Doing so would improve social integration, enhance the contribution that migrants make, and allay public discontent over immigration.
OTTAWA – Canada has passed legislation that bans keeping whales, dolphins and porpoises in captivity for entertainment, as well as the trade, possession, capture and breeding of cetaceans. Today, the House of Commons voted overwhelmingly in favour of Bill S-203, the Ending the Captivity of Whales and Dolphins Act.
Bill S-203 was introduced by Senator Wilfred Moore in 2015, and then sponsored by Senator Murray Sinclair. Upon passage through the Senate, it was championed by Green Party Leader Elizabeth May in the House of Commons.
Rebecca Aldworth, Executive Director of HSI/Canada stated: “The passage of Bill S-203 is a watershed moment in the protection of marine animals and a victory for all Canadians. Whales and dolphins don’t belong in tanks, and the inherent suffering these highly social and intelligent animals endure in intensive confinement can no longer be tolerated. We congratulate the sponsors of this bill and the Canadian government for showing strong leadership in responding to public will and sound science on this critical issue.”
Green Party Leader and Saanich – Gulf Islands MP Elizabeth May stated, “Canadians have been clear, they want the cruel practice of keeping whales and dolphins in captivity to end. With the passage of Bill S-203, we have ensured that this will happen.”
Bill sponsor Senator Wilfred Moore said, “We have a moral obligation to phase out the capture and retention of animals for profit and entertainment. Canadians are calling upon us to do better – and we have listened.”
In 2003, in her book Statecraft, Margeret Thatcher set out the case for EFTA. Her comments follow a long line of British tradition and strong Conservative support going back to Macmillan in 1959. It’s worth reminding ourselves of what Margaret Thatcher said:
“In 1992, Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein – that is the remaining EFTA countries, bar Switzerland – concluded negotiations with the EU which established a European Economic Area (EEA). These countries now enjoy free trade with the European Union…
“…They also enjoy the unhindered access guaranteed by the operation of the European Single Market. But they remain outside the customs union, the CAP, the CFP, the common foreign and security policy and the rest of the legal/bureaucratic tangle of EU institutions”.
So far from being alien to the British tradition, EFTA is very much a Conservative construct. That’s why, it is important to set the record straight.
Is the below mentioned a reasonable alternative, has suggested, what are your views?
The Cabinet meets this morning. Its members will wonder whether No Deal is now inevitable. Perhaps the EU is now so set on carving up our country in any settlement that a collapse of the talks cannot be avoided. But there is a potential escape route.
The EU’s support for the backstop is only one of many problems in the wider negotiation. These cluster around the Prime Minister’s Chequers scheme, which was unequivocally rejected at Salzburg last month. As the EU sees it, Chequers, with its core proposal to harmonise goods but not services with EU regulation, would breach the four freedoms of movement of goods, services capital, and workers; threaten the unity of its internal market, and potentially undercut EU27 businesses.
Were the backstop to be reduced to the onlydifficulty in the talks, it is possible to imagine that the EU would move to resolve it.
This is what would happen were Theresa May to take up a solution that the EU itself has offered – namely a Canada-style settlement. Donald Tusk proposed it last spring. “It should come as no surprise that the only remaining possible model is a free trade agreement,” he wrote. “I hope that it will be ambitious and advanced – and we will do our best, as we did with other partners, such as Canada recently – but anyway it will only be a trade agreement. I propose that we aim for a trade agreement covering all sectors and with zero tariffs on goods. Like other free trade agreements, it should address services.”
The Cabinet was reportedly presented with a Treasury assessment of the impact of four outcomes to the Brexit talks: no deal, a Canadian-type deal, the EEA…and the Government’s own new scheme. This itself should give pause for thought to the suggestion that, other than the EEA and no deal, there is no alternative to the plan agreed at Chequers. It is a statement of the obvious that there will be as many of the last as there are people willing to propose them.
Far more to the point, however, there was one from within the Government itself – a proposal for it to seek “Canada Plus Plus Plus”, as David Davis once referred to it. It is well known that DexEU was working on a draft of the White Paper that would outline this idea during the run-up to the Chequers meeting. We are told that it went through some nine iterations. The last ones were largely cuts for length. None of them have been made public. Until now.
Today, ConservativeHome publishes key extracts from a full draft of this White Paper. They are not from one of the briefer final versions, but they set before our readers the main pillars of DexEU’s approach, which we are told were unchanged in any of those nine drafts. As we write, we don’t have the advantage of also having seen the Government’s own White Paper, apparently to be published later, and thus the capacity to make comparisons between its text and that we publish today.
However, there will clearly be substantial overlap between the two – but, on the basis of the Government document published in the aftermath of Chequers, some key differences too. A central one is the proposed regulatory treatment of manufactured goods. In her Mansion House speech earlier this year, the Prime Minister referred in this context to “a comprehensive system of mutual recognition”. She also set out in her Florence speech last year a three-basket approach to regulation.
“There will be areas which do affect our economic relations where we and our European friends may have different goals; or where we share the same goals but want to achieve them through different means. And there will be areas where we want to achieve the same goals in the same ways, because it makes sense for our economies,” she said. This was the approach agreed at the Chequers mee
As a businessman, U.S. President Donald Trump saw strength in his willingness to keep multiple balls in the air and change approach as they fell. In international relations, that unpredictability may be proving a liability.
In recent days, Trump’s sudden policy reversals on everything from tariffs to nuclear non-proliferation have prompted complaints from allies and rivals alike. Such flexible negotiating tactics — laid out in Trump’s 1987 book “The Art of the Deal” — have led them to question America’s reliability as a negotiating and, in some cases, security partner.
With defense ministers from around the world convening Friday for the IISS Shangri-La Dialogue security conference in Singapore, questions around U.S. reliability are likely to rival familiar concerns about China’s growing military assertiveness.
“A lot of delegates will be asking the questions they started asking last year about U.S. consistency and its determination to carry on a full defense of the rules-based international order,” said John Chipman, director general of the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies, which organizes the event at the Shangri-La Hotel in Singapore.
Trump’s moves have put long-standing alliances under strain and created opportunities for China — which has already displaced the U.S. as the top trading partner for most Asian nations — to conduct outreach of its own. Amid U.S. tariff threats in April, China and Japan held their first trade negotiation in eight years.
Fresh in the minds of delegate are Trump’s decisions to withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal, abandon a trade ceasefire with China, remove exemptions for some allies on steel and aluminum tariffs, and cancel — and then revive — his planned summit with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un. The summit moves blindsided two key Asian allies: South Korean President Moon Jae-in, who had just returned from Washington, and Japanese Prime Minster Shinzo Abe.
“I’m lost” when it comes to Trump, European Commission chief Jean-Claude Juncker said during a speech in Brussels on Thursday, just before the U.S. confirmed it would impose new steel and aluminum tariffs on the European Union, Canada and Mexico.
- The Regional Parliament of Wallonia had initially refused its consent to the FTA and so delayed the signing.
- Now voted the majority of Members of the consent of Belgium to Ceta.
- The give in the region was made possible by an additional explanation for the contract.
The truth be told, I believe that the view of the Federation of Wallonia-Brussels to be correct. These trade deals CETA and TTIP would give too much power to the multinationals, who would be governing all the EU and not the EU, but also the sovereign governments of each country.
This is disgraceful and the law should be protecting the victims,the Standing Rock Sioux people.
If true, this is pure barbarism. I blogged earlier this week about protests by Native Americans about the North Dakota Access Pipeline, which is intended to carry oil through the lands of the Standing Rock Sioux people. The tribe are opposing it, as they fear that the pipeline will lead to the pollution of their water supply and the destruction of their lands and its ecosystem. In this piece from Democracy Now!, the anchor Amy Goodson speaks to the tribe’s lawyer, Jan Hasselman, from the chambers Earthjustice, and the tribe’s chairman Dave Archambault.
The oil company has tried a number of tactics to try to close down and disrupt the protests. They local sheriff and officials have pulled cellphone access over the area, to stop citizens uploading videos of the protests to the internet. They’ve also attacked the protesters with dogs and pepper spray. There’s video footage of the bites…
View original post 866 more words