EU: Muslims make up 4.9% of Europe's population in 2016 Says Report Pew Research Center

Note EU-Digest: this figure is in total contrast to the nonsense European Populist politicians are saying, which is that the EU will become a Muslim Political Entity by 2030

Read more: Muslims make up 4.9% of Europe's population in 2016 | Pew Research Center

Chemical Industry - Pesticides Use in Europe: EU To 'Completely Ban' Outdoor Use Of Neonicotinoids, Blamed For Devastating Bees

Citing concerns for food production, the environment and biodiversity, the European Union is set to "completely ban" the outdoor use of neonicotinoid insecticides that have been blamed for killing bees, and for keeping other bees from laying eggs.

"All outdoor use of the three substances will be banned and the neonicotinoids in question will only be allowed in permanent greenhouses where no contact with bees is expected," the EU announced on Friday.

An EU committee approved the plan to tightly restrict use of the insecticides, acting upon scientific advice from the European Food Safety Authority to tighten existing restrictions and protect bees, crucial pollinators.

The EFSA said in February that it had confirmed risks to both honeybees and to wild bees such as bumblebees posed by neonicotinoid pesticides.

"There is variability in the conclusions, due to factors such as the bee species, the intended use of the pesticide and the route of exposure," the head of EFSA's pesticides unit, Jose Tarazona, said at the time. "Some low risks have been identified, but overall the risk to the three types of bees we have assessed is confirmed."

Reacting to Friday's decision, Bayer CropScience, the biggest seller of neonicotinoids, called it "a sad day for farmers and a bad deal for Europe." Bayer added that the new rules "will not improve the lot of bees or other pollinators."

Bayer and another pesticide company have already challenged the EU's existing restrictions on neonicotinoids that were enacted in 2013. A verdict in that case is due next month.

 Read more: EU To 'Completely Ban' Outdoor Use Of Neonicotinoids, Blamed For Devastating Bee : The Two-Way : NPR

Green Energy- Solar Power: China outshines Europe in 2017 clean power investment ranking

Solar Power Plant in ALMERE, the Netherlands

Solar power dominated a global ranking of new renewable energy investments “like never before” last year, with China accounting for more than half of the world’s new capacity, the UN said on Thursday (5 April). Investments in Europe, on the other hand, recorded a massive drop.

The world installed a record 98 gigawatts of new solar capacity in 2017, far more than the net additions of any other technology – renewable, fossil fuel or nuclear – according to new data.

The ‘Global Trends in Renewable Energy Investment 2018’ report was released on Thursday (5 April) by UN Environment, the Frankfurt School – UNEP Collaborating Centre, and Bloomberg New Energy Finance.

At $160.8 billion, solar power attracted far more investment than any other technology. China saw “an unprecedented boom” in solar that saw some 53 gigawatts added – more than half the global total – with $86.5 billion invested.

‘’China’s clean energy push is impressive and good news for the planet,” said trade association SolarPower Europe, citing “a near 80% red

Overall, renewable energies were far ahead, at $279.8 billion, towering above new investment in coal and gas generation capacity, which reached an estimated $103 billion.

“The world added more solar capacity than coal, gas, and nuclear plants combined,” said Nils Stieglitz, President of Frankfurt School of Finance & Management. “This shows where we are heading, although the fact that renewables altogether are still far from providing the majority of electricity means that we still have a long way to go.”

Last year was the eighth in a row in which global investment in renewables exceeded $200 billion, the report said. Since 2004, the world has invested $2.9 trillion in these green energy sources.

But some regions like the United States and Europe have clearly fallen behind. In the US, investments dropped 6%, to $40.5 billion. In Europe, the fall was steeper, at 36%, to reach $40.9 billion. The biggest drops were recorded in the United Kingdom (down 65% to $7.6 billion) and Germany (down 35% to $10.4 billion).

“In countries that saw lower investment, it generally reflected a mixture of changes in policy support, the timing of large project financings, such as in offshore wind, and lower capital costs per megawatt,” said Angus McCrone, Chief Editor of Bloomberg New Energy Finance and lead author of the report.

Read more: China outshines Europe in 2017 clean power investment ranking – EURACTIV.com

Facebook and Privacy Concerns: Deleting a Facebook account is almost impossible, says expert - by Marta Rodriguez Martinez & Cristina Abellan-Matamoro

 Cambridge Analytica scandal that has plagued Facebook for weeks has pushed a number of platform users to consider closing down their accounts.

However, even if people choose to delete their Facebook profiles, it is almost impossible to do so without leaving a digital footprint.

Juan Carlos Lara, a lawyer specialised in new technologies, explained to Euronews to what extent a Facebook account can be deleted.
How to eliminate a Facebook account – step by step

“Facebook is obliged to delete personal data for those who wish to terminate their accounts in most countries. However, there are two things to consider,” said Lara.

Deactivate

“The first thing is that the platform offers the option to 'deactivate' the account, which suspends it but does not erase all the personal data. This option is very easy — all you need to do is go to the general settings tab and click on ‘Manage account,’ which will give you the deactivate option."

Erase

“But this does not mean that your account has been erased. To do this, the process is quite easy but hard to find,” said Lara.

“In the same ‘Manage account’ option, you can click on a ‘More information’ link, which sends you to a graphic explanation of the deactivate option.

"In the ninth page of the document appears a new link with more detailed information on what erasing your account means (this option is also accessible through the frequently asked questions page). This link gives you the option to permanently delete the account."

You can find the link to delete your account here.

Read more: Deleting a Facebook account is almost impossible, says expert

The Facebook and Google Files: Here’s What Google and Facebook Know About You—And What You Can Do About It - Mehreen Kasana

If you use Google or Facebook, you may have wondered just how much of your personal data these big internet giants have access to. This is a good question to ask in our modern era of Big Data, constant connectivity and rapidly decreasing personal privacy. Some people, like Washington State Chief Privacy Officer Alex Alben, even argue that your personal data isn’t really “personal” at all. In other words, you may have unwittingly agreed to give your deepest information to third-party vendors through websites and apps simply by agreeing to their lengthy and frequently skimmed Terms of Service.

By the looks of it, Google seems to have some of the most invasive amounts of data on its users. This isn’t to say the company is using personal data on people for malicious and nefarious purposes. But the frequency, detail and amount it has amassed over the years are beginning to put people on edge. Let’s start off with location. If you have Google maps enabled (like many of us), your physical movements and the time you take to get from Point A to Point B, wherever that may be, has been logged into its search database. If you want to see proof of this activity, look at your Google timeline.

Then there’s your search history. Google maintains a database of your search entries as a way to learn more about you and your preferences. But if you fear that this constant logging of your personal search history is a dash too deep for your taste, you need to delete your search history from all the devices you own. That’s not all. Ads, too, factor into Google’s profiles of its users. To give you an example, Google has an advertisement profile on me; its algorithm asserts that I'm a female between the age of 25-34 and that I might like computers, hair care and politics. Google presents ads based on the personal information you give the website, including your age, gender, location, and other metrics. Plus, Google stores your YouTube search history and maintains a log of information on the apps you use. From the amount you spend on these apps to the people you talk to, Google stores that information in its database.

Then there’s Facebook. Amid the Cambridge Analytica scandal, the social network giant is under massive fire from observers who say its practices on privacy are reprehensible. With many people joining the #DeleteFacebook sentiment, the company recently shared an update in its security settings, saying that access to it would be more readily available for users. But if you’re interested in knowing just how much Facebook has on you in terms of personal data, check out its download feature. Go to your general account settings and look for “Download a copy of your Facebook data” at the bottom of the option

It might be slightly jarring to see just how much Facebook logs about its users. From personal conversations, phone numbers, apps, photos, videos, events, locations, and a whole lot more, Facebook’s data can be converted into tons of documents on individual users. I’ll give you my example. Since 2008, Facebook has 430.1 megabytes of personal data on me. To make sense of such a colossal amount, conversion to a Word document helps. Since one megabyte is almost 500 character-filled pages, that's about 215,050 pages of text on yours truly. To make matters less uncomfortable, that’s several novels.

While Facebook tries to figure out how to respond to growing concern over its privacy settings, you can do your (small) part in tightening your profile. You can opt out of Facebook’s API sharing feature so that third-party websites, games and applications don’t have access to your data.

For the complte report click here: Here’s What Google and Facebook Know About You—And What You Can Do About It | Alternet

EU Official: Islam Is Part of Our History, Present, and Future

 Frans Timmermans First EU Vice President

Recently , European Commission First Vice-President Frans Timmermans ( a Dutch European Citizen) hosted a roundtable with imams from Belgium, Bulgaria, France, Germany, Italy, and The Netherlands. He had a message for them that they doubtlessy welcomed: “The Commission is strongly committed to promoting diversity in Europe. Islam is part of our history, Islam is part of our present and Islam will be part of our future.”

There is no doubt that Timmermans’ statement is true, but not quite in the way he meant.

Timmermans did hint that he was aware Europe might not travel a smooth and placid path to the glorious multicultural future: “The way we help our citizens -- whatever their background may be -- to embrace the diversity that is a reality in European societies is going to determine much of our collective future.”

In 2015, Timmermans noted: “[D]iversity is now in some parts of Europe seen as a threat. Diversity comes with challenges. But diversity is humanity’s destiny. There is not going to be, even in the remotest places of this planet, a nation that will not see diversity in its future.”

Read more: EU Official: Islam Is Part of Our History, Present, and Future | Homeland Security

EU: Overview - What is the Europe 2020 strategy about?

The Europe 2020 strategy is the EU's agenda for growth and jobs for the current decade. It emphasises smart, sustainable and inclusive growth in order to improve Europe's competitiveness and productivity and underpin a sustainable social market economy.

To reach this objective, the EU has adopted targets to be reached by 2020 in five areas:

• Employment
• Research & Development
• Climate change & energy
• Education
• Poverty and social exclusion

 What are the key targets to be reached by 2020?

The headline targets related to the strategy's key objectives at the EU level cover:

• Employment:
  > 75% of the population aged 20 to 64 years to be employed;

• Research & Development:
  > 3% of GDP to be invested in the R&D sector;

• Climate change & energy: 
  > Greenhouse gas emissions to be reduced by 20% compared to 1990
  > Share of renewable energy sources in final energy consumption to be increased to 20%
  > Energy efficiency to be improved by 20%

• Education: 
  > Share of early school leavers to be reduced under 10%
  > At least 40% of 30 to 34 years old to have completed tertiary or equivalent education

• Poverty and social exclusion: 
  > At least 20 million people fewer at risk of poverty or social exclusion.

The EU-level targets have been translated into  national targets in each EU country, reflecting different situations and circumstances.

USA Trump Tariffs - EU threats against Trump tariffs work - Trump backs down, temporarily excludes EU, 6 other allies from aluminum/steel tarifs - by Lesley Wroughtons

Mommy Merkel will spank you Donald if you keep misbehaving

U.S. President Donald Trump has temporarily excluded six countries, including Canada and Mexico, and European Union states from higher U.S. import duties on steel and aluminum meant to come into effect on Friday.

In a presidential proclamation published late on Thursday, Trump said he would suspend tariffs for Argentina, Australia, Brazil, South Korea, Canada, Mexico and the European Union, the U.S.’s biggest trading partner, until May 1, 2018 as discussions continue.

After May 1, Trump would decide whether to permanently exempt the countries based on the status of talks, the White House said in a statement.

Earlier, German Chancellor Angela Merkel warned that the EU would respond firmly if the United States did not exempt European steel and aluminum.

The EU also has published a list of US products, services and corporations  which would immediately be targeted if Trump did not back down from his tariff threats..

Note EU-Digest: the response by the EU and Mrs. Merkel in reference to the Trump proposed tariffs was excellent, and an example of how the EU should continue to deal with Donald Trump's tantrums,wild threats, and fantasy, about making America great again.  

EU-Digest - from Reuters report

The Netherlands: "Big Brother" Wire Tapping: Government Wire Tapping Powers 'rejected' by Dutch in Referendum

The Netherlands Rejects "Big Brother" wanting to watch them

The Netherlands put to a referendum new legislation, officially the Intelligence and Security Law.

The bill gave new powers to the Netherlands' intelligence services.

They would be able to install wire taps on whole areas, rather than just individuals, store information for up to three years and share this data with other spy agencies.

An independent panel would have to approve these wire taps before they could go ahead.

Both the lower and upper chambers of the Netherlands parliament passed the law last year,

Voters, however, in the Netherlands appear to have narrowly rejected the new online data collection powers for intelligence agencies in the referendum which was held in on March 21.

With about 90% of votes counted, 48.8% have rejected the powers, with 47.3% in favour.

An exit poll by the national broadcaster had earlier suggested a victory for "yes".

Supporters of the law say the powers could help fight terrorism, while opponents say the law could be invasion of privacy.

Prime Minister Mark Rutte has promised to take the Referendum vote seriously --And he better do so, even though the result is non-binding, this no-vote will  require a re-debate in parliament. 

This is a controversial issue, which would have allowed "Big Brother" to put their nose even deeper into Dutch citizens personal privacy, under the nebulous pretext of national security. As if there are not enough government agencies already infringing on citizens privacy say the no-voters.

EU-Digest

Trump - Tariffs: European Union releases 10-page list of potential targets for retaliatory tariffs on U.S. products - by David J. Lynch and Michael Birnbaum

The list offered the most detailed glimpse to date of the likely targets for E.U. action, including products selected for maximum political impact in the United States. Among them: bourbon, a specialty of Kentucky, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s home state; cranberries, which are grown in House Speaker Paul D. Ryan’s native Wisconsin; orange juice from Florida; and tobacco from North Carolina.

 “It’s pretty clear they’re trying to wake up American legislators, who are the only ones in government who can influence the president on this issue,” said Chad Bown, a trade expert at the Peterson Institute for International Economics. Still, the European Union said its response to Trump’s tariffs is designed to conform with World Trade Organization

Note EU-Digest: it is high time the EU stops playing footsie with the US and takes their gloves off. There are much tougher ways to deal with the US when it comes to convincing their ego-maniac President

Trump better take note that the adjusted GDP of the 28 EU member nations  is bigger than both China and the US, based on the traditional list of world's economic super powers.

The EU can do a lot of harm to the US economy if Donald Trump continues on this destructive route
  
Read : moreEuropean Union releases 10-page list of potential targets for retaliatory tariffs on U.S. products - The Washington Post

Britain - Russian Spy Case - Putin is 'tearing up the international rulebook' - EU must show solidarity against Putin's Mafia practises regardless of BREXIT

Britain had hoped for a different scenario but it's now heading into a major showdown with Russia, a senior official at the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) think tank told Euronews TV.

As tensions mount between the UK and Russia over the poisoning of a former double agent on British soil, Russian President Vladimir Putin appears ready to "tear up completely the rulebook of international behaviour," a senior official at the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) think tank has told Euronews.

Prime Minister Theresa May gave Russia until midnight on Tuesday to explain how former spy Serguei Skripal and his daughter Yulia were poisoned in the southern English city of Salisbury with a nerve agent developed by the Soviet Union.

Moscow has fiercely denied any connection to the poisoning and says the UK is whipping up anti-Russian hysteria. RUSI International Director Jonathan Eyal said in a Skype interview that May's move had not intended – at least initially – to be an ultimatum.

"As the British prime minister sees it, she was basically trying to give the Russians at least a possibility of getting out of a difficult situation. She hinted at the possibility that they may suggest that these are chemical compounds that have escaped from government control," Eyal said.

"But it is already clear that there is nobody in Moscow in any mood whatsoever at the moment to take that elegant way out and to prevent a much bigger showdown."

Eyal says the UK could cripple the Russian embassy in London by expelling a raft of diplomats, including the Russian ambassador. But any diplomatic retaliation would be more effective if the UK could show it has the support of its European allies.

"I think what will be watched very carefully in Moscow is if Britain is out on a limb on this one, or if the British government manages to carry its allies with it," Eyal said

 May, who said on Monday (March 12) it was "highly likely" that Russia was behind the Skripal poisoning, has already won support from the European Union, which denounced the attack as "shocking."

"As things currently stand, it appears that President Putin in Moscow believes that there is no hope for any good relations with the West, and therefore it’s his turn to tear up completely the rulebook of international behaviour."

Note EU-Digest: Now is the time for the EU to stand firm together with Britain and provide complete support against these Mafia practices of President Vladimir Putin's Government. This is also the time for the EU to put Brexit on the back burner and take up the fight against these totally unacceptable crimes committed on the territory of Britain (EU) by a foreign power.

As to the lip service provided by the US President Trump to Theresa May, one should consider these assurances of support "dubious", given that the US Trump Administrations relationship with the Russian government is still under investigation by the FBI.

EU-Digest

EU-US Relations: Trump’s War on Europe Is Revving Up – by Julie Smith, Rachel Rizzo

Since U.S. President Donald Trump took office just over a year ago, America’s relationship with the European Union has been little more than an afterthought. That shouldn’t be surprising. Trump’s views toward the EU have been consistently negative for years. During the presidential campaign he made several disparaging remarks about the EU, including that it was created to “beat the United States when it comes to making money.” He also openly supported Brexit. Making matters worse, Trump has forged a close relationship with Nigel Farage, the far-right, anti-immigration, anti-establishment leader of the U.K. Independence Party who has served as Trump’s tutor on the EU since late 2016. Despite Trump’s negatives views of the EU, though, it wasn’t clear over the past year exactly how those views would play out in terms of actual policies.

Until now. In recent days, Trump has launched a two-front war with the European Union.

At first, it appeared that the Trump administration’s policy toward the EU would simply be one of benign neglect. The president has yet to appoint an ambassador to the EU, and there are no signs that anyone at the White House is in a rush to change that. The EU also barely secured mentions in the various strategy documents the administration has been rolling out in recent months. In the National Security Strategy, the U.S. relationship with the European Union is cited only once in the context of “ensuring fair and reciprocal trade practices,” and “eliminating barriers to growth.” Similarly, in his sole speech on Europe, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson hardly mentioned the EU. In fact, America’s multibillion-dollar trade relationship with the EU, long the cornerstone of our relationship with Europe, doesn’t appear anywhere in that speech.

But this week, Trump announced he would place 25 percent tariffs on steel and 10 percent tariffs on aluminum imports. The move wasn’t directed specifically at Europe, as the United States imports steel and aluminum from several countries around the world. But that didn’t ease the shock of European policymakers who were stunned last Friday (like many of Trump’s own advisors and Congress) when Trump first mentioned that he was going to take actionable steps toward such a protectionist agenda.
Given the magnitude and importance of the United States’ trade relationship with Europe, one would assume that the president would create a special carve out for America’s closest allies. Trump made no mention of such an arrangement for Europe although the White House will create exemptions for Canada and Mexico.

EU officials are furious and have threatened retaliation through their own set of import tariffs. That obviously hasn’t sat well with the President who tweeted just days ago: “If the E.U. wants to further increase their already massive tariffs and barriers on U.S. companies doing business there, we will simply apply a tax on their cars which freely pour into the U.S.” Many are now predicting that the United States is on the verge of starting a trade war with Europe — and they might be right.

Unfortunately, trade isn’t the only area where the Trump administration is directly challenging the EU. The president and his advisors have also decided to take a hostile stance toward recent EU efforts to strengthen defense cooperation and integration across the Continent. This is an odd reaction given that over that past year Trump’s main criticism of Europe is that it shirks defense spending and burden-sharing.

To be sure, the United States has admittedly had a long, complicated past with European defense. Ever since Tony Blair and Jacques Chirac signed the Saint-Malo declaration in 1998, which recognized the need for Europe to develop autonomous, credible military forces, American presidents from Clinton to Bush to Obama have warned about unnecessary duplication with the NATO alliance.

But over time, even the strongest EU skeptics have come to realize two things. First, EU ambitions aren’t that great. Europeans aren’t trying to build an EU army. Second, to the extent that the EU makes progress on strengthening its defense forces, those efforts will ultimately benefit both the EU and NATO. That’s why the Trump administration’s approach toward the EU is so counterintuitive and counterproductive.

Whether it’s on trade policy or security policy, America needs a strong, economically sound, and capable Europe with close ties to the United States. Collectively, Europe and the United States face a litany of common challenges from Russian efforts to undermine Western democracies to instability across the Middle East to the need to prepare for the post-manufacturing economy. To effectively address these challenges, the United States and Europe need to act together. Doing so becomes increasingly difficult when the two continents are engaged in a trade war or when the Unite States pushes back on European efforts to build the exact capabilities we claim they lack.

The Trump administration needs an EU policy (and an ambassador to match) that can strengthen, not undermine, our relationship with Europe. It’s an imperfect relationship but it’s the best one we’ve got

Note EU-Digest: the EU Commission and Parliament  should, as the saying goes, "stop crying over spilled milk", since they knew even before the start of the US's Trump Administration, that Trump was not only a Populist and Nationalist, who embraced the idea of Brexit, but also  on very friendly terms with many European populists, like Farage, who he openly endorsed to become the British Ambassador to the US., and the list goes on and on. 

So given Trump's actions as the President of the US, at this point in time, it is certainly not wise for the EU Commission, or for that matter, most EU member states, to "snuggle-up" to the US's Trump Administration, as it has now been proven beyond any doubt, that Trump is only in favor of the EU, when he tells them to jump and  the EU responds with "how high Mr. Trump 

Given the above sequence of events the EU must show some more muscle in dealing with the US's Trump Administration and their policies, orchestrated by a narcissist, who, if we like it or not was elected President of the USA.  

Read more: Trump’s War on Europe Is Revving Up – Foreign Policy

EU - Daylight saving time: European Parliament votes for review of daylight saving time

European Parliament members voted 384 to 153 in a non-binding resolution on Thursday to urge the European Commission to carry out a "thorough assessment" of the daylight saving time (DST) arrangements for summer time and, if necessary "come up with a proposal for its revision."

"Numerous studies have failed to reach a conclusive outcome, but indicate negative effects on human health," the members of European Parliament wrote in their proposal.

For decades, Europeans have gone through a twice-yearly ritual of changing their clocks to make the most of natural daylight. Current EU law came into force in 2001 and set a bloc-wide date and time for the start and end of summer.

In late March each year clocks go forward by 60 minutes and in late October they are put back again.

Ireland's MEP Sean Kelly has been working to stop moving the time at the committee level in the European Parliament.

"We think that there's no need to change the clocks," he said. "It came in during World War One, it was supposed to be for energy savings — the indications are that there are very few energy savings, if any — and there are an awful lot of disadvantages to both human beings and animals that make it outdated at this point. We're working to try and end it."

Read more: European Parliament votes for review of daylight saving time | News | DW | 08.02.2018

Immigration turmoil: Blaming Immigrants For Economic Troubles - by Basak Kus

Immigration has always been a prominent issue in American politics. It has become even more salient with the presidency of Donald Trump. A major debate at the moment concerns the economic impact of immigration—low-skilled immigration, in particular. It is argued that immigration has suppressed wages, discouraged unions, and exerted fiscal pressure on the welfare state.

How valid are these arguments? Is immigration really the culprit for these woes?

Let us start with welfare. It is argued immigrants make demands on the welfare state, while not paying enough taxes to cover the cost of the benefits they receive. This is not accurate. America’s welfare system is facing pressure; there is no dispute about that. However, immigration is not the cause. Non-citizens’ use of welfare benefits has declined significantly since the 1996 Welfare Reform no matter where you look: TANF, SSI, food stamps, Medicaid (see here, here and here). At the same time, there is evidence that, in urban areas, immigrant households are paying taxes at nearly the same rate as native households.

If the American welfare system is in distress, that is largely because of the revenue side. The tax revenue the US collects is relatively small, which renders the American welfare state ineffective and unable to meet the needs of the public, as political scientist Sven Steinmo’s work shows. To be specific, in 2015, US’s total tax revenue, at 26 percent of GDP, stood significantly below the OECD average of 34 percent, while in many European countries it exceeded 40 percent. The US’s total corporate tax revenue that year, at 2.2 percent of GDP was also below the OECD average.

Since the 1970s, the highest marginal income tax rate has nearly halved. The bottom line is, it is not the demand on the system caused by immigration that is threatening the welfare state, it is the tax revenue needed to fund it, which is not being collected. Unfortunately, the situation is not likely to improve with the recent passing of the new tax bill.

The truth is, immigrant workers themselves are the victims of the same structural forces that have contributed to the demise of unions: de-industrialization, financialization, and policies, which for decades prioritized market flexibility over wages, employment protection, and unionization rights. Depending on particular political and institutional factors, unions fared better in some countries than others in the face of these global challenges. To make some comparisons with America’s northern neighbor, the percentage of the foreign-born population has been increasing in both countries, and, in fact, it is now higher in Canada than in the US (20% versus 13%). Yet, unions seem to have been faring far better in Canada—both in the private and public sector, despite higher rates of immigration. To be more specific, America’s unionization rates remained very similar to Canada’s until the 1960s, whereas now trade union density in Canada is more than twice that of the United States. Why is this the case? That is a complex question, as Barry Eidlin shows, having to do with these nations’ particular contexts of labor mobilization and party politics.

The worry that immigrants take more than they give, that they would become a “public charge” rather than an “economic contributor” is not new. Cybelle Fox’s work shows, for instance, how deep the economically-based-anti-immigration sentiment ran during the New Deal, how “rumors circulated in the press that there were a million or more aliens on relief,” and how most Americans believed aliens should not receive relief and that those who did should be expelled from the country. These arguments surface time and again, are misguided and simply fuel new nativist attitudes. The overwhelming evidence is that the inflow of immigrants, whether high- or low-skilled, contributes to US economic growth and is not the cause of American workers’ plight.

Read more: Blaming Immigrants For Economic Troubles

Governments would get more done if they bullied people less on issues like anti-vaccination — Sara Gorman

In 2016, in the midst of a devastating measles outbreak, California decided to repeal the philosophical exemption to vaccines, which allows parents to opt out of required childhood vaccines because of “personal beliefs.”

Soon after that law went into effect, the number of exemptions for medical reasons suddenly soared. Some have argued that the philosophical exemption ban may have in some ways made matters worse, since school administrators are powerless against medical exemptions, but may have had more room to question philosophical exemptions.

Responding to complex social issues such as the anti-vaccine movement requires a full view of human behavior and a solid understanding of what it really takes to change minds. We need to let go of the idea that we can just strong-arm people into complying. Policymakers must understand that changing attitudes and behaviors requires a comprehensive approach that doesn’t rely exclusively on punitive measures alone.

These kinds of laws should be familiar to anyone who has followed the evolution of the response to anti-vaxxers in the US and elsewhere.

Last year, France, Italy, and Germany all announced new laws and fines that in each case made more vaccines mandatory and raised the stakes of not complying. In India, Kerala state instituted a new vaccine mandate for the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine after growing resistance led to serious declines in vaccination rates and constituted a major threat to India’s progress toward eliminating measles. Such policy responses to anti-vaccine sentiment are very common and often the first line of defense.

When faced with a viewpoint or behavior that seems completely irrational, it’s often very tempting to essentially “bully” people with facts, overwhelming them with all the reasons why their viewpoint is factually wrong. But recent research has found that not only does this approach often fail to change people’s minds and behaviors, it may even backfire. This is the basis for the “backfire effect,” a phenomenon in which people become more entrenched in their views after being bombarded with evidence against it.

A recent experiment from researchers at Dartmouth illustrates the principle well. Subjects were given fake newspaper articles that seemingly confirmed several very common misconceptions from recent history, such as that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. When they were then given a corrective article indicating that weapons were never found, liberals who opposed the war accepted the new article and rejected the old, whereas conservatives who supported the war did the opposite. In fact, those who did not change their view reported being even more convinced that there were weapons after being exposed to the correct information.

Another recent study showed what goes on in the brain when someone experiences the “backfire effect.” Participants were surveyed about their opinions on particular political issues and then were placed in an fMRI machine to measure brain activity. They were then presented with a large quantity of information that disproved their stated opinions. In a follow-up survey several weeks later, researchers found stronger inclination toward original views in the majority of participants. More importantly for this study, however, is what they found about brain activity during these informational challenges. Regions of the brain associated with strong emotion were heavily activated while parts of the brain associated with cognitive reasoning and comprehension were suppressed. In essence, the parts of the brain needed to absorb the new information were shut down by the parts of the brain associated with strong emotion.

As we can see, when people are faced with challenges to strongly-held beliefs, they may become emotional and dig their heels in. This can be a response to a barrage of new information that challenges what they believe, or a response to new laws that challenge the behavioral outcomes of strongly-held beliefs. Either way, we can see how punitive policies to address strongly-held beliefs might be limited, even if they are necessary.

Even when new laws are passed, lawmakers must take great care about how they communicate about them, especially if the law touches on “hot-button” issues like childhood vaccines or gun control. For example, recent research has suggested that presenting people with views they disagreed with on paper made them discount the intellect of the person presenting the views much more than when there was a video explanation provided instead. This is just one of many ways in which the medium and the precise content of a potentially controversial message can change the way it is received.

When faced with difficult viewpoints and behaviors of constituents, policymakers must think very carefully about how to respond. Often laws and regulations are needed, but what gets put in place with those regulations also needs to be carefully considered before new laws are implemented, not as an afterthought.

Read more: Governments would get more done if they bullied people less on issues like anti-vaccination — Quartz

EU diplomats plot against Trump on Jerusalem - by Andrew Rettman

EU diplomats in the Middle East will try to undermine Donald Trump's plan to establish Jerusalem as Israel's capital.

The blueprint for the EU counter-measures was contained in a confidential report filed by EU states' ambassadors in East Jerusalem and Ramallah, in Israeli-occupied Palestine, after the US president, on 6 December, unilaterally recognised Israel's claim to the holy city.

Trump's decision was "a fundamental shift in US policy", the 49-page EU report, seen by EUobserver, said.

"This is the first time that one of the final status issues has been subject to a policy change by a third party since the … Oslo Accords [in 1993]," the report added.

EU leaders should send out a "common message", the text said, that Europe will "continue to respect the international consensus" that Jerusalem should be shared by Israel and Palestine in a two-state solution.

EU states should also "ensure that the location of their diplomatic missions remains in line with its provisions on location until the final status of Jerusalem is resolved," the report said, after Trump promised to move the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.

The EU report on Jerusalem is a yearly exercise meant to steer talks by ministers in Brussels.

The 2017 edition contained several new recommendations designed to hamper Trump's plan.

It urged EU capitals: to push their line on Jerusalem in all "bilateral and multilateral contacts" in 2018; to "unequivocally oppose" Israeli laws to alter the city's status; and to consider "development of further actions on distinguishing between the territory of the state of Israel and the occupied territories".

Previous EU actions included blocking grants for Israeli settler firms and publishing label guidelines for settler products in European retailers.

The 2017 report also called for "systematic media outreach in support of … [the] EU policy on Jerusalem".

It said high-level EU visits to the city should "ensure that logistics follow EU policy, e.g. through choice of hotel, change of transport between East and West", referring to Israeli-occupied East Jerusalem and Israel's West Jerusalem.

There was less violence in the city last year despite some "confrontations" between Palestinian protesters and Israeli police after Trump's announcement, the EU text noted.

Thirteen Palestinians and seven Israelis were killed in violent incidents in total in Jerusalem in 2017, compared to 23 people the year before, and 41 the year before that.

But Israeli settlers were seizing Palestinian land at a "record" pace "including in areas identified by the EU and its member states as [being] key to the two-state solution", the EU report warned.

Israel advanced plans for more than 3,000 housing units in East Jerusalem last year, it said.

This added to the 215,000 settlers who have moved there since Israel conquered it in 1967 to live among the 317,000 Palestinians who are still left.

"Developments in 2016 to 2017 indicate that the Israeli authorities are taking active measures to prepare for settlement expansion in [the E1] area," the EU ambassadors added, referring to a zone that would cut off East Jerusalem from the rest of the West Bank and cut the West Bank into two cantons if it fell into settlers' hands.

The EU said Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu had systematically ignored its appeals on the issue.

"International objections were met by more announcements [of settlement expansion]," the EU ambassadors said.

The diplomats painted a grim picture of life under Israeli occupation.

They spoke of Israel's "long-standing policy of political, economic, and social marginalisation" of Palestinians, which "worsened" last year and which caused the kind of "high levels of stress and depression" that were fertile ground for violence.

They condemned killings on both sides, but singled out Israeli soldiers for "excessive use of force".

They also said Palestinian economic activity in East Jerusalem halved over the past 10 years and that 75 percent of Palestinians now lived below the poverty line.

That figure rose to 84 percent among Palestinian children, half of whom dropped out of school.

"The city has largely ceased to be the Palestinian economic, urban, and commercial centre it used to be," the EU report said. 

Read more: EU diplomats plot against Trump on Jerusalem

Russia: Vladimir Putin's Top Critic Arrested as Russians Protest Election - by Damien Sharkov

Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin

Russian President Vladimir Putin’s most prominent critic has been arrested on the day of nationwide protests against the leader’s bid to stay in office for at least another six years.

Anti-corruption blogger Alexey Navalny mobilized two waves of protests in dozens of cities last year, incensed at the reported wealth of government officials under Putin’s protection.

As Putin announced last month he is seeking re-election in March’s presidential vote, Navalny has repeatedly called for a boycott at the ballot boxes in a bid to cast doubt on the legitimacy of Putin’s campaign by lowering turnout.

While Navalny is regularly arrested at his rallies, police went a step further in the early afternoon on Sunday, forcing their way into Navalny’s office and detaining six members of his team in a raid, according to independent monitoring group OVD-Info.

Protests gripped not only Moscow but Russia’s second most important city, St. Petersburg, as well as cities in the country’s east.

“They are the future of Russia,” Navalny tweeted with a photo of two young protesters. “Putin and his band of thieves are her past.”

Read more: Newsweek  Vladimir Putin's Top Critic Arrested as Russians Protest Election

Davos: Vision versus Economic Capacity and Power - by RM

Economic Power (USA) Versus Vision (EU)

At the end of the Davos economic gathering, it was interesting to note how much the speeches given by European leaders differed from that of the American President.

When the US President spoke, it was clear that he spoke, knowing that he could say just about anything he wanted, given the economic strength of the US. The fact that he added to his now famous slogan , "America first", the words, "but not alone*, just meant that he will support trade agreements and other multi-lateral deals only if they are based on US terms and conditions, certainly not on a multi-lateral basis.

The Europeans,  including their present champion, Emmanuel Macron, spoke with no exception, not only about the positive values of global trade, but also about major issues confronting the world, such as global warming.

The obvious conclusion one could make from these speeches in Davos, listening to these two different trains of of thought, is that unless the one submits to the others way of thinking - there is no harmony possible - and this, regardless of all the enormous challenges the world is facing today.

Unfortunately for the EU, is the fact that the Union is not unified enough to speak with one voice and put their "money where their mouth is", and consequently can not only offer a carrot as an alternative, but also when needed not use a stick against "Bougie Man" Trump.

The result of all this will be, as the saying goes, "when two dogs fight over a bone, another dog will take it",

That dog, if it has not already taken the bone, will be China.

Bottom line : Europe urgently needs to put its house in order, and those member states which like the status quo, better get out, or get thrown out of the EU.

EU-Digest
 Copy Right EU-Digest

USA: One year anniversary of Trump Presidency - a disaster for the US and the world

The US is "celebrating" Trump's one year in office today, as the President of the US, with a shutdown of the Government and demonstrations going on Nation-Wide

Trump's popularity at home and abroad are the lowest of any US President. In addition official records also show he did not tell the truth during interviews and speeches 2015 times during the first year of his presidency.

On the international scene the results are just as grim. The US relationship with Mexico and many other :Latin and Caribbean states are on a downward slope. His vulgar off the cuff  statements about Haiti and African states made him and the US enemies in both areas.

The Iran Nuclear deal and the Paris climate agreement are now both on shaky grounds,

Turkey's President Erdogan, whose nation is a member of the NATO, recently said he does not believe previous statements about keeping the Kurds at bay, made byTrump to him anymore, and today attacked the US Kurdish allies in Syria,

As Mr trump starts his second year in office, hopefully there still is a silver lining of hope above the dark clouds which seem to have covered the US. A nation which always was the shining light of democracy around the world.

EU-Digest

Spain: Catalonia prepares for rule by Skype- by Andrew Rettman

The two biggest parties in Catalonia have vowed to put Carles Puigdemont back in office despite Madrid's threat to maintain direct rule if they go ahead.

The Junts per Catalunya (JxCat) and ERC parties told El Nacional, a Spanish newspaper, on Tuesday (16 January), that Puigdemont was preparing to be invested as president of the region on 31 January and to carry out his future duties via videolink on online platforms such as Skype from his self-imposed exile in Brussels.

They said he would do it "due to legal imperative".

"I promise to act with complete fidelity to the will of the people of Catalonia," Puigdemont, whose JxCat party came second in regional elections in December, added.

The statement of intent came after the Catalan parliament's own lawyers said on Tuesday that a videolink investiture would have no legal basis.

Note EU-Digest: When is Mr. Piedemont going to "grow-up" and return to Spain to face the Judge in Madrid? It is also high time Belgium stops sitting on their hands and extradites Mr. Piedemont back to Spain. The Catalan voters should also start questioning the Catalan local government at which point they are ending this charade and stop financing Mr. Piedemont's non-productive activities in Belgium with tax payers money.  

Read more: Catalonia prepares for rule by Skype