The Netherlands: Britons in Netherlands take fight for their EU rights to Dutch court - by Daniel Boffey and Lisa O'Carroll

A group of UK nationals living in the Netherlands are going to court to challenge the right of the British government and the European commission to negotiate away their rights as EU citizens in the Brexit talks.

The claimants will argue that the rights of UK citizens are independent of the country’s EU membership, according to legal documents seen by the Guardian.

The case will be heard in Amsterdam on Wednesday, where a referral to the European court of justice will be sought, in what could be a major test of the treatment of UK nationals by the EU and UK in the Brexit talks, with potentially huge ramifications.

While the ECJ could find that only citizens who have exploited their right to free movement to live in the EU are being unlawfully treated, everyone in the UK could potentially benefit.

Five UK nationals along with the Commercial Anglo Dutch Society (Cads) and the lobby group Brexpats – Hear Our Voice are the named claimants. They are being assisted by Jolyon Maugham, the QC behind a series of recent Brexit legal challenges.

The group argue in their action against the Dutch government that after Brexit on 29 March 2019, anyone who had UK citizenship before that date should legally retain EU rights including freedom of movement and the right of residence.

They say the EU’s treaties are silent on what happens to citizens of a member state that leaves the union. But they claim the Lisbon treaty gives “real weight” to the rights of EU nationals, and that these are not coupled to the political fate of their home country.

The group’s lawyer, Christiaan Alberdingk Thijm, said he expected the court to take six weeks at most to decide whether to refer the case to the ECJ. “We are in a rush,” he said. “I’m convinced that the ECJ should assess these questions. Theresa May famously said ‘Brexit means Brexit’ but no one knows what that means.”

One of the claimants, Stephen Huyton, a director of a US firm headquartered in the Netherlands who has lived in the country for 23 years, said he was concerned about the right of his children, who have British passports and are studying in the UK, to return to the Netherlands to live and work.

“There are a number of points to this and one is emotional,” he said. “We have lived outside the UK for more than 15 years and so we were not allowed to vote in the referendum. That is the rule. So a lot of us really feel disenfranchised by the whole process. It was a raw nerve, and it remains a raw nerve.

“I did not make a lifestyle choice by moving here, I moved here for work. And when I came out I came out on a set of terms and conditions. The whole issue of the UK being able to leave the EU [through article 50 of the Lisbon treaty] wasn’t in the treaties at that point.

“In UK common law, we generally have a rule that we don’t apply law retrospectively, and in some ways that is what they are doing.”

Maugham, who is financially backing the legal action, said he was hopeful the case could have profound implications for UK citizens who want to retain their rights.

“Article 20 gives EU citizenship rights to nationals of member states but it is silent on the issue of what happens to those rights if a member state ceases to be a member state,” he said. “Previous ECJ cases have suggested that EU citizenship rights have an independent reality, not just as an adjunct to national citizenship rights.

“The question is: would anyone who is a citizen of the UK on 29 March 2019 benefit from EU citizenship rights after that date? Of course, we cannot know what the [ECJ] might say. But I can see it taking the opportunity to give meaning and resonance to those rights.”

Maugham conceded that a favourable ruling by the ECJ could throw up an “awkward asymmetry” between the way UK and EU citizens are treated on either side of the Channel.

“The question whether UK citizens can assert EU citizenship rights in the EU after Brexit is a question of EU law,” he said. “But the question whether non-UK EU citizens can assert EU citizenship rights in the UK after Brexit is a question of UK law.

“It may turn out that there is an awkward asymmetry: UK citizens enjoying generous EU rights but EU citizens suffering meagre UK rights.”

Debra Williams, 55, founder of Brexpats, one of the claimants, who has spent a decade moving between Germany, the Netherlands and Belgium for her husband’s work, said: “EU citizenship means the world to me.

“It’s not that I’m not proud to be Welsh and British; I am, but I’m also proud to be European. I’m doing this for the kids, and the grandkids, they should have what we have, to be able to travel and work freely in Europe. Otherwise it’s going to be work permits and visa, that will be a tragedy for them.”

Read more Britons in Netherlands take fight for their EU rights to Dutch court | Politics | The Guardian

TTIP: EU dropped pesticide laws due to US pressure over TTIP, documents reveal

US trade officials pushed EU to shelve action on endocrine-disrupting chemicals linked to cancer and male infertility to facilitate TTIP free trade deal.

EU moves to regulate hormone-damaging chemicals linked to cancer and male infertility were shelved following pressure from US trade officials over the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) free trade deal, newly released documents show.

Draft EU criteria could have banned 31 pesticides containing endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs). But these were dumped amid fears of a trade backlash stoked by an aggressive US lobby push, access to information documents obtained by Pesticides Action Network (PAN) Europe show.

On 26 June 2013, a high-level delegation from the American Chambers of Commerce (AmCham) visited EU trade officials to insist that the bloc drop its planned criteria for identifying EDCs in favour of a new impact study.

Minutes of the meeting show commission officials pleading that “although they want the TTIP to be successful, they would not like to be seen as lowering the EU standards”.
The TTIP is a trade deal being agreed by the EU and US to remove barriers to commerce and promote free trade.

Responding to the EU officials, AmCham representatives “complained about the uselessness of creating categories and thus, lists” of prohibited substances, the minutes show.

The US trade representatives insisted that a risk-based approach be taken to regulation, and “emphasised the need for an impact assessment” instead.

On 2 July 2013, officials from the US Mission to Europe visited the EU to reinforce the message. Later that day, the secretary-general of the commission, Catherine Day, sent a letter to the environment department’s director Karl Falkenberg, telling him to stand down the draft criteria.

“We suggest that as other DGs [directorate-generals] have done, you consider making a joint single impact assessment to cover all the proposals,” Day wrote. “We do not think it is necessary to prepare a commission recommendation on the criteria to identify endocrine disrupting substances.”

The result was that legislation planned for 2014 was kicked back until at least 2016, despite estimated health costs of €150bn per year in Europe from endocrine-related illnesses such as IQ loss, obesity and cryptorchidism – a condition affecting the genitals of baby boys
.
A month before the meeting, AmCham had warned the EU of “wide-reaching implications” if the draft criteria were approved. The trade body wanted an EU impact study to set looser thresholds for acceptable exposure to endocrines, based on a substance’s potency.

“We are worried to see that this decision, which is the source of many scientific debates, might be taken on political grounds, without first assessing what its impacts will be on the European market,” the chair of AmCham’s environment committee wrote in a letter to the commission. These could be “dramatic” the letter said.

In a high-level internal note sent to the health commissioner, Tonio Borg, shortly afterwards, his departmental director-general warned that the EU’s endocrines policy “will have substantial impacts for the economy, agriculture and trade”.

The heavily redacted letter, sent a week before the EU’s plans were scrapped continued: “The US, Canada, and Brazil [have] already voiced concerns on the criteria which might lead to important repercussions on trade.”

The series of events was described as “incredible” by the the Green MEP Bas Eickhout. “These documents offer convincing evidence that TTIP not only presents a danger for the future lowering of European standards, but that this is happening as we speak,” he told the Guardian.

A commission spokesperson insisted that health and environmental concerns would be fully addressed, despite pressure from industry or trade groups.

“The ongoing EU impact assessment procedure is not linked in any way to the TTIP negotiations,” the official said. “The EU will proceed to the adoption of definitive criteria to identify endocrine disruptors, independently from the further course of our TTIP negotiations with the US.”

Note EU-Digest: "the statement by the commission spokesperson on the issue, however,  does not sound very convincing"

Read more: EU dropped pesticide laws due to US pressure over TTIP, documents reveal | Environment | The Guardian

Turkey's President Erdoğan Says Women's Position In Society Is For Motherhood

Turkey's President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan said Monday at a women's rights summit in Istanbul that women and men cannot be equal because it is "against nature," claiming that women and men have inherently different roles in society. Erdoğan, a devout Muslim, made statements during his time as prime minister that suggested he held conservative ideas about women's rights, but his speech Monday underscores just how strongly he rejects the notion that women should have the same civil liberties as men.

"You cannot get women to do every kind of work men can do, as in Communist regimes," he said. "You cannot tell them to go out and dig the soil. This is against their delicate nature."

Erdoğan attacked feminists in his speech, claiming they "reject the concept of motherhood."
"Our religion (Islam) has defined a position for women (in society): motherhood," Erdoğan said. "Some people can understand this, while others can't. You cannot explain this to feminists because they don't accept the concept of motherhood."

Erdoğan expanded his message, saying that women should each have at least three children and that abortion was "murder." He also said he was against the morning-after pill.

Opponents of Erdoğan took to Twitter to protest the president's statements, some claiming that he is "backwards," others saying he "is digging himself a grave."

Read more: Turkey's President Erdoğan Says Women's Position In Society Is For Motherhood

European Parliamentary Elections: More Controversy Or More Democracy With Eurosceptics As Part Of Equation? - by RM

The number of people voting in the EU elections this year was around 43.09% - a small increase from the turnout 5 years ago.

In comparison with other countries; at the last US 2010 Congressional elections, which you can compare to the EU Parliamentary elections, the turnout based on US government statistics was 37.8%.

As for what the radical conservatives and their supporters in the press call the BIG win of the EU "Radical Nationalist Conservatives" like Le Pen and Nigel Farage, that should probably be taken with a grain of salt.

Obviously this must be raising concerns with the ruling centrist pro-EU parties, but the success of those fringe party's should also be put into a realistic context of comparing numbers and percentages.

No doubt, when one party goes from having 3 seats in the EU parliament to 6 seats that statistically is a 100% gain for the party, but in the actual number of seats they gained versus the number of seats controlled by the ruling majority, it only represents a drop in the bucket.

Nevertheless, moderate European politicians have had their wake-up call. Europe now has its own equivalent to the US Tea party.

The EU-Commission, the EU-Parliament and the EU member state Parliaments have to start doing a far vbetter job at informing their close to half a billion EU constituents about the benefits of the European Union.

It certainly won't hurt, at least in this case, to copy some of the "Proud to be an American" campaign techniques from the US, so eventually we can also say without any doubt - "Proud to be a European".

EU-Digest

Creation or evolution? - who has the answer? Maybe the answer lies in believing what you can't explain.

Pew Research recently conducted a poll examining the mindset of then American people with regard to the evolution/creation issue

One finding in particular stands out: despite 100 years of relentless brainwashing and indoctrination, just 32% of the American people believe that man evolved through entirely natural processes, with no direction or assistance from God.

Thirty-three percent of of them hold the biblical view, that man is today just as he was when he came into being at the dawn of creation, and another 24% believe that while man evolved, God was directing every step in the evolutionary advance of life.

Evolutionists and creationists have many differences, but they share one common trait: they tend to oversimplify their explanations of the process by which life began. Evolutionists are always trying to find evidence that shows the evolutionary process is a natural rule of physics.

Scientists have a bias toward believing that the atoms that make up DNA naturally fall into place if given the right environment. We are truly dealing with numbers that go far beyond our ability to comprehend. Scientists say the universe might be a few billion years old. They have no way of knowing what was going on a trillion, quadrillion, quintillion, sextillion, septillion, octillion, nonillion, or decillion years ago. If 1 sexoctingentillion were written out, it would be the number1 followed by 2421 zeros.

Only God could tell us what the universe was like sexoctingentillion years ago. In the battle of odds between creationism and evolution there is no way for man to determine a mathematical likelihood for either side. The laws of chance concerning the formation of complex life and the existence of a divine Creator are so astronomically large, our limited knowledge makes us unqualified to judge this contest.

The Evolutionists and Creationists often speculate on the probability of life forming on other planets. Every time a probe explores one of the planets or moons in our solar system, engineers are looking for evidence of life.

Mars is often cited as possibly having the right conditions for the formation of life. Even if Mars were a mirror copy of Earth, with perfect conditions for supporting living organisms, it would still be highly unlikely that any type of life would form on that planet.

The odds are stacked so heavily against the formation of the complex molecular structures, the discovery of living organisms in any other region of our own solar system would only serve to prove the existence of a divine Creator.

It is reckless for someone to think it is a simple feat  to have 3 billion amino acid molecules perfectly link up to form the basic genetic code of life. All scientists should find themselves forced to use the term "miracle" when assessing the odds for life forming on any planet.

In the game of chance, evolutionists are way ahead of themselves. Not only are their missing links missing, but so are a thousand other steps that would require non-living matter to form into life.

Creationists make their oversimplification error by claiming the world around us can easily be described by the information found in the Bible, which they frequently try to portray as an all-inclusive scientific document.

Also, despite the claims by some Christians, God's Holy Word is not a book of science. The Bible is factual, but because it makes such broad statements about our complex world, it is counterproductive to try to go beyond its original text.

Christians going through the Bible and gleaning out statements that appear to be scientific in nature is just not believable to non-Christians This type of activity seems noble, but it invites critics to point out how these examples seem to conflict with known scientific truths. Creationists often claim that the deep oceanic trenches are fountains of the deep that eject most of the water that comprised the Noadic Flood.

Geologists point out that the Earth's core is hot just up to its crust and these trillions of gallons of water would come out as super-heated steam. Therefore because God could have acted supernaturally at any point in history, it's dangerous to assume that any Bible passage can be explained with scientific methodology.

Both creationists and evolutionists frequently present arguments that deal with the odds of life forming by chance. While making their arguments, they often set boundaries that really should not be set. Time limits is one of the most common of these boundaries. If time before is eternal, it is not honest to establish  time windows for the occurrence of certain events.

Evolutionists fail to take into account the vast number of factors that would have prevented life from forming by chance.

If Darwinists devoted more research to the unlikelihood of the evolutionary process occurring, they would probably be more open to the existence of a divine Creator.

Every time a feature is added to an organism, the odds against its existence by chance climb all the higher. Because life would have had to scale this mountain of impossibility to get where it is now, we would have wonder how many zeros are behind the number of improbability.

We are truly dealing with numbers that go far beyond our ability to comprehend. Scientists say the universe might be a few billion years old. They have no way of knowing what was going on a trillion, quadrillion, quintillion, sextillion, septillion, octillion, nonillion, or decillion years ago. If a sexoctingentillion were written out, it would be the number 1 followed by 2421 zeros.

Only God could tell us what the universe was like sexoctingentillion years ago. In the battle of odds between creationism and evolution there is no way for man to determine a mathematical likelihood for either side. The laws of chance concerning the formation of complex life and the existence of a divine Creator are so astronomically large, our limited knowledge makes us unqualified to judge this contest.

When we talk about faith to believe in what you can not explain, we are not talking about blind faith in a deity that you cannot prove or disprove. This type of faith is the direct result of the working of the Holy Spirit.

The Word of God gives several examples of how the Holy Spirit is a vital factor in leading people to the truth.

"The man without the Spirit does not accept the things of the Spirit for they are foolish to him, and he cannot understand them for they are spiritually discerned" (1 Cor. 2:14). "You are a new creature in Christ, with the Holy Spirit dwelling in you. There are two members warring against each other. The Spirit which is quickened, or alive, and your sinful nature.

The Holy Spirit works within you, both to help you think the way God thinks and to overcome the power sin has in your flesh.

The apostle Paul tells us not to grieve for the Holy Spirit that is at work within us" (Eph. 4:30). "And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for He who comes to God must believe that he is, and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him" (Heb. 11:6).

With faith being given out freely to all who seek the  truth, Christians have no need to be in the business of mixing science with religion.

And with prayer, we have the ability to supernaturally win over even the most stubborn evolutionists. Creationism is harmful,  because it distracts from what is clearly a better way to understand the reality of believing that what can not be explained.

 EU-Digest

Sinterklaas: Tensions mount in the Netherlands as UN questions ‘Black Pete’ Christmas tradition - Elisa Criado

It emerged last week that a UN working group is investigating the Dutch custom of white people dressing up as ‘Zwarte Piet’ (Black Pete) as part of their traditional Christmas festivities.

The leader of the UN group, the Jamaican academic Verene Shepherd, has spoken out against the practice on Dutch national television, condemning it as ‘a throw-back to slavery’.

The figure of ‘Zwarte Piet’ is an integral part of the Dutch Christmas tradition. In the Netherlands, children receive gifts on the fifth of December from ‘Sinterklaas’, a version of Saint Nicholas, along with his black slave helpers. These were originally portrayed as scary figures that would beat naughty children with a bunch of twigs and take them away in a sack to Saint Nicholas’ fictional home in Spain.

Today they are mainly characterised as the clown, acrobat, joker and entertainer. Although the custom is clearly linked to slavery and colonial times, most children are currently told that Black Pete gets his colour from the soot in the chimneys when he delivers their presents.

A few weeks before the culmination of festivities on the fifth, Sinterklaas and his ‘helpers’ arrive by boat and are greeted by the local children in large-scale events that are staged across the country. The largest event takes place in Amsterdam and is broadcast on national television. Both professional ‘Pieten’ and many volunteers paint their faces black, their lips red and don curly black wigs and gold earrings.

It is also customary for the children watching the event to do the same. They greet the procession of Sinterklaas and the Pieten by singing traditional songs, lyrics of which include: ‘Even though I’m black as soot, I mean well’.

 Note EU-Digest: What an utter waste of time and money  for the UN  to meddle in this traditional Dutch children and family celebration which in no way is meant to degrade or mock black people.Doesn't the UN have better things to do?

Read more Tensions mount in the Netherlands as UN questions ‘Black Pete’ Christmas tradition - World - News - The Independent