The Future Is Here Today

The Future Is Here Today
Where Business, Nature and Leisure Provide An Ideal Setting For Living

Advertise in Almere-Digest

Advertising Options

February 29, 2016

European Unity: The only plan B for Europe is rebuilding power for change - by Lorenzo Marsili

Europeans today are caught between a failing and undemocratic EU and equally failing and undemocratic national states. As Yanis Varoufakis prepares to launch a new movement for the democratisation of the EU, what’s the way out of the impasse?

There is no need to believe, with George Soros, that the EU is on the verge of collapse to believe that it is on the verge of irrelevance. Becoming little more than a dysfunctional common market shunned by its citizens and promoting tensions and antagonisms between states and between people.There is no Plan A for Europe. Mild adjustments to the status quo - the Juncker investment plan, the youth guarantee, additional fiscal leeway of a few decimals points or a banking union already surpassed by history - are unable to seriously address the historical challenges banging at our doors each day.

Plans for increased integration of parts of the European Union get regularly touted. There are some grounds to being diffident of such plans. Any deepening of integration risks in fact reinforcing the undemocratic nature of a Union of financial rules deprived of democratic accountability.

At the same time there is no viable national Plan B either. There is no space for political emancipation through a more or less harmonious abandonment of the European Union. The sirens of nationalism - be they on the right or on the left - sing a song of destitution and disempowerment.

Sovereignty belongs to the people, not to states or to institutions. Too often is this forgotten. Popular sovereignty is not going to be recuperated by the construction of micro-nations barricading and barking against flows of people and of capital but ultimately at the mercy of decisions taken elsewhere. There is no return to the golden age of the Bretton Woods agreements, when financial capital could be trapped within national boundaries for an emancipatory vision of “capitalism in one country”. Today, national boundaries can only trap refugees escaping war. Their invocation plays squarely into the hands of the far-right.

Recent years have marked a watershed in a post-1989 world-view characterised by talk of the end of history and of a third way of non-conflictual management. This is evident in the return of a political rhetoric that dares put into question the fundamentals of our economic and democratic system - from Sanders to Corbyn via Spain and Portugal. While, less promisingly, it is equally evident in the rise of a new far-right in Hungary, Croatia, Poland, and France.

One thing is for sure. This is no longer the time for the status quo. And that means relinquishing despondency and melancholy and rebuilding the ambition for root-and-branch change - at all levels.

We need to stop portraying the EU as an all-powerful behemoth impeding any real change at national level. 

This rhetoric is false and only benefits supporters of the status quo. What we lack is the capacity for articulating and promoting a new vision for all those policies over which national sovereignty makes sense. Ambitious plans for income redistribution, fighting privations and the protection of the commons, fair integration of migrants, tax justice, fair and free access to education for all, and more. In this sense, the campaign of Bernie Sanders is inspiring. 

Failure to achieve progressive national policies is not due to the EU. It is due to the incapacity of the progressive field to win popular consent. I have much sympathy for Jean-Luc Mélenchon, Oskar Lafontaine, and other old left leaders who met recently in Paris to expound a Plan B for Europe. But I often feel their attacks on the EU have more to do with justifying their political failure nationally than opening up a new field of action for their countries.

At the European level, ambition means returning Europe to being the place where we can regain power to define all that is no longer possible at the national level. Not because the EU impedes it, but because on certain issues medium-sized nations no longer have a say.

Europe is the only space large enough to be able to rein in the rule of financial capital, forcefully addressing the scandal of 62 people in control of half of global wealth. It is the only space where it will be possible to free Julian Assange and Edward Snowden and provide a new technological infrastructure free of surveillance. Where a new ecological understanding of development can be fostered and forced on the rest of the world through commercial treaties based on climate justice and not competition to the bottom. Or, again, where we can nurture a multipolar alternative to US militarism and the rising nationalisms - often with an ethnic basis - of many emerging powers.

United We stand Divided  We Fall
It is the capacity to decide through political struggle how to tackle systemic and historical issues such as these that popular sovereignty should really be about.
Until today European parties have failed to articulate and organise a convincing way out of our multiple crises. National parties have hidden behind unpronounceable acronyms at the European level - who knows the meaning of GUE/NGL? - creating umbrella-groups where they individually maintain their feeble autonomy and collectively maintain their tragic impotence.

A genuine multi-level political force  - and not necessarily a political party as traditionally understood - is long overdue. A transnational coordination summing up the plurality of national forces into a single and recognisable European political actor capable of campaigning and organising over all those issues that require European-level action. 

We have an example of this multi-level dynamic – albeit limited at the national level – in Spain. Where a clearly Catalan force such as the list headed by Ada Colau participates, at state level, in a political project that is able to act as a national political subject in its own right.

Rebuilding power for change ultimately means rebuilding ambition and innovating political practices. Beyond sterile arguments over the benefits of an independent nation-state or of a united Europe, what we should really be talking about is how to organise to transform both.

EU-Digest

February 28, 2016

The Netherlands: Business Startups are moving to Amsterdam, but should you? - by Eliz D'Agostin

A couple of months ago our CEO Boris was interviewed by Tech City News, an UK publisher, to talk about why Amsterdam and The Netherlands became such a hype place for startups.

The topic has been explored a number of times, as cities in Europe furiously compete for the title of tech capital of the continent. While London and Berlin are considered top of the pile, when companies like Tesla, Uber and Netflix decided to base their European operations in Amsterdam, things changed.

There are many reasons why the Dutch city is attractive for business. There is a whole raft of insightful articles outlining  the environmental, political and even historical conditions that sparkled such a tech driven scene in the country and specially in the capital.

The city has been labelled Europe’s West Coast startup capital and Forbes went so far to say Amsterdam is a genuine alternative to Silicon Valley.

This superlatives have come about thanks to initiatives like StartupDelta, an important program that stimulates the startup environment in the city and connects companies with investor and talents.

The “Start-up Visa” is also a big facilitator to bring startups to the city. It is a new type of visa that allows entrepreneurs to apply for a one year resident permit to develop their ideas in the country.

Another great initiative is StartupAmsterdam – a public/private scheme that joined forces with the government to improve the benefits and incentives for startups to come to Amsterdam – with the aim of catapulting the city into the top three startups hubs in Europe.

While big multi-nationals have been lured to the city, there’s an ever-growing list of home-grown startups to emerge including Booking.com, TomTom and of course, The Next Web that help the city attract investment and professionals from all over the world.

The Next Web itself has more than 20 different nationalities – most of which now call Amsterdam home.

But what does the city have to offer  all these immigrants and internal migrants moving to the city? We asked around the office what people thought about living in the Venice of the North.

“Rent in Amsterdam isn’t cheap, it takes up a lot of your paycheck. But you can do a lot with what is left. You can buy so much more with your money and if you decide to stay for good, the government helps you out with the costs of buying a property, for example. That makes the choice of staying a lot easier.”

“As a “digital nomad”, I love that Amsterdam is a relatively affordable international city with lots of history and culture. I’m not a fan of all of the bureaucracy (who is?) and having to pay for public libraries/museums.ousing is extortionate. However, there’s this great “don’t care” attitude here compared with elsewhere. Coming from the UK where social class and where you went to school is still a huge deal, it’s super nice and inspiring.”

"everyone speaks English"

Read more: Startups are moving to Amsterdam, but should you?

Fear:: There Is A Far Better Way To Combat Fear Than With Yoga Or Pills: Trust - by RM

Don't let fear capture your life
Often in discussions with friends and  family the issue of fear, related to something, either from a personal problem or an outside source, will come up.

If you come to think about it-there probably hasn't gone a day by in your life that there was not some kind of fear creeping into your mind.

We’re not talking about the "good" and instinctive kind of fears which alerts your whole body and pumps up your adrenaline. The one which indicates impending danger and moves you into action to protect the ones you love.

No, it is the other kind .  Where does this often nagging and irrational fear originate? And how do you keep those fears from taking a  permanent place in your life?

Wouldn’t our life's existence be wonderful without fear? Some even wonder why a God that loves us so much would even allow fear to infiltrate into our minds?

Maybe it is good to remember that God does not cause fear, but that society, the environment around us, causes fear and this fear is further nourished by Evil spirits. Yes, fear exists and can quickly work itself into our lives.

However, we can resist the emotionally disturbing grip of fear by fixing our minds on God.

God has made it clear in so many ways that He didn’t give us the spirit of fear, as illustrated in 2 Timothy 1:7: “For God has not given us a spirit of fear, but of power and of love and of a sound mind”

So where does fear come from then? Psalm 112:7 says, “He will not be afraid of evil tidings; His heart is steadfast, trusting in the Lord” . Fear is the opposite of trust. Therefore, a heart that is resolutely and faithfully trusting in God will not fear “evil tidings.” 1John 4:18 explains, ” There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear, because fear involves torment. But he who fears has not been made perfect in love”. Torment is associated with Evil Spirits, as we see in 2 Corinthians 12:7: “To keep me from becoming conceited because of these surpassingly great revelations, there was given me a thorn in my flesh, a messenger of the Evil one, to torment me”. Since fear involves torment, and the Evil Spirit utilizes torment, what should we, as believers, do with the fear that we experience?

Fear can be useful by the fact that it highlights areas in our lives we have not fully surrendered to God. For example, if we are fearful about our finances, and consequently don’t help or take care of others, with far greater need than ours, as the Word has commanded.

Fear is useful in pointing out that we should trust God to provide and also have to provide to others. By trusting God to provide for us financially, we will also be able to put trust in our faith and begin giving to others in obedience to Him.   He who sacrificed his life for us on the cross to set us free of  all fears.

So  if you are struggling with fear, pray about it and  turn to Scripture to seek what God says about it. Turn your situation of fearfulness into an opportunity to trust God more. Fearful about a relationship? Put that relationship in the hands of God. Fearful about a major career decision? Seek God’s will for your professional life, instead of your own. Fearful about providing for your family? Matthew 6:26 points out, “Look at the birds. They don’t plant or harvest or store food in barns, for your heavenly Father feeds them. And aren’t you far more valuable to him than they are?”. God says we are not to be fearful. Remember that we are to trust and can commit every aspect of our lives to God who loves us.

Bottom-line: After recognizing fear in our lives, we must take every fearful thought captive, discover the root of the problem causing the fear, and pray to see what God’s Word says about our particular fear.

You can trust that God will use any circumstance for His glory to bring us restoration, and that includes victory over fear.

Almere-Digest

Graduate Educational Programs: The Netherlands extends window to apply for year-long international student residence permit

Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam
A change in permit rules in the Netherlands will give international students an extended period of time to apply for year-long residence though the Orientation Year permit, following graduation, it has been announced.

Under the new rules, which are set to be implemented soon, graduates will be allowed to apply for the permit within three years of graduation from a Dutch or top international institution, instead of just one year as it stands currently.

The policy change will also make it easier for master’s and PhD students to work without a permit during their Orientation Year.

“The international student doesn’t have to decide directly after he or she finalises the study, but has time to travel back home for example.”

The Orientation Year permit currently exists in two streams: one for graduates of master’s or PhD programmes in the Netherlands or from top ranked universities abroad, and another for those graduating with any degree from Dutch universities.

These streams will be merged as a result of the changes, and new groups will be eligible including scientists who conducted research in the Netherlands; graduates of master’s programmes from the Erasmus Mundus Course; graduates of cultural studies within the frames of the Cultural Policy Act; and graduates educated through the Dutch Foreign Affairs development aid program.

Also as part of the new regulations, it will no longer be necessary for graduates of master’s a doctoral degrees to apply for a work permit during this Orientation Year.

A change in permit rules in the Netherlands will give international students an extended period of time to apply for year-long residence though the Orientation Year permit, following graduation, it has been announced.

Under the new rules, which are set to be implemented soon, graduates will be allowed to apply for the permit within three years of graduation from a Dutch or top international institution, instead of just one year as it stands currently.

The policy change will also make it easier for master’s and PhD students to work without a permit during their Orientation Year.

 Floor van Donselaar from EP-Nuffic, who works to overcome mobility obstacles for foreign students and graduates, said that the extended time to apply for the permit is a great benefit for international students.

“The international student doesn’t have to decide directly after he or she finalises the study, but has time to travel back home for example.”

The Orientation Year permit currently exists in two streams: one for graduates of master’s or PhD programmes in the Netherlands or from top ranked universities abroad, and another for those graduating with any degree from Dutch universities.

These streams will be merged as a result of the changes, and new groups will be eligible including scientists who conducted research in the Netherlands; graduates of master’s programmes from the Erasmus Mundus Course; graduates of cultural studies within the frames of the Cultural Policy Act; and graduates educated through the Dutch Foreign Affairs development aid programme.

Also as part of the new regulations, it will no longer be necessary for graduates of master’s a doctoral degrees to apply for a work permit during this Orientation Year.

“Until now the students had to look for a job without a work permit which made it harder to find a job,” explained van Donselaar.

 “From now on this work permit is no longer necessary. And since you are able to use the search [Orientation] year for an internship or temporary job as well, and we think more graduates will use this opportunity.”

Almere-Digest

February 27, 2016

EU -USA: The Geopolitics of America’s Military Presence in Europe - by Igor Pejic, Edwin Watson, and Rachel Lane

The region of Europe has three main aspects which makes it important for the US in geopolitical terms. The first aspect is the Arctic or the High North. Arctic encompasses territory (land and sea) of eight countries, six of them are in Europe including Russia. The Arctic region is becoming more popular every year in global politics, and not only because it has vast deposits of resources like natural gas and oil. Scarcely populated and with the melting of ice the Arctic will become a major shipping route, its estimated that using the Arctic route ships can shorten their way from Hamburg to Shanghai for almost 4,000 miles. T

his will be a huge boost to all shipping companies across the globe, and since its in the Arctic chances for pirates are rather low. The US has the best path for contesting this region exactly from Europe. The northern countries have good infrastructure and experience in the Arctic region, and their proximity to Russia can be helpful if the conflict occurs. The next aspect is the Europe’s access to the Middle East through the Balkans. Although the Balkan is relatively stable with semi-frozen conflicts, most of the countries are in NATO, and of course Turkey as the most important ally in this part of Europe can provide all the needed support and accessibility to the Middle East. Caucasus region and the two straits, Bosporus and Dardanelle, can also be added here as geopolitical points in which US has a lot of interest. The third aspect is the Mediterranean and North Africa.

Countries in the South of Europe provide substantial naval infrastructure and power projection capabilities across the Mediterranean Sea. Also these countries provide a base access point to the North Africa, this could be observed during the earliest years of the Arab Spring and the civil war in Libya. All these aspects combined make the European region crucial for the US especially if the object

Beside geopolitical interests the US has some of the closest allies in Europe like the United Kingdom, France and Germany. These three countries have significant military and economic power and they are also leading the European Union. One of the most important bilateral relationship is definitely with the UK.

The two countries share a lot of common values and interests, and the UK government is usually the first who supports US actions, both military and political. Also the UK and the US have a high degree of military cooperation, intelligence sharing and even transfer of some nuclear technology. France still stands for one of the most military capable NATO members with military spending of 1.9% of GPD. Good infrastructure, vast military industry and nuclear capabilities allow France to have a solid deterrent force thus strengthening the whole NATO structure. However, plans like job cuts in defense department and lower military budget which the government wants to achieve, can leave some bad marks on the relations between NATO and the US, especially since the US expects a more active approach from their allies in the conflicts across the Middle East and Ukraine. As a powerhouse in Europe, Germany doesn’t fully commit to the NATO or the US actions in terms of military power.

The budget which is 1.3% of GDP is usually spent on personnel costs and building rents which leads to a decline in money for other military equipment. Furthermore, the government is lowering the total number of servicemen in the military from 205,000 to 185,000 personnel. Also Germany lacks the capability of tactical and strategic airlift, and the government plans to cut procurement and decommission certain specific capabilities which will mostly effect the Army and the Air Force. All these remarks are not welcomed by the US or some other NATO members, despite the public call for broadening Germanys participation in peacekeeping missions made by Germanys Defense Minister Ursula von der Layen.

US military presence in Europe reached its peak in the fifties with more than 450,000 troops operating on more than 1,200 sites. After the end of the Cold War the US military presence in Europe rapidly decreased to 213,000 servicemen, and later in 1993 it decreased even further to 112,000 servicemen. Today there are 67,000 American troops permanently stationed across Europe. Military infrastructure and the US military in Europe (EUCOM) can be classified in sections.

Although the US Government is trying to cut spending on foreign military presence, the Pentagon won’t allow strategic points like EUCOM to suffer, especially now when the new global adversaries are on the rise. Still undisputed in their military spending the US is trying to become more effective with their troop deployment and the maintenance of such large military force. President Obama’s administration program of removing US troops from Iraq and Afghanistan has already shown bad results. Although Europe is nothing like those regions, further removal of US forces could result in major power shifts. Probably one of the future objectives of EUCOM and NATO will be deeper military involvement in Eastern Europe, more precisely in Baltic states. Of course, these developments will be governed by finance and the amount of threat for the US global interests in other regions like the South China Sea, the Middle East and the North Africa.

Read more: The Geopolitics of America’s Military Presence in Europe | Global Research - Centre for Research on Globalization

February 26, 2016

EU Migrant Crises: The EU must be able to face, acknowledge and fix the root of the problem - by RM

As the saying goes "concern yourself more accepting responsibility than with assigning blame".

US continuous criticism of the EU’s handling of the refugee crisis is the case in point .

Let's face it - the EU migrant crises comes as a direct result of a Europe which is still blindly following a US led foreign policy which is part of the so-called "allied commitments".

When these plans,however, as most of them usually do, turn into human disaster, Europe is required to carry the burden of fixing the mess afterwards..

The above specifically reflects on a totally flawed EU Middle-East foreign policy (a carbon copy of that of the US), specially in regions of the Muslim World, the Middle East and North Africa.

Where exactly is the line between inaction and complicity? The notion of neutrality, for a country as powerful as the United States, is illusory. Doing nothing or “doing no harm” means maintaining or reverting to the status quo, which in the Middle East is never neutral, due to America’s and Europe's  longstanding relationships with regional political actors.

Europe’s refugee crisis might feel a million miles away for many Americans, but there is something everyone can relate to: money:  and this ompletely messed up Middle East foreign policy could cost the United States several hundred billion dollars eventually.

That’s according to the Bertelsmann Foundation, a respected think tank here in Germany, which looked at the potential economic consequences if Europe were to reinstate border controls within its 26-country passport-free travel area.

As the continent buckles under the weight of the most serious refugee crisisever  since World War II, the breakdown of that zone, known as the Schengen Area, has loomed as a dark prospect.

Reinstating border checks are bad for European business, experts say. They would even stunt economic growth through a vicious cycle that starts with higher labor costs — thanks to long lines at borders — and ends with declining sales and lower production.

If this happens it would mean major economic losses for the EU could reach up to 1.4 trillion by 2025.

So what to do about it? It would basically need two essental steps to be taken by the EU .

The first would be to immediately decouple the EU foreign policy from that of the failed US Middle East foreign policy; secondly, invest in a  far reaching Euro-Mediterranean - North African Free Trade Area, which would aim at establishing peace and prosperity in the area by removing barriers to trade and investment between both the EU and countries in that area, based on mutual respect and recognition of all  freely elected governments, religious freedom and cultural ties.

It obviously would be a long and difficult process, but the results would certainly be far more rewarding, productive and beneficial to all the people in the area, and obviously less costly than the useless and destructive military campaigns most nations within the EU and the US are presently involved in.

EU Refugee Crises: Fears EU is self-destructing on migrant crisis- Holly Ellyatt

European ministers are meeting Thursday to discuss the latest escalation in the region's migrant crisis amid rising concerns that the survival of the region could be at stake.

Interior and Justice Ministers from the European Union (EU) are meeting in Brussels to discuss plans agreed by Austria and the Balkan nations on Wednesday to fingerprint all migrants entering their countries and to turn away anyone without a passport or valid documents.

This comes as Greece and Eastern Europe also threatened to not cooperate with the EU if they were refused either more help with the crisis, or more leeway with relocation quotas, respectively.

 At the meeting in Vienna on Wednesday, Austria warned that the influx of migrants needed to be reduced immediately with the country's interior minister saying it was "a matter of survival for the EU."

The country also criticized Germany for sending "mixed" messages over its stance on migrant crisis by calling on some countries to restrict the flow of migrants while supporting economically-depressed Greece by allowing migrants to travel onwards.

"Germany has to decide what signals Germany wants to send," Austrian interior minister Johanna Mikl-Leitner said after talks with her counterparts from Western Balkan countries, Reuters reported, a region which most migrants travel through on their way from Greece to northern Europe.

Read more: Fears EU is self-destructing on migrant crisis

February 25, 2016

Netherlands: Solar powered bike unveiled in Eindhoven

The world's first solar 'Bike 4 all' was presented today in the Technical University of Eindhoven by the inventor Marc Peters and several of the project's collaborators, Tuesday. Dutch professional racing cyclist Tim Kerkhof assisted in the presentation of the bicycle.

Peters explained how, even on a rainy day in the Netherlands, the bike could still be powered without access to much sun,

"It actually harvests a lot of ambient light, like what we have in this room. So with a rainy day it'sactually still possible to gain some energy." The team behind the "Bike 4all" intends to market both the bike itself and also smart lighy harvesting technology they used to power it.

According to Peters, this technology can be applied to many other products.

Read more: VIDEOS: Netherlands: Solar powered bike unveiled in Eindhoven | The Indian Express

February 24, 2016

The EU and TTIP: Secret document reveals EU offer to drop 97 percent of tariffs - Justus von Daniels and Marta Orosz

We now know that the TTIP negotiations entered a decisive phase on October 15, 2015. That’s when US and EU representatives laid their cards on the table, exchanging offers to cut taxes on imports from each other. Up until then, the US had only broached hypothetical reductions; now they were openly offering to remove 87.5 percent of tariffs completely.

That was more than the EU expected. European negotiators had to agree a better offer, or risk derailing the deal. A week later, they did came up with a new proposal: reductions in 97 percent of tariff categories.

The EU’s secret offer, which CORRECTIV has seen in its entirety, is made up of 181 pages of densely-printed text and can be found here. It’s got almost 8,000 categories: Every species of fish, every chemical has its own tariff category. Importing a parka? Wool, or polyester?

Trade deals are like poker games. Europe’s big offer comes with a big hope: That the US will open up its public bidding process to European firms. That way, European construction companies could bid on contracts to build US highways, or BMW could sell cop cars to American sheriffs.

For the first time, the tariff offer makes clear what TTIP might do for consumers: remove duties, and prices tend to drop. With tariffs on parts gone, cars could get cheaper. Per part, tariffs add just a few cents on the euro, but altogether European car manufacturers could save a billion Euros each year, according to German Association of the Automotive Industry calculations. Manufacturers could then pass the savings on to consumers.

The EU is now waiting for the US to offer a substantial deal on public procurement. In a September 15 report obtained by CORRECTIV, the European Commission says “it definitely expects that the US will offer to open public procurement at a future point in time, in exchange for the revised tariff offer.”

That report also indicated that the US “promised to make a proposal regarding public procurement for the first time” when the EU and US put forth their symmetrical tariff reductions, eliminating 97 percent of all tariffs.
Public bids are a major TTIP sticking point. The EU wants the US to finally open its markets to allow firms like Balfour Beattie or BMW to compete when cities put out a call for bids on a new building or fleet of cars. The US is less than eager, because that would subject domestic companies – which are already allowed to bid on projects in the EU – to increased competition.

Four days before the next negotiation round starts, the European Commission has now indicated that they don’t expect a comprehensive offer. Sources said that the US haven’t sent their proposal yet and that public procurement will be discussed right after the official negotiation round. The 12th round of negotiations started this Monday in Brussels.

Read more: TTIP: Secret document reveals EU offer to drop 97 percent of tariffs | openDemocracy

February 22, 2016

Middle East - Syria - Press coverage: The media are misleading the public on Syria - by Stephen Kinzer

The Syrian war will be remembered as one of the most shameful episodes in the history of the American press. Reporting about carnage in the ancient city of Aleppo is the latest reason why.

For three years, violent militants have run Aleppo. Their rule began with a wave of repression. They posted notices warning residents: “Don’t send your children to school. If you do, we will get the backpack and you will get the coffin.” Then they destroyed factories, hoping that unemployed workers would have no recourse other than to become fighters. They trucked looted machinery to Turkey and sold it.

This month, people in Aleppo have finally seen glimmers of hope. The Syrian army and its allies have been pushing militants out of the city. Last week they reclaimed the main power plant. Regular electricity may soon be restored. The militants’ hold on the city could be ending.

Militants, true to form, are wreaking havoc as they are pushed out of the city by Russian and Syrian Army forces. “Turkish-Saudi backed ‘moderate rebels’ showered the residential neighborhoods of Aleppo with unguided rockets and gas jars,” one Aleppo resident wrote on social media. The Beirut-based analyst Marwa Osma asked, “The Syrian Arab Army, which is led by President Bashar Assad, is the only force on the ground, along with their allies, who are fighting ISIS — so you want to weaken the only system that is fighting ISIS?”

This does not fit with Washington’s narrative. As a result, much of the American press is reporting the opposite of what is actually happening. Many news reports suggest that Aleppo has been a “liberated zone” for three years but is now being pulled back into misery.ns Americans are being told that the virtuous course in Syria is to fight the Assad regime and its Russian and Iranian partners. We are supposed to hope that a righteous coalition of Americans, Turks, Saudis, Kurds, and the “moderate opposition” will win.

This is convoluted nonsense, but Americans cannot be blamed for believing it. We have almost no real information about the combatants, their goals, or their tactics.

Much blame for this lies with our media.

Under intense financial pressure, most American newspapers, magazines, and broadcast networks have drastically reduced their corps of foreign correspondents. Much important news about the world now comes from reporters based in Washington.

In that environment, access and credibility depend on acceptance of official paradigms. Reporters who cover Syria check with the Pentagon, the State Department, the White House, and think tank “experts.” After a spin on that soiled carousel, they feel they have covered all sides of the story. This form of stenography produces the pabulum that passes for news about Syria.

Astonishingly brave correspondents in the war zone, including Americans, seek to counteract Washington-based reporting. At great risk to their own safety, these reporters are pushing to find the truth about the Syrian war. Their reporting often illuminates the darkness of groupthink. Yet for many consumers of news, their voices are lost in the cacophony. Reporting from the ground is often overwhelmed by the Washington consensus.

Washington-based reporters tell us that one potent force in Syria, al-Nusra, is made up of “rebels” or “moderates,” not that it is the local al-Qaeda franchise. Saudi Arabia is portrayed as aiding freedom fighters when in fact it is a prime sponsor of ISIS.

Turkey has for years been running a “rat line” for foreign fighters wanting to join terror groups in Syria, but because the United States wants to stay on Turkey’s good side, we hear little about it. Nor are we often reminded that although we want to support the secular and battle-hardened Kurds, Turkey wants to kill them. Everything Russia and Iran do in Syria is described as negative and destabilizing, simply because it is they who are doing it — and because that is the official line in Washington.

Inevitably, this kind of disinformation has bled into the American presidential campaign. At the recent debate in Milwaukee, Hillary Clinton claimed that United Nations peace efforts in Syria were based on “an agreement I negotiated in June of 2012 in Geneva.” The precise opposite is true. In 2012 Secretary of State Clinton joined Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Israel in a successful effort to kill Kofi Annan’s UN peace plan because it would have accommodated Iran and kept Assad in power, at least temporarily. No one on the Milwaukee stage knew enough to challenge her.

Politicians may be forgiven for distorting their past actions. Governments may also be excused for promoting whatever narrative they believe best suits them. Journalism, however, is supposed to remain apart from the power elite and its inbred mendacity. In this crisis it has failed miserably.

Americans are said to be ignorant of the world. We are, but so are people in other countries. If people in Bhutan or Bolivia misunderstand Syria, however, that has no real effect. Our ignorance is more dangerous, because we act on it. The United States has the power to decree the death of nations. It can do so with popular support because many Americans — and many journalists — are content with the official story.

 In Syria, it is: “Fight Assad, Russia, and Iran! Join with our Turkish, Saudi, and Kurdish friends to support peace!” This is appallingly distant from reality. It is also likely to prolong the war and condemn more Syrians to suffering and death.

This is convoluted nonsense, but Americans cannot be blamed for believing it. We have almost no real information about the combatants, their goals, or their tactics. Much blame for this lies with our media.

Under intense financial pressure, most American newspapers, magazines, and broadcast networks have drastically reduced their corps of foreign correspondents. Much important news about the world now comes from reporters based in Washington. In that environment, access and credibility depend on acceptance of official paradigms. 

Reporters who cover Syria check with the Pentagon, the State Department, the White House, and think tank “experts.” After a spin on that soiled carousel, they feel they have covered all sides of the story. This form of stenography produces the pabulum that passes for news about Syria.

Washington-based reporters tell us that one potent force in Syria, al-Nusra, is made up of “rebels” or “moderates,” not that it is the local al-Qaeda franchise. Saudi Arabia is portrayed as aiding freedom fighters when in fact it is a prime sponsor of ISIS.

Turkey has for years been running a “rat line” for foreign fighters wanting to join terror groups in Syria, but because the United States wants to stay on Turkey’s good side, we hear little about it. Nor are we often reminded that although we want to support the secular and battle-hardened Kurds, Turkey wants to kill them. Everything Russia and Iran do in Syria is described as negative and destabilizing, simply because it is they who are doing it — and because that is the official line in Washington.

Inevitably, this kind of disinformation has bled into the American presidential campaign. At the recent debate in Milwaukee, Hillary Clinton claimed that United Nations peace efforts in Syria were based on “an agreement I negotiated in June of 2012 in Geneva.” The precise opposite is true. In 2012 Secretary of State Clinton joined Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Israel in a successful effort to kill Kofi Annan’s UN peace plan because it would have accommodated Iran and kept Assad in power, at least temporarily. No one on the Milwaukee stage knew enough to challenge her.

Politicians may be forgiven for distorting their past actions. Governments may also be excused for promoting whatever narrative they believe best suits them. Journalism, however, is supposed to remain apart from the power elite and its inbred mendacity. In this crisis it has failed miserably.

Americans are said to be ignorant of the world. We are, but so are people in other countries. If people in Bhutan or Bolivia misunderstand Syria, however, that has no real effect. Our ignorance is more dangerous, because we act on it. The United States has the power to decree the death of nations. It can do so with popular support because many Americans — and many journalists — are content with the official story. In Syria, it is: “Fight Assad, Russia, and Iran! Join with our Turkish, Saudi, and Kurdish friends to support peace!” This is appallingly distant from reality. It is also likely to prolong the war and condemn more Syrians to suffering and death

Read more: The media are misleading the public on Syria - Boston Globe - by Stephen Kinzer 

EU Refugee Crises:‘Criminal refugee smuggling enormous business - bigger than guns & drugs", says Czech defense minister

Where is the NATO promised support to stop this?
The business of smuggling illegal migrants to Europe far exceeds the volume of black market trade of drugs and weapons in the EU, said the Czech Defense Minister, who has “no illusions” of Turkey or Greece’s ability to curb illegal smuggling networks.

“The size of criminal business involving the transport of illegal migrants to Europe is enormous, it exceeds the turnover from the sale of drugs and weapons, making – without exaggeration – billions of EUROS,” said Martin Stropnicky.

The EU border agency Frontex estimates that people-smuggling networks made more than €4 billion ($4.45bn) from their criminal activities last year, with the biggest piece of the pie stemming from smuggling migrants.

That profit is further used to support the illicit drugs and weapons trade.

As over 1.83 million people made it into the European Union in 2015, according to Frontex, Stropnicky expressed doubts about Turkey’s and Greece’s ability to halt or at least deal with the bursting numbers of migrants.

He said that recent statics show that illegal migrant crossings are reaching 5,000 people a day, and this is before the start of the summer season when the waters of the Mediterranean get warmer. More than 870,000 migrants arrived on the Greek islands in 2015 using the so-called Eastern Mediterranean route alone.

Multiple “efficiently” organized smuggling networks operate along the route that smuggle people into Greece via the sea crossing though the Aegean, where the distance between the Turkish coast and Greek islands is as little as 4 nautical miles (7.5 km). These networks which are organized through the use of the social media make a large portion of their profit by selling illegal documents to those fleeing the conflict zones.

“In addition to organizing the sea crossing, smugglers give the migrants information about the asylum processes in different EU member states and sell them forged documents. The highest demand is for Syrian passports, identification cards, birth certificates and residence permits,” Frontex claims.

The Czech Defense Minister also criticized Brussels’ ineffectiveness in coming up with a viable solution to limit the flow of migrants to its borders, echoing the Czech Republic’s president who has earlier criticized EU’s initiative to station some 1,500 border guards at the bloc's gate as laughable.

“I do not see 1,500 European police officers [on southern EU borders], I do not see new reception and identification centers agreed on at previous EU summits,” the defense minister said commenting on the latest EU meeting in Brussels where the bloc’s leaders debated Brexit alongside refugee crisis.

The minister further rejected the European Union’s pondering of "Plan B" which is to close the Balkan borders if necessary.

Despite efforts by European leaders to stem the flow of refugees arriving in Europe, the number of new arrivals has seen an increase in 2016. According to the United Nations Refugee Agency (UNHCR), more asylum seekers arrived in Europe by boat during the first six weeks of this year than during the first four months of 2015.

Note EU-Digest: It's high time something serious gets done to stop these criminal smuggling activities and curb the flow of refugees.  

What is happening to the earlier agreed on NATO navy support. This is a unique opportunity for NATO to get involved in a far more productive and useful activity than they have done so far.

Read more: ‘Enormous business’: Criminal refugee smuggling bigger than guns & drugs – Czech defense minister — RT News

February 21, 2016

Reflections: Karma or Grace ? - by RM

"IT CAN ONLY BE BY GRACE"
Interesting sermon today at Church about the difference of Karma and Grace.

Here is the gist of it.

First, how can Karma be defined?

Karma is a Buddhist term which comes from Sanskrit and relates to fate and action.

You alone are responsible for your actions.

Karma is the law of cause and effect, an unbreakable law of the cosmos say the Buddists. You deserve everything that happens to you, good or bad. You created your own happiness and your own misery - even if you are a Syrian refugee. One day you will be in the same circumstances that you put someone else in.

Your actions create your future even when you think they are someone's else actions. What you are experiencing right now is what karma wants you to experience. Every feeling, every thought, has been prepared especially for you, even torture, rape, molestation, injustice, so you can learn from your past.

Karma includes a  reincarnation  process of redemption and purification, which is said to be the ultimate goal in becoming a pure, sinless, "God like person".  

So what  is Grace, and how is it different from Karma?:

Grace may be defined as the unmerited or undeserving favor of God to those who are under condemnation..

In other words no human can ever be without any sin or blemish whatever he does or says, and is also not able to change that by him or herself.

Grace shows us that only by the substitution of  Christ on the cross, who died for our sins, that humans can become free of all sin, and achieve eternal life, 

It is impossible for any mortals being to achieve a sinless life by themselves.with devine, super-natural intervention and substitution.

The reality of substitution is at the heart of the atonement. Christ accomplished all of the above benefits for us by dying in our place — that is, by dying instead of us. We deserved to die, and he took our sin upon him and paid the ultimate  penalty himself for us. 

This is what the meaning us of Christ dying for us (Romans 5:8) and giving himself for us (Galatians 2:20). As Isaiah says, “he was pierced through for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities . . . the Lord has caused the iniquity of us all to fall on him” (Isaiah 53:5-6).

You see the reality of substitution underlying all of the benefits discussed above, as the means by which Christ accomplished them. For example, substitution is the means by which we were ransomed: “The Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many” (Matthew 20:28). Christ’s death was a ransom for us — that is, instead of us. Likewise, Paul writes that “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us” (Galatians 3:13).

Substitution is the means by which we were reconciled: “For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, in order that he might bring us to God” (1 Peter 3:18). It is the means of expiation: “He made him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, that we might become the righteousness of God in him” (2 Corinthians 5:21) and “He himself bore our sins in his body on the cross, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness” (1 Peter 2:24). And by dying in our place, taking the penalty for our sins upon himself, Christ’s death is also the means of propitiation.

To close: Two implications. First, this process is a very humbling experience.

Second, “Greater love has no one than this, than he lay down his life for his friends” (John 15:13).

Everyone the freedom of choice - but I am happy to have chosen Grace.

Almere-Digest

February 20, 2016

EU-TTIP: Meet the Corporations Lobbying Hardest for TTIP and the End of Democracy - by Graham Vanbergen

It is quite incredible that the unelected bureaucrats of the EU Commission are even entertaining such an idea as the deeply unpopular TTIP trade deal amid huge citizen protest whilst already facing multiple episodes of social, political and economic unrest and crisis as the demise of the European project gathers pace.
TTIP: A secret and bad deal

The EU is experiencing extensive political threats and upheaval from left and right of centre political groups angry at EU imposed austerity. Greece is being raped by its so-called partners and it is just one of several other EU states en-route to ruin.

The declining global economic picture provides all the more reason for the corporations to look for new avenues of revenue. But which businesses are pushing most for the proposed EU-US trade deal TTIP? And who is really influencing EU negotiators? And just how are the rights of European citizens represented in the biggest trade deal in history?

Just in Brussels alone, there are now over 30,000 corporate lobbyists, shadowy agitators as The Guardian puts it, who are responsible for influencing three quarters of legislation in the EU. But even they are left in the shade when it comes to the power being afforded to corporations in the TTIP negotiations.

The US Chamber of Commerce, the wealthiest of all US corporate lobbies, and DigitalEurope (whose members include all the big IT names, like Apple, Blackberry, IBM, and Microsoft) are there.
BusinessEurope, the European employers’ federation and one of the most powerful lobby groups in the EU are there.

Transatlantic Business Council, a corporate lobby group representing over 70 EU and US-based multinationals. ACEA, the car lobby (working for BMW, Ford, Renault, and others) and CEFIC, the Chemical Industry Council (lobbying for BASF, Bayer, Dow, and the like) are all there.

European Services Forum, a lobby outfit banding together large services companies and federations such as Deutsche Bank, Telefónica, and TheCityUK, representing the UK’s banking industry are there as are Europe’s largest pharmaceutical industry association (representing some of the biggest and most powerful pharma companies in the world such as GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Astra Zeneca, Novartis, Sanofi, and Roche).

FoodDrinkEurope, the biggest food industry lobby group (representing multinationals like Nestlé, Coca Cola, and Unilever) are sitting at the negotiating table as well.

However, 20% of all corporates lobbying the EU trade department are not listed on the EU’s transparency register. This amounts to 80 organisations. Industry associations such as the world’s largest biotechnology lobby BIO, US pharmaceutical lobby group PhrMA, and the American Chemical Council are lobbying in the shadows.

More than one third of all US companies and industry associations which have lobbied on TTIP (37 out of 91) are not in the EU register. Even Levi Jeans lurks in this murky group unwilling to publicly identify themselves.

The EU Commission even decided in its wisdom that its ‘transparency’ register was not mandatory or the issues being lobbied on do not require admission in any way. Hardly transparent.

The United States has achieved most of the privately held meetings behind closed doors. They represent the top ten of biggest spenders of all lobbyists. ExxonMobil, Microsoft, Dow, Google, and General Electric all spend more than €3 million per year on lobbying the EU institutions.

Big pharmaceutical organisations have stepped up their lobbying for TTIP and this is particularly worrying.

The pharmaceutical sector is pushing for a TTIP agenda with potentially severe implications for access to medicines and public health. Longer monopolies through strengthened intellectual property rules and limits on price-controlling policies in TTIP could drive up prices for medicines and costs for national health systems. Misery and death in exchange for profit.

The banking sector have lobbied hard for financial regulations that they would like to see scrapped via TTIP.

From US rules on capital reserves (which require companies to keep aside a proportion of capital available to avoid risk of collapse or bailout), to regulations on too-big-to-fail foreign banks. Big finance on both sides of the Atlantic is also lobbying for a dedicated TTIP chapter on financial regulation, which could lead to the delay, watering down, or outright block of much needed reform and control of the financial sector necessary to avoid another financial meltdown. Where is the sense in that?
 
When European Trade Commissioner Cecilia Malmström took office in November 2014 she promised a “fresh start” for the TTIP negotiations, including more civil society involvement and listening to public concerns as her “top priority”. Lets not forget that the EU Commission undertook the largest ever survey of the EU bloc on the subject in 2014 and garnered 150,000 responses, more than 100 times more than any previous consultation on trade — and admitted that the majority of respondents expressed fears that the deal’s investment clauses would undermine national sovereignty. What the Commission did not say was of that 150,000, 97% were opposed to TTIP.

In the first six months since Malmström took office, she, her Cabinet and the director general of the EU trade department had 121 one-on-one lobby meetings behind closed doors in which TTIP was discussed. No less than 83% of these declared meetings were with business lobbyists – but only 16.7% were held with public interest groups.

The fact that Malmström and her team seem to primarily deal with the arguments of business representatives raises serious concerns that industry lobbyists continue to dominate the agenda of the TTIP talks and crowd out citizens’ interests. It is noteworthy that in ameeting with French employer’s federation (MEDEF) on 26 March 2015, for example, the EU trade department was warned that “the 19 million European SMEs which do not export will face increased competition” from TTIP.

To fully gauge who is being listened to one only has to read that of 597 closed-door TTIP meetings in the period 2102-14, only 53 or 9% were represented by public interest groups. And nothing has improved.

A small example of corporations over people, came about in 2012 when the trade department within the EU specifically contacted the crop pesticides industry who were actively encouraged to “identify opportunities of closer cooperation.” The response was that CropLife America demanded “significant harmonisation” for pesticide residues in food. Trade unions, environmentalists, and consumer groups did not receive such special invites.

Likewise, The Association of Automotive Suppliers (CLEPA), got an email from the EU Trade department thanking “you for your readiness to work with us”, and offering a meeting, “to discuss about your proposal, ask for clarification and consider next steps”. Again, public interest groups did not receive this special treatment.

Another example of the formidable alliance between EU negotiators and the corporate sector are the two most powerful lobby groups invited to ‘co-write’ TTIP regulations by the EU trade department. Another is the enthusiasm in the financial lobby community for the EU’s approach on financial regulation in TTIP. When the EU’s position on the issue was leaked in early 2014, Richard Normington, Senior Manager of the Policy and Public Affairs team at TheCityUK – a key British financial lobby group – applauded the Commission’s proposals, because it “reflected so closely the approach of TheCityUK that a bystander would have thought it came straight out of our brochure on TTIP”.

The largest single petition in history was against Monsanto with a staggering 2.1 million signatures that has since been eclipsed by the petition StopTTIP that has garnered 3.3 million signatures. But this single petition is massively overshadowed by the millions involved in protests groups all over Europe. The goal is to arrest the corporate coups d’état of Europe currently being facilitated by people like David Cameron, Cecilia Malmström and Barack Obama.

For Britain, in the firing line of that take-over by corporations is the NHS, food and environmental safety, regulations to stop an out-of-control banking industry, privacy, security and jobs to name just a few. Most importantly, our hard fought for democracy is not just undermined – it’s for sale to the highest bidder.

It is quite incredible that the unelected bureaucrats of the EU Commission are even entertaining such an idea as the deeply unpopular TTIP trade deal amid huge citizen protest whilst already facing multiple episodes of social, political and economic unrest and crisis as the demise of the European project gathers pace.

The EU is experiencing extensive political threats and upheaval from left and right of centre political groups angry at EU imposed austerity. Greece is being raped by its so-called partners and it is just one of several other EU states en-route to ruin.

The declining global economic picture provides all the more reason for the corporations to look for new avenues of revenue. But which businesses are pushing most for the proposed EU-US trade deal TTIP? And who is really influencing EU negotiators? And just how are the rights of European citizens represented in the biggest trade deal in history?

Just in Brussels alone, there are now over 30,000 corporate lobbyists, shadowy agitators as The Guardian puts it, who are responsible for influencing three quarters of legislation in the EU. But even they are left in the shade when it comes to the power being afforded to corporations in the TTIP negotiations.

The US Chamber of Commerce, the wealthiest of all US corporate lobbies, and DigitalEurope (whose members include all the big IT names, like Apple, Blackberry, IBM, and Microsoft) are there.
BusinessEurope, the European employers’ federation and one of the most powerful lobby groups in the EU are there.

Transatlantic Business Council, a corporate lobby group representing over 70 EU and US-based multinationals. ACEA, the car lobby (working for BMW, Ford, Renault, and others) and CEFIC, the Chemical Industry Council (lobbying for BASF, Bayer, Dow, and the like) are all there.

European Services Forum, a lobby outfit banding together large services companies and federations such as Deutsche Bank, Telefónica, and TheCityUK, representing the UK’s banking industry are there as are Europe’s largest pharmaceutical industry association (representing some of the biggest and most powerful pharma companies in the world such as GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Astra Zeneca, Novartis, Sanofi, and Roche).

FoodDrinkEurope, the biggest food industry lobby group (representing multinationals like Nestlé, Coca Cola, and Unilever) are sitting at the negotiating table as well.

However, 20% of all corporates lobbying the EU trade department are not listed on the EU’s transparency register. This amounts to 80 organisations. Industry associations such as the world’s largest biotechnology lobby BIO, US pharmaceutical lobby group PhrMA, and the American Chemical Council are lobbying in the shadows. More than one third of all US companies and industry associations which have lobbied on TTIP (37 out of 91) are not in the EU register. Even Levi Jeans lurks in this murky group unwilling to publicly identify themselves.

The EU Commission even decided in its wisdom that its ‘transparency’ register was not mandatory or the issues being lobbied on do not require admission in any way. Hardly transparent.

The United States has achieved most of the privately held meetings behind closed doors. They represent the top ten of biggest spenders of all lobbyists. ExxonMobil, Microsoft, Dow, Google, and General Electric all spend more than €3 million per year on lobbying the EU institutions.

Big pharmaceutical organisations have stepped up their lobbying for TTIP and this is particularly worrying. The pharmaceutical sector is pushing for a TTIP agenda with potentially severe implications for access to medicines and public health. Longer monopolies through strengthened intellectual property rules and limits on price-controlling policies in TTIP could drive up prices for medicines and costs for national health systems. Misery and death in exchange for profit.

The banking sector have lobbied hard for financial regulations that they would like to see scrapped via TTIP. From US rules on capital reserves (which require companies to keep aside a proportion of capital available to avoid risk of collapse or bailout), to regulations on too-big-to-fail foreign banks. Big finance on both sides of the Atlantic is also lobbying for a dedicated TTIP chapter on financial regulation, which could lead to the delay, watering down, or outright block of much needed reform and control of the financial sector necessary to avoid another financial meltdown. Where is the sense in that?

When European Trade Commissioner Cecilia Malmström took office in November 2014 she promised a “fresh start” for the TTIP negotiations, including more civil society involvement and listening to public concerns as her “top priority”. Lets not forget that the EU Commission undertook the largest ever survey of the EU bloc on the subject in 2014 and garnered 150,000 responses, more than 100 times more than any previous consultation on trade — and admitted that the majority of respondents expressed fears that the deal’s investment clauses would undermine national sovereignty. What the Commission did not say was of that 150,000, 97% were opposed to TTIP.

In the first six months since Malmström took office, she, her Cabinet and the director general of the EU trade department had 121 one-on-one lobby meetings behind closed doors in which TTIP was discussed. No less than 83% of these declared meetings were with business lobbyists – but only 16.7% were held with public interest groups.

The fact that Malmström and her team seem to primarily deal with the arguments of business representatives raises serious concerns that industry lobbyists continue to dominate the agenda of the TTIP talks and crowd out citizens’ interests. It is noteworthy that in ameeting with French employer’s federation (MEDEF) on 26 March 2015, for example, the EU trade department was warned that “the 19 million European SMEs which do not export will face increased competition” from TTIP.

To fully gauge who is being listened to one only has to read that of 597 closed-door TTIP meetings in the period 2102-14, only 53 or 9% were represented by public interest groups. And nothing has improved.
A small example of corporations over people, came about in 2012 when the trade department within the EU specifically contacted the crop pesticides industry who were actively encouraged to “identify opportunities of closer cooperation.” The response was that CropLife America demanded “significant harmonisation” for pesticide residues in food. Trade unions, environmentalists, and consumer groups did not receive such special invites.

Likewise, The Association of Automotive Suppliers (CLEPA), got an email from the EU Trade department thanking “you for your readiness to work with us”, and offering a meeting, “to discuss about your proposal, ask for clarification and consider next steps”. Again, public interest groups did not receive this special treatment.

Another example of the formidable alliance between EU negotiators and the corporate sector are the two most powerful lobby groups invited to ‘co-write’ TTIP regulations by the EU trade department. Another is the enthusiasm in the financial lobby community for the EU’s approach on financial regulation in TTIP. When the EU’s position on the issue was leaked in early 2014, Richard Normington, Senior Manager of the Policy and Public Affairs team at TheCityUK – a key British financial lobby group – applauded the Commission’s proposals, because it “reflected so closely the approach of TheCityUK that a bystander would have thought it came straight out of our brochure on TTIP”.

The largest single petition in history was against Monsanto with a staggering 2.1 million signatures that has since been eclipsed by the petition StopTTIP that has garnered 3.3 million signatures. But this single petition is massively overshadowed by the millions involved in protests groups all over Europe. The goal is to arrest the corporate coups d’état of Europe currently being facilitated by people like David Cameron, Cecilia Malmström and Barack Obama.

For Britain, in the firing line of that take-over by corporations is the NHS, food and environmental safety, regulations to stop an out-of-control banking industry, privacy, security and jobs to name just a few. Most importantly, our hard fought for democracy is not just undermined – it’s for sale to the highest bidder.

Read more: Meet the Corporations Lobbying Hardest for TTIP and the End of Democracy : Waking Times

February 19, 2016

Brexit - EU: Will Britain Stay in the EU? - by Judy Dempsey

"To Be Or Not To Be"
Yes, absolutely, although the result of the forthcoming referendum on Britain’s EU membership will be closer than that of the in-or-out vote in 1975, when 67 percent of Brits voted to remain in the common market.

British Prime Minister David Cameron, supported by Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne and Home Secretary Theresa May, needs to appeal to the Euroskeptic Conservative heartlands and neutralize the 100-plus Tory backbenchers who favor a Brexit regardless of the deal to renegotiate Britain’s EU membership achieved by the prime minister.

The leaders of the opposition Labour Party, the centrist Liberal Democrats, and the separatist Scottish National Party need to appeal to their respective voters. It is a big plus that unlike in 1975, the Scottish nationalists today are fully in favor of staying in the EU.

The unions, most of business, academia, and the intellectual class also want to remain. The campaign to leave is divided and leaderless, with Nigel Farage of the anti-EU UK Independence Party (UKIP) a busted flush. The Euroskeptic press is not as influential as it thinks.

But it would be foolish not to recognize the inherent dangers of referenda (ask the Irish!) and the widespread antiestablishment feeling in the UK. There is no room for complacency. The campaign to remain should concentrate on the benefits that the UK gains from the EU and not on the fear of exclusion. But at present it does not look like there will be a positive visionary campaign.

The saddest thing of all, however, is that just like in 1975, the upcoming referendum will not end the poisonous EU debate in the UK. And just as the Labour Party suffered deep divisions a few years after the 1975 referendum, so the Conservatives could split even before the current parliamentary term ends in 2020.

Plus ça change.

Read more: Judy Asks: Will Britain Stay in the EU? - Carnegie Europe - Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

US firearms industry marketing guns to children says report from Violence Policy Center

NRA strikes again: marketing gun sales tochildren
The American firearms industry is targeting children as young as six with brightly colored guns and encouraging parents to let children take up shooting at an early age, according to a new report.

The Violence Policy Center, which aims to stop gun violence, said in its report that gun manufacturers are marketing to the youngest consumers because their primary market -- white men -- is aging.

"The firearms industry has set its sights on America's children. Much like the tobacco industry's search for replacement smokers, the gun industry is seeking replacement shooters," the group said in a statement.

"Along with the hope of increased gun sales, a corollary goal of this effort is the creation of the next generation of pro-gun advocates for future political battles."

Examples of "aggressive efforts" to market to children include rifles made with plastic parts so they are easier to handle, with less weight and recoil, the report said. Some manufacturers sell firearms in a variety of kid-friendly bright colors, including pink for girls.

The report also pointed out that the firearms industry and its lobby want parents to let their children "access guns at the earliest possible age."

The National Rifle Association, the main gun lobby in the US, previously had a website for its junior members, divided into "Under 8" and "8 and Up," the Violence Policy Center said.

Now called "NRA Family," the website's content includes a 2014 article reviewing the Thompson/Center HotShot youth rifle, calling it "a tiny gun intended for the very youngest shooters -- the ultimate first gun."
The article cited the manufacturer as saying the rifle is targeted to kids aged six to 12.

Gun violence is rife in the US, where a third of children live in a household with at least one weapon, according to the group Everytown for Gun Safety. Its statistics show that seven children and teens are killed with guns in the US on an average day.

Read more: Flash - US firearms industry marketing to children: report - France 24

The Netherlands - Social Services: Netherlands ranked best for sick workers, unemployed - Janene Pieters

Dutch employees are relatively well cared for, especially when it comes to sick leave or unemployment. A study done by American job site Glassdoor, in which it ranked the social benefits of 14 European countries and compared it to America, ranked the Netherlands as 4th most generous. Denmark, France and Spain got the first thee places, NRC reports.

The Netherlands came in first place when it comes to sick leave. Dutch employees can take up to two years of sick leave, and receive 70 percent of their original salary during this time. Germany comes in at second place with 78 weeks of sick leave, at 100 percent salary.

Unemployed people will be best off in Denmark, where the unemployment benefit is 90 percent of last earned salary for a maximum of two years. The Netherlands came in third with “very attractive benefits for the unemployed”, though it is dependent on how long you worked. The Netherlands pays out first 75 percent then 70 percent of last earned salary for a period of between 9 and 164 weeks. Belgium came in second place.

The Netherlands scored about average when it comes to maternity leave. Like Austria, France, Spain and Switzerland, the Netherlands gives its new mothers 16 weeks of paid maternity leave. The United Kingdom gives pregnant women 52 weeks of maternity leave, but only 39 of those weeks are paid leave and the amount decreases from 90 percent of last paid salary for the first 6 weeks to 140 pounds per week after that.

Paternity leave isn’t included in European law, which means the benefits offered vary by country. Finland is the best country for new fathers, with 45 working days of paternity leave, followed by Spain with 15 days and France with 11. The Netherlands comes in 9th with two days. In Austria, Germany, Ireland, Switzerland and the United States, new fathers don’t get any leave days.

Almere-Digest

February 18, 2016

The Netherlands: speed cameras that cause traffic jams to be scrapped in the Netherlands

Speed cameras in the Netherlands might be there to encourage motorists to keep to the limit, but they actually cause traffic jams.

The Dutch transport ministry and police admit drivers often slam on the brakes when they see speed cameras, and the knock-on effect leads to more traffic. So from this week the new protocol is that when there is a danger of a queue, police will put away the speed cameras.

[People] brake, and that frequently has a domino effect on the drivers who are behind them,” Alfred van Beilen, an operations expert at the Dutch police, told NOS news. “That can in the end lead to traffic jams.”

He admitted that in the past “poor communication” meant speed cameras were left in place too long and said that the new protocol would help the roads run better in the Netherlands’ flat countryside.

The Dutch are tough on motorists who break the speed limit, with some of the highest traffic fines in Europe.
 
Read more: Speed cameras that cause traffic jams to be scrapped in the Netherlands | Motoring News | Lifestyle | The Independent

February 17, 2016

EU referendum: Pro-European Union group says Brexit would cost London £13.9bn ( € 17.80bn)

Staying in the European Union will deliver a “permanent boost” to the capital's economy, according to new figures released by pro-Europe business group London First.

Analysis conducted by the Centre for Economics and Business Research (CEBR) for the lobby outfit says that EU membership could add £13.9bn a year and 75,000 jobs to London's economy by 2030.

EU referendum: Pro-European Union group says Brexit would cost London £13.9bn | City A.M.

Brexit: the cost for Britain would be beyond comprehension

RH commercial vehicles is a British firm whose business is inextricably bound with Europe as its a dealer for Swedish owned Renault Trucks.

So it is perhaps surprising that its boss wants Britain to leave the EU.
But he believes his business will be free of restrictive red tape if Britain goes it alone.

“The positives for us are that we will no longer be overburdened with regulation. I don’t believe it will make any significant change to us at all in terms of trade,” says Nigel Baxter, managing director of RH Commercial Vehicles.

“Our relationship is with the European manufacturer, that relationship will continue. We’re continuing to grow, continuing to develop, they are continuing to grow and continuing to develop. There’s a vested interest for both parties to ensure that that continues and I have every confidence that it will.”

Providing EU leaders and then the European Parliament agree a deal to keep Britain in the bloc, Cameron will still have to convince many in his own party, and beyond, to back his measures.

With a referendum on whether to leave the EU planned for later in the year, members of Parliament from across the political spectrum are gearing up for battle.

“The advantage of coming back is that we can take control of our spending to make sure we spend our money on our priorities,” said Steven Baker MP and founder of Conservatives for Britain.

Not so says Stephen Kinnock, Labour MP and chairman of Labour Business:
“It would be very bad from the point of view of investment because many many global companies invest in the UK because it’s an English speaking market but also because it’s a member of the European Union and so it gives you access to a much larger market of 500 million consumers

According to think tank “Open Europe”:, the UK could lose up to three percent of its GDP if it pulls out of Europe as a result of increased import and export costs.

That figure could be eased in case of a comprehensive trade deal with the EU (-0,8% GDP) or in case of trade deal and deregulation (-0,1% GDP)But, at the same time, the benefits of withdrawing may boost Britain’s coffers by opening up to global trade (0.6% GDP) and if there’s a push towards unprecedented deregulation (1.55% GDP).

As politicians wrangle over the benefits of being in or out, many business owners are convinced they will pay the price if there’s a “Brexit”.

Tom Gosnells, founder of Gosnells London Mead, believes his trade will suffer adversely: “Our kegs come from the Netherlands, our bottles come from Belgium and our honey comes from Spain, so pretty much all our supply chain is related to Europe. Also, We already export to Italy and we’re looking to other markets within Europe and I think if we came out of the EU there would be some risk around that.”

While the consequences for business and politics remain unknown, the British public according to polls are evenly split.

Read more: Brexit: the cost for Britain | euronews, world news

February 15, 2016

Brexit fears stalk currency markets ahead of EU summit - by David Oakley, Elaine Moore and Roger Blitz

"To be or not to be"
Investors are betting that sterling is heading for another big tumble as currency markets are gripped by Brexit fears.

Net short positions on the pound have increased to the highest level since the summer of 2013, according to data from the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission.High quality global journalism requires investment.

With prime minister David Cameron expected to announce the date for the vote soon, possibly at the EU summit this week, some investors are predicting a rocky ride for sterling in the currency markets in the next few months.

The pound has fallen about 8 per cent since the middle of November on a trade weighted basis, with investors citing the uncertainty surrounding the Brexit vote, which could come as early as June, as one of the main reasons for the weakness in the currency.

“We need to be prepared for a choppy market,” said James Maltin, investment director at wealth manager Rathbones. “The Brexit debate may be about to heat up. It is yet another uncertainty out there that could hit the UK markets.”

Some analysts fear a potential Brexit could spark a recession, with Nomura, the Japanese bank, warning that the pound could fall 10 per cent to 15 per cent if overseas investors prove unwilling to finance Britain’s current account deficit.

Mark Carney, governor of the Bank of England, warned in January that concerns about Britain’s exit from the EU could test “the kindness of strangers” that the country relies on to fund its hefty current account deficit with the rest of the world.

Britain has a relatively large current account deficit of 3.7 per cent of gross domestic product. The worry is that overseas investors, which hold £427bn in UK government bonds, or a quarter of the market, might start to sell, putting further pressure on the pound.

Read more: Brexit fears stalk currency markets ahead of EU summit - FT.com

US Press constantly negative towards Europe - Why doesn't Europe pay them back in kind?

Most of the time when you pick up an American newspaper or hear a review about the EU on US TV and Radio networks, it usually is a negative, derogatory or slanted story. 

Case in point: The American conservative thinker recently wrote:" Europe is on fire, in a social and financial crisis of its leaders’ own making. Its public places are now spectacles of the obscene, and its women are sexual objects for a predatory race of invaders. Its social systems are stretched to the breaking point by belligerent "refugees" who are devouring their host countries at will, while Europe’s leaders defend the invaders and blame their own citizens."

"Islam is now controlling most of Europe, either actively, or passively, due to the absence of any response from local governing authorities -- a curious void of law and order.  “Peace in our time” has now given way to the “Religion of Peace.” 

What utter nonsense.

It is amazing Europe is not reacting to all this undermining and mostly unfounded nonsense more aggressively? 

After all, if Europe has a refugee and an ISIS problem today, it has had a lot, if not everything to do with the war the conservative "father and son" Bush US presidency teams started in the Middle East against Iraq. Worst of all - these wars were based on totally fictitious reasons.When will the US press start talking about that?

It is high time the EU takes a very close look at its foreign policy objectives and adapts it to fit the real needs of Europe, not only those of the US, especially when it concerns the Middle East, or the EU's relationship with Russia.

Almere-Digest