Media Search:



Opinion: Brexit hasn’t ended the European Union – it’s given it a new sense of purpose – The Globe and Mail

John Rapley is a professor at the Johannesburg Institute for Advanced Study. His most recent book is Twilight of the Money Gods.

The EUs dying, boasted Nigel Farage the morning after the 2016 Brexit referendum. Declaring, weve knocked the first brick out of the wall, he predicted a domino effect across Europe. Indeed, within days, far-right leaders across the continent were hailing the result and calling for referendums in their own countries, with Frances Marine Le Pen promising a Frexit vote within six months if she won the following years presidential election. Brexit, they all said, would make Britain great again and destroy the European Union.

Six years on, it seems Europe still hasnt got the memo. For that matter, neither has Britain. The United Kingdom, rather than leaping boldly into a brave new future, is imploding. Europe, meanwhile, seems to have found a new sense of purpose.

The British government calculates Brexit has knocked about 4 per cent off its long-term growth, with the U.K. now forecast to be the worst-performing economy in Europe relative to where it was before the pandemic. This surprises nobody except the Brexiters: Europe is the much larger economy and consequently took a much smaller hit from the loss of market access. The Brexit vote was thus akin to Canada leaving the North American trading bloc to stick it to the United States.

The economic squeeze has resulted in an annual loss of 32-billion ($55-billion) in tax revenue as it happens, about twice the amount Boris Johnsons infamous campaign bus said Brexit would yield for the countrys National Health Service. Instead, just to keep the NHS from collapsing under the weight of its backlogs, the same Tory government that promised to use the supposed Brexit bonus to cut taxes has instead jacked them up to levels last seen in the 1950s. Meanwhile, the vast trove of new trade deals that Brexiters promised the newly liberated country have amounted to, well, almost nothing. When Justin Trudeau said Britain lacked bandwidth for negotiating trade agreements, he knew what he was talking about.

It should hardly surprise anyone that, amid all this, support for Brexit has weakened. Polls now show that among Britons who have formed opinions on the topic, a clear majority not only believe the vote to leave the EU was a mistake but would, given the opportunity, reverse it.

European voters largely agree, their support for the union having mostly increased since the referendum.

And why not? Britain offers a salutary lesson. The country is cracking up not with laughter, but literally. In Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, both Brexit and the subsequent ascent of the Boris Johnson government have driven new supporters into the arms of the secessionists.

In Scotland, the Scottish National Party has found no more potent a campaigner for independence than Mr. Johnson himself, a man who apparently boosts support for secession each time he appears north of the border which, mystifyingly, he didnt even know existed, rather as if Mr. Trudeau had wondered why there was a sign outside Hawkesbury that read, Welcome to Quebec. Scotland voted strongly to remain in the EU in 2016, and many Scots see the Brexit vote as little more than odious English nationalism.

To a lesser degree, the same goes for Wales. Nationalism there has always been more a cultural than a political phenomenon, but since the 2016 referendum, support for independence has been rising there as well. As for Northern Ireland, while a majority still oppose reunification with the republic, Mr. Johnsons post-Brexit trade agreement with the EU has created a curious dynamic. Because the Good Friday Agreement required London to accept a deal that kept Northern Ireland effectively within the EU, its economy has taken less of a hit than the rest of the countrys. Over time, the pragmatic centre of the six counties could thus lean toward reunification on the grounds that they might as well secure the full benefits of Europe.

Oh sure, the EU remains a messy, often incoherent work-in-progress. It still struggles to produce common positions on how to deal with China or Russia, which is why the recent U.S.-Soviet summit largely bypassed European capitals. And competition among European capitals has meant, for instance, that the EU hasnt exploited the opportunities Brexit gave them to supplant London as Europes financial capital.

Still, the situation is a far cry from the fever dreams of people such as Mr. Farage. Shaken by the British fiasco, Europes far-right parties have not only struggled to build on their earlier gains but have largely abandoned their Euroskepticism, with Ms. Le Pen now saying she favours staying in the union. And the continents centrifugal tendencies, which during the 2011 euro crisis caused such deep splits between richer northern countries and southern Europe, waned considerably during the pandemic. Europes governments have agreed to an ambitious postpandemic investment program, to be funded by Brussels, a stark contrast to the cutbacks that are descending on Britain.

Today, as leading Brexiters fall over themselves to say this wasnt their idea, Brexit illustrates that old adage that victory has a thousand parents but defeat is an orphan. Brexit did yield a big bonus to Europe. Its now a safe bet that the European Union wont break up any time soon. But Britain? Place your bets. Were in for a ride.

Keep your Opinions sharp and informed. Get the Opinion newsletter. Sign up today.

Go here to see the original:
Opinion: Brexit hasn't ended the European Union - it's given it a new sense of purpose - The Globe and Mail

The European Union called for a ban on mining on the Proof-of-Work algorithm – The Times Hub

EU regulators should ban the mining of Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies on the Proof-of-Work algorithm due to its energy intensity. Eric Theden, Vice Chairman of the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA), said this to the FT.

In his opinion, without the intervention of supervisory authorities, an increasing amount of green electricity will be directed to the extraction of digital assets, and not to replacing carbon energy sources.

He noted that in his native Sweden, bitcoin mining has already become a national issue.

The solution is to disable Proof-of-Work. The Proof-of-Stake algorithm has a significantly lower energy profile, Theden said.

What is Proof -of-Work and Proof-of-Stake?

In Sweden, he heads the Financial Supervisory Authority. Theden was appointed to the ESMA position in December 2021.

In November, the official, together with the head of the Environmental Protection Agency, Bjorn Reisinger, called for a ban on energy-intensive mining in the European Union.

There are other mining methods that can also be used for Bitcoin and Ethereum, estimated to reduce energy consumption by 99.95% while maintaining functionality, they stressed in a statement.

Possible support for the initiative of Swedish government agencies was announced by the government of Norway. They also referred to unjustified energy costs.

Recall that in July 2021, the French regulator proposed to give ESMA the authority to control the crypto industry.

Read the original:
The European Union called for a ban on mining on the Proof-of-Work algorithm - The Times Hub

Informal Meetings of Environment and Energy Ministers, Amiens, 2022 January – French Presidency of the Council of the European Union 2022 – EU News

This informal meeting will be made up of a series of sessions dedicated to environmental challenges, attended by environment ministers, and a series dedicated to energy challenges attended by energy ministers. All of the ministers will meet for two joint sessions: one on the role of forests and the wood industry in climate, energy and environmental policies and one on the just transition.

Protecting natural environments and improving human health will be central to the environment ministers talks. The first session will focus on European action regarding phytosanitary products. In its Farm to Fork and Biodiversity strategies, the European Union set itself the goal of cutting pesticide use in half by2030. Achieving this goal means collectively carrying out the agroecological transition, in particular by ensuring that imported foodstuffs are produced in compliance with EU environmental and health standards. The focus of the discussions will be best practices in the EU Member States concerning the implementation of measures to reduce plant protection product use and the provisions to be incorporated into a harmonised European framework. The ministers will also address measures to ensure Europes high food safety standards are applied to imports of foodstuffs treated using phytosanitary products. They will also have the opportunity to discuss the need to ensure that dangerous chemicals banned on the internal market are not produced for export outside the EU.

Talks will then hone in on the EUs chemicals strategy for sustainability. Several pivotal texts will be recast by the end of2022, including the Reach Regulation and the Classification, Packaging and Labelling Regulation (CLP Regulation). Other projects on the agenda will include examining measures to stop dangerous chemicals banned in the EU being produced for export. Ministerial debates will identify measures to be taken to effectively implement the chemical management framework for the protection of the environment and public health (the One Health approach).

The third item on the environment ministers agenda is the fight against imported deforestation. The Commission published a proposal for a regulation on 17November2021 that aims to prevent goods from supply chains associated with deforestation and forest degradation from being imported into the EU. This draft regulation also aims to increase European demand for deforestation-free products. During this informal ministerial meeting, the environment ministers will highlight best practices, products and ecosystems to prioritise as well as cooperation with third countries, with the aim of ensuring that European action against deforestation is as effective as possible.

As for the energy ministers, they will continue ongoing debates that began in the European Council and the Council of Ministers, on protecting consumers from extremely volatile and historically high gas and electricity prices, while pursuing the Unions climate goals.

The primacy of energy efficiency, a principle based on reducing energy consumption and waste as a key lever, must be more systematically taken into account in public policy. Building this principle into other national and European climate change policies will be at the heart of the ministers talks whether they concern combatting energy precarity, security of supply, innovation or competitiveness.

Furthermore, the energy ministers will examine the outline for the new hydrogen economy: how to speed up the development of low-carbon hydrogen, while addressing current uncertainty regarding the technological difficulty of producing it and its place in Europes energy mix in the future.

The environment and energy ministers will also meet to discuss closely overlapping climate, environment and energy challenges. In the first joint session, together they will define the role in these policies of forests and the forestry sector and how to juggle the various challenges they face. This will namely concern enhancing carbon sinks and increasing renewable energy production. Forests are at the heart of the European Green Deal and the EUs transition to carbon neutrality.

Lastly, the ministers will consider the principles of the just transition and a green transition that is socially acceptable. The transition to a carbon-free economy and society involves major transformations that will change how we consume, produce, work, exchange and coexist. For it to be a success, Europe must ensure it is a socially just and inclusive transition that meets the needs of the most vulnerable people and places in society.

Download the press kit

Last reviewed on 20 January 2022

Here is the original post:
Informal Meetings of Environment and Energy Ministers, Amiens, 2022 January - French Presidency of the Council of the European Union 2022 - EU News

The Ongoing Fallout From The Achmea Decision – Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration – European Union – Mondaq News Alerts

19 January 2022

Duane Morris LLP

To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.

In theAchmeacase the Court of Justice ofthe European Union (ECJ) held that Article 8 ofthe Netherlands Slovakia bilateral investment treaty, whichallowed for the resolution of disputes by way of arbitration, wasincompatible with EU law. The rationale for the decision was that atribunal may have to interpret or apply EU law and where a questionof law arose, unlike a Member State court, that question of lawcould not be referred to the ECJ. In other words, intra-EUbilateral investment treaty arbitration provisions, as reasoned bythe ECJ, deprived the EU courts of jurisdiction in respect of theinterpretation of EU law.

We raised the prospect that the ramifications from the decisionwere potentially far reaching and were not, it seemed, confined tothe BIT between Netherlands and Slovakia.

To read the full text of this post by Duane MorrisattorneysVijay BangeandMatthew Friedlander,pleasevisit theDuane MorrisLondon Blog.

Disclaimer: This Alert has beenprepared and published for informational purposes only and is notoffered, nor should be construed, as legal advice. For moreinformation, please see the firm's full disclaimer.

POPULAR ARTICLES ON: Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration from European Union

Read this article:
The Ongoing Fallout From The Achmea Decision - Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration - European Union - Mondaq News Alerts

In the belly of Jordan Peterson: ambivalence in question with the ersatz journalist – Cherwell Online

I am sitting on the front bench in the Oxford Union chamber. Next to me, laptops are open.

Who do you write for?, asks the boy on my left. This boy is my friend for the next hour. We shake our heads at the same things, he thinks my notes about lobsters are funny (he was looking at my laptop screen. Thank God I never broke character).

Im independent, I say.

Okay.

I certainly am independent independent from the world of amateur journalism entirely. The boy on my right is in on the whole thing he saw me come in late and sneak onto the front bench.

Just open your laptop and do an essay or something, says boy-on-the-right.

I oblige, and title a document: Professor Jordan Peterson Oxford Union 25th November 2021. There is excitement in the room, and I am in the world of journalists now. It feels great.

The front rows of the benches ahead of me are for Petersons guests. This is what friend-on-the left and I infer, anyway, since theyre dressed much better than anyone else. Lots of shirts and brogues. I spy a fur hat. I spy

Jordan Peterson. There he is outside the glass door. We have all stood in the cold, in a line, for some considerable time to see this man. But why? A happy boy outside told me that Peterson had been incredibly helpful for him; in fact, I really had the sense that he might have changed his life. But otherwise, the Oxford position seems to be one of curiosity garnished with scepticism. This is certainly my own. Perhaps being a Jordan Peterson stan an overzealous or obsessive fan lacks the sort of nuance that these scholars might purport to possess.

Peterson limps into the room. From the front, he is handsome and thin. His hair is dark grey at the forehead and fades into silver at the collar. He walks up to the platform and there is a standing ovation. I look around and cant see any of the sceptics I met outside they must have transformed into stans. Boy-on-the right joins them. Friend-on-the-left and I stay seated besides, I committed to journalistic neutrality just five minutes ago. There are some booers but theyre nowhere to be seen amongst the standing-stans. I feel very confused.

From the back, Peterson is an old man. At the pub that night someone will remind me of the First Rule for Life: stand up straight with your shoulders back (see 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos, 2018). His body is angled, and the way he hunches pushes his frame through his clothes. Something has changed. But, he moves with grace. Jordan Peterson is well dressed and dignified. There is a special elegance in the way he twists his hands as he speaks.

The title of the talk is Imitation of the Divine Ideal, he says, and he tells us about perception, truth, artificial intelligence, the problem of interpretation, cybernetics and robots. I try, but I really cant follow. This isnt the Jordan Peterson I (sort of) know. Ive read the first few chapters of his book, Ive seen the iek debate and Ive watched him own and be owned. Im sure something is different, and this isnt surprising: the Professor has recently overcome a clonazepam addiction and survived a coma, and he now lives by an all-meat diet. Peterson faces the room like a man talking to himself. His gaze hovers at floor-line; the upper chamber is all but invisible. There is an inwardness about the whole address. Richard Dawkins, who is sitting ahead of me, nods along. Some latecomers enter the hall and the bench opposite squeeze up. A girl with perfect hair sits down with the boys in boat shoes.

Peterson tells a story about a child who is scared when he sees a dog on his way to kindergarten. In the first version, he has a panic attack, spurring a lifetime of panic attacks, enabled by what Peterson calls the Oedipal sacrifice of his mother. In the second, the mother tells him to be brave and he walks past the dog to school, and he is fine. Here is some familiar Peterson-style argument I can follow. He talks about metafictional narratives, and I am reminded, with sadness, that I am not a real journalist after all. I make my pretend journalist notes anyway.

He loses me again. Now Peterson is talking about chimpanzees, rats and dogs (lots of dogs). He hasnt mentioned lobsters yet (friend-on-the-left laughs).

Do your controversies overshadow the subtler parts of your work?, someone asks. Peterson pauses for a long second.

No, he says. People always hate when I tell them that, on average, women are shorter than men. Thats not a social construct, and its not controversial: its just a fact.

Everyone laughs, including me. Boy-on-the-right looks up from his computer screen. He shakes his head in disgust. Hes researching for an assignment, and he hasnt listened to a word of the talk. This is his first sign of engagement since the standing ovation (this, being at odds with the rest of his behaviour, leads me to believe that he is deeply confused).

Are you okay?, he asks me.

Yes!;

he thinks I am crying.

I laugh even harder.

Its not that funny, its just absurd.

I know how this goes: we, as (supposedly) rational thinkers, subscribe to the first step of Petersons argument. But now we are on board the Peterson train, and if we stay aboard, we will soon pass under rough skies.

But dont be scared, boy-on-the-right! You should get on the train with us what no one has told you yet is that you can get off wherever you like! Get on with me, and Ill stay with you so long as the sky is flat.

I am not telepathising hard enough, and boy-on-the-right is still staring at his screen. Think about John Stuart Mill, boy-on-the-right! You just cannot be sure that a silenced opinion doesnt contain some element of the truth

Nope.

Were getting to the end of the talk, and finally! Peterson pushes me too far. I climb off the train with friend-on-the-left. We sigh and feel the sweet validation of arriving where we had expected.

What a total waste of an hour, says a girl at the end of the bench. Its true, Peterson was incoherent; but I know much more than I did before, and I am glad. I have been in the belly of the beast, and I have taken its temperature.

I have learnt more about boy-on-the-right than the Imitation of the Divine Ideal: I have seen the people who truly wont listen. Peterson is right about that. Even face-to-face with the enemy, he wont look up from his screen. Why had he even come? He must have been curious like me; and then he must have been afraid. I imagine dead dogmas whizzing around his brain; theyre pastel pink and green because theyre actually Instagram infographics. I know Im right! They are saying. I just dont know why!

Jordan Peterson is burning in a fire of his own making bowing under the pressure of the twenty-four rules he has stacked upon himself. It feels like his career will not continue as before. I think I understand why he believes in God, because he believes in big ideas, and because it all seems to be too much for this man. I do not hate him.

The talk finishes and there is another standing ovation. A head of bright red hair pops up and I recognise the Jordan-Peterson-changed-my-life boy from outside.

I remember a Tweet by bad-bitch Democrat A.O.C (Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez) from November 2020

Is anyone archiving these Trump sycophants for when they try to downplay or deny their complicity in the future? I foresee decent probability of many deleted Tweets, writings [and] photos

and look again at the ambivalent ones cheering all around me.

The students in this room are probably not Trump supporters, but this rhetoric of surveillance has filtered into their consciousness, nonetheless. If A.O.C doesnt scare people out of the wrong ideas, it seems like she just scares them out of expressing them: and I can see that all we have done is force stans to adopt a faade of scepticism. The truth of their feelings has simply been pushed one layer deeper, and all it takes is a round of applause to lift it right up to the surface; the curtain raises for just a moment.

What happens when people are alone, or online? How does suppressed desire express itself then? And what will happen in the polling booth when no one is watching? Many in this room of young men (they make up ninety percent of us) will believe that they are subject to a culture of conformism and hyper-vigilance, and we should diffuse their fears by acknowledging them, not silencing them lest we risk alienating people further (and even pushing them further to the Right). Listening more attentively, and even gently, could invalidate Petersons and A.O.Cs narratives of hostility, and we may find that this is a conflict that we no longer need, and that there is no Culture War without its student soldiers. In some ways, the Jordan-Peterson-spectacle is funny; and we can laugh. But we cannot dismiss these people. Perhaps instead we might look a hunched Professor in the face and ask ourselves: whats it all about?

What do you think youll submit?, asks friend-on-the-left as we close our laptops.

Probably a poem, I say.

Bibliography

@AOC. 6th Nov 2020. Twitter.

Full tweet: Is anyone archiving these Trump sycophants for when they try to downplay or deny their complicity in the future? I foresee decent probability of many deleted Tweets, writings, photos in the future

URL: https://twitter.com/aoc/status/1324807776510595078?lang=en

Image Credit: Gage Skidmore, CC BY-SA 2.0

For Cherwell, maintaining editorial independence is vital. We are run entirely by and for students. To ensure independence, we receive no funding from the University and are reliant on obtaining other income, such as advertisements. Due to the current global situation, such sources are being limited significantly and we anticipate a tough time ahead for us and fellow student journalists across the country.

So, if you can, please consider donating. We really appreciate any support youre able to provide; itll all go towards helping with our running costs. Even if you can't support us monetarily, please consider sharing articles with friends, families, colleagues - it all helps!

Thank you!

Original post:
In the belly of Jordan Peterson: ambivalence in question with the ersatz journalist - Cherwell Online