NewzIntel.com

    • Checkout Page
    • Contact Us
    • Default Redirect Page
    • Frontpage
    • Home-2
    • Home-3
    • Lost Password
    • Member Login
    • Member LogOut
    • Member TOS Page
    • My Account
    • NewzIntel Alert Control-Panel
    • NewzIntel Latest Reports
    • Post Views Counter
    • Privacy Policy
    • Public Individual Page
    • Register
    • Subscription Plan
    • Thank You Page

Category: Pandemic

  • MIL-OSI Economics: Ida Wolden Bache: Economic perspectives

    Source: Bank for International Settlements

    Data accompanying the speech

    “Some of the richest countries in the world are small. They are also outward looking.”

    So starts the first chapter of Victor Norman’s textbook on a small open economy. This is also an apt description of our country. Openness and trade have been essential to our prosperity.

    Victor Norman passed away last year, and with that Norway lost a leading researcher and an outstanding communicator. The first edition of Victor Norman’s book was published in 1983. The quotation I just cited is taken from the expanded edition released ten years later. That was more than 30 years ago, but the book bears its age well. The insights it provides are no less relevant today.

    The framework conditions for international cooperation and trade are in play. There is war in Europe, and the governments of many countries see a need for rearmament. In today’s world, emphasis must be placed on national security and preparedness considerations.

    But the gains from trade with other countries are still there in full, especially for a small economy like ours. Norman points out that small countries often have a narrow resource base as they tend to cover a small part of the earth’s crust. Norway, for example, is abundant in energy resources, but poor in arable land and the crop season is short. Norman posits in his textbook that if we shut ourselves out, such a resource base would have left us sitting hungry in overly heated homes. Trade with other countries allows us to decouple consumption from production. Small countries also have small markets, which means that the cost of producing some things domestically is higher than importing them. International trade expands markets. We can sell aluminium and buy aircraft.

    But as Norman writes: “Open economies are not without their problems. Small countries must (almost by definition) take the world as it is – with minimal possibility of influencing international developments.” This is something we have experienced, most recently during the pandemic and the subsequent global surge in inflation.

    MIL OSI Economics –

    February 18, 2025
  • MIL-OSI USA: ‘For You’: What to Know About News on TikTok

    Source: US State of Connecticut

    Last time you scrolled the “For You” page on TikTok, did you get a video about current events? Politics? Breaking news?

    If you’re one of the 63% of teens or 33% of adults in the U.S. who uses TikTok, you probably have. But where did it come from? Who created it? And should you believe what it told you?

    As a communication researcher who has studied news content on social media for over a decade, I can share three crucial things to know about news you get on TikTok: What videos count as news, how they got to you, and what you should do when you see them.

    These are three of what media researchers know as the “5 C’s” of news literacy: content, circulation and consumption. While they can be applied to any kind of news use, they are especially important for TikTok, where anyone can create content, and the algorithm decides what we see.

    First C: Content

    TikTok is full of user-generated content – content that is created by other users on the app rather than official news organizations – so it’s important to think about what is in your feed. This means knowing what is actually news and what is something else, like opinion or advertising.

    Any user can post their opinion, whether or not it’s backed up by any proof. TikTok has some rules about what cannot be posted, such as content that is considered inappropriate for minors or harmful content like harassment or hate speech. Still, anyone can post their own ideas about anything, including current events. This means that just because a video is on the app doesn’t make it true.

    TikTok has become a major player in advertising, with ad revenues in the U.S. alone expected to reach over US$13 billion in 2026. TikTok does its best to make videos that have been boosted with paid advertising look like any other content. You may have seen videos that seem like “real” content – uncompensated thoughts from an individual user – only to discover that they’re part of a paid brand partnership.

    However, the platform does have rules about ads and gives some clues for identifying paid posts. Look for a “sponsored” or “ad” label near the video’s caption or username. Another thing to look for is what’s called a “call-to-action” in the caption, like “tap the link to learn more!”

    TikTok doesn’t have specific rules for sharing news, and it doesn’t separate news from other categories of information, like opinion, comedy or video blogs. Journalists at reputable news outlets, on the other hand, must follow certain standards.

    For one, journalists will vet and cite their sources. That means they will share who they interviewed or what expert gave them their information, and that they’ve done research to make sure it’s a trustworthy source in the first place. They and their publication’s editors will also verify or fact-check content to make sure it’s true. So a video that shares news content should state where the information is from and link to that source.

    Second C: Circulation

    If you didn’t search for a TikTok video, it probably found you. By now, regular social media users know that TikTok has an algorithm that decides what content to show them. Algorithms are equations that learn what you like and decide how to recommend more of the same content to you.

    On TikTok, you can click on “Share” and then “Why this video” to learn more about why a video was recommended for you. Usually, it’s because you’ve watched, liked or commented on similar content, searched for related topics or followed similar accounts. Recommendations also include videos that were posted recently near you and topics that are popular where you live.

    The most important thing to remember is that each TikTok user is getting their own customized feed of content based on their behavior. Unlike in the past, when more of our news came from mainstream media – such as reading the same city newspaper or watching the same local news – now we may not know what news someone else is getting. If you see a lot of content about the same topic, that’s likely because of the algorithm customizing your feed, not necessarily because it’s the most important topic in the news.

    Third C: Consumption

    You probably know about “fake news” – what researchers usually call misinformation – and that there is a lot of it online. Social media apps know it too, and have tried different ways to keep it from spreading, like using fact-checkers to flag problematic content.

    However, my team’s own research shows that these fact-checking programs may not be very successful. Some apps, like Facebook and Instagram, are even stopping fact-checking programs altogether. While TikTok doesn’t allow disinformation campaigns that are intended to deceive people, the app doesn’t prohibit people from sharing information that is simply inaccurate.

    That means, beyond the clues you already read about above, you will need to develop your own skills in judging what’s real on TikTok.

    First, think about your own opinions and biases. We all have them! Even news organizations can have biases, meaning some of them tend to report news from a certain political viewpoint.

    The more you engage with content you already agree with, the more you will get of it, and the stronger your opinions can become about it. Instead, think about what other viewpoints exist and search for content from their side. One way to do this is to seek out content from reputable news organizations across the political spectrum.

    Second, pay attention to where you get information. Is all your news coming from social media? Research shows that Americans who rely on social media as their main source of news are less knowledgeable than those who get news from almost any other news source. In a 2020 study, they couldn’t answer as many questions about current events like Donald Trump’s impeachment and the COVID-19 pandemic, for example, and were more likely to come across conspiracy theories. Pick a news website or two and sign up for their alerts instead.

    Finally, continue to evaluate the content on your “For You” page. You don’t need to stop using TikTok, but do keep looking for those clues about whether information is credible: Who is it from? Is it a journalist, a news organization? Or maybe it was a news influencer, someone who has a large following on social media for sharing current events but who is not necessarily a journalist. Do they cite and link to sources?

    If you can’t find this information, you should search about the topic online. If you don’t find any reputable news organizations reporting on it, you may want to think again about trusting it and sharing it.

    Originally published in The Conversation.

    MIL OSI USA News –

    February 18, 2025
  • MIL-OSI Europe: Highlights – ENVI exchange of views on the implementation of the Recovery and Resilience Facility – Committee on the Environment, Climate and Food Safety

    Source: European Parliament

    Sustainable investment © Image used under the license from Adobe Stock

    18 February, ENVI Members will consider the draft opinion on the implementation of the environmental aspects of the Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF).

    The RRF is a key instrument of the EU’s response to the economic and social impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, with additional RePowerEU chapters introduced following Russia’s war on Ukraine and the energy crisis. Around €275 billion were committed to be spent on climate action. However, recent findings from the European Court of Auditors highlight potential overestimations of funds allocated to climate action and discrepancies between planned measures and actual implementation. The ENVI draft opinion raises questions on the contribution of RRF to the green transition and calls for further investigations. ENVI Members will discuss the role of the RRF in achieving the EU’s environmental and climate goals.

    MIL OSI Europe News –

    February 18, 2025
  • MIL-OSI Asia-Pac: President Lai meets former United States Deputy National Security Advisor Matthew Pottinger

    Source: Republic of China Taiwan

    Details
    2025-02-11
    President Lai meets Deputy Prime Minister Thulisile Dladla of the Kingdom of Eswatini
    On the afternoon of February 11, President Lai Ching-te met with a delegation led by Deputy Prime Minister Thulisile Dladla of the Kingdom of Eswatini. In remarks, President Lai thanked Eswatini for continuing to support Taiwan’s international participation at international venues. The president stated that Taiwan and Eswatini work closely in such areas as agriculture, the economy and trade, education, and healthcare, and expressed hope that the two countries will continue to support each other on the international stage and strive together for the well-being of both peoples.  A translation of President Lai’s remarks follows: I warmly welcome our distinguished guests to the Presidential Office. Deputy Prime Minister Dladla previously visited Taiwan while serving as minister of foreign affairs. This is her first time leading a delegation here as deputy prime minister. I want to extend my sincerest welcome. Deputy Prime Minister Dladla has earned a high degree of recognition and trust from His Majesty King Mswati III. She was not only Eswatini’s first woman foreign minister, but is also the second woman to have held her current key position. She shows an active interest in people’s welfare, and has a reputation for being deeply devoted to her compatriots. I have great admiration for this. I am truly delighted to meet with Deputy Prime Minister Dladla today. I would like to take this opportunity to once again express my gratitude to His Majesty the King for leading a delegation to attend the inauguration ceremony for myself and Vice President Bi-khim Hsiao last year. This demonstrated the close diplomatic ties between our countries. I also want to thank Eswatini for continuing to support Taiwan’s international participation at international venues. I would ask that when Deputy Prime Minister Dladla returns to Eswatini, she conveys Taiwan’s greetings and gratitude to His Majesty the King and Her Majesty the Queen Mother Ntombi Tfwala. Diplomatic ties between Taiwan and Eswatini have endured for over half a century. Our two nations have continued to work closely in such areas as agriculture, the economy and trade, education, and healthcare. Our largest collaboration to date has been assisting Eswatini in the construction of a strategic oil reserve facility. We will continue to push forward with this project, and look forward to achieving even greater results in all areas. I understand that Deputy Prime Minister Dladla is very concerned about issues regarding gender equality and women’s empowerment. During her term as foreign minister, she facilitated bilateral cooperation in those areas. Now, as deputy prime minister, she is actively attending to the disadvantaged and advancing social welfare. These policies are very much in line with the priorities of my administration. I look forward to strengthening cooperation with Deputy Prime Minister Dladla for the benefit of both our societies. Taiwan and Eswatini are peace-loving nations. Faced with a constantly changing international landscape and the growing threat posed by authoritarianism, we hope that our two countries will continue to support each other on the international stage and strive together for the well-being of both our peoples. In closing, I wish Deputy Prime Minister Dladla and our distinguished guests a pleasant and successful visit. Deputy Prime Minister Dladla then delivered remarks, first greeting President Lai on behalf of the King, the Queen Mother, and the people of Eswatini, and extending gratitude for the warm reception afforded to her and her delegation, which underscores the strong bonds of friendship between our two nations. The deputy prime minister stated that, in reflecting on the fruits of our partnership, the evidence of Taiwan’s commitment to Eswatini is all around us. The strategic oil reserve project launching in April, she indicated, will redefine Eswatini’s energy security, and the Central Bank complex and electrification project stand as monuments of Taiwan’s vision for Eswatini’s progress and indicate that our partnerships are very strong. Deputy Prime Minister Dladla pointed out that education is the foundation of any nation’s progress, and that Taiwan’s contribution to Eswatini’s education sector cannot be overstated. Through Ministry of Foreign Affairs scholarship programs, she said, Eswatini has sent numerous students to Taiwan, where they’ve received world-class education in various disciplines, including engineering, business, and medicine. In turn, she said, these graduates are now contributing to the development of Eswatini. The deputy prime minister stated that Taiwan has also strengthened Eswatini’s industrial and technological sectors, with collaborations and partnerships that create new opportunities for employment and innovation, and that Taiwan’s technical and medical assistance has strengthened Eswatini’s healthcare systems and uplifted the expertise of its professionals. Deputy Prime Minister Dladla also congratulated President Lai once again on his presidency, which she stated will lead Taiwan to new heights, adding that His Majesty coming to Taiwan personally for the inauguration was a resounding declaration of Eswatini’s enduring support for Taiwan’s sovereignty, stability, and rightful place on the world stage. She emphasized that Eswatini stands with Taiwan always and unwaveringly. In conclusion, the deputy prime minister stated that Eswatini fully agrees with Taiwan that we must all safeguard our national sovereignty and protect the lives and property of our people. She said that our common enemy will always be poverty and natural disasters, but against all odds, we will stand united, and we shall remain united and be one. The delegation was accompanied to the Presidential Office by Eswatini Ambassador Promise Sithembiso Msibi.

    Details
    2025-02-11
    Presidential Office thanks US and Japan for joint leaders’ statement
    On February 7 (US EST), President Donald Trump of the United States and Prime Minister Ishiba Shigeru of Japan issued a joint leaders’ statement reiterating “the importance of maintaining peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait as an indispensable element of security and prosperity for the international community.” In the statement, the two leaders also “encouraged the peaceful resolution of cross-strait issues, and opposed any attempts to unilaterally change the status quo by force or coercion” and “expressed support for Taiwan’s meaningful participation in international organizations.” Presidential Office Spokesperson Karen Kuo (郭雅慧) on February 8 expressed sincere gratitude on behalf of the Presidential Office to the leaders of both countries for taking concrete action to demonstrate their firm support for peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait and for Taiwan’s international participation. Spokesperson Kuo pointed out that there is already a strong international consensus on the importance of peace and stability in the Indo-Pacific region. The spokesperson emphasized that Taiwan, as a responsible member of the international community, is capable and willing to work together with the international community and will continue strengthening its self-defense capabilities as it deepens its trilateral security partnership with the US and Japan and works alongside like-minded countries to uphold the rules-based international order. The spokesperson said that Taiwan will work toward ensuring a free and open Taiwan Strait and Indo-Pacific region, as well as global peace, stability, and prosperity, as it continues to act as a force for good in the world.

    Details
    2025-02-11
    President Lai’s response to Pope Francis’s 2025 World Day of Peace message  
    President Lai Ching-te recently sent a letter to Pope Francis of the Catholic Church in response to his message marking the 58th World Day of Peace. The following is the full text of the president’s letter to the pope: Your Holiness, In your message for the 2025 World Day of Peace entitled Forgive us our trespasses: grant us your peace, you called for a cultural change that would bring an end to the governance of interpersonal and international relations by a logic of exploitation and oppression and herald true and lasting peace. I wholeheartedly admire and identify with your point of view. Since transitioning from a medical career to politics, I have remained true to my original intentions in the sense that, while a doctor can help only one person at a time, a public servant can simultaneously assist many people in resolving the difficulties affecting their lives. In my inaugural address in May 2024, I pledged that every day of my term, I would strive to act justly, show mercy, and be humble, which accord with the teachings of the Bible. I promised to treat the Taiwanese people as family and prove myself worthy of their trust and expectations. With an unwavering heart, I have accepted the people’s trust and taken on the solemn responsibility of leading the nation forward and building a democratic, peaceful, and prosperous new Taiwan. In this new year, the changing international landscape continues to present many grave challenges to democratic nations around the world. As the Russia-Ukraine war persists, the steady convergence of authoritarian regimes, including China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran, threatens the rules-based international order and severely impacts peace and stability in the Indo-Pacific and the world at large. Your Holiness has stated that war is a defeat for everyone. I, too, firmly believe that peace is priceless and that war has no winners. A high level of consensus has formed in the international community on upholding peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait. The Taiwanese people also maintain an unyielding commitment to safeguarding a way of life that encompasses freedom, equality, democracy, and human rights. Taiwan will continue to spare no effort in preserving regional peace and stability and serving as a pilot for global peace. In your World Day of Peace message, you urged prosperous countries to assist poorer ones. This compassion is truly touching. Taiwan is proactively implementing values-based diplomacy and, under the Diplomatic Allies Prosperity Project, enhancing allies’ development through a range of initiatives. Over many years, Taiwan has accumulated abundant and unique experience of providing foreign assistance. Seeking to foster self-reliance among disadvantaged countries, we have extended genuine support to help alleviate poverty through such avenues as strengthening basic infrastructure, transferring technology, and cultivating talent. In your message, you reminded countries worldwide that assistance should not be merely an isolated act of charity and pointed to the need to devise a new global financial framework so that food crises, climate change, and other challenges could be jointly addressed. I hold this view in high regard. I therefore earnestly hope that international organizations will stop excluding Taiwan for political reasons. Taiwan is willing to shoulder its international responsibilities so that it can contribute and share its valuable experience through many global platforms.  On behalf of the government and people of the Republic of China (Taiwan), I again express our interest in collaborating with the Holy See to advance world peace through concrete action. We also aspire to demonstrate Taiwanese values and the Taiwanese spirit and work together with the Holy See to uphold the core values of justice, democracy, freedom, and peace.  Please accept, Your Holiness, the renewed assurances of my highest consideration, as well as my best wishes for your good health and the continued growth of the Catholic Church.

    Details
    2025-02-11
    President Lai meets former US Vice President Mike Pence
    On the afternoon of January 17, President Lai Ching-te met with former Vice President of the United States Mike Pence. In remarks, President Lai thanked former Vice President Pence for his contributions to the deepening of Taiwan-US relations, noting that he actively helped to strengthen Taiwan-US cooperation and facilitate the normalization of military sales to Taiwan, and did his utmost to deepen the Taiwan-US economic partnership. The president indicated that former Vice President Pence also spoke up for Taiwan on numerous occasions at international venues, backing Taiwan’s international participation. President Lai expressed hope for a stronger Taiwan-US partnership to maintain peace and stability throughout the world, and that the two sides can advance bilateral exchanges in such areas as the economy, trade, and industry. A translation of President Lai’s remarks follows: I am delighted to welcome former Vice President Pence and Mrs. Karen Pence to the Presidential Office. Former Vice President Pence is not only an outstanding political leader in the US, but also a staunch supporter of Taiwan on the international stage. On behalf of the people of Taiwan, I would like to take this opportunity to extend our deepest gratitude to former Vice President Pence for his contributions to the deepening of Taiwan-US relations. Thanks to former Vice President Pence’s strong backing, ties between Taiwan and the US rose to unprecedented heights during President Donald Trump’s first administration. Former Vice President Pence actively helped to strengthen Taiwan-US security cooperation and facilitate the normalization of military sales to Taiwan, helping Taiwan reinforce its self-defense capabilities. He also did his utmost to deepen the Taiwan-US economic partnership. Former Vice President Pence also paid close attention to the military threats and diplomatic isolation faced by Taiwan. He spoke up for Taiwan on numerous occasions at international venues, taking concrete action to back Taiwan’s international participation. We were truly grateful for this. As we speak, China’s political and military intimidation against Taiwan persist. China and other authoritarian regimes, such as Russia, North Korea, and Iran, are continuing to converge and present serious challenges to democracies around the globe. At this moment, free and democratic nations must come together to bolster cooperation. I believe that a stronger Taiwan-US partnership can be an even more powerful force in maintaining peace and stability throughout the world. Former Vice President Pence has previously supported the signing of a trade agreement between Taiwan and the US. Taiwan looks forward to continuing to work with the new US administration and Congress to advance bilateral exchanges in such areas as the economy, trade, and industry. This is the first time that former Vice President Pence and Mrs. Pence are visiting Taiwan, and their visit is significantly meaningful for Taiwan-US exchanges. On behalf of the people of Taiwan, I want to extend a warm welcome. Moving forward, I hope we will jointly realize even more fruitful achievements through Taiwan-US cooperation. Former Vice President Pence then delivered remarks, thanking President Lai for his hospitality on his and his wife’s first visit to Taiwan, saying that it is an honor to be here to reaffirm the bonds of friendship between the people of America and the people of Taiwan, which are strong and longstanding. The former vice president indicated that the American people admire the people of Taiwan and all that has been accomplished in a few short decades for Taiwan to rise to one of the world’s preeminent economic powers and free societies. He said that he is grateful for President Lai’s courageous and bold leadership of Taiwan, and grateful to be able to express the support of the overwhelming majority of the American people for this alliance. Former Vice President Pence indicated that the values shared by Taiwan and the US, including freedom, the rule of law, and respect for human rights, bind us together in a partnership that transcends geographic boundaries and cultures. He then assured President Lai that China’s increasingly aggressive posture in the Taiwan Strait and across the Indo-Pacific, for the values and interests that both sides share, is deeply concerning to the American people. Former Vice President Pence stated that America is a Pacific nation, and is committed to the status quo, adding that they recognize it is China that wants to change the status quo that America, Taiwan, and other allies in the region want to preserve, which has created an environment of extraordinary growth and prosperity. The former vice president concluded by once again thanking President Lai and his team for their gracious hospitality and conveying best wishes to him and the people of Taiwan. Former Vice President Pence then assured President Lai that just as Taiwan will never surrender its freedom, he will continue to be a voice for a strong US-Taiwan relationship in the defense and the benefit of Taiwan, the US, and the free world. Later that day, Vice President Bi-khim Hsiao hosted a banquet for former Vice President Pence and his delegation at Taipei Guest House to thank him for his longstanding friendship and staunch support for Taiwan-US ties.  

    Details
    2025-02-11
    President Lai meets delegation to 60th Inaugural Ceremonies of US president and vice president
    On the morning of January 16, President Lai Ching-te met with Taiwan’s delegation to the 60th Inaugural Ceremonies of the President and Vice President of the United States. In remarks, President Lai stated that democratic Taiwan stands united, working hard to deepen Taiwan-US ties together. He then entrusted the delegation with three missions: to convey best wishes from the people of Taiwan, convey our firm commitment to democracy, and help Taiwan-US relations reach a new milestone. A translation of President Lai’s remarks follows: The 60th Inaugural Ceremonies of the President and Vice President of the US will be held on January 20. I want to thank Speaker Han Kuo-yu (韓國瑜), president of the Legislative Yuan, for accepting my invitation to lead our nation’s representative delegation to the event. I also thank Legislative Yuan Members Ko Chih-en (柯志恩), Wang Ting-yu (王定宇), Ko Ju-chun (葛如鈞), Lee Yen-hsiu (李彥秀), Chen Kuan-ting (陳冠廷), Kuo Yu-ching (郭昱晴), and Chen Gau-tzu (陳昭姿) for joining this visit to the US to attend the inauguration of President Donald Trump and Vice President J.D. Vance. We have gathered together today despite differences in party affiliation because in democratic Taiwan, while parties may compete domestically, when it comes to engagement externally, they stand united and share responsibility, working hard to deepen Taiwan-US ties and strive for the best interests of the nation. We share the value of defending freedom and democracy, and we share the goal of advancing peace and prosperity. Today, we engage with the world together as those from the same country – the Republic of China (Taiwan). In this complex and volatile new international landscape, and as the nation faces difficulties and challenges, I want to stress that in Formosa, there is no hostility that cannot be let go, and no hardship that cannot be overcome. Unity is the most important, and I hope that Taiwan can stand united, because there is true strength in unity. Democratic Taiwan must stand united in engaging with the world and initiate exchanges with confidence. On that ground, I am entrusting this delegation with three key missions. First, convey best wishes from the people of Taiwan. Just last year, Taiwan and the US celebrated the 45th anniversary of the passage of the Taiwan Relations Act. And on May 20, the US sent a senior bipartisan delegation to congratulate me and Vice President Bi-khim Hsiao on our inauguration. As the leader of this cross-party delegation, Speaker Han must clearly convey the well-wishes of the people of Taiwan, congratulate President Trump and Vice President Vance on their inauguration, and wish success to the new administration and prosperity to the US. Second, clearly convey the firm commitment of the people of Taiwan to democracy. The theme of these inaugural ceremonies is “Our Enduring Democracy: A Constitutional Promise.” Taiwan and the US share the universal value of democracy and are staunch allies. I hope that the delegation can faithfully convey the firm commitment to democracy that the people of Taiwan have, which will not change even in the face of authoritarian threats. Taiwan is willing to stand side by side with the US and other members of the democratic community to defend the sustainable development of global democracy and prevent the expansion of authoritarianism. Third, help Taiwan-US relations reach a new milestone. In recent years, Taiwan-US relations have continued to grow, with the first agreement under the Taiwan-US Initiative on 21st Century Trade having formally taken effect last month. This morning, the House of Representatives also passed the US-Taiwan Expedited Double-Tax Relief Act. I hope that the delegation can help Taiwan-US relations reach a new milestone through these exchanges so that our relations continue to grow, our cooperation expands even more, and so that we can achieve even greater success after the new administration takes office. Four years ago, Taiwan’s representative to the US inaugural ceremonies was Vice President Hsiao, who was then our representative to the US. Everyone has a lot to learn from her. I have specially invited everyone here to converse so that you can draw from Vice President Hsiao’s experience and ensure an even smoother visit. Washington, DC was also hit by a rare blizzard recently, and the weather has been very cold, so make sure to stay warm. I am sending everyone off with hand warmers and thermoses so that you can bring some warmth from Taiwan with you on your journey. And I ask that Speaker Han exercise his wisdom to help generate some warmth between the ruling and opposition parties through cooperation, which they can then bring back to Taiwan. Let us unite to give our all for diplomacy so that we can unite to give our all for Taiwan. I wish the delegation a smooth and safe trip, and hope your missions can be carried out successfully. Speaker Han then delivered remarks, stating that it was an honor to be invited by President Lai to organize a delegation to represent our nation at the 60th Inaugural Ceremonies of the President and Vice President of the US in Washington, DC, and express the Republic of China’s sincere and cordial best wishes. The Legislative Yuan’s president has assumed this important task numerous times in the past, he said, not only to represent the government of the Republic of China, but also to take on the mission of conveying the voices of 23 million people. He went on to say that he is honored to take up the baton, lead eight legislators to the US to attend this celebration that will attract global attention, and express sincere best wishes to newly elected President Trump, Vice President Vance, and the new administration’s team. As enjoined by President Lai, he hopes the delegation’s trip will help open a new chapter in Taiwan-US exchanges. Speaker Han stated that the US is the most free and democratic country in the world. He noted that in 1776 in the US Declaration of Independence, founding father Thomas Jefferson propounded the concept of “unalienable rights,” and emphasized that the people have a right to freedom and the pursuit of happiness, democratic ideas that have long been rooted in the people’s hearts. Today, he said, democracy is also embedded in the DNA of Taiwan’s 23 million people, and this hard-won democratic achievement is a result of the concerted efforts of our pioneering predecessors, thinkers, and activists over the past 100 years. Speaker Han stated that during this visit, the Legislative Yuan delegation hopes to convey the voice of Taiwan as a democratic country. Taiwan’s security, he said, is like the four legs of a table: The first leg is defending the Republic of China, the second is defending freedom and democracy, the third is maintaining Taiwan-US relations, and the fourth is maintaining cross-strait peace. The delegation will travel to the US amidst severe cold weather to show that we value our relationship with the US, and our citizens have great hopes and expectations. Speaker Han stated that this will be a cross-party delegation of eight legislators, all of whom have a strong sense of mission. He hopes that all democratic nations will acknowledge Taiwan’s importance, and pay attention to Taiwan’s 23 million people. The delegation, he said, will do its utmost to convey the goodwill and warmth that the people of Taiwan give to each and every one of our good friends.

    Details
    2025-02-14
    President Lai holds press conference following high-level national security meeting
    On the morning of February 14, President Lai Ching-te convened the first high-level national security meeting of the year, following which he held a press conference. In remarks, President Lai announced that in this new year, the government will prioritize special budget allocations to ensure that Taiwan’s defense budget exceeds 3 percent of GDP. He stated that the government will also continue to reform national defense, reform our legal framework for national security, and advance our economic and trade strategy of being rooted in Taiwan while expanding globally. The president also proposed clear-cut national strategies for Taiwan-US relations, semiconductor industry development, and cross-strait relations. President Lai indicated that he instructed the national security and administrative teams to take swift action and deliver results, working within a stable strategic framework and according to the various policies and approaches outlined. He also instructed them to keep a close watch on changes in the international situation, seize opportunities whenever they arise, and address the concerns and hope of the citizens with concrete actions. He expressed hope that as long as citizens remain steadfast in their convictions, are willing to work hand in hand, stand firm amidst uncertainty, and look for ways to win within changing circumstances, Taiwan is certain to prevail in the test of time yet again. A translation of President Lai’s remarks follows: First, I would like to convey my condolences for the tragic incident which occurred at the Shin Kong Mitsukoshi department store in Taichung, which resulted in numerous casualties. I have instructed Premier Cho Jung-tai (卓榮泰) to lead the relevant central government agencies in assisting Taichung’s municipal government with actively resolving various issues regarding the incident. It is my hope that these issues can be resolved efficiently. Earlier today, I convened this year’s first high-level national security meeting. I will now report on the discussions from the meeting to all citizens. 2025 is a year full of challenges, but also a year full of hope. In today’s global landscape, the democratic world faces common threats posed by the convergence of authoritarian regimes, while dumping and unfair competition from China undermine the global economic order. A new United States administration was formed at the beginning of the year, adopting all-new strategies and policies to address challenges both domestic and from overseas. Every nation worldwide, including ours, is facing a new phase of changes and challenges. In face of such changes, ensuring national security, ensuring Taiwan’s indispensability in global supply chains, and ensuring that our nation continues to make progress amidst challenges are our top priorities this year. They are also why we convened a high-level national security meeting today. At the meeting, the national security team, the administrative team led by Premier Cho, and I held an in-depth discussion based on the overall state of affairs at home and abroad and the strategies the teams had prepared in response. We summed up the following points as an overall strategy for the next stage of advancing national security and development. First, for overall national security, so that we can ensure the freedom, democracy, and human rights of the Taiwanese people, as well as the progress and development of the nation as we face various threats from authoritarian regimes, Taiwan must resolutely safeguard national sovereignty, strengthen self-sufficiency in national defense, and consolidate national defense. Taiwan must enhance economic resilience, maintain economic autonomy, and stand firm with other democracies as we deepen our strategic partnerships with like-minded countries. As I have said, “As authoritarianism consolidates, democratic nations must come closer in solidarity!” And so, in this new year, we will focus on the following three priorities: First, to demonstrate our resolve for national defense, we will continue to reform national defense, implement whole-of-society defense resilience, and prioritize special budget allocations to ensure that our defense budget exceeds 3 percent of GDP. Second, to counter the threats to our national security from China’s united front tactics, attempts at infiltration, and cognitive warfare, we will continue with the reform of our legal framework for national security and expand the national security framework to boost societal resilience and foster unity within. Third, to seize opportunities in the restructuring of global supply chains and realignment of the economic order, we will continue advancing our economic and trade strategy of being rooted in Taiwan while expanding globally, strengthening protections for high-tech, and collaborating with our friends and allies to build supply chains for global democracies. Everyone shares concern regarding Taiwan-US relations, semiconductor industry development, and cross-strait relations. For these issues, I am proposing clear-cut national strategies. First, I will touch on Taiwan-US relations. Taiwan and the US have shared ideals and values, and are staunch partners within the democratic, free community. We are very grateful to President Donald Trump’s administration for their continued support for Taiwan after taking office. We are especially grateful for the US and Japan’s joint leaders’ statement reiterating “the importance of maintaining peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait as an indispensable element of security and prosperity for the international community,” as well as their high level of concern regarding China’s threat to regional security. In fact, the Democratic Progressive Party government has worked very closely with President Trump ever since his first term in office, and has remained an international partner. The procurement of numerous key advanced arms, freedom of navigation critical for security and stability in the Taiwan Strait, and many assisted breakthroughs in international diplomacy were made possible during this time. Positioned in the first island chain and on the democratic world’s frontline countering authoritarianism, Taiwan is willing and will continue to work with the US at all levels as we pursue regional stability and prosperity, helping realize our vision of a free and open Indo-Pacific. Although changes in policy may occur these next few years, the mutual trust and close cooperation between Taiwan and Washington will steadfastly endure. On that, our citizens can rest assured. In accordance with the Taiwan Relations Act and the Six Assurances, the US announced a total of 48 military sales to Taiwan over the past eight years amounting to US$26.265 billion. During President Trump’s first term, 22 sales were announced totaling US$18.763 billion. This greatly supported Taiwan’s defensive capabilities. On the foundation of our close cooperation with the past eight years’ two US administrations, Taiwan will continue to demonstrate our determination for self-defense, accelerate the bolstering of our national defense, and keep enhancing the depth and breadth of Taiwan-US security cooperation, along with all manner of institutional cooperation. In terms of bilateral economic cooperation, Taiwan has always been one of the US’s most reliable trade partners, as well as one of the most important cooperative partners of US companies in the global semiconductor industry. In the past few years, Taiwan has greatly increased both direct and indirect investment in the US. By 2024, investment surpassed US$100 billion, creating nearly 400,000 job opportunities. In 2023 and 2024, investment in the US accounted for over 40 percent of Taiwan’s overall foreign investment, far surpassing our investment in China. In fact, in 2023 and 2024, Taiwanese investment in China fell to 11 percent and 8 percent, respectively. The US is now Taiwan’s biggest investment target. Our government is now launching relevant plans in accordance with national development needs and the need to establish secure supply systems, and the Executive Yuan is taking comprehensive inventory of opportunities for Taiwan-US economic and trade cooperation. Moving forward, close bilateral cooperation will allow us to expand US investment and procurement, facilitating balanced trade. Our government will also strengthen guidance and support for Taiwanese enterprises on increasing US investment, and promote the global expansion and growth of Taiwan’s industries. We will also boost Taiwan-US cooperation in tech development and manufacturing for AI and advanced semiconductors, and work together to maintain order in the semiconductor market, shaping a new era for our strategic economic partnership. Second, the development of our semiconductor industry. I want to emphasize that Taiwan, as one of the world’s most capable semiconductor manufacturing nations, is both willing and able to address new situations. With respect to President Trump’s concerns about our semiconductor industry, the government will act prudently, strengthen communications between Taiwan and the US, and promote greater mutual understanding. We will pay attention to the challenges arising from the situation and assist businesses in navigating them. In addition, we will introduce an initiative on semiconductor supply chain partnerships for global democracies. We are willing to collaborate with the US and our other democratic partners to develop more resilient and diversified semiconductor supply chains. Leveraging our strengths in cutting-edge semiconductors, we will form a global alliance for the AI chip industry and establish democratic supply chains for industries connected to high-end chips. Through international cooperation, we will open up an entirely new era of growth in the semiconductor industry. As we face the various new policies of the Trump administration, we will continue to uphold a spirit of mutual benefit, and we will continue to communicate and negotiate closely with the US government. This will help the new administration’s team to better understand how Taiwan is an indispensable partner in the process of rebuilding American manufacturing and consolidating its leadership in high-tech, and that Taiwan-US cooperation will benefit us both. Third, cross-strait relations. Regarding the regional and cross-strait situation, Taiwan-US relations, US-China relations, and interactions among Taiwan, the US, and China are a focus of global attention. As a member of the international democratic community and a responsible member of the region, Taiwan hopes to see Taiwan-US relations continue to strengthen and, alongside US-China relations, form a virtuous cycle rather than a zero-sum game where one side’s gain is another side’s loss. In facing China, Taiwan will always be a responsible actor. We will neither yield nor provoke. We will remain resilient and composed, maintaining our consistent position on cross-strait relations: Our determination to safeguard our national sovereignty and protect our free and democratic way of life remains unchanged. Our efforts to maintain peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait, as well as our willingness to work alongside China in the pursuit of peace and mutual prosperity across the strait, remain unchanged. Our commitment to promoting healthy and orderly exchanges across the strait, choosing dialogue over confrontation, and advancing well-being for the peoples on both sides of the strait, under the principles of parity and dignity, remains unchanged. Regarding the matters I reported to the public today, I have instructed our national security and administrative teams to take swift action and deliver results, working within a stable strategic framework and according to the various policies and approaches I just outlined. I have also instructed them to keep a close watch on changes in the international situation, seize opportunities whenever they arise, and address the concerns and hope of the citizens with concrete actions. My fellow citizens, over the past several years, Taiwan has weathered a global pandemic and faced global challenges, both political and economic, arising from the US-China trade war and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Through it all, Taiwan has persevered; we have continued to develop our economy, bolster our national strength, and raise our international profile while garnering more support – all unprecedented achievements. This is all because Taiwan’s fate has never been decided by the external environment, but by the unity of the Taiwanese people and the resolve to never give up. A one-of-a-kind global situation is creating new strategic opportunities for our one-of-a-kind Taiwanese people, bringing new hope. Taiwan’s foundation is solid; its strength is great. So as long as everyone remains steadfast in their convictions, is willing to work hand in hand, stands firm amidst uncertainty, and looks for ways to win within changing circumstances, Taiwan is certain to prevail in the test of our time yet again, for I am confident that there are no difficulties that Taiwan cannot overcome. Thank you.

    MIL OSI Asia Pacific News –

    February 17, 2025
  • MIL-OSI Global: What is Navalny’s legacy for Russia?

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Ben Noble, Associate Professor of Russian Politics, UCL

    A spontaneous memorial of flowers in St Petersburg, Russia, on the day of Alexei Navalny’s death, February 16 2024. Aleksey Dushutin/Shutterstock

    This is the best day of the past five months for me … This is my home … I am not afraid of anything and I urge you not to be afraid of anything either.

    These were Alexei Navalny’s words after landing at Moscow’s Sheremetyevo Airport on January 17 2021. Russia’s leading opposition figure had spent the past months recovering in Germany from an attempt on his life by the Russian Federal Security Service (FSB). Minutes after making his comments, Navalny was detained at border control. And he would remain behind bars until his death on February 16 2024, in the remote “Polar Wolf” penal colony within the Arctic Circle.

    “Why did he return to Russia?” That’s the question I’m asked about Navalny most frequently. Wasn’t it a mistake to return to certain imprisonment, when he could have maintained his opposition to Russia’s president, Vladimir Putin, from abroad?

    But Navalny’s decision to return didn’t surprise me. I’ve researched and written about him extensively, including co-authoring Navalny: Putin’s Nemesis, Russia’s Future?, the first English-language, book-length account of his life and political activities. Defying the Kremlin by returning was a signature move, reflecting both his obstinacy and bravery. He wanted to make sure his supporters and activists in Russia did not feel abandoned, risking their lives while he lived a cushy life in exile.


    The Insights section is committed to high-quality longform journalism. Our editors work with academics from many different backgrounds who are tackling a wide range of societal and scientific challenges.


    Besides, Navalny wasn’t returning to certain imprisonment. A close ally of his, Vladimir Ashurkov, told me in May 2022 that his “incarceration in Russia was not a certainty. It was a probability, a scenario – but it wasn’t like he was walking into a certain long-term prison term.”

    Also, Navalny hadn’t chosen to leave Russia in the first place. He was unconscious when taken by plane from Omsk to Berlin for treatment following his poisoning with the nerve agent Novichok in August 2020. Navalny had been consistent in saying he was a Russian politician who needed to remain in Russia to be effective.

    In a subsequent interview, conducted in a forest on the outskirts of the German capital as he slowly recovered, Navalny said: “In people’s minds, if you leave the country, that means you’ve surrendered.”

    Video: ACF.

    Outrage, detention and death

    Two days after Navalny’s final return to Russia, the Anti-Corruption Foundation (ACF) – the organisation he established in 2011 – published its biggest ever investigation. The YouTube video exploring “Putin’s palace” on the Black Sea coast achieved an extraordinary 100 million views within ten days. By the start of February 2021, polling suggested it had been watched by more than a quarter of all adults in Russia.

    Outrage at Navalny’s detention, combined with this Putin investigation, got people on to the streets. On January 23 2021, 160,000 people turned out across Russia in events that did not have prior approval from the authorities. More than 40% of the participants said they were taking part in a protest for the first time.

    But the Russian authorities were determined to also make it their last time. Law enforcement mounted an awesome display of strength, detaining protesters and sometimes beating them. The number of participants at protests on January 31 and February 2 declined sharply as a result.

    Between Navalny’s return to Russia in January 2021 and his death in February 2024, aged 47, he faced criminal case after criminal case, adding years and years to his time in prison and increasing the severity of his detention. By the time of his death, he was in the harshest type of prison in the Russian penitentiary system – a “special regime” colony – and was frequently sent to a punishment cell.

    The obvious intent was to demoralise Navalny, his team and supporters – making an example of him to spread fear among anyone else who might consider mounting a challenge to the Kremlin. But Navalny fought back, as described in his posthumously published memoir, Patriot. He made legal challenges against his jailers. He went on hunger strike. And he formed a union for his fellow prisoners.

    He also used his court appearances to make clear his political views, including following Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, declaring: “I am against this war. I consider it immoral, fratricidal, and criminal.”

    Navalny’s final public appearance was via video link. He was in good spirits, with his trademark optimism and humour still on display. Tongue firmly in cheek, he asked the judge for financial help:

    Your Honour, I will send you my personal account number so that you can use your huge salary as a federal judge to ‘warm up’ my personal account, because I am running out of money.

    Navalny died the following day. According to the prison authorities, he collapsed after a short walk and lost consciousness. Although the Russian authorities claimed he had died of natural causes, documents published in September 2024 by The Insider – a Russia-focused, Latvia-based independent investigative website – suggest Navalny may have been poisoned.

    A mourner adds her tribute to Alexei Navalny’s grave in Moscow after his burial on March 1 2024.
    Aleksey Dushutin/Shutterstock

    Whether or not Putin directly ordered his death, Russia’s president bears responsibility – for leading a system that tried to assassinate Navalny in August 2020, and for allowing his imprisonment following Navalny’s return to Russia in conditions designed to crush him.

    Commenting in March 2024, Putin stated that, just days before Navalny’s death, he had agreed for his most vocal opponent to be included in a prisoner swap – on condition the opposition figure never returned to Russia. “But, unfortunately,” Putin added, “what happened, happened.”

    ‘No one will forget’

    Putin is afraid of Alexei, even after he killed him.

    Yulia Navalnaya, Navalny’s wife, wrote these words on January 10 2025 after reading a curious letter. His mother, Lyudmila Navalnaya, had written to Rosfinmonitoring – a Russian state body – with a request for her son’s name to be removed from their list of “extremists and terrorists” now he was no longer alive.

    The official response was straight from Kafka. Navalny’s name could not be removed as it had been added following the initiation of a criminal case against him. Even though he was dead, Rosfinmonitoring had not been informed about a termination of the case “in accordance with the procedure established by law”, so his name would have to remain.

    This appears to be yet another instance of the Russian state exercising cruelty behind the veil of bureaucratic legality – such as when the prison authorities initially refused to release Navalny’s body to his mother after his death.

    “Putin is doing this to scare you,” Yulia continued. “He wants you to be afraid to even mention Alexei, and gradually to forget his name. But no one will forget.”

    Alexei Navalny and his wife, Yulia Navalnaya, at a protest rally in Moscow, May 2012.
    Dmitry Laudin/Shutterstock

    Today, Navalny’s family and team continue his work outside of Russia – and are fighting to keep his name alive back home. But the odds are against them. Polling suggests the share of Russians who say they know nothing about Navalny or his activities roughly doubled to 30% between his return in January 2021 and his death three years later.

    Navalny fought against an autocratic system – and paid the price with his life. Given the very real fears Russians may have of voicing support for a man still labelled an extremist by the Putin regime, it’s not easy to assess what people there really think of him and his legacy. But we will also never know how popular Navalny would have been in the “normal” political system he fought for.

    What made Navalny the force he was?

    Navalny didn’t mean for the humble yellow rubber duck to become such a potent symbol of resistance.

    In March 2017, the ACF published its latest investigation into elite corruption, this time focusing on then-prime minister (and former president), Dmitry Medvedev. Navalny’s team members had become masters of producing slick videos that enabled their message to reach a broad audience. A week after posting, the film had racked up over 7 million views on YouTube – an extraordinary number at that time.

    The film included shocking details of Medvedev’s alleged avarice, including yachts and luxury properties. In the centre of a large pond in one of these properties was a duck house, footage of which was captured by the ACF using a drone.

    Video: ACF.

    Such luxuries jarred with many people’s view of Medvedev as being a bit different to Putin and his cronies. As Navalny wrote in his memoir, Medvedev had previously seemed “harmless and incongruous”. (At the time, Medvedev’s spokeswoman said it was “pointless” to comment on the ACF investigation, suggesting the report was a “propaganda attack from an opposition figure and a convict”.)

    But people were angry, and the report triggered mass street protests across Russia. They carried yellow ducks and trainers, a second unintended symbol from the film given Medvedev’s penchant for them.

    Another reason why so many people came out to protest on March 26 2017 was the organising work carried out by Navalny’s movement.

    The previous December, Navalny had announced his intention to run in the 2018 presidential election. As part of the campaign, he and his team created a network of regional headquarters to bring together supporters and train activists across Russia. Although the authorities had rejected Navalny’s efforts to register an official political party, this regional network functioned in much the same way, gathering like-minded people in support of an electoral candidate. And this infrastructure helped get people out on the streets.

    The Kremlin saw this as a clear threat. According to a December 2020 investigation by Bellingcat, CNN, Der Spiegel and The Insider, the FSB assassination squad implicated in the Novichok poisoning of Navalny had started trailing him in January 2017 – one month after he announced his run for the presidency.

    Alexei Navalny on a Moscow street after having zelyonka dye thrown in his face, April 2017.
    Evgeny Feldman via Wikimedia, CC BY-NC-SA

    At the protests against Medvedev, the authorities’ growing intolerance of Navalny was also on display – he was detained, fined and sentenced to 15 days’ imprisonment.

    The Medvedev investigation was far from the beginning of Navalny’s story as a thorn in the Kremlin’s side. But this episode brings together all of the elements that made Navalny the force he was: anti-corruption activism, protest mobilisation, attempts to run as a “normal” politician in a system rigged against him, and savvy use of social media to raise his profile in all of these domains.

    Courting controversy

    In Patriot, Navalny writes that he always “felt sure a broad coalition was needed to fight Putin”. Yet over the years, his attempts to form that coalition led to some of the most controversial points of his political career.

    In a 2007 video, Navalny referred to himself as a “certified nationalist”, advocating for the deportation of illegal immigrants, albeit without using violence and distancing himself from neo-Nazism. In the video, he says: “We have the right to be Russians in Russia, and we’ll defend that right.”

    Although alienating some, Navalny was attempting to present a more acceptable face of nationalism, and he hoped to build a bridge between nationalists and liberals in taking on the Kremlin’s burgeoning authoritarianism.

    But the prominence of nationalism in Navalny’s political identity varied markedly over time, probably reflecting his shifting estimations of which platform could attract the largest support within Russia. By the time of his thwarted run in the 2018 presidential election, nationalist talking points were all but absent from his rhetoric.

    However, some of these former comments and positions continue to influence how people view him. For example, following Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014, Navalny tried to take a pragmatic stance. While acknowledging Russia’s flouting of international law, he said that Crimea was “now part of the Russian Federation” and would “never become part of Ukraine in the foreseeable future”.

    Many Ukrainians take this as clear evidence that Navalny was a Russian imperialist. Though he later revised his position, saying Crimea should be returned to Ukraine, some saw this as too little, too late. But others were willing to look past the more controversial parts of his biography, recognising that Navalny represented the most effective domestic challenge to Putin.

    Another key attempt to build a broad political coalition was Navalny’s Smart Voting initiative. This was a tactical voting project in which Navalny’s team encouraged voters to back the individual thought best-placed to defeat the ruling United Russia candidate, regardless of the challenger’s ideological position.

    The project wasn’t met with universal approval. Some opposition figures and voters baulked at, or flatly refused to consider, the idea of voting for people whose ideological positions they found repugnant – or whom they viewed as being “fake” opposition figures, entirely in bed with the authorities. (This makes clear that Navalny was never the leader of the political opposition in Russia; he was, rather, the leading figure of a fractious constellation of individuals and groups.)

    But others relished the opportunity to make rigged elections work in their favour. And there is evidence that Smart Voting did sometimes work, including in the September 2020 regional and local elections, for which Navalny had been campaigning when he was poisoned with Novichok.

    In an astonishing moment captured on film during his recovery in Germany, Navalny speaks to an alleged member of the FSB squad sent to kill him. Pretending to be the aide to a senior FSB official, Navalny finds out that the nerve agent had been placed in his underpants.

    How do Russians feel about Navalny now?

    It’s like a member of the family has died.

    This is what one Russian friend told me after hearing of Navalny’s death a year ago. Soon afterwards, the Levada Center – an independent Russian polling organisation – conducted a nationally representative survey to gauge the public’s reaction to the news.

    The poll found that Navalny’s death was the second-most mentioned event by Russian people that month, after the capture of the Ukrainian city of Avdiivka by Russian troops. But when asked how they felt about his death, 69% of respondents said they had “no particular feelings” either way – while only 17% said they felt “sympathy” or “pity”.

    And that broadly fits with Navalny’s approval ratings in Russia. After his poisoning in 2020, 20% of Russians said they approved of his activities – but this was down to 11% by February 2024.

    Video: BBC.

    Of course, these numbers must be taken for what they are: polling in an authoritarian state regarding a figure vilified and imprisoned by the regime, during a time of war and amid draconian restrictions on free speech. To what extent the drop in support for Navalny was real, rather than reflecting the increased fear people had in voicing their approval for an anti-regime figure, is hard to say with certainty.

    When asked why they liked Navalny, 31% of those who approved of his activities said he spoke “the truth”, “honestly” or “directly”. For those who did not approve of his activities, 22% said he was “paid by the west”, “represented” the west’s interests, that he was a “foreign agent”, a “traitor” or a “puppet”.

    The Kremlin had long tried to discredit Navalny as a western-backed traitor. After Navalny’s 2020 poisoning, Putin’s spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, said that “experts from the United States’ Central Intelligence Agency are working with him”. The Russian state claimed that, rather than a patriot exposing official malfeasance with a view to strengthening his country, Navalny was a CIA stooge intent on destroying Russia.

    Peskov provided no evidence to back up this claim – and the official propaganda wasn’t believed by all. Thousands of Russians defied the authorities by coming out to pay their respects at Navalny’s funeral on March 1 2024. Many, if not all, knew this was a significant risk. Police employed video footage to track down members of the funeral crowd, including by using facial recognition technology.

    The first person to be detained was a Muscovite the police claimed they heard shouting “Glory to the heroes!” – a traditional Ukrainian response to the declaration “Glory to Ukraine!”, but this time referencing Navalny. She spent a night in a police station before being fined for “displaying a banned symbol”.

    Putin always avoided mentioning Navalny’s name in public while he was alive – instead referring to him as “this gentleman”, “the character you mentioned”, or the “Berlin patient”. (The only recorded instance of Putin using Navalny’s name in public when he was alive was in 2013.)

    However, having been re-elected president in 2024 and with Navalny dead, Putin finally broke his long-held practice, saying: “As for Navalny, yes he passed away – this is always a sad event.” It was as if the death of his nemesis diminished the potency of his name – and the challenge that Navalny had long presented to Putin.

    Nobody can become another Navalny

    Someone else will rise up and take my place. I haven’t done anything unique or difficult. Anyone could do what I’ve done.

    So wrote Navalny in the memoir published after his death. But that hasn’t happened: no Navalny 2.0 has yet emerged. And it’s no real surprise. The Kremlin has taken clear steps to ensure nobody can become another Navalny within Russia.

    In 2021, the authorities made a clear decision to destroy Navalny’s organisations within Russia, including the ACF and his regional network. Without the organisational infrastructure and legal ability to function in Russia, no figure has been able to take his place directly.

    More broadly, the fate of Navalny and his movement has had a chilling effect on the opposition landscape. So too have other steps taken by the authorities.

    Russia has become markedly more repressive since the start of its war on Ukraine. The human rights NGO First Department looked into the number of cases relating to “treason”, “espionage” and “confidential cooperation with a foreign state” since Russia introduced the current version of its criminal code in 1997. Of the more than 1,000 cases, 792 – the vast majority – were initiated following Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022.

    Russian law enforcement has also used nebulous anti-extremism and anti-terrorism legislation to crack down on dissenting voices. Three of Navalny’s lawyers were sentenced in January 2025 for participating in an “extremist organisation”, as the ACF was designated by a Moscow court in June 2021. The Russian legislature has also passed a barrage of legislation relating to so-called “foreign agents”, to tarnish the work of those the regime regards as foreign-backed “fifth columnists”.

    Mass street protests are largely a thing of the past in Russia. Restrictions were placed on public gatherings during the COVID pandemic – but these rules were applied selectively, with opposition individuals and groups being targeted. And opportunities for collective action were further reduced following the full-scale invasion of Ukraine.

    Freedom of speech has also come under assault. Article 29, point five of the Russian constitution states: “Censorship shall be prohibited.” But in September 2024, Kremlin spokesperson Peskov said: “In the state of war that we are in, restrictions are justified, and censorship is justified.”

    Legislation passed very soon after the 2022 invasion of Ukraine made it illegal to comment on the Russian military’s activities truthfully – and even to call the war a war.

    YouTube – the platform so central to Navalny’s ability to spread his message – has been targeted. Without banning it outright – perhaps afraid of the public backlash this might cause – the Russian state media regulator, Roskomnadzor, has slowed down internet traffic to the site within Russia. The result has been a move of users to other websites supporting video content, including VKontakte – a Russian social media platform.

    In short, conditions in Russia are very different now compared to when Navalny first emerged. The relative freedom of the 2000s and 2010s gave him the space to challenge the corruption and authoritarianism of an evolving system headed by Putin. But this space has shrunk over time, to the point where no room remains for a figure like him within Russia.

    In 2019, Navalny told Ivan Zhdanov, who is now director of the ACF: “We changed the regime, but not in the way we wanted.” So, did Navalny and his team push the Kremlin to become more authoritarian – making it not only intolerant of him but also any possible successor?

    There may be some truth in this. And yet, the drastic steps taken by the regime following the start of the war on Ukraine suggest there were other, even more significant factors that have laid bare the violent nature of Putin’s personal autocracy – and the president’s disdain for dissenters.

    Plenty for Russians to be angry about

    How can we win the war when dedushka [grandpa] is a moron?

    In June 2023, Evgeny Prigozhin – a long-time associate of Putin and head of the private military Wagner Group – staged an armed rebellion, marching his forces on the Russian capital. This was not a full-blown political movement against Putin. But the target of Prigozhin’s invective against Russia’s military leadership had become increasingly blurry, testing the taboo of direct criticism of the president – who is sometimes referred to, disparagingly, as “grandpa” in Russia.

    And Prigozhin paid the price. In August 2023, he was killed when the private jet he was flying in crashed after an explosion on board. Afterwards, Putin referred to Prigozhin as a “talented person” who “made serious mistakes in life”.

    In the west, opposition to the Kremlin is often associated with more liberal figures like Navalny. Yet the most consequential domestic challenge to Putin’s rule came from a very different part of the ideological spectrum – a figure in Prigozhin leading a segment of Russian society that wanted the Kremlin to prosecute its war on Ukraine even more aggressively.

    Video: BBC.

    Today, there is plenty for Russians to be angry about, and Putin knows it. He recently acknowledged an “overheating of the economy”. This has resulted in high inflation, in part due to all the resources being channelled into supporting the war effort. Such cost-of-living concerns weigh more heavily than the war on the minds of most Russians.

    A favourite talking point of the Kremlin is how Putin imposed order in Russia following the “wild 1990s” – characterised by economic turbulence and symbolised by then-president Boris Yeltsin’s public drunkenness. Many Russians attribute the stability and rise in living standards they experienced in the 2000s with Putin’s rule – and thank him for it by providing support for his continued leadership.

    The current economic problems are an acute worry for the Kremlin because they jeopardise this basic social contract struck with the Russian people. In fact, one way the Kremlin tried to discredit Navalny was by comparing him with Yeltsin, suggesting he posed the same threats as a failed reformer. In his memoir, Navalny concedes that “few things get under my skin more”.

    Although originally a fan of Yeltsin, Navalny became an ardent critic. His argument was that Yeltsin and those around him squandered the opportunity to make Russia a “normal” European country.

    Navalny also wanted Russians to feel entitled to more. Rather than be content with their relative living standards compared with the early post-Soviet period, he encouraged them to imagine the level of wealth citizens could enjoy based on Russia’s extraordinary resources – but with the rule of law, less corruption, and real democratic processes.

    ‘Think of other possible Russias’

    When looking at forms of criticism and dissent in Russia today, we need to distinguish between anti-war, anti-government, and anti-Putin activities.

    Despite the risk of harsh consequences, there are daily forms of anti-war resistance, including arson attacks on military enlistment offices. Some are orchestrated from Ukraine, with Russians blackmailed into acting. But other cases are likely to be forms of domestic resistance.

    Criticism of the government is still sometimes possible, largely because Russia has a “dual executive” system, consisting of a prime minister and presidency. This allows the much more powerful presidency to deflect blame to the government when things go wrong.

    There are nominal opposition parties in Russia – sometimes referred to as the “systemic opposition”, because they are loyal to the Kremlin and therefore tolerated by the system. Within the State Duma, these parties often criticise particular government ministries for apparent failings. But they rarely, if ever, now dare criticise Putin directly.

    Nothing anywhere close to the challenge presented by Navalny appears on the horizon in Russia – at either end of the political spectrum. But the presence of clear popular grievances, and the existence of organisations (albeit not Navalny’s) that could channel this anger should the Kremlin’s grip loosen, mean we cannot write off all opposition in Russia.

    Navalny’s wife, Yulia, has vowed to continue her husband’s work. And his team in exile maintain focus on elite corruption in Russia, now from their base in Vilnius, Lithuania. The ACF’s most recent investigation is on Igor Sechin, CEO of the oil company Rosneft.

    But some have argued this work is no longer as relevant as it was. Sam Greene, professor in Russian politics at King’s College London, captured this doubt in a recent Substack post:

    [T]here is a palpable sense that these sorts of investigations may not be relevant to as many people as they used to be, given everything that has transpired since the mid-2010s, when they were the bread and butter of the Anti-Corruption Foundation. Some … have gone as far as to suggest that they have become effectively meaningless … and thus that Team Navalny should move on.

    Navalny’s team are understandably irritated by suggestions they’re no longer as effective as they once were. But it’s important to note that this criticism has often been sharpest within Russia’s liberal opposition. The ACF has been rocked, for example, by recent accusations from Maxim Katz, one such liberal opposition figure, that the organisation helped “launder the reputations” of two former bank owners. In their response, posted on YouTube, the ACF referred to Katz’s accusations as “lies” – but this continued squabbling has left some Russians feeling “disillusioned and unrepresented”.

    So, what will Navalny’s long-term legacy be? Patriot includes a revealing section on Mikhail Gorbachev – the last leader of the Soviet Union, whom Navalny describes as “unpopular in Russia, and also in our family”. He continues:

    Usually, when you tell foreigners this, they are very surprised, because Gorbachev is thought of as the person who gave Eastern Europe back its freedom and thanks to whom Germany was reunited. Of course, that is true … but within Russia and the USSR he was not particularly liked.

    At the moment, there is a similar split in perceptions of Navalny. Internationally, he was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize, awarded the Sakharov Prize by the European Parliament, and a documentary about him won an Oscar.

    But there are also those outside of Russia who remain critical: “Navalny’s life has brought no benefit to the Ukrainian victory; instead, he has caused considerable harm,” wrote one Ukrainian academic. “He fuelled the illusion in the west that democracy in Russia is possible.”

    Trailer for the Oscar-winning documentary Navalny.

    Inside Russia, according to Levada Center polling shortly after his death, 53% of Russians thought Navalny played “no special role” in the history of the country, while 19% said he played a “rather negative” role. Revealingly, when commenting on Navalny’s death, one man in Moscow told RFE/RL’s Russian Service: “I think that everyone who is against Russia is guilty, even if they are right.”

    But, for a small minority in Russia, Navalny will go down as a messiah-like figure who miraculously cheated death in 2020, then made the ultimate sacrifice in his battle of good and evil with the Kremlin. This view may have been reinforced by Navalny’s increasing openness about his Christian faith.

    Ultimately, Navalny’s long-term status in Russia will depend on the nature of the political system after Putin has gone. Since it seems likely that authoritarianism will outlast Putin, a more favourable official story about Navalny is unlikely to emerge any time soon. However, how any post-Putin regime tries to make sense of Navalny’s legacy will tell us a lot about that regime.

    While he was alive, Navalny stood for the freer Russia in which he had emerged as a leading opposition figure – and also what he called the “Beautiful Russia of the Future”. Perhaps, after his death, his lasting legacy in Russia remains the ability for some to think – if only in private – of other possible Russias.


    For you: more from our Insights series:

    • I investigated millions of tweets from the Kremlin’s ‘troll factory’ and discovered classic propaganda techniques reimagined for the social media age

    • How the world’s first open-source digital map of mass graves could help bring justice to victims in Ukraine and other war zones

    • The Trump revolution: where it came from and where it’s going

    To hear about new Insights articles, join the hundreds of thousands of people who value The Conversation’s evidence-based news. Subscribe to our newsletter.

    Ben Noble has previously received funding from the British Academy and the Leverhulme Trust. He is an Associate Fellow of Chatham House.

    – ref. What is Navalny’s legacy for Russia? – https://theconversation.com/what-is-navalnys-legacy-for-russia-249692

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

    February 17, 2025
  • MIL-OSI Asia-Pac: London ETO greets Year of Snake in Denmark (with photos)

    Source: Hong Kong Government special administrative region

    London ETO greets Year of Snake in Denmark (with photos)
    London ETO greets Year of Snake in Denmark (with photos)
    ********************************************************

         The Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office, London (London ETO) and the Denmark-Hong Kong Trade Association co-hosted a Year of the Snake reception in Copenhagen, Denmark, on February 13 (Copenhagen time).     In his welcome speech, the Director-General of the London ETO, Mr Gilford Law, highlighted Hong Kong’s remarkable achievements in the past year in terms of business and trade development. He said, “The Fraser Institute ranked Hong Kong as the world’s freest economy among 165 economies in the Economic Freedom of the World 2024 Annual Report. Also, in the World Competitiveness Yearbook 2024 published by the International Institute for Management Development, Hong Kong’s ranking improved by two places to fifth globally.”     Mr Law stressed that with the city’s free and open investment environment, Hong Kong remains an unparalleled destination for businesses and investors. “We are pleased to have hosted a record of 9 960 non-local companies last year, representing a 10 per cent increase year-on-year. These figures demonstrate that Hong Kong’s business environment has fully regained its strong growth momentum after the COVID-19 pandemic,” he said. Looking ahead, Mr Law expressed his confidence that Hong Kong and Denmark will continue to strengthen collaboration across all fronts, from business and investment to cultural exchange, unlocking new opportunities and fostering greater success for both regions.     The reception was well attended by around 100 guests, including representatives from the diplomatic envoys, the local business, academic and cultural sectors.

     
    Ends/Saturday, February 15, 2025Issued at HKT 19:15

    NNNN

    MIL OSI Asia Pacific News –

    February 17, 2025
  • MIL-OSI New Zealand: Universities – Pacific Islands: Zone of peace or ocean of discontent? – Vic

    Source: Te Herenga Waka—Victoria University of Wellington

    A conference focused on Pacific politics is being hosted this week at Te Herenga Waka—Victoria University of Wellington. Entitled “Zone of peace or ocean of discontent?”, the event will run from 19-21 February 2025.

    The conference is taking place at a time when international geopolitical structures may be changing forever with far-reaching consequences. At the same time, there are internal political pressures in many Pacific nations.

    The conference programme centres on both geopolitical impacts on the region and on internal political issues. The event will bring together Pacific experts to discuss where the region is heading.

    The programme is available here: https://www.wgtn.ac.nz/strategic-studies/documents/PIPSA2025-Programme-10-02.pdf

    It is the first annual conference of the Pacific Islands Political Studies Association since the COVID-19 pandemic.

    MIL OSI New Zealand News –

    February 17, 2025
  • MIL-OSI USA: Senator Baldwin Calls Out Firing Essential Health Care Workers, Experts Preventing Disease Spread

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Wisconsin Tammy Baldwin

    WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senator Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) released the following statement about alarming reports that President Donald Trump and HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. are executing mass layoffs at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), including scientists, nurses, pharmacists, and experts tracking disease spread. 

    “I am all for making our government more efficient, but firing nurses and pharmacists who keep families healthy, disease experts who protect us from the next pandemic, and scientists finding cures for cancer is not what Americans signed up for. This will make Americans less healthy and safe—not more,” said Senator Baldwin. “To the public health experts, scientists, physicians, and researchers, from those early in their careers to those who have dedicated their lives to helping keep others healthy, know that I am here fighting for you and the lifesaving work you do.” 

    The layoffs include the entire first-year class of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Epidemic Intelligence Service, a 73-year-old program which specializes in training disease detectives to investigate public health threats. The layoffs also include more than 1,500 research scientists, nurses, pharmacists, ethics specialists, police officers, data scientists, budget analysts, and patient care technicians at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), including critical patient care specialists at the NIH Clinical Center. The NIH Clinical Center is the nation’s largest hospital devoted entirely to clinical research, treating about 10,000 patients with rare and severe diseases every year. Mass firings of Clinical Center staff threaten patient safety and may shut down ongoing clinical trials, cutting off access to treatments and cures for patients who have nowhere else to go.

    Secretary Kennedy has indicated he intends to make further changes that will reject science in favor of injecting politics deep into our health agencies and undermine everything from public health to biomedical research to substance use treatment policies.  The reported staffing cuts at the National Institutes of Health also come after the Trump Administration’s illegal attempt to cap indirect costs for biomedical research and an apparent pause in federal grants for researchers across the country, jeopardizing lifesaving breakthroughs.

    MIL OSI USA News –

    February 15, 2025
  • MIL-OSI USA: Improving Health Access Through the Black Church

    Source: US State of New York

    February 14, 2025

    Albany, NY

    Governor Kathy Hochul today announced increased funding for United Way of New York City to support the expansion of Choose Healthy Life, a program dedicated to increasing access to health services in underserved communities through the Black church. The expanded initiative will add 10 Choose Healthy Life–funded churches in New York State to the 20 existing churches in New York City, bringing critical health services and wellness programs to five New York cities: Albany, Buffalo, Newburgh, Rochester and Syracuse. The Governor announced that Choose Healthy Life is receiving nearly $5 million, a $1.5 million increase over the prior fiscal year to fund the expansion which affirms her commitment to improving health outcomes in Black communities. Additionally, the Governor proposes adding another $1 million in her FY26 Executive Budget, bringing the total funding amount to $5.9 million over the lifespan of the program.

    “Black churches play an indispensable role in neighborhoods across New York State: connecting people with services and resources that enrich their lives and our communities as a whole,” Governor Hochul said. “Your family is my fight — that’s why I’m committing new funding to expand Choose Healthy Life and the critical health and wellness services they provide.”

    Choose Healthy Life National Black Clergy Health Leadership Council Co-Chair Rev. Al Sharpton said, “Governor Hochul’s unwavering leadership in advancing the health and safety of New York’s most underserved neighborhoods deserves our deepest gratitude. Her partnership with Choose Healthy Life exemplifies the bold action required to save lives.”

    [embedded content]

    [embedded content]

    Governor Hochul made the announcement at Choose Healthy Life’s (CHL) Inaugural Summit which convened CHL clergy leaders, faith-based health navigators and elected officials from across New York State. The convening included the newest Upstate church pastors and navigators that are part of the expansion.

    In partnership with UWNYC, the 20 CHL churches in New York City have been highly successful in addressing persistent health disparities by serving over 100,000 individuals through the Black church. Guided by the clergy, an individual is chosen from each church community and trained to serve as a full-time health navigator. These trusted health navigators have been central to successfully serving nearly 9,000 individuals for social determinants of health needs, providing over 6,000 individuals with Blueprint for Wellness screening reports documenting their health status, and generating over 900 referrals for social support services.

    Choose Healthy Life was founded in 2021 amid the COVID pandemic and grew to fund 120 churches across 13 states. New York, with 30 churches, has more CHL churches than any other state.

    The newly participating churches in CHL’s expanded efforts include:

    • Albany: Macedonia Baptist Church, Metropolitan Baptist Church
    • Buffalo: First Shiloh Baptist Church, True Bethel Baptist Church
    • Newburgh: AME Zion of Newburgh, One Accord Christian Church
    • Syracuse: People’s AME Zion, Tucker Missionary Baptist Church
    • Rochester: New Bethel CME, Zion Hill Missionary Baptist Church

    Governor Hochul’s 2025 State of the State agenda is aimed at enhancing resources for families in New York, helping them build a strong foundation for their children. The Governor’s bold proposals and investments include:

    • putting New York on a path towards universal child care;
    • providing universal free school meals;
    • investing $110 million in child care capital funding;
    • advancing a nation-leading birth allowance — the New York State BABY Benefit;
    • expanding access to infertility treatments;
    • and distributing free diapers and other supplies to the families of nearly 100,000 babies.

    Your family is my fight — that’s why I’m committing new funding to expand Choose Healthy Life and the critical health and wellness services they provide.”

    Governor Hochul

    United Way of New York City President and CEO Grace Bonilla said, “Nearly three million people in New York City, which represent half of working-age households, do not earn enough to cover their basic needs, making access to healthcare a challenge. Choose Healthy Life is a critical program that addresses this crisis, ensuring that families, especially those historically overlooked, have access to screenings, vaccinations, and early interventions that can prevent serious health issues. We are honored that our success in New York City has yielded an additional investment by Governor Hochul, allowing us to partner with our sister United Way agencies across the state to deliver health services to New Yorkers in some of the most vulnerable cities in our state. Through these services, we are working toward lasting, systemic change to create a healthier, more equitable future for all New Yorkers.”

    Choose Healthy Life Founder and Board Chair Debra Fraser-Howze said, “This new chapter in Choose Healthy Life’s mission would not have been possible without the continued investment from Governor Hochul and the invaluable support of United Way of New York City. Choose Healthy Life is successful because of the strong collaboration that exists with clergy, government, and community leaders to carry forward our shared vision of healthier communities.”

    Choose Healthy Life Executive Director Rev. Kimberly L. Williams said, “New York has been a shining example of what can be accomplished when you provide Black churches with the resources to bring about change. Together with Governor Hochul and United Way of New York City, we’re transforming health outcomes for underserved communities across the state. By offering free health screenings, community wellness programs, access to vaccinations, and much more, Choose Healthy Life is lifting up families and empowering individuals to take charge of their own health.”

    Choose Healthy Life New York State Clergy Leader Rev. Jacques Andre DeGraff said, “The expansion of Choose Healthy Life across the state is a monumental step forward in our mission. This anointed partnership brings both the best of faith and science together ensuring that our dedicated health navigators can be effective on the front lines.”

    Embedded Flickr Album

    About United Way of New York City:

    For 87 years, United Way of New York City has been at the forefront in the fight to drive equity and ensure dignity for all New Yorkers, no matter their zip code. They unite by mobilizing the best ideas, relevant data, internal and external experts and resources. United Way of New York City maximizes impact by coordinating and aligning service providers, companies, local government and New Yorkers to help families eliminate barriers and gain the agency to improve their lives for the better. To learn more, visit unitedwaynyc.org.

    About Choose Healthy Life:

    Choose Healthy Life (CHL) is a non-profit organization dedicated to increasing access to health services through the Black church by funding, establishing and training a trusted faith-based health navigator to educate, deliver and connect the community to much-needed health services. Founded in 2021, CHL funded 120 churches across 13 states. Since then, CHL has hosted over 9,000 events, vaccinated, tested and distributed self-test kits to over 350,000 individuals, and screened over 20,000 for comprehensive health risks. Today, CHL’s health navigators are focused on addressing the underlying lack of access to health services in their respective communities, to help individuals take control of their health. For more information, visit choosehealthylife.org.

    MIL OSI USA News –

    February 15, 2025
  • MIL-OSI USA: Durbin Statement On Chicago Department of Aviation Commissioner Jamie Rhee’s Retirement

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Illinois Dick Durbin

    February 14, 2025

    CHICAGO – U.S. Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL) today released the following statement on Jamie Rhee’s retirement as Commissioner of the Chicago Department of Aviation:

    “Since Jamie Rhee first started her career with the City of Chicago in 1994 as an airport information officer, she has amassed 30 years of service to the city.  She spent the last seven years of that career as the Commissioner of the Chicago Department of Aviation, dedicated to making O’Hare and Midway the best they could be.  She saw us through the COVID-19 pandemic and major improvements at both airports, which is no easy feat.  I’m grateful to have worked with her during her tenure, and our city will continue to benefit from her efforts to position Chicago’s airports for success for decades to come.”

    -30-

    MIL OSI USA News –

    February 15, 2025
  • MIL-OSI: Fairfax India Amends Credit Agreement

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION TO U.S. NEWSWIRE SERVICES OR FOR DISSEMINATION IN THE UNITED STATES

    (Note: All dollar amounts in this news release are expressed in U.S. dollars, except as otherwise noted).

    TORONTO, Feb. 14, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Fairfax India Holdings Corporation (“Fairfax India” or the “Company”) (TSX: FIH.U) announces that, it has amended its existing credit agreement (“Credit Agreement”) with a syndicate of lenders to (i) provide for the issuance of letters of credit under its revolving credit facility (for the term of the Credit Agreement), and (ii) increase the borrowing limit of its revolving credit facility from $175.0 million to $250.0 million, which shall be reduced to $175.0 million over a period of approximately eighteen months, in accordance with the terms of the Credit Agreement. All other terms of the Credit Agreement remain unchanged. At December 31, 2024, the revolving credit facility was undrawn.

    As previously disclosed, the Company, through its wholly owned subsidiary, has entered into an agreement to acquire an additional 10% equity interest in Bangalore International Airport Limited (“BIAL”) from Siemens Project Ventures GmbH, part of Siemens Financial Services (“Siemens”) for, in aggregate, $255.0 million (the “Purchase Price”). The Purchase Price is payable in three installments, with the initial installment ($84.2 million) to be paid on the closing date of the BIAL transaction, which as previously announced, is to occur in Q1 2025. The second and third installments (collectively, the “Deferred Purchase Price”) are to be paid on August 31, 2025 (as to $94.4 million) and July 31, 2026 (as to $76.5 million), respectively. The Company’s wholly owned subsidiary is required to deliver on the closing of the BIAL transaction a letter of credit in favour of Siemens representing the Deferred Purchase Price, being, in aggregate, $170.9 million. The Siemens letter of credit expires on September 30, 2026. The amendments to the Company’s Credit Agreement are intended to facilitate the issuance of the letter of credit to Siemens on the closing of the BIAL transaction while ensuring that the Company maintains its liquidity for the period the letter of credit is outstanding.

    About Fairfax India

    Fairfax India is an investment holding company whose objective is to achieve long-term capital appreciation, while preserving capital, by investing in public and private equity securities and debt instruments in India and Indian businesses or other businesses with customers, suppliers or business primarily conducted in, or dependent on, India.

    For further information, contact:       John Varnell, Vice President, Corporate Affairs
    (416) 367-4755
         

    This press release may contain forward-looking statements within the meaning of applicable securities legislation. Forward-looking statements may relate to the company’s or an Indian Investment’s future outlook and anticipated events or results and may include statements regarding the financial position, business strategy, growth strategy, budgets, operations, financial results, taxes, dividends, plans and objectives of the company. Particularly, statements regarding future results, performance, achievements, prospects or opportunities of the company, an Indian Investment, or the Indian market are forward-looking statements. In some cases, forward-looking statements can be identified by the use of forward-looking terminology such as “plans”, “expects” or “does not expect”, “is expected”, “budget”, “scheduled”, “estimates”, “forecasts”, “intends”, “anticipates” or “does not anticipate” or “believes”, or variations of such words and phrases or state that certain actions, events or results “may”, “could”, “would”, “might”, “will” or “will be taken”, “occur” or “be achieved”. 

    Forward-looking statements are based on our opinions and estimates as of the date of this press release, and they are subject to known and unknown risks, uncertainties, assumptions and other factors that may cause the actual results, level of activity, performance or achievements to be materially different from those expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements, including but not limited to the following factors: oil price risk; geographic concentration of investments; foreign currency fluctuation; volatility of the Indian securities markets; investments may be made in foreign private businesses where information is unreliable or unavailable; valuation methodologies involve subjective judgments; financial market fluctuations; pace of completing investments; minority investments; reliance on key personnel and risks associated with the Investment Advisory Agreement; disruption of the company’s information technology systems; lawsuits; use of leverage; significant ownership by Fairfax may adversely affect the market price of the subordinate voting shares; weather risk; taxation risks; emerging markets; MLI; economic risk; trading price of subordinate voting shares relative to book value per share risk; and economic disruptions from the after-effects of the COVID-19 pandemic and the conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East. Additional risks and uncertainties are described in the company’s annual information form dated March 8, 2024 which is available on SEDAR+ at www.sedarplus.ca and on the company’s website at www.fairfaxindia.ca. These factors and assumptions are not intended to represent a complete list of the factors and assumptions that could affect the company. These factors and assumptions, however, should be considered carefully.

    Although the company has attempted to identify important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those contained in forward-looking statements, there may be other factors that cause results not to be as anticipated, estimated or intended. There can be no assurance that such statements will prove to be accurate, as actual results and future events could differ materially from those anticipated in such statements. Accordingly, readers should not place undue reliance on forward-looking statements. The company does not undertake to update any forward-looking statements contained herein, except as required by applicable securities laws.

    The MIL Network –

    February 15, 2025
  • MIL-OSI Europe: Debates – Thursday, 13 February 2025 – Strasbourg – Revised edition

    Source: European Parliament

    Verbatim report of proceedings
     491k  822k
    Thursday, 13 February 2025 – Strasbourg
    1. Opening of the sitting
      2. Proposal for a Union act
      3. EU-Mercosur Trade Agreement (debate)
      4. Threats to EU sovereignty through strategic dependencies in communication infrastructure (debate)
      5. Resumption of the sitting
      6. Voting time
        6.1. Recent dismissals and arrests of mayors in Türkiye (RC-B10-0100/2025, B10-0100/2025, B10-0103/2025, B10-0110/2025, B10-0115/2025, B10-0119/2025, B10-0121/2025, B10-0124/2025) (vote)
        6.2. Repression by the Ortega-Murillo regime in Nicaragua, targeting human rights defenders, political opponents and religious communities in particular (RC-B10-0126/2025, B10-0126/2025, B10-0128/2025, B10-0130/2025, B10-0131/2025, B10-0132/2025, B10-0134/2025, B10-0135/2025) (vote)
        6.3. Continuing detention and risk of the death penalty for individuals in Nigeria charged with blasphemy, notably the case of Yahaya Sharif-Aminu (RC-B10-0101/2025, B10-0101/2025, B10-0104/2025, B10-0111/2025, B10-0113/2025, B10-0117/2025, B10-0120/2025, B10-0122/2025, B10-0123/2025) (vote)
        6.4. Further deterioration of the political situation in Georgia (RC-B10-0106/2025, B10-0106/2025, B10-0107/2025, B10-0108/2025, B10-0112/2025, B10-0114/2025, B10-0116/2025, B10-0118/2025) (vote)
        6.5. Escalation of violence in the eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo (RC-B10-0102/2025, B10-0102/2025, B10-0105/2025, B10-0109/2025, B10-0125/2025, B10-0127/2025, B10-0129/2025, B10-0133/2025) (vote)
      7. Resumption of the sitting
      8. Approval of the minutes of the previous sitting
      9. Cross-border recognition of civil status documents of same-sex couples and their children within the territory of the EU (debate)
      10. Explanations of votes
        10.1. Further deterioration of the political situation in Georgia (RC-B10-0106/2025)
        10.2. Escalation of violence in the eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo (RC-B10-0102/2025)
      11. Approval of the minutes of the sitting and forwarding of texts adopted
      12. Dates of forthcoming sittings
      13. Closure of the sitting
      14. Adjournment of the session

       

    PRESIDENZA: ANTONELLA SBERNA
    Vicepresidente

     
    1. Opening of the sitting

       

    (La seduta è aperta alle 9:01)

     

    2. Proposal for a Union act

     

      President. – I would like to announce that, pursuant to Rule 47(2), the President has declared admissible a proposal for a Union act on the need to amend the Council Regulation on fixing the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks applicable in the Mediterranean and Black Seas for 2025, and to protect the trawling sector.

    The proposal is referred to the Committee on Fisheries (PECH) as the committee responsible, and to the Committee on Budgets, the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs and the Committee on the Environment, Climate and Food Safety for opinion.

     

    3. EU-Mercosur Trade Agreement (debate)


     

      Maroš Šefčovič, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, good morning to all honourable Members in this House. It is a pleasure to be here this morning to discuss the EU-Mercosur partnership agreement with you. As you know, this has been a busy plenary week and it has been my honour to address the House from this podium several times.

    On each occasion, it has been necessary to frame our dialogue in terms of the world that Europe finds itself in today: a world of increased global competition, a rise in unfair economic practices, and a more complex and uncertain geopolitical reality.

    In the face of this, the European Union’s network of free trade agreements – the world’s largest – is a vital asset in ensuring we can maintain our economic edge. I’ve heard the same messages from many of you, honourable Members, in a plenary debate on Tuesday, when a new trade era was discussed, as well as yesterday when we discussed the Commission work programme for this year.

    Free trade agreements open up markets around the world to our companies. They provide drivers for growth and innovation, and they are helping our industry retain and regain its competitiveness. And these agreements are mutually beneficial, with the EU being a trusted trading partner in a rules-based system. We only need to look to the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement between the EU and Canada to see the real-world benefit.

    At a time when the old-world order in global trade is being shaken up, it is more important than ever to grow this free trade agreement network. This growth can contribute to our overarching efforts to de-risk via trade diversification and ensure our long-term industrial competitiveness. The EU-Mercosur partnership agreement is a vital element of this effort and a sign of our commitment to the Latin American region.

    The conclusion of negotiations strengthens our political and economic ties, giving EU companies a first-mover advantage in a region where trade with China is dominant. For instance, China is the main exporter to and importer from Brazil. The agreement will provide additional continuity, stability and predictability in our trade relations, and it highlights that regional blocs can commit to shared values and deliver concrete results for the mutual benefits of our citizens.

    Above all, the agreement is an economic win-win for the European Union. It offers export opportunities to the fifth biggest global economic bloc outside the European Union, with 273 million potential consumers. Our exports to Mercosur already amount to EUR 84 billion, with EU investment in the region of some EUR 340 billion.

    But with this agreement, we can now strengthen this trade and investment relationship even further. For example, this agreement would help us to save, and especially for EU exporters, over EUR 4 billion in customs duties every year – EUR 4 billion a year. It would eliminate tariffs on key commodities, like, if we take as an example cars, which are currently at the level of 35 %. If I’m talking about machinery, I’m talking about 20 %. If you look at chemicals, it’s 18 %. And if you look at pharmaceuticals, it’s 14 %. So, you see that these duties are very, very high and we are going to completely eliminate them.

    Mercosur countries can become one of our best sources of critical raw materials, thereby increasing our resilience by diversifying our supply chains. And I can assure you that the deal reached in Montevideo in December is not only a good deal, but it’s also a new deal – different and better than the one agreed in 2019.

    We have secured several negotiated outcomes that respond to our sustainability concerns while preserving the EU’s sensitivities. By including the Paris Agreement on Climate Change as an essential element of the EU Mercosur Partnership agreement, this sends a strong message in support of multilateral cooperation on climate change and this allows for partial or total suspension if a party leaves the Paris Agreement or if it undermines it from within.

    The agreement also contains legally binding commitments to take measures to halt deforestation as of 2030. Importantly, the agreement provides a critical platform of cooperation with Mercosur countries on our common sustainability ambitions, with strong commitments on labour and the environment.

    In addition, we have reached a balanced outcome on agrifood trade, considerably improving market access for many EU agrifood products, while striking a cautious balance in sectors where our interests are more sensitive and negotiated clear and well-calibrated tariff quotas amounting to a very small percentage of EU consumption, for example, not more than 1.5 % of beef, as well as a gradual implementation to market opening over several years.

    The Commission will monitor market developments closely after the agreement is implemented, particularly with regard to the agricultural sector, to ensure that the partnership with Mercosur does not negatively affect the competitiveness of the European farmers. In case of an imbalance, we will impose safeguards to protect our sensitive sectors and to ensure that agricultural producers are fully protected. President von der Leyen has announced that at least EUR 1 billion will be available to address any unforeseen circumstances.

    As a last point on Mercosur, we know that EU consumers care about the quality and safety of their food and health and consumer protection was never and will never be up for negotiations. Already today, agricultural products imported from Mercosur countries and from any other third country, with or without trade agreements, must comply with the EU’s strict sanitary and phytosanitary standards.

    Honourable Members, I know how important openness and cooperation on trade issues is to this House. Indeed, it came up in our debate on trade and preparedness on Tuesday to which I was referring earlier on. So, I want to underline that I have already engaged on Mercosur with the INTA Committee and with the AGRI Committee, together with Commissioner Hansen, responsible for agriculture, as well as with different working groups. And I see this as an ongoing dialogue, and I want to assure you that we will continue to listen to your concerns and provide you with factual answers and ensure your views are taken into account moving forward.

    So, I will stop here, Madam President, and I look forward to our exchanges and the debate.

     
       

       

    VORSITZ: KATARINA BARLEY
    Vizepräsidentin

     
       

     

      Jörgen Warborn, on behalf of the PPE Group. – Madam President, Commissioner, I would like to use the beginning of my speech to paint a picture of the EU reality on the global stage. Because five years ago, the UK left the European Union. A month later – COVID‑19 – the pandemic broke out in Europe. And three years ago, Russia launched a full‑scale illegal invasion of Ukraine. And at the same time, European energy prices reached record levels, and this also, of course, created inflation for European citizens. A month ago, Trump was inaugurated in the US administration. All this at the same time when China is systematically disregarding the multilateral trade order, and the BRICs is growing.

    Never before has the EU and its citizens and businesses been faced with so much uncertainty and unpredictability as now, most evidently seen last Monday, when Trump increased the tariffs on steel and aluminium to 25 %. I have stood at this podium more times than I can remember to talk about the importance of the Mercosur deal. If there would ever be a moment to conclude the deal that would create the biggest free trade zone in the world, it would be now.

    We need it now because it will provide opportunities for businesses and citizens. It will enhance our energy security. It will create a channel of diplomatic and economic relationships with one of the biggest players in the world, and it will demonstrate that the EU is a global, relevant player that stands for an open, rules‑based geopolitical order. Let’s do it. Let’s conclude. Let’s finalise the negotiation. It is beneficial for all.

     
       

     

      Kathleen Van Brempt, on behalf of the S&D Group. – Madam President, colleagues, let me thank M Warborn for his short history lesson. Of course, we agree very much with the fact that geopolitics has changed dramatically in the last five-to-ten years and the EU-Mercosur agreement is, in that light, important.

    For the S&D, it is important also that, in the next coming months, we will fully scrutinise this deal up to the very detail. We need to make sure that this deal works not just for our economy, but for the environment and for the workers on both sides of the world. We hear the sincere concerns, Commissioner, from the unions, from the environmental NGOs and from the farmers.

    It is important, as you mentioned, that the Paris Agreement is now an essential element. But many questions, Commissioner, on deforestation, remain. And we need answers on these. Let it be clear: this Mercosur agreement cannot water down the EU Deforestation Regulation. So we need answers.

    The S&D will be a fair partner in this process, but we need answers to make sure that the impact of the agreement on climate, workers’ rights and European farmers is clear.

     
       

     

      Jean-Paul Garraud, au nom du groupe PfE. – Madame la Présidente, il est encore temps de désamorcer la bombe agricole. Il est encore temps pour la Commission de renoncer à l’accord de libre-échange entre les pays du Mercosur et l’Union européenne, contre lequel nos agriculteurs protestent depuis des mois. Mais vous ne voulez pas renoncer, Monsieur le Commissaire, je viens de vous entendre.

    Cet accord est pourtant un contresens, un archaïsme et une faute. Un contresens, puisqu’il remet en cause notre autonomie alimentaire au moment où toutes les autres puissances cherchent à la garantir face aux désordres du monde. Un archaïsme, car il contrevient à la raison écologique et multiplie les échanges avec des produits du bout du monde, produits qui, par ailleurs, ne respectent même pas les normes environnementales qui sont les nôtres. Enfin, cet accord est une faute: à travers un obscur mécanisme de règlement des différends, vous offrez à des pays tiers, à des concurrents, la possibilité de remettre en cause les décisions des États membres, donc leur souveraineté et les libres choix des peuples.

    En promettant aux agriculteurs un fonds de compensation, vous reconnaissez d’ailleurs implicitement que cet accord va provoquer des ravages au sein de nos filières agricoles. Or, nos agriculteurs ne veulent pas qu’on subventionne leur déclin ou, pire, leur disparition. Ils veulent être protégés et promus. Ils veulent vivre dignement et librement de leur travail, de cette noble mission: nourrir l’Europe.

     
       

     

      Carlo Fidanza, a nome del gruppo ECR. – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, signor Commissario, l’Unione europea ha colpevolmente lasciato il Sud America in balia della penetrazione cinese e di regimi, governi o movimenti che lo hanno spesso allontanato dall’Europa e dall’Occidente. L’accordo con il Mercosur ha quindi evidenti motivazioni geopolitiche e presenta anche altrettanto evidenti opportunità di crescita per alcuni comparti.

    Eppure, questo accordo ha generato una immediata reazione da parte degli agricoltori europei. E sapete perché? Perché nel recente passato è stata proprio l’agricoltura a pagare il prezzo più alto in molti accordi di libero scambio. Ma anche perché in questi anni le scelte ideologiche dell’Unione europea hanno colpito duramente la competitività degli agricoltori europei, con le follie green, con una burocrazia asfissiante, con una ripartizione non equilibrata della redditività lungo le filiere.

    È certamente vero che alcuni settori agroalimentari – penso a quello del vino o dei formaggi – potrebbero avere dei benefici dall’accordo. Ed è vero che il numero di denominazioni di origine formalmente protette è il più alto mai inserito in un accordo di libero scambio, sia pure con qualche evidente falla.

    Ma è altrettanto vero che la mancanza di reciprocità, la possibilità garantita ai produttori sudamericani di continuare ad utilizzare agrofarmaci da noi vietati da tempo, la mancanza di controlli affidabili in loco sugli standard sanitari e contro la contraffazione, così come nelle procedure doganali europee, in molti nostri porti europei, sulle importazioni, fanno pendere la bilancia verso una legittima e fondata preoccupazione da parte del mondo agricolo. E non basteranno a tranquillizzare i nostri produttori una clausola di salvaguardia di difficile attivazione o quel solo miliardo di euro previsto per le compensazioni, una goccia nel mare e addirittura meno di quel miliardo e ottocento milioni previsti dall’Unione europea per gli agricoltori del Mercosur.

    Oggi questo accordo si presenta ancora troppo sbilanciato e troppo penalizzante per la nostra agricoltura e noi, a queste condizioni, non possiamo sostenerlo.

     
       

     

      Svenja Hahn, im Namen der Renew-Fraktion. – Frau Präsidentin! Liebe Kollegen! Ich finde es ehrlich gesagt unverantwortlich, wie faktenbefreit und populistisch einige in diesem Parlament Ängste schüren, Ängste vor Freihandel.

    Natürlich müssen wir Sorgen wie die von unseren Landwirten ernst nehmen. Deshalb gibt es auch in sensiblen Bereichen sehr niedrige Einfuhrquoten, wie zum Beispiel bei Rindfleisch, wo es anderthalb Prozent des gesamten EU-Konsums sind. Das ist ungefähr ein 200-Gramm-Steak pro Person. Das ist keine Marktverzerrung, und sollte es doch welche geben, plant die Kommission sogar Hilfszahlungen.

    Das eigentliche Problem ist doch die EU-gemachte Bürokratie – nicht der Handel –, die die Wettbewerbsfähigkeit unserer Landwirte behindert. Protektionismus wird dieses Problem nicht lösen. Auch der Klimaschutz wird nicht geschwächt; er wird sogar gestärkt. Denn die Einhaltung des Pariser Klimaschutzabkommens ist eine essentielle Grundlage dieses Abkommens.

    Deshalb: Gucken wir doch mal auf die Zahlen! Dann sehen wir, dass alleine in der EU 800 000 Jobs am Handel mit den Mercosur-Ländern hängen. Allein aus meinem Heimatland Deutschland exportieren über 12 000 Unternehmen in den Mercosur, und 70 % davon sind kleine und mittelständische Unternehmen. Wir haben gerade gehört von Kommissar Šefčovič: Alleine die reduzierten Zölle bedeuten Einsparungen von 4 Mrd. EUR bei unseren Unternehmen. Die echten Chancen erwachsen doch erst durch diese Marktöffnung, wie zum Beispiel der Zugang zu kritischen Rohstoffen. Das hilft unserer Wirtschaft, unseren Klimazielen und vor allen Dingen reduziert es unsere Abhängigkeit von Autokratien wie China.

    Ich sage Ihnen ganz ehrlich: Ich bin nicht bereit, zuzusehen, wie die Autokraten dieser Welt Schulter an Schulter stehen – und wir in der Europäischen Union sollen nicht mal Handel mit anderen Demokratien hinbekommen? Ich bin nicht bereit, das zu akzeptieren, denn in Zeiten von drohenden Zollspiralen und Handelskriegen brauchen wir mehr Handel mit mehr Partnern, allen voran den Handel mit Mercosur. Wir brauchen keine Deglobalisierungs- und Degrowth-Fantasien. Wir brauchen das Mercosur-Abkommen für unsere Arbeitsplätze in der Europäischen Union, für Wirtschaftswachstum und vor allen Dingen auch für internationale Zusammenarbeit.

     
       

     

      Saskia Bricmont, au nom du groupe Verts/ALE. – Madame la Présidente, quand, en Europe comme dans les pays du Mercosur, les agriculteurs, le monde associatif, les associations de protection des consommateurs, les syndicats, les académiques, les citoyens s’opposent au traité commercial entre l’Union européenne et le Mercosur, ce sont des millions de personnes qui dénoncent ces impacts économiques, sociaux, environnementaux, climatiques, humains.

    C’est un accord qui date du siècle dernier, Monsieur le Commissaire, ce n’est pas un new deal. Ces millions de personnes pèsent peu face aux intérêts économiques de quelques industriels et des plus grosses exploitations agricoles pour – attention! – un bénéfice attendu de + 0,1 % du PIB. Peu glorieux, n’est-ce pas? Ah oui, il faut quand même aussi en déduire les millions du fonds de compensation agricole promis pour pallier les effets négatifs de cet accord sur le monde agricole, sans en régler les problèmes pour autant.

    Il faut aussi tenir compte des effets du mécanisme de rééquilibrage: rééquilibrage pour les États des pays du Mercosur qui va permettre au gouvernement, ou plutôt à l’agrobusiness, brésilien de contester nos lois si elles affectent leurs intérêts économiques et commerciaux. Exemples: mécanisme d’ajustement carbone aux frontières, lois anti-déforestation, contre le travail forcé, le devoir de vigilance de nos entreprises.

    Alors là, c’est la sidération totale, une atteinte insupportable à notre souveraineté stratégique et même à notre sécurité économique. Nous refusons de brader notre agriculture en la soumettant à une concurrence totalement déloyale. Nous refusons d’exporter nos produits chimiques et pesticides interdits en Europe, de brader davantage nos normes et de consommer des citrons verts au glyphosate, du bœuf aux hormones ou de la volaille à la grippe aviaire. D’encourager aussi la déforestation.

    Il est impossible de faire l’inventaire de tous les problèmes. Mais une chose est certaine, vous nous présentez un texte qui est pire qu’en 2019, quand le Parlement a dit qu’il lui était impossible de ratifier l’accord du Mercosur en l’état. C’est en défendant la démocratie, les valeurs, les normes sociales et environnementales qui protègent nos citoyens et assurent la prospérité de nos économies que l’Union européenne fera la différence.

    Chers amis du Mercosur, nous voulons des partenariats avec vous, mais des partenariats réellement équitables.

     
       

     

      Manon Aubry, au nom du groupe The Left. – Madame la Présidente, Monsieur le Commissaire, comment osez-vous venir défendre ici l’accord avec le Mercosur, le plus grand et le pire accord de libre-échange jamais signé par l’Union européenne? Comment osez-vous dire aux agriculteurs, qui peinent déjà à joindre les deux bouts, qu’importer des centaines de milliers de tonnes supplémentaires de bœuf, de poulet ou de fromage n’aura aucun impact sur eux? Comment osez-vous exposer délibérément la population à des OGM et des pesticides interdits en Europe? Car non, il n’y aura aucune réciprocité des normes. Comment est-il possible, à l’heure de l’urgence écologique, de soutenir un accord qui va contribuer à accélérer le réchauffement climatique et la déforestation?

    Oui, Monsieur le Commissaire, vous devriez avoir honte. Honte, parce que la réalité, c’est que personne ne veut de cet accord. Et vous vous retrouvez ici à devoir passer en force, en piétinant les règles de consultation du Parlement européen. Hier, le vote d’un de mes amendements l’a montré très clairement: les inquiétudes sur cet accord sont extrêmement vives et il n’y a pas de réelle majorité en sa faveur.

    Le dogme du libre-échange étouffe les peuples et dévaste la planète. Il est déjà en train de vaciller. La bataille n’est pas terminée. Comptez sur nous pour le faire tomber.

     
       

     

      Станислав Стоянов, от името на групата ESN. – Г-жо Председател, г-н Комисар, търговското споразумение между Европейския съюз и Меркосур предоставя възможности за европейската индустрия, както чухме и от Вас, но може да има катастрофални последици за селскостопанския сектор и европейските фермери не бива да плащат цената на това споразумение.

    Липсва прозрачност относно процеса по ратификация на споразумението, както и относно предпазните мерки, предвидени от Европейската комисия. Беше споменат фонд от един милиард евро, без да е ясно нито откъде ще дойде финансирането му, нито пък дали то би било достатъчно. Няма никаква яснота и дали този потенциален фонд ще се създаде предварително или едва при смущения на пазара. Компенсаторните мерки няма да защитят нашето земеделие. На тях често им липсват ясни дефиниции, не достигат до истински ощетените, а докато влязат в сила, щетите вече ще бъдат нанесени. Освен това доказването на, цитирам, „сериозна вреда“, нанесена на производителите поради споразумението, е сложен и бюрократичен процес. Нека не предадем европейските фермери и този път.

     
       

     

      Gabriel Mato (PPE). – Señora presidenta, el Acuerdo Unión Europea-Mercosur no es un tratado comercial más. Se trata de hablar de futuro. Nos jugamos nuestra capacidad de seguir siendo un actor relevante en el comercio global, de generar crecimiento y empleo y de abrir las puertas a un mercado de setecientos cincuenta millones de consumidores. Es indudable que tiene claros beneficios, entre otros, la eliminación de cuatro mil millones de euros en aranceles, el acceso a mercados estratégicos, la mayor presencia de nuestras industrias y pymes y la protección de más de trescientas indicaciones geográficas.

    Dicho esto, entiendo y comparto, comparto claramente, las preocupaciones del sector agrario. No podemos ignorarlas. Pero seamos claros: el problema de nuestro sector agrario no es el Mercosur, es la política agraria europea diseñada sin tener en cuenta la realidad del campo. Si nuestros productores se sienten amenazados por este Acuerdo es porque la política agraria no les ofrece las herramientas necesarias para competir y esto es lo que debe cambiar. Por eso, más que bloquear el Acuerdo, lo que debemos hacer es reformar nuestra política agraria para que no penalice a nuestros productores con normas asfixiantes, asegurar salvaguardas eficaces que protejan a los sectores vulnerables de manera rápida y efectiva y garantizar un fondo de compensación justo y ampliable que realmente funcione y que se adapte cuando sea necesario. No se trata de elegir entre comercio y agricultura, se trata de hacer las cosas bien y de analizar con datos actualizados dónde está el origen del problema y buscar soluciones al mismo.

    Negarnos a ratificar este Acuerdo no resolverá los problemas del sector agrario y mandará un mensaje de que Europa renuncia a ser líder y prefiere dejar que otros aprovechen nuestras oportunidades.

     
       

     

      Bernd Lange (S&D). – Frau Präsidentin! Herr Kommissar! Meine lieben Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Ich finde es unredlich, wenn man sich hier mit einem Zeigefinger hinstellt und sagt, am europäischen Wesen soll die Welt genesen, ohne dass man vernünftige Abkommen mit anderen Partnern auf Augenhöhe schließt. Und das machen wir genau so, dass wir die gleichen Ziele zusammen mit den Regierungen von Uruguay, Paraguay, Brasilien und Argentinien umsetzen wollen, was den Klimaschutz, was den Schutz der Artenvielfalt und was den Schutz der Arbeitnehmerrechte anbetrifft.

    Das können wir nur gemeinsam machen und nicht mit einem erhobenen Zeigefinger nur hier aus Europa. Liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen, lassen Sie uns doch nicht so defensiv sein! Natürlich, wie Lenny Kravitz sagt: It Ain’t Over ‘Til It´s Over.

    Wir haben jetzt bis nächstes Jahr Zeit, zu gucken, wie die Entwicklung weitergeht. Wie wir es gemeinsam hinkriegen können, falls es Änderungswünsche, Ergänzungswünsche gibt, das umzusetzen. Wir haben das doch in anderen Handelsabkommen auch gemacht. Wir sind die Kraft, die letztendlich dafür sorgt, dass ein Abkommen ein gutes Abkommen wird.

    Und wir brauchen stabile Abkommen in einer globalen Welt, die von Konflikten gekennzeichnet ist. Ohne stabile Bedingungen in unserer wirtschaftlichen Situation, gerade wenn 40 % unseres BIP vom internationalen Handel abhängig sind, können wir nicht weiter existieren. Wir geben unsere Wohlfahrtssituation auf. Deswegen brauchen wir stabile Verhältnisse. Wir wollen uns nicht Autokraten dieser Welt anheimgeben. Deswegen lassen Sie uns Abkommen diskutieren, gegebenenfalls verbessern, aber gestalten!

    (Der Redner ist damit einverstanden, auf mehrere Fragen nach dem Verfahren der „blauen Karte“ zu antworten.)

     
       





     

      Raffaele Stancanelli (PfE). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, signor Commissario, è economicamente comprovato come il libero mercato porti sviluppo e benessere economico ed è per questo che, in linea di principio, noi siamo favorevoli allo stesso. Tuttavia, è fondamentale che gli accordi siano proficui per entrambe le parti. Questo non è il caso per il Mercosur.

    Gli agricoltori e gli allevatori stanno disperatamente cercando di farci capire la gravità dell’impatto che questo accordo potrebbe avere per le loro attività. I nostri agricoltori si troverebbero in una posizione di svantaggio economico e non potrebbero competere con i grandi latifondisti sudamericani. A questo squilibrio si aggiunga la grande contraddizione green della Commissione: da un lato impone norme sempre più rigide ai nostri agricoltori, dall’altro permette che il nostro mercato venga invaso da prodotti esteri che non rispettano gli stessi standard imposti in Europa, specie sotto il profilo fitosanitario e quello della sostenibilità ambientale e sociale.

    È un fatto ideologico dire che questo non è un accordo equo? No, noi pensiamo di no. Perché se è vero che gli accordi di libero scambio portano benefici, è altresì vero che il Mercosur, così come è strutturato, danneggia e svende i nostri agricoltori, produttori, allevatori e consumatori. Forse sarebbe il caso di non restare chiusi nei palazzi, ma ascoltare con umiltà chi lavora la terra e produce ricchezza.

     
       

     

      Rihards Kols (ECR). – Madam President, dear Commissioner, dear colleagues, trade agreements aren’t just about tariffs and paperwork; they create real opportunities. For our SMEs this means access to a market of 260 million consumers. So far, all EU trade agreements have delivered benefits while maintaining high standards. It’s a fact. This deal does the same: lowering tariffs, cutting red tape and ensuring fair competition.

    Yes, concerns exist. That’s why the Commission has announced a EUR 1 billion fund to support affected farmers. But if we can fund compensation, we should also fund opportunity. A one-stop EU platform should be established for Mercosur markets that will help our businesses expand without excessive costs, because access should not be a privilege but a policy priority.

    Commissioner, you must ensure a structured engagement similar to the CFSP and CSDP. We should have a CTP conference during every presidency, where civil society and national parliamentarians can engage with the European Parliament and with the Commission. This is a chance to expand, compete and lead – and we should take it.

     
       

     

      Marie-Pierre Vedrenne (Renew). – Madame la Présidente, Monsieur le Commissaire, voitures allemandes contre agriculture française: certains voudraient réduire l’accord de commerce entre le Mercosur et l’Union européenne à ce clivage. À mes collègues, notamment allemands, je vous le dis, je ne me ferai pas complice de cette instrumentalisation.

    C’est une hérésie, une faiblesse politique abyssale que de nourrir un protectionnisme exacerbé qui ne fait que creuser des divisions et empêche toute évolution. Ce n’est pas un combat entre États européens que nous devons amplifier, mais notre crédibilité à construire des partenariats durables et équitables avec des États tiers avec qui nous dialoguons et commerçons déjà. Ce n’est pas une opposition entre secteurs qui est en débat, mais notre engagement à transformer des chaînes de valeur pour qu’elles soient durables, résilientes et sûres.

    Alors, au-delà des postures, de nombreuses questions demeurent, dont celle-ci: avons-nous, nous Européens, la capacité de contrôler les produits qui rentrent sur notre marché, accords de commerce ou non? Alors soyons à la hauteur de tous les enjeux. Ne laissons pas la souveraineté, la durabilité, la compétitivité devenir de vagues concepts déconnectés des réalités, de la vie de nos industries, de nos agricultures, de nos concitoyens.

     
       

     

      Vicent Marzà Ibáñez (Verts/ALE). – Señora presidenta, señor comisario, no se pueden hacer trampas al solitario. No puede usted decir que es bueno para el sector agrícola europeo y, al mismo tiempo, decir que hay que aumentar las compensaciones al sector agrícola europeo. ¿En qué quedamos? Si es bueno, no se debe compensar. Si hay que aumentar las compensaciones, no puede ser bueno para el sector agrícola.

    Segunda cuestión: ustedes han conseguido en este Acuerdo con el Mercosur dos unanimidades que son absolutamente increíbles. La primera, unanimidad de todos los sectores agrícolas y sus representantes de Europa, pero también de los países del Mercosur. También han conseguido ustedes la unanimidad en contra de todos los sindicatos europeos y de los sindicatos del Mercosur.

    ¿A quién beneficia este Acuerdo con el Mercosur si tiene en contra a todos los sindicatos agrarios europeos y del Mercosur y a todos los sindicatos de trabajadores europeos y del Mercosur? ¿A quién beneficia? Clarísimamente, a los europeos y a las europeas no, porque nos hace más dependientes. ¿De quién? De las grandes multinacionales, que son a los únicos a los que va a beneficiar.

    Por eso, nosotros estamos en contra, de forma clara y contundente. Necesitamos más apuesta de verdad por los trabajadores y las trabajadoras, más inversión en Europa para hacer una Europa mucho más fuerte, más inversión en la agricultura europea y no más vulnerabilidad y dependencia de terceros y, especialmente, de las grandes multinacionales.

     
       

     

      Luke Ming Flanagan (The Left). – Madam President, in order to properly debate the impact of this proposed agreement – proposed agreement; the title doesn’t say proposed, but we haven’t agreed to it yet – the proposed agreement on beef farmers in the EU, we need to compare like with like. In other words, you cannot compare carcass waste to processed premium beef waste. But that’s what your spin doctors are doing. The reality is that this deal will guarantee that at least 9 % of high-value cuts sold in the EU will come from Mercosur: 209 000 tonnes in a market of 2.3 million.

    I hear people talk of opportunities. If you’re a suckler farmer in the west of Ireland on a 30-hectare farm, where are the opportunities? If it’s a win-win, as you say, why then the need for a compensation package?

    And if there’s money, and EUR 1 billion for a compensation package, how come there’s no money to increase the farmers’ money that they get from the CAP, from what it was in 1991? Farmers in Ireland are facing a 60 % cut in CAP payments since that year.

    You’re talking about a EUR 1 billion compensation package for something that’s a win-win deal. There is no win-win – no win-win in science. You cannot destroy or create energy. It’s rubbish.

     
       

     

      Arno Bausemer (ESN). – Frau Präsidentin! Meine sehr verehrten Damen und Herren! Sehr geehrter Herr Kommissar! Es ist ein großer Fehler, gegen die Bürger Europas Politik zu machen. Es ist ein noch größerer Fehler, Politik gegen diejenigen zu machen, die diese Bürger Europas ernähren, nämlich unsere Landwirte.

    Die hohe Qualität der Produkte, die unsere Landwirte produzieren, ist weltweit einmalig. Wenn man sich anschaut oder anhört, was hier teilweise gesagt wird, dann ist es eben falsch. Es ist kein Wettbewerb, wenn man andere Standards – viel niedrigere Standards, etwa in den Mercosur-Staaten – mit den Standards vergleicht, die wir hier in Sachen Qualität haben. Nun habe ich mich natürlich mit dem Thema beschäftigt. Ich selbst bin kleiner Landwirt im Nebenerwerb und war auch bei den Landwirten bei den Protesten im Oktober in Brüssel; im Dezember auch hier in Straßburg. Wo waren Sie? Wo war die Kommission?

    Sie schicken Polizisten heraus, weil Sie Angst vor den Landwirten haben. Sie sprechen nicht mit den Landwirten. Mein Kollege von der ESN hat gerade den deutschen Bauernpräsidenten zitiert, der ganz klar gesagt hat: Dieser Weg ist falsch! Wir können mit diesen Produkten nicht konkurrieren, weil sie eben viel schlechter sind und weil sie unseren Markt mit geringer Qualität schwemmen. Das ist der Holzweg.

    Meine sehr verehrten Damen und Herren, es ist unsere Aufgabe, dafür Sorge zu tragen, dass die Landwirte ihre hohe Qualität auch in ihren Produkten an den Markt bringen. Nun gibt es Vertreter in diesem Hause – ich denke da besonders an die Grüne Partei –, die der Meinung sind, man könnte die Versorgung mit hochwertigen Proteinen, Vitaminen, Zink, Eisen damit herstellen, dass man den Bürgern getrocknete gelbe Mehlwürmer vorsetzt und nicht hochwertiges Fleisch. Das ist der Fehler. Ich rufe gerade die Kollegen – sind ja auch welche da – von der Europäischen Volkspartei dazu auf: Lassen Sie die Grünen bitte links liegen, im wahrsten Sinne des Wortes. Lassen Sie diese Politik auf den Scheiterhaufen der Geschichte verschwinden. Machen Sie Politik für die Bürger Europas!

    Ich sage Ihnen noch eines zum Abschluss: Die AfD in Deutschland als Teil einer Regierung wird dieses Mercosur-Abkommen niemals unterstützen. Wenn Sie in der Kommission auf die Idee kommen sollten, das mit irgendwelchen rechtlichen Tricksereien zu umgehen – wir stehen an der Seite der Landwirte in der ersten Reihe bei den Protesten und werden dieses Abkommen verhindern.

    (Der Redner ist damit einverstanden, auf eine Frage nach dem Verfahren der „blauen Karte“ zu antworten.)

     
       





     

      Katarína Roth Neveďalová (NI). – Vážená pani predsedajúca, ideálna dohoda neexistuje. Dohoda je kompromis a umenie možného a ja si myslím, že aj vy to tak rozprávate o farmároch. Neviem, kde ste boli, keď sme hovorili o slovenských a východoeurópskych farmároch a o zaplavení produktmi z Ukrajiny poľnohospodárskeho pôvodu. Ale myslím si, že v tomto prípade by sme mali byť pragmatickí. Farmárom pomôžeme znížením záťaže a nezmyselnej byrokracie, podporou spotreby domácich produktov a potravín, zvyšovaním platov, udržaním pracovných miest. A práve udržanie pracovných miest je podpora priemyslu a konkurencieschopnosti, ktorú ponúka práve dohoda Mercosur. A ja ju vidím ako príležitosť pre európsku ekonomiku, pretože sme orientovaní exportne. Príležitosť pre otvorenie ďalších trhov a presne, ako aj komisár Šefčovič hovoril, zníženie záťaže, čo sa týka ciel a daní alebo taríf na naše napríklad automobily, ktoré pre Slovensko sú veľmi dôležité, je určite príležitosťou a, myslím si, že pozitívom dohody Mercosur. Vyjednávalo sa to viac ako 20 rokov. Veľa sa o tom rozprávalo, snažili sa byť naozaj pragmatickí a vidieť, aká je príležitosť v tom všetkom, čo môžeme s touto dohodou dosiahnuť.

    A rada by som upozornila aj na to, čo pán komisár hovoril: my sa tu rozprávame o nejakej kvalite potravín a o tom, že nechceme dovážať a chceme naše fytosanitárne štandardy. Komisia nám jasne povedala, že naše fytosanitárne štandardy budú dodržiavané a že to súčasťou tejto dohody je. Tak tu neklamme našich voličov a občanov Európskej únie.

     
       

     

      Davor Ivo Stier (PPE). – Poštovana predsjedavajuća, kolegice i kolege, u trenutku kada se svjetska trgovina fragmentira, za Europu je strateški važno osigurati trgovinske partnere s kojima ima ugovorom uređene odnose. U takvim okolnostima sporazum s MERCOSUR dobiva novu geopolitičku težinu za naše odnose s Latinskom Amerikom. Iako nas povezuju povijest i kultura, bez ovog sporazuma Europa neće moći se nositi sa sve jačom konkurencijom globalnih igrača. Prisutnih u Latinskoj Americi. I ne samo prisutnih. Kina je već danas prvi trgovinski partner za veliki broj zemalja ove regije. Stoga nema dvojbe da je ovaj sporazum potreban, da, za europsku industriju, ali i općenito za europsku ekonomiju. No, isto tako je točno da postoji potreba za dijalogom s poljoprivrednicima. Za Hrvatsku poljoprivrednu komoru, tri su sektora osjetljiva. Govedarstvo, peradarstvo i šećerna industrija. I zato je važno komunicirati da su sporazumom dogovorene kvote za uvoz tih proizvoda od svega 1,2 % do 1,5 % ukupne potrošnje na europskom tržištu. I uz to, te male kvote uvodit će se postupno. Dakle, europsko tržište neće biti poplavljeno poljoprivrednim proizvodima iz Južne Amerike, ali, da, Komisija mora pripremiti paket kompenzacijskih mjera koji bi se mogao aktivirati u slučaju potrebe. Dakle, MERCOSUR nije prijetnja, ali jest prilika da Europa bude konkurentna na svjetskom tržištu.

     
       


     

      Valérie Deloge (PfE). – Madame la Présidente, ce traité de libre-échange entre l’Union européenne et l’Amérique du Sud est en réalité une menace pour notre agriculture, notre environnement et notre souveraineté économique. Cet accord met en concurrence directe nos agriculteurs avec des productions dont les normes environnementales et sanitaires sont bien moins strictes.

    Vous sacrifiez nos filières européennes, déjà en crise, pour vendre vos voitures allemandes. Le Mercosur favorise un modèle économique basé sur l’exportation intensive et la destruction des écosystèmes. Il affaiblit notre souveraineté en inondant nos marchés de produits à bas coûts, il détruit les filières locales et fragilise nos producteurs au profit des multinationales. L’accord avec le Mercosur n’est pas un progrès, c’est une régression économique et environnementale. Il est urgent de le refuser et de défendre une agriculture juste, durable et locale.

    Sachez qu’un agriculteur se suicide tous les deux jours en France. Je pense que, en signant cet accord, les commissaires, Mme von der Leyen et les députés qui le signeront seront le dernier clou qui fermeront leur cercueil.

    (L’oratrice refuse des questions carton bleu de Marie-Pierre Vedrenne et Manon Aubry.)

     
       

     

      Patryk Jaki (ECR). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Panie Komisarzu! Wszystko, co mówicie w sprawie umowy z Mercosurem, przypomina dokładnie sytuację z Nord Streamem. Wiele osób w tej Izbie mówiło wam, że pozbywanie się własnych strategicznych zasobów energetycznych na rzecz importu gazu z zewnątrz da krótkotrwałe zyski niewielu, a w dłuższej perspektywie skończy się tragedią.

    No i co? I dzisiaj mamy dokładnie to samo. Chcecie zniszczyć europejskie rolnictwo, żeby sprzedawać samochody, które przestały być konkurencyjne między innymi przez was, przez Zielony Ład. Problem tylko polega na tym, że rolnictwo to nie tylko żywność, miejsca pracy, ale przede wszystkim bezpieczeństwo. I przestańcie kłamać, że to nie ma żadnego wpływu na rolnictwo. Gdyby tak było, to nie przedstawialibyście żadnych pakietów rekompensacyjnych. Po co takie pakiety?

    Zakładacie, że żywność do Europy zawsze będzie można ściągnąć. Tak samo myśleliście z gazem. No i co, pytam. Chyba, że zakładacie, że Europejczycy zawsze sobie jakoś poradzą, bo dopuściliście do jedzenia robaki. Ale tak naprawdę to was trzeba wykopać, a nie rolników. Im trzeba dziękować, bo mamy najlepszą żywność na świecie, i nie pozwolimy wam tego zniszczyć.

    (Mówca zgodził się na pytanie zasygnalizowane przez podniesienie niebieskiej kartki)

     
       

     

      Jörgen Warborn (PPE), blue-card question. – You said that the agreement will destroy the farmers. That is absolutely not true. Look back and see the agreement, which was actually beneficial for the farmers, even though a lot of people said that it would destroy the farmers.

    The Commission has, on the other side, done a very good job. They have TRQs, they have safeguards, and they have a compensation package. How can you say that it will destroy farmers? We recognise that there are sensitive products, but that’s why the Commission has worked with us. This will help the farmers. It is beneficial for the wine sector, for cheese, for a lot of businesses.

     
       

     

      Patryk Jaki (ECR), odpowiedź na pytanie zadane przez podniesienie niebieskiej kartki. – Jeżeli to jest tak, jak Pan mówi, że rolnicy na tym zyskają, to pytanie jest kluczowe, to dlaczego protestują? Pan myśli, że oni są głupkami, że nie wiedzą, co robią? Pan się lepiej zna na ich działalności niż oni sami? Ja uważam wprost przeciwnie. Poza tym, uważam, jest błąd logiczny w Pana pytaniu, bo skoro Pan twierdzi, że oni na tym zyskają, to po co pakiety rekompensacyjne? No po co? To szkoda pieniędzy. Lepiej przeznaczyć je na innowacje. Więc przykro mi.

    Dokładnie to samo na tej sali słyszałem w sprawie Nord Streamu. Jeszcze raz to powtórzę – twierdziliście, że nie będzie żadnego problemu. I co? Rolnictwo to jest nasze bezpieczeństwo.

     
       


     

      Marie Toussaint (Verts/ALE), question «carton bleu». – Madame Karlsbro, merci. Vous dites que vous ne comprenez pas pourquoi certains et certaines s’opposent à l’accord avec le Mercosur que, très manifestement, vous soutenez.

    Or, signer cet accord avec le Mercosur, le mettre en œuvre, c’est dire aux agriculteurs, qui souffrent déjà, qui crèvent déjà, de la faible rémunération liée à la vente de leurs produits, que nous allons les soumettre à une concurrence plus dure encore sur les produits les plus rémunérateurs.

    Signer et ratifier cet accord avec le Mercosur, c’est dire aux parents qui voient déjà leurs enfants souffrir, voire mourir, de cancers liés à l’exposition aux produits toxiques que nous allons continuer, voire même aggraver, cette exposition.

    Signer et ratifier l’accord du Mercosur, c’est dire aux citoyennes et aux citoyens européens que Javier Milei, la tronçonneuse à la main, qui sort de l’Organisation mondiale de la santé et terrorise ses citoyens, est un partenaire fiable pour l’Union européenne. Voilà pourquoi nous nous opposons à cet accord du Mercosur. Et je vous en prie…

    (La Présidente retire la parole à l’oratrice)

     
       



     

      Alexander Bernhuber (PPE), Frage nach dem Verfahren der „blauen Karte“. – Vielleicht möchte ich schon etwas Nachhilfe in Ackerbau und Viehzucht geben, was Landwirtschaft betrifft, weil Sie ja sagen, die Landwirtschaft profitiert. Die Landwirtschaft ist aber sehr vielseitig, und ein Bauer, der vielleicht gerade einen Stall gebaut hat, kann keinen Wein pflanzen und jetzt in Mercosur-Ländern Wein verkaufen.

    Also, man muss hier genau schauen, welche landwirtschaftlichen Sektoren durch dieses Handelsabkommen benachteiligt werden. Ich verstehe nicht, warum nicht einfach die Landwirtschaft von diesem Abkommen ausgenommen worden ist – wo man genau weiß, das ist der kritische Sektor, da gibt es die größten Bedenken.

     
       


     

      Thomas Waitz (Verts/ALE). – Madam President, Commissioner, has the Commissioner been listening to the family farmers on both sides of the Atlantic that urge us not to sign this trade agreement? Or have you been listening to the big land‑owning oligarchs that are teaming up with the agrochemical multinationals that run thousands of hectares‑big farms, spreading pesticides that are banned in Europe with aeroplanes?

    Have you been listening to the indigenous communities and Quilombo communities that came all the way to Brussels to report about their poisoned rivers, their poisoned wells, their burned‑down forests, the deforestation and the attacks on them. Have you been listening to the labour organisation that reports about child labour, about forced labour, but in very high numbers?

    Yes, we need to increase our cooperation with Mercosur. Yes, we need to increase our cooperation with democracies. But as it stands, this trade agreement, in my point of view, is not fit for purpose. We still need to work on that and need to improve it. As it stands, this trade deal is toxic for the planet and the people.

     
       


     

      Francisco José Millán Mon (PPE). – Señora presidenta, la comunidad internacional se encuentra en una situación de fragmentación, creciente polarización, abundancia de conflictos y auge del proteccionismo. En este contexto es oportuno para la Unión Europea reforzar las relaciones políticas y económicas con los países del Mercosur, con los que tantos vínculos compartimos. Son aliados naturales nuestros.

    No disponemos todavía de la versión final de la parte del diálogo político y cooperación del Acuerdo, señor comisario, pero entiendo que establece mecanismos institucionales que permitirán reforzar nuestras relaciones políticas y abordar de forma más coordinada los retos comunes y los retos globales, desde la lucha contra el narcotráfico hasta el cambio climático.

    El Acuerdo con el Mercosur nos ayudará también a contener la importante presencia de China en la región. La dimensión económica y comercial del Acuerdo ofrece muchas oportunidades para las empresas europeas. En efecto, el Acuerdo supone el fin de la tradicional política proteccionista de economías tan grandes como la de Brasil y la de Argentina y facilitará así el acceso de los productos europeos y de nuestras compañías al Mercosur.

    Necesitamos un diálogo permanente con los sectores que temen verse perjudicados, particularmente ganaderos y muchos agricultores. Hay que explicar el alcance real del Acuerdo, las cuotas, las cláusulas de salvaguarda, las posibles medidas compensatorias, y avanzar también, internamente en la Unión, en reformas que reduzcan la burocracia y simplifiquen la legislación, y facilitar así la labor y asegurar la competitividad de unos sectores víctimas estos años de una auténtica sobrerregulación.

    Espero que la Brújula para la Competitividad, señor comisario, contribuya también a ello. Queda trabajo por hacer.

    (El orador acepta responder a una pregunta formulada con arreglo al procedimiento de la «tarjeta azul»)

     
       



     

      Brando Benifei (S&D). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, l’accordo con il Mercosur è un’intesa di grande rilevanza geopolitica e potrebbe ridefinire gli equilibri globali. Per l’Unione europea rappresenta un’opportunità strategica per rafforzare la propria presenza in America latina e contrastare l’influenza di altre superpotenze.

    Tuttavia, per decidere se possiamo votarlo, è essenziale valutarne l’impatto su lavoratori, imprese, agricoltura e ambiente, assicurando che siano rispettate regole chiare e condivise. L’inserimento dell’accordo di Parigi e del capitolo su commercio e sviluppo sostenibile sono passi positivi, ma permangono nodi irrisolti che vanno approfonditi: il meccanismo di riequilibrio, la risoluzione delle controversie, l’efficacia delle misure contro la deforestazione, ma anche la necessità di rafforzare il sistema doganale per garantire la sicurezza del mercato interno e dei consumatori.

    Come Socialisti e Democratici abbiamo avviato un dialogo con la Commissione, le parti sociali e le ONG per valutare ogni aspetto dell’accordo. Mi rivolgo in particolare alla Commissione: abbiamo un anno per dare risposte, come istituzioni, alle questioni sollevate dagli europei, per agire sulle criticità in modo convincente, con provvedimenti e azioni e poter quindi convincere anche questo Parlamento della bontà dell’accordo. Dobbiamo lavorare insieme e poi potremo decidere cosa fare.

     
       

     

      Tiago Moreira de Sá (PfE). – Senhora Presidente, Senhor Comissário, apoiamos firmemente o comércio livre, reconhecendo os seus benefícios para o crescimento económico e a prosperidade das nações. Conhecemos bem a história dos anos 20 e 30 do século passado e não queremos repeti‑la. Acreditamos também que o Acordo da União Europeia‑Mercosul tem vantagens geopolíticas, como a contenção da influência crescente da China na América do Sul e o fortalecimento do eixo Atlântico da Europa. Mas, como sempre, definiremos as nossas posições em função dos nossos interesses nacionais, especialmente os dos nossos agricultores, pescadores, industriais e pequenos e médios comerciantes, que constituem a espinha dorsal da nossa economia. Estamos em contacto constante com os empresários e trabalhadores dos setores abrangidos pelo Acordo, pois ninguém conhece melhor a realidade do que eles. As suas preocupações são legítimas, especialmente face à concorrência de produtos de países terceiros que não cumprem os mesmos padrões de qualidade e segurança que exigimos aos nossos produtores. Temos a obrigação de garantir uma concorrência leal e justa, e de assegurar que os nossos setores produtivos são devidamente salvaguardados. Assim o faremos.

     
       

     

      Kris Van Dijck (ECR). – Voorzitter, commissaris, ik verwelkom het akkoord met Mercosur met open armen, want het is niet alleen het grootste handelsakkoord dat de EU ooit gesloten heeft, maar is ook belangrijk om drie redenen.

    Op een moment dat de Amerikaanse president Trump tarieven oplegt aan ons staal en ons aluminium, is het de hoogste tijd om nieuwe markten aan te boren en bovendien dat terrein niet alleen over te laten aan China. Ten tweede bevestigt het ons geloof in vrije, op regels gebaseerde handel en geeft het zuurstof aan onze bedrijven. Ten slotte biedt het akkoord wel degelijk kansen op een verbetering van de arbeidsomstandigheden en wat betreft de strijd tegen de klimaatverandering.

    Maar ik begrijp ook de bezorgdheid van onze landbouwers wanneer het gaat over mogelijke toenemende concurrentie. Voor ons is het dan ook helder dat er daarvoor afspraken moeten zijn, dat er een voortdurende monitoring moet zijn, dat de Europese veiligheids- en gezondheidsnormen ook voor hun producten van tel moeten zijn en, finaal, dat er een steunpakket kan zijn indien dat nodig is. Op die manier geloven wij in dit akkoord met Mercosur.

     
       

     

      Benoit Cassart (Renew). – Madame la Présidente, Monsieur le Commissaire, à plusieurs reprises, nous avons tiré la sonnette d’alarme sur l’impact de l’accord avec le Mercosur à propos de la déforestation, de la perte de biodiversité et du risque sanitaire. Regardons maintenant l’impact de cet accord sur notre autonomie stratégique.

    Le rapport Draghi a souligné l’efficacité de la Chine et des États-Unis par rapport à l’Europe. Pourtant, ces deux puissances ont toutes les deux décidé de protéger leurs marchés et leurs agriculteurs pour favoriser leur autonomie alimentaire. Pour rappel, la population mondiale a augmenté de 82 millions de bouches à nourrir en 2024. Être en mesure de produire son alimentation est un pilier fondamental de l’autonomie stratégique. Or, seulement 6 % des agriculteurs ont moins de 35 ans dans l’Union européenne.

    Monsieur le Commissaire, est-il vraiment raisonnable d’ouvrir les portes aux produits moins durables d’Amérique du Sud, alors que rien ne motive déjà les jeunes Européens à reprendre nos fermes?

    Cet accord n’a rien à voir avec le CETA, qui était un bon accord.

     
       



     

      Herbert Dorfmann (PPE). – Frau Präsidentin! Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Mit dem Mercosur-Abkommen plant die EU zum ersten Mal ein Handelsabkommen mit einem Partner, dessen primäres Interesse natürlich der Export von Agrargütern ist.

    Nicht, dass wir dort heute nicht einkaufen würden: Aus Brasilien kaufen wir im Jahr um 17 Mrd. EUR Lebensmittel, aus Argentinien um 5 Mrd. EUR – es sind also bereits wichtige Handelspartner. Aber, und das wurde heute auch gesagt, das Abkommen könnte natürlich einige Sektoren der Landwirtschaft treffen: Rindfleisch, Geflügelfleisch, Zucker, Bioethanol, Reis oder Zitrusfrüchte, um nur einige zu nennen.

    Natürlich gibt es auch Chancen für andere Bereiche in der Landwirtschaft, das steht außer Zweifel. Und natürlich gibt es ein geopolitisches Interesse an diesem Abkommen, das unterstütze ich ausdrücklich. Die Europäische Union verliert derzeit schnell – und in den letzten Stunden noch schneller – Partner und Freunde in der gesamten Welt, und unsere fehlende Entscheidungsfreude – und 25 Jahre Abkommen und Reden über Mercosur sind vielleicht ein Symbol dafür – zeigt, dass wir es uns nicht erlauben können, Partnern, möglichen Partnern die Tür vor der Nase zuzuschlagen.

    Aber wir brauchen eine Strategie für die Landwirtschaft, und die Strategie kann nicht nur einfach das Versprechen auf 1 Mrd. EUR sein. Wir brauchen ein Konzept, Sicherheiten für die Bäuerinnen und Bauern, Maßnahmen, um neue Märkte in der Welt zu erschließen. Und dann brauchen wir eine Finanzierung für dieses Konzept. Aber zuerst brauchen wir ein Konzept, und dann brauchen wir das notwendige Geld dazu.

    Ich bitte Sie, Herr Kommissar, sich zügig auf den Weg zu machen, um ein solches Konzept vorzulegen und die Bedenken, die es in der Landwirtschaft gibt, aus dem Weg zu räumen.

     
       

     

      Francisco Assis (S&D). – Senhora Presidente, Senhor Comissário, este acordo é bom para a União Europeia sob o ponto de vista político, sob o ponto de vista económico e sob o ponto de vista comercial. A União Europeia tem todo o interesse em reforçar as suas ligações com os países do Mercosul. Nós temos profundas afinidades históricas, culturais e políticas com essa região. Estamos a falar de um conjunto de democracias. Devemos aprofundar essas relações e nada melhor do que avançar com o tratado. Num tempo em que regressa em força o protecionismo e o mercantilismo, nós temos de manifestar sinais de abertura, um acordo de livre comércio e um acordo que visa regular de forma adequada as relações com outra região do mundo. Nós não queremos uma Europa fechada sobre si própria. Nós queremos uma Europa aberta. A Europa precisa de se relacionar com outras regiões do mundo. Precisamos de obter matérias‑primas que nós não temos no nosso continente. Precisamos de estabelecer relações comerciais que vão dinamizar as nossas economias e, por isso mesmo, é fundamental garantir finalmente a concretização deste acordo.

    Mas há uma coisa que aqui quero dizer. É legítimo, naturalmente, estar contra este acordo, mas o que eu tenho verificado, infelizmente, acho que em alguma esquerda e muita direita, é que há um verdadeiro discurso trumpista contra este acordo, porque é um discurso assente na falsificação da realidade e um discurso assente na tentativa de produzir o medo junto das populações. Façamos um debate sério, um debate na base dos factos, um debate na base daquilo que efetivamente está no acordo e não naquilo que alguns querem fazer crer que está no acordo, mas efetivamente não está lá. Este acordo é um acordo que deve, pode e deve ser discutido. Nós estamos aqui a iniciar essa discussão democrática. Somos um espaço aberto e democrático, mas temos a obrigação de o fazer com rigor.

    (O orador aceita responder a várias perguntas «cartão azul»)

     
       

     

      João Oliveira (The Left), Pergunta segundo o procedimento «cartão azul». – Senhor Deputado Francisco Assis, se este acordo é assim tão bom, porque é que a Comissão está a querer impedir os Estados‑Membros de fazerem o seu escrutínio nacional? Porque é que a Comissão está a querer dividir o acordo em dois, para impedir o escrutínio nacional pelos Estados-Membros que eventualmente possam impedir a entrada em vigor deste acordo? Não acha que isto é a confirmação dos prejuízos que podem resultar deste acordo em termos ambientais, em termos económicos, em termos sociais? As preocupações que têm sido colocadas pelos agricultores, relativamente à destruição da sua atividade económica por uma competição desleal, com produções a custos mais baixos, mas com riscos para os consumidores, são preocupações objetivas, Senhor Deputado. Não as ignore.

     
       

     

      Francisco Assis (S&D), Resposta segundo o procedimento «cartão azul». – Senhor Deputado João Oliveira, não desvalorize a importância democrática deste Parlamento Europeu. O acordo vai ser discutido e vai ser votado aqui no Parlamento Europeu; e este Parlamento é a expressão também da vontade dos vários países, dos vários povos, dos vários Estados europeus. O acordo é, do meu ponto de vista, um acordo bom, é um acordo que protege, no essencial, os interesses europeus. Haverá alguns setores que podem perder. Em todos os acordos há sempre esse risco. Então aí temos de encontrar mecanismos, cláusulas de salvaguarda, fundos de apoio e é isso que está previsto. Portanto, esse discurso, que é um discurso que visa criar medo na sociedade europeia, junto de determinados setores da sociedade europeia, é um discurso que não serve os interesses daqueles que supostamente os senhores estão a representar e a defender.

     
       


     

      Francisco Assis (S&D), Resposta segundo o procedimento «cartão azul». – Muito obrigado pela pergunta. O acordo, no essencial, como já tive oportunidade de dizer, é um acordo que garante e protege os vários setores económicos europeus. Nomeadamente no campo da agricultura, nós temos de fazer esse debate. Vamos ver quem ganha e, eventualmente, quem perde. Se houver alguns setores agrícolas europeus que venham a perder, evidentemente que nós temos, a nível europeu, de encontrar mecanismos de compensação, e é isso que temos feito ao longo dos anos. Se há um setor na União Europeia que tem beneficiado bastante dos apoios europeus é precisamente o setor da agricultura. É provavelmente o setor económico que mais tem beneficiado do apoio ao longo dos anos, ao longo das várias décadas de existência da União Europeia. Agora, o que também não é aceitável é o discurso que se faz em relação ao estado da agricultura naqueles países. Eu conheço esses países todos, visitei‑os várias vezes. Nesses países não vigora a lei da selva. São democracias, são democracias com Estados de direito e são democracias cada vez mais preocupadas em acompanhar as grandes agendas nas questões do combate às alterações climáticas, à desflorestação, etc. Também não façamos tão mau juízo dos países …

    (a Presidente retira a palavra ao orador)

     
       

     

      Mireia Borrás Pabón (PfE). – Señora presidenta, señor comisario, vamos a decirles la verdad a los europeos. Ustedes no quieren agricultura, ustedes no quieren ganadería, ustedes no quieren pesca. Por eso, primero asfixian al sector primario con su tiranía verde y ahora vienen a rematarles con este Acuerdo con el Mercosur, un pacto que inundará Europa con carne hormonada, soja transgénica y otros productos que no estarán sometidos a ninguno de los estándares sanitarios y medioambientales que exigen a nuestros productores europeos.

    ¿Y cómo compite, señor comisario, un ganadero europeo que soporta el 15 % de costes regulatorios frente a una carne hormonada de Brasil que no cumple con ninguno de estos requisitos? Pues no compite, señor comisario, se arruina, y eso es precisamente lo que ustedes quieren. España ha perdido más de 70 000 explotaciones agrarias en la última década. Europa, más de cinco millones. Veo que no les parece suficiente. ¿Y saben qué es lo más indignante? Que vengan aquí a hablarnos de sostenibilidad, mientras destruyen el medio rural de los europeos; que nos hablen de competitividad, mientras condenan a nuestro sector primario a la ruina.

    Este Acuerdo es un chollo para las grandes multinacionales y una sentencia de muerte para la producción familiar, para el medio ambiente y, sobre todo, para la seguridad alimentaria de los europeos. Mientras el Partido Popular y el Partido Socialista lo aplauden, nosotros decimos alto y claro que no vamos a ser el vertedero agrícola de sus intereses globalistas.

    (La oradora acepta responder a una pregunta formulada con arreglo al procedimiento de la «tarjeta azul»)

     
       



     

      Veronika Vrecionová (ECR). – Paní předsedající, pane komisaři, já rozumím obavám zemědělců ze snížení cel, které přinese obchodní dohoda s Mercosurem, a proto s nimi musíme intenzivně jednat a hledat pro ně přijatelná řešení.

    Jsem ale hluboce přesvědčena, že volný obchod přináší zdravou konkurenci, snižuje ceny pro spotřebitele, vede k inovacím a investicím. Evropským firmám i zemědělcům nabízí dohoda nová stabilní odbytiště, přístup ke strategickým surovinám i levnější dovoz komodit, které neumíme sami vypěstovat. Dohoda navíc obsahuje evropské standardy pro bezpečnost potravin i kontrolní mechanismy. Dohoda s Mercosurem je také šancí pro evropské firmy v době, kdy hrozí obchodní válka s USA, kdy Putin svou agresí zablokoval obchod s Ruskem a Čína je bezpečnostně problematickým partnerem. Proto má dohoda mou podporu.

     
       

     

      Barry Cowen (Renew). – Madam President, Commissioner, colleagues, we face a new global reality today, with countries retreating from trade and turning to protectionism. Amidst this shift, it’s natural for the EU to seek new trading partners. In doing so, however, we must continue to uphold our principles by ensuring a level playing field.

    As it stands, the Mercosur deal lacks key guarantees and imposes demands on Europe’s farmers not matched by Mercosur nations. On the whole, for example, Ireland’s agricultural industry has three strategic goals, all with EU competences: extending the nitrates derogation, an increased CAP budget and stopping a Mercosur deal that farmers believe threatens beef exports.

    If the Commission were to provide meaningful assurances around the Mercosur deal and firm commitments on the derogations in the next CAP, I believe farmers’ views could shift. Our country, for example, presently enjoys an EUR 800 million trade surplus with Mercosur nations.

    This deal has the potential to bring about further opportunities, but good politics is ultimately about compromise. Good politics! And the question now is whether the Commission will prove its political astuteness by strengthening the deal and providing strategic assurances on the CAP and the derogation – or not!

     
       




     

      Lídia Pereira (PPE). – Senhora Presidente, tarifas é o assunto do momento. Fiat, Volkswagen, Renault estão entre as dez marcas mais vendidas no Mercosul. Pagam taxas de 35 %, tanto quanto a nossa indústria da moda, e os nossos vinhos, mundialmente reconhecidos, 27 %. Reduzir ou eliminar tarifas não será uma boa notícia. As terras raras que estes países têm e que nós precisamos para a transição energética? Devem ter reparado que o sistema elétrico do Báltico foi integrado na rede europeia há três dias. O investimento na nossa indústria de defesa? Queremos lançar satélites de baixa órbita, queremos usar caças Eurofighter ou Super Rafale em vez dos F-35 americanos? Queremos que o sistema de defesa SAMP/T Mamba seja uma alternativa ao Patriot? Pois é, mas o Brasil processa 89 % do nióbio a nível mundial e a Argentina, 11 % do lítio. Será que podemos mesmo deitar fora um acordo com o Mercosul? Não, não podemos.

    (A oradora aceita responder a várias perguntas «cartão azul»)

     
       

     

      Isabella Tovaglieri (PfE), domanda “cartellino blu”. – Onorevole Pereira, Lei ha citato delle case automobilistiche europee che, grazie a questo trattato, potrebbero finalmente vendere le loro auto in Sudamerica. Ma a Lei sfugge che oggi, grazie alle miopi politiche europee, queste aziende non vendono più un’auto in Europa. Stellantis nel 2024 ha registrato il -36 % di vendite di auto in Europa; 300 000 auto vendute: numeri da anni ’50. E questo perché, se nel 2025 non vengono eliminate le sanzioni, queste case automobilistiche, per rispettare i target, sa che cosa stanno già facendo? Stanno diminuendo la produzione di auto tradizionali. L’alternativa è acquistare certificati verdi da case che producono auto fuori dall’Europa. Quindi forse questi dazi anziché metterli, anzi…

    (La Presidente toglie la parola all’oratrice)

     
       



     

      Lídia Pereira (PPE), Resposta segundo o procedimento «cartão azul». – Senhora Deputada, agradeço a pergunta, apesar de ter vindo mesmo à última hora. Como deve saber, ou pelo menos eu espero que saiba, porque de facto há muita desinformação que vem da sua bancada, há quotas previstas para a importação de produtos agrícolas, há mecanismos de controlo sanitário. E, contas feitas, a quantidade de carne a importar corresponde a cerca de um bife de vaca e a um peito de frango por cada europeu. Portanto, eu não estaria tão preocupada, porque já falámos e já ouvimos o Senhor Comissário relativamente às garantias e às salvaguardas que estão previstas no acordo para o setor agrícola. Temos de perceber que estamos a falar de geopolítica, e estarmos completamente cerrados nas nossas fronteiras vai ter consequências para o crescimento económico da União Europeia.

     
       



     

      Eric Sargiacomo (S&D). – Madame la Présidente, Monsieur le Commissaire, beaucoup de choses ont été dites. Je vais me concentrer sur les conditions de la réciprocité et, question centrale, d’un juste échange, tant pour un aspect de concurrence déloyale que sur le plan de la santé publique, de la sauvegarde environnementale ou encore des droits sociaux.

    En matière de sécurité sanitaire, si nous interdisons des produits sanitaires en Europe parce qu’ils sont CMR – cancérigènes, mutagènes, reprotoxiques – avérés par la science, alors il est de notre devoir de faire de cette interdiction une obligation absolue. Car la garantie de la santé est d’ordre public, ici et là-bas. Elle doit s’imposer à tout décideur, à tout traité, à tout accord. Cette exigence doit entraîner l’obligation de conformité des produits que nous importons, au-delà des contrôles douaniers aléatoires ou de limites maximales de résidus de pesticides, dont nous connaissons tous les failles.

    Ces produits doivent faire l’objet d’un véritable certificat de conformité délivré de façon indépendante, selon un cahier des charges établi par l’Union européenne. En l’absence d’une telle garantie, l’Europe engagera sa responsabilité pour mise en danger de la vie d’autrui, ici et là-bas. La confiance n’exclut pas le contrôle. Pour l’instant, les conditions de la confiance ne sont pas là, même pour un milliard hypothétique.

     
       

       

    PRESIDE: ESTEBAN GONZÁLEZ PONS
    Vicepresidente

     
       

     

      Gilles Pennelle (PfE). – Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Commissaire, je voudrais vous parler d’un éleveur de poulets breton qui s’appelle Patrick.

    Il travaille longuement toute la journée et, le soir, il consacre de nombreuses heures sur son ordinateur à gérer le tsunami de vos normes: les 160 pages de règles que l’Union européenne a imposées à la filière volaille. Il a vu ses coûts de production augmenter, ses revenus s’effondrer.

    Il apprend un jour que Pedro, éleveur de poulets brésilien, va pouvoir vendre ses poulets chez lui, à des prix bradés. Il apprend que Pedro, lui, n’a pas de normes, ne respecte pas le bien-être animal, utilise même des produits phytosanitaires pour son maïs, alors que Patrick ne le peut pas, et que Pedro utilise des antibiotiques de croissance. Il n’a pas été écouté par la Commission.

    Alors, Patrick m’a demandé de vous poser une question, Monsieur le Commissaire: «Quels intérêts servez-vous pour m’imposer une telle injustice?» Il a même ajouté: «Vous direz au commissaire européen que je ne crois plus en son Europe.»

     
       



     

      Marta Wcisło (PPE). – Panie Przewodniczący! Panie Komisarzu! Umowa handlowa między Unią Europejską a Mercosurem przygotowana w tajemnicy przed rolnikami to nie szansa – mówię to z bólem – a wyrok na europejskie rolnictwo. Mercosur to czarna gradowa chmura, która zniszczy mikro, małe rodzinne gospodarstwa rolne już dziś z trudem stawiające czoła nieuczciwemu handlowi z krajów spoza Unii Europejskiej.

    Polski rynek za poprzedniej władzy zalały już produkty rolne niskiej jakości spoza Unii, takie jak zboże techniczne. Taki mamy wschodni Mercosur, Szanowni Państwo. Dodatkowo polscy rolnicy są obłożeni najbardziej rygorystycznymi restrykcjami. Wprowadzanie zatem na nasze rynki takich produktów jak zboże, mięso, tytoń i cukier z krajów Mercosur o niskiej jakości i cenie zabije polskie i europejskie rolnictwo, zagraża bezpieczeństwu żywnościowemu i zdrowotnemu.

    Szanowni Państwo, apeluję i proszę w imieniu polskich i europejskich rolników o solidarność całej wspólnoty w ochronie rynku rolnego, zdrowia konsumentów i bezpieczeństwa żywnościowego. Mówimy stanowcze „Nie!” produktom niskiej jakości, mówimy stanowcze „Nie!” niebezpiecznej umowie …

    (Przewodniczący odebrał mówczyni głos)

     
       

     

      Javier Moreno Sánchez (S&D). – Señor presidente, señor comisario, señorías, tras la patada que ha dado Trump al tablero comercial mundial es aún más evidente que tenemos que reforzar los lazos económicos y políticos con los países del Mercosur, con los que compartimos, además, valores, principios, intereses y cultura. Son y deben seguir siendo nuestros aliados y nunca el chivo expiatorio de las contradicciones de los populistas, como fue en su día el CETA.

    Este Acuerdo ofrece inmensas oportunidades a los agricultores y responde a sus preocupaciones con largos períodos transitorios, con seguridad y con ayudas a los sectores y productos sensibles. Abre un mercado de doscientos sesenta millones de consumidores a nuestras empresas y, especialmente, a nuestras pymes. Diversifica nuestro acceso a las materias primas críticas y abre los mercados públicos a nuestras empresas. Por último, ofrece garantías medioambientales, sociales y sanitarias que ahora no existen en el comercio entre los dos bloques.

    Por todo ello, los socialistas españoles creemos que es imprescindible aprobar este Acuerdo.

     
       


     

      Oihane Agirregoitia Martínez (Renew). – Señor presidente, señor comisario, Europa lleva más de veinte años negociando este Acuerdo y eso deja en evidencia la complejidad y el esfuerzo extra que necesita en materia de transparencia y de trabajo con los sectores. Parece que vamos a tener beneficios para automoción, maquinaría, herramientas, aeronáutica, servicios avanzados a la industria, productores de vino, lácteos, quesos. Pero también tenemos a parte de una sociedad que está preocupada y a un sector primario que arrastra, además, problemas derivados de la última reforma de la PAC.

    Hablemos claro: uso de hormonas, fitosanitarios y cumplimiento del Acuerdo de París, para garantizar un mercado justo, tienen que estar encima de la mesa. Y necesitamos claridad en torno a productos protegidos, productos cuya apertura va a ser gradual en cuanto al mercado y seguimiento que se va a hacer del impacto e incumplimientos que supondrían el fin del Acuerdo, así como medidas compensatorias y salvaguardas.

    Hay que trabajar todos estos meses que tenemos por delante, con mesas mixtas de trabajo y con el sector, para que, cuando ese Acuerdo llegue a este Parlamento y toque votarlo, podamos hacerlo en consecuencia y esto no sea una guerra entre sectores, sino un espacio de oportunidades colectivas y sociales equilibradas.

     
       

     

      Juan Ignacio Zoido Álvarez (PPE). – Señor presidente, en los Estados Unidos, aranceles; en China, competencia desleal; y, en Rusia, sencillamente la guerra. Este es el balance de las relaciones comerciales a las que nos enfrentamos actualmente. Para Europa el comercio siempre ha sido una herramienta económica, pero Trump, Xi Jinping y Putin lo han convertido en un arma política y con ello están poniendo en riesgo nuestra competitividad, nuestra prosperidad e, incluso, nuestra seguridad.

    Por eso, necesitamos alternativas, necesitamos urgentemente nuevos mercados y el Mercosur supone una oportunidad para impulsar a nuestros exportadores y diversificar nuestras cadenas de suministro.

    Pero no podemos cometer los mismos errores del pasado e ignorar las necesidades de nuestros agricultores y nuestros ganaderos. Tenemos la responsabilidad de darles garantías. Por eso, me parece buena noticia que el Acuerdo cuente con salvaguardas y medidas de reciprocidad sólida para proteger nuestro sector primario. Y todavía más importante es que la Comisión apueste esta legislatura por la reducción de la burocracia verde. Comercio, sí; simplificación, también.

     
       

     

      Dario Nardella (S&D). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, signor Commissario, è indubbio che il nuovo quadro geopolitico che nasce dalle elezioni americane e l’influenza sempre crescente cinese sul Sud America impongono all’Europa un cambio di schema.

    Dobbiamo rafforzare il nostro impegno su tutti i mercati internazionali, giocare una leadership commerciale. L’Europa vive di export: il 30 % del GDP del nostro continente è legato all’esportazione, e questo vale ancor di più per un paese come l’Italia, il mio paese.

    Per questo il Mercosur, in linea di principio, è uno strumento utile, soprattutto per i settori industriali, come la chimica, le auto, le macchine. Tuttavia, Commissario, possono esserci problemi seri per l’agricoltura.

    Allora ci sono condizioni che la Commissione deve seguire. Primo: la reciprocità. Secondo: controlli con una dogana europea. Terzo: risorse per la promozione, perché non si può tagliare la PAC e poi promuovere il Mercosur. Quarto: questa compensazione di un miliardo di euro ci sarà o no? Quinto: il rispetto degli standard ambientali.

    Un accordo importante deve diventare un buon accordo.

     
       

     

      Ton Diepeveen (PfE). – Voorzitter, de overeenkomst tussen de EU en Mercosur biedt kansen, maar brengt ook vooral risico’s met zich mee. Onze boeren worden uitgeknepen en geconfronteerd met strenge regels, terwijl goedkope import uit Zuid-Amerika zonder problemen binnenkomt.

    Wat de voedselveiligheid betreft, blijkt uit het rapport van de Commissie dat Brazilië gebruik maakt van verboden groeihormonen. Toch blijft de Commissie beweren dat alles onder controle is. Dit vormt een gevaar voor de consument en is een dolksteek in de rug van onze boeren. Wat krijgen wij hiervoor terug? In Nederland een schamele 0,03 % economische groei, terwijl onze veehouders voor de bus worden gegooid.

    Als klap op de vuurpijl pompt Brussel ook 1,8 miljard EUR belastinggeld in Mercosur, waarvan een deel naar boeren in Brazilië gaat, terwijl onze eigen boeren in de kou staan. Er is geen gelijk speelveld, geen eerlijke handel, maar wel nog meer bureaucratie en import uit landen die lak hebben aan onze regels. Dit is waanzin. Schrap dit akkoord. Schroef de Green Deal terug, zodat onze boeren eindelijk uit dit moeras van klimaatwaanzin kunnen ontsnappen.

     
       

     

      Ana Vasconcelos (Renew). – Mr President, dear Commissioner, dear colleagues, let us be clear about what’s really at stake with the Mercosur agreement. It’s not just Europe’s economic future. It’s our international credibility after stalling this deal for more than 20 years. It’s about where we stand in a world where the global balance of powers is shifting and Europe is struggling to defend its interests.

    Some warn of threats to our industry and farmers. They’re missing the crucial point. Our economy doesn’t struggle because of international competition. It struggles under the weight of excessive regulatory burdens.

    This agreement cuts tariffs on key European exports while maintaining environmental standards. It gives small and medium-sized enterprises, the backbone of our economy, access to new opportunities in a market of nearly 300 million consumers. Yet some prefer to walk away because of fair competition. Here’s a real threat: not competition, but risk aversion; not trade, but excessive bureaucracy. We burden our businesses with excessive regulations, and then we wonder why we struggle globally.

    While we hesitate, China is acting fast. It has already replaced Europe as South America’s primary trading partner. The path to European competitiveness isn’t through isolation, it’s through strategic engagement.

     
       

     

      Salvatore De Meo (PPE). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, l’accordo commerciale Mercosur con i paesi dell’America latina, pur rappresentando un’opportunità strategica, perché mira a rafforzare la competitività europea, diversificando le catene di approvvigionamento e riducendo la dipendenza da altri mercati, presenta però alcuni rischi e criticità che, soprattutto per il settore agroalimentare, meritano la nostra attenzione prima di procedere alla sua definitiva approvazione.

    Le nostre aziende agricole rispettano standard elevatissimi in termini di sicurezza, qualità, sostenibilità ambientale e benessere animale, a differenza di quelle dei paesi Mercosur. A fronte di ciò, dobbiamo prevedere controlli rigorosi per assicurare reciprocità nelle importazioni, prevenire concorrenza sleale a garanzia dei nostri agricoltori e dei nostri consumatori, così come dobbiamo rafforzare gli strumenti di tutela dei prodotti europei di indicazione geografica.

    Un’Europa competitiva non si costruisce solo con l’apertura dei mercati, ma anche con la tutela delle proprie aziende e delle proprie eccellenze. Questo accordo potrà definirsi equo se saremo in grado di garantire nuove opportunità, senza però sacrificare la nostra sicurezza e la nostra identità alimentare e soprattutto il futuro delle nostre imprese.

     
       

     

      Leire Pajín (S&D). – Señor presidente, se ha dicho que el Acuerdo con el Mercosur es muy relevante en términos comerciales, pero es sobre todo muy relevante en términos geopolíticos. Llevamos meses hablando de la necesidad de una autonomía estratégica de la Unión Europea. ¿Y con quién nos vamos a aliar si no es con una región como América Latina, con la que compartimos valores, con la que hemos defendido en el ámbito multilateral el Acuerdo de París o la Agenda 2030?

    Y, por supuesto, es importante que en este debate hablemos de lo que realmente contiene este Acuerdo, porque claro que somos sensibles a los elementos ambientales. Por eso, conviene decir que este Acuerdo incluye compromisos vinculantes para la protección de los bosques y de la naturaleza, que son fundamentales.

    También somos sensibles —como no puede ser de otra manera— a los elementos sociales. Por eso, es importante dejar bien claro que este Acuerdo también recuerda de forma muy clara los derechos laborales, la igualdad de género o los derechos de los pueblos indígenas y de los pequeños productores de aquí y de allí.

    Y somos también sensibles a los sectores agrícolas —los cítricos, por ejemplo—, pero queremos decirles que este Acuerdo recoge cláusulas y tenemos herramientas como el observatorio europeo o, por supuesto, las cláusulas de salvaguardia, que vamos a utilizar para defender un buen Acuerdo para los intereses de nuestros agricultores aquí y allí.

     
       




       

    Solicitudes incidentales de uso de la palabra («catch the eye»)

     
       


     

      Vytenis Povilas Andriukaitis (S&D). – Mr President, dear Commissioner, colleagues, I heard a lot of misinformation and lies when we were speaking about sanitary and phytosanitary standards. Colleagues, European sanitary and phytosanitary standards are not negotiable!

    The EU has very stringent standards to protect human, animal and plant health, and any product sold in the EU must comply with the European Union standards. I have been Commissioner for food safety and health, I know very well that it is to remain unrelated and unaltered regardless of a trade agreement.

    EU animal, plant and health and food safety import controls are very strict, and we can control all third countries. It doesn’t matter which agreement it is.

    I welcome this Mercosur agreement because I was involved in 2019, of course Paris Agreement and trade and sustainable development inclusion is very well done, and we need to go forward and see it.

     
       


     

      Majdouline Sbai (Verts/ALE). – Madame la Présidente, chers collègues, Monsieur le Commissaire, connaissez-vous l’œstradiol 17? C’est une hormone stéroïdienne produite par les follicules ovariens et le placenta. Elle a été synthétisée pour devenir une hormone de croissance, dans l’élevage, pour faire grossir et grandir les animaux. En 2013, il a été reconnu que les résidus de cette hormone de synthèse sont retrouvés dans notre corps, dans nos eaux de surface. C’est donc pour cela que, dans sa grande sagesse, notre institution a interdit son utilisation et l’importation de la viande en contenant.

    L’œstradiol 17 favorise les cancers, en particulier le cancer du sein. C’est même la première cause de cancers chez les non-fumeuses. Le mois dernier, la Commission européenne nous a présenté un rapport indiquant que, premièrement, les pays du Mercosur utilisaient massivement l’œstradiol et, deuxièmement, les contrôles pharmacologiques y étaient défaillants.

    Alors comment, en important 90 000 tonnes de viande du Mercosur, allez-vous nous garantir notre santé? Allez-vous aussi proposer un fonds de compensation? Mes chers collègues, Monsieur le Commissaire, il n’existe pas, pour les femmes, de solution de remplacement. Il n’existe pas de solution de remplacement pour les enfants des mères endeuillées.

     
       

     

      João Oliveira (The Left). – Senhor Presidente, o acordo do Mercosul é bom e mau. É um acordo bom para as multinacionais do agronegócio, mas é um acordo mau para os pequenos e médios agricultores e para os consumidores. É um acordo bom para os grandes grupos industriais das potências da União Europeia que têm agora abertos os mercados da América Latina, mas é mau para os restantes países, que continuarão a não ter condições de desenvolver a sua produção industrial. O acordo do Mercosul é bom para os grandes grupos do setor dos serviços que têm agora aberto o mercado da contratação pública na América Latina. Mas é mau, em geral, para as micro, pequenas e médias empresas, para os pequenos e médios agricultores, para todos aqueles que, produzindo de acordo com regras e práticas tradicionais, se verão confrontados com uma concorrência desfavorável com a inundação dos mercados de produtos a mais baixo custos, porque produzidos em condições diferentes daquelas que lhes são impostas. Se este acordo é bom e mau, é óbvio que é bom para uma minoria e mau para uma imensa maioria. E é por isso que a Comissão não quer que os Estados façam o seu escrutínio nacional e está a procurar dividir o acordo em dois para impedir esse escrutínio. Essa é uma opção com a qual não concordamos e que não aceitaremos.

     
       


     

      Hélder Sousa Silva (PPE). – Senhor Presidente, Senhor Comissário, o acordo com o Mercosul é um acordo justo, um acordo equilibrado e um bom acordo do ponto de vista geopolítico, económico e social. Não restam dúvidas que para a indústria é um bom acordo e que temos de incluir garantias do ponto de vista do setor agrícola. Estão previstas garantias adicionais, nesta última versão do acordo, que passam por: fases graduais de implementação, quotas, máximas e salvaguardas, em especial para a carne bovina, subvenções e apoio financeiro aos eventuais agricultores afetados, proteção para mais de 350 produtos europeus, condicionamento à entrada de produtos do Mercosul que não cumpram as regras ambientais e sanitárias, e respeito pelo Acordo de Paris e pelo combate ao desmatamento ilegal. Excelente trabalho feito pela Comissão Europeia. Já demorámos 20 anos a chegar aqui. Parem de mentiras, parem e vamos acelerar e assinar este acordo.

     
       

     

      Cristina Maestre (S&D). – Señor presidente, las preguntas que nos tenemos que hacer son: ¿queremos ser una potencia fuerte o aislarnos en un mundo competitivo? ¿Queremos fortalecer nuestra industria —que invierte más de 340 000 millones de euros— o regalarle el mercado a China, a la India o a los Estados Unidos? ¿Queremos que nuestros agricultores sigan pagando tasas del 28 %, del 35 %, o incluso más, o abrir un mercado libre de aranceles?

    La ultraderecha está en un laberinto nocivo para la Unión Europea: apoya los aranceles de Trump, pero a la vez no quiere apoyar un comercio abierto con Latinoamérica. Yo creo que esto es un sindiós y tendrán que explicarlo también al tejido productivo.

    Dicho esto, claro que tenemos que ser exigentes y garantistas con los sectores más sensibles, claro que sí. Por eso, yo le pido a la Comisión Europea que dé certidumbres y también transparencia por el bien de nuestros agricultores. Hay que fortalecer las medidas de salvaguardia para los sectores sensibles. Pedimos más controles en fronteras, para que se cumplan los contingentes establecidos, proteger la liberación parcial de esos productos sensibles, claro que sí, y, por supuesto, que nos diga de dónde va a salir ese fondo de compensación y si va a ser lo suficientemente fuerte, por si hubiera que hacer uso de ello.

     
       


     

      Λευτέρης Νικολάου-Αλαβάνος (NI). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, αυτές τις μέρες οι αγρότες στην Ελλάδα δίνουν διαρκή και δίκαιο αγώνα για την παραμονή στη γη τους, που γίνεται αφόρητη από την ευρωενωσιακή ΚΓΠ, το τσάκισμα του εισοδήματος από την κυβέρνηση, τις εξευτελιστικές τιμές στους μεγαλέμπορους, την ανύπαρκτη προστασία από καταστροφές, την υποστελέχωση κρατικών υπηρεσιών που είναι αποτέλεσμα της δημοσιονομικής σταθερότητας της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης.

    Επιπλέον, δυσκολεύουν περαιτέρω την κατάσταση οι διακρατικές συμφωνίες τύπου Mercosur που θα αυξήσουν τις αθρόες εισαγωγές αγροτικών προϊόντων, τις ελληνοποιήσεις που πλήττουν το εισόδημα των παραγωγών. Κόντρα στην κυβερνητική πολιτική, κόντρα στις μειωμένες απαιτήσεις που καλλιεργεί η συμπολιτευόμενη αντιπολίτευση, οι βιοπαλαιστές αγρότες παλεύουν για την επιβίωσή τους διεκδικώντας μείωση του κόστους παραγωγής με κρατική παρέμβαση, αφορολόγητο πετρέλαιο στην αντλία, μείωση της τιμής του ρεύματος στα 7 λεπτά, 100% αποζημιώσεις, εγγυημένες τιμές πώλησης των προϊόντων τους που να εξασφαλίζουν το εισόδημά τους, πλήρη στελέχωση κρατικών, γεωπονικών και κτηνιατρικών υπηρεσιών.

     
       


     

      Daniel Buda (PPE). – Domnule președinte, stimați colegi, dezbaterea privind acordul Mercosur stârnește multe emoții și ridică întrebări la care încă nu s-au oferit răspunsuri clare. Realitatea este însă că, în timp ce fermierii europeni sunt supuși celor mai stricte norme de mediu, în alte părți ale lumii aceste reguli pur și simplu nu există. Europa are datoria să-și protejeze fermierii și să le ofere garanții solide pentru a-și putea continua activitatea. Aceștia nu trebuie să fie sacrificați pe altarul neputinței noastre de a le oferi certitudini într-o lume atât de incertă, generată de inflație, secetă, inundații sau războiul din Ucraina.

    Ei nu cer privilegii sau tratament preferențial. Cer doar dreptul de a concura în mod corect. Compensațiile provizionate a fi acordate fermierilor trebuie să fie dublate de relaxarea condițiilor de producție în agricultură, domnule comisar, iar acordul trebuie să fie echitabil, să creeze oportunități reale de comerț și să nu distrugă agricultura europeană. Este datoria noastră de a găsi cele mai bune soluții atât pentru fermierii europeni, dar și pentru consumatori.

     
       

     

      Jean-Marc Germain (S&D). – Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Commissaire, chers collègues, les dernières négociations ont-elles permis d’améliorer le projet d’accord commercial entre l’Europe et le Mercosur? La réponse est oui, mais aucun des efforts que nous pourrions faire pour continuer à l’améliorer ne changera ce fait: un accord de libre-échange, c’est parfois un mieux pour le consommateur, des secteurs gagnants, mais c’est toujours une kyrielle de perdants, dont aucun fonds de compensation ne répare jamais les vies brisées et les territoires déstabilisés.

    Un accord de libre-échange, c’est une perte de souveraineté, comme viennent de nous le rappeler les décisions de Trump. Quand le temps des avantages réciproques s’estompe, vient le temps du chantage, auquel il est bien difficile de résister quand la dépendance à l’autre s’est installée. Le doux commerce, en réalité, n’existe pas.

    Le libre-échange, c’est certes plus de liberté individuelle de commercer, mais moins de liberté collective, cette liberté de choisir, en Europe, d’être un continent qui met l’humain d’abord et pose la préservation du vivant comme un impératif. Alors oui pour un partenariat avec les pays du Mercosur, mais il existe 1 000 autres voies de coopération.

     
       



     

      Marko Vešligaj (S&D). – Poštovani predsjedavajući, kad raspravljamo o ovome sporazumu o MERCOSUR-u trebamo uzeti u obzir i specifičnosti manjih zemalja, kao što je Hrvatska, u kojoj kostur poljoprivrede čine zapravo mali poljoprivrednici i oni će biti najviše pogođeni ovim sporazumom – razni sektori, od stočarstva, ratarstva, peradarstva, pa i vinarstva, gdje sam svjestan toga da se otvara jedno veliko tržište, prvenstveno za vinarsku industriju velikih zemalja, dakle tržište MERCOSUR-a. Međutim, ono što mene brine jest mogućnost da ćemo biti preplavljeni jeftinim vinima upitne kvalitete iz Južne Amerike i na taj način – i u kombinaciji s onim s čime se suočava danas vinarski sektor, a to su, podsjetit ću vas, bolesti vinove loze, da Europska komisija opet najavljuje sheme grubbing up-a, odnosno krčenja vinograda – može stvoriti brojne opasnosti za vinarski sektor u manjim zemljama kao što je Hrvatska, ponavljam, koja nema problema s prekomjernom proizvodnjom, gdje mali vinari čine temelj te proizvodnje i koja želi štititi i razvijati svoje autohtone sorte.

     
       

     

      Seán Kelly (PPE). – A Uachtaráin, míle buíochas as ucht an t-urlár a thabhairt dúinn uilig. Mar a dúirt tú, tá an díospóireacht seo an-tábhachtach.

    There are those who are against Mercosur, but they are against everything. But there are also many speakers here this morning who are pro-trade but say they cannot support Mercosur in its current form. That would reflect the position of the new Irish Government – made up of a coalition of Renew and EPP – and I think it needs to be addressed very strongly by the Commission.

    There are issues like deforestation, sustainability, production standards – especially in Brazil – and then the effect, especially on beef farmers, who feel that they will be decimated if Mercosur goes ahead. So the Commission has a job to do to convince them otherwise, give them proper compensation, if that is needed, and also look at a package that might include other issues that they are concerned about, especially the reform of the CAP, etcetera.

    Commissioner Šefčovič, you did a great job in relation to Brexit. Now is the chance for you to step up here. I am very confident you will!

     
       

       

    (Fin de las intervenciones con arreglo al procedimiento de solicitud incidental de uso de la palabra («catch the eye»))

     
       

     

      Maroš Šefčovič, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, honourable Members of the European Parliament, I was privileged to attend three very politically charged, very politically dynamic debates this week. And I want to thank many of you for highlighting that, in this geopolitical era, the free trade agreement with Mercosur, as Mr Lange has underlined, will greatly contribute to our social welfare state, it will create new jobs and open new opportunities for all sectors of our economy, including for our farmers and for our agri‑food sectors. Moreover, it’s also good for the environment and sustainability.

    Let me underline that, in all aspects, we are much better off with the agreement than without it. This agreement binds the Mercosur countries to strong commitments on the fight against deforestation, and it gives us an important platform for cooperation on our climate ambition.

    On top of this, the overall benefit of this agreement is also good for our farmers and agricultural community. As some of you know, I consulted widely with farmers, with small farmers, family farmers, organic farmers and also big farmers as well. And two weeks ago, I was with many of you, together with the Commissioner for Agriculture, Mr Hansen, in the discussion on this precise issue in the Agriculture Committee of this House.

    I do all this because I have the utmost respect for our farmers, and I have the utmost respect for the debate we have in this House. And I know how crucial a role our farmers are playing in the area of our food security and our food sovereignty and, of course, for the welfare of our society.

    Honourable Members, I was surprised that Ms Aubry asked me how did I dare to come here to defend this agreement? I came because you invited me. And I will always be here when you invite me, because I respect this House, I respect democratic debate and, despite all the charged debate we had here today, I am proud of this agreement. And I believe that, through discussion, through explaining, through presenting facts and figures, we can convince the majority, most of you, that we indeed are doing the right job.

    In this debate, we unfortunately didn’t cover the fact that this agreement is actually the biggest free trade agreement the EU ever concluded. Just for your information, this FTA is four times bigger than our free trade agreement with Japan. We also overlooked the important signal we are sending out in this difficult time where the trade barriers are being erected again – and we discussed it on Tuesday – and also in the time where we are losing our privileged relationship with countries so close to us historically, culturally, economically, like the countries of Mercosur, to China.

    Unfortunately, we didn’t mention, at all, the strategic importance of the supply of critical raw materials and opportunities these deals open for our businesses and the need to diversify our economic relations. The debate almost completely focused on agriculture, so let’s look at this again.

    As you know, the EU is an agri‑food export superpower. Last year, our farmers exported products of the value of EUR 228 billion, and our farmers and our agri‑food exports have a trade surplus of EUR 70 billion. EUR 70 billion! Can you imagine how our farmers would do without these export opportunities? Do you believe that we would be able to be so strong in exports if the large network of our FTAs would not open these new markets for all of them, big farmers, small farmers, our agri‑food sector?

    Into Mercosur itself, our farmers are already now exporting more than EUR 3.2 billion of products, and they managed to do it with import duties which are up to 35 % more than they should be and without any protection for our GIs. And this agreement is going to eliminate these import duties. It’s going to protect our GIs, so there will be no imitation of our famous cheeses, our wines and spirits. And I believe that this would greatly improve export opportunities for our farmers.

    Mr Cowen and Mr Kelly have been asking and highlighting the importance of strategic discussion on agriculture, and the Commission is absolutely prepared for this. Commissioner Hansen is working on the new strategic vision on agriculture, and I can tell you that we do our utmost to look into all possible ways how to lower reporting obligations for our farmers, how to cut the red tape for our farmers, so the farmer whom one of the honourable Members was referring to as ‘Patrick’ would have an easier life.

    But I’m also convinced that this debate we have right now, for the benefit of Patrick and all other farmers, should be based on true facts and figures. And I want to be very clear that the food products in the European Union being domestically produced or imported must comply with the EU sanitary and phytosanitary rules, including the EU’s strict policies on GMOs, and the Commission conducts regular audits in third countries and works closely with the Member States’ authorities that perform official controls and enforcement activities on imported food to ensure that non-compliant products cannot enter the EU market.

    The Member States, of course, are looking in great detail into this agreement and are also carrying out their own audits and their own studies. And there were quite a few honourable Members from Ireland who intervened in this debate, and therefore I think that they should also look at the study which was commissioned by the Irish Government. It was done by the Independent Economic and Sustainability Impact Assessment on Ireland and the Mercosur agreement. This independent study forecast an increase in Ireland’s exports to Mercosur by 17 % and an increase of imports of 12 %. It will increase manufacturing export of Ireland by 1.4 billion and agri‑food exports by 10 to 20 million.

    We will be very happy from the Commission’s side to have this discussion with every single Member State, because we have the figures, we have a convincing argument and we are open for this open, frank debate which would truly be based on the facts.

    I would also kindly ask you not to spread information which is simply not true. And I totally agree with Ms Pereira who was calling for this. No import of hormone beef. No chlorinated chicken will ever be imported to the European Union. Mr Andriukaitis was working on that for five years and he was absolutely crystal clear on that. The problem Ms Sbai was referring to was spotted and immediately resolved. This type of beef has never entered the EU market and never will. We do inspections regularly and we also control at the import.

    On the so-called non‑violation complaint instrument – which I explained many times, but I’m happy to do again – it’s not new. It’s fully compatible on the WTO framework. And this instrument is only forward‑looking and addresses effects that could not be foreseeable at the time of the conclusion. So it doesn’t concern the CBAM. It doesn’t concern any of the any of the laws, any of the acquis which are valid right now, which already entered into force. And I’m sure that Ms Bricmont knows about it. So under no circumstances is our regulatory freedom affected, nor will it be. So let’s not use this argument any more.

    To conclude, Mr President, honourable Members, I would like to thank you for this debate, and I’m ready to continue the discussion with you, with the farmers and with all stakeholders. At the same time, I believe that we would advance our debate and do better service to our citizens, to our farmers if we respect true facts, if we speak about real figures, and if we stay true to what was really agreed and not repeat in every debate the things which are simply not true.

     
       

     

      President. – Thank you, Commissioner. I am sorry for being so strict with time, and I insist that this debate should have had much more time.

    The debate is closed.

     

    4. Threats to EU sovereignty through strategic dependencies in communication infrastructure (debate)


     

      Glenn Micallef, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, honourable Members of the European Parliament, dear colleagues, I want to first and foremost welcome this exchange today. Our mission is to improve Europe’s tech sovereignty, security and democracy in an increasingly volatile geopolitical situation.

    A short glance at the news from Europe and beyond is enough to show how significant a task this is. Our own backyard, the Baltic Sea, experiences security challenges and hybrid attacks, including to the security and resilience of critical submarine infrastructures. This kind of threat offers an example of the pressing need to improve our preparedness.

    Europe has put in place a robust legal framework to protect its critical infrastructure against physical and hybrid security threats. But today, the transposition and implementation of the critical entities’ resilience and the network and information security tool directives are still slow. We continue to support Member States and call on them to transpose both directives as soon as possible.

    Moreover, the 2024 recommendation on secure and resilient submarine cable infrastructures provides a set of recommended actions at national and EU level aimed at improving submarine cable security and resilience. The European Union is also making substantial investments in cable infrastructures through the Connecting Europe Facility. Since 2021, over EUR 420 million has been allocated to 50 projects and more.

    Looking ahead, we also earmarked another EUR 542 million, for a total investment of nearly EUR 1 billion, and the Commission is considering further measures not only to boost investment, but also to increase the security and resilience of these infrastructures.

    The security of 5G and next-generation networks, the backbone of our economy, remains very high on the European Union’s agenda, but the current implementation by Member States of the 5G cybersecurity toolbox is still not satisfactory. New capacities have to be provided by existing or new actors to fill gaps left by high-risk vendors in the supply chains. The Commission will urgently explore ways to speed up its enforcement and implementation.

    A particularly sensitive domain is that of critical communications used by public security and safety authorities, civil protection or medical emergency responders. We need to ensure that they cannot be interfered with, disrupted or compromised via components and devices from non-trusted third country suppliers. This is why increasing our strategic autonomy is one of the key objectives of the European critical communication system, which will connect the communication networks of first responders in all Member States and Schengen countries by 2030.

    But the challenge is even broader than that. Europe must remain competitive and must have the technologies it needs in order to secure its digital infrastructure. We must close our innovation gap with global partners. Future applications, such as automated driving or telemedicine will run on advanced networks that look increasingly like a computing continuum, ranging from chips and high-speed processors to connectivity, cloud, edge, software, quantum technologies and AI. This is why we need to enhance and better coordinate research efforts and multidisciplinary cooperation, as well as why we need to improve access to finance by EU actors, including by coordinating public and private investments.

    To reach this goal, the 2024 white paper on digital infrastructure needs envisaged the creation of a connected collaborative computing network to set up end-to-end integrated infrastructures and platforms for telco cloud and edge.

    Colleagues, this debate is also an excellent opportunity to update you on the IRIS2 satellite constellation, a beacon of the EU’s commitment to deliver secure, resilient and sovereign connectivity, demonstrating the recent but high ambition of the European Union in the field of secure satellite connectivity with precursor governmental services provided by the GOVSATCOM programme.

    IRIS2 was launched in 2023, paving the way for an operational state-of-the-art connectivity system. Thanks to this EU-owned infrastructure capability, enabling also commercial services based on private sector investments, the European Union will be able to maintain its competitive edge and shield its sovereignty.

    Work has been ongoing on this since last December, with the signing of the concession contract with industry to develop the constellation and start the industrial supply chain in view of a timely delivery of the system. Full IRIS2 operational services are expected by 2030. This means that Member States, close partners and EU institutions will benefit from a broad set of reliable and secure applications, such as border and maritime surveillance, crisis management, critical infrastructure protection, and various security and defence operations.

    There are, of course, competing non-EU solutions in the market. We remain, however, convinced that Europeans prefer guaranteed access to reliable connectivity without critical third-party dependencies, and as IRIS2 comes onto the scene, this will be a crucial selling point to all Member States as well as businesses.

    The incidents that have become an all too frequent reality of heightened geopolitical tensions highlight the importance of such sovereign solutions. IRIS2 will also integrate the European quantum communication infrastructure. This pan-European initiative will help to strengthen the protection of our governmental institutions, their data centres, hospitals, energy grids and more.

    Moreover, we are also supporting the development of quantum technologies to ensure that critical components use EU technologies. EuroQCI will help to counter the threat that quantum computers will pose to current encryption methods, but it will not be enough on its own. It will be complemented by our initiatives to advance and deploy post-quantum cryptography in the European Union. Last year, we issued the recommendation to coordinate the transition to PQC for public administrations and other critical infrastructures in the European Union.

    Finally, let me stress that Europe can only respond to today’s challenges by acting together with our partners, especially with NATO. In a hybrid threat environment, close civilian and military cooperation is and remains essential. I can assure you that the European Commission is steadfast in its commitment to foster a secure, resilient, but also innovative digital environment, and we continue to count on your support in building this future together.

     
       

     

      Jörgen Warborn, on behalf of the PPE Group. – Mr President, Commissioner, the strength of our Union is in its openness, the ability to trade, to innovate and to compete globally. However, in today’s reality, Europe’s communication infrastructure is heavily reliant on global actors, and Europe must be in a position where no country or individual company can dictate our digital future.

    I believe in a strong and resilient Europe, one that competes globally without excessive state interventions, but through strategic interventions, free markets and international cooperation. By that way, individuals and businesses can choose between multiple actors and alternatives.

    To go forward in this situation, I think the Union must do a lot of things, but let me mention three of them.

    Firstly, we need to encourage private investments in new communication infrastructure, not through subsidies or state control, but through reducing red tape and creating smart incentives.

    Secondly, we need to deepen our partnership with trusted partners to ensure openness works in Europe’s favour rather than making us dependent.

    Lastly, as the Commissioner started his intervention with, we need to safeguard Europe’s connectivity by taking coordinated action to protect submarine cables. This state terrorism has to end and we have to work together, coordinatedly, to make that sure – we have to reinforce our cable security, our repair capabilities, but also invest in the expansion of new submarine cables to enhance our redundancy and ensure resilience in our communication infrastructure.

     
       


     

      Csaba Dömötör, a PfE képviselőcsoport nevében. – Tisztelt Elnök Úr! Európa lemaradása a digitális iparágak terén egyre látványosabb és hozzáteszem egyre zavaróbb. Ez szuverenitási kérdés és stratégiai cél, hogy ezt a lemaradást leküzdjük.

    A digitális színtérnek azonban van egy másik fontos terepe, ez pedig a véleményszabadság. Miközben Amerikában elzavarják a Facebookos cenzorokat, az uniós intézmények azon törik a fejüket, hogy tovább erősítsék a cinikus módon tényellenőrzésnek nevezett rendszert. Mindezt a DSA-rendelet köntösében. Növelik az ezen ügyködő bürokráciát, és a Facebook után most már az X-et és a TikTokot is célba vették.

    Tudjuk, hogy miért van ez. Egyre nagyobb a szakadék az itteni politikai elit szándékai és a választók akarata között. Erre az itteni többség és a Bizottság nem irányváltással válaszol, hanem azzal, hogy el akarja hallgattatni a kritikus hangokat.

    Ez nem fog menni. A digitális szuverenitás nem csupán technológiák kérdése, hanem a szabadságé is. Nincsen szuverenitás szabad véleménynyilvánítás nélkül. Legyenek benne biztosak, hogy a patrióták minden eszközzel küzdenek majd a cenzúra ellen.

     
       

     

      Piotr Müller, w imieniu grupy ECR. – Panie Przewodniczący! Szanowni Państwo! Do budowania niezależności infrastrukturalnej, w tym niezależności technologicznej, potrzebne są środki finansowe. Unia Europejska powinna zdecydować, na co te środki z własnego budżetu chce przeznaczać. Są trzy takie duże polityki, które w tym samym czasie prowadzimy: jest to polityka bezpieczeństwa, w tym bezpieczeństwa technologicznego, polityka społeczna, która pozwala żyć obywatelom na odpowiednio wysokim poziomie, i niestety polityka Zielonego Ładu, która powoduje, że te koszty życia się zwiększają oraz że generowane są różnego rodzaju wydatki w tej polityce.

    Jeżeli chcemy być faktycznie niezależni technologicznie, to powinniśmy przeznaczać dodatkowe środki finansowe na ten obszar. Ale żeby to było możliwe, musimy zrezygnować z jednej z tych trzech polityk, które wymieniłem, i powinniśmy zrezygnować z polityki Zielonego Ładu, która w tej chwili ogranicza rozwój i niezależność Europy. Druga rzecz, powinniśmy przestać obrażać się na swoich partnerów technologicznych z różnych kontynentów na świecie i z nimi współpracować po to, aby również w Europie powstawały odpowiednie technologie.

     
       

     

      Michał Kobosko, on behalf of the Renew Group. – Mr President, Commissioner, let me start with thanking you, on behalf of the Renew Europe Group, for the Commission’s immediate reaction to the security threats related to the Baltic submarine cables and the ongoing work to increase security of our critical infrastructure. We also need to look for more synergies between digital and energy networks, while working on detection, prevention and repairing of the undersea infrastructure that is nowadays, especially in the Baltic Sea, under constant and real threat.

    Going above sea level, I can strongly encourage the Commission to do the utmost to invest in the European critical communication infrastructure. Europe cannot allow itself to be dependent on third countries when it comes to comes to strategic elements of communication infrastructure.

    So I welcome the IRIS2 planned constellation, with its 290 satellites. It is a huge step forward for Europe and we should appreciate it. But we should also keep in mind that it won’t be enough. We will need to do much more beyond 2030.

    In order to achieve Europe’s tech sovereignty, we need to have everyone on board. All Member States need to join the efforts, instead of making constant deals to secure military and government communications with third-country providers, which can put EU security in jeopardy.

    Prime Minister Meloni, please join us, and let’s keep Europe great and secure together. Do not waste the money of Italian taxpayers on senseless deals with global oligarchs.

     
       



     

      Sergey Lagodinsky (Verts/ALE). – Thank you very much. As every morning during the past weeks, we are waking up to a new reality. Now, it’s the biggest push against Europe’s security interests by Trump. But frankly, we had known it all along. In this marriage, we have over-relied on one partner. In strategic communications, it’s not even a country: it’s one unelected, unaccountable man, driven by personal whims. Today, Musk can decide if, at a time of war, we can continue talking to each other, or not.

    Our biggest strategic risk on this side of a potential frontline of a future war is communication failure. Low-Earth orbit satellites revolutionise global communication in times of crisis, but their infrastructure is in the hands of a few private non-Europeans: Starlink today, Amazon or OneWeb tomorrow. So this is not the way to go.

    IRIS² will only be valid and will be functioning in 2030. It is good that the US Space Act is part of a Commission working programme. We have seen this. But we need clear strategic goals: equitable division of use of space; common standards for compatibility of systems; enforced cybersecurity, which closes the gaps of NIS 2; massive investment in efficient launchers, in reusable satellites, in an independent space supply chain. It is not about science fiction; it is about our survival!

     
       

     

      Pernando Barrena Arza, en nombre del Grupo The Left. – Señor presidente, señor comisario, reducir la dependencia estratégica en el ámbito de las infraestructuras críticas de comunicación es crucial para avanzar con paso decidido en el concepto de soberanía europea. Un sistema de telecomunicaciones tecnológicamente soberano y seguro y de obediencia europea es una herramienta imprescindible no solo en el ámbito de las infraestructuras críticas de comunicación, sino en todas las infraestructuras de comunicación en general. Europa no puede estar a merced de grandes compañías que representan intereses geopolíticos ajenos a los europeos.

    En estos momentos otras potencias y particularmente los Estados Unidos están utilizando su posición avanzada en este tema como herramienta de hard power, que, como todos sabemos, no se limita únicamente a la amenaza del poder militar, sino también a la presión económica y tecnológica.

    Que los Estados europeos sean dependientes de Starlink, como acaba de hacer Italia, es un desastre porque deja un ámbito tan delicado como es el de las comunicaciones críticas en manos de una visión del mundo que solo piensa en cómo segar la hierba bajo los pies a Europa y dejarla sin opciones en el concierto internacional.

    Apostar por la soberanía de Europa exige disponer de medios soberanos y asegurarnos de que el despliegue de tecnología necesario compense su huella de carbono y permita también el acceso del público a las redes de forma universal.

     
       

     

      Sarah Knafo, au nom du groupe ESN. – Monsieur le Président, chers collègues, nous sommes devant deux grands mouvements historiques: l’un est technologique, l’intelligence artificielle, l’autre est politique, le vent de liberté qui souffle sur l’Occident. Or, nos règlements, comme le règlement sur les services numériques, le règlement sur les marchés numériques et le règlement MiCA contre le bitcoin, sont à contretemps de ces mouvements. Vous renvoyez au monde une image à la fois technosceptique et liberticide de notre continent.

    Si vous ne voyez le progrès technique que comme une menace, alors l’innovation se fera sans l’Europe et même contre l’Europe. Faisons les choses dans l’ordre. L’innovation doit précéder sa régulation. Sans innovation, nous n’aurons ni prospérité ni souveraineté. Sans innovation, nous aurons toujours des Emmanuel Macron pour offrir nos données de santé sur un plateau à Microsoft.

    Nous ne voulons plus d’un système absurde où la puissance publique saupoudre nos entreprises de subventions tout en les accablant des taxes les plus élevées du monde et tout en offrant nos marchés publics les plus stratégiques à des entreprises américaines.

    Montrons à notre jeunesse qu’elle n’a pas besoin de partir aux États-Unis ou en Asie pour écrire l’histoire. Nous voulons de la liberté, de l’énergie, des marchés, moins d’impôts, des capitaux et des cerveaux. Osons la liberté! Ayons confiance dans le génie des nations européennes.

     
       

     

      Lena Düpont (PPE). – Herr Präsident! Herr Kommissar! Kommunikation ist nicht nur ein zutiefst menschliches Bedürfnis mit gesellschaftlicher Wirkung. Kommunikationsfähigkeit in Krisenzeiten ist wesentlich für die Aufrechterhaltung staatlicher und gesellschaftlicher Ordnung. Dafür braucht es verlässliche Strukturen und Mittel. Das gilt im Kontext nationaler Sicherheit ebenso wie im europäischen. Informations- und Kommunikationsflüsse gewährleisten zu können, Lagebilder herzustellen und Führungsfähigkeit bereitstellen zu können, hat entscheidenden Einfluss auf den Verlauf unterschiedlicher Szenarien und auf unsere Fähigkeit, sie zu bewältigen.

    Der Niinistö-Bericht zur Preparedness Union schreibt uns nicht ohne Grund viele Dinge ins Stammbuch, unter anderem auch den beschleunigten Roll-out eines sicheren, autonomen, interoperablen Systems für Kommunikation und Informationsaustausch; die Beschleunigung und den Ausbau des European Critical Communication System auf der zivilen und der militärischen Seite; die Abhängigkeiten in Lieferketten zu vermeiden; Forschung, Entwicklung, Produktion sicherheitsrelevanter Produkte in Europa; Komponenten und Dienstleistungen so attraktiv zu machen, dass wir sie nutzen können.

    Preparedness, liebe Kollegen, braucht einen umfassenden Ansatz, der aus den üblichen Silos auch ein Stück weit rausgeht. Deswegen werden ITRE, SEDE, LIBE, IMCO, TRAN, INTA, SANT – wir alle werden unseren Beitrag leisten müssen. Und deswegen schließe ich vielleicht mit der, neben der Priorisierung von Haushaltsmitteln, wichtigsten Forderung von Niinistö: Sicherheitsvorbehalte und Auswirkungsüberprüfung in allen Gesetzgebungsverfahren, die wir hier im Haus haben.

     
       

     

      Alex Agius Saliba (S&D). – Sur President, l-infrastruttura diġitali saret importanti daqs l-infrastruttura tradizzjonali bħall-pontijiet u t-toroq tagħna. U jiena li ġej minn Malta, Stat Membru żgħir, gżira, nagħraf aktar l-importanza ta’ din l-infrastruttura, speċjalment għall-cables tal-internet taħt il-baħar, li huma daqstant kruċjali għall-funzjonament tal-ħajja taċ-ċittadini tagħna u tal-infrastruttura kritika f’kull Stat Membru.

    U allura naħseb wasal iż-żmien sabiex l-esperiment li għamilna bit-twaqqif tal-aġenzija ENISA, li tara li jkollna koordinament fejn tidħol iċ-ċibersigurtà, cybersecurity, tkun estiża wkoll għal din l-infrastruttura kritika billi jew titwaqqaf aġenzija separata, jew inkella l-ENISA tingħata aktar u aktar kompetenza sabiex naraw li jkollna aktar koordinazzjoni, aktar protezzjoni, fejn tidħol din l-infrastruttura.

    Barra minn hekk, għandna bżonn inkomplu nsaħħu r-reżiljenza u għalhekk, li hu Digital Sovereignty Fund għandu jitwaqqaf mill-aktar fis possibbli.

     
       


     

      Ondřej Krutílek (ECR). – Vážený pane předsedající, vážený pane komisaři, bez infrastruktury, která bude bezpečná, nebudou fungovat digitální technologie, na kterých závisí naše ekonomika a společnost. Jsem rád, že Česká republika je v této oblasti průkopníkem. Tzv. Pražské návrhy na budování 5G sítí z roku 2019 předcházely souboru 5G Toolbox v následujícím roce.

    5G Toolbox je třeba důsledně aplikovat napříč celou Evropskou unií, ale musíme také dále snižovat strategickou závislost na zemích, které nejsou našimi důvěryhodnými partnery. Potřebujeme mít v EU regulatorní prostředí, které bude usnadňovat život našim firmám. Musíme více podpořit výzkum a vývoj a taky nám chybí funkční systém certifikace kybernetické bezpečnosti. A v téhle souvislosti, pane komisaři, ptal jsem se na to i na výboru, stále ještě od vás nemáme hodnotící zprávu týkající se aktu o kybernetické bezpečnosti. Tak ji prosím dodejte.

     
       

     

      Bart Groothuis (Renew). – Mr President, dear Commissioner, the main takeaway from Georgia Meloni’s close manoeuvres with Elon Musk and his company, Starlink, is that it sends a clear signal to Europe. The European alternative to Starlink – ‘IRIS square’, not ‘IRIS two’, Commissioner – must be accelerated. Europe should work harder and faster.

    Sure, like many colleagues have said, for Italy there are clear and imminent dangers if Elon Musk encrypts and handles government communications. Italy can easily become a signals intelligence colony of the United States. It’s true that Italy is not supporting Europe’s commitment to technological leadership, to security and to self-determination, as you said, Commissioner, and I agree. But the biggest problem is, of course, our own lack of ambition with the IRIS2 programme.

    If Europe does not rally behind IRIS2 and the GOVSATCOM programme and accelerate its own progress, the future of European sovereignty in space communication will be decided by Elon Musk. So feel the heat: finish IRIS2 four years earlier than planned, move fast and build things!

     
       

     

      David Cormand (Verts/ALE). – Monsieur le Président, Mesdames et Messieurs, mes chers collègues, l’Europe est pieds et poings liés: 92 % de nos données sont stockées à l’étranger, nos infrastructures livrées aux GAFAM et aux fournisseurs chinois. Et que fait l’Europe? Elle parle de souveraineté, mais en réalité elle se soumet. L’extrême droite se dit patriote, mais laisse l’Europe devenir un territoire vassalisé, incapable de protéger ses citoyens et ses entreprises face aux lois extraterritoriales américaines et à la dépendance à l’égard des fournisseurs chinois.

    Pendant ce temps, le numérique avale 10 % de l’électricité mondiale et la tendance explose. Et que fait-on? On laisse les GAFAM dicter leurs règles pendant que Bruxelles dérégule, retire des lois et plie face aux lobbys. À force de reculer, elle abandonne la bataille sans même l’avoir livrée.

    Il est temps de dire stop! L’Europe doit investir dans ses propres réseaux, développer un cloud souverain, sécuriser ses infrastructures et imposer des règles strictes, à l’image de nos valeurs démocratiques. Car une Europe qui dépend, c’est une Europe qui subit, et une Europe qui subit, c’est une Europe qui s’efface. Nous devons reprendre le contrôle. Pas demain, pas plus tard, maintenant.

     
       




     

      Bruno Gonçalves (S&D). – Senhor Presidente, Caros Colegas, há cinco anos, com a pandemia, ficou claro que não podemos depender da China para bens de saúde. Dissemos que aprenderíamos com o erro. Depois, há três anos, foi a vez de perceber que depender da Rússia para energia barata era também um erro. Voltámos a dizer que aprenderíamos. E hoje, apesar de Trump nos ameaçar quase diariamente, há quem queira depender mais dos Estados Unidos da América, seja para armamento, energia ou plataformas digitais. Se a Europa quer menos vulnerabilidade, é agora que devemos evitá‑la. A nova infraestrutura de comunicações, desde cabos submarinos à rede 5G, é fundamental para a nossa autonomia e deve ser construída pelos europeus. A criação de novas redes sociais e de informação é também crucial para a nossa soberania. Por isso, em vez de aprendermos com os velhos erros, evitemos cometê‑los.

     
       

     

      Aleksandar Nikolic (PfE). – Monsieur le Président, on l’a vu à Mayotte, où la France s’est tournée vers le réseau américain Starlink de Musk. L’accès à Internet par satellite est un véritable enjeu de souveraineté. En ce sens, Iris2 est un pas dans la bonne direction, mais ce n’est qu’un petit pas, au moment où les Américains font des bonds de géant.

    D’abord sur le nombre de satellites déployés: 290 prévus côté européen, contre 7 000 prévus côté américain. Ensuite, concernant le calendrier, nous prévoyons au mieux un lancement en 2030, alors que la constellation Starlink compte déjà 6 300 satellites en orbite basse.

    Ce n’est pas un problème de budget: 10,6 milliards d’euros prévus, cela nous permet de rivaliser avec les budgets quasi équivalents de SpaceX et d’Amazon. Mais il faut voir comment on l’utilise, ce budget. Lancer un satellite européen coûterait 35 millions d’euros. Pour ce prix, les Américains peuvent en lancer 200. Et, pendant que nous blablatons, eux le font.

    Pour résumer, nos satellites, aussi technologiques soient-ils, seront lancés trop tard et pour trop cher. Nous avons les cerveaux, les technologies et les budgets. Finalement, le problème c’est vous. Vivement qu’on vous remplace!

     
       

     

      Elena Donazzan (ECR). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, signor Commissario, abbiamo un tema, riguarda i bisogni e il tempo. I bisogni sono evidenti, è un bisogno di sicurezza ora, immediato. E quello del tempo è che non abbiamo tempo.

    IRIS2 resta un programma di grande rilevanza e va sostenuto in ogni condizione, ma non è pronto. Sarà pronto nel 2030, secondo le previsioni, ma sappiamo che le previsioni spesso vanno oltre.

    Ma il tema del bisogno è evidente e in tante occasioni qui ne abbiamo trattato. La preoccupazione – e rispondo ai colleghi di Renew, che sembrano essere così interessati a ciò che accade in Italia – è esattamente questa: l’Italia e il governo Meloni hanno ben chiaro che cosa significa avere bisogni di sicurezza per l’Italia, per l’Europa, per le imprese italiane ed europee.

    E, dall’altra, quello che accade rispetto alla tempistica: noi siamo aperti a ogni confronto, con al centro sempre la sovranità e l’indipendenza, in questo tema così delicato che è quello della sicurezza delle comunicazioni.

     
       


     

      Seán Kelly (PPE). – A Uachtaráin, a Choimisnéir agus a chairde, the security and resilience of our digital networks are more vital now than ever, and the European Union’s ability to reduce these dependencies is under close scrutiny. I have raised the issue of Ireland’s vital role in global communication infrastructure before. Ireland’s waters serve as the gateway for over 75 % of the northern hemispheres undersea cables, making us a strategic hub for transatlantic data traffic. This makes us uniquely vulnerable to disruptions in this infrastructure.

    We cannot underestimate the importance of safeguarding these undersea cables, which are essential not just for Ireland’s connectivity, but for the economic stability and security of the entire EU. The protection of our communication infrastructure is not just a national issue; it is a European one. We cannot afford to be over-reliant on external providers, particularly in such an uncertain geopolitical climate. We need a coordinated EU approach to ensure the security of our undersea cables and to invest in the resilience of our satellite infrastructure.

    I welcome the Commission’s commitment to investing EUR 865 million to improve digital connectivity, including quantum communication networks and undersea cables. But as we implement the Commission’s work plan for 2025, we must prioritise the protection of these strategic assets.

    Bímis ar an airdeall, níl aon am le cailliúint, go raibh maith agat a Uachtaráin.

     
       

     

      Giorgio Gori (S&D). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, signor Commissario, tra i ritardi tecnologici accumulati dall’Europa spicca quello delle infrastrutture di comunicazione satellitare.

    Se tutto va bene, i 290 satelliti della costellazione IRIS2 saranno disponibili nel 2030. Nel frattempo, gli oltre 6 000 satelliti Starlink già in orbita e altri 30 000 in via di autorizzazione sono un dato di fatto. Il gap competitivo è macroscopico e va colmato.

    Si possono immaginare nel frattempo soluzioni ponte, però con due chiare condizioni. La prima è relativa alla protezione e sicurezza dei dati di comunicazione, che devono rimanere in capo agli Stati membri. La seconda è che ogni accordo industriale sia iscritto in una cornice istituzionale, che coinvolga la dimensione europea.

    È urgente un piano di investimento europeo che combini politiche industriali, di difesa, investimenti in ricerca, oltre che un maggiore coordinamento della spesa pubblica. La debolezza strutturale in questo settore ci rende vulnerabili e dipendenti e mette a rischio la sovranità tecnologica e democratica dell’Unione europea.

     
       

     

      Ивайло Вълчев (ECR). – Г-н Председател, г-н Комисар, години наред отсъстваше стратегическият поглед за технологическото развитие на Съюза. И едва сега, когато глобалната политика се промени и конкурентите ни започнаха да предприемат радикални политики в областта на търговията, Европейската комисия се сети, че съществуват такива стратегически зависимости, които застрашават сигурността и конкурентоспособността на европейските икономики. Комисар Виркунен го каза — 42% от 5G комуникациите минават през т. нар. високорискови доставчици, разбирайте през Китай, защото основните оператори са китайски — Huawei и ZTE. В същото време изостава Европейският съюз и в сателитната свързаност. Там водещи са САЩ и Starlink. Разбирам, че отговорът на Комисията за всички предизвикателства и проблеми е създаването на нови регулации. Обаче аз смятам, че за да гарантираме сигурността, конкурентоспособността и суверенитета на Европейския съюз, е нужно да изграждаме инфраструктура, капацитет, диверсификация на доставчиците и търсене на надеждни партньори.

     
       

     

      Tomáš Zdechovský (PPE). – Pane předsedající, když jde o naší bezpečnost, Evropa nemůže být závislá na cizí zemi. Je přeci naprosto hloupé, pokud některé členské státy chtějí používat pro utajenou vládní komunikaci Starlink. Přitom Evropa má řešení. Máme tady náš GOVSATCOM a IRIS2, což jsou spolehlivé platformy, které nejsou ohrožovány cizími zájmy a máme skrze ně nezávislost a autonomii, která nebude ohrožovat nás uvnitř členských států.

    Dámy a pánové, je naprosto nezbytné, aby Evropská unie urychlila nasazení GOVSATCOM a IRIS2 a nabídla členským státům bezpečnou alternativu. Všechny evropské bezpečnostní složky, včetně agentury Frontex, musí povinně využívat Galileo a GOVSATCOM pro šifrovanou komunikaci.

    A za třetí, masivně musíme podpořit členské státy, aby investovaly do evropské infrastruktury místo spoléhání na neevropské dodavatele. Naše bezpečnost nesmí být v rukou cizích firem, které nám mohou jediným tlačítkem naši komunikaci vypnout.

     
       

     

      Lina Gálvez (S&D). – Señor presidente, estamos debatiendo mucho esta semana sobre la reordenación del orden mundial y la necesidad de garantizar la autonomía estratégica tecnológica para la Unión Europea, para la supervivencia de nuestras democracias y, en definitiva, del propio proyecto europeo y debemos conseguirla para garantizar realmente el desarrollo de nuestra propia inteligencia artificial, la resiliencia económica y, como digo, el propio proyecto europeo.

    El potencial acuerdo del Gobierno de Italia con Starlink —el servicio de comunicaciones por satélite de Elon Musk— es paradigmático y debemos saber que la conexión entre la política, los negocios y las amistades no es inocua y tiene implicaciones muy directas en sectores estratégicos de nuestra economía y en nuestra seguridad, en nuestras libertades de toda Europa, no solo de Italia.

    Por eso, debemos acelerar y financiar proyectos como el Iris2, porque, frente a actores divisorios, lo que necesitamos es más Europa y más democracia.

     
       


     

      Paulius Saudargas (PPE). – Mr President, dear colleagues, it is a textbook reality that when an unfriendly state prepares for military aggression, it begins with disinformation, cyber‑attacks and disruption of communication infrastructure. This strategy has been evident for decades and we have witnessed it when Russia attacked Ukraine.

    The same tactics to disrupt communication networks are being observed in various parts of the European Union itself – for example, the recent undersea cable sabotage in the Baltic Sea. Our sovereignty is only as strong as our resilience, including the resilience of our strategic infrastructure.

    Information is power, and the ability to control and protect our communication networks is a fundamental pillar of security. Yet the EU remains dangerously exposed to external dependencies in this domain.

    Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia recently disconnected from the BRELL electricity grid. For years, the Baltic states relied on an energy system that could be manipulated externally. For years, we invested in infrastructure to finally break free.

    This example must serve as a broader lesson for the EU. We must extend this thinking to our communication networks, ensuring that they remain secure, autonomous and resilient against external threats.

    A Europe that cannot safeguard its own communications infrastructure is a Europe at risk.

     
       

     

      Tsvetelina Penkova (S&D). – Mr President, dear colleagues, recent events have proven once again that technology is power. The digital infrastructure, such as submarine cables, 5G networks, satellites and AI, are critical for our economy, security, health care and daily lives. And yet, almost 50 % of 5G communications rely on foreign communication infrastructure. Dependency on non-EU providers limits our autonomy and exposes us to risks that are beyond our control.

    We must increase the investment in EU technology. Prioritising secure and EU home-grown technology will safeguard us, strengthen our cybersecurity, drive innovation and guarantee long-term competitiveness. The time to act is now. True sovereignty can only be achieved by investing and ensuring that the EU tech sector can survive and remain competitive in this global digital race.

     
       

     

      Eszter Lakos (PPE). – Tisztelt Elnök Úr! A kommunikációs infrastruktúráink rendszere biztosítja a modern társadalom működéséhez szükséges feltételeket, ezért ellenőrzése és védelme stratégiai jelentőségű.

    A kommunikációs infrastruktúrák jó része külső szereplőktől függ, ami súlyos biztonsági és gazdasági kockázatokat rejt magában. Gondoljunk csak bele. Az 5G-hálózataink, a felhőszolgáltatásaink jelentős része nem európai kézben van. Ez nem csupán technológiai függőség, hanem egyben biztonsági kérdés is.

    Amikor kritikus adataink külső szervereken utaznak, amikor stratégiai döntéseink más hatalmak infrastruktúráján keresztül születnek, valójában feladjuk a szuverenitásunk egy részét. Éppen ezért a külső befolyás csökkentésére van szükség.

    Az EU-nak sürgősen cselekednie kell. Be kell fektetnünk saját technológiai megoldásainkba. Fejlesztenünk kell az európai alternatívákat, és meg kell erősítenünk a kibervédelmünket. Csak így biztosíthatjuk, hogy Európa továbbra is független, erős és versenyképes szereplő maradjon a világpolitika színpadán. Kezünkbe kell vennünk a digitális jövőnk irányítását, vagy elfogadjuk, hogy mások írják számunkra a szabályokat. Az idő pedig sürget.

     
       

     

      José Cepeda (S&D). – Señor presidente, señorías, Europa ¿está o no está en guerra? Yo creo que estamos en guerra. Estamos en una guerra híbrida y, por primera vez en muchísimas décadas, no somos lo suficientemente conscientes de la situación que estamos atravesando. Tenemos que invertir en nuestra seguridad y en nuestra defensa, en nuestras infraestructuras críticas de telecomunicaciones.

    Y para ser realmente soberanos solamente tenemos que hacer dos cosas: invertir de una forma importante en tecnología, pero no en cualquier tecnología, en nuestro desarrollo tecnológico, e invertir también en una mayor cooperación de nuestros sistemas de inteligencia, para precisamente proteger de una forma eficiente todas las infraestructuras críticas de telecomunicaciones. En este caso hay numerosísimos trabajos que desarrollan institutos de investigación, como por ejemplo Max Planck; tenemos que esforzarnos para que se visualicen mucho más. Y tenemos que generar nuestros propios recursos si realmente queremos ser soberanos y protegernos de lo que nos está hoy invadiendo de una forma directa.

     
       


     

      Brando Benifei (S&D). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, il dibattito su Starlink in Italia ci ha posto un doppio interrogativo: possiamo affidarci per comunicazioni del governo e degli apparati di intelligence e di difesa ad aziende fondate e guidate da chi oggi pubblicamente supporta forze filo-Putin e anti-UE, con l’uso di potenti mezzi di comunicazione e di risorse illimitate? E, qualora adottassimo sistemi come Starlink, possiamo rischiare che il governo americano ne interrompa le funzionalità, come è accaduto in una occasione in Ucraina?

    Io credo serva equilibrio e approfondimento. Vale per l’Italia, che ho usato come esempio, e vale per l’Europa. Non possiamo precluderci nessuna soluzione tecnologica, ma quando si tratta della sicurezza nazionale ed europea dobbiamo essere certi di mantenere il controllo e la riservatezza necessaria.

    In ogni caso, dobbiamo portare avanti i nostri progetti. L’Unione ha già lanciato il progetto IRIS2 per una connettività satellitare sicura. È in ritardo questo progetto. La Commissione deve impegnarsi a realizzarlo più velocemente insieme agli Stati membri.

    E poi le crescenti tensioni geopolitiche. La dipendenza da fornitori esterni per infrastrutture cruciali è un tema non solo rispetto ai satelliti, ma anche per i cavi sottomarini, le tecnologie mobili. Si mette a rischio, se non si lavora su questo, l’autonomia strategica dell’Europa.

    Dobbiamo fare di più, adesso e insieme. Non perdiamo altro tempo, perché ne va della nostra libertà.

     
       



       

    (Se suspende la sesión durante unos instantes)

     
       

       

    IN THE CHAIR: VICTOR NEGRESCU
    Vice-President

     

    5. Resumption of the sitting

       

    (The sitting resumed at 12:30)

     
       


     

      Jean-Paul Garraud (PfE). – Monsieur le Président, l’article 10 de notre règlement intérieur exige des députés qu’ils préservent la dignité du Parlement, et l’article 17 dispose que les députés sont responsables des actes de leurs assistants.

    Ces règles ont été piétinées hier soir. Sous la direction et en présence de Mme Manon Aubry, présidente de groupe, un attroupement de députés et d’assistants français d’extrême gauche ont tenté d’empêcher la tenue d’une conférence ici même, au Parlement européen, en vociférant des injures et des slogans diffamatoires à l’entrée de la salle de conférence.

    Nous demandons que des sanctions soient prises. Ce sont des violations inacceptables de notre règlement intérieur. Nous n’allons pas nous laisser intimider par des apprentis révolutionnaires islamo-gauchistes et antisémites.

    Ces actes sont graves. Il vous faut, Monsieur le Président, Madame la Présidente Metsola, prendre des sanctions et éviter ainsi les prochaines actions que ces gens-là préparent. C’est votre responsabilité, Madame la Présidente du Parlement européen. Nous attendons les mesures que vous prendrez pour préserver l’exercice de la démocratie.

     
       

     

      Manon Aubry (The Left). – Monsieur le Président, l’événement qui était organisé hier par le groupe ESN portait sur la remigration. La remigration, c’est la déportation de personnes qui sont européennes en dehors de l’Union européenne.

    Monsieur Garraud, en prenant la défense de cet événement, vous montrez le vrai visage de l’extrême droite, qui est celui aujourd’hui d’un projet raciste et xénophobe.

    Alors oui, Monsieur Garraud, nous avons protesté pacifiquement. Oui, Monsieur Garraud, vous nous trouverez à chaque fois – à chaque fois! – sur votre chemin. À chaque fois que vous organiserez des événements racistes dans les locaux de notre Parlement européen, vous nous trouverez ici pour protester, parce que le racisme n’a pas sa place, ni ici au sein du Parlement européen, ni à l’extérieur.

     
       


     

      Thijs Reuten (S&D). – Mr President, thank you for your patience, and thank you, colleagues. On behalf of my group – and I hope many more – I would like to ask our President to convey our deepest concerns about yesterday’s statements by President Trump and his government. We all want peace for Ukraine, but the terms and conditions emerging are bad for Ukraine, bad for Europe and bad for the rules-based order. Just good for Putin!

    The EU and other European allies are not part of the discussion. That is unacceptable and risky. An emergency Council meeting before the weekend should be on the table, ensuring a united message to our US friends that we are not going to do it like this.

    Not about Ukraine, without Ukraine; not about Europe, without Europe!

    (Applause)

     

    6. Voting time

     

      President. – This being said, based on the recommendations of the services we will move directly to the vote.

     

     

      President. – The next vote is on the repression by the Ortega‑Murillo regime in Nicaragua, targeting human rights defenders, political opponents and religious communities in particular (see minutes, item 6.2).

     

     

      President. – The next vote is on the continuing detention and risk of the death penalty for individuals in Nigeria charged with blasphemy, notably the case of Yahaya Sharif-Aminu (see minutes, item 6.3).

     

     

      President. – The next vote is on the further deterioration of the political situation in Georgia (see minutes, item 6.4).

     


       

    (The vote closed)

     
       

       

    (The sitting was suspended at 12:47)

     
       

       

    IN THE CHAIR: CHRISTEL SCHALDEMOSE
    Vice-President

     

    7. Resumption of the sitting

       

    (The sitting resumed at 15:01)

     

    8. Approval of the minutes of the previous sitting

     

      President. – The minutes of yesterday’s sitting and the texts adopted are available. Are there any comments? No. The minutes are approved.

     

    9. Cross-border recognition of civil status documents of same-sex couples and their children within the territory of the EU (debate)


     

      Glenn Micallef, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, honourable Members, I would like to thank you for proposing a debate on the recognition of civil status documents of same‑sex couples and their children within the Union.

    Families, in particular rainbow families, can currently face difficulties in having their marriage or partnership or the parenthood of their children recognised in another Member State, for example, when they move to another Member State or returned to their Member State of origin. The recognition in a Member State of civil status documents on marriage, partnerships and parenthood issued in another Member State is at the basis of the right to free movement and an essential element of the construction of a Union of equality.

    The Court of Justice ruled in its 2018 judgment in the Coman case that already today Union law on free movement requires Member States to recognise, for certain purposes, civil status documents on marriage or partnerships issued in another Member State, irrespective of the sex of the spouses or partners.

    This recognition obligation aims to enable Union citizens and their spouses or partners, including same‑sex couples, to benefit from rights under Union law, such as the right to travel to or take up residence in another Member State, or to be treated equally in a host Member State in respect of all matters within the scope of the Treaty, even if that host Member State does not provide for same‑sex marriage or same‑sex partnerships. But let me be clear: this does not require Member States to provide, in their national law, for the institution of same‑sex marriage.

    Similarly, the Court of Justice confirmed in its 2021 judgment in the VMA case that the Member States are already required under Union law free movement to recognise a civil status document on the parenthood of a child issued in another Member State. This recognition obligation aims to enable all children and their parents, including children with same‑sex parents, to benefit from their rights under Union law, such as the right to travel to or take up residence in another Member State, and in their right to travel documentation even if the host Member State does not allow parenthood by same‑sex couples.

    The Commission considered that the protection of children’s rights in cross‑border situations should be extended, and in 2022, it adopted a proposal for a regulation that would require Member States to recognise civil status documents on parenthood issued in another Member State for all purposes.

    The regulation would require Member States to recognise parenthood to enable all children to also benefit from their rights under national law, such as the right to inherit from either parent in another Member State, the right to receive financial support from either parent in another Member State, or the right to be represented by either parent in another Member State on matters such as their schooling and health. This recognition obligation would apply irrespective of how that child was conceived or born, and irrespective of the child’s type of family, therefore also applying to children with same‑sex parents.

    The proposal would facilitate the recognition of parenthood by harmonising the Member States’ rules on private international law, that is, rules that determine which Member State’s court would be competent to establish parenthood in cross‑border cases, which national law would apply to establish parenthood in cross‑border cases, and how judgments and public documents on parenthood issued in one Member State should be recognised in another Member State.

    The proposal also provides for the creation of a European certificate on parenthood – a certificate that children or their parents could use to prove children’s parenthood in another Member State.

    As the proposal concerns rights going beyond rights for which recognition is already granted under Union law, the proposal had to be adopted under the Union’s competence to adopt measures on family law with cross‑border implications, pursuant to Article 81(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

    Such measures must be adopted by the Council by a unanimous vote, after having consulted Parliament. Parliament gave a large support to the proposal in December 2023. In the Council, the Member States are discussing the proposal’s provisions constructively, and progress is gradually being made.

     
       

     

      Seán Kelly, thar ceann an Ghrúpa PPE. – Go raibh maith agat a Uachtaráin agus go raibh maith agat a Choimisinéir, aontaím leat sa mhéid a dúirt tú.

    We are faced with a very important question. Should same sex couples and their children receive the same recognition and protection of their civil status across all EU Member States? The answer is clear: yes.

    This is about ensuring equality and fairness for all families across Europe. This is not a question of ideology, but simply a question of fundamental human rights.

    The European Union is founded on the principles of equality, dignity and freedom. When a same-sex couple legally marries in one Member State, or when their child is legally recognised as theirs, that legal status should not dissolve at a border. A family is a family, whether they live in Dublin, Warsaw, Madrid or Budapest.

    Yet today, many same-sex couples and their children find themselves in legal limbo simply because they move between Member States. A child recognised as the legal offspring of two parents in one country may suddenly find themselves without legal guardianship in another. This is not just an inconvenience. It is a violation of their rights, creating insecurity, fear and unnecessary suffering. Worse still, this legal uncertainty directly infringes on one of the fundamental pillars of the EU: the right to free movement.

    What freedom is there if crossing a border can strip away a person’s legal relationship with their child? No EU citizen should have to choose between their right to live and work anywhere in the Union and the legal security of their family. Yet that is precisely the choice some families are forced to make.

    This Parliament has a duty to defend all families. EU law must guarantee that civil status documents – marriages, partnerships, birth certificates – are recognised across borders, regardless of the gender of the parents or spouses.

    The European Court of Justice has already affirmed that all EU citizens, including same sex families, must be able to move freely without discrimination. Now we need our legislation to reflect this. We must ensure that legal rights are already granted by one country, are not stripped away by another. This is about legal certainty, respect for human dignity and the freedom of movement that is the heart of the of the European project.

    Families should not have to fear crossing a border. Children should not lose their legal parents overnight. We have a responsibility to ensure that love, commitment and parental care are recognised and respected no matter where in the EU they exist. Let us choose the path of equality, dignity and fundamental rights.

    Tugaimis, agus seasaimis suas dár gclann i ngach áit san Aontas agus aitheantas a thabhairt dóibh i ngach aon Bhallstát.

     
       

     

      Krzysztof Śmiszek, w imieniu grupy S&D. – Pani Przewodnicząca! Zasada wzajemnego uznawania dokumentów między państwami członkowskimi. Zasada wzajemnego zaufania. Zasada równości bez względu na orientację seksualną. Zasada swobodnego przepływu osób. Zasada zakazu dyskryminacji. To są podstawy funkcjonowania Unii Europejskiej.

    Dzisiaj powiem Państwu o sytuacjach, prawdziwych sytuacjach, w których te zasady w Unii Europejskiej nie obowiązują. Prawo Unii Europejskiej nie obowiązuje, jeżeli po spędzeniu 15 pięknych lat ze swoim partnerem w Polsce, umiera on we Włoszech i musisz sprowadzić jego ciało do kraju, jak w przypadku Polaków – Krzysztofa i Łukasza. Te zasady nie istnieją kiedy zawierasz związek małżeński z miłością swojego życia w Danii albo w Portugalii. W Polsce ten związek nie ma żadnego znaczenia. Twoja miłość w świetle prawa nie istnieje, tak jak miłość polskiej pisarki Renaty i jej partnerki. Tak jak miłość aktywistów Dawida i Jakuba. Tysiące polskich, słowackich czy rumuńskich par jednopłciowych zawiera związki małżeńskie i wychowuje dzieci w Niemczech, w Portugalii, Holandii, Szwecji czy Hiszpanii. Kiedy podróżują do Polski, Bułgarii czy Słowacji, ich związki małżeńskie już nie istnieją i ich rodzicielstwo w świetle prawa zostaje odrzucone. Ich życia są unieważnione. Stają się niewidzialni. Stają się dla siebie obcymi osobami.

    Podstawą Unii Europejskiej jest wolność poruszania się po jej terytorium. W jaki sposób ta wolność jest respektowana, jeżeli w jednym kraju jestem mężem i ojcem, a w drugim nikim. Jeżeli odbiera się mi moją tożsamość, moją miłość i moją rodzinę w momencie, kiedy wsiadam do pociągu w Berlinie, a wysiadam we Wrocławiu czy Warszawie. Artykuł 21 Karty Praw Podstawowych zakazuje dyskryminacji ze względu na orientację seksualną. Czy na pewno tak jest w Unii Europejskiej? Panie Komisarzu, czas zakończyć tę jawną dyskryminację. Czas na działanie Unii Europejskiej i Komisji Europejskiej.

     
       

     

      Paolo Inselvini, a nome del gruppo ECR. – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, signor Commissario, i bambini, la parte più fragile, coloro che hanno bisogno di protezione più di tutti, devono avere la priorità. Questo in generale, ma anche e soprattutto per il dibattito odierno. Siamo tutti d’accordo, credo e spero, su questo aspetto.

    E allora perché qualcuno vuole sacrificare i diritti dei più piccoli sull’altare dell’ideologia? Perché si vuole esaudire a tutti i costi i desideri, più o meno legittimi, degli adulti? I bambini hanno il diritto ad avere un padre e una madre. Non perché lo decidiamo noi, brutti e cattivi, non perché lo decide uno Stato, ma perché così è, senza alcuna possibilità di smentita.

    Avere dei bambini, invece, non è un diritto. Avere dei figli non è un diritto che può essere esaudito a tutti i costi. Questo semplicemente, perché le persone non sono delle cose.

    Ecco perché mi sorge un dubbio. Evidentemente, la discussione di oggi è fatta per ingannare. È un inganno: un inganno da parte di chi vuole legittimare la barbara pratica dell’utero in affitto, ossia la mercificazione della donna, dei bambini e della vita.

    E se questo è il vostro obiettivo, bene, sappiate che ci troverete pronti alle barricate. Saremo l’argine che fermerà la vostra furiosa marea ideologica. Non smetteremo mai di ribadirlo: i bambini possono nascere solo da un padre e una madre, solo da un uomo e da una donna. Ed è assurdo dover sempre ricordare ciò che è ovvio. Ma se ci costringerete, noi lo riaffermeremo ogni giorno con coraggio. Non arretreremo un centimetro nella difesa della famiglia, della donna e dei bambini.

     
       

     

      Fabienne Keller, au nom du groupe Renew. – Madame la Présidente, Monsieur le Commissaire Micallef, chers collègues, la montée de l’extrême droite en Europe représente une menace grandissante pour tout le monde, et plus particulièrement pour la communauté LGBTI. En témoigne la récente mesure du gouvernement Meloni, qui vise à annuler les enregistrements des actes d’état civil des enfants des couples de même sexe. En Italie, plus de 20 000 enfants élevés par des couples de même sexe sont ainsi menacés par la remise en cause de leur filiation légale.

    Aujourd’hui, dans l’Union européenne, ce sont plus de 2 millions d’enfants qui pourraient faire face à une situation dans laquelle ce lien avec leurs parents n’est pas reconnu. Il est donc urgent d’agir maintenant, d’autant plus que, Monsieur le Commissaire, la solution, nous l’avons déjà trouvée, vous l’avez rappelé.

    La Commission européenne a proposé, il y a deux ans déjà, un règlement pour harmoniser cette reconnaissance et introduire un certificat européen. Cette reconnaissance ne permettrait pas simplement de mettre fin à l’incertitude, mais elle offrirait également une garantie réelle de protection des droits et l’égalité pour les familles.

    Alors, chers collègues, qu’attendons-nous pour la mettre en œuvre? Avec mon groupe Renew Europe, nous portons haut et fort les valeurs européennes d’égalité. J’appelle donc les États membres à faire avancer cette proposition, essentielle pour la sécurité juridique pour tous, pour l’égalité, pour la protection des enfants dans l’Union européenne. Nous devons cela à tous les enfants européens.

     
       

     

      Kim Van Sparrentak, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Madam President, dear colleagues, this summer I am getting married and I honestly can’t wait to call my beautiful fiancée my wife. I can’t wait to celebrate with all our friends and family and use our legal rights to be recognised as partners for life.

    And two weeks later, one of my best friends is also getting married and I know he is as excited as me to tie the knot with his girlfriend. But the sad reality is that within our union of equality, my friend and I aren’t equal, because there are still Member States that disavow a marriage between me and my girlfriend. They are allowed to prevent us from accessing our social security or our claims to residency and they can disregard the other if we have to make unthinkable medical choices. They are still allowed to hinder us in our right to free movement. Some marriage certificates are apparently more meaningful than others.

    And this is definitely not about me. It is about baby Sara, who is a toddler by now, and her mums, who have been fighting for their child not to grow up stateless. This is about Adrian Coman, whose partner was prevented from living with him in his home country of Romania. It is about Arian Mirzarafie-Ahi not having to fight for the legal gender recognition he already obtained, especially when the possibilities are limited and dehumanising.

    The courts are clear: freedom of movement means that if you are a parent in one country, you are a parent in every country. If you are a spouse in one country, you are a spouse in every country. If you obtain legal gender recognition in one country, you obtain legal gender recognition in every country.

    Commission, I’m looking forward to you putting this into law and I’m especially looking forward to seeing that happen within the new LGBTIQ equality strategy.

     
       

     

      Siegbert Frank Droese, im Namen der ESN-Fraktion. – Frau Präsidentin! Verehrte Kollegen! Ich wundere mich schon, dass wir heute die Tagesordnung nicht geändert haben. Sie haben es wahrscheinlich mitbekommen: Ein Weltereignis von Weltrang hat sich gestern ereignet. Die Präsidenten Trump und Putin werden einen Friedensprozess in Gang setzen, was die Ukraine betrifft. Die Kommission, das Parlament, die EU spielen dabei keine Rolle. Da hätte ich mir ehrlich gesagt gewünscht, dass wir heute über dieses Thema reden. Nun ist es so. Wir reden jetzt heute über das Problem gleichgeschlechtlicher Paare.

    Die Kommission propagiert jeden Tag pausenlos ihre EU-Werte und will sie möglichst global durchsetzen. Was für eine Vermessenheit! Dass dadurch Abkommen verhindert werden, oft die Wirtschaft der EU Schaden nimmt, ist der Kommission dabei vollkommen egal. Dabei scheint die Kommission nicht zu interessieren, dass die Mehrheit der Länder auf der Welt andere Werte als diese EU hat. Dies gilt insbesondere für den Bereich Familie. Sechs Länder haben nicht der Idee von gleichgeschlechtlichen Ehen zugestimmt, darunter Bulgarien, Rumänien und Polen. Diese Länder haben andere Traditionen. Warum kann man das nicht respektieren? Diese EU macht doch immer Reklame für Einheit in Vielfalt. Gilt das normale und traditionelle Familienbild aus Mutter, Vater, Kindern, das in Europa seit Anbeginn der Zeit herrscht, nicht als schützenswerter Teil einer Vielfalt? Warum werden hier Länder wie Rumänien bedroht, die ihre Verfassung verändern müssen? Das finden wir übergriffig, das ist widerlich, das ist abzulehnen.

    Um es klar zu sagen: Niemand soll diskriminiert werden. Es soll aber auch niemand bevorzugt werden. Gleichbehandlung für jedermann. Diese EU will nun grenzüberschreitend, dass alle privaten Lebensformen überall in der EU anerkannt werden. Nein, das soll jedes Land selbst entscheiden. Das ist eine nationale Aufgabe der Mitgliedsländer. Diese EU, solange sie noch besteht, soll sich auf ihre Kernkompetenzen, wenn sie die denn hat, konzentrieren und sich nicht in das Privatleben der Bürger einmischen. Wir respektieren das Privatleben aller Bürger. Wir stehen aber auch für Familie aus Mutter, Vater, Kindern.

    Die Souveränität einer Nation heißt auch Souveränität in den Familienfragen und Respekt vor Privatangelegenheiten seiner Bürger. Und von dieser Stelle aus möchte ich meinen Landsleuten zurufen: Wenn Sie Freiheit, Frieden und Souveränität große Beachtung schenken, haben Sie nächste Woche am Sonntag die Gelegenheit. Wir sagen dazu: Von den Alpen bis zur See wählen alle AfD. Oder in einfacher Sprache: Sei schlau, wähl blau!

     
       


     

      Lucia Yar (Renew). – Dnes tu stojím s víziou Európy, ktorá je spravodlivá, láskavá a verná svojim spoločným hodnotám, pán predrečník. Európy postavenej na tolerancii, kde o vzťahu dvoch dospelých ľudí rozhodujú ich city, ich vzájomné city, a nie povolenia politikov, kde každé dieťa, bez ohľadu na orientáciu alebo pohlavie svojich rodičov, má právo na stabilitu, bezpečie a rodinu. Verím v Európsku úniu, ktorá spája, nie rozdeľuje. Takú, ktorá nedovolí, aby prekročenie hranice znamenalo stratu rodiča. Aj Európsky súdny dvor, už sme o tom počuli, tvrdí, že ak je právny vzťah uznaný v jednej krajine, musí ho rešpektovať aj iná krajina. Kvôli princípu spravodlivosti a ochrany tých najzraniteľnejších, to je ten dôvod. A predsa, napríklad u nás na Slovensku, vidíme opak. Populistické vlády predkladajú návrhy, ktoré práva rodín nerozširujú, ale ich obmedzujú, zraňujú ich. My ale máme naviac. Vyberme si cestu, ktorá je cestou rešpektu. A skúsme aj v tejto dobe povedať jasné áno spravodlivosti. Postavme sa za Európu, v ktorej každé dieťa, každá rodina a každý človek má svoje bezpečné miesto.

     
       

     

      Rasmus Andresen (Verts/ALE). – Frau Präsidentin! Ich möchte, dass alle Europäerinnen und Europäer die gleichen Rechte haben, unabhängig davon, wo sie leben und wen sie lieben.

    Niemand hat Hass und Hetze verdient; alle haben Respekt und gleiche Rechte verdient. Es ist doch absurd, dass Menschen sich in der EU zwar frei bewegen können, aber sie selbst und ihre Familien nicht überall anerkannt werden. Es hat in der Vergangenheit mehrere Fälle gegeben, wo gleichgeschlechtliche Paare ihre Rechte vor Gericht einklagen mussten. Zwei polnische Frauen, die in Wien ein Kind bekommen haben, aber zu Hause damit nicht anerkannt wurden. Homosexuelle Männer, die nach ihrem Umzug in einen anderen EU-Mitgliedstaat ihre Ehe nicht anerkannt bekommen haben.

    Es ist untragbar, dass gleichgeschlechtliche Paare in der Europäischen Union 2025 immer noch diskriminiert werden. Es ist unsere Pflicht, die Grundrechte von allen EU-Bürgerinnen und -Bürgern zu schützen. Dafür brauchen wir europäische Gesetze, mit denen die Freiheit der Menschen geschützt und Regenbogenfamilien EU-weit anerkannt werden. Gegen Staaten wie Rumänien, die das systematisch untergraben, muss die EU-Kommission mit Sanktionen vorgehen.

    Ich möchte Sie auch ganz herzlich auffordern, hier nicht nachzulassen, sondern nachzulegen, auch wenn die politische Stimmung in einigen Mitgliedstaaten vielleicht kompliziert ist. Aber Sie haben hier gemeinsam mit uns eine Verantwortung. Der müssen Sie gerecht werden.

     
       

     

      Robert Biedroń (S&D). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Jutro Walentynki, 14 lutego. Niestety nie wszyscy w tej Unii Równości będą mogli świętować to święto. Nadal mamy w Unii Europejskiej obywateli lepszego i gorszego sortu. Nadal mamy w Unii Europejskiej rodziny, które nie mają równych praw. Nadal mamy 2 miliony dzieci w Unii Europejskiej, które nie są objęte ochroną. Europejski certyfikat rodzicielstwa chce to zmienić, to dobry kierunek i dlatego dziwię się, naprawdę dziwię się prawicy, że z taką nienawiścią podchodzi do czegoś, co Wy zawsze popieraliście – ochrony rodziny i ochrony dzieci. Przecież tu chodzi o bezpieczeństwo tego dziecka. Chodzi o to, że kiedy jego rodzice znajdują się w sytuacji, która nie jest uregulowana prawnie, to by dziecko po prostu najnormalniej w świecie było bezpieczne. Nic więcej i nic mniej.

    (Mówca zgodził się na pytanie zasygnalizowane przez podniesienie niebieskiej kartki)

     
       

     

      Bogdan Rzońca (ECR), pytanie zadane przez podniesienie niebieskiej kartki. – Mam pytanie do Pana Posła. Nie rozumiem tego lamentu, który tutaj Pan Poseł przedstawia wraz ze swoim partnerem. Od ponad roku rządzicie państwo w Polsce – Pana formacja z Donaldem Tuskiem. Rządzicie w Polsce od 14 miesięcy. Macie większość, możecie tak zmienić prawo w Polsce, jak chcecie i nie umiecie tego zrobić. No i powiedzcie dlaczego?

    Poza tym, Panie Pośle, Unia Europejska jest organizacją prawną – artykuł 5 Traktatu o Unii Europejskiej mówi bardzo wyraźnie, że kompetencje nieprzyznane innym są kompetencjami krajowymi. Więc także tu macie większość w tym Parlamencie, możecie robić, co chcecie i nie robicie tego. Więc krótko mówiąc, ja jestem za prawem naturalnym, mam trochę inne zdanie niz Pan, ale niech Pan nie ma pretensji do Kaczyńskiego, do Prawicy o to, że jesteście mniejszością, bo jesteście …

    (Przewodnicząca odebrała mówcy głos)

     
       

     

      Robert Biedroń (S&D), odpowiedź na pytanie zadane przez podniesienie niebieskiej kartki. – Ja chciałem podziękować panu posłowi, że on tak pełen emocji podchodzi do tej sprawy i tutaj podpowiada, jak to zmienić. Proszę się przyłączyć. Ja myślę, że tutaj warto, żebyśmy wszyscy ponad podziałami chronili każdego obywatela i każdą obywatelkę. Jeśli chodzi o prawo unijne, Panie Pośle, to warto doczytać – Europejski Trybunał Sprawiedliwości wydawał wyroki w tej sprawie. Brak takiej regulacji to nie tylko jest pogwałcenie traktatów, ale pogwałcenie także podstawowych praw człowieka. Dlatego, Panie Komisarzu, dziękuję za tę inicjatywę, którą, jak rozumiem, pan Rzońca będzie popierał.

     
       

     

      Vytenis Povilas Andriukaitis (S&D). – Madam President, Commissioner, of course, no child should be discriminated against because of the way they were born or the type of family they were born into. It is crucial. It is enshrined in the Lisbon Treaty, Article 2. Please read this article. We are all obliged to fulfil the requirements of human rights. All.

    It’s not a question of religion. Those who are mentioning Christianity, please read the Bible. Abraham and his first son and, of course, Saint Mary’s story. It would be good to listen and to understand about what you are speaking. Of course, you know that all families, including rainbow families, should have the same rights in the EU. This includes, for instance, the right to maintenance and schooling, education and others.

    But it is a pity we see that such a trend is growing, especially in those countries where the far right are trying to violate human rights. Of course, the parenthood regulation is still blocked in the Council. It is also a shame that the Council still, until now, has no chance to solve this problem. It is our duty to implement all human rights.

     
       

       

    Catch-the-eye procedure

     
       

     

      Margarita de la Pisa Carrión (PfE). – Señora presidente, señorías, el Derecho de familia es competencia de los Estados miembros. La Declaración de los Derechos del Niño es clara: todo niño tiene un padre y una madre y tiene derecho a conocerlos y a ser cuidado por ellos en la medida de lo posible. Los vínculos naturales entre padres e hijos deben ser respetados, pues trascienden la propia existencia: ¿quién soy?; ¿de dónde vengo?; el inicio de nuestra vida en el vientre materno; el vínculo con nuestros padres… Otras formas de paternidad interfieren en esta realidad y exponen al niño y a las personas implicadas no solo a graves dilemas éticos y legales, sino también a situaciones donde se agrede su propia dignidad.

    Garantizar la seguridad jurídica de las familias es legítimo; sin embargo, vemos cómo este principio está siendo instrumentalizado para dar una nueva forma a las relaciones entre padres e hijos transformándolas en contractuales, a veces incluso en mercantiles, como es la gestación subrogada. El ser humano deja de ser tratado como un sujeto de derechos y pasa a considerarse un objeto de transacción, un bien de consumo, a través de la explotación de las mujeres, causando un doloroso desgarro con el hijo y normalizando la ruptura de los lazos naturales.

    La difícil situación en la que se puedan encontrar estos niños debe ser resuelta caso a caso a nivel nacional, no por un mecanismo general europeo como es el certificado de filiación: esto alentaría estas prácticas exponiendo a más personas a esta…

    (la presidenta retira la palabra a la oradora)

     
       

       

    (End of catch-the-eye procedure)

     
       

     

      Glenn Micallef, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, the gender-neutral right to free movement is a cornerstone of our citizens’ Union. The gender-neutral Union family law, the right to love and the right to be loved is an essential block to build a union of equality.

    By requiring or facilitating the recognition of civil status documents, including for same sex couples, Union law on free movement and Union family law aim to protect the rights of couples and also of children in cross-border situations, without leaving behind any spouse or partner due to their sexual orientation and without leaving behind any child because of the way in which he was conceived or born, or because she has the same sex parents.

    In facilitating the recognition of civil status documents also for same sex families, Union law does not interfere with the Member States’ substantive family law, such as their rules on the definition of family or their rules on surrogacy, which fall within the competence of Member States.

    However, with the recognition of civil status documents for all spouses or partners and for all children, Union law will ensure that same sex couples and their children can benefit from all their rights in any Member State.

     
       

     

      President. – Thank you very much, Commissioner. The debate is closed.

     

    10. Explanations of votes

     

      President. – The next item is the explanation of votes.

     

    10.1. Further deterioration of the political situation in Georgia (RC-B10-0106/2025)



     

      Ondřej Dostál (NI). – Paní předsedající, vážení voliči, mám čtyři důvody, proč jsem dnes hlasoval proti rezoluci o Gruzii. Důvod první, Evropský parlament by se měl věnovat potížím Evropy, ne usnesením o cizích zemích. Je to neuctivé a neužitečné. Oni mají své problémy, my máme dost vlastních. Důvod druhý, kritika gruzínských voleb je dezinformace. Zásadní výhrady proti nim neměla ani mise OSCE, ani mise Evropského parlamentu. Gruzínci si jasně zvolili Gruzínský sen. Evropský parlament nemá žádnou pravomoc určovat, kdo bude v Gruzii premiérem či prezidentem. Důvod třetí, rezoluce vyzývá k puči a k financování nepokojů z peněz evropských občanů. Vyzývá, abychom se dopustili stejného zahraničního vměšování, které tady soustavně kritizujeme. Exprezidentce Zurabišviliové skončil mandát. Nechť odejde. Exprezident Saakašvili byl v řádném procesu trestně odsouzen za zneužití moci. Nechť svůj trest vykoná. Důvod čtvrtý, politika, kterou rezoluce Gruzii vnucuje, by jí připravila podobný osud, jaký stihl Ukrajinu. Gruzie tu není proto, aby dělala pěšáka Západu v boji s Ruskem. Tímto se Gruzii omlouvám za pokus o destabilizaci ze strany Parlamentu. Přeji jí rozumnou vládu, mír a prosperitu.

     

    10.2. Escalation of violence in the eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo (RC-B10-0102/2025)


     

      Seán Kelly (PPE). – Maith thú a Uachtaráin arís, bhí mé an-sásta, cosúil le mo ghrúpa an EPP, vótáil ar son na tuarascála seo.

    The ongoing violence in the eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo is both heartbreaking and unjustifiable. The escalation of conflict, including the occupation of Goma by M23 forces, has led to severe violations of human rights, including the use of sexual violence as a weapon of war and recruitment of child soldiers. These actions are not only a violation of international law, but are also catastrophic for innocent civilians caught in the crossfire.

    The resolution calls for concrete actions to bring peace to the region, including imposing sanctions, halting arms transfers and demanding that Rwanda ceases its support for M23.

    I believe this resolution sends a clear message that we will not tolerate further human suffering and that we stand in solidarity with the people of the DRC in their fight for peace and justice.

    Sin a bhfuil uaimse a Uachtaráin, míle buíochas agus go dté tú slán abhaile.

     

    11. Approval of the minutes of the sitting and forwarding of texts adopted

     

      President. – The minutes of this sitting will be submitted to Parliament for its approval at the beginning of the next sitting. If there are no objections, I will forward the resolutions adopted at today’s sitting to the persons and bodies named in the resolutions.

     

    12. Dates of forthcoming sittings

     

      President. – The next part‑session will take place from 10 to 13 March 2025, in Strasbourg.

     

    13. Closure of the sitting

       

    (The sitting closed at 15:40)

     

    14. Adjournment of the session

     

      President. – The session of the European Parliament is adjourned.

     

    MIL OSI Europe News –

    February 15, 2025
  • MIL-OSI United Nations: Experts of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights Commend the United Kingdom on Steps Taken to Provide a Real Living Wage, Ask Questions on Reported Discriminatory Legislation for Asylum Seekers and High Levels of Child Poverty

    Source: United Nations – Geneva

    The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights today concluded its review of the seventh periodic report of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, with Committee Experts commending the steps taken to provide a real living wage, while asking questions on reported discriminatory legislation for asylum seekers and high levels of child poverty in the State party. 

    Joo-Young Lee, Committee Expert and Taskforce Member, said in its reply to the list of issues, the State party stated that the level of the minimum living wage for this year would be set at a level not below two-thirds of the median earnings in the United Kingdom.  For the first time, the cost of living would also be taken into account in this process, with the aim of providing a real living wage, which was commendable. 

    Seree Nonthasoot, Committee Expert and Taskforce Leader, said it had been reported that the discriminatory effects of such recent legislation as the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, the Illegal Migration Act 2023, and the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024 had hindered access by migrants in an irregular situation and asylum seekers to social protection benefits.  Could the State party clarify if these hindering measures were in place and if social benefits would be ensured to this marginalised group?

    Julieta Rossi, Committee Expert and Taskforce Member, said the United Kingdom was one of the richest economies in the world, yet extremely high figures of poverty persisted. According to information, during the period 2022/2023, 21 per cent of the population lived in relative poverty, with alarming rates of 30 per cent in childhood, or 4.3 million children.  Was the State developing a strategy to achieve a drastic and short-term reduction of poverty, which prioritised child poverty and poverty of disadvantaged groups? 

    The delegation said last month, a new border security, asylum and immigration bill was introduced to parliament, which included the repeal of the Safety of Rwanda Act and amended the Illegal Migration Act, including the duty to remove individuals who had arrived in the United Kingdom immediately.  The Nationality and Borders Act remained in place, but all asylum claims were individually considered in line with international obligations. 

    Concerning child poverty, the delegation said the United Kingdom Government was developing a child poverty strategy to be launched in spring, as part of a 10-year strategy to address the issue.  The strategy would look at increasing incomes, reducing essential costs, and better local support.  The incoming Government had committed to ending dependence on emergency food parcels. In the financial year 2025/2026, funding of 742 million pounds would be devolved to local governments to help address this issue.

    Robert Linham, Deputy Director, Rights Policy, Ministry of Justice of the United Kingdom and head of the delegation, introducing the report, said the United Kingdom had a system of asymmetric devolution.  The position of the United Kingdom Government remained that incorporation was not necessary for the Covenant’s full implementation, which had been secured through a combination of policies and legislation.  But the Scottish Government had embarked on a programme to incorporate international treaties into Scots law.  Regarding the right to work, increasing the number of people in work was central to the United Kingdom Government’s mission to grow the economy.  Proposals, backed by 240 million pounds of investment, had been announced to reform employment support and create an inclusive labour market. 

    In concluding remarks, Mr. Nonthasoot extended appreciation to the United Kingdom delegation for its superb time and sequence management, which allowed the Committee to raise all relevant questions.  The Committee implored the United Kingdom to ensure that all Crown Dependencies and Overseas Territories under its control provided the highest standard of human rights to everyone. 

    In his concluding remarks, Mr. Linham said the dialogue had been rich and detailed, covering a variety of issues.  It was hoped that the Committee could see the efforts being undertaken in the whole of the United Kingdom to improve economic, social and cultural rights. 

    The delegation of the United Kingdom was comprised of representatives from the Ministry of Justice; the Ministry of Housing Communities and Local Government; the United Nations Human Rights and IMA Policy Team; the Department for Business and Trade; the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport; the Department for Education; the Department for Work Pensions; the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; the Department for Energy and Net Zero; the Department of Health and Social Care; the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office; the HM Treasury; the Home Office; the Scottish Government; the Welsh Government; the Northern Ireland Executive Office; the Attorney General’s Chambers for the Isle of Man; the Government of Jersey; and the Permanent Mission of the United Kingdom to the United Nations Office at Geneva.

    The Committee’s seventy-seventh session is being held until 28 February 2025.  All documents relating to the Committee’s work, including reports submitted by States parties, can be found on the session’s webpage.  Webcasts of the meetings of the session can be found here, and meetings summaries can be found here.

    The Committee will next meet in public at 3 p.m. on Monday, 17 February to begin its consideration of the fifth periodic report of Rwanda (E/C.12/RWA/5).

    Report

    The Committee has before it the seventh periodic report of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (E/C.12/GBR/7).

    Presentation of Report

    ROBERT LINHAM, Deputy Director, Rights Policy, Ministry of Justice of the United Kingdom and head of the delegation, said the United Kingdom had a system of asymmetric devolution by which specified areas of responsibility were devolved to some or all of Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales.  For example, health and education were devolved to all three nations; social security was fully devolved to Northern Ireland but only in part to Scotland; and immigration was largely reserved to the United Kingdom Government.  The delegation also represented the three Crown Dependencies: the Bailiwick of Jersey, the Bailiwick of Guernsey, and the Isle of Man, as well as the 14 British Overseas Territories, home to 250,000 people. 

    One example of devolution in practice related to the incorporation of the Covenant into national law.  The position of the United Kingdom Government remained that incorporation was not necessary for the Covenant’s full implementation, which had been secured through a combination of policies and legislation; and further what it would take to incorporate the Covenant would not be justified by the benefits.  But the Scottish Government had embarked on a programme to incorporate international treaties into Scots law. Its incorporation of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, with two Optional Protocols, came into force last July; and the Scottish Government had committed, subject to the outcome of the next election, to introduce a human rights bill in the next session of Parliament that would give domestic legal effect in Scots law to the present Covenant and some other United Nations treaties.

    Since the restoration of the Northern Ireland Executive and political institutions in February last year, new initiatives had been launched, including an additional 25 million pounds to support early learning and childcare, the provision of free period products to anyone who needed them, and a strategy to end violence against women and girls.  The United Kingdom general election in June 2024 resulted in a change of government to the Labour Party.  In some areas, the approach had already changed quite radically, while other policies remained under review. 

    Regarding the right to work, increasing the number of people in work was central to the United Kingdom Government’s mission to grow the economy.  Proposals, backed by 240 million pounds of investment, had been announced to reform employment support and create an inclusive labour market. Last October, the Government also introduced an employment rights bill into the United Kingdom’s Parliament to increase workers’ rights to better working conditions and more secure work, and to improve industrial relations.  It also included protections from sexual harassment; gender and menopause action plans; and enhanced rights for pregnant workers.

    In the same vein, Guernsey enacted legislation that formally made discrimination on the grounds of race, disability, carer status, religion or belief, and sexual orientation unlawful, covering the fields of employment, the provision of goods and services, accommodation, and membership of clubs and associations.

    Regarding the right to health, England introduced the “Core 20 Plus 5” approach to reduce healthcare inequalities, amongst the most deprived 20 per cent of the population. The Government’s goal was to halve the gap in healthy life expectancy between England’s richest and poorest regions, which in 2020 stood at 10.8 years.  The mental health bill, introduced into Parliament last November, sought to address inadequate care of autistic people and people with learning disabilities, and reduce their unnecessary detention.

    Using newly devolved powers as part of its goal to eradicate child poverty, the Scottish Government introduced five payments to eligible families.  Three Best Start Grants provided one-off payments at key stages in a child’s life.  Best Start Foods was a regular weekly payment to help buy milk and healthy food.  And the Scottish Child Payment helped with the costs of supporting a family.  Similarly, Wales offered free school meals to all children in State primary schools.

    In cultural rights, the United Kingdom last year ratified the 2003 United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization Convention for the Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage.  In Wales, the Cymraeg 2050 Welsh Language Strategy saw almost 17,000 people studying with the National Centre for Learning Welsh in 2022/23, a 33 per cent increase over five years.  Regarding environmental commitments, finally, the Paris Agreement was extended to the Isle of Man, Jersey and Guernsey in 2022 and 2023. Mr. Linham said the United Kingdom was committed to upholding the rights set out in the Covenant. 

    Questions by Committee Experts

    SEREE NONTHASOOT, Committee Expert and Taskforce Leader, said the Committee, via the Secretariat, had received more than 72 submissions pertaining to the periodic report of the State party, probably the highest number thus far for any State party, which attested to the attention and interest that the international community and stakeholders gave to the State party and its report.  It was also important to note, following the submission of the report, that there was a general election in July 2024 and a new administration had since been appointed. 

    The Committee observed that the Covenant could not be applied directly by the State party’s domestic courts.  While there was alignment between the State party’s Human Rights Act 1998 and the European Convention on Human Rights, there was as yet no such transposition mechanism for the Covenant?  Was the Covenant applicable in Anguilla and Northern Ireland?  When would the nearly 50-year-old reservations to the Covenant be withdrawn?  Did the State party’s plan to ratify the Optional Protocol to the Covenant?

    The Committee recognised the State party’s record in introducing the first national action plan on business and human rights in the world in 2013, which was updated in 2016, and the Modern Slavery Act in 2015.  However, there was still an absence of a comprehensive legal framework for human rights due diligence, especially by United Kingdom companies in their transnational operations.  Could clarification on this be provided?  When would systematic and mandatory human rights due diligence be introduced? 

    Was the State party contemplating adopting a sectoral approach in the revision of the national action plan, where key sectoral performance indicators could be specified, for example in banking and finance, retail, construction, and health?  Did the State party intend to integrate effective remedial mechanisms, including legal aid to victims into the next national action plan and, more strategically, binding legislation? Would non-judicial recourse be provided for victims in extraterritorial cases?

    The Committee had scrutinised the 2024 report submitted to Parliament by the United Kingdom’s Climate Change Committee and found alarming findings.  The Committee concluded that only a third of the emissions reductions required to achieve the 2030 target were covered by credible plans, and low-carbon technologies must become the norm.  The Committee was also concerned that the devolved structure of the State party’s administrations had led to the fact that obligations arising from the Paris Agreement had not extended to all Crown Dependencies and Overseas Territories.  What was the concrete policy path to meet the action lines and targets, particularly home decarbonisation and adaptation?  How would the Paris Agreement have full coverage and effect in the territory of the State party?

    How was the State party addressing the tax system which had created negative impacts on vulnerable and marginalised groups, including the regressive nature of the value added tax on low-income households, and the welfare to work policies that posed a burden on people with disabilities?  In November 2024, the net public debt of the United Kingdom stood at 98.1 per cent.  How was this high public debt level impacting social budget programmes and what was the medium- and long-term direction on public debt management which would sustain basic public service investment and maintenance? 

    Could the State party provide policy trajectory on the concrete plan to tackle tax evasion and illicit financial flows, and in particular the reform of law and regulations in the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands, Bermuda and other Overseas Territories that were indexed as tax havens?

    How did the new administration intend to address the regional disparity issue?  What were the cumulative impacts of the two austerity programmes implemented by the United Kingdom? 

    Had an assessment been carried out to implement the official development assistance restoration to 0.7% of the gross national income.  There were reports indicating that part of the development aid through British International Investment had caused impacts on key sectors responsible for delivering human rights, including health and education.  Could this be clarified?  The Committee was concerned by the lack of comprehensive anti-discrimination legislation; could the delegation provide more information around this? 

    While the State party had achieved good progress on gender equality, there were challenges in the fragmented and uneven legislative frameworks on women’s rights, particularly in Northern Ireland, Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies. There were also news reports of incidents of sexual exploitation and violence against women and young girls by ‘grooming gangs’ in places like Oldham, north Manchester. Was this an isolated incident or a common occurrence and what had been done to address the issue?

    It had been reported that the discriminatory effects of such recent legislation as the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, the Illegal Migration Act 2023, and the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024 had hindered access by migrants in an irregular situation and asylum seekers to social protection benefits.  Could the State Party clarify if these hindering measures were in place and if social benefits would be ensured to this marginalised group?

    Responses by the Delegation 

    The delegation said there was no obligation to incorporate the Covenant under domestic law. Successive Governments had explored ratifying the Optional Protocol and the view of previous Governments was that the protections were negligible.  The Covenant was applicable in England, Wales, Scotland, the three Crown Dependencies and the Overseas Territories.  Some of the reservations existing in the name of the United Kingdom related to territories which were no longer part of the United Kingdom, including the Solomon Islands and Tuvalu which were no longer British Overseas Territories, but sovereign States in their own right.   

    The Scottish Government had developed proposals to give domestic legal effect to the rights contained in the Covenant, by incorporating them into the Scottish legal framework.  The Government aimed to deliver a clear and workable law for the authorities that would implement it. 

    The Prime Minister had announced a commitment to reduce emissions by at least 81 per cent by 2035.  The target covered all sectors and categories and was aligned with the Paris Agreement. The United Kingdom was committed to extending its ratification of the Paris Agreement to all Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies.  The Government had committed an additional 3.4 billion pounds to the “Warm Home Plan”, to support decarbonisation and cut bills for household heating. 

    The United Kingdom was committed to making the tax system fairer and more sustainable.  The Government had committed to not increasing tax on working people.  Recent tax changes had been targeted at the highest income households and working people had been largely protected from these tax increases.  Jersey was committed to introducing measures to reduce harmful tax measures.  Jersey’s 2019 economic substance law required companies to prove their genuine business activity, preventing those without real operations from artificially reporting profits. 

    A campaign had been launched against illicit finance.  At a recent joint ministerial council, the United Kingdom confirmed that Overseas Territories needed to implement fully public registers of beneficial ownership, which were key in targeting against corruption and tax evasion.  There were strong policies in place to monitor the impact of development aid programmes. 

    In recent years, there had been an increase in the representation of women in parliament, as well as in senior positions in the private sector, where women now represented 41 per cent.  The United Kingdom had mandatory gender pay gap reporting, which had shown a significant close in the size of the gender pay gap.  The current Government had introduced a bill which would introduce a new duty on employers to outline how they planned to close the gender pay gap. 

    There had been no agreement on a single equality bill in Northern Ireland, but numerous statutes had been enacted over the past few years.  Legislation now prohibited less favourable treatment in employment, education and public functions among others. 

    The safety of children was of paramount importance, but for too long grooming gangs had operated, victims had been ignored, and perpetrators had gone unpunished.  A 10-million-pound action plan to tackle grooming gangs and child sexual abuse had been announced, which would allow victims to have the chance to have their cases re-heard.  Survivors and victims would allow their closed cases to be reviewed by an independent panel, when they previously were not taken forward to prosecution by the Crown.  An audit would begin soon which would draw on the views of victims and survivors. 

    Last month, a new border security, asylum and immigration bill was introduced to parliament, which included the repeal of the Safety of Rwanda Act and amended the Illegal Migration Act, including the duty to remove individuals who had arrived in the United Kingdom immediately.  The Nationality and Borders Act remained in place, but all asylum claims were individually considered in line with international obligations. 

    Questions by Committee Experts

    SEREE NONTHASOOT, Committee Expert and Taskforce Leader, said reports had been received that the Northern Ireland human rights commission was at risk of losing its A status due to insufficient funding.  The Committee would like to raise this concern.  Why did the United Kingdom not adopt the same approach as the Scottish Government in incorporating the Covenant in domestic legislation so that all people could enjoy protection from the Covenant?  What was the State doing to reduce homelessness?  The Committee was very concerned that violent incidents against women would become systematic.  There should be a clear indication on how to prevent this type of violence. 

    JOO-YOUNG LEE, Committee Expert and Taskforce Member, asked what measures the Government would take to give full legal effect to the Covenant, and ensure victims of violations of economic, cultural and social rights had full access to legal remedies?  The Committee was pleased the Scottish Government had proposed the human rights bill, and hoped the provisions of the Covenant would be incorporated.  What was the plan to enact a bill of rights for northern Ireland?

    A Committee Expert asked how the State was planning a social green transformation? 

    Another Expert asked if there were any developments underway regarding the participation of the United Kingdom in the revised European Social Charter? 

    Responses by the Delegation 

    The delegation said all three of the human rights institutions had A status and adequate funding for their role.  At the most recent review of Northern Ireland, it was re-accredited with A status, and a baseline budget review had been launched for the Commission in 2024. 

    There was no obligation for direct justiciability for the rights of the Covenant under domestic law. The United Kingdom had no plans to ratify the revised European Social Charter. 

    It was intended that legislation in Scotland would increase accountability for the Covenant. 

    The debt to gross domestic product ratio was expected to fall in the final year of the five-year forecast. 

    The State would upgrade five million homes across the country through new technologies, including solar heat pumps and installation.  The transition to warmer, decarbonised homes would include support for the most vulnerable to combat fuel poverty.  Climate change would have a disproportionate impact on the most vulnerable of society, including those with pre-existing medical conditions.  The country’s climate change risk assessment took this into account and built into the development of the National Adaptation Programme.  It was essential that transition plans to net-zero were resilient in themselves.

    The Government was working on a strategy to end homelessness.  Last year, a funding increase was announced for homelessness services and initiatives were announced to allow renters to challenge rental increases. 

    Tackling violence against women and girls was a priority for the Government, and the State pledged to halve violence against women and girls within the next decade. 

    Questions by Committee Experts

    JOO-YOUNG LEE, Committee Expert and Taskforce Member, said that according to information that the Committee had received, although some employment gaps gradually narrowed over time, ethnic minorities, women, young people, and persons with disabilities continued to face higher levels of unemployment and were more likely to be in a low-paid jobs.  How had the State party analysed the underlying causes of employment and pay gaps, and what was the impact of these measures on ethnic minorities, women, young people and persons with disabilities in their access to decent work?

    Information received by the Committee indicated that the level of national minimum wage and national living wage was insufficient to ensure an adequate standard of living for workers, as it did not keep pace with the rising cost of living.  In its reply to the list of issues, the State party stated that the level of the minimum living wage for this year would be set at a level not below two-thirds of the median earnings in the United Kingdom. For the first time, the cost of living would also be taken into account in this process, with the aim of providing a real living wage, which was commendable.  Had the State party adopted a methodology for determining the level of the national minimum wage and the national living wage that was indexed to the cost of living. 

    What measures were being taken to address precarious work such as exploitative zero-hour contracts and to enhance security of employment?  What measures were taken to protect workers from labour exploitations and to impose appropriate sanctions on those responsible?  The Committee noted that the State party planned to establish a single body, a Fair Work Agency, to enhance the effectiveness of the protection of workers.  How would it be ensured that the body had necessary 

    powers and resources to effectively monitor working conditions and protect workers?  What measures were taken to ensure the right to strike?

    According to information received by the Committee, the level of social security benefits was not sufficient for a decent standard of living.  Information indicated that the social security system, including the Universal Credit, was not providing people with adequate social protection. What measures were being taken to ensure that the level of social security benefits was adequate and determined by an assessment of the real cost of an adequate standard of living?  Had the State party carried out an assessment of the impact on people of such measures as the benefit cap, the two-child policy, the so-called “bed-room tax” and the five-week wait, and if so, what measures were being taken to address these impacts?  What measures were being taken to ensure that any conditions for benefits were proportionate and did not result in stigmatisation and degradation of claimants?

    What measures had the State taken to ensure the availability, accessibility, and affordability of quality childcare, including childcare for disabled children?

    How was it ensured that quality social care was available, accessible, and affordable for adults who needed care and support, including older persons?

    Responses by the Delegation 

    The delegation said the creation of the national minimum wage had been one of the most successful economic interventions in the United Kingdom in the past 25 years.  The Government was determined to deliver a genuine living wage and had asked the Low Pay Commission to take account of the cost of living in recommending the appropriate rates for 2025 onwards.  The Low Pay Commission expected that three million low paid workers would receive a pay rise.  The Government had recently introduced an employment rights bill which would include a right to guaranteed hours.  There would be new rights to reasonable notice of shift cancellations, and the bills would close loopholes regarding scrupulous “fire to hire” practices. The Government aimed to protect workers and business from the minority of employers who broke the rules.   

    Migrant workers had the same employment rights and protections as other United Kingdom workers, including the minimum wage and protection against discrimination.  In 2023, it was ensured that all seasonal workers would receive at least 32 hours of work per week, and the minimum wage was also raised. 

    The employment rate for people of Bangladeshi and Pakistani origin had increased in recent years; historically this was low in the United Kingdom.  Levels of qualifications at schools were lower for some ethnic groups, which affected employment opportunities.  The State was planning to introduce mandatory pay reporting by ethnicity and disability. 

    A whitepaper would be published setting out the reforms expected by the Government on health and disability.  There were a range of ethnic minority support mechanisms in place. 

    The current rates of income-related benefits did not represent a minimum requirement, which could vary depending on people’s circumstances.  The current Government had committed to reviewing universal credit to tackle poverty.  The new child poverty strategy would focus on the benefit cap and the two-child limit. The Department for Work and Pensions published a range of independent evaluations in a wide range of social policy, including households below-average incomes. 

    The Government would provide more than eight billion pounds this year for education, representing a 30 per cent increase from the previous year.  Tax free childcare was a United-Kingdom wide offer to support parents to return to work, or work more when they needed to.  Families could receive up to 2,000 pounds per child per year, or 4,000 pounds if the child had a disability.   

    A fund could be used to increase funds paid to adult social care providers and reduce waiting times. The Care Act 2014 placed emphasis on local authorities to shape their care market, making sure they were meeting the needs of the local population. 

    In 2022, the Scottish Government published a refreshed Fair Work Vision, with a key goal of reducing the gender pay gap.  The median gender pay gap had decreased from 15.6 per cent in 2016, to 9.2 per cent in 2024. The disability employment had been reduced to around 37 per cent, which was its lowest level, with plans to halve the gap by 2028.  The Scottish Government was delivering 15 social security payments and was investing around 6.9 billion pounds in social security payments. 

    Questions by Committee Experts

    JOO-YOUNG LEE, Committee Expert and Taskforce Member, asked how the State would ensure the income-related benefits were adequate for those living in disadvantaged situations?  According to information, there may be a gap among the poorest of families for accessing childcare entitlements, particularly families that were not working. Could this be clarified? 

    A Committee Expert asked for examples where violations of the right of women workers compared to men had been judicially assessed?  What remedies were applied?

    Another Expert asked if there were plans for a participatory poverty assessment to be conducted every few years to identify those who were affected?   

    SEREE NONTHASOOT, Committee Expert and Taskforce Leader, asked if indexation based on inflation would be adopted, to more accurately reflect the living wage? 

    JULIETA ROSSI, Committee Expert and Taskforce Member, asked about the two-child cap on certain social security benefits, including universal credit.  This cap could have a huge impact on child poverty levels.  What was the rationale behind this?  What were the obstacles to immediately repealing the two-child limit?  The State had a high level of child policy, up to 30 per cent, so the Committee would appreciate more information being provided on this subject.

    Responses by the Delegation 

    The delegation said income-related benefits were rated annually in the United Kingdom, based on the level of the consumer-prices index.  As such, benefits for 2025 would be increased by 1.7 per cent.  The two-child cap was introduced as the United Kingdom faced a financial crisis a few years ago.  There was absolutely a relationship between the cap and the number of children in poverty.  The cap remained in place, but a taskforce was reviewing how the State would tackle the high levels of child poverty in the country, and would determine the best steps in this regard.  Removing the cap depended on the United Kingdom’s fiscal position. 

    The Low Pay Commission made annual recommendations on the appropriate rates of entities such as the minimum wage.  The Government’s impact assessment for 2025 found that women, younger and older workers, workers with a disability, and those from ethnic backgrounds, were more likely to be in minimum wage drops and more likely to benefit from the raising of the minimum wage in April 2025.  The Government had committed to reviewing the parental leave system to ensure it offered the best support to working families. 

    The Scottish Government had used other policies to determine the real living wage, including when issuing public sector grants and other funding.  The proposed human rights bill would aim to meet standards pertaining to the Covenant. 

    Working parent entitlements were established to support parents to return to work, which was why that entitlement was contingent on work.  Non-working families could access 15 hours of Government-funded early education. 

    The Education Minister in Northern Ireland was committed to bringing forward a strategy which would make childcare more affordable, among other initiatives.  A new childcare subsidy scheme had been implemented, and preschool education had been expanded, allowing more than 2,000 additional children to receive a fulltime place in 2025. 

    Questions by Committee Experts

    JULIETA ROSSI, Committee Expert and Taskforce Member, said the United Kingdom was one of the richest economies in the world, yet extremely high figures of poverty persisted.  According to information, during the period 2022/2023, 21 per cent of the population lived in relative poverty, with alarming rates of 30 per cent in childhood, or 4.3 million children.  Was the State developing a strategy to achieve a drastic and short-term reduction of poverty, which prioritised child poverty and poverty of disadvantaged groups? What measures had the State implemented in response to the recommendations of the review of child welfare care, as well as those issued by the Committee on the Rights of the Child in June 2023?

    According to statistics, food insecurity increased from 4.7 million to 7.2 million between 2021/22 and 2022/23, especially affecting low-income households.  What was the Government doing to address this alarming situation?  According to reports, there was a persistent housing crisis in the State party, including increasing rates of homelessness in the country, with most being women. Housing prices were high, as were mortgage rates, with rents rising higher than inflation in some parts of the country.  The lack of affordable housing for persons with disabilities was a factor which determined that they remained institutionalised, and there was inadequate initial accommodation for asylum seekers, among other issues.  What was the Government doing to address this crisis? 

    According to independent research commissioned by the Government in 2024, the National Health Service in England was in critical condition due to lack of funding, the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, staff shortages and inefficiency in management. What were the details of the results of the investigation, and the drafting of a 10-year plan to address these issues? 

    Suicide rates remained high in the country, especially among men.  Persons with disabilities, gypsy, Roma and nomadic communities had high suicide rates compared to the general population.  Could information about the new mental health bill for England and Wales be provided?  What were the developments in other jurisdictions?

     

    Data from 2020 to 2022 showed the highest maternal mortality rates in England since 2003 to 2005, with a disproportionate impact on women in the most deprived areas. What were the results of the research commissioned by the Task Force on Maternal Disparities in 2022 and the policies in place to address this issue?  Access to sexual and reproductive care across the UK showed regional disparities; what measures had been adopted to unify this? 

    There had been a huge increase in drug-related deaths in the State party.  What plans and strategies were in place to prevent deaths, taking into account the disproportionate impact on certain communities? Were there plans to review the criminalisation of personal consumption and expand harm reduction services, including supervised drug consumption rooms?

    Responses by the Delegation 

    The delegation said the United Kingdom Government was developing a child poverty strategy to be launched in spring, as part of a 10-year strategy to address the issue. The strategy would look at increasing incomes, reducing essential costs, and offering better local support.  The incoming Government had committed to ending dependence on emergency food parcels.  In the financial year 2025/2026, funding of 742 million pounds would be devolved to local governments to help address this issue.

    Concerning support for families, the State’s response published in 2023 was to shift the focus away from crisis intervention and towards early help for families, ensuring children remained with their families as much as possible.  This was a multidisciplinary support offer which would work with the entire family at the earliest level possible.  When children could not remain with their families, they were supported to live with kinship families or foster families. 

    A social supermarket programme had been rolled out across all areas in Northern Ireland from 2022 to address food poverty.  Other support included debt and benefits advice, health food advice, and cooking on a budget.  A programme to tackle organized crime was established in 2016 and it had been extended until 2027.  Sexual and reproductive health services were provided across all five trust areas in Northern Ireland.  There were workforce challenges and the need for further investment. 

    The United Kingdom Government had committed to support first time home buyers.  The Government was seeking to deliver the biggest increase in affordable housing in a generation, with 110,000 to 130,000 social homes to be built over the next five years.  Since 2021, local authorities in England were required to ensure victims of domestic abuse and their children could access safe accommodation.  The Government would invest 160 million pounds in domestic safe accommodation in the next financial year. 

    Concerning Travellers, the Government aimed to ensure fair and equal treatment for them.  The revised policy for Traveller sites outlined that accommodation for Travellers should provide access for healthy lifestyles and health services. 

    The Scottish Government regarded poverty as a huge concern and had implemented the Child Poverty Act, which required poverty reduction plans to be published every four years.  Actions in the plans included raising incomes and lowering essential costs.  The Scottish Government had committed over three million pounds for remote rural and island health care.  The aim was to develop a model where services were provided as locally as possible, to ensure equitable outcomes. 

    Progress had been made in maternal care in the rural north of Scotland, via the plan which focused on restoring obstetric maternity care in the area.  The Scottish Government acknowledged that the number of drug and alcohol related deaths in Scotland remained too high.  The Government had launched a five-year mission to combat this, and the first “Safer Drug Consumption” facility in the United Kingdom had been opened in Glasgow last year. 

    One of the Government’s priorities was to clear the asylum backlog claims, and ensure people were housed in more effective and supervised accommodation.  Due to the exceptional number of unaccompanied children arriving in the United Kingdom from 2020, the Home Office had opened hotels to support these children, with a team residing within the hotels to support each child.  The teams included staff to provide medical and psychological support.  When the last hotel closed in 2024, all remaining children went directly into State care.  The United Kingdom had no plans to legalise or decriminalise drugs. 

    The mental health bill was introduced in November 2024 and would modernise the mental health act, including through addressing unnecessary detentions shaped by racial disparity.  The suicide strategy for England looked at what could be done for groups with higher suicide rates, including autistic people, Roma, refugees, asylum seekers and lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex persons.   Anyone in England experiencing a mental health crisis could speak with a trained member of the National Health Service on the phone.  An additional 150 million pounds had been invested over the past two years to support mental health services.  Fifty million pounds would be invested into research into maternity inequalities to improve outcomes for all women.  England supported harm reduction activities, including needle and syringe testing.

    Welsh Ministers had a duty to submit child poverty objectives, and report on them every three years.  There was a targeted school meals programme for children. Over 3.4 million pounds had been made available as a capital grant fund for local Welsh authorities to fund residential or transit sites for Travellers.  The Welsh Government was currently finalising a new mental health strategy, with a focus on tackling inequalities. 

    Questions by Committee Experts

    A Committee Expert commended the delegation for being so well prepared and for their excellent time management.  What steps had the State party taken to ensure a more just and equitable financial architecture which prioritised human rights in lending policies?  What steps had the State taken for cancelling debt for countries in debt crisis?  What was the State party’s position on the use of compulsory license to promote access to health products in foreign countries? 

    SEREE NONTHASOOT, Committee Expert and Taskforce Leader, said the Scottish Government had provided a good example of safer drug consumption facilities.  Why did this not go hand in hand with decriminalisation?  What was the trajectory of decriminalisation?  Would the United Kingdom adopt a universal drug 

    policy which covered all its territories?

    JULIETA ROSSI, Committee Expert and Taskforce Member, said there was a pressing need to implement the child poverty strategy as soon as possible.  Could a more specific timeline for its implementation be provided?   The United Kingdom was one of the wealthiest countries in the world and had an obligation to earmark resources to reverse the situation of poverty in the country. How was the State addressing the issue of energy poverty? 

    JOO-YOUNG LEE, Committee Expert and Taskforce Member, said there was a concern that rent rises, in combination with a lack of social housing, were putting families at risk of homelessness.  What was being done to address this issue?

    Another Expert asked for measures adopted to address child obesity?  Were taxes on junk food being increased?

    An Expert asked about the emergency response in Northern Ireland to address the large number of deaths of homeless people?

    A Committee Expert asked what indicators were used to measure poverty?  Did the State use the multidimensional poverty index?

    Responses by the Delegation 

    The delegation said the child poverty strategy would be published in the spring, but acknowledged that people living in poverty needed help now.  In the meantime, steps had been taken to reduce the universal credit rate, which would benefit 1.2 million households.  Some of the challenges around food poverty related to incomes, rather than access to food, and this was being addressed in the food poverty strategy.  The United Kingdom used the universally recognised definition of poverty, which was measured by income. 

    There were no plans to change United Kingdom drug laws.  There was clear medical and scientific evidence which showed that controlled drugs were harmful.  There were no plans to extend United Kingdom drug legislation to the Overseas Territories.

    The United Kingdom had committed 1.6 billion pounds to Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, which was committed to sustainable and equitable access of vaccines.  The National Health Service had doubled investment in gender dysphoria services and increased the number of clinics from seven to 12. 

    Obesity was concentrated within the most deprived areas.  The Government was addressing this by limiting school children’s access to fast food, preventing advertisements of the least healthy foods, and delivering schemes such as the healthy milk and the school fruit and vegetables scheme. 

    The United Kingdom was committed to working with partners to tackle unsustainable debt and coordinated with other official creditors to provide debt relief and promote debt sustainability for developing countries. 

    Scotland had released the Good Food Nation Plan in 2024, setting out the objectives the Government aimed to achieve on food related issues.  The long-term strategy for housing was published in 2021, addressing housing supply across the whole country, affordability and choice, and housing’s role in achieving net zero. 

    Northern Ireland was tackling homelessness through a strategy and had developed a strategic action plan for accommodation.  Funding for homelessness services would increase to nearly one billion pounds in England in the next financial year to prevent rough sleeping.

    A levy was applied to pre-packaged soft drink with an added five grams of sugar per 100 millilitres; drinks that contained less than five grams of sugar did not pay the levy, which was paid by packagers and importers.  The Government had committed an additional 3.5 million pounds over the next few years for the warm homes plan, with multiple targeted schemes in place to deliver energy assistance to low-income households.   

    The United Kingdom was supportive of the development of a new sharing and benefits system to support adequate and fair sharing of benefits, and was committed to working with African partners to develop such a system.

    The United Kingdom published multi-dimensional poverty measures annually. The Government’s priority was to grow the economy, as this was the best way to improve living standards. To achieve growth, decisions on tax and spending needed to be balanced. 

    Questions by a Committee Expert

    LAURA CRACIUNEAN-TATU, Committee Chair and Taskforce Member of the United Kingdom, said in England and Wales, the attainment gaps in education were widening, with inadequate measures to address them.  In Scotland, the new bill on education had been criticised as it failed to address urgent needs, and there were high levels of bullying in school, including incidents of misogyny and racism.  There were also major issues of bullying in Northern Ireland, including cyberbullying, on the grounds of race, sexual orientation, gender identity or sex characteristics, disability, migration or other status.  Traveller and Roma children had some of the lowest levels of educational attainment.  Acts including the Special Needs Disability Act 2016 and the Integrated Education Act 2022 had not been fully implemented.  For Jersey, measures to address the poverty-related attainment gap were inefficient, and the Jersey premium had limited impact. 

    What measures had been implemented to address these challenges, and what were the concrete results? How were they evaluated in terms of impact and implementation?  How was it ensured that all educators were trained on bullying and what targeted measures were in place to address this issue?  Did children of migrant families have access to education, including language support, uniform grants, school meals and school transport?  How was it ensured that Traveller and Roma children remained in the educational system?  In Northern Ireland, there were currently 72 integrated schools; was there a plan to increase this number?  Was there any evaluation of the impact of the Jersey premium in reducing the attainment gap?  Were there any plans to address legislation to balance between the right to light work and the full benefit of education for children?

    Had the Irish Language Commissioner been appointed?  What measures were in place to ensure that the arts sector in all jurisdictions received sufficient, secure, long-term funding proportional to inflation, and that the right to take part in cultural life was not affected by the cost-of-living increases?  What measures were in place to ensure access to sport for transgender persons and persons with disabilities?

    Could information be provided on the status of the proposed Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill and how it would contribute to fostering intercultural dialogue and reconciliation?

    Responses by the Delegation

    The delegation said last year, a proposal for a draft remedial order was introduced into the United Kingdom parliament, as the first step to repeal and replace the Legacy Act. 

    The Government wanted to see more people engaging in physical activity, and that included transgender persons.  A different approach was required in competitive sport, where the Government had a responsibility to protect the integrity of women’s sport.  Each sport was different, and the Government worked with all sports organizations to prioritise integrity while also being inclusive.  For instance, tennis and golf had decided to protect the fairness of competition at the competitive level, but adopt a more inclusive approach at the recreational level. 

    Access to culture was a core part of the United Kingdom, and each part of the country had an Arts Council.  Much of the cultural offerings in the United Kingdom were free of charge, including entry to museums and free music tuition for children. 

    The Addressing Bullying in Schools Act in Northern Ireland commenced in 2021.  It put onus on schools to address the motivations of bullying and put policies in place at the school level.  Three new language authorities would be established with preparations at an advanced stage. 

    The Scottish Government published a cultural strategy in 2020 and a refreshed action plan to support delivery in 2023, responding to recent challenges including COVID-19 and the cost of living.  The Government had allocated more than 50 million pounds to cultural funding, which was an historic increase. 

    Wales had invested two million pounds in literacy programmes and 1.6 million pounds for science, technology, engineering and mathematics in schools.  In Wales, around 67 per cent of students attending mainstream schools could access a free school meal at lunchtime.  Tackling the impact of poverty in education was a priority. New guidance was published to help schools support Gypsy, Roma and Traveller students.  The school curriculum had been developed to be inclusive for all learners, with diversity as a cross-cutting theme.  Cardiff had been secured as the host of the Euro Games in 2027, which was a key event for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex persons. 

    Post COVID, the Government had established the Oak Academy, which had a specific focus on closing attainment gaps.  Teachers had reported positive outcomes when using Oak resources.  Local authorities were required to provide sufficient school places for the area.  No child could be denied schooling based on their ethnicity.  There was an active Gypsy and Roma stakeholder group which aimed to ensure that the barriers these young people faced were addressed. 

    Education Scotland had rolled out several programmes, including to address gender stereotypes, unconscious bias, and domestic abuse.  Numerous provisions had been put in place in Jersey to ensure equal education access for children from disadvantaged backgrounds. 

    Sport England had a 10-year plan to increase the participation of sport for persons with disabilities.  The overall investment figure into disability focused access was around 30 million pounds per year.  There had been 6.7 million pounds of investment directly to national disability sport organizations.  As a direct result of such investment, the United Kingdom took second place in the medal tally of the Paralympics last summer, which would inspire more people with disabilities to participate in sport. 

    Questions by Committee Experts

    JOO-YOUNG LEE, Committee Expert and Taskforce Member, asked what measures were in place to ensure children of pre-school age had access to affordable, quality childhood education?  The State party continued to treat social security as an instrument for getting people to work.  It was highly likely that if this approach continued, the State party would fail to address poverty.  Social security must be used to achieve an adequate standard of living for all people. 

    A Committee Expert asked to what extent corporal punishment at school was prohibited and sanctioned?  Was any form of corporal punishment against children treated as a criminal offence? What measures were being taken to implement anti-bullying plans? 

    JULIETA ROSSI, Committee Expert and Taskforce Member, asked how the State party was addressing the issue of stateless persons, particularly when it came to access to education and family reunification? 

    SEREE NONTHASOOT, Committee Expert and Taskforce Leader, said there were more than 80,000 children in foster care across the United Kingdom.  What was being done to close the attainment gaps in education for these children?  How was bullying prevented against lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex students? 

    Responses by the Delegation

    The delegation said it was not correct that the Government considered social security just as a route to work.  Children’s early years were crucial to their development, health and life chances, and the Government aimed to set every child up to have the best start in life. 

    The Home Office Stateless Policy was designed to assist those who were not recognised as a citizen of any country.  This provided a means for stateless persons in the United Kingdom to access their basic human rights. 

    All forms of physical punishment of children were against the law in Scotland in all settings. An Act was passed in 2019 which removed the defence of “reasonable chastisement” to the existing offence of assault. 

    Closing Remarks

    SEREE NONTHASOOT, Committee Expert and Taskforce Leader, extended appreciation to the United Kingdom delegation for its superb time and sequence management, which allowed the Committee to raise all relevant questions.  The State party should implement robust legislative programmes and ensure people were confident that they would be protected at the international level.  The Committee implored the United Kingdom to ensure that all Crown Dependencies and Overseas Territories under its control provided the highest standard of human rights to everyone.  Mr. Nonthasoot thanked all those who had made the dialogue possible. 

    ROBERT LINHAM, Deputy Director, Rights Policy, Ministry of Justice of the United Kingdom and head of the delegation, said the dialogue had been rich and detailed, covering a variety of issues.  It was hoped that the Committee could see the efforts being undertaken in the whole of the United Kingdom to improve economic, social and cultural rights. The United Kingdom was a great supporter in the work of the treaty bodies and it was hoped this was evident through the dialogue.  Mr. Linham thanked everyone who had supported the dialogue. 

     

     

    Produced by the United Nations Information Service in Geneva for use of the media; 
    not an official record. English and French versions of our releases are different as they are the product of two separate coverage teams that work independently.

     

     

    CESCR25.004E

    MIL OSI United Nations News –

    February 15, 2025
  • MIL-OSI: F&M Bank Welcomes Carly Buchanan as Chief People Officer

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    ARCHBOLD, Ohio, Feb. 14, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — F&M Bank (“F&M”), an Archbold, Ohio-based bank owned by Farmers & Merchants Bancorp, Inc. (Nasdaq: FMAO) is pleased to announce Carly Buchanan as its new Chief People Officer.

    With over 18 years of HR, leadership, and organizational development experience across multiple industries, Carly will lead F&M’s Human Resources Department, driving strategic HR planning, talent acquisition, employee engagement, and organizational growth.

    Carly brings a decade of retail banking experience to her role, providing valuable insight into customer-focused strategies and operational efficiency. She holds senior HR certifications from SHRM (SHRM-SCP) and HRCI and has served as past President of the Northeast Indiana Human Resources Association. Recognized as a 2023 Fort Wayne 40 Under 40 honoree, Carly is also deeply committed to community involvement, supporting organizations like Junior Achievement, Boys and Girls Club, and the 988 Crisis Lifeline.

    “Carly’s leadership, expertise, and passion for people make her an incredible asset to F&M Bank,” said Lars Eller, President, and CEO. “Her strategic vision will strengthen our culture, enhance employee engagement, and support our mission of serving our customers and communities.”

    Carly earned her MBA and a Bachelor of Science in Business Administration from Indiana Tech. She and her family reside in Northern Indiana, where she combines professional excellence with a strong dedication to community impact.

    About F&M Bank:
    F&M Bank is a local independent community bank that has been serving its communities since 1897. F&M Bank provides commercial banking, retail banking and other financial services. Our locations are in Butler, Champaign, Fulton, Defiance, Hancock, Henry, Lucas, Shelby, Williams, and Wood counties in Ohio. In Northeast Indiana, we have offices located in Adams, Allen, DeKalb, Jay, Steuben and Wells counties. The Michigan footprint includes Oakland County, and we have Loan Production Offices in Troy, Michigan; Muncie, Indiana; and Perrysburg and Bryan, Ohio.

    Safe harbor statement
    Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Statements by F&M, including management’s expectations and comments, may not be based on historical facts and are “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21B of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. Actual results could vary materially depending on risks and uncertainties inherent in general and local banking conditions, competitive factors specific to markets in which F&M and its subsidiaries operate, future interest rate levels, legislative and regulatory decisions, capital market conditions, or the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, and its impacts on our credit quality and business operations, as well as its impact on general economic and financial market conditions. F&M assumes no responsibility to update this information. For more details, please refer to F&M’s SEC filing, including its most recent Annual Report on Form 10-K and quarterly reports on Form 10-Q. Such filings can be viewed at the SEC’s website, www.sec.gov or through F&M’s website www.fm.bank.

    Company Contact: Investor and Media Contact:
    Lars B. Eller
    President and Chief Executive Officer
    Farmers & Merchants Bancorp, Inc.
    (419) 446-2501
    leller@fm.bank
    Andrew M. Berger
    Managing Director
    SM Berger & Company, Inc.
    (216) 464-6400
    andrew@smberger.com
       

    A photo accompanying this announcement is available at https://www.globenewswire.com/NewsRoom/AttachmentNg/76198bd4-ead9-4c89-b7e5-28afc0e22a0d

    The MIL Network –

    February 15, 2025
  • MIL-OSI Europe: Answer to a written question – Failure to acknowledge vaccine-related harm is creating stigmatisation – urgent need for EU action to ensure research and support for those affected – E-002698/2024(ASW)

    Source: European Parliament

    1. The European Medicines Agency’s (EMA) Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee (PRAC) is responsible for monitoring the safety of all authorised medicinal products in the EU, including COVID-19 vaccines. The EU’s pharmacovigilance system was further strengthened during the COVID-19 pandemic with enhanced real-world safety monitoring. The PRAC may establish contacts on an advisory basis, with representatives of patient organisations and relevant healthcare professionals’ associations[1]. Given this framework, a new task force is unnecessary.

    2. The Commission acknowledges the importance of addressing concerns about COVID-19 vaccines and fostering trust through ongoing safety monitoring and transparent communication[2]. EMA and national authorities rigorously monitor vaccine safety, and rare side effects are published with updates to product information[3] where necessary to mitigate risks. Healthcare access, including diagnosis and treatment, remains the responsibility of Member States. The Commission supports them by ensuring healthcare professionals and patients have access to up-to-date safety information via public reports.

    3. The COVID-19 vaccines contracts have not changed the EU liability rules and patients’ rights are fully preserved in line with the EU Product Liability Directive[4]. The contracts for the purchase of COVID-19-vaccines contain clauses that outline in detail the obligations and responsibilities of the parties involved regarding potential losses, damages, liabilities, or legal claims arising from the COVID-19 vaccines. However, the application of such clauses falls under the remit of the Member States as they have purchased the vaccines.

    • [1] https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/other/prac-rules-procedure_en.pdf
    • [2] European public assessment reports: https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/medicines/what-we-publish-medicines-when/european-public-assessment-reports-background-context
      Periodic safety update reports (PSURs): https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/human-regulatory-overview/post-authorisation/pharmacovigilance-post-authorisation/periodic-safety-update-reports-psurs
    • [3] https://ec.europa.eu/health/documents/community-register/html/index_en.htm
    • [4] Directive (EU) 2024/2853 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2024 on liability for defective products and repealing Council Directive 85/374/EEC OJ L, 2024/2853, 18.11.2024, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2024/2853/oj
    Last updated: 14 February 2025

    MIL OSI Europe News –

    February 15, 2025
  • MIL-OSI Europe: Answer to a written question – Procurement of face masks in the fight against COVID-19 and the ramifications thereof – E-002236/2024(ASW)

    Source: European Parliament

    1. Public procurement is decentralised and each contracting authority or entity is responsible for its own purchases. Proper application of the rules is controlled by appropriate administrative and juridical mechanisms of Member States and later by the Commission within its enforcement powers. In parallel, Member States and the Commission have a possibility of organising joint procurement[1]. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the Commission and participating countries jointly procured[2] several types of supplies, including personal protective masks[3]. The Commission managed joint procurement procedures with countries, while the latter made individual purchases under the joint contract[4]. The Commission also procured masks using EU funds under the Emergency Support Instrument and donated them to EU Member States[5].

    2. The direct budgetary consequences of irregularities in the procurement of protective face masks do not appear to significantly contribute to non-compliance with the EU fiscal rules by Member States in a situation of excessive deficit, i.e. with deficits above the 3% of gross domestic product reference value[6].

    3. One of the key elements of effective functioning of public procurement is the procurement remedies system. The newly adopted Internal Market Emergency and Resilience Act[7], the regulation on serious cross-border threats to health[8], the regulation on supply of crisis-relevant medical countermeasures[9] as well as the recast of the EU Financial Regulation[10] provide possibilities of more adequate procurement reaction to a crisis, reducing risk of disfunction or abuse.

    • [1] Pursuant to Article 168(2) of Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2024/2509 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union (recast), OJ L 2024/2509, 26.9.2024.
    • [2] In accordance with a voluntary Joint Procurement Agreement for medical countermeasures established pursuant to Article 5 of Decision No 1082/2013/EU that has been repealed and replaced by Article 12 of Regulation (EU) 2022/2371, OJ L 314, 6.12.2022.
    • [3] https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/coronavirus-response/public-health/ensuring-availability-supplies-and-equipment_en#public-procurement-of-medical-and-protective-equipment
    • [4] The Joint Procurement Agreement determining the practical arrangements governing the joint procurement procedure can be found here: https://health.ec.europa.eu/health-security-and-infectious-diseases/preparedness-and-response-planning_en#joint-procurement-of-medical-countermeasures-ensuring-proper-preparedness.
      A flowchart of its implementation can be found here: https://health.ec.europa.eu/publications/flowchart-implementation-joint-procurement-agreement-different-steering-committees_en
      The decision process of the Steering Committees managing the joint procurement mechanism can be found here: https://health.ec.europa.eu/publications/decision-process-steering-committees-managing-joint-procurement-mechanism_en
    • [5] https://ted.europa.eu/en/notice/-/detail/221190-2020
    • [6] On 26 November 2024, the Commission came forward with recommendations for the Council to set the fiscal paths to correct the excessive deficits of eight Member States under an excessive deficit procedure.
    • [7] Regulation (EU) 2024/2747 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 October 2024 establishing a framework of measures related to an internal market emergency and to the resilience of the internal market and amending Council Regulation (EC) No 2679/98.
    • [8] In particular Article 12 (3) d), see also: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32022R2371
    • [9] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32022R2372
    • [10] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32024R2509
    Last updated: 14 February 2025

    MIL OSI Europe News –

    February 15, 2025
  • MIL-OSI Security: Convicted Felon Admits To Defrauding COVID-19 Programs While On Supervised Release

    Source: Office of United States Attorneys

    LAS VEGAS – A Las Vegas woman pleaded guilty yesterday to carrying out a scheme to fraudulently obtain more than $137,000 from the Pandemic Unemployment Assistance Program (PUA), the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP), and the Economic Injury Disaster Loan Program (EIDL).

    Kelly Ann Mogavero, 55, pleaded guilty to one count of wire fraud. A sentencing hearing is scheduled for May 21, 2025, before United States District Judge Cristina D. Silva.

    “Kelly Mogavero, a convicted felon recently released from prison, fraudulently collected unemployment insurance (UI) benefits intended for American workers who lost their jobs due to the COVID-19 pandemic,” said Quentin Heiden, Special Agent-in-Charge, Western Region, U.S. Department of Labor, Office of Inspector General. “Yesterday’s guilty plea highlights our strong collaboration with the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Nevada and our law enforcement partners to ensure the integrity of the UI system and secure justice for the American taxpayer.”

    According to court documents and admissions made in court by Mogavero, from June 3, 2020, to June 23, 2001, she devised and carried out a scheme to defraud Nevada Department of Employment, Training, and Rehabilitation (DETR), the Arizona Department of Economic Security (DES), and the Small Business Administration (SBA) in an attempt to fraudulently obtain $137,600 in relief benefits from the PUA, PPP, and EIDL programs.

    As part of the scheme, while she was under United States Probation’s supervision, Mogavero fraudulently filed for unemployment insurance in both Nevada and Arizona and submitted at least two fraudulent applications for EIDLs and one fraudulent application for a PPP loan. Mogavero submitted materially false and fraudulent information, including that she was the sole proprietor of several companies which did not in fact exist, for which she stated false revenue amounts, and—for one of the EIDL applications—a false number of employees. Mogavero also submitted falsified tax documents in support of each application. As a result of her scheme, Mogavero successfully obtained more than $44,000 in relief benefits to which she was not entitled.

    In October 2016, Mogavero was convicted of conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine in the District of Nevada and she was sentenced to 46-months in custody followed by five years of supervision.

    At sentencing, Mogavero faces a maximum statutory penalty of 20 years in prison. A federal district court judge will determine the sentence of each defendant after considering the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and other statutory factors.

    Acting United States Attorney Sue Fahami, Special Agent in Charge Spencer L. Evans for the FBI Las Vegas Division, and Special Agent-in-Charge Quentin Heiden, Western Region, U.S. Department of Labor, Office of Inspector General (DOL-OIG) made the announcement.

    The FBI, DOL-OIG, U.S. Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General Office of Investigations – COVID Fraud Unit, Office of Inspector General U.S. Small Business Administration, and the Office of Inspector General Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System Consumer Financial Protection Bureau investigated the case. Assistant United States Attorney Kimberly Frayn is prosecuting the case.

    On May 17, 2021, the Attorney General established the COVID-19 Fraud Enforcement Task Force to marshal the resources of the Department of Justice in partnership with agencies across government to enhance efforts to combat and prevent pandemic-related fraud. The Task Force bolsters efforts to investigate and prosecute the most culpable domestic and international criminal actors and assists agencies tasked with administering relief programs to prevent fraud by augmenting and incorporating existing coordination mechanisms, identifying resources and techniques to uncover fraudulent actors and their schemes, and sharing and harnessing information and insights gained from prior enforcement efforts. For more information on the department’s response to the pandemic, please visit Justice.gov/Coronavirus and Justice.gov/Coronavirus/CombatingFraud.

    Anyone with information about allegations of attempted fraud involving COVID-19 can report it by calling the Department of Justice’s National Center for Disaster Fraud (NCDF) Hotline via the NCDF Web Complaint Form.

    ###

     

    MIL Security OSI –

    February 15, 2025
  • MIL-OSI Security: Las Vegas Woman Pleads Guilty To Fraudulently Seeking Nearly $100M In COVID-19 Employment Tax Credits

    Source: Office of United States Attorneys

    LAS VEGAS – A Nevada woman pleaded guilty yesterday to conspiring to defraud the United States by making claims for refunds of false COVID-19 related employment tax credits.

    According to court documents and statements made in court, Candies Goode-McCoy, of Las Vegas, conspired with others to file tax returns seeking fraudulent refunds based on the employee retention credit (ERC) and paid sick and family leave credit. From around June 2022 through September 2023, McCoy filed approximately 1,227 false tax returns for her businesses and others claiming these refundable credits.

    In total, these claims sought refunds of over $98 million, of which the IRS paid approximately $33 million. McCoy personally received over $1.3 million in fraudulent refunds and was paid about $800,000 from those on whose behalf she filed fraudulent returns. McCoy knew that these returns were fraudulent. Neither she nor the others for whom she filed them were eligible to receive the refundable credits in the amounts claimed. McCoy used the proceeds for her personal benefit, including the purchase of luxury cars, gambling at casinos, vacations and other luxury goods.

    In response to the COVID-19 pandemic and its economic impact, Congress authorized the ERC for small businesses to reduce the employment tax owed to the IRS. Congress also authorized the IRS to give a credit against employment taxes to reimburse businesses for the wages paid to employees who were on sick or family leave and could not work because of COVID-19. This credit was equal to the wages the business paid the employees during the sick or family leave, subject to a maximum amount.

    McCoy is scheduled to be sentenced on Feb. 23, 2026. She faces a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison as well as a period of supervised release, restitution and monetary penalties. A federal district court judge will determine any sentence after considering the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and other statutory factors.

    Acting Deputy Assistant Attorney General Karen E. Kelly of the Justice Department’s Tax Division and Acting U.S. Attorney Sue Fahami for the District of Nevada made the announcement.

    IRS Criminal Investigation and the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration are investigating the case.

    Trial Attorney John C. Gerardi of the Tax Division and Assistant U.S. Attorney Richard Anthony Lopez for the District of Nevada are prosecuting the case.

    ###

     

    MIL Security OSI –

    February 15, 2025
  • MIL-OSI USA: Peters Presses White House to Take Action to Stop the Worsening Bird Flu Outbreak

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Michigan Gary Peters
    WASHINGTON, DC — U.S. Senator Gary Peters (D-MI), Ranking Member of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, is pressing the Trump Administration to take immediate action to mitigate the worsening outbreak of a bird flu virus, known as H5N1. The Trump Administration’s incredibly harmful “pause” on time-sensitive and critical public health communications from key federal agencies risks missing key indicators of health threats and exacerbates the likelihood of another deadly pandemic.
    Peters’ warning comes as the Trump Administration has taken little action to coordinate a response to the growing H5N1 outbreak. Already this year, more than 20 million egg-laying chickens have died due to the bird flu, raising the price of eggs dramatically. The United States has already reported its first human death from the virus, and the same strain has recently infected dairy cows in Nevada, where at least one dairy farm worker has tested positive.  
    “As the H5N1 virus continues to infect wild birds, poultry flocks, and dairy cattle across the country, it has been detected in all fifty states and Puerto Rico, with 68 reported human cases in 11 states throughout the U.S,” wrote Peters. “In Michigan, H5N1 has been identified in 25 counties and two farm workers tested positive for the virus last year.”   
    Peters continued: “We are at a critical juncture and must work to mitigate H5N1 transmission among affected animals to ensure the virus does not eventually adapt to spread easily between humans, resulting in human-to-human transmission like the virus that caused the COVID-19 pandemic.  The COVID-19 pandemic taught us the importance of early and prompt action, clear roles and responsibilities, regular and unified communication, and most importantly, the severe consequences of a delayed response.” 
    “I request that the White House, including the Office of Pandemic Preparedness and Response Policy (OPPR), and relevant executive branch agencies, take immediate and necessary measures to ensure transparent, unified, and regular communications with the public about the H5N1 outbreak,” Peters underscored. “Public health communications must not be interrupted.”
    In his role leading the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, Peters led an investigation and released a report identifying significant failures of the federal government’s initial response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Peters’ report made recommendations to bolster our preparedness for future pandemics and response to future public health crises. Many of those recommendations have not yet been addressed by Congress or the Administration.  
    The full text of the letter can be found here.

    MIL OSI USA News –

    February 15, 2025
  • MIL-OSI USA: Warren, Hirono Press Defense Secretary Hegseth on Cost and Military Readiness Impact of Deploying Troops to Southern Border, Guantanamo Bay

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Massachusetts – Elizabeth Warren

    February 14, 2025

    “[DoD’s] new immigration operations — which the Trump administration is planning at an unprecedented scale — threaten to burden the Department’s resources and undermine our national security.”

    Text of Letter (PDF)

    Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senators Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii) wrote to Secretary of Defense (DoD) Pete Hegseth regarding the military’s recent deployment of active-duty forces to the southern border and Guantanamo, and the Department of Defense’s (DOD) new involvement in immigration detention and deportation.

    On his first day in office, President Trump signed an Executive Order directing the United States Northern Command (NORTHCOM) to “seal the borders” and “to provide steady-state southern border security.” On January 29, President Trump directed DoD to “expand the Migrant Operations Center at Naval Station Guantanamo Bay to full capacity” of 30,000. As a result, NORTHCOM has deployed about 2,000 active-duty troops to the southern border, bringing the total under DoD’s command to over 4,000. These deployments have drawn from numerous Army and Marine Corps units, and DoD has required the 10th Mountain Division from Fort Drum, New York to oversee the units. In the near term, the Trump administration is reportedly considering deploying up to 10,000 troops to the southern border — double the scale of DoD’s border deployment in 2019 and 2020. That number could grow; during President Trump’s first term, then-Secretary of Defense Mark Esper said Stephen Miller (now White House Deputy Chief of Staff) said that “[w]e need a quarter-million troops” at the southern border.

    Following Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) reversal of its policy prohibiting the use of military aircraft to deport migrants, DoD has operated over 10 deportation flights around the world. At Guantanamo, SOUTHCOM’s has deployed over 500 Marines and DoD has not ruled out detaining women and children there. A former Pentagon official estimates that these operations would “quickly skyrocket into tens of millions, if not hundreds of millions, of dollars.”

    At a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee on February 13, 2025, Admiral Alvin Holsey, SOUTHCOM Commander, confirmed that the Pentagon does not have a cost estimate for these immigration operations, though the department is supposed to consider costs before deploying troops. At the same hearing, General Gregory Guillot, NORTHCOM Commander, told senators that only one training day has been set aside per week for deployed troops operating outside their specialties to maintain their skills, so troops are only doing 20% of relevant military training while deployed for immigration enforcement. 

    “[DoD’s] new immigration-related operations place significant — and unnecessary — burdens on DoD resources, personnel, and readiness,” wrote the senators. 

    The aircraft now used for deportations, for example, cost far more than the commercial and chartered flights that ICE normally uses for deportations. The new aircraft, the military C-17 plane, costs taxpayers over $28,000 per flight hour for a single deportation, compared to $8,577 per flight hour on civilian aircraft alternatives that ICE often uses. Similarly, ICE’s contract for Guantanamo’s migrant operations center requires it to pay a staggering $272,000 per detention bed, compared to around $57,00 per bed at ICE facilities within the United States. 

    DoD may not have a realistic estimate of how much these new operations will cost. During President Trump’s first term, when DoD deployed troops to the border between FY2018 and FY2020, the Department estimated that its border operations would total $1 billion in unreimbursed costs. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) later found that “DOD did not present reliable cost estimates.” Since then, DoD has not implemented any of GAO’s recommendations for improving how it estimates the cost of assisting DHS’s immigration operations.  

    DoD’s growing participation in DHS immigration operations will pose serious costs for units’ readiness. The Defense Secretary discontinued part of DoD’s border operations between 2018 and 2020 after finding that “continued support for the mission would negatively affect military readiness and morale.” The commandant of the Marine Corps warned at the time that the operation posed an “unacceptable risk to Marine Corps combat readiness and solvency,” as a result of separated units and canceled training exercises. 

    “Likewise, we are concerned about how these operations may impact servicemembers’ morale. In recent years, DoD personnel who deployed to the border have reported dangerously low morale, driven by an unclear mission, isolation, boredom, poor accommodations, and more,” wrote the lawmakers. “Poor morale even contributed to a series of suicides by members of the Texas National Guard who deployed to the southern border.”

    “(T)he Trump administration is militarizing the country’s immigration enforcement system in an apparent attempt to signal toughness. But this political stunt will come at a high cost; it risks diverting DoD’s resources away from its vital mission in ways that compromise our national security,” the senators concluded. 

    The senators requested that DoD provide more clarity about troop deployment to the border and anticipated costs by February 27, 2025. 

    Senator Warren has sought to protect military resources and prevent unnecessary costs that compromise national security: 

    • In December 2024, Senators Elizabeth Warren, Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), and Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) wrote to the leaders of each of the top 10 U.S. automakers with concerns about the companies’ fierce opposition to car owners’ right to repair the vehicles they own in the way they choose. 
    • In December 2024, Senator Elizabeth Warren and Representative Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (D-Wash.) introduced the Servicemember Right-to-Repair Act to increase military readiness and cut costs by allowing servicemembers to repair their own equipment. 
    • In December 2024, Senator Elizabeth Warren wrote to the Department of Defense with continued concerns about DoD’s failure to prevent price gouging and overpayments in the military’s TRICARE health program. DoD’s response to Senator Warren’s July 2023 letter revealed a list of nearly 250 bad actors who have overcharged our military by nearly $46 million, which the Senator released today. 
    • In June 2024, Senators Elizabeth Warren, Mike Rounds (R-S.D.), Peter Welch (D-Vt.), U.S. Representative Buddy Carter (R-Ga.), and 20 other lawmakers sent a letter to Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs Dr. Lester Martinez-Lopez and Director of the Defense Health Agency (DHA) Lieutenant General Telita Crosland, raising concerns over Express Scripts’ exclusive contract to administer TRICARE’s pharmacy program, the healthcare system for the military, retirees, and their families. 
    • In July 2023, U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren chaired a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Subcommittee on Personnel. She called out the Department of Defense (DoD) for wasting billions in taxpayers dollars due to price gouging by defense contractors for services and in health care, and identified opportunities for cost savings when DoD buys personnel-related goods and services. 
    • In July 2023, U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) sent a letter to Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III and Director of the Defense Health Agency (DHA), Lieutenant General Telita Crosland, regarding a series of DoD Inspector General (IG) reports finding that the Department of Defense (DoD) is failing to prevent price gouging and overpayments to contractors in the TRICARE health program.
    • In June 2023, Senators Warren and Mike Braun (R-Ind.), alongside Rep. Garamendi, reintroduced the bipartisan Stop Price Gouging the Military Act, which would close loopholes in current acquisition laws, tie financial incentives for contractors to performance, and provide the Department of Defense (DoD) the information necessary to prevent future rip-offs.
    • In May 2023, Senator Warren and Representative John Garamendi sent letters to DoD, Boeing, and TransDigm on companies’ refusal to provide cost or pricing data.
    • In May 2023, Senators Warren, Sanders, Braun, and Grassley sent a letter to DoD urging an investigation into contractor price gouging.
    • In October 2022, Senator Warren obtained a commitment from DoD not to increase contract prices due to inflation.
    • In October 2022 Senator Warren sent a letter to DoD urging them to insist on receiving certified cost or pricing data to justify any contract adjustments.
    • In June 2022, Senator Warren and Representative Garamendi introduced the bicameral Stop Price Gouging the Military Act, which would enhance DoD’s ability to access certified cost and pricing data. Part of Senator Warren’s legislation was incorporated into the FY 2023 National Defense Authorization Act reported to the Senate.
    • In September 2020, Senator Warren and Representative Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) formally requested that the Department of Defense (DoD) Inspector General (IG) investigate reports that the Pentagon redirected hundreds of millions of dollars of funds meant for COVID-19 response via the Defense Production Act (DPA) to defense contractors for “jet engine parts, body armor and dress uniforms.”
    • In May 2020, Senator Warren wrote to the Department requesting clarification on how the Department would prevent profiteering following a recent change to increase payments to contractors in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
    • In March 2020, Senator Warren joined her colleagues in urging the FTC to use its full authority to prevent abusive price gouging on consumer health products during the COVID-19 pandemic. 
    • In April 2019, Senator Elizabeth Warren, along with Senator Jack Reed (D-R.I.), Ranking Member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and four other members of the Armed Services Committee, wrote to then-Acting Secretary of Defense Patrick Shanahan to seek clarification about statements made by Department of Defense officials about the deployment of military personnel to the southwest border and assurances that this deployment would not negatively affect military readiness.
    • In November 2018, Senator Warren, along with Representative Jackie Speier (D-Calif.), then-Chairwoman of the Military Personnel Subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee, and former Representative Beto O’Rourke (D-Texas), sent a bicameral letter to then-Secretary of Defense James Mattis requesting information about President Trump’s decision to deploy more than 5,000 active duty military personnel to the southwest border.
    • In May 2017, Senator Warren sent a letter to the Department of Defense Inspector General asking for an investigation into defense contractor TransDigm’s refusal to provide cost information to the Department of Defense.

    MIL OSI USA News –

    February 15, 2025
  • MIL-OSI USA: Nevada Woman Pleads Guilty to Fraudulently Seeking Nearly $100M in COVID-19 Employment Tax Credits

    Source: US State of North Dakota

    A Nevada woman pleaded guilty yesterday to conspiring to defraud the United States by making claims for refunds of false COVID-19 related employment tax credits.

    According to court documents and statements made in court, Candies Goode-McCoy, of Las Vegas, conspired with others to file tax returns seeking fraudulent refunds based on the employee retention credit (ERC) and paid sick and family leave credit. From around June 2022 through September 2023, McCoy filed approximately 1,227 false tax returns for her businesses and others claiming these refundable credits.

    In total, these claims sought refunds of over $98 million, of which the IRS paid approximately $33 million. McCoy personally received over $1.3 million in fraudulent refunds and was paid about $800,000 from those on whose behalf she filed fraudulent returns. McCoy knew that these returns were fraudulent. Neither she nor the others for whom she filed them were eligible to receive the refundable credits in the amounts claimed. McCoy used the proceeds for her personal benefit, including the purchase of luxury cars, gambling at casinos, vacations and other luxury goods.

    In response to the COVID-19 pandemic and its economic impact, Congress authorized the ERC for small businesses to reduce the employment tax owed to the IRS. Congress also authorized the IRS to give a credit against employment taxes to reimburse businesses for the wages paid to employees who were on sick or family leave and could not work because of COVID-19. This credit was equal to the wages the business paid the employees during the sick or family leave, subject to a maximum amount.

    McCoy is scheduled to be sentenced on Feb. 23, 2026. She faces a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison as well as a period of supervised release, restitution and monetary penalties. A federal district court judge will determine any sentence after considering the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and other statutory factors.

    Acting Deputy Assistant Attorney General Karen E. Kelly of the Justice Department’s Tax Division and Acting U.S. Attorney Sue Fahami for the District of Nevada made the announcement.

    IRS Criminal Investigation and the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration are investigating the case.

    Trial Attorney John C. Gerardi of the Tax Division and Assistant U.S. Attorney Richard Anthony Lopez for the District of Nevada are prosecuting the case.

    MIL OSI USA News –

    February 15, 2025
  • MIL-OSI Security: Nevada Woman Pleads Guilty to Fraudulently Seeking Nearly $100M in COVID-19 Employment Tax Credits

    Source: United States Attorneys General

    A Nevada woman pleaded guilty yesterday to conspiring to defraud the United States by making claims for refunds of false COVID-19 related employment tax credits.

    According to court documents and statements made in court, Candies Goode-McCoy, of Las Vegas, conspired with others to file tax returns seeking fraudulent refunds based on the employee retention credit (ERC) and paid sick and family leave credit. From around June 2022 through September 2023, McCoy filed approximately 1,227 false tax returns for her businesses and others claiming these refundable credits.

    In total, these claims sought refunds of over $98 million, of which the IRS paid approximately $33 million. McCoy personally received over $1.3 million in fraudulent refunds and was paid about $800,000 from those on whose behalf she filed fraudulent returns. McCoy knew that these returns were fraudulent. Neither she nor the others for whom she filed them were eligible to receive the refundable credits in the amounts claimed. McCoy used the proceeds for her personal benefit, including the purchase of luxury cars, gambling at casinos, vacations and other luxury goods.

    In response to the COVID-19 pandemic and its economic impact, Congress authorized the ERC for small businesses to reduce the employment tax owed to the IRS. Congress also authorized the IRS to give a credit against employment taxes to reimburse businesses for the wages paid to employees who were on sick or family leave and could not work because of COVID-19. This credit was equal to the wages the business paid the employees during the sick or family leave, subject to a maximum amount.

    McCoy is scheduled to be sentenced on Feb. 23, 2026. She faces a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison as well as a period of supervised release, restitution and monetary penalties. A federal district court judge will determine any sentence after considering the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and other statutory factors.

    Acting Deputy Assistant Attorney General Karen E. Kelly of the Justice Department’s Tax Division and Acting U.S. Attorney Sue Fahami for the District of Nevada made the announcement.

    IRS Criminal Investigation and the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration are investigating the case.

    Trial Attorney John C. Gerardi of the Tax Division and Assistant U.S. Attorney Richard Anthony Lopez for the District of Nevada are prosecuting the case.

    MIL Security OSI –

    February 15, 2025
  • MIL-OSI United Kingdom: Fun is on the cards this half term as Council sets out free programme of activities

    Source: City of Manchester

    This half term a huge range of free activities are set to take place for children to enjoy over their break.

    From sports and physical activities to arts and crafts and day trips there is a wider variety of activities on offer to keep the kids entertained and engaged organised via the City Council.

    These free events are open to all families whose children are eligible for free school meals. The activities are free, and a nutritious meal will also be provided over the course of the day.

    Getting involved is as easy as clicking a link and booking a place for your child – just follow this link to get a head start on a fun half term.

    Addressing hunger over the holiday is a priority for Manchester City Council and around 44,000 children and young people are being supported through payments via Manchester schools. And a further £190,000 has been allocated to the city’s Holiday Activity Fund (HAF) to provide free activities during half term breaks.

    The holiday offer will run from Monday February 17 to Friday February 21, with more information available here.

    You can also find out about even more activities that are taking place over the half term, from fun events at the People’s History Museum, to free swimming sessions to nature walks all of which are open to everyone!

    Visit our Loads to Do page to learn how you can have fun this half term.

    Councillor Julie Reid, Executive Member for Early Years, Children and Young People said: “Supporting families over the half term period is a really important role that we play as a Council. A huge amount of work has taken place, particularly since the pandemic, to address inequalities across the city and schemes like the Holiday Activities Fund is a big part of that. Holiday hunger can have a real impact on children which is why schemes like this are so vitally important.

    “There are a lot of great events that will be running over the half term with a free meal or snack included, so if you have not already been contacted to take part I’d urge families to have a look at our Loads to Do website and see what they think their child would enjoy over the half term.”

    MIL OSI United Kingdom –

    February 15, 2025
  • MIL-OSI United Kingdom: Local businesses urged to take part in Freebie Fortnight

    Source: Scotland – City of Aberdeen

    Local small and medium-sized businesses can now apply to take part in a new city centre promotion designed to drive more people into the area – Freebie Fortnight.

    The promotion will run next month in co-ordination with local retail and hospitality businesses to boost city centre footfall, visitor numbers, and local spend.

    Council Co-Leader Councillor Ian Yuill said: “I’d urge local eligible businesses – particularly those near the current construction works at Union Street Central and the new market building – to apply and take part in the Freebie Fortnight promotion.

    “This initiative will help towards providing a truly vibrant city centre which attracts locals, visitors, residents and tourists to the area.”

    Finance and Resources Committee convener Councillor Alex McLellan said: “The Freebie Fortnight will be a help to local shops, cafes, and restaurants, in the city centre to further develop and diversify their offering to customers while taking part in a fun promotion.

    “Shifts in consumer behaviour, pandemic recovery, and rising energy and living costs have all had an impact on why and how often people visit their local high street. Promotions such as Freebie Fortnight will help to attract people into the city centre.”

    The Freebie Fortnight is to take place from 10 March to 23 March, dates which would avoid existing key events such as Aberdeen Restaurant Week and Mother’s Day.

    Each retailer will be asked to select an in-store offering of value up to either £5 or £10, to be made available to a set number of customers per day over the period, for free. Customers will need to use a verbal code to access the offering.

    The expectation around free in-store offerings, for up to £5, could be a hot drink or baked good for example. For up to £10, could be a lunch deal with soft drink in a restaurant, or a free gift in a retail setting. Participating businesses will have an opportunity to devise their own deal based on stock and deliverability.

    A variety of offerings will be ensured, from ‘grab and go’ options which may attract workers and commuters, to sit-down or browsing options which may attract visitors and increase dwell time spent in the city centre.

    Customers will be required to use a verbal code to access the offering will avoid cannibalisation of regular sales for the participating business. There is also the likelihood of additional spend, with customers purchasing extra items to ‘complement’ the free offering, ie a cake with a coffee. In a retail setting, it will be suggested that the free offering is attached to a minimum spend, ie customers spending £10 will receive a £10 voucher to spend next time they return.

    There will be a supporting marketing campaign to accompany the ‘Freebie Fortnight’ for participating retailers alongside support from Aberdeen Inspired, Business Gateway, Opportunity North East, Our Union Street, and the Federation of Small Businesses. 

    There will be a particular emphasis on targeting businesses near the current construction works at Union Street Central and the new market building.

    It is expected that funding will support up to 20 businesses to take part, and criteria will be set around these being local SMEs, with fewer than three stores, rather than national chains. Care will be taken to ensure that the participating businesses are representative of multiple sectors.

    Funding from UK Government administered by Aberdeen City Council will meet the cost of the promotion by reimbursing each participating business.

    The deadline to apply is 21 February or once all funds have been allocated. More information and how to apply is at Freebie Fortnight | Aberdeen City Council

    MIL OSI United Kingdom –

    February 15, 2025
  • MIL-OSI Global: One year on from Alexei Navalny’s death, what is his legacy for Russia?

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Ben Noble, Associate Professor of Russian Politics, UCL

    A spontaneous memorial of flowers in St Petersburg, Russia, on the day of Alexei Navalny’s death, February 16 2024. Aleksey Dushutin/Shutterstock

    This is the best day of the past five months for me … This is my home … I am not afraid of anything and I urge you not to be afraid of anything either.

    These were Alexei Navalny’s words after landing at Moscow’s Sheremetyevo Airport on January 17 2021. Russia’s leading opposition figure had spent the past months recovering in Germany from an attempt on his life by the Russian Federal Security Service (FSB). Minutes after making his comments, Navalny was detained at border control. And he would remain behind bars until his death on February 16 2024, in the remote “Polar Wolf” penal colony within the Arctic Circle.

    “Why did he return to Russia?” That’s the question I’m asked about Navalny most frequently. Wasn’t it a mistake to return to certain imprisonment, when he could have maintained his opposition to Russia’s president, Vladimir Putin, from abroad?

    But Navalny’s decision to return didn’t surprise me. I’ve researched and written about him extensively, including co-authoring Navalny: Putin’s Nemesis, Russia’s Future?, the first English-language, book-length account of his life and political activities. Defying the Kremlin by returning was a signature move, reflecting both his obstinacy and bravery. He wanted to make sure his supporters and activists in Russia did not feel abandoned, risking their lives while he lived a cushy life in exile.


    The Insights section is committed to high-quality longform journalism. Our editors work with academics from many different backgrounds who are tackling a wide range of societal and scientific challenges.


    Besides, Navalny wasn’t returning to certain imprisonment. A close ally of his, Vladimir Ashurkov, told me in May 2022 that his “incarceration in Russia was not a certainty. It was a probability, a scenario – but it wasn’t like he was walking into a certain long-term prison term.”

    Also, Navalny hadn’t chosen to leave Russia in the first place. He was unconscious when taken by plane from Omsk to Berlin for treatment following his poisoning with the nerve agent Novichok in August 2020. Navalny had been consistent in saying he was a Russian politician who needed to remain in Russia to be effective.

    In a subsequent interview, conducted in a forest on the outskirts of the German capital as he slowly recovered, Navalny said: “In people’s minds, if you leave the country, that means you’ve surrendered.”

    Video: ACF.

    Outrage, detention and death

    Two days after Navalny’s final return to Russia, the Anti-Corruption Foundation (ACF) – the organisation he established in 2011 – published its biggest ever investigation. The YouTube video exploring “Putin’s palace” on the Black Sea coast achieved an extraordinary 100 million views within ten days. By the start of February 2021, polling suggested it had been watched by more than a quarter of all adults in Russia.

    Outrage at Navalny’s detention, combined with this Putin investigation, got people on to the streets. On January 23 2021, 160,000 people turned out across Russia in events that did not have prior approval from the authorities. More than 40% of the participants said they were taking part in a protest for the first time.

    But the Russian authorities were determined to also make it their last time. Law enforcement mounted an awesome display of strength, detaining protesters and sometimes beating them. The number of participants at protests on January 31 and February 2 declined sharply as a result.

    Between Navalny’s return to Russia in January 2021 and his death in February 2024, aged 47, he faced criminal case after criminal case, adding years and years to his time in prison and increasing the severity of his detention. By the time of his death, he was in the harshest type of prison in the Russian penitentiary system – a “special regime” colony – and was frequently sent to a punishment cell.

    The obvious intent was to demoralise Navalny, his team and supporters – making an example of him to spread fear among anyone else who might consider mounting a challenge to the Kremlin. But Navalny fought back, as described in his posthumously published memoir, Patriot. He made legal challenges against his jailers. He went on hunger strike. And he formed a union for his fellow prisoners.

    He also used his court appearances to make clear his political views, including following Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, declaring: “I am against this war. I consider it immoral, fratricidal, and criminal.”

    Navalny’s final public appearance was via video link. He was in good spirits, with his trademark optimism and humour still on display. Tongue firmly in cheek, he asked the judge for financial help:

    Your Honour, I will send you my personal account number so that you can use your huge salary as a federal judge to ‘warm up’ my personal account, because I am running out of money.

    Navalny died the following day. According to the prison authorities, he collapsed after a short walk and lost consciousness. Although the Russian authorities claimed he had died of natural causes, documents published in September 2024 by The Insider – a Russia-focused, Latvia-based independent investigative website – suggest Navalny may have been poisoned.

    A mourner adds her tribute to Alexei Navalny’s grave in Moscow after his burial on March 1 2024.
    Aleksey Dushutin/Shutterstock

    Whether or not Putin directly ordered his death, Russia’s president bears responsibility – for leading a system that tried to assassinate Navalny in August 2020, and for allowing his imprisonment following Navalny’s return to Russia in conditions designed to crush him.

    Commenting in March 2024, Putin stated that, just days before Navalny’s death, he had agreed for his most vocal opponent to be included in a prisoner swap – on condition the opposition figure never returned to Russia. “But, unfortunately,” Putin added, “what happened, happened.”

    ‘No one will forget’

    Putin is afraid of Alexei, even after he killed him.

    Yulia Navalnaya, Navalny’s wife, wrote these words on January 10 2025 after reading a curious letter. His mother, Lyudmila Navalnaya, had written to Rosfinmonitoring – a Russian state body – with a request for her son’s name to be removed from their list of “extremists and terrorists” now he was no longer alive.

    The official response was straight from Kafka. Navalny’s name could not be removed as it had been added following the initiation of a criminal case against him. Even though he was dead, Rosfinmonitoring had not been informed about a termination of the case “in accordance with the procedure established by law”, so his name would have to remain.

    This appears to be yet another instance of the Russian state exercising cruelty behind the veil of bureaucratic legality – such as when the prison authorities initially refused to release Navalny’s body to his mother after his death.

    “Putin is doing this to scare you,” Yulia continued. “He wants you to be afraid to even mention Alexei, and gradually to forget his name. But no one will forget.”

    Alexei Navalny and his wife, Yulia Navalnaya, at a protest rally in Moscow, May 2012.
    Dmitry Laudin/Shutterstock

    Today, Navalny’s family and team continue his work outside of Russia – and are fighting to keep his name alive back home. But the odds are against them. Polling suggests the share of Russians who say they know nothing about Navalny or his activities roughly doubled to 30% between his return in January 2021 and his death three years later.

    Navalny fought against an autocratic system – and paid the price with his life. Given the very real fears Russians may have of voicing support for a man still labelled an extremist by the Putin regime, it’s not easy to assess what people there really think of him and his legacy. But we will also never know how popular Navalny would have been in the “normal” political system he fought for.

    What made Navalny the force he was?

    Navalny didn’t mean for the humble yellow rubber duck to become such a potent symbol of resistance.

    In March 2017, the ACF published its latest investigation into elite corruption, this time focusing on then-prime minister (and former president), Dmitry Medvedev. Navalny’s team members had become masters of producing slick videos that enabled their message to reach a broad audience. A week after posting, the film had racked up over 7 million views on YouTube – an extraordinary number at that time.

    The film included shocking details of Medvedev’s alleged avarice, including yachts and luxury properties. In the centre of a large pond in one of these properties was a duck house, footage of which was captured by the ACF using a drone.

    Video: ACF.

    Such luxuries jarred with many people’s view of Medvedev as being a bit different to Putin and his cronies. As Navalny wrote in his memoir, Medvedev had previously seemed “harmless and incongruous”. (At the time, Medvedev’s spokeswoman said it was “pointless” to comment on the ACF investigation, suggesting the report was a “propaganda attack from an opposition figure and a convict”.)

    But people were angry, and the report triggered mass street protests across Russia. They carried yellow ducks and trainers, a second unintended symbol from the film given Medvedev’s penchant for them.

    Another reason why so many people came out to protest on March 26 2017 was the organising work carried out by Navalny’s movement.

    The previous December, Navalny had announced his intention to run in the 2018 presidential election. As part of the campaign, he and his team created a network of regional headquarters to bring together supporters and train activists across Russia. Although the authorities had rejected Navalny’s efforts to register an official political party, this regional network functioned in much the same way, gathering like-minded people in support of an electoral candidate. And this infrastructure helped get people out on the streets.

    The Kremlin saw this as a clear threat. According to a December 2020 investigation by Bellingcat, CNN, Der Spiegel and The Insider, the FSB assassination squad implicated in the Novichok poisoning of Navalny had started trailing him in January 2017 – one month after he announced his run for the presidency.

    Alexei Navalny on a Moscow street after having zelyonka dye thrown in his face, April 2017.
    Evgeny Feldman via Wikimedia, CC BY-NC-SA

    At the protests against Medvedev, the authorities’ growing intolerance of Navalny was also on display – he was detained, fined and sentenced to 15 days’ imprisonment.

    The Medvedev investigation was far from the beginning of Navalny’s story as a thorn in the Kremlin’s side. But this episode brings together all of the elements that made Navalny the force he was: anti-corruption activism, protest mobilisation, attempts to run as a “normal” politician in a system rigged against him, and savvy use of social media to raise his profile in all of these domains.

    Courting controversy

    In Patriot, Navalny writes that he always “felt sure a broad coalition was needed to fight Putin”. Yet over the years, his attempts to form that coalition led to some of the most controversial points of his political career.

    In a 2007 video, Navalny referred to himself as a “certified nationalist”, advocating for the deportation of illegal immigrants, albeit without using violence and distancing himself from neo-Nazism. In the video, he says: “We have the right to be Russians in Russia, and we’ll defend that right.”

    Although alienating some, Navalny was attempting to present a more acceptable face of nationalism, and he hoped to build a bridge between nationalists and liberals in taking on the Kremlin’s burgeoning authoritarianism.

    But the prominence of nationalism in Navalny’s political identity varied markedly over time, probably reflecting his shifting estimations of which platform could attract the largest support within Russia. By the time of his thwarted run in the 2018 presidential election, nationalist talking points were all but absent from his rhetoric.

    However, some of these former comments and positions continue to influence how people view him. For example, following Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014, Navalny tried to take a pragmatic stance. While acknowledging Russia’s flouting of international law, he said that Crimea was “now part of the Russian Federation” and would “never become part of Ukraine in the foreseeable future”.

    Many Ukrainians take this as clear evidence that Navalny was a Russian imperialist. Though he later revised his position, saying Crimea should be returned to Ukraine, some saw this as too little, too late. But others were willing to look past the more controversial parts of his biography, recognising that Navalny represented the most effective domestic challenge to Putin.

    Another key attempt to build a broad political coalition was Navalny’s Smart Voting initiative. This was a tactical voting project in which Navalny’s team encouraged voters to back the individual thought best-placed to defeat the ruling United Russia candidate, regardless of the challenger’s ideological position.

    The project wasn’t met with universal approval. Some opposition figures and voters baulked at, or flatly refused to consider, the idea of voting for people whose ideological positions they found repugnant – or whom they viewed as being “fake” opposition figures, entirely in bed with the authorities. (This makes clear that Navalny was never the leader of the political opposition in Russia; he was, rather, the leading figure of a fractious constellation of individuals and groups.)

    But others relished the opportunity to make rigged elections work in their favour. And there is evidence that Smart Voting did sometimes work, including in the September 2020 regional and local elections, for which Navalny had been campaigning when he was poisoned with Novichok.

    In an astonishing moment captured on film during his recovery in Germany, Navalny speaks to an alleged member of the FSB squad sent to kill him. Pretending to be the aide to a senior FSB official, Navalny finds out that the nerve agent had been placed in his underpants.

    How do Russians feel about Navalny now?

    It’s like a member of the family has died.

    This is what one Russian friend told me after hearing of Navalny’s death a year ago. Soon afterwards, the Levada Center – an independent Russian polling organisation – conducted a nationally representative survey to gauge the public’s reaction to the news.

    The poll found that Navalny’s death was the second-most mentioned event by Russian people that month, after the capture of the Ukrainian city of Avdiivka by Russian troops. But when asked how they felt about his death, 69% of respondents said they had “no particular feelings” either way – while only 17% said they felt “sympathy” or “pity”.

    And that broadly fits with Navalny’s approval ratings in Russia. After his poisoning in 2020, 20% of Russians said they approved of his activities – but this was down to 11% by February 2024.

    Video: BBC.

    Of course, these numbers must be taken for what they are: polling in an authoritarian state regarding a figure vilified and imprisoned by the regime, during a time of war and amid draconian restrictions on free speech. To what extent the drop in support for Navalny was real, rather than reflecting the increased fear people had in voicing their approval for an anti-regime figure, is hard to say with certainty.

    When asked why they liked Navalny, 31% of those who approved of his activities said he spoke “the truth”, “honestly” or “directly”. For those who did not approve of his activities, 22% said he was “paid by the west”, “represented” the west’s interests, that he was a “foreign agent”, a “traitor” or a “puppet”.

    The Kremlin had long tried to discredit Navalny as a western-backed traitor. After Navalny’s 2020 poisoning, Putin’s spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, said that “experts from the United States’ Central Intelligence Agency are working with him”. The Russian state claimed that, rather than a patriot exposing official malfeasance with a view to strengthening his country, Navalny was a CIA stooge intent on destroying Russia.

    Peskov provided no evidence to back up this claim – and the official propaganda wasn’t believed by all. Thousands of Russians defied the authorities by coming out to pay their respects at Navalny’s funeral on March 1 2024. Many, if not all, knew this was a significant risk. Police employed video footage to track down members of the funeral crowd, including by using facial recognition technology.

    The first person to be detained was a Muscovite the police claimed they heard shouting “Glory to the heroes!” – a traditional Ukrainian response to the declaration “Glory to Ukraine!”, but this time referencing Navalny. She spent a night in a police station before being fined for “displaying a banned symbol”.

    Putin always avoided mentioning Navalny’s name in public while he was alive – instead referring to him as “this gentleman”, “the character you mentioned”, or the “Berlin patient”. (The only recorded instance of Putin using Navalny’s name in public when he was alive was in 2013.)

    However, having been re-elected president in 2024 and with Navalny dead, Putin finally broke his long-held practice, saying: “As for Navalny, yes he passed away – this is always a sad event.” It was as if the death of his nemesis diminished the potency of his name – and the challenge that Navalny had long presented to Putin.

    Nobody can become another Navalny

    Someone else will rise up and take my place. I haven’t done anything unique or difficult. Anyone could do what I’ve done.

    So wrote Navalny in the memoir published after his death. But that hasn’t happened: no Navalny 2.0 has yet emerged. And it’s no real surprise. The Kremlin has taken clear steps to ensure nobody can become another Navalny within Russia.

    In 2021, the authorities made a clear decision to destroy Navalny’s organisations within Russia, including the ACF and his regional network. Without the organisational infrastructure and legal ability to function in Russia, no figure has been able to take his place directly.

    More broadly, the fate of Navalny and his movement has had a chilling effect on the opposition landscape. So too have other steps taken by the authorities.

    Russia has become markedly more repressive since the start of its war on Ukraine. The human rights NGO First Department looked into the number of cases relating to “treason”, “espionage” and “confidential cooperation with a foreign state” since Russia introduced the current version of its criminal code in 1997. Of the more than 1,000 cases, 792 – the vast majority – were initiated following Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022.

    Russian law enforcement has also used nebulous anti-extremism and anti-terrorism legislation to crack down on dissenting voices. Three of Navalny’s lawyers were sentenced in January 2025 for participating in an “extremist organisation”, as the ACF was designated by a Moscow court in June 2021. The Russian legislature has also passed a barrage of legislation relating to so-called “foreign agents”, to tarnish the work of those the regime regards as foreign-backed “fifth columnists”.

    Mass street protests are largely a thing of the past in Russia. Restrictions were placed on public gatherings during the COVID pandemic – but these rules were applied selectively, with opposition individuals and groups being targeted. And opportunities for collective action were further reduced following the full-scale invasion of Ukraine.

    Freedom of speech has also come under assault. Article 29, point five of the Russian constitution states: “Censorship shall be prohibited.” But in September 2024, Kremlin spokesperson Peskov said: “In the state of war that we are in, restrictions are justified, and censorship is justified.”

    Legislation passed very soon after the 2022 invasion of Ukraine made it illegal to comment on the Russian military’s activities truthfully – and even to call the war a war.

    YouTube – the platform so central to Navalny’s ability to spread his message – has been targeted. Without banning it outright – perhaps afraid of the public backlash this might cause – the Russian state media regulator, Roskomnadzor, has slowed down internet traffic to the site within Russia. The result has been a move of users to other websites supporting video content, including VKontakte – a Russian social media platform.

    In short, conditions in Russia are very different now compared to when Navalny first emerged. The relative freedom of the 2000s and 2010s gave him the space to challenge the corruption and authoritarianism of an evolving system headed by Putin. But this space has shrunk over time, to the point where no room remains for a figure like him within Russia.

    In 2019, Navalny told Ivan Zhdanov, who is now director of the ACF: “We changed the regime, but not in the way we wanted.” So, did Navalny and his team push the Kremlin to become more authoritarian – making it not only intolerant of him but also any possible successor?

    There may be some truth in this. And yet, the drastic steps taken by the regime following the start of the war on Ukraine suggest there were other, even more significant factors that have laid bare the violent nature of Putin’s personal autocracy – and the president’s disdain for dissenters.

    Plenty for Russians to be angry about

    How can we win the war when dedushka [grandpa] is a moron?

    In June 2023, Evgeny Prigozhin – a long-time associate of Putin and head of the private military Wagner Group – staged an armed rebellion, marching his forces on the Russian capital. This was not a full-blown political movement against Putin. But the target of Prigozhin’s invective against Russia’s military leadership had become increasingly blurry, testing the taboo of direct criticism of the president – who is sometimes referred to, disparagingly, as “grandpa” in Russia.

    And Prigozhin paid the price. In August 2023, he was killed when the private jet he was flying in crashed after an explosion on board. Afterwards, Putin referred to Prigozhin as a “talented person” who “made serious mistakes in life”.

    In the west, opposition to the Kremlin is often associated with more liberal figures like Navalny. Yet the most consequential domestic challenge to Putin’s rule came from a very different part of the ideological spectrum – a figure in Prigozhin leading a segment of Russian society that wanted the Kremlin to prosecute its war on Ukraine even more aggressively.

    Video: BBC.

    Today, there is plenty for Russians to be angry about, and Putin knows it. He recently acknowledged an “overheating of the economy”. This has resulted in high inflation, in part due to all the resources being channelled into supporting the war effort. Such cost-of-living concerns weigh more heavily than the war on the minds of most Russians.

    A favourite talking point of the Kremlin is how Putin imposed order in Russia following the “wild 1990s” – characterised by economic turbulence and symbolised by then-president Boris Yeltsin’s public drunkenness. Many Russians attribute the stability and rise in living standards they experienced in the 2000s with Putin’s rule – and thank him for it by providing support for his continued leadership.

    The current economic problems are an acute worry for the Kremlin because they jeopardise this basic social contract struck with the Russian people. In fact, one way the Kremlin tried to discredit Navalny was by comparing him with Yeltsin, suggesting he posed the same threats as a failed reformer. In his memoir, Navalny concedes that “few things get under my skin more”.

    Although originally a fan of Yeltsin, Navalny became an ardent critic. His argument was that Yeltsin and those around him squandered the opportunity to make Russia a “normal” European country.

    Navalny also wanted Russians to feel entitled to more. Rather than be content with their relative living standards compared with the early post-Soviet period, he encouraged them to imagine the level of wealth citizens could enjoy based on Russia’s extraordinary resources – but with the rule of law, less corruption, and real democratic processes.

    ‘Think of other possible Russias’

    When looking at forms of criticism and dissent in Russia today, we need to distinguish between anti-war, anti-government, and anti-Putin activities.

    Despite the risk of harsh consequences, there are daily forms of anti-war resistance, including arson attacks on military enlistment offices. Some are orchestrated from Ukraine, with Russians blackmailed into acting. But other cases are likely to be forms of domestic resistance.

    Criticism of the government is still sometimes possible, largely because Russia has a “dual executive” system, consisting of a prime minister and presidency. This allows the much more powerful presidency to deflect blame to the government when things go wrong.

    There are nominal opposition parties in Russia – sometimes referred to as the “systemic opposition”, because they are loyal to the Kremlin and therefore tolerated by the system. Within the State Duma, these parties often criticise particular government ministries for apparent failings. But they rarely, if ever, now dare criticise Putin directly.

    Nothing anywhere close to the challenge presented by Navalny appears on the horizon in Russia – at either end of the political spectrum. But the presence of clear popular grievances, and the existence of organisations (albeit not Navalny’s) that could channel this anger should the Kremlin’s grip loosen, mean we cannot write off all opposition in Russia.

    Navalny’s wife, Yulia, has vowed to continue her husband’s work. And his team in exile maintain focus on elite corruption in Russia, now from their base in Vilnius, Lithuania. The ACF’s most recent investigation is on Igor Sechin, CEO of the oil company Rosneft.

    But some have argued this work is no longer as relevant as it was. Sam Greene, professor in Russian politics at King’s College London, captured this doubt in a recent Substack post:

    [T]here is a palpable sense that these sorts of investigations may not be relevant to as many people as they used to be, given everything that has transpired since the mid-2010s, when they were the bread and butter of the Anti-Corruption Foundation. Some … have gone as far as to suggest that they have become effectively meaningless … and thus that Team Navalny should move on.

    Navalny’s team are understandably irritated by suggestions they’re no longer as effective as they once were. But it’s important to note that this criticism has often been sharpest within Russia’s liberal opposition. The ACF has been rocked, for example, by recent accusations from Maxim Katz, one such liberal opposition figure, that the organisation helped “launder the reputations” of two former bank owners. In their response, posted on YouTube, the ACF referred to Katz’s accusations as “lies” – but this continued squabbling has left some Russians feeling “disillusioned and unrepresented”.

    So, what will Navalny’s long-term legacy be? Patriot includes a revealing section on Mikhail Gorbachev – the last leader of the Soviet Union, whom Navalny describes as “unpopular in Russia, and also in our family”. He continues:

    Usually, when you tell foreigners this, they are very surprised, because Gorbachev is thought of as the person who gave Eastern Europe back its freedom and thanks to whom Germany was reunited. Of course, that is true … but within Russia and the USSR he was not particularly liked.

    At the moment, there is a similar split in perceptions of Navalny. Internationally, he was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize, awarded the Sakharov Prize by the European Parliament, and a documentary about him won an Oscar.

    But there are also those outside of Russia who remain critical: “Navalny’s life has brought no benefit to the Ukrainian victory; instead, he has caused considerable harm,” wrote one Ukrainian academic. “He fuelled the illusion in the west that democracy in Russia is possible.”

    Trailer for the Oscar-winning documentary Navalny.

    Inside Russia, according to Levada Center polling shortly after his death, 53% of Russians thought Navalny played “no special role” in the history of the country, while 19% said he played a “rather negative” role. Revealingly, when commenting on Navalny’s death, one man in Moscow told RFE/RL’s Russian Service: “I think that everyone who is against Russia is guilty, even if they are right.”

    But, for a small minority in Russia, Navalny will go down as a messiah-like figure who miraculously cheated death in 2020, then made the ultimate sacrifice in his battle of good and evil with the Kremlin. This view may have been reinforced by Navalny’s increasing openness about his Christian faith.

    Ultimately, Navalny’s long-term status in Russia will depend on the nature of the political system after Putin has gone. Since it seems likely that authoritarianism will outlast Putin, a more favourable official story about Navalny is unlikely to emerge any time soon. However, how any post-Putin regime tries to make sense of Navalny’s legacy will tell us a lot about that regime.

    While he was alive, Navalny stood for the freer Russia in which he had emerged as a leading opposition figure – and also what he called the “Beautiful Russia of the Future”. Perhaps, after his death, his lasting legacy in Russia remains the ability for some to think – if only in private – of other possible Russias.


    For you: more from our Insights series:

    • I investigated millions of tweets from the Kremlin’s ‘troll factory’ and discovered classic propaganda techniques reimagined for the social media age

    • How the world’s first open-source digital map of mass graves could help bring justice to victims in Ukraine and other war zones

    • The Trump revolution: where it came from and where it’s going

    To hear about new Insights articles, join the hundreds of thousands of people who value The Conversation’s evidence-based news. Subscribe to our newsletter.

    Ben Noble has previously received funding from the British Academy and the Leverhulme Trust. He is an Associate Fellow of Chatham House.

    – ref. One year on from Alexei Navalny’s death, what is his legacy for Russia? – https://theconversation.com/one-year-on-from-alexei-navalnys-death-what-is-his-legacy-for-russia-249692

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

    February 15, 2025
  • MIL-OSI Global: ‘For You’: What to know about news on TikTok

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Anne Oeldorf-Hirsch, Associate Professor of Communication Technology, University of Connecticut

    People work inside the TikTok building in Culver City, Calif., in March 2024. AP Photo/Damian Dovarganes

    Last time you scrolled the “For You” page on TikTok, did you get a video about current events? Politics? Breaking news?

    If you’re one of the 63% of teens or 33% of adults in the U.S. who uses TikTok, you probably have. But where did it come from? Who created it? And should you believe what it told you?

    As a communication researcher who has studied news content on social media for over a decade, I can share three crucial things to know about news you get on TikTok: What videos count as news, how they got to you, and what you should do when you see them.

    These are three of what media researchers know as the “5 C’s” of news literacy: content, circulation and consumption. While they can be applied to any kind of news use, they are especially important for TikTok, where anyone can create content, and the algorithm decides what we see.

    First C: Content

    TikTok is full of user-generated content – content that is created by other users on the app rather than official news organizations – so it’s important to think about what is in your feed. This means knowing what is actually news and what is something else, like opinion or advertising.

    Any user can post their opinion, whether or not it’s backed up by any proof. TikTok has some rules about what cannot be posted, such as content that is considered inappropriate for minors or harmful content like harassment or hate speech. Still, anyone can post their own ideas about anything, including current events. This means that just because a video is on the app doesn’t make it true.

    TikTok has become a major player in advertising, with ad revenues in the U.S. alone expected to reach over US$13 billion in 2026. TikTok does its best to make videos that have been boosted with paid advertising look like any other content. You may have seen videos that seem like “real” content – uncompensated thoughts from an individual user – only to discover that they’re part of a paid brand partnership.

    However, the platform does have rules about ads and gives some clues for identifying paid posts. Look for a “sponsored” or “ad” label near the video’s caption or username. Another thing to look for is what’s called a “call-to-action” in the caption, like “tap the link to learn more!”

    TikTok doesn’t have specific rules for sharing news, and it doesn’t separate news from other categories of information, like opinion, comedy or video blogs. Journalists at reputable news outlets, on the other hand, must follow certain standards.

    For one, journalists will vet and cite their sources. That means they will share who they interviewed or what expert gave them their information, and that they’ve done research to make sure it’s a trustworthy source in the first place. They and their publication’s editors will also verify or fact-check content to make sure it’s true. So a video that shares news content should state where the information is from and link to that source.

    Second C: Circulation

    If you didn’t search for a TikTok video, it probably found you. By now, regular social media users know that TikTok has an algorithm that decides what content to show them. Algorithms are equations that learn what you like and decide how to recommend more of the same content to you.

    On TikTok, you can click on “Share” and then “Why this video” to learn more about why a video was recommended for you. Usually, it’s because you’ve watched, liked or commented on similar content, searched for related topics or followed similar accounts. Recommendations also include videos that were posted recently near you and topics that are popular where you live.

    The most important thing to remember is that each TikTok user is getting their own customized feed of content based on their behavior. Unlike in the past, when more of our news came from mainstream media – such as reading the same city newspaper or watching the same local news – now we may not know what news someone else is getting. If you see a lot of content about the same topic, that’s likely because of the algorithm customizing your feed, not necessarily because it’s the most important topic in the news.

    A little skepticism pays off.
    Philippe TURPIN/Photononstop via Getty Images

    Third C: Consumption

    You probably know about “fake news” – what researchers usually call misinformation – and that there is a lot of it online. Social media apps know it too, and have tried different ways to keep it from spreading, like using fact-checkers to flag problematic content.

    However, my team’s own research shows that these fact-checking programs may not be very successful. Some apps, like Facebook and Instagram, are even stopping fact-checking programs altogether. While TikTok doesn’t allow disinformation campaigns that are intended to deceive people, the app doesn’t prohibit people from sharing information that is simply inaccurate.

    That means, beyond the clues you already read about above, you will need to develop your own skills in judging what’s real on TikTok.

    First, think about your own opinions and biases. We all have them! Even news organizations can have biases, meaning some of them tend to report news from a certain political viewpoint.

    The more you engage with content you already agree with, the more you will get of it, and the stronger your opinions can become about it. Instead, think about what other viewpoints exist and search for content from their side. One way to do this is to seek out content from reputable news organizations across the political spectrum.

    Second, pay attention to where you get information. Is all your news coming from social media? Research shows that Americans who rely on social media as their main source of news are less knowledgeable than those who get news from almost any other news source. In a 2020 study, they couldn’t answer as many questions about current events like Donald Trump’s impeachment and the COVID-19 pandemic, for example, and were more likely to come across conspiracy theories. Pick a news website or two and sign up for their alerts instead.

    Finally, continue to evaluate the content on your “For You” page. You don’t need to stop using TikTok, but do keep looking for those clues about whether information is credible: Who is it from? Is it a journalist, a news organization? Or maybe it was a news influencer, someone who has a large following on social media for sharing current events but who is not necessarily a journalist. Do they cite and link to sources?

    If you can’t find this information, you should search about the topic online. If you don’t find any reputable news organizations reporting on it, you may want to think again about trusting it and sharing it.

    Anne Oeldorf-Hirsch does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. ‘For You’: What to know about news on TikTok – https://theconversation.com/for-you-what-to-know-about-news-on-tiktok-247975

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

    February 15, 2025
  • MIL-OSI United Kingdom: Probate waiting times halved thanks to Government push

    Source: United Kingdom – Executive Government & Departments

    Families, individuals, and charities will receive funds left to them in wills twice as quickly as they did last year, with probate applications now being granted in less than half the time.

    • Outstanding caseload hits lowest level since early 2023
    • Overall wait times cut to just over four weeks, as around eight out of ten of applications go digital
    • Additional staff trained as part of Government’s Plan for Change to restore public services

    The data published yesterday shows that HMCTS has slashed average wait times in December 2024 to just over four weeks. This compares to twelve weeks at the end of 2023 and over eight weeks at the end of June 2024. The improvement is a result of decisive Government action to reduce the backlog of cases which built up because of the Covid-19 pandemic.

    Around 80 per cent of grant applications are now completed online, with digital applications taking on average just over two weeks to complete – improving support for those who need it and easing the burden on people who are navigating what is often a challenging time. For those who complete the application online and submit their documents without any issues probate is granted in less than a week on average.

    Minister for Courts and Legal Services, Sarah Sackman KC MP, said: 

    We know that handling probate can be tough for families at a difficult period in their lives. That is why so we’ve worked hard to reduce delays and make the process easier. 

    By cutting wait times and going digital, we’re ensuring people receive the support they need quickly at what can be a challenging time.

    We’re getting public services back on their feet again as part of this Government’s Plan for Change.

    The change comes after action was taken to recruit extra staff who have been trained to handle applications quickly and ensure fair and efficient processing, preventing delays. 

    In 2024, the average number of monthly grants issued was 27,400, marking a 20 per cent increase compared to the previous year. As a result, the number of outstanding cases is at its lowest point since early 2023 when data was first published.  

    The probate system has achieved a remarkable turnaround, reducing its backlog by over 50,000 cases since August 2023 and ensuring faster estate settlements for families.

    Charities also benefit from a more efficient probate system because they now have quicker access to funds which have been entrusted to them – easing financial pressure on the third sector.

    Even paper applications, which historically take longer to process than the digital system, have seen significant improvements in timeliness with waiting times reducing from just over 22 weeks to under 15 weeks.

    James Stebbings, Chair of the Institute of Legacy Management, said:

    We are delighted to see that HMCTS have reduced probate application processing times to where they were 5 years ago.

    Each year the public leave charities £4bn of gifts in their wills and the relief in the charity sector that this income is flowing again is huge.

    On behalf of the charity sector and all who benefit from it we would like to say a huge thank you.

    Alex McDowell, Vice Chair of Remember A Charity and Director of Fundraising at the Duke of Edinburgh Award, said: 

    With more and more people across the UK choosing to support good causes through their Wills each year, an efficient and effective probate service is vital for sustaining charitable services and charities’ financial planning.

    It ensures charitable gifts in wills can be put to good use swiftly, in line with supporters’ wishes.

    We are hugely grateful to HMCTS for the improvements they have made and their ongoing engagement with the charity sector.

    Share this page

    The following links open in a new tab

    • Share on Facebook (opens in new tab)
    • Share on Twitter (opens in new tab)

    Updates to this page

    Published 14 February 2025

    MIL OSI United Kingdom –

    February 15, 2025
  • MIL-OSI Global: In the struggle to get Britain working, the long shadow of austerity could be part of the problem

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Guilherme Klein Martins, Lecturer in Economics, University of Leeds

    pxl.store/Shutterstock

    Austerity is an unusual economic concept. While it is one of the economic terms that attracts the most interest from the public, it remains controversial in policy debates. Advocates argue that reducing government deficits through spending cuts and tax increases restores confidence and stabilises economies. Critics, however, warn that these policies just deepen downturns.

    My recent research, using data from 16 countries over several decades, provides new evidence supporting the second view. That is, austerity has significant and persistent negative effects on employment and the size of an economy (measured by GDP), with the damage lasting more than 15 years.

    A common defence of austerity is that while it may slow growth in the short term, it ultimately strengthens economies by reducing debt and making room for private-sector expansion. But my findings challenge this assumption.

    I analysed episodes of austerity, defined as large fiscal contractions (reduced state spending or large tax increases) across a variety of advanced economies. What I found was the negative impact on GDP remains substantial even after a decade and a half. On average, GDP is more than 5.5% lower 15 years after a large austerity shock than would have been expected if there had been no austerity, based on statistical estimates.

    Beyond GDP, austerity has a lasting impact on labour markets (the number of jobs on offer and people available to do them). My research shows that large fiscal contractions lead to a significant drop in the total number of hours worked, which is a key indicator of labour market health.

    This is a crucial finding, as policymakers often assume that labour markets will adjust quickly after an economic shock. Instead, results suggest employment levels (which is best measured by the total number of hours worked by everyone in the labour force) remain depressed for more than a decade after major austerity measures.

    One reason for this is the connection between investment and employment. When governments cut spending, firms delay investments. This, in turn, lowers productivity growth and reduces job creation.

    If businesses anticipate that the economy will remain weak for a long time, they adjust their hiring and investment strategies. This can reinforce a cycle of stagnation. My results suggest that, on average, an austerity shock generates a reduction of 4% in the total worked hours and 6% in the capital stock (the value of physical assets like buildings and machines used to produce goods and services) after 15 years.

    The effects of an austerity shock on countries’ GDP:

    UK: A case study

    Perhaps one of the most striking real-world examples of the long-term effects of austerity is the UK. Following the 2008 global financial crisis, the UK government implemented sweeping austerity measures starting in 2010. These policies were framed as necessary to reduce the budget deficit and restore investor confidence. Spending cuts affected key areas, including welfare, healthcare, education and local government services like social housing, roads and leisure facilities.

    The 2010 coalition government brought in more than £80 billion of cuts to public spending.

    But here’s a conundrum. The UK’s fiscal deficit (the difference between what it spent and what it raised in taxes) after the implementation of these policies was greater than before the austerity cuts. The deficit in 2023/2024 was 5.7% of GDP, while in 2007/2008, it was 2.9%.

    What is evident is that these measures are associated with stagnant wages, weakened public services and sluggish GDP growth. Productivity growth has remained weak, and long-term economic damage is evident in underfunded infrastructure and an increasingly fragile NHS.

    More than a decade later, real earnings have barely recovered to pre-crisis levels. The past 15 years have been the worst for income growth in generations, with working-age incomes growing by only 6% in real terms from 2007 to 2019, compared to higher growth rates in countries including the US, Germany and Ireland.




    Read more:
    How the UK’s austerity policies caused life expectancy to fall


    My findings contribute to a growing body of research challenging the longstanding view that shocks like austerity have only short-run effects. Traditionally, models assume that economies return to their long-run growth paths after temporary disruptions. But recent evidence, including my research, suggests that demand shocks can have persistent effects on supply by reducing investment and participation in the labour force.

    In the wake of the COVID pandemic, many governments responded with generous financial support, temporarily reversing the austerity-driven policies of the previous decade. The strong recovery in some economies suggests that government spending can play a crucial role in sustaining long-run growth. On the other hand, a return to austerity measures could once again lead to prolonged stagnation.

    What should policymakers take away from this? First, the assumption that austerity is a path to long-term prosperity needs to be re-evaluated. While reducing excessive public debt might be important, the economic costs of large and rapid cuts to spending can far outweigh the benefits.

    Second, policymakers should recognise that timing matters. Gradual adjustments to spending, when really necessary, should be accompanied by measures to support investment and employment in order to reduce the likelihood of causing long-term harm.

    Finally, economic policy should prioritise long-term growth over short-term deficit reduction. Governments facing tough spending choices should explore alternative approaches – things like progressive taxation and targeted public investment. And when cuts are needed, they should avoid implementing them during periods of economic recession.

    Austerity is often framed as a necessary sacrifice for future prosperity. As governments consider fiscal strategies in an era of rising debt and economic uncertainty, they should take heed of austerity’s long-run costs. The evidence suggests that a more balanced approach – one that prioritises investment and economic stability – may be the wiser path forward.

    Guilherme Klein Martins does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. In the struggle to get Britain working, the long shadow of austerity could be part of the problem – https://theconversation.com/in-the-struggle-to-get-britain-working-the-long-shadow-of-austerity-could-be-part-of-the-problem-249888

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

    February 15, 2025
  • MIL-OSI: Franklin Electric Announces Execution of Definitive Agreement for the Acquisition of Barnes de Colombia

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    FORT WAYNE, Ind., Feb. 14, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Franklin Electric Co., Inc. (NASDAQ: FELE) Fort Wayne, Indiana, USA-based Franklin has signed a definitive agreement to acquire Barnes de Colombia S.A., a leading manufacturer and distributor of industrial and commercial pumps based in Cota, Cundinamarca, Colombia. This acquisition aligns with Franklin Electric’s long-term growth and diversification goals, providing significant opportunities for expansion in Latin America.

    Barnes de Colombia, also operating under the WDM brand in certain countries including the US, is headquartered near Bogotá, Colombia. It has two manufacturing facilities and over eight stocking locations in Colombia, as well as assembly facilities in Mexico, Brazil, and Argentina, and local warehouses in Guatemala, Panama, Ecuador, Peru, and Chile.

    The acquisition enhances Franklin Electric’s product portfolio and market presence in key Latin American regions. Barnes de Colombia’s strong market position in Colombia and established operations in Mexico, Argentina, Brazil, and other Latin American countries is expected to help accelerate Franklin´s growth in the region. This acquisition supports Franklin Electric’s strategic goals of diversifying its product line and enhancing supply chain resilience while leveraging Barnes de Colombia’s robust distribution network and customer relationships.

    “We are thrilled to welcome Barnes de Colombia to the Franklin Electric family,” said Joe Ruzynski, CEO of Franklin Electric. “This acquisition not only strengthens our presence in the high-growth Latin American markets but also enhances our ability to serve our customers with an expanded portfolio of innovative and high-quality products. Barnes’ approximately 400 team members and manufacturing and foundry capabilities will enhance our operating footprint materially and we are excited for these new team members and operations to contribute meaningfully to our growth and success. Together, we will continue to rely on our Key Factors for Success – quality, availability, service, innovation and cost – to deliver outstanding value to our customers.”

    The acquisition is subject to customary closing conditions, including Colombian antitrust clearance. Franklin Electric expects the acquisition to close on or about March 1, 2025.

    Seale & Associates provided investment banking services to Barnes de Colombia and its owners in connection with the acquisition. Garrigues (Colombia and Mexico) provided legal counsel to Franklin Electric, and Brigard Urrutia provided legal counsel to Barnes de Colombia.

    About Franklin Electric
    Franklin Electric is a global leader in the production and marketing of systems and components for the movement of water and energy. Recognized as a technical leader in its products and services, Franklin Electric serves customers worldwide in residential, commercial, agricultural, industrial, municipal, and fueling applications. Franklin Electric is proud to be recognized in Newsweek’s lists of America’s Most Responsible Companies 2024, Most Trustworthy Companies 2024, and Greenest Companies 2025; Best Places to Work in Indiana 2024; and America’s Climate Leaders 2024 by USA Today.

    “Safe Harbor” Statement under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Any forward-looking statements contained herein, including those relating to market conditions or the Company’s financial results, costs, expenses or expense reductions, profit margins, inventory levels, foreign currency translation rates, liquidity expectations, business goals and sales growth, involve risks and uncertainties, including but not limited to, risks and uncertainties with respect to general economic and currency conditions, various conditions specific to the Company’s business and industry, weather conditions, new housing starts, market demand, competitive factors, changes in distribution channels, supply constraints, effect of price increases, raw material costs, technology factors, integration of acquisitions, litigation, government and regulatory actions, the Company’s accounting policies, future trends, epidemics and pandemics, and other risks which are detailed in the Company’s Securities and Exchange Commission filings, included in Item 1A of Part I of the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2023, Exhibit 99.1 attached thereto and in Item 1A of Part II of the Company’s Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q. These risks and uncertainties may cause actual results to differ materially from those indicated by the forward-looking statements. All forward-looking statements made herein are based on information currently available, and the Company assumes no obligation to update any forward-looking statements.

    Contact:        
    Jeff Taylor        
    Franklin Electric Co., Inc.
    260.824.2900

    The MIL Network –

    February 15, 2025
  • MIL-OSI: 180 Degree Capital Corp. Issues Q4 2024 Shareholder Letter

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    Montclair, NJ, Feb. 14, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — 180 Degree Capital Corp. (NASDAQ:TURN) today issued the following Q4 2024 Shareholder Letter:

    Fellow Shareholders,

    We are incredibly proud of our recent announcement of the signing of a definitive agreement for 180 Degree Capital Corp. (“180 Degree Capital”) to enter into a business combination (the “Business Combination”) with Mount Logan Capital Inc. (“Mount Logan”). For those of you who have not had a chance to listen to our joint call with the team from Mount Logan or review the presentation deck that summarizes the proposed transaction, both can be found at https://ir.180degreecapital.com/ir-calendar/detail/2908/180-degree-capital-and-mount-logan-capital-proposed-merger. We expect to file a registration statement and joint proxy statement/prospectus with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) soon. This document will give us the opportunity to speak with our shareholders more extensively about the proposed Business Combination and the process that led to our Board’s unanimous approval of this strategically important transaction.

    This proposed transaction is not the end of 180 Degree Capital. We believe it is the logical next step in our evolution. It is also an opportunity that is not afforded commonly to closed-end funds, particularly since we believe most have limited differentiation. We believe there are clear reasons why 180 Degree Capital has this truly unique opportunity to combine with an asset manager and to transition to an operating company. We will get to those below, but first, I want to touch on why we believe Mount Logan is a proverbial “diamond in the rough.”

    Mount Logan has the following attributes that we believe will provide value to 180 Degree Capital shareholders:

    • Mount Logan has what we believe to be an outstanding management team comprised of its CEO, Ted Goldthorpe, its Co-Presidents, Matthias Ederer and Henry Wang, and its CFO, Nikita Klassen;
    • Mount Logan’s asset management platform has approximately $2.4+ billion of assets under management (as of September 30, 2024) that we believe generates predictable fee revenue that can be used to benefit the growth of the combined company and its shareholders;
    • Mount Logan has operational leverage and unique investment access through its association with BC Partners, a leading global private equity and credit firm;
    • Mount Logan is focused on what we believe is the fast-growing market of private credit;
    • We believe that Mount Logan remains undiscovered by the majority of investors due to it being listed on the Cboe Canada exchange rather than a US national exchange; and
    • We believe Mount Logan is significantly undervalued by public market investors.

    For 35 years, I have been a value investor attempting to uncover great companies that I believe are trading below their intrinsic value. As we spent more time with Ted and his colleagues over the past six months, it became abundantly clear to us that 1) we believe Mount Logan is one of these great undiscovered and undervalued companies and 2) the combination of our two companies has the potential to unlock substantial value for 180 Degree Capital shareholders by:

    1. Shifting the valuation of our business from one based on net asset value to a valuation based on operating metrics with a foundation of what we believe will be more predictable fee-related revenues attributed to earnings from the management of permanent and semi-permanent capital vehicles. Other similar businesses commonly trade based on multiples of operating metrics rather than discounts to net asset value.
    2. Changing to an asset-light operating company that leverages an association with BC Partners enables economies of scale that are not possible at 180 Degree Capital’s current size; and
    3. Substantially increasing the available capital for us to be able to leverage our relationships with small and microcapitalization public companies, to develop capital structure solutions that seek to unlock value and generate favorable risk-adjusted returns.

    I, as the largest individual shareholder of 180 Degree Capital, and Daniel as a top-ten shareholder, could not be more excited about the future of the combined entity. We believe the proposed Business Combination to be the best opportunity to build value for all shareholders of 180 Degree Capital. We believe strongly in 180 Degree Capital’s future under the leadership of Ted and his colleagues. I have been an investor in the public markets for 35 years, during which investors entrusted me with billions of dollars of capital. We are interested in building true value for shareholders over the short and long term. We believe this combination achieves both of these objectives.

    We are not the only ones who understand the potential for value creation from this Business Combination. Some of our largest shareholders have signed either voting agreements or non-binding indications of support, that when combined with ownership of management and the board, account for approximately 27% of our outstanding shares in the aggregate. We appreciate the time and consideration these shareholders spent to understand the merits of this proposed Business Combination and their support for it.

    While we work toward filing the registration statement and joint proxy statement/prospectus for the proposed Business Combination with the SEC, we thought this would be a good time to reflect on our successes since the start of 180 Degree Capital in 2017. We believe that these successes have enabled us to enter at this next phase of 180 Degree Capital’s evolution and value creation for our fellow shareholders. Here are some of the data points we are proud of and show our contributions since I joined 180 Degree Capital’s predecessor company board of directors in June 2016, when we started 180 Degree Capital at the end of 2016, and the end of last year:

      June 30, 2016 December 31, 2016 December 31, 2024 Change from December 31, 2016
    Day-to-Day Operating Expenses ~$6.0 million ~$6.3 million ~$3.5 million -44%
    % Private Investments 86% 92% <1% -91%
    % Public Investments 14% 8% >99% +91%
    % Cash + Public Securities of NAV 21%1 27% 102% +75%
    Insider Ownership 2.1%2 2.6%2 12.7% +10.1%

    1. Net of $5,000,000 in debt on balance sheet as of June 30, 2016.
    2. Excludes restricted stock subject to forfeiture provisions. The equity compensation program was terminated in March 2017 in conjunction with 180 Degree Capital’s transition from a business development company to a registered closed-end fund.

    We slashed expenses, in part by transitioning from a business development company to a registered closed-end fund structure. A collateral impact of this transition was the elimination of our ability to compensate employees through the issuance of options or restricted stock. We didn’t care. It was the right decision for our shareholders. We transitioned the balance sheet. We substantially increased insider ownership through solely open market purchases. As noted previously, no equity was given to the management team or other employees as compensation. No one has bought and held more stock in the open market than me during that time period.

    As the table below shows, we believe our shareholders have benefited from our ability to generate positive returns on our investments since we took over management of 180 Degree Capital. These returns were offset by material declines in the legacy private portfolio that we inherited.

    Public Portfolio
    Contribution to Change in NAV
    (2017-2024)
    Legacy Private Portfolio
    Contribution to Change in NAV
    (2017-2024)
    +$3.13/share -$2.41/share
      TURN Public Portfolio Gross Total (Excluding SMA Carried Interest) TURN Public Portfolio Gross Total (Including SMA Carried Interest) Change in NAV Change in Stock Price Russell Microcap Index Lipper Peer Group Average
    Inception to Date
    Q4 2016 – Q4 2024
    +185.7% +204.5% -33.9% -11.4% +68.5% +81.8%

    Math is math. Our public market investment strategy over the history of 180 Degree Capital outperformed our comparable peers and indices. It is fair to ask why our stock price has not followed. We believe it is largely because of the significant negative impact of the private portfolio that we inherited, and the discounts disproportionately applied to closed-end funds of our size. Hence, I come back to our proposed Business Combination with Mount Logan, and what we believe it can do to potentially unlock value for 180 Degree Capital shareholders when we are no longer constrained by the market dynamics ascribed to closed-end funds.

    We will let our upcoming registration statement and included joint proxy statement/prospectus provide the truth to our shareholders regarding how and why our Board unanimously approved this proposed Business Combination. In the meantime, our work over the prior eight years set up 180 Degree Capital for this next phase of what we believe will be long-term shareholder value creation. We realize our lack of scale has caused our expense ratio to be too high. We believe we have uncovered a unique solution for that and other growth-limiting issues with our proposed Business Combination. Our Board and management team firmly believe that this Business Combination is in the best interest of all of our shareholders. We could not be more excited about the potential for future value creation as a result of combining with Mount Logan, and we look forward to discussing this proposed combination with all of you and prospective future shareholders of the combined entity.

    All the best,

    Kevin M. Rendino
    Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

    About 180 Degree Capital Corp.

    180 Degree Capital Corp. is a publicly traded registered closed-end fund focused on investing in and providing value-added assistance through constructive activism to what we believe are substantially undervalued small, publicly traded companies that have potential for significant turnarounds. Our goal is that the result of our constructive activism leads to a reversal in direction for the share price of these investee companies, i.e., a 180-degree turn. Detailed information about 180 Degree Capital and its holdings can be found on its website at www.180degreecapital.com.

    Press Contact:
    Daniel B. Wolfe
    Robert E. Bigelow
    180 Degree Capital Corp.
    973-746-4500
    ir@180degreecapital.com

    Additional Information and Where to Find It

    In connection with the proposed Business Combination, 180 Degree Capital intends to file with the SEC and mail to its shareholders a proxy statement on Schedule 14A (the “Proxy Statement”), containing a form of WHITE proxy card. In addition, the surviving Delaware corporation, Mount Logan Capital Inc. (“New Mount Logan”) plans to file with the SEC a registration statement on Form S-4 (the “Registration Statement”) that will register the exchange of New Mount Logan shares in the Business Combination and include the Proxy Statement and a prospectus of New Mount Logan (the “Prospectus”). The Proxy Statement and the Registration Statement (including the Prospectus) will each contain important information about 180 Degree Capital, Mount Logan, New Mount Logan, the Business Combination and related matters. SHAREHOLDERS OF 180 DEGREE CAPITAL AND MOUNT LOGAN ARE URGED TO READ THE PROXY STATEMENT AND PROSPECTUS CONTAINED IN THE REGISTRATION STATEMENT AND OTHER DOCUMENTS THAT ARE FILED OR WILL BE FILED WITH THE APPLICABLE SECURITIES REGULATORY AUTHORITIES AS WELL AS ANY AMENDMENTS OR SUPPLEMENTS TO THESE DOCUMENTS CAREFULLY AND IN THEIR ENTIRETY WHEN THEY BECOME AVAILABLE BECAUSE THEY WILL CONTAIN IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT 180 DEGREE CAPITAL, MOUNT LOGAN, NEW MOUNT LOGAN, THE BUSINESS COMBINATION AND RELATED MATTERS. Investors and security holders may obtain copies of these documents and other documents filed with the applicable securities regulatory authorities free of charge through the website maintained by the SEC at https://www.sec.gov and the website maintained by the Canadian securities regulators at www.sedarplus.ca. Copies of the documents filed by 180 Degree Capital are also available free of charge by accessing 180 Degree Capital’s investor relations website at https://ir.180degreecapital.com.

    Certain Information Concerning the Participants

    180 Degree Capital, its directors and executive officers and other members of management and employees may be deemed to be participants in the solicitation of proxies in connection with the Business Combination. Information about 180 Degree Capital’s executive officers and directors is available in 180 Degree Capital’s Annual Report filed on Form N-CSR for the year ended December 31, 2024, which was filed with the SEC on February 13, 2025, and in its proxy statement for the 2024 Annual Meeting of Shareholders (“2024 Annual Meeting”), which was filed with the SEC on March 1, 2024. To the extent holdings by the directors and executive officers of 180 Degree Capital securities reported in the proxy statement for the 2024 Annual Meeting have changed, such changes have been or will be reflected on Statements of Change in Ownership on Forms 3, 4 or 5 filed with the SEC. These documents are or will be available free of charge at the SEC’s website at https://www.sec.gov. Additional information regarding the persons who may, under the rules of the SEC, be considered participants in the solicitation of the 180 Degree Capital shareholders in connection with the Business Combination will be contained in the Proxy Statement when such document becomes available.

    Mount Logan, its directors and executive officers and other members of management and employees may be deemed to be participants in the solicitation of proxies from the shareholders of Mount Logan in favor of the approval of the Business Combination. Information about Mount Logan’s executive officers and directors is available in Mount Logan’s annual information form dated March 14, 2024, available on its website at https://mountlogancapital.ca/investor-relations and on SEDAR+ at https://sedarplus.ca. To the extent holdings by the directors and executive officers of Mount Logan securities reported in Mount Logan’s annual information form have changed, such changes have been or will be reflected on insider reports filed on SEDI at https://www.sedi.ca/sedi/. Additional information regarding the persons who may, under the rules of the SEC, be considered participants in the solicitation of the Mount Logan shareholders in connection with the Business Combination will be contained in the Prospectus included in the Registration Statement when such document becomes available.

    Non-Solicitation

    This letter and the materials accompanying it are not intended to be, and shall not constitute, an offer to buy or sell or the solicitation of an offer to buy or sell any securities, or a solicitation of any vote or approval, nor shall there be any sale of securities in any jurisdiction in which such offer, solicitation or sale would be unlawful prior to registration or qualification under the securities laws of any such jurisdiction. No offering of securities shall be made, except by means of a prospectus meeting the requirements of Section 10 of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933, as amended.

    Forward-Looking Statements

    This letter and the materials accompanying it, and oral statements made from time to time by representatives of 180 Degree Capital and Mount Logan, may contain statements of a forward-looking nature relating to future events within the meaning of federal securities laws. Forward-looking statements may be identified by words such as “anticipates,” “believes,” “could,” “continue,” “estimate,” “expects,” “intends,” “will,” “should,” “may,” “plan,” “predict,” “project,” “would,” “forecasts,” “seeks,” “future,” “proposes,” “target,” “goal,” “objective,” “outlook” and variations of these words or similar expressions (or the negative versions of such words or expressions). Forward-looking statements are not statements of historical fact and reflect Mount Logan’s and 180 Degree Capital’s current views about future events. Such forward-looking statements include, without limitation, statements about the benefits of the Business Combination involving Mount Logan and 180 Degree Capital, including future financial and operating results, Mount Logan’s and 180 Degree Capital’s plans, objectives, expectations and intentions, the expected timing and likelihood of completion of the Business Combination, and other statements that are not historical facts, including but not limited to future results of operations, projected cash flow and liquidity, business strategy, payment of dividends to shareholders of New Mount Logan, and other plans and objectives for future operations. No assurances can be given that the forward-looking statements contained in this press release will occur as projected, and actual results may differ materially from those projected. Forward-looking statements are based on current expectations, estimates and assumptions that involve a number of risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from those projected. These risks and uncertainties include, without limitation, the ability to obtain the requisite Mount Logan and 180 Degree Capital shareholder approvals; the risk that Mount Logan or 180 Degree Capital may be unable to obtain governmental and regulatory approvals required for the Business Combination (and the risk that such approvals may result in the imposition of conditions that could adversely affect New Mount Logan or the expected benefits of the Business Combination); the risk that an event, change or other circumstance could give rise to the termination of the Business Combination; the risk that a condition to closing of the Business Combination may not be satisfied; the risk of delays in completing the Business Combination; the risk that the businesses will not be integrated successfully; the risk that the cost savings and any other synergies from the Business Combination may not be fully realized or may take longer to realize than expected; the risk that any announcement relating to the Business Combination could have adverse effects on the market price of Mount Logan’s common stock or 180 Degree Capital’s common stock; unexpected costs resulting from the Business Combination; the possibility that competing offers or acquisition proposals will be made; the risk of litigation related to the Business Combination; the risk that the credit ratings of New Mount Logan or its subsidiaries may be different from what the companies expect; the diversion of management time from ongoing business operations and opportunities as a result of the Business Combination; the risk of adverse reactions or changes to business or employee relationships, including those resulting from the announcement or completion of the Business Combination; competition, government regulation or other actions; the ability of management to execute its plans to meet its goals; risks associated with the evolving legal, regulatory and tax regimes; changes in economic, financial, political and regulatory conditions; natural and man-made disasters; civil unrest, pandemics, and conditions that may result from legislative, regulatory, trade and policy changes; and other risks inherent in Mount Logan’s and 180 Degree Capital’s businesses. Forward-looking statements are based on the estimates and opinions of management at the time the statements are made. Readers should carefully review the statements set forth in the reports, which 180 Degree Capital has filed or will file from time to time with the SEC and Mount Logan has filed or will file from time to time on SEDAR+.

    Neither Mount Logan nor 180 Degree Capital undertakes any obligation, and expressly disclaims any obligation, to publicly update any forward-looking statement, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise, except as required by law. Any discussion of past performance is not an indication of future results. Investing in financial markets involves a substantial degree of risk. Investors must be able to withstand a total loss of their investment. The information herein is believed to be reliable and has been obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but no representation or warranty is made, expressed or implied, with respect to the fairness, correctness, accuracy, reasonableness or completeness of the information and opinions. The references and link to the website www.180degreecapital.com and mountlogancapital.ca have been provided as a convenience, and the information contained on such websites are not incorporated by reference into this press release. Neither 180 Degree Capital nor Mount Logan is responsible for the contents of third-party websites.

    The MIL Network –

    February 15, 2025
←Previous Page
1 … 109 110 111 112 113 … 162
Next Page→
NewzIntel.com

NewzIntel.com

MIL Open Source Intelligence

  • Blog
  • About
  • FAQs
  • Authors
  • Events
  • Shop
  • Patterns
  • Themes

Twenty Twenty-Five

Designed with WordPress