Topical issues in Politics and in the News - Articles, Videos etc.
France: archaeologists uncover 'little Pompeii' south of Lyon
|
Site unearthed on land awaiting construction of housing complex is labelled an ‘exceptional find’ by culture ministry.
THE GUARDIAN 2 September 2017 For the article, click on link below. |
|
June 2016
GERARD RYLE
GERARD RYLE
TED - Talk
How the Panama Papers' journalists broke the biggest leak in history
Gerard Ryle led the international team that divulged the Panama Papers, the 11.5 million leaked documents from 40 years of activity of the Panamanian law firm Mossack Fonseca that have offered an unprecedented glimpse into the scope and methods of the secretive world of offshore finance. Hear the story behind the biggest collaborative journalism project in history.
Here is the link to the video:
http://www.ted.com/talks/gerard_ryle_how_the_panama_papers_journalists_broke_the_biggest_leak_in_history
Here is the link to the video:
http://www.ted.com/talks/gerard_ryle_how_the_panama_papers_journalists_broke_the_biggest_leak_in_history
17th July 2016
DW.COM
In Nice, the French are starting to ask the difficult questions
|
The Bastille Day attack in France has left people in shock, but more than that, in a state of despair. As more details about the attacker emerge, many are asking: "Why does it keep happening to us?" Dana Regev reports. Link to article and videos: |
|
July 2016
How did Hitler rise to power? - Alex Gendler and Anthony Hazard
|
Animation by Uncle Ginger
Decades after the fall of the Third Reich, it feels impossible to understand how Adolf Hitler, the tyrant who orchestrated one of the largest genocides in human history, could ever have risen to power in a democratic country. So how did it happen, and could it happen again? Alex Gendler and Anthony Hazard dive into the history and circumstances that allowed Hitler to become Führer of Germany. |
|
The Fallout from the "Leave" vote - Brexit
7th July 2016
TED - Talk
Why Brexit happened - and what to do next
By Alexander Betts
To watch video, click on the following link:
03 July 2016
Tony Blair says UK ‘should keep its options open’ over Brexit‘One of the reasons we should keep our options open is, yes, the referendum expressed the will of the people but the will of the people is entitled to change’
|
|
To watch video click on this link:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-tony-blair-second-eu-referendum-chilcot-report-latest-news-a7116776.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-tony-blair-second-eu-referendum-chilcot-report-latest-news-a7116776.html
03 July 2016
Video: Bexit campaign was 'criminally irresponsible', says legal academic.
Liverpool University professor says claims were ‘at best misrepresentations and at worst outright deception’
A leading legal academic has said the campaign for the UK to leave the EU was “criminally irresponsible”, in a scathing assessment of how the referendum debate was played out.
Michael Dougan, professor of European law at at the University of Liverpool, lambasted the Leave campaign’s inability to define what Brexit would entail, which has led to uncertainty among financial markets and a 31-year-low for the pound sterling.
He said in a video posted on Facebook: “Leave conducted one of the most dishonest campaigns this country has ever seen.
“On virtually every major issue that was raised in this referendum debate Leave’s arguments consisted of at best misrepresentations and at worst outright deception.“And by doing so – by normalising and legitimising this type of dishonesty as a primary tool to win votes, I’m afraid that Leave have inflicted quite untold damage on the quality of our national democracy.”
To watch video: click on this link:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/brexit-eu-referendum-michael-dougan-leave-campaign-latest-a7115316.html
A leading legal academic has said the campaign for the UK to leave the EU was “criminally irresponsible”, in a scathing assessment of how the referendum debate was played out.
Michael Dougan, professor of European law at at the University of Liverpool, lambasted the Leave campaign’s inability to define what Brexit would entail, which has led to uncertainty among financial markets and a 31-year-low for the pound sterling.
He said in a video posted on Facebook: “Leave conducted one of the most dishonest campaigns this country has ever seen.
“On virtually every major issue that was raised in this referendum debate Leave’s arguments consisted of at best misrepresentations and at worst outright deception.“And by doing so – by normalising and legitimising this type of dishonesty as a primary tool to win votes, I’m afraid that Leave have inflicted quite untold damage on the quality of our national democracy.”
To watch video: click on this link:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/brexit-eu-referendum-michael-dougan-leave-campaign-latest-a7115316.html
2nd July 2016
The Brexit’s fallout - "Adrift"Leaderless and divided, Britain has its first taste of life unmoored from Europe
Copyright: The Economist.
See also Vocabulary Definitions - pdf file below.
THE campaign to leave the European Union repeatedly urged Britain to “Take back control”. It is now a week since voters narrowly opted for Brexit, and the country has seldom looked so wildly off the rails. The prime minister has handed in his notice. The leader of the opposition is struggling to survive a coup. The pound hit a 31-year low against the dollar and banks lost a third of their value, before stabilising. Meanwhile there is talk in Scotland and Northern Ireland of secession.
Every one of these calamities was predicted in the event of a Leave victory, and yet still the country seems transfixed by what it has brought upon itself. It is time to snap out of the daze. The country needs a new leader, a coherent approach to negotiating with the EU, and a fair settlement with those nations within its own union that voted Remain. The damage to Britain’s prosperity and to its standing in the world is already grave, and will become far worse if the country now fails to “take back control” of its future. |
|
Brexit’s grisly first week, and the misery ahead, have already provoked buyer’s remorse. More than 4m people have signed a petition calling for a re-run of the vote. An instant rejection of the result would be wrong. Although we regret the Brexit vote, 34m people have cast their ballot and the result was clear. A straight rematch would be no fairer than allowing England’s footballers another crack at Iceland, which inflicted a second humiliation a week after the referendum.
And yet Britain’s fate is still highly uncertain. Although Britons opted to leave the EU, Brexit comes in 57 varieties. The mildest sort would be an arrangement like Norway’s, involving continuing access to Europe’s “single market” in return for the free movement of people from EU countries and a contribution to the EU budget. At the opposite extreme, Britain could cut its ties entirely, meaning no more payments into the EU budget and no more unlimited migration—but no special access to the market which buys nearly half Britain’s exports, either. Voters were told they could have it all. They cannot.
The Norwegian option would do the least damage to the economy. It would also be the best chance to preserve the union with Scotland and Northern Ireland, both of which voted Remain. The ruling Scottish Nationalists, who lost an independence referendum in 2014, always said that Britain’s leaving the EU would justify another ballot on independence. They are right—especially since in 2014 many Scots voted to stay in Britain in order to remain in the EU. But independence would be painful: it might mean promising one day to adopt the euro and hardening the border with England, with which Scotland trades more than it does with the EU. Under a Norwegian-style deal, Scots might prefer to stick with England. The Nationalists should wait to see a deal before asking for a new referendum.
In Northern Ireland Brexit raises other problems. One is the prospect of resurrecting the border between north and south, a dismal piece of symbolism which might be avoided if Britain got a Norwegian settlement. Another shamefully overlooked snag is that Britain’s exit from Europe will break the Good Friday Agreement of 1998, in which Northern Ireland’s peace process was underpinned by the EU. This treaty has kept the peace in the UK’s most troubled region for nearly 20 years. Fixing the mess will be an urgent task for the prime minister.
Point of no Breturn
Who should that be? Tory party members, who have the final say, may favour one of the victorious Leave campaigners, a mediocre bunch who have disgraced themselves during the campaign: lying about inflated budget payments and phantom Turkish migrants, before vanishing after the vote when the Brexit hit the fan. None of them would make a worthy prime minister. And yet the very falseness of the prospectus they flogged may be their best qualification for the job. Britain’s next leader must explain to 17m voters that the illusion they were promised—all the EU’s benefits with none of its obligations—does not exist. Only when the authors of the Brexit fantasy themselves return from Brussels without this magical deal might Leave voters accept that a compromise is necessary.
And yet Britain’s fate is still highly uncertain. Although Britons opted to leave the EU, Brexit comes in 57 varieties. The mildest sort would be an arrangement like Norway’s, involving continuing access to Europe’s “single market” in return for the free movement of people from EU countries and a contribution to the EU budget. At the opposite extreme, Britain could cut its ties entirely, meaning no more payments into the EU budget and no more unlimited migration—but no special access to the market which buys nearly half Britain’s exports, either. Voters were told they could have it all. They cannot.
The Norwegian option would do the least damage to the economy. It would also be the best chance to preserve the union with Scotland and Northern Ireland, both of which voted Remain. The ruling Scottish Nationalists, who lost an independence referendum in 2014, always said that Britain’s leaving the EU would justify another ballot on independence. They are right—especially since in 2014 many Scots voted to stay in Britain in order to remain in the EU. But independence would be painful: it might mean promising one day to adopt the euro and hardening the border with England, with which Scotland trades more than it does with the EU. Under a Norwegian-style deal, Scots might prefer to stick with England. The Nationalists should wait to see a deal before asking for a new referendum.
In Northern Ireland Brexit raises other problems. One is the prospect of resurrecting the border between north and south, a dismal piece of symbolism which might be avoided if Britain got a Norwegian settlement. Another shamefully overlooked snag is that Britain’s exit from Europe will break the Good Friday Agreement of 1998, in which Northern Ireland’s peace process was underpinned by the EU. This treaty has kept the peace in the UK’s most troubled region for nearly 20 years. Fixing the mess will be an urgent task for the prime minister.
Point of no Breturn
Who should that be? Tory party members, who have the final say, may favour one of the victorious Leave campaigners, a mediocre bunch who have disgraced themselves during the campaign: lying about inflated budget payments and phantom Turkish migrants, before vanishing after the vote when the Brexit hit the fan. None of them would make a worthy prime minister. And yet the very falseness of the prospectus they flogged may be their best qualification for the job. Britain’s next leader must explain to 17m voters that the illusion they were promised—all the EU’s benefits with none of its obligations—does not exist. Only when the authors of the Brexit fantasy themselves return from Brussels without this magical deal might Leave voters accept that a compromise is necessary.
European leaders are in no mood to negotiate with their bolshie neighbour. That is why Britain should delay as long as it can before invoking Article 50 of the Lisbon treaty, the mechanism for a Brexit negotiation, which sets a two-year deadline. For every extra month that the cost of Brexit sinks in, the possibility of a fudge will increase. Angela Merkel, a champion procrastinator who, like her French and Dutch counterparts, faces angry elections next year, may also feel that accommodating some British demands, such as allowing an emergency brake on the free movement of people during “surges” (perhaps applied across the EU), would be possible, though she may find it hard to sell the idea to other European leaders.
Given that nearly half of British voters did not want out, it is likely that a majority might prefer a Norwegian compromise to complete isolation. Whatever deal takes shape in Brussels will be so far from what was promised by the Leave campaign that it will surely have to be put to the British public again, through a general election, another referendum or both. It is even possible that the whole notion of Brexit may stall. A thin majority have said they would prefer life outside the EU to life inside. But it may be that, when faced with the question of whether to endorse a Norway-like deal that entails many of the costs of being in the single market without having a say in the rules, many would rather stay in the EU after all.
Negotiating over Brexit will stretch the tolerance of both British voters and European leaders. Yet the EU specialises in muddled compromises and talking its way around referendums. After months of economic hardship, and a recession-induced fall in immigration, British voters may be ready to think differently about the balance between immigration, the economy and their place in Europe. By far the most likely outcome of this sorry situation remains Brexit. But it would be wrong completely to discount the possibility of an inelegant, humiliating, and yet welcome, Breversal.
Given that nearly half of British voters did not want out, it is likely that a majority might prefer a Norwegian compromise to complete isolation. Whatever deal takes shape in Brussels will be so far from what was promised by the Leave campaign that it will surely have to be put to the British public again, through a general election, another referendum or both. It is even possible that the whole notion of Brexit may stall. A thin majority have said they would prefer life outside the EU to life inside. But it may be that, when faced with the question of whether to endorse a Norway-like deal that entails many of the costs of being in the single market without having a say in the rules, many would rather stay in the EU after all.
Negotiating over Brexit will stretch the tolerance of both British voters and European leaders. Yet the EU specialises in muddled compromises and talking its way around referendums. After months of economic hardship, and a recession-induced fall in immigration, British voters may be ready to think differently about the balance between immigration, the economy and their place in Europe. By far the most likely outcome of this sorry situation remains Brexit. But it would be wrong completely to discount the possibility of an inelegant, humiliating, and yet welcome, Breversal.
Please check back later for these definitions
28 juin 2016
Brexit - Débat sur l'Europe - Assemblée nationale
|
Brexit - Débat sur l’Europe Assemblée nationale Discours de François Fillon |
|
24th June 2016
Brexit earthquake has happened, and the rubble will take years to clear |
|
From Rafael Behr in The Guardian
|
There is a difference between measuring the height of a drop and the sensation of falling; between the sight of a wave and hearing it crash on to the shore; between the knowledge of what fire can do and feeling the heat as the flames catch.
The theoretical possibility that Britain might leave the European Union, nominally the only question under consideration on the ballot paper, turns out to prefigure nothing of the shock when the country actually votes to do it. Politics as practised for a generation is upended; traditional party allegiances are shredded; the prime minister’s authority is bust – and that is just the parochial domestic fallout. A whole continent looks on in trepidation. It was meant to be unthinkable, now the thought has become action. Europe cannot be the same again. The signs were always there, even if the opinion polls nudged Remainers towards false optimism at the very end of the campaign. Brexit had taken the lead at times and always hovered in the margin of error. But the statistical probability of an earthquake doesn’t describe the disorienting feeling of the ground lurching violently beneath your feet. That is what has happened, although there is no geographical epicentre of the Brexit vote. The first tremor was in the north-east, Sunderland, but it was soon clear that towns across England where remain needed to notch up a steady tally of votes were tilting the other way, sometimes dramatically. Portsmouth, Corby, Southampton, Nuneaton – areas that traditionally swing elections clocked up nearly two-thirds support for leave. A counter-revolution based largely in London and Scotland simply couldn’t muster the numbers to hold the line for EU membership. But the practical reality of UK participation in European institutions felt almost beside the point as great cultural and geographical fault lines cracked the political landscape open. Although the vote has to be interpreted as an instruction to withdraw from the EU, it sounded in the early hours of Friday more like a howl of rage and frustration by one half of the country against the system of power, wealth and privilege perceived to be controlled by an elite residing, well, elsewhere. Westminster was the target as much as Brussels. But even that account doesn’t quite do justice to the complexity of what unfolded, or rather, what crumbled. Wealthy southern shires backed Brexit. North-western cities opposed it. Northern Ireland was for the status quo. Wales demanded radical change. With hindsight, Swansea was a bellwether result of the night – early testimony for the prosecution against the remain campaign’s claim that it was worth nurturing the economy we have for fear of something worse. |
Rightly or not, it seems tens of millions of people, many in places where once was heavy industry, concluded that the gamble was worth taking; that the present was not so rosy as to militate against a punt on something, anything different. Many clearly thought, too, that, somewhere in the process, there might be a change in the national complexion: that in the great reallocation of resource and opportunity over the Brexit rainbow, once the country has been “taken back”, there will be more to go around for what Ukip supporters, in their less guarded moments, call “indigenous” workers – the ones who were left behind in the headlong march into a globalised labour market. And it was precisely because there was a reactionary undercurrent of racial animus to the leave prospectus that voters in metropolitan areas voted in droves for remain. Those vast majorities in central London do not express enthusiasm for the EU so much as emotional attachment to a liberal ethos of openness to the world – an ethos that is much easier to endorse by people whose pockets are swollen by its economic bounty. But excavating the rubble of what we thought we knew about political allegiance, what motives drove which segments of the population into which camp – often in flat refusal to take any kind of instruction from party leaders, expert opinion, celebrities – will be a project of weeks or months and years. And that will have to be done amid a great political reckoning as the prime minister and his chancellor grapple with failure of their great gamble and with it the inevitable demise of their decade-long project at the helm of the Conservative party. They might cling on for a spell, for stability’s sake, but they will have no legacy to write beyond Brexit. There is the constitutional upheaval implicit in Scotland’s endorsement of EU membership. Can England reasonably pull its neighbour out of Europe against its will? Then there are the long arduous negotiations over what aspects of that vast edifice of UK entanglement with European law, finance, criminal justice cooperation, trade, diplomacy can reasonably be unthreaded; what compromises will be made and how quickly they will disappoint those who have just voted for total rupture. There are, in reality, two results from this referendum that operate in separate dimensions – the order for withdrawal from the European Union and the demand that all of politics be conducted on different terms, for a different audience. The sheer scale of combining those tasks is breathtaking, and yet the air over Britain does not yet feel clear enough to breathe so thick is it with dust from an earthquake. |
18 June 2016 - Youtube
Republic of Ireland Football supporters in Bordeaux sing:
"Stand up for the French Police" and
"Allez les bleus"!
16th June 2016
Euro 2016: police quell violence as England and Russia fans clash in Lille
To read this article in the Guardian, you can go to:
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2016/jun/15/england-and-russia-fans-brawl-in-lille-at-euro-2016
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2016/jun/15/england-and-russia-fans-brawl-in-lille-at-euro-2016
|
There is a lot of vocabulary connected with police, rioting, hooliganism etc. in this article, that you may not be familiar with. See document below for Vocabulary Definitions 
| ||
April 2016
Kim Philby: I got away with treachery 'because I was upper class'
|
Double agent’s 1981 speech to East German agents recounts how he was able to evade detection for so long by holding his nerve. Kim Philby, Britain’s most notorious cold war traitor, told an audience of East German spies after his defection that he was able to avoid being rumbled for so long because he had been “born into the British governing class”. |
|
In a video recording of a speech given to Stasi agents in 1981, uncovered by the BBC, Philby also described how he was able to walk out of secret service headquarters every night with his briefcase stuffed with secret documents and reports.
13th March 2013
Immigrant Crisis in Europe
MIGRANTS STRANDED IN GREECE BECOMING DESPERATE
Diavata Migrant Camp, Greece.
The Washington Post
Anthony Faiola
Published on Sun March 13, 2016
Click below to access article:
http://www.thestar.com/news/insight/2016/03/13/migrants-stranded-in-greece-becoming-desperate.html
Diavata Migrant Camp, Greece.
The Washington Post
Anthony Faiola
Published on Sun March 13, 2016
Click below to access article:
http://www.thestar.com/news/insight/2016/03/13/migrants-stranded-in-greece-becoming-desperate.html
|
More than 30,000 refugees are stuck in Greece even as an average of 1,800 more land each day, but the door to sanctuary may be closing. As Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras puts it (describes it), Greece is now "a warehouse of souls". |