Microplastics have started to show up on beaches and in other areas, however you wouldn’t expect to find plastic in humans.
Microplastics have been found in human waste. They are extremely small pieces of plastic debris in the environment resulting from the disposal and breakdown of consumer products and industrial waste. For the first time now, they’ve been found in the human system.
There is a constant urge for people to recycle, which we’re finally getting round to doing on a regular basis, with the one or two errors in-between. However, the desire to have our beaches cleaned up or stop using plastics may have been in vain up until now.
Austrian scientists monitored and tested stool samples from eight participants from different countries and the tests came back positive. No one is exempt from this. Nine different types of microplastic were discovered ranging in size from 50 – 500 micrometers.
The participants came from different part of the world – Finland, Japan, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Russia, the UK and Austria. They all kept diaries of the food for a week prior to having their stools tested.
Experts have urged caution given the scale of the study that it cannot be linked to the participants’ diet.
(source: dw.com)
Lead researcher Dr. Philipp Schwabl from the University of Vienna says “This is the first study of its kind and confirms what we have long suspected, that plastics ultimately reach the human gut”
Some previous studies have found microplastics seem to be present in fish, beer, bottled waster, soil and even in the air.
Their stools were tested for 11 kinds of microplastics, of which nine of them were found in each of them. Polypropylene (PP and Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) are the major components of plastic bottle and caps found in all of the participants.
It figures doesn’t it. We dump plastic in the sea, fish ingest it, we eat fish. Not a difficult scenario to work out really. WE ARE KILLING OURSELVES AND OUR OCEANS!
Schwabl continues to say “of particular concern is what this means to us, and especially with patients with diseases. While the highest plastic concentrations in animal studies have been found in the gut, the smallest microplastic particles are capable of entering the blood stream, lymphatic system and may even reach the liver.”
Too close for comfort? Are we all going to start help recycle properly and clean our beaches after this result.
Think of it as a consumer pyramid. If we’re not ingesting it directly we’re getting it from our food that had some consumption of plastic one way or another.
Plastic Straws are already been phased out in restaurants across the country
As we know there are plans to ban plastic straws, alongside stirrers and cotton buds. The government is hoping to introduce this ban between October next year and October 2020.
Can’t believe we’re STILL dealing w/ #StrawBan nonsense but it’s 2018, so of course we are. Saw electronic billboard north of New Haven that plastic straws are “sucking the life out of our oceans.” [Hint: they actually aren’t.] They DO help disabled people hydrate. #SuckItAbleism
It’s estimated that 4.7 billion plastic straws, 316 million plastic stirrers and 1.8 billion cotton wool buds are used each year.
Environment Secretary Michael Gove said “our precious oceans and the wildlife within need urgent protection from the devastation throw-away plastic items can cause.”
“In England we are taking world leading action with our ban on microbead, and thanks to the public’s support have taken over 15 billion plastic bags out of circulation with our 5p charge.”
Dolline is a traveller, journalist and blogger who has palate to try new things. She is a very spontaneous person; you might find her skydiving over the Kenyan coast to kayaking in the Lake District. She can be an over thinker who thinks of every outcome but if she doesn’t she welcomes the change that wasn’t planned. However, she is a very simple person who is up for a good laugh or a book and enjoys living the moment. Dolline also writes for her small personal blog called ‘Swatches of Beauty’ and is currently a production journalist trainee at ITV Border.
The healthcare firm Healthcare Environment Services (HES) left tonnes of hospital waste at their disposal to pile up. The NHS waste allowed amputated limbs, infectious liquids, materials linked to cancer treatment and hazardous pharmaceutical waste to build up in huge stockpiles.
HES had several contracts with the NHS to dispose of the waste however since the breach of its contract, the contracts have been stripped away. The environmental agency had launched a criminal investigation over the waste.
Although the waste was stored securely it was not being processed and disposed in the timescales required.
Health minister Stephen Barclay said in a statement to parliament that the NHS Improvement (NHSI) concluded that HES “failed to demonstrate that they were operating within their contractual limits”.
Stephen Barclay (health minister)
Some of the sites that were affected include Normanton, West Yorkshire and a facility in the North Tyneside Industrial Estate. The Environment Agency has partially suspended the company’s permit at the Normanton site which prevents them from accepting any more waste. The other two sites are located in Nottingham and Newcastle. The Yorkshire site exceeded its limit by five times, reaching 350 tonnes.
Mr Barclay announced that new arrangements had been made with the outsourcing firm Mitie to “step in and replace this service” and said NHS services continued to operate as normal.
He also ensures that contingency plans are in place as a prevention for any disruption, he added “In this instance, the primary concern was that too much waste was being held in a number of waste storage and treatment sites by a contractor, Healthcare Environment Services. While the waste was stored securely, it was not being processed and disposed of within the correct regulatory timescales. At no point has there been an impact on public health or any delay to the ability of the NHS to carry out operations.”
The health minister became aware of the concerns in July, “In this instance, the primary concern was too much waste was being held in a number of waste storage and treatment sites by a contractor, Health Environment Services”.
NHS bosses dealing with the incident made it clear that material must be dealt with sensitively to mitigate health and environmental risks.
If Matt Hancock chaired a COBRA meeting on this, why didn’t he tell Parliament? Cobra is reserved for serious risks and emergencies, so why wasn’t Parliament told how bad the situation had got?
In a statement, HES claimed that the decision to terminate NHS contracts was excessive and counterproductive” and would make medical waste backlog worse.
Managing Director Garry Pettigrew said “There is a proven lack of incineration capacity within the UK, which is affecting all operators. The irony is that today’s decision means that other operators will be given relaxed dispensations to dispose of hazardous waste and that hospitals will also be forced to store waste on site, potentially risking public health.
He also added that if they had been granted dispensation the incident would have never arisen”
The company said body part only constituted less than 1% of the overall waste collected and was disposed of as a priority “We have a great team of people and we are dismayed their livelihoods are being put at risk”.
Dolline is a traveller, journalist and blogger who has palate to try new things. She is a very spontaneous person; you might find her skydiving over the Kenyan coast to kayaking on Lake Como. She can be an over thinker who thinks of every outcome but if she doesn’t she welcomes the change that wasn’t planned. However, she is a very simple person who is up for a good laugh or a book and enjoys living the moment. Dolline also writes for her small personal blog called ‘Swatches of Beauty’ and is currently a production journalist trainee at ITV Border.
In recent years the Republic of Ireland has been the centre stage of controversial referendums such as the divorce referendum in 1995, the same sex marriage referendum in May 2015 and this year (in May) we saw the abortion referendum. These referendums have given way to the amendment of the Irish constitution which has enabled the legislation of divorce, legislation of same sex marriage and the legislation of abortion. These referendums also underline the split between the Catholic Church and large numbers of the Irish Public, as homosexuality, divorce and abortion are taboos within the Catholic Church. Although the Pope visited Ireland in August, many Irish people seem to have little or no regard for the Catholic Church. This could be due to recent allegations of sexual allegations which have surfaced in the media over the past few years. Several priests have been accused of misusing their power by sexually assaulting members of their congregation. We’re reminded of a scandal which occurred at Madagelene laundries, which was a Catholic order in Cork in the 20th Century.
As Ireland continues to tear the walls of religious authority and principles, the nation has decided to have another referendum today, October 26th on whether blasphemy should be a punishable offence alongside the Presidential vote which takes place on the same day.
Blasphemy is the action or offence of speaking sacrilegiously about God or sacred things. Article 40.6.1 of the Irish constitution currently states that publishing or uttering anything blasphemous is a punishable offence under Irish law. Although the constitution does not have a definition for blasphemy, the Defamation Act 2009 does contain a legal definition of blasphemy. Under this law, there is no prison sentence for breaking this law, however the Government can impose a fine of up to €25,000 if found guilty of breaking this law. Academics critics such as, Dublin City University Professor Colum Kenny, argue that the blasphemy referendum might open doors for hate speech in Ireland. Professor Kenny also contends that the Government should been more focused on more serious issues such as voting issues Irish migrants encounter abroad and the issues surrounding Brexit which might affect Ireland.
IF a Yes vote passes, then blasphemy will no longer be regarded as a criminal offence, hence the publishing and utterance of blasphemous notions would no longer be viewed as unlawful. It would give the Oireachtas, the Irish parliament authority, to amend the law by removing blasphemy as a criminal offence. If a No vote passes, the constitution will remain unchanged. Therefore, meaning that the publishing or saying something blasphemous would continue to be a criminal offence in the Republic of Ireland. The referendum will be on October 26th with voting open from 7am to 10pm in the Republic of Ireland.
Is keeping blasphemy an offence infringing on freedom of speech? Or will legalising it open up the doors to more hate speech?
Enoch Akinlade is a writer who has a profound interest in British, American and Canadian politics, and other topics such as health, social inequalities, crime and sport. Furthermore, he is also deeply interested in topics such as the criminal justice system in the United States, Britain, Australia and Canada. He is also highly interested in the Prison industrial complex in America.
Dr Hadiyah-Nicole Green is one of less than hundred African American women who have a PhD in Physics in the Unites States of America. Dr Hadiyah-Nicole Green is currently a Professor at Morehouse College in Atlanta, USA. She has been recently lauded by BET and other platforms for her endeavours to cure this perilous disease, which is the second leading cause of death in the United States. According to the American Cancer Society, in the United States, about 1,620 people were expected to die of cancer each day in 2015 which roughly equates to about 590,000 people a year.
Over the past decade since completing her undergraduate degree at Alabama Agricultural and Mechanical University, Dr Hadiyah-Nicole Green has been working tirelessly to end the epidemic of cancer. With up to half a million people being expected to die from cancer each year in the United States, this constant work by Dr Green is evermore important. She experienced first-hand the horrors of cancer. Her late Aunt Ora Lee Smith, who raised her, was diagnosed with cancer and vehemently refused to go through the process of chemotherapy and radiation due her unwillingness to experience the side effects of cancer, this encouraged Dr Green to find a solution to such an epidemic.
Dr Hadiyah-Nicole Green
She was further spurred on to find a remedy after seeing her late uncle who also suffered the same gruelling fate of cancer, even though he decided to go through the process of cancer treatment such as radiation which had devastating side effects on him, such as loss of hair, excessive loss of weight and skin problems. After seeing the pain her Aunt and Uncle went through because of cancer, this led Dr Hadiyah-Nicole Green to try to pursue a remedy to curing cancer with no side effects during her doctorate degree at University of Alabama at Birmingham.
Due to her innate passion to quench this malady she received funding from the National Science foundation, while doing her doctoral degree in Physics, which helped her carry out her research. During her research, she developed a laser activated nanoparticles which she used on mice with tumours. This involves instilling the nanoparticles into a laser and targeting the tumour as if it’s an enemy. Because of the laser nanoparticles that Dr Green used on the mice, the tumours decreased by 40% within ten minutes and the tumour was totally eradicated within ten to fifteen days.
The question that persists in the minds of the public, is could Dr Green experiment work in humans? Dr Green believes that such experiment could possibly cure cancer in humans, however a major stumbling block of trying such experiment on humans is the requirement of going through several clinical trials accredited by the U.S food and drug administration which costs up to $30million.
She recently received a $1 million grant from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairsfor her extraordinary efforts to fight cancer, which covers up to five years of research, which facilitates her to continue her enquiry to try to solve this epidemic. The clinical trials are indispensable to get such medication approved by the U.S Food and Drug Administration, she therefore set up the Ora Lee Smith foundation a non-profit in honour of her late aunt to raise the $30 million which covers the funds to have clinical trials on humans to stop the mortality rates of cancer. The purpose of the Ora Lee Smith Cancer Research Foundation is to translate Dr Hadiyah-Nicole Green ground-breaking treatment from the laboratory into hospitals.
To support Dr Hadiyah-Nicole Green vision of ending the cancer epidemic you can donate through the Orla Lee Smith Foundation website www.physics2cancer.org
Enoch Akinlade is a writer who has a profound interest inBritish, American and Canadian politics, and other topics such as health,social inequalities,crimeand sport. Furthermore, he is also deeply interested in topics such as the criminal justice system in the UnitedStates, Britain, Australiaand Canada. He is also highly interested in the Prisonindustrial complexin America.
Much of the current buzz in US politics has been around
imminent midterm elections. As the name suggests, these are elections that take
place half-way through a presidential term, giving Americans something more to
do than simply celebrate or lament Donald Trump’s two-year anniversary in power.
Yet the midterms, along with having many other crucial effects on the American
political scene, will strongly influence how the president’s next two years
progress, as well as perhaps whether he wins another four after that. There is
a lot on the line this November.
At the midterms, many key positions will be contested. Democrats, Republicans and independents will battle to become state governors, as well as representatives and senators in Congress. Because the US president is not a member of Congress (unlike in the UK where the prime minister has to also be an MP), presidential and congressional elections can be held separately. While all positions have a 4-year term, elections to them are staggered, with some held in the same year as the presidential election and others – the midterms – held two years later. At these midterms, all 435 seats in the House of Representatives, along with 35 of the 100 Senate seats will be voted on. It is, of course, the people in these positions who will vote on the legislation put before the country in the coming years. This is not even to mention the 39 governorships up for grabs, which will decide the futures of the individual states in question, and may provide huge boosts to the political careers of the victorious candidates.
Donald Trump will be watching these votes closely for a
number of reasons. While each electoral battleground has its own key issues and
demographics affecting the outcome of the midterms, such votes are invariably
also understood as an unofficial poll on a sitting president’s popularity. The
electorate can only process so much political information, and will naturally
look to a party’s most prominent figure as a guide to whether that party will
do them good or not. Trump is of course the most-high profile republican
politician, so if voters think he is doing poorly in office, they will be far
more likely to punish his party at the voting booth. Big Republican losses will
surely spell trouble for the already volatile Trump administration.
449 hours until the midterms. Use every hour to get registered voters to pledge that they WILL VOTE on Nov. 6. Look for a phone bank to join. Make plans to help elderly neighbors get to and from the polls. Organize car pools. Saying ordinary folks are helpless is BS.
Trump will also have to work with whatever Congress is
returned by the election. He may have enjoyed a Republican majority in both the
House and the Senate, but his job may be much harder if one or both houses are
won by the Democrats. In such a case, Trump may find his ability to pass laws
greatly hindered and will have to either water down or completely abandon some
of his more controversial legislation.
And of course, there is the elephant in the Oval Office: the
Russia investigation. Special counsel Robert Mueller and his team have been
investigating any collusion Trump or his campaign team may have had with
Russians aiming to interfere with the 2016 presidential election. Whether or
not Mueller finds anything to directly link Trump to the interference remains
to be seen, but if anything damning is discovered, the path to the president’s
impeachment is far clearer if the Democrats are dominant in Congress. The House
needs to pass a simple majority vote to bring a case of impeachment against the
president before it is heard by the Senate, where a two-thirds majority is
required for the president to be removed from office. It is consequently
unlikely that Trump will be impeached even with two democratic houses, but it
would certainly make initiating the proceedings against him easier. As with
Bill Clinton’s presidency, even an unsuccessful impeachment hearing could come
to define the rest of Trump’s term and his ultimate legacy as president.
45 to 50 percent of eligible voters are projected to vote in the 2018 midterms — the highest turnout for a midterm since the mid-1960s. https://t.co/KyBQZFhjW7
It is very easy, though, to get ahead of ourselves. As it
stands the Democrats stand a slim chance of taking both houses of Congress.
Although Trump and his party are not supremely popular in the country, and may
very well lose the House to their Democratic rivals, the Senate may prove a
very different proposition. Although a large number of the chamber’s seats are
up for re-election, most are already held by Democrats, giving them little
opportunity to win much ground. Democrats therefore have to make significant
gains in traditionally Republican states while themselves holding off
Republican attacks in states they hold, many of which backed Trump in the 2016
election. This is not to say that the midterms will necessarily be positive for
Trump, but it is unlikely to spell the end of his administration’s influence.
The phrase “right message but wrong messenger” always comes to mind when I come across Azealia Banks social media ramblings. Recently the singer engaged in a heated twitter feud with singer Lana Del Rey after criticising Del Rey’s comments regarding Kanye Wests recent 13 amendment controversy.
Banks accused Del Rey and others of being inconsistent with their political outrage and called out Del Rey’s relationship with rapper Asap Rocky who in 2013 was charged with misdemeanour and assault after slapping a female fan.
While some may agree with Azealia’s opinion on the uneasiness of seeing white celebrities use the West as a “vapid attempt to seem politically aware”, it is now very difficult to take her outbursts seriously.
What she says is often correct but what is most unnerving, is the motive behind these social outbursts and the hypocrisy. Her remarks do not come from a genuine place. She is not a spokesperson for Black women’s plights – rather she is an impostor and honestly, I applaud her.
I applaud her for being able to use a very sensitive issue to blind people into supporting her and creating an image of herself as a champion for Black female rights.
For some time I had been a supporter of Banks, she is undeniably talented and I honestly do believe most mainstream female rappers are inferior to her. I welcomed her highly opinionated and sharp tongued commentary on the music industry as it was a breath of fresh air from the faux friendship and “happy go lucky” vibe frequently seen in the industry.
However my support for Banks only began to wavier once I began to see a pattern in her tantrums and her contradictions. Whenever a female rap artist begins to get some clout, Azealia seemed to pop up out of nowhere to insert herself where she is not needed and provide harsh criticism.
There is however, obvious misogynoir in the industry and colorism that cannot be ignored, but Banks’ genuineness must be questioned.
She preaches Black sisterhood yet has made a career of attacking her fellow Black female peers. Her critique of the media’s portrayal of dark skinned women though laudable is often laughable considering her past hurtful remarks about dark skinned female. One just has to remember the Skai Jackson situation to see the discrepancy in her statements, She calls for the end of the degradation of Black women bodies yet tells a 14yr old to buy some “hips” and a “butt”.
She calls dark skinned women “tar babies” and tells them to “pick cotton” yet apparently she is an advocate for the end to colorism ?
I’ve seen so many try to coddle her actions and proclaim her as the voice of Black women rights. She is not a spokesperson for our rights, instead she is the voice of hypocrisy.
The confirmation
hearings for Judge Brett Kavanaugh showed how the polarising atmosphere in modern
universities, marred by a doctrine of self-censorship, no-go zones and safe
spaces can, and has, spread to wider society and American Congress,
perniciously threatening American jurisprudence, security and its future as a
bastion of the free world.
We witnessed first-hand how these constitutional due processes vanish when accusations of misogyny or sexual harassment arise. They have simmered under the surface in Institutions of Higher Education for decades, with the Senate in deciding whether to #ConfirmKavanaugh or #CancelKavanaugh succumbing to such foibles. In a highly publicised display of the erosion of a millennium of judicial due process that every civilisation worth its salt had upheld since the dawn of time.
American Horror Story
America first
witnessed this when false rape charges were lodged against Duke University
lacrosse players in 2006. They were, to quote, victims of a “tragic rush to accuse”,
with no regard to actual evidence before making the accused identities public,
most notably the stripper’s partner present throughout calling her tale a “crock
of s**t”. The chief prosecutor was
disbarred, but not after giving dozens of interviews issuing his opinion on the
matter.
Rolling Stone’s Smear Article Against Virginia Frat House Retraction and Damages Suit // Rolling Stone
What these two
stories have in common that is so troubling is the protection of the victim’s
privacy and rights, while parading around the patent guilt of the accused
without first addressing the facts or allowing the courts to decide.
It is not a matter of not taking the claim of sexual abuse with the severity it deserves, as each case warrants those concerned to prick their ears and address the allegation to ascertain who, what, where and when so that those found guilty can be punished according to the rule of law by incapacitation, deterrence, retribution, rehabilitation and restoration.
A Case of He Said She Said
Americans may disagree on the relative credibility’s of Judge Kavanaugh or his accuser, Dr Christine Blasey Ford. But what was more astounding was witnessing the asymmetry that is rife on campuses dictate the hearings.
Dr Ford’s veracity hinged on the empathy of an audience, and her perceived plausibility. It required little by way of witnesses, physical evidence or corroborating testimonies, nor a clear storyline from the accuser.
HE Said, SHE said, the woes of imbalanced gender empowerment // The Weekly Standard
Kavanaugh was
deemed guilty from the outset – he had to prove his innocence, rather than the
other way around.
The position of “Reverse Onus” against the defendant has now become a universal right demanded by the feminist movement in cases of rape. In no way does this excuse the severity of rape, nor the gravity we should bestow upon those women who do come forward. What is a problem, however, is the erosion of western judicial process: ‘innocent until proven guilty.
Such rules have been laid down by the greatest English judges, who have been among the brightest of mankind. Indeed, this rule is not peculiar to the common English law; there never was a system of laws in the world in which this rule did not prevail. Ancient Greece, Babylonia, and Rome preserved throughout European history as a maxim ‘that it is better the guilty should escape punishment, than the innocent suffer. Satius esse nocentem absolvi quam insentem damnari.’
Enter John Adams
John Adams is one such brilliant mind who offered a most prescient and sagacious explanation for this principle:
Adams was a preeminent Founding Father of the United States, served as first Vice President and as second President of the United States, having excelled as a lawyer and diplomat, gaining prestige and recognition as leader of American independence from Great Britain. A man of outstanding calibre and integrity, having campaigned for the abolition of slavery, whose advocacy lay the groundwork for the abolition movement a decade later. His 18-year effort in Congress did away with the ‘gag rule’ that automatically nullified anti-slavery legislation. A man who, for all his moral scruples and nobility, could not bring himself to risk crucifying an innocent on the altar of moral righteousness.
“there exists the capacity for spiteful, powerful victims to ‘construct’ truths based on their own self-interests.”
We uphold liberty and property as fundamental western values.
But, if we negate the respect for self-defence with anonymity until found
guilty, and fail to offer a fair hearing to balance and counterpoise, society
itself is of very little value – because the fruits of our labours could be
torn from the hand like they were the tree. And therefore, this principle of ‘innocent
until proven guilty’ and ‘beyond all reasonable doubt’ must be strictly
attended to. It had been better to have acquitted, than a wrong ruling and that a
precedent should be established.
Justice Threatened, Security in Peril
The very notion of justice is already now compromised by the
legal requirement, or at least universal practice, of protecting the name and
identity of the accuser while simultaneously publicising the name and details
of the accused and having their name dragged through the mud, even after the
accused is acquitted.
Judge Kavanaugh had to prove his innocence, rather than the
accusers prove his guilt. This is a reflection of one cherished stance in
universities: the postmodern idea of relativist truth.
On campus, all can present equally valid narratives. What
privileges one story over another is not necessarily any semblance to reality,
at least as established by evidence and facts. Instead, there exists the
capacity for spiteful, powerful victims to ‘construct’ truths based on their
own self-interests.
Those individuals who would have been victims of historical
biases are then under no obligation to play by what they consider to be rigged
rules of facts, evidence or testimony.
This perverse dynamic explains why Senator Cory Booker maintained that Dr Ford told ‘her truth’. Without mincing words, evidence was not so relevant – a recollected story of events from 36 years ago would inherently carry as much weight as Kavanaugh’s rebuttal, if not more given the different genders, and by extension their asymmetrical access to power.
On campuses, race and gender have
determined who we are and what we can and cannot vocalise for some time now.
The writing off of old white men as prejudiced bastions of patriarchal
oppression does little to redress imbalances, nor does it treat everyone with
value ‘as an end in and of themselves, rather than a means to an end’ as Immanuel
Kant proposed.
To accurately gauge the veracity of the
claims would have been a messy process of cross-examining times and places of
witness testimonies, taxing reprinted teenage memories nearly four decades
prior. Motives would have been raised and questioned as under due process of
constitutional norms.
The fact we are human has value, and
to revert to discrediting the old guard and removing their agency, albeit hard
fought, is inconsistent stereotypical hypocrisy. Blanket race- and age-based discrimination
on an ad hoc basis left Kavanaugh guilty for once being a privileged white prep
school kid of 17; while Senator Booker, by virtue of not being old and white,
was a credible examiner. The progressive politics of Senator Richard
Blumenthal, aged 72 and white, did not lead to his credibility being thrown
into question.
The trouble with this postmodern
culture lies in its inconsistencies. A misplaced anger and frustration that is
presiding emotion over consideration for reason and fact.
Any claim of rape should be treated with
a severity commensurate with the violation of an individual deserving of
respect for their liberty and property. The trouble emerges with a Senate
adopting the modern university’s doctrine of self-censorship, no-go zones and safe
spaces that allow for the odd individual to abuse the protections afforded them
through weaponization of the law.
Doctor Ford’s privacy entitled her medical status to be understandably respected and off-limits, and she was excused from the normally stringent cross-examination. She was never really asked why her narratives concerning the number of witnesses and their genders were not compatible, nor why all she could fathom toward Judge Kavanaugh was his presence, as opposed to predatory participation. Her accounts of the location and time of the alleged assault were either inconsistent or non-existent.
While there is a capacity to block out such a stressful period in her life, for the process of law and order to be upheld in society, it needs to be resurrected if such a pressing matter for ‘national security’. Or else we descend into the collapse of security as we know it – when John Adams’ prophetic words that ‘whether I do good or evil is immaterial, for innocence itself is no protection’.
Judge, Jury and Executioner
By contrast, Kavanaugh was grilled on everything from his high-school yearbook to a fabricated accusation that he once committed sexual assault on a docked boat in Newport, Rhode Island: character assassination of the first-degree. While these revelations from his younger years are not flattering, and some perhaps make him quite unsuitable for the role as Supreme Court Judge were it not for decades of fundamental transformation of character.
“rape culture on campus is not for debate”
Collectivised swarming and drowning
out those with different views to shame and intimidate them is part and parcel
of the modern university. The campus street theatre is rearing its ugly head in
the real world.
A break in the hearings saw female protestors corner Senator Jeff Flake, Republican Arizona, in an elevator, screaming in his face – breaking down in his intention to #confirmKavanaugh. Psychodrama is effective, or else they wouldn’t do it. Why else would the saying ‘throwing all your toys out the pram’ be quite as mainstream?
How Campus Creed Became Norm
Campuses,
for all the fear mongering of liberal left snowflakes nestled in their safe-space
ivory towers, out-of-touch with reality, there was little concern that their
creed would become the norm. What is frightening is their dogma is now
influencing media, voting patterns and holding the constitutional backbone of
American liberty to ransom.
The
trouble with this culture is their flagrant disrespect for anyone outside their
belief structures. For them it matters little if innocent people are smeared if
they are on the ‘wrong’ side of politics, or white cis-males that disagree. Facts,
schmacts when it is the narrative that counts. What matters more is the story
felt right than the truth is sought.
When
serious matters arise, to rule out discussion – ‘rape culture on campus is not
for debate’ – relies upon race and gender to weigh viewpoint veracity. The technique
deployed here is to base a theory on multiple reports. Then, when each report
is falsified, the go-to response is ‘well, this one might not be true, but…’
until you have a conviction with no basis at all. It is like playing a game of
Ker-Plunk and expecting, when the last straw is removed, that the marbles still
won’t fall.
These ‘woke’ individuals, who bark slogans about misogyny, roundly accuse everyone of racism or rail against Islamophobic backlashes, think it their duty because they are our intellectual and virtuous betters. It is with good reason that has been tried and tested throughout the ages that the accuser is saddled with the burden of proof, even though rates of false accusations in America lie 2-6% and 4% in the UK for sexual assault. The problem is that innocent civilians will feel helpless to the lack of protection afforded them when someone of an historically disadvantaged gender or race accuses them out of spite or vengeance, so that it didn’t matter whether they had broken the law. And, before they can get the chance to respond, the lie has already made it halfway around the world before the truth can bat an eye.
Thomas Sowell once refrained, “it is bad enough that so many people believe things without any evidence. What is worse is that some people have no conception of evidence and regard facts as just someone else’s opinion.”
The
law exists to preserve the functioning of security in society. Where the
innocent no longer feel secure their liberty and private property is respected,
nor proffered reasonable chance at self-defence without having their reputation
galled before their eyes; a pervading helplessness can take seed in their minds,
and with such impuissance can bleed dissolution into chaos.
The
very fabric of western civilisation is at stake, but if the cost of upholding
it is too great for some, they may find themselves privy to a pining nostalgia
of those better days.
Recently I was engaged in a heated debate on the TL, the main topic of which was the whole Black history/diversity conundrum. I was not surprised to be seeing that a lot of White people were agreeing with this sentiment, but what did not surprise me was the amount of non-Black – or should I say people of colour (POC) – who were also of the same opinion that a whole month should not be dedicated to one race’s achievements. “We don’t see the Asians calling for a Asian history month” was a phrase that was frequently used by both White and Asian commentators.
I am not going to go into a whole tirade on why such a sentiment is ludicrous and explain what Black British history month is really about. Benedicta Denteh’s Black history month article already does a great job of this. Instead my focus is on my dislike of the term People of Colour and the false allyship between Black people and POC.
As a Black woman I despise the label “People of colour”, I am a black woman and like to be referred as one. The label was created to categorise everyone who is non-White and to create an agenda of “minority solidarity”. I applaud the idea behind the term but at the same time most note that it is a romanticised idea to believe in such a solidarity as that means we are denying the widespread anti-Blackness in non-Black communities of colour.
My first experience of receiving a racial slur was from an Asian woman in my local corner shop and I can assure you it was no less frightening to my 8-year-old self than if it had been a white person in a similar context.
Kpop girl group Bubble Sisters donning black face on their CD cover
There is a racial hierarchy in this world where black people are at the bottom and white people are at the top and I am not going to ignore that POC benefit largely from this hierarchy. All ethnic groups face discrimination but my struggles and battles as a BLACK woman differs as this is an individual battle that only BLACK women will relate to. We are not one homogeneous group, I will never try to erase the the problems that other minorities face that are exclusive to them but time and time again Black peoples struggles are continuously minimised.
I am not denying the necessity of unity but in a world where I need to verbally make it known that Black Lives Matter, my identity lies solely in my blackness and I refuse to hide it under the lazy guise of “people of colour”.
With the Autumn Budget being brought forward to Monday 26th October to avoid clashing with the Brexit negotiations, rumours have circulated that the Chancellor Philip Hammond will target the £41 Billion (2016-17 HMRC) higher-rate pension tax relief to finance his £20 billion pledge to the NHS each year by 2023.
The Chancellor has said recently that Pension tax breaks
have become “eye wateringly expensive”.
This comment from a Chancellor who has to find £20 billion in funds for the NHS cannot be brushed aside.
Hammond at the IMF Talks in Bali declaring pension reliefs “eye wateringly expense” // BBC
The easiest route of financing these commitments is a marked
reduction in the £40,000 pension annual allowance to say £20,000. At the same time,
he might reduce the carry forward to the same level or even remove carry
forward provisions entirely. This would
mean a potential contribution of up to £160,000 in contributions could be
reduced to £80,000. Still sounds a lot but for a number of people, especially self-employed,
the ability to pay more into their Pensions in the “good” years has been a
vital weapon in their Pensions armoury.
He would have to make the change immediate to prevent a rush
in contributions to claim their tax relief, not only defeating the purpose of
the policy but causing the Treasury losses not gains.
Flat-Rate in line with other tax legislation?
A more thorough move would be introducing a flat rate
pension tax relief. The previous Chancellor, George Osborne, stopped just short
of implementing changes, although the former Pensions Minister Steve Webb
pressed hard for the change.
Higher rate earners would lose their 40% tax relief on earnings
above £46,350 only seeing 20% instead of 40%.
Proponents of pension overhaul to address the savings
inequality, The Resolution Foundation think tank, declared a ‘flatter system at
18% for basic-rate and 28% for higher-rate payers, in line with capital gains
would help solve wealth inequality’.
While we are battling the European behemoth at the
negotiating table, the potential for such a sweeping reform is unlikely, yet
incremental adjustments are more probable. Steve Webb himself now says;
“I do not believe we will see a
flat rate of pension tax relief being introduced. It is such a big project and
there will be plenty of losers. I don’t think it is something a politically
weak government can introduce at this time.”
Why?
Potential to raise taxes through other means, such as income
taxes, would be comparable to political suicide. Fuel duty freeze is locked in,
NICs increase plans were scrapped, and other sources have already been pillaged
or strained to breaking point.
How to respond?
Higher-earners should be reviewing their pension tax relief
plans. We are once again reminded the nest eggs for retirement are the
low-hanging fruit for Chancellors unwilling to borrow more against Public
Sector Net Borrowing.
In the meantime, bringing forward pension contributions,
bearing in mind, if appropriate, the £1.03 million lifetime allowance is a
MUST!
The current market sell-off is a cumulation of world events. But this is not necessarily something to be concerned about for the long-term investor because ‘timing’ the market for entry and exit has proven largely futile, short-term blips are largely irrelevant in the grand-scheme of compounded interest and regular injections of capital.
A healthily diversified portfolio helps to iron out underperforming
asset classes and markets in the short run and provides measured smooth growth
over the long haul. For any investor on a ten-year upwards timescale, the current
market fluctuations are not worth the stress of fussing over.
Having said this, the causes shall be addressed and where we
see markets heading (Hint: Asia, UK, gold, corporate bonds over US equities on valuations
to assets, expected growth and long term, cyclically adjusted averages).
What’s the fuss about?
When America starts to dip, investors buckle up and start to
take notice. We are well seasoned into this bull run, having the last flutter
in February of this year, leading investors to question: ‘is this the end?’
Outside of the US, certain regions, notably Japanese markets have been in retreat for months. Trump’s poorly timed tax cuts bolstered the US economy with a hit of caffeine, with its effects now wearing off when the Central Bank starts to put the dampeners on the US economy with dialling back of easy money under Quantitative Easing and Trump’s accusations the ‘Fed has gone crazy’ with rate hikes. These shifts aren’t stirring great confidence that growth is here to stay, especially when trade wars and isolationism are dividing global cooperation and trade, starting to feed into higher costs for cash-strapped US consumers.
Closer to home, a disorderly Brexit adversely harms market sentiment.
As negotiations come to a climax, everything is being kept under wraps, leading
to unpredictability for businesses, consumers and investors apiece.
Predictability is a key requirement for businesses to be
sure their investments have a solid chance of paying off. A Britain potentially
both in and out of the common market forces preparations for both eventual
outcomes.
When it is unknown whether the EU will have the same
liquidity or free movement of capital come 2019 as the UK leaves and Hungary
and Sweden are poised to leave the common market, businesses delay their
purchases, deals and replenishing their inventories.
Meanwhile the UK possibility of Chequers being rejected in the Commons or the EU giving a No Deal Brexit or a leadership challenge before Christmas does little to settle nerves. Much now depends on how negotiations are perceived to be going.
Some investors are taking stock, consolidating the gains
made in 2018 to date as the effects of trade wars, rising interest rates and
poorly timed tax cuts are coming home to roost.
Headwinds of a Chinese slowdown, and tightened border
controls on luxury goods from abroad with Chinese market representing a third
of the global luxury market as phase 2 of China’s efforts to repatriate
consumer spending of its citizens, slowing global growth. Chinese devaluation
of their currency, and the strength of the US dollar from strong economic
performance with the ‘Trump dividend’ has led to emerging markets’ capital
flight to America. The Fed rates are a reactionary measure to cool the
inflation. Since the debts of emerging economies are largely in dollars, this
equates to a spike in their debts and a risk of contagion in capital flight abroad
to ‘safer havens’ – ie. American asset classes.
A comparison of different US presidents and their impact on the stock markets
What investors should take from this
What patient investors should concern themselves with is the
long-term performance’s ability to smooth out returns within diversified
portfolios to capture the better performing market trends over those periods
relative to the market benchmarks.
Watching each and every peak and trough during market
disarray with sensationalist vigour of Sky News or Investment Daily is not the
answer unless you are momentum trading, stockbroking or actively trying to time
the market for the next 15% drop in Tesla to purchase more shares.
There may be such thing as a straw that breaks the camel’s
back, but the correction in markets will be caused by many factors when it does
eventually come. This is not to say there is not opportunities out there, as certain
world markets look decidedly undervalued, especially Asian opportunities,
specific emerging markets and the UK economy, despite the global put. In other
words, the places everybody else is cowering away from.
It remains consistent that US equities remain significantly
overvalued above long-term averages, with valuations being allowed to sail past
reason, e.g. FAANG stocks and the tech sector generally.
The Fed is finally addressing the base rate zero lower bound
concerns surrounding a liquidity trap with their rate hikes. In spite of Trump’s
huffing and puffing postulations about a Fed ‘gone loco’, the rate rises have
long since been overdue, and a return to interest rate normalisation would hopefully
put a cap on inflationary spirals and better prepare for the next market crash.
While the trade war, tax cuts and rate increases in an
overheated economy have been precursors for the market retreat, Trump may well
be spot on about craziness, but perhaps not at which door he lays the blame.
As part of Manchester Literature Festival, Mohammed Hanif spoke to Steve Dearden about his writing and his third novel Red Birds. Dearden started the evening by asking Hanif about his “stretching of reality”, a resonating theme throughout his books, beginning with his debut novel of 2008 “A Case of Exploding Mangoes” – an alternative and fictitious take on the demise of the Pakistani military leader General Zia ul-Haq. Hanif responded to this apparent “stretching” by referring to the recent disappearance of the Saudi journalist, Jamal Khashoggi, from the Saudi Embassy in Istanbul.
“Is that pushing reality or is that our reality?”
Pinpointing the inherent strangeness of our times, Hanif’s background as a journalist, and previously head of the BBC’s Urdu Service, makes complete sense: Pakistan’s complicated history and present can in some ways only be captured by someone who is analysing these complicated events as they unfold. A Case of Exploding Mangoes won him breakout success, leading him to winning the Commonwealth Book Prize and being shortlisted for the Guardian First Book Award and the Man Booker Award. Alongside his established career as a novelist he has gained a regular opinion column in the New York Times and has also written for the Washing Post as well as the New Yorker. His is a fresh and critical voice which captures the thoughtful Pakistani intellectual and his opinion pieces have covered everything from India-Pak relations to the perils of making the perfectly round roti.
Whatever the subject matter, he is an authority on Pakistan, not by default of being Pakistani, but by commenting on realisms from an insider’s perspective and where appropriate layering it with comedic effect. And this is what Hanif represents as a writer, a dazzling story spinner from a precarious post-9/11 Pakistan touching on the strangeness of the stories around us. He spoke of the daily grind of journalism and his secretly held dream of becoming a writer. He tells the audience that his MA in writing at the University of East Anglia taught him that there was no shame in wanting to be a writer and it “it is not something you have to do in a closet.” Most of all he learned that nothing in his writing is sacred, and that one must engage with one’s own work by taking a red pen to it.
Hanif has many things to say about writing, Pakistan and the world. And so does Red Birds. Told from the point of view of a shot-down American pilot, a 14-year old boy living in a refugee camp and a dog. The novel maintains the comic element of the previous two books but directly addresses phenomena of the “camp” the humanitarian tragedy and the broader ineptitude of foreign and local intervention in curtailing the root causes of displacement.
One of the defining aspects of Red Birds, is that it is set nowhere. Hanif admits that with the first two novels firmly set in Pakistan he purposefully didn’t want to add local colour to the third novel but rather highlight the perception that somehow camps are not real places and the collusion we have with that. The book also infuses some of the personal and public tragedies Hanif was experiencing at the time which he sees as “seeping into the book”. Tragedies which include the dying and killing of close friends as well as reporting on forced disappearances; the kidnapping of young boys by the intelligence services and the families who stage protests with placards asking the state “What has happened to my boy?”
Now a regular at literature festivals, and especially in Pakistan, he has tried to brooch the subject with audiences but found it was met with apathy or upset and sometimes even outrage. And this is another dimension of Hanif which sets him apart from the other English-language Pakistani authors, his realism extends beyond the urban, English-speaking middle class. Hanif takes pride in his Punjabi background and now holds a bi-monthly Punjabi language current affairs vlog.
“I’ve been a journalist for around 25 years, in my family and village nobody had read anything I had written…but with this Punjabi blog…everybody has seen my journalism. By doing it there is no wall between my audience and me…I am quite thrilled…I feel smug about it.”
One can’t help feeling smug on behalf of Hanif, especially as his future projects consist of an opera based on the life and death of the late Benazir Bhutto. Lauded as one of the freshest voices coming from Pakistan, one also can’t help thinking if Hanif had continued to write with shame in a closet. The world and naya (new) Pakistan certainly needs an original and envelope-pushing voice to make sense of it. After all, story-telling is a basic need he tells the audience.
Homera Cheema is a writer based in Manchester. After some years working in aid in the UK and in field missions she is now undertaking an MA in Creative Writing at Manchester Writing School and writes reviews on author events, books as well as articles.
As part of Manchester Literature Festival, Naomi Frisby hosted a conversation with three strong writers at Waterstones Deansgate on 8 October: Elaine Castillo, Michael Donkor, and Olumide Popoola. The writers’ diverse backgrounds are as variable as the content of their novels and reasons for writing.
For starters, Castillo is a Filipina American whose debut novel, America Is Not the Heart, tells the story of Hero De Vera, a Filipina woman who, in her 30s, is already embarking on her third life in as many decades: as an undocumented migrant in the San Francisco Bay Area. Her prior two existences include being a comrade within the New People’s Army and being the daughter of upper-middle class parents in the Philippines. Hero attempts to grasp at the straws of home in her new Californian context when living with her uncle and aunt, surrounded as she is by the weight of history. Castillo’s description of the text and the issues it grapples with, as well as the tantalizing excerpt she read during the event, left audiences wanting a taste for more from this talented writer and effective speaker. Her desire to attend to the “interstitial tendernesses” of life contributed to a thought-provoking evening. America Is Not the Heart was longlisted for the 2018 Center for Fiction First Novel Award.
Alongside Castillo was Michael Donkor, born in London to Ghanaian parents. His debut novel, Hold, uses as its point of departure the experience of Ghanaian houseboys and housegirls who serve wealthy urban families. Donkor drew inspiration for the subject matter from his experience of spending childhood summers in Ghana, which he channels into a transnational novel that sees main character Belinda uprooted twice: once from her village to Kumasi, and then once again from Kumasi to London in an effort to serve as an example for once-exemplary-and-now-wayward teenager Amma. But in doing so, Belinda must leave behind her close friend Mary. Donkor’s writing effectively captures the fusion and confusion that is London in the early 2000s through Belinda’s excitedly observing eyes, intertwining her experience of that newness with the possibility of friendship. Donkor gave weight to every word that he set onto the page, so it’s no surprise that he is one of the Observer’s 2018 New Faces of Fiction.
Last but certainly not least was Nigerian-German writer Olumide Popoola, whose debut novel When We Speak of Nothing was similarly transnational. At the center of the book is a friendship and relationship between Karl and Abu in London, one that is tested and deepened when Karl goes to Nigeria’s Port Harcourt to meet his father, a man he never knew. While there, he befriends Nakale, an environmental activist, and is welcomed by Nakale’s networks despite Karl’s transgender identity. Meanwhile, Abu finds himself in the midst of the 2011 riots triggered by the murder of Mark Duggan, requiring Karl to race home. Popoola’s weighty writing style that emphasizes silence and her interest in the tenderness with which young men often relate to one another means that her novel couches the complex intersection of blackness, queerness, and youth in clearly written and effectively articulated contemporary slang.
Frisby’s task — of finding common points of departure with which to usefully think through these diverse texts and authors — was unenviable. Yet she did so with aplomb, asking probing questions that linked the novels along lines of sexuality, home, friendship, and transnationality. Each of the authors were thoughtful with their responses, recognizing that their starting points were different and could not usefully be characterized as based on a coming-of-age motif, even if their novels’ main characters were all growing up in some way. All three authors constructed complex worlds that took to heart Castillo’s call for more work that emphasizes the banality of everyday life, over and above social categories and identity markers that characters may inhabit. The only drawback of the evening was the lack of time, for each one of these incredible writers could easily have been the subject of an event all on their own.
Asif Majid is a scholar-artist-educator who researches, teaches, performs, and makes work at the intersection of performance and politics. He is pursuing a practice-based PhD in Anthropology, Media, and Performance at The University of Manchester, earned an MA with Distinction in Conflict Resolution from Georgetown University, and graduated summa cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa with a self-designed BA in Interdisciplinary Studies from UMBC. Performance credits include work with The Stoop (US), the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts (US), Convergence Theatre (US), Royal Exchange Theatre (UK), Unity Theatre (UK), and Action Transport Theatre (UK). He is an inaugural Lab Fellow with The Laboratory for Global Performance and Politics, and can be found online at www.asifmajid.com.
Civil partnership is a term usually associated with same sex couples It was, until 2013, the only real option for same sex couples for legalising the status of their relationship. 2013 was when same sex marriage was legalised in the UK. Fast forward five years and something new has been brought onto the market. Civil Partnership is back, but this time for mixed couples too. Most instant reactions are questioning why. If civil partnerships have the same legal rights as a marriage, then what’s the point?
It could be that marriage can be seen to be religious. Whilst the UK is considered a Christian country, in this day and age we are in reality, in a melting pot of varying religions. Though 50 years ago, the majority of White Britain would have identified as committed Christians, now, there seems to be a growing number of atheists or at the very least non-practicing Christians.
Ms Steinfeld and Mr Keidan accidently become campaigners for the civil partnerships for mixed sex couples. Having had 130,000 people sign their petition after a four-year campaign, they tasted success when The Supreme Court ruled in their favour this year. The implementation of this will not come into action until 2019 in England and Wales, but for them it certainly is a step in the right direction.
To get a real understanding of why civil partnership has become available to mixed couples, we have to look at the legal differences between cohabitation, civil Partnership (for both mixed and same sex couples) and marriage in the UK.
What is a Marriage?
Marriage has varying definitions across the world and in different cultures. It is commonly seen as a social and ritualistic union between two people. It establishes obligations between the spouses and resulting children (whether biological or adoptive) and other extended relatives. When getting married you can choose between a civil or religious marriage. There are however some religious marriages that will not be recognised without a civil marriage. If you have a joint bank account, the money becomes joint property regardless of who puts money into the account, which becomes important on death of a spouse or on separation on the couple. Marriage also effects parental responsibility for example If you are the husband of child’s birth mother you automatically have parental responsibility.
What is a Civil Partnership?
Civil partnerships were introduced to give same-sex couples a way of obtaining similar legal and financial security, that marriage did. To my amazement this has only been a legislation since 2004, and in 2013 new legislation allowed the choice of marriage in England, Wales and Scotland. Unlike marriage, you cannot bring a civil partnership to an end until it has lasted for at least one year. Much like a marriage the same banking rules apply to civil partnerships. Civil partnerships also allow the exemption of inheritance tax.
Why Civil Partnership Over Marriage?
Religion was the main reason people were against marriage, and yes that is certainly true for many people are getting married outside of a church, minister or the traditional Christian values. But even then, religion couldn’t be the sole or even the most important reason to want civil partnership, surely. As I began to investigate it began clear people had issue not only with the religious link but the legacy of gender imbalance and roles which were routed with the traditions of marriage. Many women and men don’t like the idea of marriage because of the sense of ownership that comes with it.
When dissecting the rituals, it’s easy to see why people think this. Firstly, the suitor must ask for permission from the bride’s father for her hand in marriage and in many traditions a price for the bride is agreed upon; in my own culture this is called lobola. From the modern perspective the idea of transferring ownership from father to husband, certainly seems archaic. The bride as a prize makes it almost seem like the women is a commodity being purchased. This ideology of transfer of possession can be interpreted within wedding in the ceremony itself, when the father walks his daughter down the aisle “to give her away” to her future husband.
Within the marriage, historically, the husband is the head of the house and decision maker and the sentiment of a wife respecting her husband trickles down as friendly advice from mother to daughter and other female elders. An example of this sense of ownership is shown in the form of marital rape only coming into existence in recent years. Historically, as a woman you were obliged to provide your husband with sex, without consent from the other spouse being strictly needed. Currently, in modern laws, consent is essential and whether non-consensual sexual intercourse happens violently or non-violently it is considered marital rape. Whilst respect of one another is certainly good for a union, the emphasis on the woman in the marriage to uphold this rather than the man is an example of the gender inequality and imbalance which many modern couples see only civil partnership can resolve.
The Steinfeld-Keidan couple argued saying that “the legacy of marriage … treated women as property for centuries…we want to raise our children as equal partners and feel civil-partnership – a modern, symmetrical institution – sets the best example for them”
With this to consider, you would think just not getting married would be enough.
Wrong; whilst marriage may not be an option for many, simply living together isn’t either due to the lack of clarity of legal status cohabitation comes with.
Rights As Cohabiters
Living together with a partner sometimes referred to as cohabitation doesn’t actually have a legal definition. Many couples are disappointed on separation or death of partner to find they don’t have many if at all any legal, financial and parental rights. Civil partnership and marriage offers legal securities which cohabitation does not. At best a cohabitation contract can be formed outlining obligations and rights of each partner, but there isn’t clarity about whether this can be legally enforced. In terms of finances if you have separate accounts, neither has access to each other’s accounts. If you have joint accounts however, the money belongs to both of you. If only one of you however, has deposited money then it becomes difficult for the partner who hasn’t, to claim any of money – which differs to marriage and civil partnership where you are entitled regardless.
For me, I don’t necessarily see marriage the way many modern millennials do (perhaps I’m too much of a traditionalist). Some of the rituals dating back may very well be archaic for this time and age, but I choose which aspects of marriage I wish to celebrate and since there isn’t an exact set of rules, I see no problem in exchanging out of date traditions for ones that suit me. Nonetheless having the option for civil partnerships certainly makes sense and allows those not for marriage, an incredibly important thing; choice.
For more information on the differences between marriage, civil partnership and cohabitation then visit the citizens advice website
Tanyaradzwa Mwamuka is currently studying Biomedical Sciences at the University of Manchester and hopes to pursue a career science communication, media and African development. She is a lover of fashion, travelling and has a keen interest in racial- social issues. She enjoys learning languages, being fluent in two and is currently adding Spanish to her resume.
A Brexit deal could be secured within two weeks, the Irish prime minister has said, as negotiations over the backstop agreement intensify in the run-up to crucial European Council summit later this month.
EU negotiators echoed these same sentiments at a behind-closed-doors meeting to diplomats in Brussels last night, according to Reuters. It comes hours after Ireland’s Prime Minister Leo Varadkar raised hope of a breakthrough in the next fortnight – ahead of a crunch Brussels summit on October 17th.
It's a good day for Brexiteers: – Donald Tusk asks for a Canada +++ Brexit deal [but NI needs to be sorted] – Irish PM Leo Vardkar suggests a deal could be done in mid-November – Big Ben will heard tonight in Parliament Square for the first time in 15 months
Leo Varadkar, the Irish Taoiseach, said he wants to “get down to business” and resolve the Irish border impasse that has so far prevented Britain and the EU negotiators from reaching a final deal.
Speaking in Brussels on Thursday, Mr Varadkar said that he was “very keen” to see a deal reached by November, providing it works in the interests of all parties.
Leo Varadkar (right) raised hope of a breakthrough in the next fortnight – just as Donald Tusk (left) threw a spanner in the works (Image: REX/Shutterstock)
He said “I think we are entering a critical and decisive stage of these negotiations and there is a good opportunity to clinch a deal over the next couple of weeks,”
But Mr Varadkar warned it could take longer than the transition period to December 2020 to agree a final EU-UK trade deal. Today the Irish Government urged Mrs May to bring forward her proposals to break the deadlock over the Northern Ireland border.
This comes just hours after European Council President Donald Tusk threw a spanner in the works by appearing to back a Brexiteers’ ‘Canada Plus’ plan – that critics say would not solve the border puzzle.Meanwhile the EU’s chief negotiator Michel Barnier meets the main parties in Northern Ireland in Brussels today in a bid to break a deadlock over the Northern Irish border.
What Is The Irish Border Issue?
There are two different but related elements to the deadlock in Brexit negotiations over the Irish border: the “backstop”, which is an insurance policy that Ireland wants to ensure the border remains completely open to trade, people, and services in the event of no deal; and the second set of negotiations on the future relationship between the UK and the EU and therefore Ireland.
Why Is There A Gridlock?
The UK and the EU agreed at the end of the first phase of Brexit negotiations in December that there would be regulatory alignment between both parts of the island of Ireland in the event of no deal.
That same December deal was struck and then undone after objections by the Democratic Unionist party (DUP), which had not been consulted. To placate their concerns that Northern Ireland would, post-Brexit, be treated differently, Theresa May also agreed there would be “no regulatory barriers” in the Irish sea. This immediately sowed the seeds for an insoluble problem unless the UK struck a deal which involved remaining in the single market and the customs union, both red lines for the prime minister.
What is the EU’s position?
The EU has proposed legal text that establishes “a common regulatory area” between Ireland and the UK in Northern Ireland, in other words a special deal for Northern Ireland.
What About The UK?
Theresa May is fully signed up to the need for a backstop and no infrastructure on the Irish border, but has pledged not to leave Northern Ireland in a different regulatory territory to Britain, something she says amounts to a physical border in the Irish sea which no Prime minister could accept.
Following the latest round of talks, the Irish Prime Minister revealed he was hopeful a deal on the Northern Ireland border can be done in two weeks.
Delighted to meet again w/ Taoiseach @campaignforleo. We are in the final stage of the #Brexit negotiations & working hand-in-hand w/ the Irish gov. To agree to any deal, we need to have a legally sound backstop solution for Ireland and Northern Ireland ???? pic.twitter.com/WloOJECcum
It's a good day for Brexiteers: – Donald Tusk asks for a Canada +++ Brexit deal [but NI needs to be sorted] – Irish PM Leo Vardkar suggests a deal could be done in mid-November – Big Ben will heard tonight in Parliament Square for the first time in 15 months
