Fox 19 Cincinnati’s Sherrod Brown Interview Typifies Weak Media Coverage, Dems’ False Talking Points
July 31, 2011 No Comment
Saturday night in Cincinnati, Fox 19's Kimberly Holmes Wiggins interviewed Ohio Democratic Senator Sherrod Brown from Washington about the state of the debt-ceiling debate. A full transcript follows. Contained therein readers will see the untruthful establishment press memes which have dominated their coverage, and all too typical disgraceful and predictable demagoguery by Brown. Similar reports involving other Democrats likely played on stations across the nation this past weekend. Strap on the duct tape. Here goes (bolds and numbered tags are mine; link is to the station's video home page): Wiggins: Hi, in Washington now, there are just three days until the U.S. defaults on its debt [1], and still no compromise. The President and GOP leaders [2] are expressing confidence that lawmakers will reach a deal to avoid default [1] and end the spectacle in Congress. [3] This as plans from both sides of the aisle have been rejected. Still, even one of Ohio's senators agreed the deal can be reached. And joining me now is Senator Sherrod Brown in Washington. Now Senator, we are three days away from D-Day when we could default [1], and the House just rejected Senator Reid's debt bill. Now earlier today, you seemed optimistic that we could come up with a compromise. Now, uh, how (laughing incredulously — Ed.) are you still optimistic that this could happen? How, because a lot of Americans don't believe that? [4] Sen. Sherrod Brown (never tagged as a Democrat — Ed.) : Well, I'm, I'm optimistic because I think that, uh, I spoke yesterday, uh, with a conservative Southern Republican Senator, friend of mine, about how, how we do this. He thinks we're very close. He thinks as I do that the, that the the leaders, that Senator Reid and Senator McConnell [5], will come together in a bipartisan way in the Senate. Uh, they may be filibustered for a while. That's why we will maybe stay in tonight, all night if necessary, until we get to 60 votes, until we pass it, send it back to the House of Representatives, and I think that they will do their patriotic duty. [6] It's simply too dangerous to default [1] on the full faith and obligations of the United States of America. Wiggins: Now you have pledged to reject a GOP plan of having a temporary increase of the debt ceiling. [7] Now at this point, Americans are just frustrated. [4] Are you sticking with that plan right now? Brown: Well, with the, I think the Reid plan in the Senate, which has a, a lot of the requests of the Republican leader in the bill, a lot of it is uh, is uh bipartisan in that way, makes sense. I-ah-I-I did vote against the House plan, because the House plan, number one, it jeopardizes Medicare and Social Security and Medicaid. [8] Number 2, the House plan most damagingly would put us in this situation again in six months. And I don't know any sen-, I don't know any businesspeople in Cincinnati and Blue Ash or Hamilton or Norwood or anywhere in Southwest Ohio that think that we should do this again in six months. It's terribly damaging to the economy. It's terribly damaging to consumer confidence. It's terribly, it, it injects all kinds of uncertainty that, that business, that business can't operate under, in terms of investing, in terms of creating jobs, in terms of growing their companies. Wiggins: Now some voters and viewers are saying this isn't about balancing the budget at all but about 2012. What do you say to those critics? Brown: Well, I-I think there's always politics in this, and I, y'know, we've, we've done this, the Congress, long before I got there, raised the debt limit many times, 18 times under Ronald Reagan. There was, there were no political opponents that tried to, tried to make this all about politics to raise the debt ceiling, as have, people have now. [9] And it clearly is about politics. It's about, in many cases, people that are, that are holding the debt limit hostage. [10] And that means holding the full faith and credit of the United States of America, uh, through default [1], ho-holding it hostage. [10] And, uh, it's just wrong. But we've got to do this, we've got to raise the debt ceiling. We don't want to go through it again in six months. We don't want to jeopardize Medicare and Social Security. [8] That's why the, the Reid plan, which is bipartisan I think will pass the Senate, and ultimately the House, and signed by the President. Wiggins: And real quick, if a plan is not placed by Tuesday [1], what will happen to folks here in the Tri-State on Wednesday? Brown: Well I was on the phone today with, uh, in the front office, I was taking phone calls, and uh, people, including three from Cincinnati, of the ten or so calls I took, [11] said, said, “We're very concerned about what would happen should Social Security [8], if we don't do this by Tuesday.” I'm concerned about border security. [12] I'm concerned about paying our troops in Afghanistan. I'm very concerned about what would happen to the dollar. I'm concerned about interest rates, and businesses that trying, are trying to expand, borrowing for their payroll, or local governments, all the things that, or 401(k)s, all the things that would be affected [13] if we don't do this by Tuesday. See that's why I think we get it done. We have to. Wiggins: Senator Sherrod Brown. Thanks for that. Brown: My pleasure. Thanks Kim. Notes: [1] — As explained earlier today (at NewsBusters ; at BizzyBlog ), failing to reach a deal by August 2 would not trigger a default. Moody's said so , and Obama has privately said so . The misrepresented prospect of default was mentioned by Wiggins or Brown a total of six times. [2] — What happened to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Kim? [3] — “Spectacle”? What about the “spectacle” of a president who never had a plan, and whose spokesman actually had to fend off establishment press reporters impatient with the presidential cajoling when he hadn't stepped up with anything? [4] — So nice of you to pretend to speak for “Americans,” Kim. You're not speaking for me, and I daresay you have no credible support for your contentions. [5] — Say what you want about his performance, Mr. Brown, but the only “leader” in Washington during the past few weeks who was actually willing to craft something specific was House Speaker John Boehner. The nation has had no budget for 800-plus days, because previous Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Reid wouldn't pass one, and because the President of the United States had zero problem with the idea of running the world's largest single entity without one. [6] — So if Boehner and the House vote down the Sentate's ultimate concoction — and please note that Sherrod Brown more than likely has NO idea of what it contains — they're not patriots. They're traitors. Gosh, Dems play the patriotism card over any attempt to rein in a runaway government, while taking umbrage at any attempt to call them on their clearly questionable patriotism when they advocate compromising military readiness. With all due respect (i.e., none): Bleep you, Senator Brown. [7] — Whoa, Kim. Why isn't Sherrod Brown not “doing his patriotic duty” when he promises to reject the GOP plan? (crickets) [8] — I looked really hard for anything in the Boehner v. 2.0 as scored by the Congressional Budget Office Wednesday. There isn't anything that would “jeopardize” those programs. [9] — As pointed out earlier today (at NewsBusters ; at BizzyBlog ), the Senate vote to raise the debt ceiling in March 2006 was 52-48. Every Democrat, including Barack Obama and Harry Reid, voted against it, and Dick Cheney was on hand in case he was needed to break a potential tie. [10] — Orchestrated Democratic talking point alert. [11] — Senator Brown, the question wasn't, “What are your callers afraid of?” It was “What (do you think or know) will happen to folks here in the Tri-State on Wednesday?” [12] — Senator Brown, if you're so concerned about border security, why did you first vote FOR illegal-immigrant amnesty in 2007, and then when you realized it was going to go down in flames, change your vote to against (covered here and here )? If you think we're going to forget that, pal, you've got another thing coming. [13] — Typical Armageddon-like litany. The entire interview was based on a false premise, contained false assertions about the House and Senate bills, and was conducted with a senator whose only mission was to further fan the flames of baseless fears. This is what passes for “news” at Fox 19. Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com .
Continue reading …One week ago, two stories dominated the news. In Norway, a madman had murdered dozens, while in the U.S., the debt-limit debate raged. In Kosland, however, the Norwegian terrorist attacks and the Washington wrangling were to a large extent the same story, since both centered on, you guessed it, out-of-control right-wing extremism. And Anders Breivik wasn't even the most despicable person or entity to which Kossacks likened the Tea Party this past week — see below for the disgusting details. As usual, each headline is preceded by the blogger's name or pseudonym. Leftwing Noise Machine: Fear unites Breivik, tea-partiers …[V]isit a Tea Party website…and you find the very same obsessions that haunted Breivik: fear of being emasculated by feminism, fear of Muslims, fear of nonwhites, fear of multiculturalism, fear of complex economies, fear of science, fear of educated people. Fear… …The Rightwing Noise Machine is belching huge volumes of smoke trying to deal with the obvious connections between Breivik and Tea Party ideology. But it’s all rather hapless…If you have to take pains to distinguish yourself from a man who blew up Norway’s parliament, got a gun and killed dozens of “liberal” teenagers, because otherwise the public might get confused, then maybe you’re espousing the wrong things… Is Breivik insane? Of course he is. Only a lunatic kills dozens of innocent people. And that what’s so chilling: his crazy violent views are not very different from Breitbart’s, or Ferah’s, or O’Reilly’s, or Bachmann’s. And we must never let them forget that. Swellsman: The Tea Party is short on impulse control …Sometimes it seems to me that America is becoming more and more a nation of adolescents. Even scarier, there seems to be an increasing likelihood that these adolescents have actually seized control of the country. The Teabaggers, or course, are the most visible example of this… Of course, there is always the danger of violence when adolescent passion is wed to political causes. We saw that with the Weatherman bombings a generation ago. We witnessed it to a tragic degree just four days ago, in Oslo. But as terrible — and as tragic — as sudden outbreaks of violence can be, their capacity to do real and lasting damage to any nation as a whole is as nothing compared to the amount of damage that can be wrought when adolescent passion is able to seize actual political power… Bare Left: The Tea Party is basically the KKK… …[T]he Tea Party…is really nothing more than the Fourth Ku Klux Klan dressed up as political rhetoric and “anti-government” fervor… John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, Eric Cantor (et tu, Jewish guy?), and the rest of that deplorable gang of all-white Republican hate-mongers who call themselves the “Leadership,” are just as guilty, though perhaps they are not quite as “in touch with their feelings” as some of the cruder, more raucous elements they share a bed with. Nevertheless, they all share the same idea: No black man shall be raised to a position of importance and succeed. Not if they can help it… Vyan: …is more dangerous than al-Qaeda… …These people are absolutely off their NUT. Reason doesn't work with these people. Facts Don't Matter… And we thought al Qeada was dangerous to the nation? Not hardly compared to these people… Steven D: …and identifies with a certain Old Testament figure …I imagine [Tea Party congressmen] identify most strongly with as Samson in the Temple of the Philistines, destroying his enemies in a bloody mass murder in order to save his own “people.” They don't look at liberals, Democrats, African Americans, Hispanics, the disabled or members of the LGBT community as part of America, part of the people who need saving. They imagine that government is rigged to benefit these groups and harm their own followers, the “Real Americans” as Sarah Palin so unabashedly called them… Kos: If Obama, House Dems win next year, watch out for the bloody backlash …[W]hat'll happen in 2012 if Obama is reelected and the Democrats retake the House, as is more likely than not? This frothy mix of paranoia, gun fetishization and the belief that violence is a solution will inevitably lead to violence… Mark Sumner: The GOP is a hate group …[Republicans] just hate you. Honestly hate you. Of course, they hate President Obama even more. A thousand blazing supernovas with a side order of big bang? Barely an ember next to how much they hate him, and really, they're completely honest about that. The Tea Party formerly-known-as-Republicans is all about the hate. …[T]hey've done the math — they hate the president much, much more than they love the country. By a factor of, oh, twenty zillion to one… …If the economy flags, if jobs are lost, if there is blood in the streets, its all dandy so long as these guys can look over and see that this will hurt Obama…
Continue reading …
Obama says a deal has been reached with Republican and Democratic Congressional leaders and urged members of Congress to get behind the proposed legislation Barack Obama declared on Sunday he had reached agreement with Republican and Democratic Congressional leaders aimed at ending the US debt deadlock that has threatened to throw the US and world economy into chaos. However, in an address from the White House, he added cautiously, “We are not done yet.” Although the Senate is almost certain to pass it, the vote in the House could be a nailbiter, facing opposition from both hardline Republicans and disenchanted, left-wing Democrats who feel Obama has conceded too much. Obama urged members of Congress to get behind the proposed legislation, which will raise the country’s debt ceiling and cut federal spending. With time fast running out, Congress may have left it too late to meet the Tuesday deadline set by the Treasury for raising the debt ceiling above its current $14.3tn limit. The US Treasury had said that if the ceiling was not lifted by 2 August, America would no longer have the cash needed to pay all its bills and faced the prospect of defaulting for the first time in its history. Obama, after weeks of frustrating negotiation in Washington, said: “This process has been messy and taken too long.” The White House hinted yesterday that the deadline could be extended for a few days to allow Congress to get legislation through. The Democratic leader in the Senate, Harry Reid, said he was “cautiously optimistic” a deal would be made, a view echoed by his Republican counterpart, Mitch McConnell. The Senate could vote on the proposed legislation Monday. The bill would then have to go to the House, where the vote could be tighter. McConnell has scheduled a meeting with Republican senators for Monday morning to discuss the details of the deal. Speaking minutes before the president, he said: “I think I can say with a high degree of confidence that there is now a framework to review that will ensure significant cuts in Washington spending. And we can assure the American people tonight that the United States of America will not for the first time in our history default on its obligations.” The deal will raise the country’s $14.3tn debt ceiling by about $2.4tn. It sparked an immediate backlash from the left of the Democratic party because it also includes about $2.5tn in spending cuts, much of it almost certain to come from welfare benefits. The left-leaning grassroots organisation MoveOn described it as “grotesquely immoral”. The White House and congressional leaders were anxious to get some sort of compromise under way, fearful that uncertainty could lead to huge market falls today. The Nikkei rose after Obama’s statement. Experts warned that even if a deal was struck, the world’s largest economy was likely to be stripped of its triple-A debt rating by Standard & Poor’s. The head of the world’s largest bond investor – Mohamed El-Erian of Pimco – told US broadcaster ABC: “Things that need to happen are not happening fast enough. If S&P sticks to what it said, it will downgrade.” Julian Jessop, chief international economist at Capital Economics, said: “It looks like they will get a deal done to lift the debt ceiling but it looks like none of the numbers are going to reassure the debt rating agencies. I’m pretty sure America will lose its triple-A rating.” Such a move is likely to prompt a big jump in the cost of borrowing for the US. The Democratic leader in the House, Nancy Pelosi, praised Obama’s for his role behind-the-scenes in securing the compromise but said that she had not seen the details yet. She was planning a meeting of House Democrats today to discuss the package and warned there should be nothing in it that hits benefits and working-class. “We all may not be able to support it, or none us may be able to support it,” Pelosi warned. Raising the debt ceiling is normally routine but Republican members of Congress, especially a hard core allied to the Tea Party movement, have used it over the last month to hold the White House hostage. David Plouffe, a White House adviser, told ABC yesterday it was not clear if there would be enough House Republicans to get a deal through. The deal is mainly a victory for Republicans whose mission has been to cut the huge federal spending budget and undermine Barack Obama in his bid for re-election next year. The crisis has already hurt Obama, with a poll last week showing his approval ratings drop from 45% to 40%. But the Republicans may be hurt, too, by their association with the Tea Party. The US’s financial reputation has suffered as well, particularly over the last week, and even though a debt ceiling rise is now on the cards, the country could still see its credit rating being downgraded. The deal also postpones a lot of the hard spending decisions by handing over negotiation to a bipartisan Congressional committe to decide. It is due to report by the end of November and will have to weigh cuts in military spending against cuts in benefits. The deal emerged late on Saturday after fractious public exchanges earlier in the day between Republicans and Democrats. Pelosi, in a feisty speech on Saturday, accused the Republican speaker, John Boehner, of having gone over to the “dark side” in courting Republicans allied to the Tea Party. But after a series of negotiations involving Obama, Joe Biden, the vice-president, Reid, McConnell, Boehner and Pelosi, they reached an agreement on the broad principles of a deal. The Senate, which remained in session over the weekend because of the crisis, voted on a mainly procedural issue yesterday to end a Republican filibuster on the subject. In what may be a last act of defiance on this issue, Republican senators mustered enough votes to block the Democratic move. Although that seemed ominous for bipartisan co-operation, Republican senators were on course to vote for the deal. United States US politics Democrats Republicans Obama administration US economy Ewen MacAskill guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …From the office of Sen. Bernie Sanders — The 14th Amendment : Senator Bernie Sanders spoke during a rare Saturday session. He made case for President Obama lifting the debt ceiling on his own by invoking a provision of the 14th Amendment. “The Constitution is very clear in saying that the debts of the United States ‘shall not be questioned,’ Sanders said. “The president swears an oath to protect and defend the Constitution, and many constitutional scholars believe that the 14th Amendment gives the president the authority and responsibility to pay our debts regardless of the dysfunction in Congress. I think that’s just what he should do if he is left with no other way to protect the full faith and credit of the United States.” The idea is backed by leading legal scholars and by President Bill Clinton. He said that if he were still in the White House, he would use the amendment and “force the courts to stop me.” And from the Burlington Free Press — Sanders calls on Obama to lift the debt ceiling with 14th Amendment : Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont is calling on President Barack Obama to unilaterally lift the debt ceiling by invoking the 14th Amendment. Section 4 of the amendment states that, “The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.” Sanders, an independent, isn’t fazed by the possibility that using the amendment to bypass Congress on the debt limit could lead to an impeachment vote. He says Americans would thank Obama for dealing with the crisis. “I suppose if you use the 14th Amendment and Republicans try to impeach him, that’s their right,” he said. “But I would suspect that the average American would say, ‘Given the options, thank you, Mr. President, for making sure that I at least get my Social Security check, that our soldiers get paid, that Medicare continues to function and that interest rates do not go way up.’” Current law requires congressional approval for raising the debt limit. But former President Bill Clinton has said that if he were still in the White House, he would use the amendment and “force the courts to stop me.” “I think the Constitution is clear, and I think this idea that the Congress gets to vote twice on whether to pay for (expenditures) it has appropriated is crazy,” Clinton said in a July 18 interview with The National Memo. But Obama has said he does not believe invoking the amendment is a viable option. “I have talked to my lawyers,” he said on July 22. “They are not persuaded that that is a winning argument.” Sanders said other options for action on the debt limit are “dismal.” He blamed “right-wing extremism” among House Republicans and their “refusal to look at anything that resembles a fair and sensible and balanced approach.”
Continue reading …
Click here to view this media (h/t Heather for video ) I’m working on fumes right now, but President Obama just announced that Boehner, McConnell and Reid have reached an agreement on the debt ceiling bill so now it’s off to Congress to see if it will get passed. President Obama discussed the framework in a public statement at the White House Sunday evening, and urged members of both parties to support the plan. He also criticized Congress for touching off this crisis, and for being unable to arrive at a single grand bargain to improve the country’s fiscal situation (with spending cuts and tax increases) and raise the debt limit as well. “Is this the deal I would have preferred? No,” Obama said. “But this compromise does make a serious down payment on the deficit reduction we need.” The announcement came just as House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) hosted a conference call with his own, unruly caucus, to sell them on the same plan. Passing this bill will be a heavier lift in that caucus, where scores of Democrats and Republicans are expected to defect. Luke Russert has been all over MSNBC talking about Boehner’s conference call and saying it was like a pep-rally, you know..he had to go all Vince Lombardi on his members to try and persuade them to vote for this deal. VICTORY! Stevie B: The final hurdle was Speaker Boehner, who fought to lower the ratio on the trigger, away from a 50-50 split on the trigger we talked about earlier. As it turns out, Boehner lost that fight, and the White House told him there would be movement on this point, and the Speaker conceded the point. (He’d already won on so many other points, this was a minor setback.) And here (pdf), by the way, is the presentation Boehner made available to his caucus after endorsing the agreement. The Speaker clearly doesn’t love the plan, but in a hilarious twist, Boehner said failing to pass it would lead to a “job-killing default.” That would be the same default Boehner has been willing to pursue for the last several months. This plan still unfortunately kicks the can down to another frakkin’ Cat Food Committee in November where we’ll be debating the same stuff all over again. I’m hearing that the cuts tied to the trigger will be 50-50 on defense and non-defense spending and that the Big Three safety Net programs won’t have benefits cut. We’ll find out more hard info tomorrow. On FOX, Baier and Rosen were discussing the Balanced Budget amendment that will be voted down immediately as Rosen described it as a poison pill in the whole debt ceiling debate. Huckabee was saying what a wonderful idea it would be to alter the Constitution. Sorry, Huck, that sucks. I’m too burnt to write much more on this tonight myself. Nobody is happy with this deal, even the Tea Party cult because many of them want the US to default and the world markets to unravel. The NY Times has more info on the triggers and reactions from Senators and leaders from both parties.
Continue reading …
Click here to view this media After explaining all of the terrible things that would happen if the U.S. debt ceiling was not raised, CNBC’s Jim Cramer said Sunday that all the “fear” and “panic” had actually been caused by President Barack Obama. “Now we’re talking about a recession,” Cramer told NBC’s David Gregory. “We will be in recession if this is not resolved. Recession means many fewer jobs, means far fewer tax receipts, trillion dollars lost — IRA, 401K — trillion dollars lost in job creation. I’m hearing about little amounts being saved here versus what will be lost in the next six months if this is not resolved.” “I’m tired of hearing all the media talking about how this is a crisis,” Rep. Raul Labrador (R-ID) replied. “We will solve this problem.” “I want to talk about what the congressman said about the media exasperated or even caused the problem,” Cramer complained. “We were all hopeful in Wall Street and in Main Street that the president would come out and say a few things that said compromise.” “He came out and panicked the heck out us. He talked about the higher interest rates for mortgages. He talked about the spiking credit card. He talked about how hard it’s going to be to get student loans. He took us all aback because we felt he would be a compromise leader. Instead, he created tremendous fear. Tremendous fear means uncertainty. Uncertainty means no spending. Uncertainty means no spending by business. Uncertainty means to hiring. It was a setback. He caused the panic, not the media.”
Continue reading …
Alcohol and obesity blamed for higher cancer rates in British women compared with their European counterparts British women are nearly a fifth more likely to develop cancer at some point during their lives than their European counterparts, with lifestyle factors such as obesity and alcohol consumption likely to be partly responsible, a cancer charity has said. The World Cancer Research Fund (WCRF), which campaigns on cancer and lifestyle issues, said data showed women in the UK had a 25.1% chance of developing any type of cancer by the time they reached 75, as against 21.4% of women elsewhere in Europe. The study is based on figures compiled by the International Agency for Research on Cancer , part of the UN’s World Health Organisation (WHO). British men have marginally better cancer rates than those elsewhere in Europe, with a 27.8% chance of being diagnosed by the age of 75 against 29.5% for men elsewhere in Europe. The WCRF, which estimates that about 80,000 UK cancer cases could be prevented each year through physical activity, better diet, lower alcohol use and reduced obesity, said it believed similar lifestyle factors played a role in these statistics. Earlier this year, a study in the Lancet found that British women had the highest average body mass index among 19 western European nations, of 26.9. This figure, which compares weight against height, counts as overweight by WHO guidelines. Various studies have also indicated that British women tend to drink more than those in many other European countries, particularly younger women, where the prevalence of diseases associated with alcohol abuse has soared. Dr Rachel Thompson of the WCRF said alcohol and obesity formed “one of the big public health challenges we face today”. She said: “They are not the only reasons for the differing cancer rates, but there is now very strong evidence that women who drink a lot of alcohol are at increased risk of developing the disease and that excess body fat is also an important risk factor.” Ciarán Devane, chief executive of Macmillan Cancer Support , said the WCRF figures were “very worrying”. He added: “Leading a healthy, active lifestyle and eating a diet of fresh fruit, vegetables and foods that are whole grain and also limiting alcohol intake may reduce the risk of getting cancer and cancer recurrence. However, it’s important to remember that cancer can also be caused by many other factors such as age, lifestyle habits and genetic make up. “The number of people who will get cancer is now well past one in three, and there are many more people with cancer today than there were 10 years ago. By making small adjustments to their diet and lifestyles both British men and women can go a long way to helping us tackle this ever growing issue.”ends Health Cancer Alcohol Obesity Cancer Europe Peter Walker guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Anti-alcohol abuse groups say push to cut excessive drinking risks being compromised by industry’s heavy presence on panel The drinks industry has secured heavy representation on a key government advisory working group on alcohol, putting it in a strong position to influence the coalition’s forthcoming alcohol strategy. Minutes of the Government and Partners Alcohol Working Group, which meets bi-monthly and is chaired by the Home Office director of drugs and alcohol, show that drinks industry membership has massively increased during the last year. Under the Labour government, there were a couple of industry representatives, but the coalition has swelled their numbers to the point where they make up almost half the membership of the committee, excluding the civil servants who represent government departments, such as health and the Treasury. Minutes of meetings before and after the election were obtained by the BBC’s Panorama programme, which on Monday night will show the damage excessive drinking is wreaking on young people and asks why the government has not acted to raise alcohol prices. When the committee met in March 2009 – then called the Alcohol Strategy Delivery Group – eight of the members were non-civil servants and two of them were from the drinks industry – one from Bacardi and the other from retailers Morrisons. Five others came from a health background and the sixth represented local government. But the membership changed under the coalition government. In December 2010, there were 10 members from the drinks industry and seven others. In March this year, there were 10 members from the drinks industry, eight of whom were present, and six others – three of whom were in the room. The minutes of that meeting show that the committee is to have a role in the government’s alcohol strategy. They record that it listened to a presentation from the Department of Health on what it might contain and was asked for views. The revelation of the industry’s central role on a government advisory body follows concern over its representation on the groups that negotiated the public health responsibility deal. In March, six health groups, including the British Medical Association and the Royal College of Physicians, walked out of the deal on alcohol, saying that they were not allowed to discuss the measures that would have most effect in curbing dangerous drinking, such as price rises. The panel’s health representatives said at the time that the government had listened to industry and refused to allow issues that could make a difference, such as price and promotion to children, to be
Continue reading …
Home Office must assess impact of Turkish entry into EU to avoid repeat of 2004 influx of eastern European migrants Home Office ministers need to order an official assessment of the likely scale of legal migration to Britain should Turkey join the European Union, a Commons committee has urged. The home affairs select committee also says that much more must be done to improve security on Turkey’s borders before it should be allowed to join the EU. The land border with Greece is now the main loophole for irregular migration into Europe with 350 migrants trying to cross it every day in 2010 and more than 75% of trafficked heroin into the EU also flows across its borders. The MPs’ report says that the available forecasts for the likely flow of Turkish nationals to other European countries should it join the EU range from 500,000 to 4.4 million up until 2030. One estimate by Oxford University suggests that the figure could be as low as 60,000 to 70,000 a year to Europe as a whole. “Current migration of Turkish nationals to the EU has declined to below 50,000 a year but population trends and the gap in living standards could make easier migration within the EU an attractive option for Turkish citizens,” says the report published on Monday. “Given the UK’s experience after the 2004 enlargement, when many thousands more migrants arrived than expected, the committee is cautious about allowing Turkish citizens full freedom of movement and supports the government’s commitment to applying ‘effective transitional controls as a matter of course’ for all new member states,” says the report. The Home Office says that there are about 150,000 Turkish nationals living in Britain at present, with about 500,000 people of Turkish origin living in the country altogether. But Germany, Austria, the Netherlands and France all have larger Turkish communities which are more likely to attract a new wave of legal migration. Current discussions in Brussels assume that Turkey could join the EU in 2020 but no final decisions have been made and there is significant opposition among some member states. Home Office immigration minister Damian Green, giving evidence to the committee’s inquiry, said it was impossible to make any kind of realistic assessment at the moment on the impact of Turkish accession to the EU on likely migration patterns. He said that “we don’t know any of the basic facts”, including whether a transitional period under which Britain could restrict the flow of Turkish migrant workers will be put in place. Green also pointed out that Turkey traditionally had much stronger links with Germany than Britain and had an economy which was growing at a faster rate than India, meaning many Turks might well stay at home. However, the MPs say that, while the Home Office was no doubt wary of attracting criticism for producing inaccurate estimates in the future, they were concerned that no official impact analysis has yet been carried out: “Accordingly we recommend that the Home Office undertakes this piece of work now and updates it as circumstances change.” Ministers do not want to repeat the experience of 2004 when Poland and other east European states joined and an annual net migration prediction of 13,000 proved well wide of the mark. Immigration and asylum Turkey European Union Europe Alan Travis guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Fishing fleets have thrown away 2.1m tonnes of cod worth £2.7bn to avoid falling foul of EU regulations, says the New Economics Foundation UK fishing crews have thrown away stocks of cod worth about £1bn since 1963 due to the practice of discarding catches which exceed or fall outside quotas, according to a thinktank report. Across all EU fleets, stocks of cod worth £2.7bn were discarded in the North Sea, the Channel and Skagerrak, the strait adjoining Norway, Sweden and the north of Denmark between 1963 and 2008, the New Economics Foundation (NEF) study, Money Overboard, calculated. Using discard data compiled by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea and focusing just on cod, one of the best-documented stocks, the NEF calculated that just over 2.1m tonnes of the fish was thrown overboard during the period. The report adds fuel to the bitter debate over the longstanding fisheries practice, particularly prevalent in heavy-regulated EU waters, of throwing overboard a significant proportion of any catch – up to two thirds in some areas – most of which is by this time dead or dying. The fish are discarded for a variety of reasons: they can be species which are not included in the boat’s quota, stocks which exceed a quota, too small, or simply from a species with low commercial value. In March the EU’s fisheries commissioner, Maria Damanaki, began steps to end the practice of discarding , calling for reforms to quota systems to ensure this happened by the start of 2013. The issue was highlighted in the UK by a high-profile campaign and accompanying TV series by the chef Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall , something Damanaki cited as a key factor in her decision. However, fishing lobby groups have objected strongly to the plan , arguing that already precarious livelihoods will be made untenable if crews are obliged to land large quantities of unpopular, low-value species. A revised EU common fisheries policy (CFP) , unveiled early in July, said discarding would be phased out, with fishing boats obliged to land all stocks of commercial fish they catch, although they will still not be able to sell undersized examples. The reforms are intended to provide an incentive for trawlers to invest in more selective fishing gear. The NEF argues that a full discard ban will be good news for the fishing industry, citing a study published last month by academics at the University of York which found a discard ban by Norway, a non-EU member, during the late 1980s saw reduced profitability for just four years with Norwegian cod fisheries now among the most lucrative in the world. Rupert Crilly, an environmental economics researcher at NEF, and the author of Money Overboard, said that for all the potential benefits of an EU discard ban it was only part of a wider issue, mainly connected to general overfishing. “There needs to be a much more fundamental reform of the CFP, rather than just saying discards need to be banned. It’s a little bit too simplistic. What we’re saying in this report is: this is the value of what we’ve been throwing away, it’s enormous and it needs to stop, but it’s not the only things that needs to change,” he said. It was vital for EU quotas to be set by scientists rather than politicians, and for the approach to be based around the effects on the whole ocean ecosystem rather than on a species-by-species basis. “What we’re arguing is that we need quotas set according to scientific limits. “In the end this would be good news for the economy, the people who own the resource, which is everybody, and the fishing industry itself, which completes depends on stocks being at their best.” Fishing Food European Union Conservation Marine life Food security Wildlife Oceans Europe Peter Walker guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …