However, the decision on when it might end is not one the UK can take alone.
Article 1 (3) of the protocol gives the following condition for when the backstop can end: "This
Protocol sets out arrangements necessary to address the unique circumstances on the island of Ireland, maintain the necessary conditions for continued North-South cooperation, avoid a hard border and protect the 1998 Agreement in all its dimensions."
Article 20 of the Protocol sets out when these conditions can be met: "If at any time after the end of the transition period the Union or the United Kingdom considers that the Protocol is, in whole or in part, no longer necessary to achieve the objectives set out in Article 1 (3) and should cease to apply"... "the Joint Committee shall meet at ministerial level to consider the notification."
How the European Court of Justice will remain in control: The European Court of Justice (ECJ), will be given jurisdiction to rule over the withdrawal agreement including the transitional period, the potentially-permanent ‘backstop’ and the financial settlement.
The ‘backstop’ would tie the UK into a Customs Union with the EU where its customs rules, external trade policy, regulations in Northern Ireland and - via the ‘non-regression’ clauses - social, environmental, employment and state aid policy, would all be decided in the EU.
The financial settlement would cost the UK c.£39bn with the final sum adjudicated by the ECJ. This sum would not be conditional on gaining a final permanent trade agreement. It would be payable even if the UK remained trapped in the ‘backstop’.
Also under the ‘backstop’, Northern Ireland would be subject to EU regulations, (remaining in the Single Market for goods) while the UK would not. This would create internal UK borders down the Irish Sea (as well as regulatory borders at Calais and other UK/EU borders).
The European Court of Justice’s jurisdiction in the Agreement.
The jurisdiction of the ECJ stems from the following articles:
• Over the Transition Period: Article 4(1) "The provisions of this Agreement and the provisions of Union law made applicable by this Agreement shall produce in respect of and in the
United Kingdom the same legal effects as those which they produce within the Union and its Member States."
• On cases arising under the Transition period for 4 years afterwards: Article 87"the European Commission may within 4 years after the end of the transition period, bring the matter before the Court of Justice of the European Union.."
• Over EU Citizens rights: Article 150:"References to the Court of Justice of the European Union".. "which commenced in the first instance within 8 years from the end of the transition period.."
• Over the financial settlement: Article 160:"Articles 258, 260, and 267 TFEU shall apply on respect of the interpretation and application of applicable Union law referred to in Article 136 and Article 138 (1) or (2).." Articles 136&138 relate to the financial settlement.
• Ultimately over the arbitration panel set up under Article 171: Article 174:"The Court of Justice of the European Union shall have jurisdiction to give such a ruling which shall be binding on the arbitration panel.."
• Over the ‘backstop’: Article 14 (1) of the Ireland/Northern Ireland Protocol "the authorities of the United Kingdom shall be responsible for implementing and applying the provisions of Union law made applicable by this Protocol.."
• Over the ‘backstop’: Article 14 (4) of the Ireland/Northern Ireland Protocol "In particular, the Court of Justice of the European Union shall have jurisdiction as provided for in the Treaties.."
It binds the UK into EU social, environmental, employment and state aid policies: Annex 4 of the Ireland / Northern Ireland protocol sets out a number of ‘non-regression’ clauses that will bind the UK into following EU polices including ‘common standards’ on environment, social and labour Law, taxation and state aid directly under the ECJ.
=================================================
26.10.2018
Kiera Knightley - She banned her daughter from watching Cinderella.
What is
this world coming to?
Do you
remember sitting down with the family to watch Walt Disney Films? After the
film you may have thought, that was a good film, well made and something for all ages.
On the
other hand, after watching “Maleficent” how many of you shared such thoughts as
listed below, after watching this fantasy film?
“Oh my God the prince kissed her, without her
consent and whilst she was in a coma.”
“Those
three Fairies, did not really look after the baby well, surprised that the social services
were not alarmed.”
“There were
far more men in that film than women.”
“Yes, and
more white horses than black or brown ones.”
“Maleficent
was a nice person until a man came and messed things up for her.”
No, I am
sure the majority of you did not and that is good so!
Have you seen
Keira Knightley in “Love Actually”? Well
following her logic, critical sentences in an after-movie debate, could have
fallen like:
“What a weird
character she played, I mean, the best friend of her husband fancies her. She finds
out, when she is at his place to get his recording of her wedding and realises
that he has only filmed her. That is spooky, the makings of a Stalker. Alarm
bells should be ringing”
“He then
goes to her house, plays some music to her and shows her some boards to read. This
is definitely the makings of a stalker.”
“Amazing
that she does not shut the door in his face and threaten to call the police or
tell her husband about his so called best friend.”
“Instead of
showing no interest, she runs after him and kisses him on the lips, without
asking.”
“That is definitely
sending out wrong message.”
“Weird
girl, definitely asking for trouble there.”
Ego requiem meam doleat
==========================================================================
03.10.2018
Political Correctness
Should we demand that "The White House" has to be re-named?
Happy Holidays has
replaced happy Christmas. Donald Trump said in December 2017, "I've made
it okay to say Happy Christmas again."
Political correctness is
the idea that everyone must be careful to use or behave in a neutral language
or way in order not to marginalize or avoid insulting a particular group of
people.
Is the use of Political
Correctness far over the top? Do we know what we can still think or even say
without, being accused of being a Racist or annoying someone?
To be
politically correct, means you have to apologize constantly.
Our
constitution guarantees every citizen to express his/her opinion freely either
in words, writing or pictures. A censorship does not take place, but why do
people swallow all this mental paternalism?
Of course, we have to be
careful with what we say in order not to offend people. Because to be politically correct
also means not calling people of East Asien appearance, “Chinks”, because the
word is indiscriminately used and the use of it is considered offensive.
My thoughts are, that we have gone overboard with Political Correctness, but if we dare to question it, our ideas and thoughts and character are from some people categorized as populist or even right-wing. They are the same people that do not even know when to draw the line and by satisfying the few, the majority however, are ignored. It is people like those, who endanger our society.
DO THEY NOT
UNDERSTAND, THAT NOT EVERYONE WHO EAT MEAT, THINKS THAT ANIMAL WELFARE DOES NOT
MATTER?
Political
correctness has long surpassed common sense. It tries to make everything right,
even if it is not possible or indeed necessary. Everything that has to do with
common sense is simply thrown overboard.
Is not Christmas part of
our culture? It is quite correct to say Merry Christmas.
I do not believe that the
Muslims, Jews and other non-Christian communities in predominantly Christian
countries have anything against it. Just ask the people in your area if they
are upset when they hear "Merry Christmas" or read the words. Personally,
I do not know of a single one, and you?
Here are some examples from the US and the UK of enthusiasts who are careful not to use language that may offend a particular group of people. Who are these people? Well, they are politicians, teachers, social workers, feminists, publicists and academics who seem to deal with such modern disciplines such as identity, gender and Third World Studies, further groups who are involved in such activities are trade unionists and theologians.
USA:
Of course, classical
literature was not sure of politically correctness for sure. In many American
schools, Mark Twain's novel "Huckleberry Finn" is no longer studied.
A literary scholar from Alabama came to the rescue and created a “clean version”
of the novel, in which all "negros" and "niggers" were
deleted.
When Huckleberry Finn says,
"Slave" instead of "negro," the story is being separated
from the time that it is actually been played in. As long as I can think back, the word "nigger" has been
a dirty word and pejorative. I belong to one of the generations that
"Negro" was not a dirty word but was a neutral description of race. Later we said
“Coloured” and that was followed with “Black”.
Does that mean that I
and millions of English speaking people were racist? No,
of course not, as with Huckleberry Finn, that is what the world looked like
then. Should not literature always be considered in the context of the
time in which it originated? Can it be that students should not learn more about what the world looked
like when they did not yet follow the rules of political correctness?
Should we just rewrite literature
like "Tom Sawyer? Was it
racist? On the other hand, were they simply the times back then? Do we have to
replace all books with the term "red skin" with "Indians"? While we are at it, should we remove
all swastikas from history books?
The strongest
girl in the world Pippi Longstocking, ("Negro King") has been
censored since 2009. To all those, who missed the pleasure of reading about or
watching TV Series about Pippi Longstocking. Pippi is the daughter of a South Seas seafarer Ephraim
Longstocking, who is
the captain of the sailing ship Hoptoad, from whom Pippi inherited
her common sense and incredible strength. Captain Longstocking is the only
person known to match Pippi in physical ability. He originally bought Villa
Villekulla to give his daughter a more stable home life than that on board the
ship, although Pippi loves the seafaring life and is a better sailor and
helmsman than most of her father's crew.
Pippi retired to the Villa Villekulla
after it was believed that her father was lost at sea. Pippi however believed
her father was still alive, and that he had rescued himself to an island, where
he had been made a king of the natives, and was strolling around all day with a
crown on his head. She believed her father would one day come to look for her
at Villa Villekulla.
As it turned out, Captain Longstocking
had been washed ashore upon a South Sea island known as “Kurrekurredutt Isle”,
where its native people made him the „fat white chief“. “Now “fat white chief”
was not considered as being discriminating, The Captain returned to Sweden to
bring Pippi to his new home in the South Seas, where she was confirmed as the "fat white
chief's" daughter, "negerprinsessa" and her father
as "negerkung", meaning "negro princess" and
"negro king" respectively.
UK:
Many schools have dropped the terms
"BC" (Before Christ) and "AD" (Anno Domini - After Christ)
in religious education to avoid insulting non-Christians. In some educational institutions,
BC and AD had been replaced by the terms BCE (Before Common Era) and CE (Common
Era).
Former Archbishop of Canterbury,
Lord Carey, called the ruling of the religious education committees "a
great shame." He said that he "never met a Muslim or Jewish leader
who is offended by the Gregorian calendar".
The Deputy Secretary-General of
the Muslim Council of Britain Imam Ibrahim Mogra said: "I do not think it
offends Muslims". A spokesman (sorry! spokesperson) for the board of
British Jews said, "I do not think anyone would mind if they use BC and AD
in schools."
Some Catholic schools in England
and Wales are said to have remove the terms "mother" and
"father" from their inclusion, because they feared that the words
could discriminate against families with gays or stepparents However, following
a complaint from a parent, the school was referred to the schools governing
body because the terms "stepparents, and gay parents" were
discriminating against. Separated parents.
It seems that the Twitter
proletariat is encouraged to make any perceived inhibitions of racism,
Islamism, chauvinism, sexism, genderism, classicism, anti-Semitism, and
whatever the other -ism, happens to be the taste of the week.
In 2014, political correctness
was no longer just unconventional and tedious. It got bigger, insisting that
"gingerbread men" are to be called "gingerbread people"
instead.
Another
gem. The phrase "Ladies and Gentleman" is to be deleted from
announcements on the London Tube in order to keep it gender-neutral. Instead,
London Underground Staff should use greetings such as "Good morning
everyone" to make sure that all passengers feel "welcome".
What political correctness has achieved is to have scared writers, comedians, artists and politicians to address specific issues. Unique viewpoints and voices have been made silent. It has led teachers to be on their toes for fear of losing their jobs; silenced students/pupils who want to create new knowledge or want to create something new with their knowledge - they are too busy thinking about, whether their actions are offending people, and therefore stop talking, whilst the ignorant and hateful get louder. It limits intellectual discussions and thoughts.
What I am referring to, is the paralysis that we feel now because we are afraid to offend. We can no longer talk about current events, politics, race, religion, or sexuality without the fear of being misinterpreted or declared ignorant or insensitive.
Overall
we can say that being politically correct does not mean being correct!
========================================================================
25.09.2018
I am fed up with the News on television not mentioning the complete facts and only showing parts to their own advantages or to their probable masters.
Take the speech of Theresa May's post-Salzburg speech; here in Germany, much was not shown, only parts of it, to which more at less portrays that the EU are doing everything correctly throughout the Brexit negotiation talks and respecting the british people.
I do not know whether you have the same thoughts in your Country, that htings are being left out on purpose.
So I have decided to post the transcript, so that you can see for yourselves what was said, in particuraly to the EU citizens leaving in the UK, which incidentally was not mentioned here in the news on television.
“Yesterday, I was in Salzburg for talks with European
leaders. I have always said that these negotiations would be tough — and they
were always bound to be toughest in the final straight. While both sides want a
deal, we have to face up to the fact that — despite the progress we have made —
there are two big issues where we remain a long way apart.
The first is our economic relationship after we have
left. Here, the EU is still only offering us two options. The first option
would involve the UK staying in the European Economic Area and a customs union
with the EU. In plain English, this would mean we’d still have to abide by all
the EU rules, uncontrolled immigration from the EU would continue and we
couldn’t do the trade deals we want with other countries. That would make a
mockery of the referendum we had two years ago.
The second option would be a basic free trade
agreement for Great Britain that would introduce checks at the Great Britain/EU
border. But even worse, Northern Ireland would effectively remain in the
Customs Union and parts of the Single Market, permanently separated
economically from the rest of the UK by a border down the Irish Sea. Parliament
has already — unanimously — rejected this idea.
Creating any form of customs border between Northern
Ireland and the rest of the UK would not respect that Northern Ireland is an
integral part of the United Kingdom, in line with the principle of consent, as
set out clearly in the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement. It is something I will
never agree to — indeed, in my judgment it is something no British Prime
Minister would ever agree to. If the EU believe I will, they are making a
fundamental mistake. Anything which fails to respect the referendum or which effectively
divides our country in two would be a bad deal and I have always said no deal
is better than a bad deal.
But I have also been clear that the best outcome is
for the UK to leave with a deal. That is why, following months of intensive
work and detailed discussions, we proposed a third option for our future
economic relationship, based on the frictionless trade in goods. That is the
best way to protect jobs here and in the EU and to avoid a hard border between
Ireland and Northern Ireland, while respecting the referendum result and the
integrity of the United Kingdom.
Yesterday Donald Tusk said our proposals would
undermine the single market. He didn’t explain how in any detail or make any
counter-proposal. So we are at an impasse.
The second issue is connected to the first. We both
agree that the Withdrawal Agreement needs to include a backstop to ensure that
if there’s a delay in implementing our new relationship, there still won’t be a
hard border between Ireland and Northern Ireland. But the EU is proposing to
achieve this by effectively keeping Northern Ireland in the Customs Union. As I
have already said, that is unacceptable. We will never agree to it. It would
mean breaking up our country. We will set out our alternative that preserves
the integrity of the UK. And it will be in line with the commitments we made
back in December — including the commitment that no new regulatory barriers
should be created between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK unless the
Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly agree.
As I told EU leaders, neither side should demand the
unacceptable of the other. We cannot accept anything that threatens the
integrity of our union, just as they cannot accept anything that threatens the
integrity of theirs. We cannot accept anything that does not respect the result
of the referendum, just as they cannot accept anything that is not in the
interest of their citizens. Throughout this process, I have treated the EU with
nothing but respect. The UK expects the same. A good relationship at the end of
this process depends on it.
At this late stage in the negotiations, it is not
acceptable to simply reject the other side’s proposals without a detailed
explanation and counter proposals. So we now need to hear from the EU what the
real issues are and what their alternative is so that we can discuss them.
Until we do, we cannot make progress. In the meantime, we must and will
continue the work of preparing ourselves for no deal. In particular, I want to
clarify our approach to two issues.
First, there are over 3 million EU citizens living in
the UK who will be understandably worried about what the outcome of yesterday’s
summit means for their future. I want to be clear with you that even in the
event of no deal your rights will be protected. You are our friends, our
neighbours, our colleagues. We want you to stay.
Second, I want to reassure the people of Northern
Ireland that in the event of no deal we will do everything in our power to
prevent a return to a hard border.
Let me also say this. The referendum was the largest
democratic exercise this country has ever undergone. To deny its legitimacy or
frustrate its result threatens public trust in our democracy. That is why for
over two years I have worked day and night to deliver a deal that sees the UK
leave the EU. I have worked to bring people with me even when that has not
always seemed possible. No one wants a good deal more than me. But the EU
should be clear: I will not overturn the result of the referendum. Nor will I
break up my country. We need serious engagement on resolving the two big
problems in the negotiations. We stand ready.”
====================================================================
Newsnight. Do older men have preference over their same aged female counterparts?
24 July 2018
Back in 1955, a woman called Barbara Mandell made history by becoming the first woman to read the news on British TV, at ITN.
What was most curious, was that she sat there in a make believe kitchen in the background, reading the news!
Furthermore, back then, women were only permitted to read some news, Wars or tragedies were strictly themes that were only allowed to be presented by men.
There were complaints about the way the news was presented, with a make believe kitchen. Rightly so, how sexist, you may say. The only thing was however, were that the complaints were just confined to the sink, being shown containing dirty dishes! After all this critic, it was changed to a more pleasant view of that a drawing room. How pleasant and considerate.
Sixty years on, much has changed, there are now in fact more female newscasters on British TV than male ones, some also have high profiles too, like Kay Burley and Mary Nightingale.
There is still a problem however, Cathy Newman once said:
“Male broadcasting titans like my wonderful co-presenter Jon Snow, John Humphrys and David Dimbleby are well into their 60`s and 70’s. The women do not even get close.”
Does ageism exist then - or better defined, sexist ageism?
Men indeed do seem to maintain their place on screen for longer. Fact is, there are no female equivalents of David Dimbleby or Jon Snow. Anna Ford was still reading the news into her 60s, but so far she has been a one off. Mary Nightingale, who presents the ITV news at 6.30 pm, is 52 and is currently one of the oldest female newsreader on national TV.
It certainly does seem that women are more changed on their looks than their counterparts. The older men who are not in the best shape are being lauded for their journalism and great personalities, while equally talented women, who are not a perfect size 10 are batting away comments made about their figures and that from other journalists.
Sophie Raworth admitted that women’s appearances is by far more scrutinised than her male colleagues. She was once advised from doctors to have a mole removed from her nose. Although her friends who have known her, since she was a small child, had not even noticed, a newspaper did and printed half a page article about it.
Sohie Raworth also added however, although she is still working at the good old (for some) age of 47 proves how far things are changing and admits to having a higher profile since she had turned 40, there are quite a few females in their 40’s and early 50’s.
Do women stand a chance of pursuing their careers over 50 or even sixty?
Is sexist ageism a thing of the past? Well things have definitely improved for sure, but we are not out of the woods yet.
===================================================================
Travelling through France this summer?
Newsnight. Do older men have preference over their same aged female counterparts?
24 July 2018
Back in 1955, a woman called Barbara Mandell made history by becoming the first woman to read the news on British TV, at ITN.
What was most curious, was that she sat there in a make believe kitchen in the background, reading the news!
Furthermore, back then, women were only permitted to read some news, Wars or tragedies were strictly themes that were only allowed to be presented by men.
There were complaints about the way the news was presented, with a make believe kitchen. Rightly so, how sexist, you may say. The only thing was however, were that the complaints were just confined to the sink, being shown containing dirty dishes! After all this critic, it was changed to a more pleasant view of that a drawing room. How pleasant and considerate.
Sixty years on, much has changed, there are now in fact more female newscasters on British TV than male ones, some also have high profiles too, like Kay Burley and Mary Nightingale.
There is still a problem however, Cathy Newman once said:
“Male broadcasting titans like my wonderful co-presenter Jon Snow, John Humphrys and David Dimbleby are well into their 60`s and 70’s. The women do not even get close.”
Does ageism exist then - or better defined, sexist ageism?
Men indeed do seem to maintain their place on screen for longer. Fact is, there are no female equivalents of David Dimbleby or Jon Snow. Anna Ford was still reading the news into her 60s, but so far she has been a one off. Mary Nightingale, who presents the ITV news at 6.30 pm, is 52 and is currently one of the oldest female newsreader on national TV.
It certainly does seem that women are more changed on their looks than their counterparts. The older men who are not in the best shape are being lauded for their journalism and great personalities, while equally talented women, who are not a perfect size 10 are batting away comments made about their figures and that from other journalists.
Sophie Raworth admitted that women’s appearances is by far more scrutinised than her male colleagues. She was once advised from doctors to have a mole removed from her nose. Although her friends who have known her, since she was a small child, had not even noticed, a newspaper did and printed half a page article about it.
Sohie Raworth also added however, although she is still working at the good old (for some) age of 47 proves how far things are changing and admits to having a higher profile since she had turned 40, there are quite a few females in their 40’s and early 50’s.
Do women stand a chance of pursuing their careers over 50 or even sixty?
Is sexist ageism a thing of the past? Well things have definitely improved for sure, but we are not out of the woods yet.
===================================================================
Travelling through France this summer?
10 July 2018
Three times a year, we drive through France to Cantabria in Spain. When I was younger, I use to do the journey in one day. After turning fifty, I soon found out that my body, could no longer cope with it. The solution was quite simple, do a stopover for a night in France!
So what sort of Hotel do you book? Years before, when driving back through France, we use to do a stopover near Bordeaux (Cestas) at Capanille. We were very happy with the accomodation. However, what happens, if you are on a smaller Budget?
There are quite a few Budget Hotels, like "Ibis" " F1" etc.. I think that if you are young and you do not mind sleeping on narrow thin and low down beds, cramped in a room, with a cramp bathroom, with the WC being right up close to the shower and wall, then you will not be disappointed. If you have small children with you, it would be advisable not to arrive too early, otherwise your children and yourselves will soon become restless and worse maybe agitated, all together in one small room and bathroom.
I stayed quite a few times in different Budget Hotels, we thought, well all we need, is just somewhere to sleep and that is it. Apart from the breakfast, hotel staff and cleanliness, we were not really contended with the comfort and consequently did not sleep well. I take it for granted that here, is the price more important than the comfort and I understand perfectly, if people, would rather save money here. However if one of you, happens to be on the corpulent side, I am not too sure, that you will sleep well, or enjoy showering yourselves in the bathroom.
We have gone back to staying at Campanille, because we have the knowledge of knowing, that we will have a good sleep and shower in a spacious bathroom, and enjoy a complementary Tea or Coffee in the Mornings, if you wish to leave without having breakfast.
The price of the rooms and breakfast are more expensive than the Budget Hotels, but hey it gives us a good start for the second part of the journey. Many times the Budget Hotels are in the same area as Campanille.
We tend to stay in differnt areas of France, arriving early and then going to town for a look around.
Whatever you decide, have a safe trip and enjoy your holidays!!
========================================================================
“It’s more difficult to avoid sugar than you think,”
28 June 2018
Through the Media, we are almost confronted every day, that we are consuming too much sugar. In many cases, sugar is found in products you wouldn’t suspect and under names you wouldn’t recognize. What can we do about this? Are we left alone in this fate? What about the food industry? How can we educate ourselves? Does the government inform us?
The enormous power of the sugar lobby –
Food Industry
For decades, the sugar industry managed to deceive consumers and to cheer their products. The harmful effect of excessive sugar consumption was deliberately concealed or even denied. Obesity, diabetes and heart disease were the bitter consequences for many consumers. On average, Germans (and they are not alone here) consume almost 1 kg of sugar per week. That's 333 pieces of sugar cubes.
For decades, the sugar industry managed to deceive consumers and to cheer their products. The harmful effect of excessive sugar consumption was deliberately concealed or even denied. Obesity, diabetes and heart disease were the bitter consequences for many consumers. On average, Germans (and they are not alone here) consume almost 1 kg of sugar per week. That's 333 pieces of sugar cubes.
They want to sell, their products.
The truth of the matter is, we are consuming too much sugar, and it has become
a growing problem; whether being in Food, processed food, drinks or sweet
things, it is harming us. Most of the time, we do not know that what we are
really consuming, as I mentioned above. In many cases, sugar is found
in products you wouldn’t suspect and under names you wouldn’t recognize. Well,
there is hope, my little sweet tooth friends. We CAN educate ourselves, there
is a lot of information out there and of course this blog could be passed on to
your friends J.
In October 2015, the EU lifted the Sugar quotas which also meant no
quota system within the EU for isoglucose. Isoglucose is an industrial sugar produced from corn, cereals
or potatoes and is significantly cheaper than normal table sugar and is
dangerous healthwise. As trade restrictions applied, this significantly limited
the import. Thanks to sugar quotas, the total import volume of isoglucose was
regulated and it was not allowed to exceed 5% of the total sugar market. The
market share of isoglucose in the sweetener market has increased significantly
and was also forecast as such from the EU Commission.
For the economy, the reasons for isoglucose are obvious. The industrial sugar produced from corn is significantly cheaper
than normal table sugar.
Prior to the lifting of the sugar quotas, in the US, industrial sugar
isoglucose was believed to be a major cause of widespread of obesity and
diabetes. With
elaborate and, above all, expensive education campaigns, it was however
possible to reduce the consumption of isoglucose to a certain extent. Since the
EU has lifted the quotas, this now allows a significant increased level of
isoglucose. The health of its inhabitants should be the
priority of every government.
Now, let’s eat a natural yoghurt and carry on reading my little
sweeties. STOP! Sugar alert! Added sugar
found in two-thirds of packaged foods! “Come on I’m enjoying my healthy yoghurt
here.” Healthy? Would you have suspected sugar in a natural yoghurt? Some
manufacturers use not only milk but milk solids during preparation. It contains
more sugar than fresh milk - the yoghurt tastes sweeter. Advantage for the
manufacturers: You do not have to list milk solids - unlike added sugar - in
the list of ingredients. They got us again.
No matter what you buy from the store, almost everything contains less
or more sugar. Not just the
sweet foods and beverages but also the salty ones. The reason is simple. It is
easy to get addicted to sugar, and that means more sales for the food industry.
Did you know, so that YOU as a consumer, do not notice if you
are consuming products containing harmful isoglucose or granulated sugar. the
Cargill Group had or still has a tasting room at its most important European R
& D location in Vilvoorder, just outside Brüssels, where the soft drink
manufacturers can test their own products. They
had two versions: one sweetened with sugar and a reformatted version sweetened
with isoglucose. While table sugar is made of glucose and fructose linked
in a 50/50 ratio, isoglucose contains varying amounts of the two
molecules, usually around 40 percent of fructose and 60 percent of glucose.
This ratio was found to better mimic the taste of table sugar than a 50/50
ratio.
Now, sit down before you fall down. Did
you know there are over 200 types of sugar used by manufacturers? Unbelievable,
isn’t it? There is no question that sugar is guilty for many conditions,
therefore it is important for us to decrease the amount of daily sugar intake.
Many people are getting more and more health conscious. They often pay
attention to what they eat and drink and furthermore due to thr put in place
food labelling. they are starting to check the food labels as well. What does
the food producers do? Searching for foods that are healthier and contain less
sugar or salt is something that the food producers do not like, so wanting our
best, they give different names for sugar to mislead the consumers whilst
maintaining their sales.
I came across an infographic by appforhealth.com , which shows us the most common
names they use for sugar. Before you
purchase processed foods and beverages, have a quick look at the label and see
if you can see any of these as portrayed by the app, “sneaky names”:
However,
it must be said, that there are many families out there, that have low incomes
or are on welfare, or indeed both. Put yourself in the situation of a provider
if I may use this word (please note it is gender free), and you wish to cook
dinner tonight for yourself, your partner and the children. You have two
children (the average number of children for a British family is currently
1.7.) You decide to go to a discounter like Lidl whilst they are at school,
because “Tina” is eight and has to go to the Brownies and later do her homework.
Mark who is twelve has football training straight after school, and if he also has
homework. Your partner (gender free) arrives home at around 5.30 pm, so you plan
to eat altogether at 6.00 pm. Your partner goes to work by car, so you need to
get the bus into town. The fare is £2.40, there and
back. On the way there, you are thinking about what are you going to cook. The
children love pizza, so that is also convenience, on the other hand, beans,
sausages and chips would also be ok. I could do the chips myself, but they do
take longer in the chip pan. Spaghetti Bolognese would not be bad either, and
is nice and cheap. All you are concerned with, is just getting your children
fed. They normally come home hungry and I need something in them that will
last. Now if a kilo of French Fries costs 75p, 12 British Pork Sausages for
£1.19 and two tins of baked beans for 64p. and some wholemeal Medium Bread
(800g) for 55p. That is a meal, that will fill them up. Its costs as little as
£3.13. It is quick an inexpensive, “Lovely Jubbly” as Del Boy would say. Not
much importance is given to healthy food. You want your children full, you do
not have much time to cook, you have to supervise the homework, clean up, make
sure Tina brushes her teeth etc… You need to keep your budget as low as
possible. Tomorrow is Saturday and therefore you can go with your partner
shopping for the whole week.
Now the most of us know that
fries, and other fried foods when consumed frequently, is associated with a
greater risk of developing type 2 diabetes, heart disease and obesity. They
also contribute to high blood pressure and no “good” HDL cholesterol. Sausages
are processed meat and are considered as being bad for you and has been linked
with diseases like cancer and heart disease in numerous studies. There is no
doubt that processed meat contains many harmful chemicals that are not
naturally present in fresh meat. Now, baked beans, “No, not my baked beans” I
hear you say, Well, what would you like first, the good news or the bad? Ok,
the bad is, the average serve (150g) of baked beans has 15g of added sugar,
which is 3 teaspoons of sugar and is a moderately high amount. Now according to
the World Health Organisation, we should ideally stay under 25g of sugar per
day to stay healthy, so put that Mars bar down! The same average
serve of baked beans (150g) can also contain an average of 1100mg of sodium
(2.8g of salt). Nearly 50% of our daily allowance.
Thank God for no added salt
or low in Sugar baked beans. Of course, they are more expensive that your
ordinary baked beans. Now for the good news, if you are buying the no added
salt and reduced sugar versions (more expensive), baked beans actually contain
a lot of fiber (5.2g per 100g) and plant based protein which research has shown
that it makes us fell fuller for longer. Never thought I could write some much
about baked beans! But just to emphasize on the Nutritional value and good
news, for all you baked bean lovers, read this and be happy.
So now we know that Baked beans offer a variety of nutritional benefits,
one of these benefits comes from fiber, a soluble fiber. This source of fiber is what causes flatulence (fart
response 😔). The reason behind this is due to our gut flora
(bacteria) breaking down the fiber in the beans.
If you can deal with the extra
gas, then baked beans can promote a healthy gut. One type of fiber we get in
baked beans is called inulin which works as a prebiotic to feed good
bacteria and benefit our health. This good bacterium breaks down the soluble
fiber (mainly oligosaccharides) and as a by-product produces hydrogen, nitrogen
and Carbon dioxide (CO2), which causes flatulence (farting 😊).
This causes no health issues unless you have issues with your gut
bacteria L.
Maybe here the GOV UK should think about putting this on their Food and
Labelling program! What would you put on the label?
While table sugar is made of glucose and fructose linked in a
50/50 ratio, isoglucose contains varying amounts of the two molecules,
usually around 40 percent of fructose and 60 percent of glucose. This ratio was found to better mimic the taste of table sugar
than a 50/50 ratio.
A fruit juice is often thought to be healthy. That's understandable ... Fruit juices seem to be natural and
contain the word "fruit". What many people forget or do not
understand is that fruit juice also contains a lot of sugar. In fact, fruit
juice contains just as much sugar and calories as a sugary drink, like
coke or limonade and sometimes even more; and when you see further down,
how much sugar there is in a can of coke, it will blow your socks off.
The tiny amount of vitamins and antioxidants in fruit juices is nothing
compared to the huge amount of sugar it contains.
Fruit juices are often not what they look like. Even the
higher-quality juices have largely lost their natural taste through their
production and must be enriched with flavors to mimic the original taste. So
even if you buy the highest quality fruit juice in the supermarket, it is still
far from a real, freshly squeezed fruit juice.
A fruit juice contains some
nutrients, but much less than fresh fruit or plant foods. It has no fiber,
contains a lot of sugar and a lot of calories. Often even more than sugary
drinks like Coca Cola.
Fruit juices contain a large amount of sugar. Compared to fresh fruit all fiber
is missing and you do not have to chew the juices, which means that we absorb
more sugar and calories than we would like. Studies have also proven that it
can lead to serious metabolic diseases.
Consumers have misconceptions
about sugar and its production, that is where the government come in, but can
we trust them? After all, it wasn't so long ago that we were spoon-fed the
unimpeachable "fact" that we should eat no more than two eggs a week
because they contained heart-stopping cholesterol, but that gem of nutritional
wisdom had to be quietly erased from history when research showing that
cholesterol in eggs had almost no effect on blood cholesterol became too
glaringly obvious to ignore. No government authority has bothered to tell us
that lamb, beef and game from free-range, grass-fed animals is a top source of
conjugated linoleic acid, the micronutrient that reduces our risk of cancer,
obesity and diabetes, but they do their best, or do they?
Many people raise their eyebrows here and think of a Nanny State and it
is not so welcome in many households, but at least, they do try to educate and
in many cases actually get involved and change the practice of the food
industry. There is a
lot of information on GOV.UK, which informs us also about food. Food Labelling
has become an option, and is very important for the consumer. The food industry
were /are describing the ingredients, so that many of us do not understand. The
GOV UK, has laid down rules for food and drink warnings, to bring more
transparency into the products. Here is an excerpt of the topic which can be
found on the GOV UK’s website:
Food and drink warnings:
You must show an appropriate warning on
the label if your food contains certain ingredients.
Ingredient
Wording you must use
Allura red (E129)
‘May have an adverse effect on activity and attention in
children’
Aspartame
‘Contains a source of phenylalanine’
Caffeine over 150 mg/l
‘Not suitable for children, pregnant women and persons sensitive
to caffeine’
Carmoisine (E122)
‘May have an adverse effect on activity and attention in
children’
Liquorice
‘Contains liquorice’ (you may need extra wording for
confectionery or alcohol containing liquorice).
Polyols
‘Excessive consumption may cause a laxative effect’
Ponceau 4R (E124)
‘May have an adverse effect on activity and attention in
children’
Quinoline yellow (E104)
‘May have an adverse effect on activity and attention in
children’
Raw milk
‘This milk has not been heat-treated and may therefore contain
organisms harmful to health’
Skimmed milk with non-milk fat
There’s no fixed wording, but you must show a warning that the
product is unfit or not to be used for babies.
Sulphur dioxide over 10mg/l
‘Contains sulphur dioxide (or sulphites/sulfites)’
Sunset yellow (E110)
‘May have an adverse effect on activity and attention in
children’
Sweeteners
‘With sweetener(s)’
Sweeteners and sugar
‘With sugar and sweetener(s)’
Tartrazine (E102)
‘May have an adverse effect on activity and attention in
children
The government also has rules for food labelling and packaging, you cann look
this up on their website, however I will label out the overview as seen on the
website.
To sell food and drink products, the label must be:
You must show certain
basic information and list the ingredients.
You might also have to show certain
warnings.
There are special regulations
for labelling wine.
Products
sold loose or in catering businesses
If you run a catering business, you sell food loose or package it for sale in
your shop, you only need to show:
Packaging
If you package food yourself, you must
use packaging that’s suitable for food use. Suitable packaging is marked ‘for
food contact’ or has a symbol on it that looks like a wine glass and a fork.
There are special rules for using plastics, ceramics or cellophane for
packaging. You must have written evidence that you’ve kept to them.
This is known as a ‘declaration of compliance’ and you can get it from your
packaging supplier. You also have to get one if you buy food that’s already
packaged for sale in any of those materials.
Read the national legislation on food contact materials for England, Northern
Ireland, Wales or Scotland.
Now the most of us know that
fries, and other fried foods when consumed frequently, is associated with a
greater risk of developing type 2 diabetes, heart disease and obesity. They
also contribute to high blood pressure and no “good” HDL cholesterol. Sausages
are processed meat and are considered as being bad for you and has been linked
with diseases like cancer and heart disease in numerous studies. There is no
doubt that processed meat contains many harmful chemicals that are not
naturally present in fresh meat. Now, baked beans, “No, not my baked beans” I
hear you say, Well, what would you like first, the good news or the bad? Ok,
the bad is, the average serve (150g) of baked beans has 15g of added sugar,
which is 3 teaspoons of sugar and is a moderately high amount. Now according to
the World Health Organisation, we should ideally stay under 25g of sugar per
day to stay healthy, so put that Mars bar down! The same average
serve of baked beans (150g) can also contain an average of 1100mg of sodium
(2.8g of salt). Nearly 50% of our daily allowance.
Thank God for no added salt
or low in Sugar baked beans. Of course, they are more expensive that your
ordinary baked beans. Now for the good news, if you are buying the no added
salt and reduced sugar versions (more expensive), baked beans actually contain
a lot of fiber (5.2g per 100g) and plant based protein which research has shown
that it makes us fell fuller for longer. Never thought I could write some much
about baked beans! But just to emphasize on the Nutritional value and good
news, for all you baked bean lovers, read this and be happy.
So now we know that Baked beans offer a variety of nutritional benefits,
one of these benefits comes from fiber, a soluble fiber. This source of fiber is what causes flatulence (fart
response 😔). The reason behind this is due to our gut flora
(bacteria) breaking down the fiber in the beans.
If you can deal with the extra
gas, then baked beans can promote a healthy gut. One type of fiber we get in
baked beans is called inulin which works as a prebiotic to feed good
bacteria and benefit our health. This good bacterium breaks down the soluble
fiber (mainly oligosaccharides) and as a by-product produces hydrogen, nitrogen
and Carbon dioxide (CO2), which causes flatulence (farting 😊).
This causes no health issues unless you have issues with your gut bacteria L.
Maybe here the GOV UK should think about putting this on their Food and Labelling program! What would you put on the label?
This causes no health issues unless you have issues with your gut bacteria L.
Maybe here the GOV UK should think about putting this on their Food and Labelling program! What would you put on the label?
Now that is a situation, that I imagine many people are in, however
there is hope. I chose Lidl,
because as a discounter, many people from all works of life, go there shopping
and Lidl, apart from shopping have quite a lot to offer too. Most households do
have internet and it is there were you can educate yourself about food and
beverages. When you are on the Lidl website, not only can you look through the
leaflet for special offers, they also have a blog called “Feed the family on a
budget” Here consumers can post recipes and tips, showing ways to make food and
money go further, which is useful if you happen to have a family. Growing your
own herbs, or simply making meals from leftovers (which many people do). Even
tips on clever cooking methods are given from other customers. Many of these
posts are, helpful, healthy and nutritious. They also have post on money-saving
tips. Waitrose has an online section for healthy recipes, shopping and even a
diet plan, not that you need one!
While table sugar is made of glucose and fructose linked in a
50/50 ratio, isoglucose contains varying amounts of the two molecules,
usually around 40 percent of fructose and 60 percent of glucose. This ratio was found to better mimic the taste of table sugar
than a 50/50 ratio.
A fruit juice is often thought to be healthy. That's understandable ... Fruit juices seem to be natural and
contain the word "fruit". What many people forget or do not
understand is that fruit juice also contains a lot of sugar. In fact, fruit
juice contains just as much sugar and calories as a sugary drink, like
coke or limonade and sometimes even more; and when you see further down,
how much sugar there is in a can of coke, it will blow your socks off.
The tiny amount of vitamins and antioxidants in fruit juices is nothing
compared to the huge amount of sugar it contains.
Fruit juices are often not what they look like. Even the higher-quality juices have largely lost their natural taste through their production and must be enriched with flavors to mimic the original taste. So even if you buy the highest quality fruit juice in the supermarket, it is still far from a real, freshly squeezed fruit juice.
A fruit juice contains some
nutrients, but much less than fresh fruit or plant foods. It has no fiber,
contains a lot of sugar and a lot of calories. Often even more than sugary
drinks like Coca Cola.
Fruit juices contain a large amount of sugar. Compared to fresh fruit all fiber is missing and you do not have to chew the juices, which means that we absorb more sugar and calories than we would like. Studies have also proven that it can lead to serious metabolic diseases.
Fruit juices contain a large amount of sugar. Compared to fresh fruit all fiber is missing and you do not have to chew the juices, which means that we absorb more sugar and calories than we would like. Studies have also proven that it can lead to serious metabolic diseases.
Consumers have misconceptions
about sugar and its production, that is where the government come in, but can
we trust them? After all, it wasn't so long ago that we were spoon-fed the
unimpeachable "fact" that we should eat no more than two eggs a week
because they contained heart-stopping cholesterol, but that gem of nutritional
wisdom had to be quietly erased from history when research showing that
cholesterol in eggs had almost no effect on blood cholesterol became too
glaringly obvious to ignore. No government authority has bothered to tell us
that lamb, beef and game from free-range, grass-fed animals is a top source of
conjugated linoleic acid, the micronutrient that reduces our risk of cancer,
obesity and diabetes, but they do their best, or do they?
Many people raise their eyebrows here and think of a Nanny State and it
is not so welcome in many households, but at least, they do try to educate and
in many cases actually get involved and change the practice of the food
industry. There is a
lot of information on GOV.UK, which informs us also about food. Food Labelling
has become an option, and is very important for the consumer. The food industry
were /are describing the ingredients, so that many of us do not understand. The
GOV UK, has laid down rules for food and drink warnings, to bring more
transparency into the products. Here is an excerpt of the topic which can be
found on the GOV UK’s website:
Food and drink warnings:
You must show an appropriate warning on
the label if your food contains certain ingredients.
Ingredient
|
Wording you must use
|
Allura red (E129)
|
‘May have an adverse effect on activity and attention in
children’
|
Aspartame
|
‘Contains a source of phenylalanine’
|
Caffeine over 150 mg/l
|
‘Not suitable for children, pregnant women and persons sensitive
to caffeine’
|
Carmoisine (E122)
|
‘May have an adverse effect on activity and attention in
children’
|
Liquorice
|
‘Contains liquorice’ (you may need extra wording for
confectionery or alcohol containing liquorice).
|
Polyols
|
‘Excessive consumption may cause a laxative effect’
|
Ponceau 4R (E124)
|
‘May have an adverse effect on activity and attention in
children’
|
Quinoline yellow (E104)
|
‘May have an adverse effect on activity and attention in
children’
|
Raw milk
|
‘This milk has not been heat-treated and may therefore contain
organisms harmful to health’
|
Skimmed milk with non-milk fat
|
There’s no fixed wording, but you must show a warning that the
product is unfit or not to be used for babies.
|
Sulphur dioxide over 10mg/l
|
‘Contains sulphur dioxide (or sulphites/sulfites)’
|
Sunset yellow (E110)
|
‘May have an adverse effect on activity and attention in
children’
|
Sweeteners
|
‘With sweetener(s)’
|
Sweeteners and sugar
|
‘With sugar and sweetener(s)’
|
Tartrazine (E102)
|
‘May have an adverse effect on activity and attention in
children
|
The government also has rules for food labelling and packaging, you cann look this up on their website, however I will label out the overview as seen on the website.
To sell food and drink products, the label must be:
clear and easy to read
permanent
easy to understand
easily visible
not misleading
You must show certain basic information and list the ingredients. You might also have to show certain warnings.
There are special regulations for labelling wine.
Products sold loose or in catering businesses
If you run a catering business, you sell food loose or package it for sale in your shop, you only need to show:
the name of the food
if any of the ingredients have
been irradiated, or have come from genetically modified sources
certain warnings
any food additive you have added
Packaging
If you package food yourself, you must use packaging that’s suitable for food use. Suitable packaging is marked ‘for food contact’ or has a symbol on it that looks like a wine glass and a fork.
There are special rules for using plastics, ceramics or cellophane for packaging. You must have written evidence that you’ve kept to them.
This is known as a ‘declaration of compliance’ and you can get it from your packaging supplier. You also have to get one if you buy food that’s already packaged for sale in any of those materials.
Read the national legislation on food contact materials for England, Northern Ireland, Wales or Scotland.
Oh My God !!!
On this site as indeed on many other sites, there is a lot of information out there. I wrote down on Google, "Is sugar bad for you?" Around 749.000,000 different Post came up, even one called I"Is sugar bad for you? Here's how it destroys your body."
On the GOV UK site, there is also a Press release, which was published on
22nd May 2018.
Press Release
First measure of industry progress to cut sugar unveiled
The first assessment of industry progress on the government’s sugar
reduction programme has been published.
Published 22 May 2018
Public Health England (PHE) has today
(Tuesday 22 May 2018) published the first
assessment of progress on the government’s sugar reduction programme, measuring
how far the food industry has gone towards reducing the sugar children consume
through everyday foods.
As part of the government’s plan
to reduce childhood obesity, the food industry, including retailers,
manufacturers, restaurants, cafés and pub chains, has been challenged to cut
20% of sugar from a range of products by 2020, with a 5% reduction in the first
year.
Progress towards meeting the 5%
ambition is the focus of this report and is assessed against a 2015 baseline.
The assessment shows an encouraging initial start from retailers and
manufacturers, achieving a 2% reduction in both average sugar content and
calories in products likely to be consumed in one go.
Whilst this doesn’t meet the 5%
ambition, PHE recognises there are more sugar reduction plans from
the food industry in the pipeline – and some changes to products that are not
yet captured in the data as they took effect after the first-year cut-off
point.
For the 8 food categories where progress has been measured, the assessment also shows:
For the 8 food categories where progress has been measured, the assessment also shows:
there have been reductions in
sugar levels across 5 categories
yoghurts and fromage frais,
breakfast cereals, and sweet spreads and sauces have all met or exceeded the
initial 5% sugar reduction ambition
sugar levels are generally the
same across all sectors, however for the eating out of home sector, portion
sizes in products likely to be consumed in one go are substantially larger – on
average more than double – those of retailers and manufacturers
Retailers and manufacturers have
also reduced calories in products likely to be consumed in one go in 4
categories, for example by reducing the size of the product. Of these, ice
cream, lollies and sorbets, and yoghurts and fromage frais have reduced average
calories by more than 5%.
Due to limitations with the data, PHE is not yet able to
report on the progress made in the cakes and morning goods categories for
retailer and manufacturer’s products. It
is also not possible to report on progress for the eating out of home sector
alone as part of this assessment. Progress in these areas will be reported on
next year.
As part of the programme, businesses are encouraged to focus efforts on their top selling products within 10 categories that contribute the most sugar to the diets of children up to 18 years of age. They have 3 options to help them do this – reduce sugar levels (reformulation), provide smaller portions, or encourage consumers to purchase lower or no sugar products.
Progress is also reported on the drinks covered by the government’s Soft Drinks Industry Levy (SDIL). Sugar has been reduced by 11% and average calories per portion by 6% by retailers and manufacturers in response to the SDIL. Data also shows people are buying more drinks that have sugar levels below the SDIL cut-off of 5g per 100g.
With a third of children leaving primary school overweight or obese, PHE continues to call for increased action from all sectors of the food industry to achieve the 20% reduction ambition by 2020.
Steve Brine, Public Health Minister, said:
"We lead the world in having the most stringent sugar reformulation targets and it is encouraging to see that some progress has been made in the first year.
However, we do not underestimate the scale of the challenge we face. We are monitoring progress closely and have not ruled out taking further action."
Duncan Selbie, Chief Executive at PHE, said:
"We have seen some of the food industry make good progress, and they should be commended for this. We also know that further progress is in the pipeline.
However, tackling the obesity crisis needs the whole food industry to step up, in particular, those businesses that have as yet taken little or no action."
Dr Alison Tedstone, Chief Nutritionist at PHE, said:
As part of the programme, businesses are encouraged to focus efforts on their top selling products within 10 categories that contribute the most sugar to the diets of children up to 18 years of age. They have 3 options to help them do this – reduce sugar levels (reformulation), provide smaller portions, or encourage consumers to purchase lower or no sugar products.
Progress is also reported on the drinks covered by the government’s Soft Drinks Industry Levy (SDIL). Sugar has been reduced by 11% and average calories per portion by 6% by retailers and manufacturers in response to the SDIL. Data also shows people are buying more drinks that have sugar levels below the SDIL cut-off of 5g per 100g.
With a third of children leaving primary school overweight or obese, PHE continues to call for increased action from all sectors of the food industry to achieve the 20% reduction ambition by 2020.
Steve Brine, Public Health Minister, said:
"We lead the world in having the most stringent sugar reformulation targets and it is encouraging to see that some progress has been made in the first year.
However, we do not underestimate the scale of the challenge we face. We are monitoring progress closely and have not ruled out taking further action."
Duncan Selbie, Chief Executive at PHE, said:
"We have seen some of the food industry make good progress, and they should be commended for this. We also know that further progress is in the pipeline.
However, tackling the obesity crisis needs the whole food industry to step up, in particular, those businesses that have as yet taken little or no action."
Dr Alison Tedstone, Chief Nutritionist at PHE, said:
"This is about tackling the nation’s obesity crisis. Too many children and adults suffer the effects of obesity, as
does society, with our NHS under needless pressure. Obesity widens economic
inequalities, affecting the poor the hardest."
PHE has also today published new guidelines for the drinks industry to reduce the amount of sugar children consume through juice and milk based drinks.
The drinks categories join the other 10 categories in PHE’s sugar reduction programme. Juice and milk based drinks are currently excluded from the government’s SDIL, but the exemption of milk based drinks will be reviewed by Treasury in 2020.
PHE has also today published new guidelines for the drinks industry to reduce the amount of sugar children consume through juice and milk based drinks.
The drinks categories join the other 10 categories in PHE’s sugar reduction programme. Juice and milk based drinks are currently excluded from the government’s SDIL, but the exemption of milk based drinks will be reviewed by Treasury in 2020.
By mid-2021, the drinks industry
is encouraged to:
reduce sugar in juice based drinks (excluding single juice) by 5%
cap all juice based drinks
(including blended juices, smoothies and single juices) likely to be consumed
in one go to 150 calories
reduce sugar in milk (and milk
substitutes) based drinks by 20% and cap products likely to be consumed in one
go to 300 calories
Fruit juice alone accounts for around 10% of the sugar consumed each day
by 4 to 18-year old’s. Current advice is that only one 150ml portion counts as
1 of our 5 a day.
The next progress report on the sugar
reduction programme is due in spring 2019.
I do honestly think, that in all,
there is a lot of information out there, you just have to look for it, even
watch the right programs on television. Look out for the adverts warning us of
sugar etc. By cutting back on your sugar, you are giving your body a re-start,
which you will notice.
Don’t forget to tell your friends what
you’ve learned. Share this Post!
============================================================================================
World Cup 2018 - Russia
14 June 2018
Just in case you have been alseep for the past few days, the World Cup starts today. What are we expecting of it? Let’s hope that Politics will stay out of this great tournament. We want a peaceful tournament, with no hooligans from different countries fighting each other. We want the game to show its beautiful side and make us forget our sorrows for a while. Hey it’s magic.
Dear Football,
From the moment I saw you, I kicked you. As like millions of people you accompanied me my whole life. As a boy, I often played in my garden, imagining playing in a team, and being that hero that scored the winning goal and earning all the cheers and applause in the stadium. It was very clear then, that I had a passion for you. I would spend hours in my fantasy world, giving you all my strength. No matter the weather you summoned me and I came, playing with my friends, for my school team, my brother and sister. I had a few injuries, scrapes and bruises. I even gave you my blood.
As a grown man, you still call me, you give me joy and sorrow that just not only lasts for 90 minutes. Some people even sang “Thirty Years of Hurt.” My wife does not understand, when I am watching a game, how I can get so involved, “Your blood pressure dear, you will get a heart attack.” That would be the ultimate price to pay for you, I love you, but not that much. Dear Football God, watch over me, we both know, I am still that little boy playing in his garden,
“It’s the dying stages of the game, its 1 – 1. Will it go into extra time? This is unbelievable. That a good tackle from Barns, he gives the ball to Jones, this is good momentum going forward, he passes it wide to Paul G. Oh that was beautifully taken from him, he dribbles pass Martinez, as if was not there. This is looking promising, Martínez is running after him, but Paul G is too fast and that with the ball. He is on the edge of the box, Sanchez comes forward, a little one two with Owen, he shoots, GOAL!"
Amazing work,read for all, I would suggest everybody to read at least once.You are right for a healthy life one must replace everyday sugar with natural sweet substitutes.
AntwortenLöschen