Category Archives: Economic

Climate Change, Donald Trump, Economic, Environment, Global warming, Government, Politics, United Nations, United States

Anger as Donald Trump pulls US out of climate deal

PARIS CLIMATE AGREEMENT

US President Donald Trump announces his decision that the United States will withdraw from the Paris Climate Agreement.

The world’s consensus on fighting global warming was shattered this week as Donald Trump said he was pulling the US out of the Paris Climate Agreement.

In an address from the Rose Garden at the White House, the President said he would seek to renegotiate terms that are ‘fair to the United States.’

The move has caused an international outcry, with a string of figures from Barack Obama to EU leaders speaking out against the controversial decision.

Mr Trump said the Paris accord was ‘a self-inflicted major economic wound’ and argued his decision was based on a desire to put America first.

The 2015 deal has killed American jobs, would cost billions of dollars, and put the US at a huge disadvantage to the rest of the world, Mr Trump said.

He said: ‘In order to fulfil my solemn duty to the United States and its citizens, the US will withdraw from the Paris climate accord, but begin negotiations to re-enter either the Paris accord or a really entirely new transaction on terms that are fair to the United States.’

The Paris accord ‘is very unfair at the highest level to the United States,’ the President added.

Signed by 195 countries, the Paris Agreement commits nations to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide to stop the world overheating. By limiting global temperatures to no more than 2C above pre-industrial times, it is hoped it will stop heatwaves, droughts, rising sea levels, crop failures and storms.

But the President questioned the impact of the deal. He said he ‘represents the citizens of Pittsburgh not Paris’, said it was ‘time to make America great again,’ and that he would make full use of America’s ‘abundant energy reserves’.

He said he ‘cares deeply about the environment’ and the US would remain ‘the cleanest country on earth’.

But the Paris Agreement ‘hamstrings’ the US and has led to other countries ‘laughing at the US’.

Mr Trump said: ‘The Paris accord would undermine our economy, hamstring our workers, weaken our sovereignty, impose unacceptable legal risk, and put us at a permanent disadvantage to the other countries of the world.’

He said that there are millions of citizens out of work in the US, ‘yet under the Paris accord billions of dollars that ought to be invested right here in America will be sent to the very countries that have taken our factories and jobs away from us’. Under the terms of the accord, a deal could take at least three years – lasting until November 2020 – the same month Mr Trump is up for re-election.

Only Nicaragua and Syria have failed to sign up to the agreement and all the major industrialised nations, except for Russia, have ratified it. China and the EU have also affirmed their commitment to deeper action.

Former president Mr Obama, who signed the US up to the deal, said in a statement: ‘Even in the absence of American leadership, even as this administration joins a small handful of nations that reject the future, I’m confident that our states, cities and businesses will step up and do even more to lead the way, and help to protect for future generations the one planet we’ve got.’

The EU’s commissioner for climate change, Miguel Arias Canete, said: ‘Today is a sad day for the global community, as a key partner turns its back on the fight against climate change. The EU deeply regrets the unilateral decision by the Trump administration.’

UN spokesman Stephane Dujarric said the decision was a ‘disappointment for global efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and promote global security’.

French President Emmanuel Macron made a five-minute phone call to Mr Trump following his announcement. Mr Macron is believed to have said nothing was renegotiable with regard to the Paris accord. The United States and France will continue to work together, but not on the subject of the climate.

Italy, France and Germany dismissed the President’s suggestion that the global pact could be revised. In a joint statement, they said: ‘We firmly believe that the Paris Agreement cannot be renegotiated, since it is a vital instrument for our planet.’

Greenpeace UK has reacted with anger. The environmental organisation said: ‘The government that launched the Apollo space programme and help found the UN has turned its back on science and international co-operation.’

Continue reading →

Standard
Britain, Economic, European Court, European Union, Government, Legal

Free-trade deal possible post-Brexit following landmark EU court ruling

FREE TRADE AGREEMENT

ECJ

The court ruled that Brussels has trade negotiating competence over all goods and services.

Britain’s ambition to sign a quick Free Trade Agreement with the European Union after Brexit has received a significant boost after a landmark ruling by the European Court of Justice handed expanded trade negotiation powers to Brussels.

The much-anticipated decision from the court in Luxembourg surprised experts by ruling that on key areas – including financial services and transport – the European Union does not need to seek ratification of a trade deal by the EU’s 38 national and local parliaments.

Trade experts said the ECJ ruling could substantially reduce the risk of any future EU-UK free trade agreement getting bogged down in the EU national parliaments, opening the way for an FTA to be agreed by a qualified majority vote of EU member states.

“The Court of justice says all services – even transport – can be ratified by a qualified majority vote, which is potentially quite a big opening for the UK,” said Steve Peers, professor of EU law at Essex University. “It could certainly make things easier.”

In the ruling, the ECJ was asked to decide whether the new-generation bilateral EU-Singapore trade deal should be treated as a so-called ‘mixed’ agreement – that requires ratification by national parliaments – or could be agreed by a qualified majority vote of member states.

The court ruled that the EU did not have exclusive competence to conclude the Singapore deal, but said that only in two narrow areas – namely non-direct foreign investment and the investor-state dispute resolution mechanisms – did it need to seek ratification by national parliaments.

By contrast, the court said the EU did have competence to conclude agreements without ratification across the great majority of the Singapore agreement – contradicting parts of a previous opinion by the court’s advocate-general.

The court ruled that Brussels has trade negotiating competence over all goods and services.

FTA2jpg

Definition, meaning and purpose of a Free Trade Agreement (FTA).

Areas covered by EU competence include all goods and services, “including all transport services”, as well as intellectual property rights, competition policy, labour and environmental standards and the rules relating to exchange of information.

Legal and trade experts said the ruling had potentially massive implication for Brexit if the UK formulated its own FTA to avoid investment provisions and investor-state dispute mechanisms, relying on alternative arrangements such as bilateral investment treaties and WTO panels.

“This is the most significant ECJ case on EU trade policy for twenty years and has huge ramifications for any UK-EU FTA,” said Nicole Kar, head of international trade at Linklaters, the law firm.

“In policy terms, now the UK government will want to consider whether it moderates its ambition for the UK-EU FTA to those matters where there is exclusive competence in order to secure agreement through EU Member State governments by qualified majority voting.”

If Britain took a more expansive approach, Ms Kar warned, it risked any FTA getting mired in member state politics as happened last year when the regional Walloonian parliament of Belgium held the EU-Canada trade deal to ransom.

This problem arises because some EU member states, like Belgium, have domestic law that requires local parliaments to sign off on trade deals before they can be ratified by at a national level.

Allie Renison, head of EU and trade policy at the Institute of Directors, said the court ruling was to be welcomed and would make it easier for the EU to conclude deals “without fear of as many hold-ups from national and sub-national legislatures”.

“How this affects Brexit negotiations will depend on whether the final trade agreement includes investment provisions or not, although neither the UK or EU has expressed much interest in this to date,” she added.

“It’s important to remember that any eventual UK-EU trade agreement would not be about opening up each other’s markets in controversial areas, but trying to limit the amount of disruption to trade, and so it is unlikely to encounter the same resistance from other EU countries once concluded by the Commission.”

Standard
Economic, Government, Health, Society

IT systems in the NHS are pitifully weak. It must get on top of cyber-crime

RANSOMWARE

Ransomware

The message that appears if encryption occurs.

Two days ago, the NHS was hit by a major cyber-attack using ransomware. Computer screens suddenly announced that files and data were unavailable unless the user paid a fee. In some Health Board Trusts, phones stopped working, too; patients were advised not to go to A&E, and the full effect of this attack will not be known until this week when many employees may find that their computers will not function. The virus is worming its way through networks that could yet reap much more havoc. While state organisations like the NHS have many questions to answer, including the pitiful support they have given to their IT systems – including the running of out-of-support Windows XP systems – holding the nation’s healthcare hostage in this way is an unconscionable criminal act. It is also a wake-up call to the British state. Our newfound reliance upon electronic communications leaves the country vulnerable to extortion.

Of course, it is important to keep pace with technological change, especially if it promises to save money and streamline record keeping. But putting so many eggs in one basket does incur risk – and there have been many warnings before now that the NHS is struggling to keep things in good order. Last month, Barts Health, England’s largest trust, had to cancel at least 136 operations and “hundreds” of chemotherapy sessions after its IT systems went down; it also suffered a ransomware attack in January. It is feared that some trusts are continuing to use outdated software that might be more exposed to attack.

This is why patients have often expressed nervousness about the reliance upon NHS databases, particularly the notion of a national one. No matter how many assurances are made to the public that such arrangements are airtight, the criminals always seem to find a way to get in. The solution is obviously to tighten security; equally it is imperative that users take care – a system is only as strong as its most fallible point. Either way, it is now up to the security services to act and act fast. Cyber-crime – which has previously hit companies such as TalkTalk – costs the economy billions and puts lives at risk. The Government has to get on top of it. It has failed in its duty of care by taking necessary measures in protecting the most sensitive of information.

Standard