The Office of the Secretary General of the Organization of American States (OAS) has received a report from the Department of Electoral Cooperation and Observation regarding the presidential electoral process in Venezuela in 2024. The report highlights the worst form of repression, where the people are prevented from finding solutions through elections.
The Venezuelan regime has been accused of applying its repressive scheme to distort the electoral result, making it available to manipulation. The Maduro regime has mocked important actors of the international community, going into an electoral process without guarantees or mechanisms to enforce those guarantees.
The report notes that the complete manual for fraudulent handling of the electoral result was applied in Venezuela on the night of the election, in many cases in a very rudimentary manner. There has been talk of an audit or a recount of the minutes of electoral material, but this has not had the slightest conditions of security and control.
The opposition campaign headquarters has presented the minutes by which it would have won the election, but Maduro, including the CNE, has not yet been able to present the minutes by which it would have won. The Secretary General of the OAS, Luis Almagro, has expressed regret over the lack of cumulative memory of actors in the international community, which systematically leads to repeating errors.
The burden of injustice on the people of Venezuela continues, with Venezuelans once again victims of repression. The Secretary General has stated that “no revolution” can leave people with fewer rights than they had, poorer in values and principles, more unequal in the instances of justice and representation, more discriminated against depending on where their thinking or political direction lies.
The European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority (EIOPA) released its latest Risk Dashboard, providing insights into the health of Europe’s occupational pension funds, officially known as Institutions for Occupational Retirement Provision (IORPs). The findings indicate an overall stable risk landscape; however, significant concerns regarding market risks persist amid ongoing volatility and real estate market vulnerabilities.
The report reveals that the exposure of IORPs to market and asset return risks remains high due to persistent market fluctuations. The macroeconomic landscape is displaying medium-level risks, with projected GDP growth across major geographical areas showing some positive trends but still falling short of historical averages. This tempered outlook reflects the complexities and uncertainties facing the European economies as they navigate recovery pathways.
Credit risks are meanwhile stable at a medium level; however, there has been an increase in credit default swaps (CDS) spreads for corporate bonds noted by the end of June 2024. In contrast, government bond spreads have remained largely consistent, suggesting a differentiated risk environment between corporate and sovereign borrowing.
High levels of volatility have been observed in both fixed income and equity markets, as the report highlights a noticeable decline in real estate prices across the Euro Area. This decline is primarily attributed to challenges in the commercial real estate sector, which remains a critical area of concern for pension funds reliant on steady asset performance. However, there is a silver lining; recent annual data shows a rebound in IORPs’ portfolio performance for 2023, mainly driven by positive market returns.
Reserve and funding risks for defined benefit IORPs are assessed as unchanged at a medium level. The financial robustness of these funds continues to be supported by rising interest rates as of the first quarter of 2024. Additionally, concentration risks have decreased compared to the previous quarter, reflecting a more diverse investment portfolio among IORPs. Notably, the median exposure of IORPs to banks and non-banking financial activities has seen a slight uptick.
Furthermore, all other risk categories currently assess at medium levels, but there is a growing concern related to digitalization and cyber risks. The report indicates a potential increase in these risks over the next 12 months, underscoring the need for IORPs to bolster their cybersecurity measures as they adapt to an increasingly digital landscape.
EIOPA’s Risk Dashboard provides a comprehensive overview of the vulnerabilities within the IORP sector of the European Economic Area (EEA), drawing from regulatory reporting from 625 IORPs. It encompasses both defined contribution (DC) and defined benefit (DB) schemes, offering a nuanced look at the financial health and risks facing these pension plans.
As Europe grapples with the dual pressures of economic recovery and market volatility, EIOPA’s insights serve as a timely reminder of the complexities influencing occupational retirement provision. While the current risk assessment leans towards stability, the identified risks highlight the necessity for vigilance and proactive management within the IORP sector to safeguard the retirement savings of millions across Europe.
Brussels, [Current Date] – The European Council has chosen to extend its ranging sanctions, against Russia, for an additional six months due to the ongoing aggression and destabilizing actions by Russia in Ukraine. These measures, which were initiated in 2014 and amplified after Russia’s aggression in February 2022, will remain effective until January 31, 2025.
These sanctions are among the responses ever crafted by the EU. They cover sectors such as trade, finance, technology, dual use goods, industry, transport and luxury items. A key measure involves prohibiting the import or transfer of oil and specific petroleum products from Russia to the EU. This significantly impacts the revenue for funding military activities.
Financial Isolation and Media Restrictions
An aspect of the sanctions is isolating the economy financially. Several major Russian banks have been disconnected from the SWIFT payment system to disrupt transactions and economic stability, in Russia. In addition, the European Union has taken action, against media outlets supported by the Kremlin that play a role in spreading information, suspending their broadcast licenses to limit the circulation of misleading narratives across Europe.
Moreover, the sanctions are crafted to be flexible and resilient against any attempts to evade them. Specific strategies have been implemented to detect and prevent any endeavors to work around the imposed limitations, ensuring that the sanctions remain effective over a period.
Continued Violations and International Law
The European Council has stressed that it is justifiable to uphold these sanctions as Russia persists in actions that violate international law, particularly regarding the prohibition on using force. These actions represent a breach of standards and responsibilities warranting an ongoing and possibly escalated response from the global community.
Historical. Broadening Measures
The initial set of sanctions began with Decision 2014/512/CFSP approved on July 31, 2014 in response to Russia’s actions in Ukraine, such as the annexation of Crimea. Over time, these measures have expanded to encompass a range. In addition to sector sanctions, the EU has imposed controls on economic dealings with Crimea, Sevastopol and areas in Ukraine’s Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk and Zaporizhzhia regions not, under government control.
Sanctions, like freezing assets and imposing travel restrictions, have been enforced on various individuals and organizations connected to the actions.
Since February 24, 2022, the EU has implemented 14 sets of sanctions in response to Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine. These actions are notably extensive and intense, reflecting the seriousness of the situation and the EU’s dedication to countering aggression.
EU’s Support for Ukraine
In its conclusions from June 27, 2024, the European Council reaffirmed its backing for Ukraine‘s independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity within recognized boundaries. The EU’s support encompasses financial, economic, humanitarian aid along with diplomatic assistance. The Council strongly condemned Russia’s escalated attacks targeting civilians and critical infrastructure like energy facilities.
The European Union’s choice to extend sanctions highlights its position against activities that threaten global peace and security. By prolonging these measures, the EU aims to maintain pressure on Russia while advocating for a resolution in line, with law.
Journalistic ethics is a delicate subject. There is such a need to protect the press from various forms of interference, and to preserve its freedom, that very often, any criticism of a journalist or a press service is perceived as an attempt to muzzle his or her speech. And this is often the case. Laws protecting journalists’ freedom are necessary. But what about ethical lapses? Should we refrain from criticizing them to avoid weakening the profession, already too often decried?
On the contrary. Respect for ethical rules is the best protection journalists can offer themselves. Every time one of us violates an ethical rule, the whole profession is weakened. That’s why it’s so important to promote the ethics of the journalistic profession, and not let the excesses of some of us go unchallenged.
France 2: the eye of the 8 o’clock news
In France, there’s a national public service TV channel (i.e. owned by the state) called France 2. Every evening of the week, you can watch the 8 p.m. news program, which broadcasts the day’s news and various reports. Within this newscast, reports are broadcast under the title “L’œil du 20h” (The Eye of the 8 o’clock), which presents itself as an “investigative program with an offbeat take on current affairs”. It’s two reports from “L’œil du 20h” that have caught my attention in recent months, not so much for the themes chosen, but rather for the immoderate use of techniques that may raise ethical issues.
The first, broadcast on November 20, 2023, is entitled “who are the new climate activists”, subtitled “radicalizing ecologists”. The second, more recent report, broadcast on June 26, 2024, is entitled “Undercover in Scientology“. While the two targets of these reports, environmental activists and Scientologists, don’t seem to have much in common (although it’s conceivable that there are Scientologist environmentalists and vice versa), they do share a characteristic relevant to our article: in France, both are facing a certain hostility from a fringe of the current government.
Hidden cameras, false identities and ethics
The two reports on France 2 also have in common the use of techniques which, with a few exceptions, are forbidden by the codes of journalistic ethics in force around the world. These codes are diverse and there are many of them (each press service often has its own code of ethics), but a small number of them are widely accepted by the profession in Europe: the Munich Charter, signed on November 24, 1971 and adopted by the European Federation of Journalists, and the Charter of Professional Ethics for Journalists, drafted in 1918 and amended in 2011. At international level, the main code is the International Federation of Journalists’ Worldwide Charter of Ethics for Journalists, adopted in 2019 in Tunis.
The techniques discussed here are mainly the use of hidden cameras and investigation under a false identity, while concealing one’s status as a journalist. On these points, the Charter of Professional Ethics for Journalists is strict: it prohibits the use of unfair means to obtain information, and only the safety of the journalist or that of his sources, or the seriousness of the facts, can justify concealing one’s status as a journalist, in which case an explanation must be given to the public. The Munich Charter is even stricter, prohibiting the use of “unfair methods to obtain information, photographs and documents”. Finally, the Tunis Worldwide Ethics Charter opens up the field of possibilities by stating that “The journalist will not use unfair methods to obtain information, images, documents and data. He/she will always state that he/she is a journalist, and will refrain from using hidden recordings of images and sounds, unless the gathering of information of general interest proves manifestly impossible for him/her in such a case.”
Up in arms over environmental activists
Meeting of “Dernière Rénovation” filmed undercover with a hidden camera
In the first report on environmental activists, journalist Lorraine Poupon attacked the environmental movements Extinction Rebellion and Dernière Rénovation, without naming them but they are easily recognizable. The report begins with “the Minister of the Interior designates them as a new threat”, followed by an extract from a speech by the Minister of the Interior, Gérald Darmanin: “This is ecoterrorism.” The tone is set. Then the journalist indicates that she has infiltrated (integrated) one of these organizations. This is followed by a sequence in which the undercover journalist uses a hidden camera to film a meeting of the Dernière Rénovation movement, during which we see a person described as “a young woman given a two-month suspended prison sentence for vandalism” (the one you might think was a violent delinquent had in fact only thrown paint on a Ministry of the Interior building, which the report fails to specify).
Then a second infiltration, this time of a meeting organized by Extinction Rebellion in Marseille, again using a hidden camera. The topic is non-violent civil disobedience. When a lecturer explains that the instruction in the event of arrest is to reply “I have nothing to declare”, an instruction often repeated by criminal lawyers to all their clients, the journalist comments: “The trainers clearly evoke their distrust of the police”. While the journalist’s editorial freedom allows her to make such comments, the question is more delicate when it is a public service channel that relays in this way the discourse of the Ministry of the Interior on a movement that could be described as political, when the neutrality of the service is the rule. But above all, what about the use of hidden cameras and the concealment of one’s status as a journalist?
Public meetings, so easily accessible information
The Marseille meeting organized by Extinction Rebellion was a public meeting. So there was no need to “infiltrate” to obtain information about what was being said. The Dernière Rénovation meeting was also held in the open at theAcadémie du Climat, within the Paris City Hall. Once again, there was no need for a hidden camera. Gathering information was easy, with no need to resort to disloyal techniques. As for safety or “the seriousness of the facts”, we fail to see how the journalist’s safety could have been compromised, and we are still looking for serious facts that the journalist would have wanted to cover. The report makes no mention of this, and “civil disobedience”, which can sometimes border on the illegal, is in any case freely explained on the websites of the movements concerned.
Contacted for this article, Eva Morel, co-president of Quota Climat, an organization that seeks to “bring the ecological emergency onto the media agenda”, tells us that ” beyond the cameras, it’s a set of caricatured sequences that pose a problem in this report:applause for an environmental activist leaving police custody at the Académie du Climat without mentioning the rest of the purely peaceful and legal activities taking place there, enigmatic music inviting the viewer to think that this place is hiding shenanigans when everyone has access to it, etc.“
Nicolas Turcev, journalist and press relations manager for Dernière Rénovation, says he has not been contacted by France 2, even though the editors have his contact details. When contacted, he refers us to the interview he gave for Arrêt Sur Image: “The excerpt which was captured is a statement that we assume to be true, and that we can say to any journalist on a set with our face uncovered. There’s a recourse to these methods just to give an anxiety-inducing tone to the report, which didn’t need one since we’re available and speaking with our faces uncovered.” He adds that the “blurred faces prevent the viewer from identifying” with the filmed ecologists, who are then “hardly humanized, even though they are people with a very thoughtful, political, civic commitment”.
Disturbing silences
Loris Guémart, a journalist with Arrêt sur Image, points out that the report was silent on the Conseil d’Etat ruling which overturned the Interior Minister’s decision to dissolve the environmental association Les Soulèvements de la Terre. This decision had been handed down some ten days before the broadcast of the report, and some saw in the report a revenge on the part of the Ministry, which had not appreciated the decision of the Conseil d’État. He explains that it would have been appropriate not to overlook the fact that the supreme court had ruled that Les Soulèvements de la Terre did not incite, either explicitly or implicitly, “violent acts likely to seriously disturb public order”. A journalist on assignment for a ministry, in a vengeance operation through a state media like France 2?
In addition, while the 8 o’clock news reporter should have given an “explanation to the public” on the reasons for using such unfair techniques, not only did she refrain from doing so, but she also failed to explain why she didn’t simply ask the representatives of these movements to speak on camera. For Eva Morel, “the majority of the spokespeople for these organizations are indeed public and even media figures, so it seems odd that they didn’t speak out”.
Infiltration, concealment and hidden cameras in a Scientology church
The second report sets the tone right from the title: “Infiltration into Scientology”. In Paris, the Church of Scientology recently inaugurated its new headquarters a stone’s throw from the Stade de France (France Stadium), the venue for the Olympic Games. This made the headlines and certainly piqued the curiosity of l’Œil du 20h.
Grand opening of the Church of Scientology in Paris, April 2024
But we’re still looking in vain for the reasons that might have prompted the journalist to use tricks to get her information. Whatever one may think of the Church of Scientology, it’s hard to imagine Scientologists deciding to beat up a journalist who came to interview them. In fact, there are many examples of journalists and Scientologists meeting on the Internet these days, and politeness, courtesy and decorum are the order of the day.
How serious are the facts? Well, here again, it’s hard to find evidence of anything serious in the report. The most serious thing for the journalist seems to be that “the speech given to people in pain can be surprising”. As proof of this, she points out that “being treated by a psychiatrist or taking an antidepressant would not be appropriate care, according to this volunteer at the center”. However, the blurred “volunteer” in question replies that “It’s just the opposite of what we do. If the person decides to go into psychiatry, that’s their choice.” He adds that it’s just “totally incompatible” with Scientology. It’s a far cry from any kind of subversive discourse… Apart from that, nothing factual. Our infiltrator seems well received, she’s well taken care of, and will leave free and in great form.
A request for a post-infiltration shoot – lies on screen
But as soon as the report begins, an explanation is given: “To get inside, we made an official request to film, which was refused”. So, “to get through the doors of this center, I went undercover with a hidden camera for several weeks. I presented myself as an unemployed thirty-something looking for meaning in her life”. We can deduce from this that, having been refused permission to film inside the building, our journalist felt she had no other way of reporting the images than to sneak in and film without the Scientologists’ knowledge. This is ethically problematic in more ways than one. Firstly, the right to film inside a private building is not an absolute right for journalists. Like everyone else, they must obtain authorization, and the fact that this authorization is refused does not mean that there is no other way of obtaining information than by using disloyal means such as concealing one’s status as a journalist or using hidden cameras. Here again, what about asking for an interview with the spokespersons, or with Scientologists? Or simply having visited the various websites of the Church of Scientology, on which in fact anyone can find the information broadcast in the report? (I didn’t find a single piece of information in the report that I didn’t also manage to find easily on the web).
French journalist Lorraine Poupon filming herself in the Church of Scientology with a hidden camera
But more than that, when contacted by us, the Church of Scientology replied: “It’s a pathetic lie. The ‘filming request’ was sent on June 13 by another journalist, but Lorraine Poupon had already begun her infiltration on June 6. So she couldn’t have cared less about our response. Furthermore, we merely said that we were not organizing visits for journalists at the moment, but no requests for face-to-face interviews were subsequently made.”
Prudence, journalistic ethics and social media
Certainly, there are several other ethical violations in these two reports, but we’ll just pick out one more here. The Global Code of Ethics for Journalists requires journalists to be “prudent in the use of words and documents published on social media”. The reason this rule is mentioned is because it’s often on social networks that it becomes clear whether the journalist is operating with purely informative intent or following some other agenda.
In the case of the first report, Lorraine Poupon will post on her X account (ex-Twitter) a presentation of her report that conforms to the Ministry of the Interior’s description: “There’s been a lot of talk about ‘ecoterrorists’, ‘green Khmers’ or even, ‘hydrofurious’.” Climate activists understandably didn’t appreciate this. The use of outrageous vocabulary conflating environmental activism and terrorism is definitely ill-advised, and at the very least a “lack of prudence” in the use of social media. It does, however, reveal the journalist’s state of mind, and thus the lack of political neutrality on the part of France 2, which broadcast the report.
As for Scientologists, on the journalist’s LinkedIn account, we find a presentation that includes “Once through the doors, I discovered that they (very) quickly got me to pull out my credit card to buy more and more courses and seminars”. Then on X, “They promise us ‘total freedom’, but at what price? (A priori several thousand euros, because in Scientology, everything is paid for and everything is expensive!)”. When contacted, the Church of Scientology replied with accounting documents: “Lorraine Poupon, under her assumed name, spent a total of 131 euros with us in two weeks. This includes 4 books, a seminar she attended and a course she also took.” That’s a long way from thousands of euros, and while it poses a problem of accuracy and truth, it also indicates a desire to create a polemical and controversial vision of the movement, in the absence of evidence.
We also discovered on her Facebook account that the journalist is a member of a private group entitled “Tous unis contre la scientologie” (“All united against Scientology”), which again tends to lend credence to the idea that the show was intended to demonize Scientology, rather than to provide honest information.
The point here is neither to promote the aforementioned environmental movements, nor Scientology, but to make a point about what good journalism should be, even when it deals with subjects that can be divisive. Unfair means are to be avoided, with the exception of the strictly defined exceptions mentioned above. Hidden cameras, false identities and concealing one’s status as a journalist for no good reason, are dishonest and often indicate a lack of interesting elements, and therefore a need to make a spectacle, to create unnecessary mystery and to dehumanize the people blurred in the reports.
We naturally contacted Lorraine Poupon from France 2 for her opinion on these reports and the criticism they have generated, but unfortunately, she did not respond to our requests.
In modern societies, it has become fashionable to go to the family doctor and leave his office with a prescription for medicine. That makes us live the day with peace of mind. But what we do not know is that, with that small gesture of going to the pharmacy, giving the prescription to the person who attends us in that establishment and fully trusting the product they give us, without being interested, even one iota in knowing the indications of the medicine may be putting us in danger.
We are told by doctors or pharmacy clerks that reading the notebook, the leaflet, is not necessary. What’s more, if you are a consumer of a certain age, or if your eyesight is no longer what it used to be, or do not try, although perhaps with a magnifying glass you will achieve it. An old global marketing strategy, to discourage locals and strangers.
Do you think it is clear to the doctor or pharmacist that this medicine can cure them?
To get an answer I have gone to a book that fell into my hands a few days ago, published by Peninsula, in Spain: Chronicle of an intoxicated society. Its author Joan-Ramón Laporte. Born in Barcelona in 1948, he was 76 years old at the time, now dedicated to research, he was a professor of Therapeutics and Clinical Pharmacology at the University of Barcelona and head of the clinical pharmacology service at the Vall d’Hebron Hospital in Barcelona. In addition, throughout his career he founded the Catalan Institute of Pharmacology, a school for great professionals and promoted the creation of various scientific societies and research networks of national and international scope in Europe and Latin America, among many other things. Therefore, it seems to me an expert voice to be able to answer the previous question.
Without going into the book, which I must still confess that I have not “gutted”, “underlined” and studied as it deserves, I think that taking advantage of the generosity of its years of experience they will allow me to reproduce part of the first two paragraphs of the introduction to the same book, which by the way leaves many doors open for us to continue investigating.
“… In 2022, Spanish doctors wrote 1,100 million prescriptions for medicines. Out of 10 people, three take a drug for sleep or depression, two or three take omeprazole, and two take a cholesterol medication. Consumption is concentrated among the elderly and the poorest. Women receive twice as many psychotropic drugs as men. The poorest eight times more than the richest. Older people seven times more than younger adults.”
1,100 million prescriptions in 2022! Only in Spain.
According to the words of Joan-Ramón Laporte, it is clear that there are medications that, used at a specific time, will relieve pain, “cure” a disease and alleviate its symptoms…But they can also cause a new disease.
The series about doctors and hospitals, especially in the USA, permanently keep an eye on this question. How many times has an efficient, upright doctor whose commissions for prescribing according to which treatments should not be excessively high, discovered overmedication in a patient and tried to remedy it? How many times has the health system based on consumption allowed you to do it?
We are more profitable for the pharmaceutical industry as long as we take more drugs. Regardless of whether we are cured or not. What’s more, the home pharmacies hidden in the drawers of bedside tables or in cupboards full of pills, syrups, etc., are a current account where the State puts our tax money. The curious and unhealthy feeling that everything is free in the medical field is absurdly a lie. Someone pays and if the State does it, we do it.
Joan-Ramón Laporte, in his aforementioned book comments: In fact, we are suffering from a silent epidemic of adverse effects of medicines, which in Spain are the cause of more than half a million hospital admissions and at least 16,000 deaths a year, as well as dozens of cases of diseases as varied as severe bleeding, femur fractures, etc. pneumonia, cancer, violence and aggression, suicide, myocardial infarction and other heart diseases, stroke, dementia and Alzheimer’s disease,…
All of the above is written among the contraindications of many of the medications we take. And if we listen to the written words of the expert, who should we blame for the half a million hospital admissions due to the mismanagement (concern) that doctors make of the drugs they prescribe to us? And about the 16,000 deaths, deaths per year, who are responsible?
If we were talking about criminality in the field of police security and we were given a figure like this, data like these, with five hundred thousand injured and a scandalous number of deaths, we would be talking about the negligent attitude of our state security forces and bodies. Why not do the same with our doctors?
I sincerely believe that honest doctors should be the first to question the health system that surrounds us, and try to modify their attitude, comfortable, both personally and unionically, with the industrial network that exists behind the pill that the final consumer takes. The pharmaceutical industries are not charity angels as demonstrated every day in the hundreds of millions that pay for negligence around the world and by the profit and loss accounts they present at the same time, where they have earned billions at the expense of making consumers addicted.
Review the medications you take and don’t hesitate to talk to your doctor about their contraindications. And if you see that you take a lot of pills, seek a second opinion and lower your doses little by little, with the help of experts, in order to try to get out of a wheel that, as they tell you, leaves 16,000 deaths a year and half a million hospital admissions, according to the words of an expert such as Pharmacologist Joan-Ramón Laporte.
London – In a seismic shift in British politics, the Labour Party, led by Keir Starmer, has achieved a resounding victory in the UK general election, bringing an end to 14 years of Conservative governance. The results, which had been foreshadowed by months of polling, have given Labour its strongest parliamentary majority since 2001.
Labour secured an impressive 412 seats, far surpassing the 326 required for an absolute majority and more than doubling their 2019 performance. This landslide victory marks a dramatic turnaround for the party and signals a clear desire for change among the British electorate.
Upon learning of his victory in his central London constituency, Starmer declared, “The people have spoken, and they are ready for change.” This statement encapsulates the mood of a nation seemingly eager to embark on a new political chapter.
Photo credit: UK @RoyalFamily
The Conservative Party, in stark contrast, suffered its worst defeat since its founding in 1834. The Tories lost at least 250 seats compared to their 2019 performance under Boris Johnson, ending up with a mere 121 seats. This historic collapse prompted the outgoing Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, to apologize to “those Conservatives who have lost despite their dedication” while congratulating Starmer on his victory.
The election also saw significant shifts for other parties. The Liberal Democrats, led by Ed Davey, emerged as the third-largest party with 71 seats, a gain of 63 from the previous election. The Scottish National Party (SNP) experienced a dramatic decline, securing only nine seats, a loss of 38 compared to 2019. Sinn Fein, the Irish republican party, maintained its seven seats.
In a surprising development, the nationalist-populist Reform UK, led by Nigel Farage, entered Parliament with four seats, exceeding all poll predictions. The Green Party quadrupled its representation, winning four seats in total.
Starmer’s first address as Prime Minister was filled with promises of change and renewal. “We did it!” he exclaimed, emphasizing that Britons would wake up to find “a weight has finally been lifted from the shoulders of this great nation.” He stressed the urgency of rebuilding trust in politics and committed to serving all citizens, regardless of their voting preferences.
The new Prime Minister outlined his government’s priorities, including improving security on streets and borders, rebuilding infrastructure, and enhancing opportunities in education and employment. “Changing a country isn’t as easy as pressing a button,” Starmer cautioned, “We will rebuild the United Kingdom, brick by brick.”
Rishi Sunak, in his farewell speech, acknowledged the clear signal for change sent by the electorate. “I have heard your anger and disappointment. I take responsibility for these results,” he stated. Sunak announced his intention to step down as Conservative Party leader, but not immediately, allowing time for a formal process to choose his successor.
The election also marked a personal triumph for Nigel Farage, who finally won a parliamentary seat on his eighth attempt, representing Clacton-on-Sea. Farage hailed his party’s performance as “extraordinary” and vowed to fill what he sees as a “huge void in the center-right.”
In regional developments, Sinn Fein became the largest Northern Irish party in the British Parliament for the first time, maintaining its seven seats while the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) fell to four. In Scotland, the SNP lost its dominance, dropping from 48 seats in 2019 to just 8, with Labour making significant gains. Wales saw the Conservatives lose all representation, with Labour dominating the results.
As the United Kingdom enters this new political era under Starmer’s leadership, the country faces significant challenges. The incoming government must address economic concerns, social policies, and perhaps most critically, work to restore public trust in the political system. The scale of Labour’s victory suggests a strong mandate for change, but the real test lies in translating this electoral success into effective governance in the years to come.
The 4th of July in the United States is a time when people come together to celebrate Independence Day, which marks the adoption of the Declaration of Independence in 1776. This day is filled with festivities, cherished customs, and a strong sense of patriotism that unites Americans across the country. From small communities to busy cities, individuals honor this important holiday in various ways.
During these celebrations, fireworks light up the evening sky, creating dazzling displays that captivate audiences. Major cities like New York City, Washington D.C., and San Francisco are renowned for their fireworks presentations that draw large crowds.
Parades are another part of the festivities, featuring marching bands, decorated floats, and community organizations that add to the festive ambiance. Events such as the National Independence Day Parade in Washington D.C. and Macy’s 4th of July Parade in New York City are widely recognized and receive national attention.
Gatherings for barbecues and picnics are also common on the 4th of July, allowing people to enjoy food and socialize with loved ones amidst a backdrop of celebration.
During the 4th of July, families and friends come together in spaces like backyards, parks, and beaches to savor classic American dishes such as grilled hot dogs and hamburgers. The aroma of barbecue mingles with the sounds of laughter and merriment, emphasizing the communal spirit of the holiday.
The air resonates with melodies featuring tunes like “The Star-Spangled Banner,” “America the Beautiful,” and “God Bless America” that echo through public areas and private gatherings alike.
Interesting Aspects of Independence Day
“Nathan’s Hot Dog Eating Contest”: An annual event at Coney Island in New York where participants from across the globe compete to consume the most hot dogs within a 10-minute time frame. The contest attracts viewers both in person and through televised broadcasts.
Regional Traditions:In Florida, one can witness boat parades, while rodeos are a way to celebrate in Texas. These localized customs bring a unique touch to the nationwide celebrations.
Reenactments of Historical Events: Some regions, especially in the original thirteen colonies, host reenactments of battles from the Revolutionary War and readings of the Declaration of Independence. These events offer a glimpse into history and foster a deeper connection to the country’s roots.
It’s a moment for people in the United States to ponder their freedoms, honor their culture, and anticipate what lies ahead. Across the country, in bustling centers and quaint rural areas alike, Independence Day is a lively showcase of American heritage brimming with customs and peculiarities that grow and change with each passing year.
As this pivotal day progresses, it serves as a symbol of the timeless principles of freedom and togetherness that underpin the foundation of the nation.
The exorbitant prices of water, coffee, and food at airports across the European Union have long been a source of frustration for travelers. Despite efforts to address this issue, airport vendors continue to charge consumers significantly more than the standard market rates for these basic necessities.
One of the primary drivers behind these inflated prices is the high rent that airport vendors must pay to operate within the confines of the airport. [1] Airports often charge premium rates for the limited retail space available, which vendors then pass on to consumers in the form of higher prices. Additionally, the costs associated with delivering goods to the airport, such as increased parking fees and storage expenses, further contribute to the elevated prices. [1]
Another factor contributing to the problem is the lack of competition within airport terminals. Once passengers have passed through security, they are effectively captive to the available food and beverage options, leaving them with little choice but to pay the asking price. [1] This lack of competition allows vendors to maintain their high prices without fear of losing customers to more affordable alternatives.
The issue of water pricing in particular has drawn significant attention, with the European Parliament addressing the matter in a written question. [2] The question highlighted the concerning trend of bottled water being priced higher than or equal to alcoholic beverages in European airports, which raises public health concerns as consumers may be incentivized to choose less healthy options. [2] The Airports Council International (ACI) Europe had previously recommended capping the price of bottled water at €1 per 50cl bottle, but this recommendation has not been consistently implemented across European airports. [2]
The impact of these high prices is not limited to individual consumers. A recent Reddit post from a traveler at Dublin Airport revealed the staggering cost of a simple breakfast, with a black coffee, two croissants, and three pots of granola with plain yogurt costing €30. [3] Such exorbitant pricing not only burdens travelers but also raises concerns about the accessibility and affordability of basic sustenance for those passing through European airports.
Attempts have been made to address this issue, such as the European Parliament’s written question calling on the European Commission to consider a requirement for all EU airports to provide drinking water fountains throughout their terminals. [5] However, progress on this front has been slow, and the problem of high food and beverage prices at airports remains a persistent challenge for European travelers.
In conclusion, the abusively high pricing of water, coffee, and food at airports in the European Union is a multifaceted issue that stems from a combination of factors, including high rent, delivery costs, and lack of competition. While efforts have been made to address the problem, more comprehensive and coordinated action is needed to ensure that travelers can access basic necessities at reasonable prices while passing through European airports. [1][2][3][4][5]
