#EU citizens in Britain

[beautifullychaoticworld-blog]

Apparently EU citizens can apply for British citizenship after getting settled status... but for some reason I doubt it would really be that easy... I bet they'll come up with some bullshit again and change the rules last moment... Also what use is there staying in a country that's in a horrific crisis after leaving the EU and the coronavirus pandemic...

[probablyasocialecologist]

A French publisher who was arrested in London on terrorism charges has been awarded “substantial” damages by the Metropolitan police, as new figures reveal thousands of foreign nationals have been stopped at UK ports under anti-terror laws. Ernest Moret, 29, a foreign rights manager for Éditions la Fabrique, was detained at St Pancras station in April last year on his way to the London book fair. He was held under section 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000, and questioned by counter-terrorist officers about whether he had taken part in anti-government demonstrations in France and if he backed the French president, Emmanuel Macron. Moret’s mobile phone and laptop were also confiscated for several weeks, before being returned to him after police decided to take no further action. The police also admitted downloading Moret’s sim card before returning his phone.

[...]

The figures have deepened concerns that police are using counter-terrorism powers to target political activists. Kevin Blowe, campaigns coordinator at the police monitoring group Netpol, said the figures were “genuinely alarming”. He said: “We know these powers are used for purposes other than investigating terrorism, including the targeting of political activists visiting Britain. “The data does suggest that EU states are seeking the active help of British police to target their own citizens too, although state surveillance is so lacking in transparency and accountability that this is almost impossible to confirm. “Schedule 7 is discriminatory and draconian, it undermines civil rights and criminalises communities and political dissent. Like so many other counter-terrorism powers put in place a decade ago by the last Labour government, it is something that we would all be better off without.”

[mysteriouslytransparentwitch]

Hello Mysterious, I hope all is well and continues to improve with you.

You don’t need to post this ask,but I just wanted to express my thoughts on the expansion of the far right across the world, in relation to your last post about France and Macron.

1. Putin

2. Trump and GOP

3. Elon Musk

4. Nigel Farage

5. Marie Le Pen

6. Venezuela president Maduro Moros, plus Argentina’s president Milea.

7. Canadian conservatives now far right party.

8. Corporate right wing media in Europe, North America across the globe.

9. Money, laundered, bit coin or otherwise.

10. War in Ukraine.

All ten are connected, with the source being Putin. He’s been involved since 2015 when he stole Russia’s state money and the oligarchs money. He’s rumoured to be the richest man in the world at one point, and what better use of that resource than to fund a world in your vision of the future??? What we’re witnessing today are the dying throes of this evil heinous collaboration. Putin was very much behind the Conservative Brexit movement in Britain and behind Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage. Not to mention putting trump in the White House. Those were his successes. Putin desires the dissolution of the EU and NATO, a united Europe. Trump was espousing those wishes when he was ‘President’. Elon and Trump are his voice in the west. Maduro was pushing to start a war in South America for oil rich land in Guyana, and was blocked by Blair and Clinton recently. The Guyana president visited Britain when all diplomacy failed on his part. I’m originally from Guyana so I was paying attention to those moves.

Putin has been funding far right causes all across the world for at least a decade now. And he should be reaping the rewards of his hard work. But sadly, no.

The media companies don’t mind the marriage and getting in bed with Putin to consummate the unholy alliance. Money is money is money. Let it rain. They don’t even draw the line at promoting his blatant propaganda as they are doing right now in bashing Biden in the US. The US citizens have to wake up and make the right decision on November 5th.

Yes I believe you when you say Macron will have a fight on his hands in November. It will be directly as a result of the upcoming US elections and its results. All are connected. Sow doubt and fear in France, bring violence to the fore. See??? this could happen to you in the US, a civil war…. But what would you have Macron do?? Submit to the far right and plunge Europe into a proper World War 3? IMO Le Pen will always do as Putin asks, she is his wh*** he just has to say the word and she will obey. And proximity to Russia is also a factor in this. Again as in the US the media is heavily involved too. Right now they are flirting with WW3 in Ukraine. My guess is that war won’t end until after November 2024. A LOT of decisions will be made after November 5th. Just my opinion and observations. Thanks for listening.

I sincerely think that Macron and Lepen are ready to sell the French system for money. I'm serious this time. The complicity of journalists is beginning to be revealed. I can only see an explosion of the 5th republic.

I sincerely believe that the financial system wants the skin of the population. I'm not a conspiracy theorist, you know me.

There's too much of a weird connection. We talk again about links and traffic with Kadafi (Libya)

I need to sit down seriously and look at my cards

[mariacallous]

The June European Parliament elections delivered a historic success for far-right, euroskeptic parties. Now making up nearly a quarter of the chamber, these parties are poised to exert a powerful influence on the future political trajectory of the European Union, including by aiming to roll back various aspects of integration and opposing the bloc’s further enlargement.

Seen from Moscow, this result is sure to be cause for celebration. Various prominent Russian politicians hailed the rise of right-wing parties in the EU following the elections, with former President Dmitry Medvedev calling for pro-EU leaders to be relegated “to the ash heap of history.” Russia also went to great lengths to support euroskeptic parties in the run-up to the vote, including by paying far-right EU politicians to parrot Kremlin talking points as well as by launching massive online disinformation campaigns and cyberattacks on key websites. Furthermore, with Hungary now holding the rotating EU presidency, Moscow is doing all it can to help Russia-friendly Hungarian President Viktor Orban subvert a unified EU stance on Russia’s war in Ukraine.

Russia’s latest efforts mark a notable uptick in its attempts to undermine the EU. The Kremlin has long harbored animosity toward the bloc—but as Russia’s confrontation with the West has intensified, this hostility has only grown. For Moscow, the new momentum toward widening and deepening the EU represents a unique and increasingly urgent threat to its attempts to assert its illiberal governance model, both at home and abroad.

It is the EU, not NATO, that presents the real existential threat to the Kremlin. That’s because Ukraine’s membership in and integration into the EU could deliver a fatal blow to Russian President Vladimir Putin and his regime by turning Ukraine into what Russia most fears: a political, economic, and sociocultural alternative to Russia itself. Although Putin’s popularity among Russians remains high, the Kremlin could very well worry that Russian citizens may begin to see the benefits of EU membership across the border and desire an alternative future for their country.

That would explain why Putin began his long war against Ukraine in 2014. At that time, Ukraine was militarily neutral and was not actively seeking to join NATO. (It had previously expressed interest in membership in 2008.) But Kyiv was about to sign an association agreement with the EU that the Kremlin’s interference in Ukrainian politics could not prevent.

Western commentators have largely ignored the EU-Russia relationship, instead often blaming possible NATO enlargement for catalyzing the Kremlin’s aggression. Proponents of the NATO theory include academics (such as John Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt), media figures (such as Tucker Carlson), and populist politicians (such as Britain’s Nigel Farage and former U.S. President Donald Trump). Both of the latter have repeated claims along these lines in recent weeks.

Underpinning these justifications for Russia’s war is the assumption that the Kremlin seriously considers—and is justified in considering—NATO’s eastward expansion as a threat to Russia’s physical security. Putin would certainly like to break NATO and Western unity, but it’s not because he thinks Russia is militarily threatened. If he did, the Russian military would not be leaving the country’s roughly 1,600-mile border with NATO members virtually undefended as it redeploys troops and weapons to Ukraine.

Even short of directly undermining regime stability within Russia, EU enlargement poses a threat to a key ideological pillar of Putin’s foreign policy: his antiquated obsession with maintaining a so-called sphere of influence along Russia’s periphery. Russia’s perceived need to control the political orientation of its neighbors could not differ any more sharply from the outlook of EU member states, which aim to amplify their own power and influence by sharing their sovereignty in a bloc. To this end, the EU has developed a complex institutional architecture to ensure an equilibrium where every state feels it has a fair say in decision-making.

Russia, by contrast, seeks to impose its will upon bordering countries and prevent them from shaping their own futures—either directly through conquest, as Russia is attempting in Ukraine, or indirectly through various coercive tactics, including weaponized corruption. Russian-led regional organizations, such as the Collective Security Treaty Organization and the Eurasian Economic Union, serve largely as forums for the Kremlin to pressure neighboring countries to follow its priorities rather than pursue genuine collaboration.

Russia is right to be concerned about the EU’s ability to spur deep political change. Since the end of the Cold War, EU membership has been crucial in shaping former autocratic regimes in Central and Eastern Europe into thriving liberal democracies. This is no accident: The EU’s accession criteria require new members to have institutions that guarantee democracy, the rule of law, human rights, and the protection of minorities—values that are antithetical to those promoted by the Russian regime.

Russia has hardened its opposition to EU enlargement over the years as it has observed the transformational effect of membership. When the three Baltic states plus others—including the Czech Republic, Poland, and Slovakia—joined in 2004, Moscow took little notice, regarding the bloc primarily through an economic lens rather than a geopolitical one.

Yet in the years since 2004, Russia has woken up to the reality of the EU’s power to drive profound domestic political change. No country illustrates this better than Ukraine. After Ukrainians protested in late 2013 against then-President Viktor Yanukovych’s decision to back away from an EU association agreement—ultimately leading to his ouster in February 2014—Putin attempted to reassert control over the country’s political direction by annexing Crimea.

Then in February 2022, Russia took its effort to keep Ukraine from joining the Western community one step further by launching a full-scale invasion—which, ironically, increased the prospects of EU integration not only for Ukraine, but also for neighboring Moldova and Georgia. Since then, Russia has used various tactics to hinder Moldova’s and Georgia’s paths to accession as well, including by subverting the former’s pro-EU government and supporting the latter’s recent passage of a Russian-style “foreign agents law” to stifle democratic dissent.

Nonetheless, the EU should not shy away from enlargement. The bloc’s expansion has been a uniquely effective force for fostering prosperity, stability, and democracy on the European continent over the decades, bringing the region ever closer to the vision of a Europe whole, free, and at peace.

Furthermore, the success or failure of the next round of EU enlargement will have striking consequences for the future of international order. Russia, by aiming to prevent the EU’s enlargement and impose its own control over Ukraine, Moldova, and Georgia, is on a campaign to reassert its imperial idea in Europe. This poses an immense challenge to the credibility of the EU’s post-imperial vision to achieve collaborative regional governance through integration—ultimately the raison d’être of the bloc. Russian success would also risk legitimizing expansionism elsewhere by emboldening other countries to follow similar imperial strategies against their neighbors.

To ensure the failure of Russia’s imperialist vision, the EU must follow through on its promises to integrate new members—while becoming more resilient in the process. It would be both a strategic and an ethical failure not to support other European countries wishing to develop resilient democratic political institutions, robust civil societies, and flourishing economies. Russia should not be given a veto.

[ranwing]

Great Britain: "I'm going to trick my citizens into voting to leave the EU by playing on their fears about refugees and migration and watch the British economy go into the toilet for the next generation."

United States: "Hold my beer..."

[sortyourlifeoutmate]

You disingenuous, fearmongering piece of shit! Argh!

Christ, can the election be over yet? I can’t be dealing with much more of this kind of crap.

Speaking on BBC Breakfast, Mr Cleverly said Labour would "pack up" the House of Lords and give votes to 16-year-olds, foreign nationals and "criminals". Only votes for 16 and 17-year-olds and changes to the House of Lords are in the Labour manifesto - there is no mention of votes for prisoners, and an earlier suggestion of votes for EU citizens has been ditched.

Leaving aside just being a misleading cunt, what point are you making here? Why is teenagers voting bad, exactly? Because they wouldn’t vote for you? Or are you just sort of nudge-nudge-wink-wink insinuating that teenagers are easily duped and mislead by those evil commies? Because, uh, have you ever met any voters ever? Keen-minded is not how I would describe them, however old they were.

"I think there's a real risk that they take a majority, if that's what they get, to try to lock in their power permanently, because they don't really feel confident they're going to be able to make a credible case to the British people at the next election."

That’s fucking rich coming from you! Voter-ID-introducing motherfucker!

Yeah, we made a deliberate move to disenfranchise people in the desperate hopes it’d hopefully block a few votes going the way of our rivals and in the process just shittied up the whole election deal no biggy. But those guys? Those guys are just waiting to seize control with an iron fist! They might even introduce laws saying you need identification just to vote!

Oh wait.

(Christ, you ever hear any of these cunts defending voter ID?)

The home secretary was echoing the words of Rishi Sunak, who told a campaign rally in Staffordshire that there were "four days to save Britain from a Labour government". He said: "If these polls are right, and Labour are in power with a super majority, you have to think about what that will mean – a Labour government unchecked, no-one to hold them accountable, no-one to stand up to them in Parliament and all of the impact it would have on all of your lives."

Oh no! The voters voting with their votes might get what they want! Heaven forfend!

Like, I’m not enthusiastic about Labour winning because I don't think they'll do a very good job, but this weird narrative where they just seem to be implying that Labour winning in a crushing landslide is something that voters aren’t directly involved in is bizzare.

Who, exactly, do you think is giving them this supposed supermarjority?

The moon?

PS: Why is the integrity of our democracy so vital it must be defend with laws that keep scores of people from voting just to stop a handful of dud fraudy votes (out of millions!) but also the results of them are apparently not reflective of the will of the people and therefore not worthy of respect? Which way is it, guys?

[christiansinglebabes]

This genocide has started way before oct 7th, israel is an occupying force that's been oppressing Palestinians for at least 50 years.

The 20% Palestinian population living in israel is subjected to apartheid, police violence and displacement from their homes.

They are not recognized as citizens, the ppl in gaza and the westbank cannot vote in israeli elections despite israel controlling those regions.

Gaza has been under siege for 16 years now. They've been controlling who goes in and out, Palestinians have to ask for permission to leave their cities even if they want to access medical care that isnt provided in gaza due to sanctions by israel.

Why does the financial interest of israel and its ally's trump the right of palestinian freedom? When the money they are making from military technologie is tested on the palestinians? Whats worse is that bombing of gaza has not just taken 33.000 lives, it has also poisoned and destroyed the land that israel claims it has a spiritual right to!

A land already drenched in the blood of thousands of palestinians spilled during and since the inception of israel in 1948. It has poisoned their future and made sure gaza will have to depend on aid for years and maybe even decades to come.

That is why Palestinians need to be able to return to their stolen land and they have a right to return home, even beyond legality israel is an ethno state that guarantees citizenship to -anyone- of the jewish faith even if they have no connection to the land.

What is the point of the UN and EU if we dont use our power to protect human rights everywhere, members of the UN like germany, france, USA and Britain actively funding the bombing of civilians, while claiming solidarity with the victims.

All this talking behind the scenes is doing nothing! Rn netanyahu is pulling back his forces from the south of gaza so they can take a nap, see their families, have a little snack and then go into rafah and kill the remaining 2.2 million Palestinians they told to flee there.

I am ashamed to be paying taxes in germany when that money is used for destruction instead of for the german population and I'm sick of the hypocrisy of western powers who have been exploiting africa and the middle east for decades while simultaneously condemning any and all resistance by the ppl they've oppressed labeling them terrorists.

Is the german state not a terrorist organization? Isnt the USA? Isnt NATO? Why is it that only the people that fight back against their opression with the same violence they've been shown by you are labeled terrorists.

Why was it so easy for you to condemn Russia in its attack on ukraine but you cant condemn israel for this genocide? I can tell you why, because Russia is an enemy and israel is a friend of yours. You only condemn oppressive states when it serves you and when the victims are white.

And while Netanyahu is a tyrant that needs to be dethroned dont be fooled, the issue with Israel is not Netanjahu, racist israeli society is what allowed a monster like him to power. His opposition are zionists just like him that are gleefully watching gaza be turned to dust and are happy to take over once netanyahu steps down, blame only him for the genocide and return to the status quo of opression of the west bank and gaza. 70% of israelis think the military actions taken in gaza are justified and the reason for that is because the only way to rationalize the existence of israel in Palestinian land is by assuming every palestinian is a threat to jewish life, that way no amount of cruelty is unjustified and can be done in self defense.

Why is it so hard to call this a genocide when Israeli officials have clearly stated on multiple occasions that their plan is to eliminate the possiblity of a palestinian state by killing or displacing the Palestinians, idf soldiers are filming snuff films and gleefully parade around womens underwear they stole out of the homes of the dead. How can you support a country like that?

When that support is putting world peace in danger by signaling that all these international laws here to protect us are all just suggestions you can ignore if you have enough money and allies.

U ask us to condemn hamas when u wont condemn the anti-apartheid state of israel, when hamas wouldnt exist without opression of the palestinians by israel.

While u sit in government trying to placate us with useless discussions and pretty words , children are being blown to pieces or left completely orphaned and severely physically and mentally disabled. Do u understand the impact this will have on the palestinian ppl even after this genocide ends? Do u really think they wont grow up hateful and resentful towards Israel? And can u blame them when they do? Now noone is arguing that hamas shouldnt be prosecuted for the human rights violations on oct 7th, however this one sided war on terror that doesnt rightfully classify the acts of western powers and their extensions in the middle east and africa as terror is hypocritical and an insult to our intelligence. This is not an equal struggle between israel and hamas, it is an ethnic cleansing of palestinians.

And to the media and politicians bastardizing the meaning of antisemitism, Criticizing Israel is not antisemitic, and saying that israel and jews are one and the same is what actually promotes antisemitism. Israel is a country and like every country it has to abide by international law,

Israel has been lying to its visitors and citizens since its inception, the jews who come to visit and the jewish israelis have been made to believe by zionists that israel is the only place they can be safe from antisemitism. But that couldnt be further from the truth, by israel declaring itself synonymous with the jewish ppl and their struggle while committing atrocities they are putting the global jewish community at risk and feeds the antisemitic conspiracy theories of a jewish opressive elite. We dont need an ethno state that pretends all jews are homogeneous, what we need is to make sure that jewish ppl are safe worldwide

Europe made this world unsafe for jews, Arabs and jews are not enemies,we are allies, my father grew up in a jewish neighboorhood in morroco and my best friend is jewish, she is my heart and she is my soul and I will not allow israel to drag her name and the name of jews through the mud!

A permanent ceasefire is not an end of what we demand and what the palestinians deserve, it is the bare minimum. And we will not allow the world to quietly reinstate support for israel after this genocide is over, we want an end to apartheid an end to occupation! We want palestinian freedom, from the river to the sea. We want right of return from the river to the sea, and we want a palestine where israelis and Palestinians have equal rights, from the river to the sea!

[invisibleicewands]

We, the undersigned, come together as creatives and artists, recognising the immense power held within each voice, especially those often underrepresented in our society. 

Art and creativity shapes and reflects the diverse experiences of our communities. It’s vital that politics does too, and that everyone’s voice is heard in our democracy. 

But in Britain today, as many as 8 million people are not registered to vote at their current address. Turnout of younger voters has been falling considerably.  New rules requiring photo ID risk excluding hundreds of thousands of citizens, and disproportionately affecting poorer people, those with disabilities and people from minority ethnic backgrounds.

We, the undersigned, stand united in our belief that participation in elections is not just a right, but a profound responsibility—one that should extend to everyone, at the heart of a vibrant democracy. 

That is why we urge you to join us in registering to vote for the upcoming local elections before the deadline of 23:59 on Tuesday 16 April, at https://qrco.de/giveanx. Remember, you are also eligible to register if you are a qualifying EU or Commonwealth citizen. 

We join hands with the young people leading the Give an X campaign in emphasising the importance of young people shaping the future, and we urge each and every citizen to claim their seat at the table.

Voting is not just casting a ballot; it is narrating the stories of our communities and painting a vision of a better tomorrow. In the face of huge challenges nationally and globally, that has never been more important.

Let’s all of us write the next chapter together. We Give an X – will you?

Signed,

Michael Sheen - Actor

Paapa Essiedu - Actor

Meera Syal CBE - Actor and writer

Armando Iannucci - OBE Writer, director, producer and performer

Amelia Dimoldenberg - Comedian and presenter

Billy Bragg - Singer and songwriter

Samuel West - Actor and director

Sharon Gaffka - TV personality

Es Devlin CBE - Artist and designer

Ahir Shah - Comedian

Ralf Little - Actor and writer

Sir Stephen Frears - Director

Misan Harriman - Photographer and Chair of the Southbank Centre

Mei Mac - Actor

Sally Lindsay - Actor

Siobhán McSweeney - Actor and presenter

Sir Alistair Spalding CBE - Artistic Director, Sadler's Wells

Alice Aedy - CEO, Earthrise

David Lan CBE - Writer, producer and director

Georgia Harrison - TV personality

Timothy Sheader - Artistic Director, Donmar Warehouse

Henny Finch - Executive Director, Donmar Warehouse

Paule Constable - Lighting designer and Associate Director of the National Theatre

Daniel Lismore - Sculptor and designer

Luke McQueen - Comedian

Elliot Levey - Actor

Joseph Henry - Architect

Charlie Condou - Actor

Seeta Indani - Dancer and actor

Ania Magliano - Comedian

John O'Farrell - Author and scriptwriter

Emily Berrington - Actor

Rebecca Hendin - Illustrator

Jack Guinness - Writer and founder of The Queer Bible

Michael French - Head of Games London

Joseph Zeal-Henry - Director, Sound Advice

Sacha Lord - Co-founder of The Warehouse Project & Parklife festival Sam Evans - Musical Director

Estelle van Warmelo - Director

Bernard Donoghue OBE - CEO, Association of Leading Visitor Attractions

Stephen Skeet - Director of Impact, Volunteering Matters

Kayleigh Wainwright - Director of Youth Sector Innovation, UK Youth

Joe Bailey - CEO, Brighten the Corners/Out Loud Music

Jack Gamble - Director, Campaign for the Arts

Mete Coban MBE - CEO, My Life My Say

Lauren Kay-Lambert - Co Managing Director, Shape History

Sami Gichki - Co-Chair of the #iWill Movement

[coochiequeens]

The some country that tuned a blind eye to while the nuns who ran the Madgelian Laundries buried babies in unmarked graves are now turning a blind eye to babies being created in war zones while their birth mothers are being exploited

Ireland’s new surrogacy law is legalising the sale of children

The human rights watchdog says our new health act allows for the trafficking of women and babies, but the health minister is ignoring its warning

Brenda Power Sunday September 22 2024

Despite the war, Ukraine’s baby factories are still flourishing. One of the biggest global players in the commercial surrogacy business is the Swiss-registered BioTexCom, which controls 70 per cent of the Ukrainian market and a quarter of the global business. Commercial surrogacy is estimated to have pumped €1.5 billion into the Ukrainian economy since 2018 alone, and the international market for surrogate babies, with an estimated value of €12.5 billion in 2022, has been growing at a rate of 25 per cent a year.

About half of Ukraine’s estimated 2,500 annual surrogate pregnancies are carried out through BioTexCom and, in the first 11 months of the war, the company reported that about 600 couples had travelled to the country to use its services. At approximately €50,000 per surrogacy, that means BioTexCom took in about €30 million in that period alone. A Kyiv clinic reported last year that the war hadn’t stopped Irish couples travelling for surrogacy services, and customers from Germany, Britain and Italy have also ensured that business remains brisk in these baby factories.

Under the new Health (Assisted Human Reproduction) Act 2024, which passed all stages in the Oireachtas in May and was signed into law in July, Ireland is the first EU country to legalise commercial surrogacy. That’s not me saying this, by the way. That’s the view of the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission (IHREC), in its report on human trafficking published last week.

The commission is “concerned” that section 8 of the act, which covers international surrogacy, effectively extends the Irish legislation “to a practice not permitted in any other EU state, in an area marred with increasing human trafficking”. It also fears that this new Irish law “may thwart other countries’ efforts to protect their own citizens from trafficking and reproductive exploitation”. We are, in other words, about to become legally complicit in the trafficking of women for the purposes of providing babies to Irish couples.

The commission has written twice to Stephen Donnelly, the health minister, pointing out that the law does not fulfil the state’s obligations under EU law to prevent the trafficking of women for exploitative surrogacy. At the date of drafting its report, the commission said, no response had been received.

The exploitation of vulnerable women for surrogacy, the commission says, is “one of the most concerning, novel and emerging forms of trafficking”. Yet we have enacted a law that legalises what the UN special rapporteur on human rights has called “the sale of children”.

The new law creates a “double standard”, according to the commission, whereby domestic, “altruistic” surrogacy is tightly regulated but the international market will be subject to “light touch” regulation. There will be no way to ensure that other states will comply with the requirements of the act, for example that the surrogate mother is paid only “reasonable expenses” and is allowed a 21-day period to withdraw her consent to the arrangement.

This will certainly put Ukrainian law at odds with the new Irish position, since one Ukrainian clinic boasts on its 2024 page: “Legal requirements are not strict. Ukraine surrogacy law is clear that the gestational carrier has no parental rights over the child and she has no ability to keep the child.” This, in theory, will make Ukrainian surrogacy deals illegal.

And the idea that the foreign surrogate mother and the surrogacy agencies should receive only “reasonable expenses” is dismissed as disingenuous nonsense by the commission: “It is unlikely that a woman would undertake a pregnancy on behalf of a stranger from another country without being offered a significant incentive. It is a fiction to suggest otherwise, but that appears to be the basis on which the legislation is to operate.”

The “reasonable expenses” provision might, the commission warns, encourage Irish couples to seek surrogacy in poor and underdeveloped countries where surrogacy is permissible, including Kenya, Malaysia and Nigeria, and where they can get away with paying buttons to the surrogate mother on the basis of comparative economic value. And that would amount to a commercial advantage, making the surrogacy illegal — not that the new law will be able to do anything to prevent it.

That Ukrainian clinic (“We build families with love”) also offers “good genetic testing facilities and gender selection, just in case wishful parents want high success rates”. Here’s how the commission addresses this delicately phrased service: “While there is no large-scale data, surrogate mothers have reported undergoing forced abortions of foetuses unwanted by clients … There are also consistent reports from India, Nepal, Thailand and now Ukraine of client parents abandoning unwanted children, particularly those with disabilities.”

Just recently, says the commission, eight people were arrested at the Mediterranean Fertility Institute in Greece, which had advertised its services and its “excellent surrogate support programme” on the Growing Families website. Vulnerable women had been lured from Albania and Georgia on false pretences and “forced to undergo hormonal treatment, egg extraction and insemination for surrogacy”. Or, to put it another way, they were abducted and impregnated against their will so that wealthy western couples could buy their babies.

And that, in a nutshell, is what our human rights watchdog has been trying to warn the minister for health about; this is what it is telling him will be the consequence of his new law on surrogacy. And he has been ignoring the warnings and refusing to respond to the correspondence. For some reason, this chilling chapter in the IHREC report was also ignored in media coverage of its launch last week. We are about to legalise commercial surrogacy, in a market where women are being trafficked and raped to maintain a global business worth in excess of €20 billion annually. You may well support that measure, but you should understand it first.

Transparency is the best weapon

Gardai were called to a brawl this month outside a supermarket in west Dublin. Within hours, social media sites were buzzing with claims that the protagonist was an immigrant male, armed with a knife attacking schoolchildren — pictures purporting to be the violent attacker also appeared online. Later in the week, gardai issued a statement denying that the incident involved an adult male or a foreign national — all the participants were school students and Irish nationals, and the incident was contained within the school. Not that any of the online agitators believed a word of it and for that, arguably, the gardai have only themselves to blame.

Last week, gardai applied for reporting restrictions preventing the identification of a man accused of attempting to abduct a five-year-old boy during a party at a Dublin apartment building. Because of “the current climate in the country”, a garda told the court, and “the sensitive nature of the case”, it was preferable that the accused should not be identified. The judge at that hearing agreed, citing the “social media-fuelled climate we live in”.

How to tell the country that the accused was an immigrant, then, without telling the country that the accused was an immigrant, notionally putting every non-national in the dock and guaranteeing heightened interest in the case. When a number of media organisations quite properly challenged this decision, another judge partially lifted the restriction to name the individual but not his address. The obligation to dispense justice in public is a pillar of democracy, and is also a crucial element of the social contract; the public should also be able to trust that the prosecutions of both immigrants and nationals are being reported on as far as possible.

Social media is already awash with unfounded claims that the traditional media, gardai and the courts are conspiring to conceal the number of immigrants and asylum seekers before the courts. But at a time when transparency and reason are the best weapons against extremist agitation, unnecessarily constraining court reporting restrictions can only serve to alarm even the most moderate observers

[qqueenofhades]

Kind of an odd question but do conservatives in Europe try to get rid of their universal healthcare the way conservatives here have been fighting against implementing it?

I mean, it depends on what you mean by "get rid of." The situation I'm most familiar with is in the UK, where thirteen years of Tory rule has brought the NHS to its knees and to the point of mass strikes for months, because they refuse to fund it properly and Brexit-related labor shortages have been crushing. The Tories have long dreamed of privatizing it a la America, but because this is a wildly unpopular electoral proposition in Britain, they have to do it slowly, by just strangling it and leaving it out to die. (And yes, this was after they campaigned hard during the Brexit referendum that leaving the EU would free up tons of magical money for the NHS! That, uh. Did not happen. Look surprised.) The health minister, after denying for months that there was any money for pay rises, was made to look like a fool when suddenly the chancellor had six billion pounds to give away for tax cuts in the spring budget, and a new pay offer has been made which might stop the strikes, but is still way under inflation. The NHS is on life support until the Tories are thrown out of there, so yeah, it's not really a good situation.

As far as I can tell, the debate in other European countries isn't around whether healthcare should be privatized and/or made non-free, but rather around who gets to access it. European citizens get free healthcare and that's not under debate, but the right-wing parties in various national Parliaments don't want to foot the bill for refugees or non-citizens or immigrants or anyone else apart from their own, as usual. But overall, yes, America is an outlier in the developed world for having a privatized, for-profit healthcare system, and it's not something anyone should be proud of.

[lnsfawwi]

I know it's not 2015 anymore, the Sokovia Accords is officially repealed in MCU but I still am not over this debate ok?

like what the fuck did team ironman expect? legally and politically, what did they realistically expect? did they actually believe that thing could've worked? on a UN level, HOW?

the Avengers were the only canon superheroes who existed in the entire universe at that time, the members were either americans (was nat a citizen? likely.), three of which were high-ranking current or former US servicemen, or hold some kind of refugee status (wanda) in america. others aren't even human and one of them was still technically american. so you are telling me you expect america to willingly and unreservedly relinquish the ownership and control it already had over the avengers?

even if they did, who'd call the shots? UNSC? a different committee that works just like UNSC? oh, right, UNSC is too unbalanced let's put it through the GA for a vote. by the time they convene a meeting, the world's already over 20 times.

circle back to the america problem. they held the monopoly in the superhero business, what would russia do? does anyone remember the arms race? oh, that's right, russia already had their own super soldiers for that exact reason. but they didn't tell anyone cus their super soldiers were insane and they had no control over them. how's france going to think? the UK? the EU?

if the avengers were communal, where were they supposed to be stationed? cus it'd be unfair to stay in the US all the time. it'd take longer for them to reach the other side of the globe and this american-centrism was precisely why the accords were proposed, wasn't it?

and what if there were more superpower people popped up around the world? let's say the UK had Union Jack, would he be an avengers too? would they train together? which country's laws and protocals would they follow? would he stick to Britain or is he going to save the day wearing his country's flag in fucking Ireland? would all of them have to wear symbols of their own country? because it'd be real funny if only the UK and the US had flag-wearing superheroes. if they all did, how can you realistically expect they'd be working for the common good instead of being agents of their own countries?

it's just some of the problems that simply can not be resolved if the UN (or any supra/international political body) were to enforce the Accords.

the Accords is in essence non-proliferation treaty, and that's another rabbit hole team ironman stupidly believed they could magically fix...

[andiatas]

Chris O'Neill becomes German - again

British-American Chris O'Neill, 49, lost his citizenship in an EU country in connection with Brexit, didn't he? Yes and no.

When Christopher Paul O'Neill was born in Great Britain on June 27, 1974, he was eligible for three citizenships; a British one due to him being born in the country, an American one through his father and a West German one through his mother. He got the first two straight away, the German didn't come until two years later.

- When German law prevented citizens from holding multiple citizenships, it resulted in Chris not renewing his German citizenship, says Margareta Thorgren, Director of the Information Department.

It was in the 1980s. Chris O'Neill had never lived in Germany and his only connection to the country was his mother, plus the UK was an EU country. But that's not the case anymore.

"There are no exceptions for third-country nationals who apply for a residence permit due to their connection to royalty," the Migration Agency wrote on Facebook in March, shortly after it became public that Princess Madeleine and Chris O'Neill and the children will move back to Sweden after several years abroad.

The background was then, according to the authority, the large number of questions they received regarding permit applications for non-EU citizens, "and especially if they are married to someone of royal birth, for example, if there are any [shortcuts] into Sweden".

But, a [shortcut] has never been relevant. It has also never been an issue to apply for a residence permit - the old West German legislation that only allowed one citizenship has been torn up and now Germans are allowed to have multiple nationalities.

In connection with the publication of the planned move to Sweden, Chris O'Neill contacted the German authorities and explained his case.

- He applied for a new passport via the German embassy in Stockholm and recently, after proper administration, the matter was granted, says Margareta Thorgren.

He is now British, American and German, and as a citizen of an EU country and Schengen member Germany, there are no major difficulties in immigrating to Sweden.

- There are so many things to take into account, things that have taken longer than expected and therefore the family has chosen not to force this move back to Sweden. They try to make it so that it fits as well as possible for, above all, the children, says Margareta Thorgren.

Excerpts translated by me from an article by Johan Bratell for Expressen, published on June 29, 2023, at 09:10.

Note: I'm confused... they said the move wasn't postponed due to issues with the Migration Agency but here it sounds like there are a bit of issues with immigrating to Sweden due to Chris' citizenship status...? Sure, it's not issues directly with the Agency but still.

[eaglesnick]

“A nation that destroys its soils destroys itself.” — Franklin D. Roosevelt

Therese Coffey, the woman who brought 2.4million hours of undiluted raw sewage discharge into our waterways, now brings us 36 toxic chemicals used in farming.

One of the great advantages of having cast of the restrictive shackles of the European Union, is that the Tory Party is now free to poison us in the pursuit of profit.

The privately owned water companies have polluted our waterways and beaches and now landowners are being allowed to contaminate the countryside with dangerous chemicals.

“UK fails to ban 36 harmful pesticides outlawed for use in the EU.” (Guardian: 13/09/23)

Do not be mistaken in thinking that the farming industry is a collection of small family businesses. They do exist, but the aristocracy and big agribusiness are the biggest owners of farmland.

The Farmers Weekly recently described Britain’s agricultural resources thus:

“Land is a finite resource, offering relatively stable, long-term growth, hedging (limiting financial risk) and wealth preservation opportunities…Greater profitability and stability attracted investors, both domestic and foreign, to UK land, replacing some of the more traditional landlords such as royalty and the church.” (Who Owns Britain's Farmland: 17/01/23)

It is interesting to note that food production in not mentioned once in connection with farmland. It is all about long-term investment and profitability. According to Farming Forum, the aristocracy owns 30% of UK farming land, big corporations own 18%, tycoons own 17% and 17.5% of farmland ownership is “unknown”. “Individual homeowners” own only 5% of farmland.  

Could it be that once farmland is seen as an investment opportunity rather than a means to produce and secure the nations food supply in an environmentally sustainable way, that the safe and long-term stewardship of the land becomes subservient to maximising profits at any cost?

Whatever the answer to that question is, Britain is now being described as “the toxic poster child of Europe” because of our controversial pesticide policies.

The first job of any government is to protect its citizens, yet Therese Coffey is allowing the use of chemicals that are directly harmful to human health. 12 of the chemicals being allowed are classified as carciogens and cause cancer. 9 of the chemical can cause human birth defects, developmental disorders and infertility. 8 of the chemicals can adversely affect reproductive function and development in both adults and children, and one of the chemicals being authorised by Coffey is classified as “acutely toxic”, meaning a single exposure can have detrimental health effects, usually within 24 hours of exposure. (See Pesticide Action Network UK: UK Falling behind EU pesticide standards; 13/09/23)

[mariacallous]

Having lived in Britain for 12 years, I returned to my native Moldova in 2022 because I was worried that Russia’s war in Ukraine would spill into my country. Thanks to the Ukrainian resistance, the skies are still clear in Moldova. But in the past weeks leading up to the presidential runoff between the pro-European incumbent Maia Sandu and the Russian-supported former prosecutor general Alexandr Stoianoglo, I felt as if I might lose my country once again.

The scale of interference in these Moldovan elections has been unprecedented. As reported by excellent independent journalists in the country, our law enforcement agencies alleged the existence of a large-scale, vote-buying scheme in the first round, run by Ilan Shor – a Russian-backed fugitive oligarch, who denies any wrongdoing.

Before the second round, journalists and others reportedly received death threats in broken Romanian, pretending to be on behalf of Sandu’s team. On election day, the most popular polling stations across Europe for overseas Moldovans had their vote disrupted by bomb threats. The servers of the Central Electoral Commission experienced a temporary cyberattack. The police said they had “reasonable evidence” of illegal organised voter transportation in Russia, Belarus, Azerbaijan and Turkey; people from Transnistria, the region to the east of the country, bordering Ukraine and controlled by Russia, admitted to being transported.

In addition to the alleged rigging, the internet, especially TikTok, was flooded with anti-Europe disinformation before the EU referendum on 20 October.

Despite all this, Sandu won. “They cannot steal as much as we can vote” was one of the informal slogans of this campaign. In the run-up to the second vote, the police updated the country daily about their arrests and seizures of cash related to the vote-buying scheme. This helped some people realise that receiving payment for votes was illegal and not just a way of getting free money. It also helped mobilise 380,000 people in the capital city Chișinău – more than in 2020 – and an unprecedented 330,000 Moldovans in the diaspora, who amounted to almost 20% of the total number of voters, to come out and vote. Both electorates largely voted for Sandu.

The pro-Russian Socialist party (PSRM), which supported Stoianoglo, said that it did not recognise the election results and that Sandu would only be the “president of the diaspora”. Yet 70% of the votes she received came from within the country.

While I lived in the UK, I queued for hours in order to vote in Moldovan elections at the various polling stations the state opened across London. In 2016, when Sandu first ran against PSRM leader Igor Dodon and lost to him, with thousands of other fellow citizens, I was not able to cast my vote because the polling station ran out of ballot papers. Some people had come from hundreds of miles away in order to vote.

Moldova’s diaspora is relatively new and porous. People first started leaving in large numbers in the 2000s, when President Vladimir Voronin ruled the country with many leading members of the PSRM. Their first destinations were Russia, Italy or Portugal, where they did difficult jobs in construction or care, in order to provide for their families. (My history teacher went to look after the dogs of an Italian star in order to pay for her son’s university fees.) Since then, as many people’s parents and grandparents had been born when Moldova was part of Romania, about a million Moldovans obtained Romanian citizenship – including the two presidential candidates, Sandu and Stoianoglo.

EU passports opened the way for Moldovans such as myself to benefit from better study and work opportunities across Europe, sending vital remittances back home. At the moment, about 1 million Moldovans live abroad and 2.8 million live in the country. Everyone has family members working abroad.

Like me, a number of people have also returned from the diaspora to open their own businesses or join existing private or non-governmental organisations, as well as state institutions. Sandu did this in 2012, leaving her much better paid position at the World Bank in order to become minister of education. Natalia Gavrilița, whom I first met in 2018 in a Moldovan activist group called FreeMoldova in London, left development work to become minister of finance and then prime minister. The list goes on.

Since the full-scale invasion of Ukraine, many Moldovans from the diaspora in Russia have returned home. In the more Russian-speaking regions of Gagauzia and Transnistria, people have started emigrating to Poland and the Czech Republic. As I was travelling on the Chișinău-Prague bus to the small Romanian town of Sibiu last week, in front of me a man was listening to Russian propaganda. The second driver, meanwhile, put on a speech by Sandu while resting. Social media have polarised Moldovan society – just like the entire world. Russian propaganda is good at enhancing these cleavages.

Moldova has shown resilience in the recent EU referendum and this presidential vote. But given the country is a parliamentary republic, the great battle will be next year in parliamentary elections. Until then, law enforcement has to get on top of vote-buying schemes. There must be better regulation of social media. And pro-European Moldovans have to collaborate and communicate better than the Russian propagandists.

[head-post]

UK may increase aid to Gaza after EU scandal

Britain may intensify its support for Palestinian refugees amid concerns over a full-scale war in the Middle East.

International Aid Minister Andrew Mitchell stated that the UK would “do whatever is necessary to play our part in meeting humanitarian need.” He told the BBC of a possible aid review, which means the likely movement of “essential humanitarian supplies” into the region.

Prior to Mitchell’s statement, Britain’s position remained uncertain amid a debate within the European Union over whether to cut humanitarian aid to the Gaza Strip.

The European Commission announced on Monday that it was suspending “all payments” to the Palestinians following the Hamas massacre over the weekend. However, negative reactions from the foreign ministers of some EU member states forced the Commission to reverse its decision.

The UK initially stated that it had no plans to cut off aid to the Palestinians, focusing on diplomatic efforts and ensuring the safety of British citizens in Israel and the Gaza Strip.

Read more HERE

[captainarchmage]

Independence Day, UK

Declaring Independence from the Far-Right %$#@

Again I didn't want to make this blog about politics, but given events I have to. It's election day in the UK, and I had my vote in the post a long time ago. Specifically, I voted for the Liberal Democrats, because they had a decent standing in this constituency and explicitly said they're going to try to reverse Brexit. Reaction GIF below.

That doesn't mean the EU will accept, or that the deal we'll get will be the same as last time, but it's a critical move to fixing wrongs. Without rejoining at least the Single Market, Customs Union, and getting freedom of movement back we're going to be having issues with our own supply chains that won't go away. They can't go away, because we're not self-sufficient, because self-sufficiency isn't on these islands all it's cracked up to be, and because setting ourselves out as being a "global player" requires us to be able to easily trade and work with our biggest and most reliable partners, which is to say Europe.

If you're voting today, and are reading this, you should take care to understand what that *means* in terms of action as a citizen. Obviously if you live in Scotland, vote SNP, as they've taken a sensible stance on this and have always been for remain and rejoin in recent history. If you live in Wales, vote Plaid Cymru, for similar reasons. If you live in England, there's no explicit "English National Party" that is for working in a civic manner, but you have a choice between the Green Party and Liberal Democrats, and mostly the latter. Corbyn in Islington (and a few others) - I don't think Corbyn's stance on Ukraine is good, but that doesn't actually matter as he's likely not going to be a kingpin in making any of those decisions. This is about sending a message to the other reactionaries, and will cover this later.

On the matter of Ukraine... if anything DOES happen and Ukraine starts to fall back, this invasion is coming here. That's what history says. There's a lot of excuses, but the fact Russia launched a massive invasion in February of 2022 indicates they're not going to stop. The global conservative movement is behind these people, because something about "transgender anarchy in Ukraine" or "wokeness", according to the talking heads, or for that matter just genociding the Ukrainian people which is literally what's being said on Russian telly.

If Russia gets Ukraine, then they'll push westward. That's why it has to stop in Ukraine, and without Ukraine giving up any land. You know what would also help with defending Europe? An EU Army. This is why we need to rejoin, so you vote for a party that's going to put us on this path.

Note from the list of parties, I exclude from this Labour, as Labour has attempted to court the same socially conservative, anti-migrant, and prejudicial element responsible for running the Conservative Party into the ground. The Conservative Party already had issues before it swallowed the agenda of this reactionary element, but things in Britain took a steep downturn after brexit, with the disastrous handling of the pandemic, and finally the "markets" (hardly a communist creation) finally cracked when the agenda of CPAC-attending Liz Truss was launched. All this at the whim of this "reactionary element". You know, maybe it's better not to court those people AT ALL? At some point you gotta say enuf is enuf, not that it wasn't plain obvious beforehand where that agenda was going.

Trying to placate these people is... how much better than trying to placate people like Putin or The Former Guy? Seriously, people tried that. It didn't work, and none of the systems we thought would snap in to play or individuals we relied on to take action did. It didn't work "last time" either, save for the British PM to arrange re-armament of the country without relying on an alliance of countries that it turned out were quite fascist-curious as well. At least, however, Chamberlain acted in a manner that admitted this was not a long term solution and the push would come to shove. We don't seem to have that notion anymore. You know what's a good idea? Making sure they don't have "their guys" in Parliament in a significant number.

The advantage of getting rid of both Conservatives, and Reform, and knocking them into at least third place (if not fourth place), is that it also ensures these parties don't get a bullhorn in Parliament as they will not be the official opposition. That's due to Parliamentary rules. It means eliminating them from the running. Quite possibly this means the "end" of the conservative party, which is the "ultimate prize" here. It means making sure the main parties in coming decades are ones that are liberals, environmentalists, and civically-minded. Given that Labour seems to be in course for a large majority based on polling, giving your vote to other parties that are more progressive, more internationalist, understanding the coming challenges, more competent, and are also not so willing to let a vocal reactionary minority derail them, is a good idea.

And regards not letting a vocal reactionary minority derail a party, this is critical. How do you deal with these people? You don't give them an inch and you say the buck ends with you. Backing down in any sense of the word is weakness to these people. It's not going to give you any respect, and it may well not give you their vote, or actually telling these people to get stuffed may give you their vote, or you had their vote already and you didn't need to do anything about it. Ask yourself why these peoples' idols are often autocrats and the like. Don't ask me to make it make sense. Their view is more in line with "might is right" than any enlightenment ideals. You don't think like that, I don't think like that, but these people do think like that and you "act accordingly". The sooner you start pushing back, the sooner you free yourself from their %$#@.

Go Vote, and make it Independence Day from these people.