Tens of thousands of residents were displaced by the 6.4 magnitude earthquake in Sisak-Moslavina County, Croatia, December 29. It caused widespread damage to buildings and infrastructure in the rural area some two hours from Zagreb. Scientology Volunteer Ministers of Turin and Padua, Italy, immediately joined forces to bring humanitarian aid to victims of the disaster.
Pro.Civi.Co.S—the Civil Protection Team of the Scientology Community—are experienced Volunteer Ministers who are also trained in civil defense. The team is collecting emergency supplies and delivering them directly to families affected by the temblor and its aftershocks.
“In the confusion following a disaster like this, supplies can be misrouted or delayed,” said one of the Volunteer Ministers. “Our teams have been able to avoid delays, bypass confusion, and make sure all the aid arrives directly to those in need.”
Collection of supplies continues: the collection site is the Church of Scientology at Via Villar 2 in Turin. Needed are blankets, clothing and underwear for adults and children, diapers and baby formula, shoes, toothpaste, toothbrushes, folding cots, cutlery, gloves, face masks, flashlights with batteries, disinfectant, soap, and hygiene supplies. All material must be new.
Turin Volunteer Ministers bring the supplies to the Church of Scientology of Padua which transports them directly to families in the Sisak-Moslavina region.
The Church of Scientology Volunteer Ministers program is a religious social service created in the mid-1970s by Scientology Founder L. Ron Hubbard. It constitutes one of the world’s largest independent relief forces.
With the events of the 9/11 terrorist attacks in New York City, Scientology ecclesiastical leader Mr. David Miscavige called on Scientologists to redouble their efforts to aid their fellow man. He issued a directive entitled “The Wake-Up Call,” which inspired astonishing growth within the Volunteer Minister program.
The following year, Volunteer Ministers of Italy formed Pro.Civi.Co.S, which was entered into the registry of the National Department of Civil Defense.
A Volunteer Minister’s mandate is to be “a person who helps his fellow man on a volunteer basis by restoring purpose, truth and spiritual values to the lives of others.” Their creed: “A Volunteer Minister does not shut his eyes to the pain, evil and injustice of existence. Rather, he is trained to handle these things and help others achieve relief from them and new personal strength as well.”
Bangladesh will have to meet the European Union’s new criteria on human rights to retain its duty-free market access to the bloc as the EU looks to increase accountability and fight impunity, said a top diplomat.
The EU is scheduled to assess the trade privilege in light of the human rights situation after the bloc became more cautious about it.
“As a major beneficiary of the EBA (Everything but Arms), Bangladesh will have to comply with the new criteria on the human rights to enjoy the benefit on exports,” said Rensje Teerink, head of the EU Delegation to Bangladesh.
Some 61 per cent of Bangladesh’s exports are destined for the EU.
Garment export, which accounts for about 85 per cent of the national sales abroad, rose from $12.49 billion in fiscal 2009-10 to $27.95 billion in 2019-20, according to a recent study by the Bangladesh Garment Manufacturers and Exporters Association.
Of the total export, more than 90 per cent are apparel items and 96.4 per cent goods are covered by the GSP scheme.
On December 7, the European Council adopted a decision and a regulation establishing a global human rights sanctions regime.
This will allow the EU to target individuals, entities and bodies – including state and non-state actors – responsible for, involved in or associated with serious human rights violations and abuses worldwide, no matter where they occurred.
“The new regime enables us to impose sanctions regardless of where human rights violations and abuses occur…,” said Josep Borrell, high representative of the EU for foreign affairs and security policy and vice-president of the European Commission.
“…without having to create new, country-specific sanctions regimes as we had to do until now. This means we have new tools to increase accountability and fight impunity,” he said in a blog.
The EU can also respond to human rights violations by suspending development aid or withdrawing EBA trade preferences, Borrell said.
“So, Bangladesh needs to protect the EBA facility by complying with the new conditions of human rights,” Teerink said in an exclusive interview with The Daily Star recently.
“The Director-General Trade and DG Employment of the EU have been closely monitoring the human rights situation in Bangladesh to be assessed for the next eligibility.”
The new condition on human rights has been communicated with the ministries of commerce, labour and employment and foreign affairs, she said.
Retaining the trade privilege in the EU is important for Bangladesh because the current economic growth of the country happened significantly riding on the bloc’s generous trade benefit over the last five decades.
Once the country graduates to a developing nation from the least-developed country (LDC) grouping in 2024, Bangladesh will face a lot of competition from other countries in the EU, and there is a possibility of losing the market share due to erosion in preference, the envoy said.
“It is very difficult to say exactly how much Bangladesh would be affected due to graduation,” Teerink said, adding that the EU would remain a major market for Bangladesh even after the graduation.
After the expiry of the current EBA, obtaining the GSP Plus status to the EU by Bangladesh would also be very difficult because of a strong export base of the country to the EU.
For instance, the minimum threshold of import value by the bloc from a GSP eligible country should be less than 7.4 per cent of the total imports from all beneficiary countries during the last three consecutive years on an average. Bangladesh’s share was 24.4 per cent in 2018.
In fact, Bangladesh is the biggest beneficiary of the GSP among all LDCs and is alone utilising 67 per cent of the trade preferential treatment because of higher shipment of apparel items.
In order to qualify for the GSP Plus, a country must meet some criteria.
First, a potential country must be considered vulnerable, according to a document of the European Commission on the EU’s GSP.
A vulnerable country refers to a nation which is not classified by the World Bank as a high-income or upper-middle income country for three consecutive years.
Also, a country must have ratified 27 core international conventions in the fields of human and labour rights, the environment and good governance.
The GSP Plus is a special incentive arrangement for sustainable development and good governance. It slashes tariffs to zero for vulnerable low and lower-middle-income countries.
Bangladesh has ratified almost all major conventions except for a fundamental convention of the International Labour Organisation’s Minimum Age Convention.
In major progress, Bangladesh has amended the labour law, bringing down the threshold of the consent of workers required for the formation of trade unions to 20 per cent from 30 per cent.
“I think that is a good and commendable threshold, but it is not enough,” Teerink said, adding that the threshold would not be able to ensure the freedom of association of workers.
To retain the EBA, Bangladesh needs to follow the labour roadmap recommended by International Labour Organization (ILO).
“The EBA is a such a gift that is quota-free and duty-free access to a country, we have to be sure certain basic human rights and labour are respected while products enter the European Union markets,” Teerink said.
“That is why we have this EBA engagement to see where is Bangladesh on trade.”
If certain basic principles are not respected, there would be unfair competition, she said.
There will be an important meeting about the improvement on labour rights this year.
She said there was no doubt that Bangladesh has been progressing economically despite the fallouts of the Covid-19 fallouts.
“We are incredibly proud as Bangladesh is going forward to be graduated to be a developing country.”
She praised the government’s efforts to roll out the stimulus packages for industries.
Bangladesh’s economy needs to be diversified, and at this moment, it is very much dependent on the ready-made garment industry.
“I hope the government will address it in its Eighth Five-Year Plan,” Teerink said.
The ease of doing business is an important area to improve the business climate in the country, according to the diplomat.
Bangladesh, along with other LDCs, has been pushing for an extension of the current GSP status for 10 more years because of the fallouts of Covid-19.
However, she said she was not much aware of the EU’s position in this regard.
Many local trade experts have suggested signing a free trade agreement (FTA) with the EU.
Responding to this, Teerink said, “At this moment, this is not in the discussion of the DG Trade. Maybe in future, the FTA issue might be discussed.”
The issues of responsible business behaviour by retailers and brands of the EU and the low-price issue of garment items of Bangladesh will be discussed in the next meeting of Sustainability Compact, which was signed between Bangladesh and the bloc in 2013 after the Rana Plaza building collapse.
“Very crucial due diligence issues will be discussed in the meeting as many Bangladeshi garment suppliers have been affected by unusual deferral payments by EU retailers and brands during the pandemic,” she added.
If you have grand plans of lying back on the beach and relaxing with a copy of The Great Big Narcotics Cookbook this summer, bad news: You won’t be finding it at your local library or bookshop.
It’s one of the nearly 1300 books that are either banned or restricted by New Zealand’s Office of Film and Literature Classification.
On the list you’ll find a fair stack of books along the lines of Virgins in the Hayloft, Spanking Illustrated volume two (but interestingly not volume one), or the very subtly-named Doing It. Many bannings are vestiges of the 1960s and 70s when books were held to different moral standards.
These days books are rarely blacklisted, except if they’re considered to promote either extreme violence or certain sexual acts involving coercion, exploitation of children, bestiality, necrophilia, use of urine, or use of excrement.
Some newer books and writings on the list are the Secrets Of Methamphetamine Manufacture 8th Editionand the Christchurch terrorist’s manifesto, which New Zealand’s chief censor David Shanks described as a “quite disturbing and destructive piece of writing”.
Jason Dorday/Stuff
Ted Dawe’s book Into the River was left out in the cold in 2013 when a review panel slapped an R-14 restriction on it.
These are books which Shanks and his team of 20 at the Office of Film and Literature Classification believe can cause harm to society.
“What we do can be likened to an asbestos removal crew,” Shanks said.
“We’re dealing with inherently harmful and toxic material, and we have to take that seriously and take all due precautions.
“The reality is that with some of this material once you’re exposed to some of it, you’re never going to forget it and it will have an impact.”
Shanks has the power to classify any publication. That means anything containing text, images, audio, video – analogue or digital.
DIA
Chief Censor David Shanks says his job exacts a toll on him and his staff at the OFLC.
It’s an incredibly broad brush that has allowed predecessors to censor everything from soda cans to camper vans.
Among the publications banned in 2019 was a video game which put the player in the role of the Christchurch terrorist.
While banning books might seem antiquated to some, Shanks believes it has a place in New Zealand.
“When we look at a book we’re not just thinking about the classification of that book, we’re thinking about what it represents as a category and what it represents as a potential harm and in some cases a potential benefit and looking to balance that,” Shanks says.
Yet just because books end up on the list, doesn’t mean they’re there forever. After three years, a book can be re-submitted for review. Some pass the test, others don’t.
Books that have been removed from the list or reclassified include Jackie Collins’ best-seller The World is Full of Married Men. The ban here and in Australia even helped boost sales in the United States and the United Kingdom back in the late 1960s.
‘Into the River’ is a coming of age story set at an Auckland boarding school.
New Zealand author Ted Dawe felt the power of censorship when in 2013, his book Into the River was hit with an R-14 rating by the New Zealand Film and Literature Board of Review.
Dawe said he wasn’t too worried as Fifty Shades of Grey had made it past the censor without any redactions, and “the only places which ban books are banana republics”.
But the book – a coming of age story about a young boy who goes to boarding school and encounters intimacy, sex, drugs, racism and death – ended up being restricted to those 14 and over.
Because of that it was pulled from the shelves of libraries across the country, which Dawe said meant the book “effectively vanished”.
Prior to that it had won both the Margaret Mahy Book of the Year prize and the top gong in the Young Adult category at New Zealand Post Children’s Book Awards, and was selling well.
“It wasn’t fair, because any kid who wanted to borrow it had to bring proof of age to the library, and [the book] would be brought up from the stacks or from under the counter – presumably in a brown envelope – and that didn’t do much for the book,” Dawe said.
Supplied
The popular erotic novel ‘Fifty Shades of Grey’ was not restricted in New Zealand.
“It basically went from a very popular, very well-borrowed and well-sold book, to a book that was going nowhere.”
But the censorship didn’t sit well with librarians. Auckland Libraries appealed the decision and – after a public outcry – the age restriction was overturned.
That meant it was a crime to supply, display, or distribute the book in any way.
Individuals and organisations who knowingly supplied the book were liable to fines of up to $3000 and $10,000 respectively.
“The censorship law worked very well up to the point they convened the appeal board. Any little board of five people, if it’s got strong-minded people with a barrow to push, the decisions may be skewed.
“The censor [who made the initial decision to leave the book unrestricted] was a very well-read woman and was able to put it into context of other books in the genre and other banned books.
“But these amateurs who were drafted in to be a panel of five fair-minded people seemed as though it would be a good idea, but I don’t think it worked too well.”
Rosa Woods/Stuff
Just under 1300 books are currently banned or restricted in New Zealand. (File photo)
Delivered to your door
Surprisingly also reclassified – albeit with heavy restrictions – was 1993’s literary classic Bazooka: How to build your own.
The book is banned for all those who don’t hold a firearms or dealers licence, but it’s still easily purchased from Amazon where the description reads: “If you get a bang out of the flash and thud of an explosion and are intrigued by soft munitions, propellants and weapons, why not build your own bazooka?
“Anthony Lewis takes you through the process, from constructing the cartridge, barrel, grip and sights to mixing the propellant and igniter to assembling, loading and test-firing.”
Not to worry though, at the bottom it reassures us it’s “for information purposes only”.
It’s this internet loophole that has really thrown a spanner in the works for Shanks and his counterparts around the world.
Anyone can log on to a book delivery website located in a country where a book isn’t banned, order the offending tome, and have it delivered to their doorstep.
Screenshot
‘Bazooka: How to Build Your Own’ is available to purchase on Amazon.
When Shanks’ powers were enshrined in the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Act 1993, the internet was in its infancy, not the sprawling content machine it is today.
“When you live in a world where about 500 hours of content is going up on YouTube every minute you instantly realise having a traditional classification approach of having someone sit and digest that fire hose of content is never remotely going to work,” Shanks said.
“You need to think about new ways, new models to adapt to this digital reality.”
In Sweden, the Media Council has developed modules for school children to help them identify propaganda and misinformation.
And with the internet too big to be reined in, Shanks believes education is the best way forward.
“The way I look at it, we’ve got an opportunity,” he said.
“We’ve got some deep insights into where the boundaries could and should be. And we’ve got an opportunity to engage with industry, the public and increasingly young people to conduct research.
“We’re trying to figure out where the harms are and how to mitigate them in ways other than simply banning or restriction.”
Getty-Images
Harry Potter author J K Rowling has garnered controversy for her views on transgender women.
The court of public opinion
Shanks isn’t the only one with power – there are plenty of people who are making their thoughts on certain authors clear.
In the case of Wellington bookshop Good Books, owners Catherine Robertson and Jane Arthur have chosen not to stock certain books whose authors’ views don’t align with their values.
An author in her own right, Robertson made the decision to leave books by the likes of J K Rowling – who has controversial views on transgender women – off the shelves at her store.
She said while it might cost her money in sales, it was worth it to create an inclusive space for patrons.
“As a small business one of the first things you have to do, I believe, is to figure out what your values are: how you’re going to treat your employees and your customers,” she said.
“I think the line for us is very clear. The line is where people are using their public platforms to promulgate misinformation, bigotry or hate speech.”
Supplied/Stuff
Paula Morris is an award-winning fiction writer and teaches creative writing at the University of Auckland.
<
p class=”sics-component__html-injector sics-component__story__paragraph”> Robertson said, so far, they have had far more positive feedback than negative.
While admired by some, it’s an approach that worries author Paula Morris. She said that while she “greatly respects” Robertson as an author, censoring books is a slippery slope.
“I think it’s quite bizarre,” Morris said. “I am not a fan, I have to tell you, because I think so many writers and their personal lives cannot bear much scrutiny – so many writers have done objectionable things.
She gave the example of Charles Dickens, who was notably awful to his wife – at one point trying to get her committed to an insane asylum, so he could be with a younger woman.
Excluding authors from bookshops is the small-scale version of what’s happening online, where cancel-culture has become a form of censorship, Morris said.
“It’s not really the way the world can work to just say this person is despicable for whatever reason and to be tried in the court of public opinion.”
Turkey is working to open new chapters in its relations with the EU, said Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu, Anadolu news agency reported.
“In 2020, due to our [Turkey’s] problems with some [EU] member states, there were occasional tensions in relations with the EU, which we would not want,” Cavusoglu told a joint news conference in Madrid with Arancha Gonzalez Laya the Spanish Minister of Foreign Affairs, European Union and Cooperation. “However, thanks to the approach of Spain and some other countries, dialogue was chosen instead of tension, and the last summit paved the way for that.”
Cavusoglu added that Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen will hold a videoconference on Saturday.
After seven long years of negotiations, Brussels and Beijing on Thursday last week signed a Comprehensive Agreement on Investment (CAI). The CAI would ensure EU investors achieve better access to the Chinese market and compete on a better level playing field in China, the European Commission said. On the European side, the market is already open, and the agreement would preserve sensitive areas for the EU, namely in the fields of energy, agriculture, fisheries, audio-visual and public services.
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said that Europe “is attached to reciprocity, level playing field and values,” adding that the agreement would bring more balanced trade and business opportunities. This is in line with the commission’s 2019 report EU-China — A strategic outlook, in which the EU committed to seek more balanced and reciprocal economic relations.
In the report, the EU labeled China a “systemic rival promoting alternative models of governance,” but remained committed to a comprehensive strategic bilateral partnership. Against the backdrop of a toughening stance in the EU’s approach to China, and given Beijing’s increasing assertiveness in the region (and globally), as well as the US-China geopolitical rivalry, it is obvious that the timing of such a deal with China is controversial.
It has drawn criticism from within and outside of Europe. The disappointment has been even more tangible, as it follows the praise for Europe for finally waking up to China’s mercantilist approach to the bloc, while trying to get its own house in order.
In 2019, French President Emmanuel Macron called for an end to the EU’s naive relations with China, urging a unified strategy instead of national policies. The Franco-German engine, the driving force behind European integration, has faced increasing criticism for lacking strategic depth; Macron’s visionary ambition to relaunch Europe and defend the continent’s sovereignty has not exactly found a partner in a more pragmatic German leader.
In this context, many question whether striking a deal with China is the right path for the EU to become “geopolitical” and achieve its strategic autonomy. Others are convinced Brussels committed a strategic mistake, placing interests over values. Inside the EU, member states also diverged, with Germany pushing for the deal and Poland suggesting early consultations with the incoming administration of US president-elect Joe Biden were needed.
EU member states’ divergence on China should come as no surprise. The bloc’s China policy has always been half-hearted and fragmented. Speaking with one voice with China has been the EU’s biggest challenge. Germany, China’s most important trading partner in Europe since 2016, has long been perceived as Europe’s China weak spot. Pushing the deal through under the German Council presidency has confirmed to many that Berlin remains committed to protecting its lucrative economic relationship with China at the expense of values, including human rights.
With the signing of the CAI, the EU has spoken with one voice. The question is, is this the right voice? Is the unity that the CAI rests on principled and sustainable, supporting strategic autonomy?
Headlines in the US say that the EU struck a deal with China, “despite US concerns.” In the context of transatlantic relations, many are hoping to see a return to normal following a tense relationship due to US President Donald Trump’s abrasive style. Many hoped to bring more cooperation and coordination on their China policies, seeking to address Beijing’s efforts to undermine democratic governance.
Indeed, the EU and the US share a long list of concerns on key issues related to China’s behavior: forced technology transfer, subsidies and state-owned enterprises. These are the structural issues that the agreement aims to address, if implemented effectively, which remains to be seen. However, the transatlantic allies diverge on how to balance relations with China. The trade war that Trump launched against China, without any coordination with European counterparts, has hurt the US economy without solving the underlying economic concerns that the US and Europe share.
It is now crucial that the US and Europe coordinate their China policies, prioritizing common challenges. Cooperation must remain at the core of the EU’s China policy, but Brussels must use the CAI as leverage over China and work with the US in addressing the lack of reciprocity they both face.
Whether an inch closer to strategic autonomy, or a strategic mistake, striking the agreement should serve as a strategic opportunity for Europe to protect its interests while championing openness. More importantly for Europe’s geopolitical future, the CAI should inspire discussions in Brussels on an investment deal with Taiwan, as the European Parliament has long advocated.
The EU is already the biggest investor in Taiwan, but Taiwanese investment in the EU remains shockingly low. A bilateral investment agreement would benefit both, particularly in the reconfiguration of global supply chains in a post-pandemic world.
For seven years, Beijing has used the CAI negotiations to stifle discussions on an EU-Taiwan investment agreement, or anything that would help warm up EU-Taiwan relations. Five years have passed since the European Parliament first urged the commission to start exploring a bilateral investment agreement with Taiwan.
The next step should be for the EU to initiate an official impact assessment to prepare for the launch of negotiations of an investment agreement with Taiwan. If the two sides do not build on the momentum of the EU-Taiwan Investment Forum held in September last year, it will be a missed opportunity.
The EU and its member states must see Taiwan on its own merit, and acknowledge the contribution it can bring to the world, as it proved through the successful containment of COVID-19.
Zsuzsa Anna Ferenczy is a research fellow at Academia Sinica, an affiliated scholar in Vrije Universiteit Brussel’s political science department and a former political adviser at the European Parliament.
Comments will be moderated. Keep comments relevant to the article. Remarks containing abusive and obscene language, personal attacks of any kind or promotion will be removed and the user banned. Final decision will be at the discretion of the Taipei Times.
Unfortunately, our website is currently unavailable in most European countries. We are engaged on the issue and committed to looking at options that support our full range of digital offerings to the EU market. We continue to identify technical compliance solutions that will provide all readers with our award-winning journalism.
The UK rejected an offer of visa-free tours by musicians to EU countries, despite blaming Brussels for what the industry is calling the devastating blow of them requiring permits.
“It is usually in our agreements with third countries, that [work] visas are not required for musicians. We tried to include it, but the UK said no,” an EU source close to the negotiations said.
The revelation comes after the shock threat of visas sparked protests that future tours will have to abandoned, at a time when musicians are already reeling from the impact of Covid-19.
And it sparked calls for ministers to reveal exactly what took place in the negotiations, after they insisted Brussels was responsible for the damaging new red tape.
Cabinet office minister Michael Gove on Saturday warned all kinds of businesses to brace for “significant border disruption” as more of the consequences from rule changes emerged.
The head of the Incorporated Society of Musicians (ISM) said she was “horrified” by the evidence that an offer on music was spurned, while Labour said fans would “not forgive” the government.
Inside Politics newsletter
The latest news on Brexit, politics and beyond direct to your inbox every weekday
Inside Politics newsletter
The latest news on Brexit, politics and beyond direct to your inbox every weekday
The row has sparked bitter recriminations after music bodies were repeatedly reassured that a Brexit deal would protect touring performers, as well as their support teams and equipment.
Stars including folk singer Laura Marling and Charlatans frontman Tim Burgess have signed a parliamentary petition demanding visa-free tours, backed by almost 230,000 people.
The government is arguing it “pushed for a more ambitious agreement which would have covered musicians and others, but our proposals were rejected by the EU”.
In fact, countries as contrasting as the United States and Saudi Arabia enjoy a permit-free exemption for performers in their deals with the EU, which offers the arrangement as “standard”.
“The UK refused to agree because they said they were ending freedom of movement. It is untrue to say they asked for something more ambitious,” the source said, adding “there has to be reciprocity”.
It appears the stumbling block was Priti Patel’s immigration crackdown which has introduced tough restrictions on tours by EU musicians.
From this month, they must, like non-EU artists, apply for visas – to visit for more than 30 days – as well as providing proof of savings and a sponsorship certificate from an event organiser.
The Independent understands the UK did ask for a similar 30-day exemption for its performers, but rejected 90 days – to fit with its own new rules.
Deborah Annetts, the ISM’s chief executive, said: “I’m horrified by this new development. The government must come clean about what steps it took to protect the performing arts in the negotiations.
“The music sector feels deeply let down by the government and we want to get to the bottom of what happened.
“All the way through 2020, we were given assurances that the government understood how important frictionless travel is for the performing arts.”
Alison McGovern, Labour’s shadow culture minister, said: “If Boris Johnson’s Tories have stopped musicians from touring in Europe to make a political point, then music fans will not forgive them.
“Music is a huge export for the UK and touring and performing is now one of the main ways artists make money – so why would the Tories deliberately make it harder for musicians to make the most of opportunities in Europe?”
And Jamie Njoku-Goodwin, chief executive of UK Music, said: “Who is at fault is irrelevant and a blame game helps no one.
“The important thing is that both sides appear to genuinely want this issue sorted, so it is imperative that they get around a table and urgently agree a solution.”
But, in a House of Lords debate on Friday, the Cabinet Office minister Lord True said: “The UK proposed measures that would have allowed musicians to travel and perform in the UK and the EU more easily, without needing work permits.
“Specifically, we proposed including the work done by musicians, artists and entertainers, and their accompanying staff, in the list of permitted activities for short-term visitors.
“In practice, this would have delivered an outcome closer to the UK’s approach to incoming musicians, artists and entertainers, but these proposals were, sadly, rejected by the EU.”
It is now a matter for each EU member state to decide whether to demand work visas, in the absence of a bloc-wide agreement.
A French MEP and ally of French president Emmanuel Macron has suggested that the European Parliament could still “modify” the Brexit deal, raising questions about whether the trade deal struck at the end of 2020 between the UK and the EU will survive in its current form.
Nathalie Loiseau, France’s former Europe Minister, described in an interview with France24 the Brexit deal that was reached on December 24 2020 as “damage control,” adding that “now it’s time for reality.” Ms. Loiseau said that members of the parliament have “a role in modifying the agreement,” which has yet to be given the legal stamp of approval by parliamentarians in Brussels.
Asked by France24’s host whether the deal can still be changed by members of the European Parliament if there are provisions that they dispute, Ms. Loiseau responded, “it’s a question of political responsibility. Do we want to ruin the whole thing and say there shouldn’t be a deal after all?”
Then, sniping at the parliamentary process in the UK, she elaborated by saying that, “I’m certain we will act responsibly. But that means we go through the text. We don’t vote on it within 24 hours, as the case was in Westminster, which was quite a surprise to me. If you see that things are lacking, or things should be more precise or should be improved you say it.”
Furthermore, in comments that may raise eyebrows in London, Ms. Loiseau went on to say that despite the Brexit deal being active and enforced since January 1 2021, “if we consider that the deal is not perfect, we will be very careful about its implementation, we will monitor that. And, in the future, if things are to be improved or complemented we will say that.”
Notwithstanding those comments, Ms. Loiseau added that the UK and the EU should remain fully engaged in matters of national security and defence, saying that “we are facing the same threats, the same challenges. We have to work together.”
Those comments come on the heels of a scathing attack against Brexit itself by President Macron. On January 1 – the day that the UK-EU Brexit trade deal was provisionally activated – Mr Macron slammed Britain’s departure from the EU as a decision based upon “lies and false promises.”
“The United Kingdom remains our neighbour but also our friend and ally. This choice of leaving Europe, this Brexit, was the child of European malaise and lots of lies and false promises,” said Mr Macron.
Twenty-twenty was the year that saw Xi Jinping’s geopolitical lawlessness and domestic abuses peak. Yet the year ended with a gratuitous European Union giveaway to Beijing in the form of a one-sided, opaque and deceptive investment deal. The Europeans betrayed their American ally, not to mention their own values.
Seven years in the works but put on hold by the pandemic, the deal was rushed to a conclusion by German Chancellor Angela Merkel and European Commission President Ursula Von der Leyen. They insist the deal simultaneously upholds “our interests” while “promoting our core values,” as Von de Leyen put it.
But the draft confirms what anyone familiar with China’s behavior over the past decade should know by now: namely, that Brussels sacrificed European values to advance economic interests — marginally.
Yes, the agreement will open up new service industries to European investors, hinder technology transfers and add some transparency to state-run companies and other forms of market-rigging. The EU is hailing these modest concessions from China’s state-capitalist apparatus as major wins, but most of them were already in the offing — and could have been gotten without betraying human rights had the Europeans included the United States as a third partner.
As it is, the deal is bound to disappoint on its own terms, leaving European newcomers to China’s economy complaining about an uneven playing field in the industries that this deal opens up for investment, such as electric vehicles, consumer finance and private hospitals. While China’s giants are allowed to raise capital and litigate their way swimmingly back home, European companies will remain largely hostage in a rigged game, in which the Chinese state’s thumb is laid squarely on the scales.
And for what? The EU is essentially prepared to expose its routine sermonizing about human rights as cheap talk in exchange for fatter margins for carmakers, consumer-goods manufacturers and other largely German multinationals. Meanwhile, the deal does little to counter the Communist regime’s mass enslavement of its Muslim minorities. At best, it will kill ongoing efforts by human-rights advocates and China hawks at the European Parliament to rid the Continent’s supply chains of forced Uyghur labor. At worst, it will embed some new European firms into those same bloodstained value chains.
The official text asks China to comply with a number of International Labor Organization provisions it has already ratified while providing no enforcement mechanisms whatsoever to monitor behavior on the ground. China is at once a founding signatory of the ILO and the world’s capital of modern slavery. Thus, the Europeans’ getting Beijing to ratify additional ILO provisions can only prove meaningless.
The deal comes just as the China-hawkish Trump administration is on its way out the door. President-elect Joe Biden and his foreign-policy coterie, while historically soft on Beijing, have indicated that they prefer a joint, transatlantic approach to China. But the Europeans couldn’t wait to see what the new regime in Washington might mean.
The deal’s boosters claim the EU shouldn’t be held liable for not consorting with an ally whose own China policy hasn’t been stable across administrations. They also argue that getting caught up in the China-US rivalry isn’t in Europe’s long-term interest. But the European duplicity is, or should be, obvious to Team Biden, notwithstanding Democrats’ typical solicitousness for European goodwill.
In the post-COVID world, China’s market-rigging and domestic abuses are unlikely to abate and may even worsen. Against that backdrop, the EU’s race to cut a deal says something — something ominous — about European “strategic autonomy” from America, the buzzword first floated by French President Emmanuel Macron and now flying around Brussels.
Yes, the deal won’t come into force for another year, but two weeks is all the time Biden has to figure out how to react — not an enviable position for the leader of the free world. Biden might take a page from his predecessor. President Trump’s China-skeptic instincts and his distrust of the Europeans appear vindicated: Xi is as bad as he insisted, and Angela Merkel’s Eurocracy has been exposed as a blob of sellouts.
The democratic West needs a single spine. Let’s hope Biden has it.
Jorge González-Gallarza is an associate researcher at Fundación Civismo.
K fishermen were facing a growing crisis today as they were forced to halt exports to the European Union because of a mountain of bureaucracy.
Many Scottish fishermen have paused exports after post-Brexit bureaucracy added days to their delivery times and hundreds of pounds to their costs, according to Reuters.
They warned their businesses could become unviable after the introduction of health certificates, customs declarations and other paperwork.
Meanwhile Cornish fishermen said their catches were being left to rot due to the bureaucracy holding up exports to the EU during the first working week after Brexit.
Donna Fordyce, chief executive at Seafood Scotland, said: “The last 48 hours has really delivered what was expected – new bureaucratic non-tariff barriers, and no one body with the tools to be able to fix the situation. It’s a perfect storm for Scottish seafood exporters.”
Parcel courier DPD UK said it was pausing its road delivery services into Europe until at least Wednesday, due to “more complex processes”, and additional customs data requirements for parcels destined for Europe.
Marks and Spencer also warned that the Brexit trade deal was set to “significantly impact” its EU stores’ sales as highly complex paperwork throws delays into its system.
Dutch high street shop Hema has suspended its UK website with a statement on its website saying: “We are unable to confirm at this moment when the HEMA UK webshop will reopen due to the uncertainty of the pandemic.
“The Brexit trade deal will also have an impact on this decision however we aim to keep you informed on any new developments as soon as possible.”
Classicist and TV presenter Dame Mary Beard also revealed she had experienced problems ordering items from a shop in the Netherlands. She tweeted: “I have an online purchase (bit of household stuff) which is coming from the Netherlands… (yes, why?!).
“Ordered in December. Just got an email to say that it won’t be sent yet because of Brexit. Is this a true problem, or an easy excuse? Has anyone else had this?”
A Government source said they were aware of a “small number of issues” relating to the movement of fish and seafood due to some information not being entered correctly into UK and French systems. They said the systems were working and they were working closely with them to keep their goods moving.
A Government spokesperson said: “Businesses and hauliers have made huge strides to get ready but we were always clear that there would be some disruption at the end of the transition period.
“Although many businesses have moved goods successfully since 1 January, we are aware of some issues, and are providing guidance and support.”
