UK: Starmer Moves One Step Closer to Reversing Brexit
Sir Keir Starmer, Britain’s new and unpopular Labour prime minister, travelled to Germany yesterday to tell Chancellor Olaf Scholz that he wants to “turn a corner” on Brexit.
As with his previous calls to “reset” relations with the European Union, his speech alongside Scholz hinted at even weaker borders and more rule-taking from Brussels under a Starmer government.
Never mind the fact that more Britons voted to leave the EU in 2016 than have voted for any other electoral option in the nation’s history—and that the vote was deeply tied to the all-important issue of immigration. Nor that the electorate doubled down on this in both the 2019 European elections and general election, during which the then-prime minister Boris Johnson promised to “get Brexit done.” Nor, indeed, that the Tory failure to properly see Brexit through played a large part in the party being thrown out of office in July.
Even as Starmer tries to deny it—just as senior Labour figures spent months talking down the idea they would implement (now-incoming) major tax rises—Brussels officials have been quite clearthat the EU will only agree to Starmer’s “reset” plans if he agrees to ease immigration controls for young Europeans to come to the UK.
Adding insult to injury, Starmer even used a catchphrase repeated ad nauseam during the 2016 referendum campaign when describing his intention to effectively undo parts of Brexit as a “once-in-a-generation opportunity.” Of course, he never did believe that phrase when it was used in 2016, since he later went on to campaign for a second referendum on EU membership.
On the morning of Starmer’s talks with Scholz, an SPD spokesman pointed to the “constant push by the German government to bring the UK closer to Europe and to facilitate cooperation between Great Britain and the EU in as many fields as possible, ranging from trade to student mobility rights to defence.” Most notably, he added that regarding all this, the two leaders are “more or less on the same page.”
In order to keep up the momentum, Starmer is today, on August 29th, in France to discuss closer UK-EU relations—“closer,” said the PM, “than ever before”—with President Emmanuel Macron. The BBC reports that some form of treaty with EU leaders will be signed within the next six months.
But “who,” asked journalist Mick Hume in the Mail, “voted for that?”
Certainly not the 17.4 million citizens who put their X in the box marked “Leave” in the 2016 referendum, which was billed as a “once-in-a-generation” chance to “take back control.” That’s getting on for twice as many as the 9.7 million who voted Labour in July. Or, to put it another way, just 20 per cent of the electorate.
Journalist Patrick O’Flynn added that to “kibosh” developing plans “would require pro-Brexit political parties also to get their acts together: a strong Tory revival under a charismatic new leader; some kind of sensible accommodation with Nigel Farage’s Reform party.”
And we are, alas, a very long way away from that.
Recycled Plastics are a Nightmare Concoction of BPA & Phthalates, But Recycling Makes a Great Cover Story for ‘Greenwashing’ the Plastics Industry
Keeping plastic bottles out of the landfills and waterways is a conscious, sustainable pursuit; however, these plastic chemicals are often recycled into new packaging materials, creating an unknown blend of synthetic chemicals that leech into the food supply, harming human health. While trying to protect the environment, we may inadvertently be harming ourselves, and the regulatory agencies are asleep at the wheel on the issue.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is facing mounting criticism over its lack of oversight concerning the recycled plastics that are used in new food packaging. Researchers warn that chemical companies are practically regulating themselves, incorporating a nightmare concoction of phthalates and BPA into recycled plastics. Unknown combinations of synthetic chemicals are being intermixed into new food packaging materials, ensuring that the current food supply is full of endocrine-disrupting carcinogens. To make matters worse, the FDA’s approval process does not adequately safeguard against the potential risks of toxic chemicals leaching into food products.
FDA’s review of recycled plastics is a voluntary process that allows companies to do whatever they want
Since the early 1990s, the FDA has approved over 340 voluntary applications for food contact materials made from recycled plastics, with the number of approvals increasing significantly in recent years. Approvals for recycled plastic products have tripled since 2019, going from 7-8 approvals per year prior to 2019 to an average of 23 approvals per year since.
For example, major companies like Coca-Cola and General Mills have adopted recycled plastics for their products, including Coca-Cola’s 100% recycled PET (polyethylene terephthalate) bottles and General Mills’ Annie’s cereal boxes with 35% recycled plastic liners.
Companies that seek approvals include some of the biggest petrochemical companies around, including Eastman Chemicals, DuPont and Indorama. These manufacturers, along with companies from India and China, exert significant influence over regulators, especially when so much money is put into plastic recycling in the first place. Moving new products in the cheapest recycled plastic is the ultimate goal, as companies want to appear sustainable, while reaping max profits.
This is why the FDA’s approval process for these materials has been criticized for its lack of rigor and transparency. Unlike other regulatory processes, the FDA’s review of recycled plastics is voluntary, meaning companies are not required to submit comprehensive safety data or undergo mandatory testing unless they choose to. The FDA’s reliance on industry-provided data is insufficient for identifying potential health hazards.
Recycled plastics are a BPA and phthalate nightmare
Researchers have pointed out that recycled plastics may contain a cocktail of toxic chemicals that may leach into food products. Studies indicate that recycled PET, commonly used in bottles, can harbor substances like bisphenol-A (BPA), phthalates and other hazardous chemicals at higher levels than virgin PET. These substances are linked to various health issues, including endocrine disruption, cancer and developmental problems.
Dr. Maricel Maffini, a scientist with Environmental Health News, argues that the FDA’s approach to approving recycled plastics is “very lax.” The agency primarily concerns itself with pathogen contamination rather than the complex chemical mixtures present in recycled materials.
The recycling process itself introduces additional complexities. Recycled plastics are often collected from mixed sources, including potentially hazardous items like pesticide containers. Furthermore, the degradation of plastics during recycling may necessitate the addition of stabilizers and other chemicals, increasing the risk of harmful substances leaching into food.
FDA spokesperson Enrico Dinges, defends the agency’s review process for having “stringent scientific guidelines” and says the agency has the capability to conduct spot tests if necessary. However, Professor Tom Zoeller from the University of Massachusetts Amherst says the FDA’s approach is outdated, noting that its safety standards are based on evaluating single chemicals rather than the complex mixtures found in recycled plastics. Zoeller and others suggest that the FDA should adopt more modern testing methodologies that consider endocrine-disrupting chemicals and the cumulative effects of chemical exposures.
BREAKING: Brazil’s Top Tyrant Threatens to Charge Elon Musk with Obstruction of Justice & Ban X
On Thursday Alex Jones covered how Brazilian Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes, a dracule, is threatening Elon Musk over his X platform.
Don’t miss:
EXCLUSIVE: Tommy Robinson Responds to Being Charged with Terrorism in the UK, Issues Emergency Warning to the West
On the Thursday show Alex Jones spoke with Tommy Robinson who was recently charged with terrorism for rebuking the government’s mass immigration policies.
Don’t miss:
Vatican Uses Secular ‘BCE’ Instead of ‘BC’ in English Version of Papal Text, Prompting Outrage
VATICAN CITY (LifeSiteNews) — A number of Catholics have expressed consternation after the Vatican used the non-Christian dating notation “BCE” instead of the Catholic style of “Before Christ” in a papal document.
In recent days, social media posts on X (formerly Twitter) highlighted passages from Pope Francis’ July letter on the role of literature in formation.
Section 12 of the Pope’s text contained two quotations from writers who lived before Christ’s birth, and reads:
This verse contains two quotations: one indirect, from the poet Epimenides (sixth century B.C.E.), and the other direct, from the Phaenomena of the poet Aratus of Soli (third century B.C.E.), who wrote of the constellations and the signs of good and bad weather.
The traditional designations of year dates has been “B.C.,” meaning “before Christ,” and “A.D.,” meaning “anno Domini” or “in the year of Our Lord,” for the time since Christ’s birth. The entire system is thus derived oriented around the birth of Christ.
However, in recent years the terms “before the common era (BCE)” and “common era (CE)” have become commonly used to replace “B.C.” and “A.D.” While BCE and CE largely owe their wider use to Jewish scholars in the 1800s, their use has especially predominated in recent decades in an attempt to divorce mainstream culture from any orientation to Christianity, despite following the Gregorian calendar.
Indeed, use of the BCE/CE terms has been commonly linked to direct attempts to present de-Christianized historical accounts, and has divided opinion accordingly.
Criticism of the Vatican’s use of the term has thus been made, with Catholics accusing the Vatican’s text of being “pernicious” and of representing “apostasy.” Others have suggested that using the term was a genuine, though unfortunate, error.
While many have swiftly criticized the Vatican for employing the terminology, the BCE term only appears in the English translation, with the seven other language versions of the Pope’s letter using the “B.C.” term.
The French version refers to the sixth and third centuries “before Jesus Christ,” as do the Italian, Polish, Portuguese, Spanish, German, and Arabic translations.
The sole use of the “BCE” term in the English translation would appear to be the result of the officials in the Secretariat of State and the Holy See Press Office tasked with preparing the Pontiff’s discourses and writings for public consumption.
News releases and papal statements from the Vatican come as part of a coordinated effort between office-based officials in the Secretariat of State and staff at the press office. The press office in turn is under the auspices of the Dicastery for Communication.
The predominant language of the Vatican is Italian. English is a widely spoken additional language among a number of clerical and lay officials, particularly with the continued growth of English-speaking Catholic media based at the Vatican.
Despite this, numerous minor inaccuracies and errors regularly appear in the Holy See Press Office’s online releases, with the English translation often being notably out of date and less detailed when contrasted with the daily Italian listings.
“I would classify this under ‘dumb’ rather than ‘evil.’ It’s most likely that the English translator is some woke bureaucrat,” commented Crisis Magazine Editor-in-Chief Eric Sammons. “But it does reflect badly on the Vatican that such people are hired in the first place. Well-run organizations vet their people carefully.”
Problems between various language translations of Vatican texts is not a recent problem, and predates the current pontificate. However, with the Dicastery for Communications receiving one of the largest budgets in the Holy See (some tens of millions of euros), particular attention is justly being given to the proper use of such a sum of money.
US to Give Zelensky ‘Free Hand’ on Deep Strikes into Russia – Moscow
Washington is prepared to lift its ban on Ukrainian strikes deep inside Russia’s territory with the use of US-supplied weapons, Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova has said.
Last week, Pentagon Deputy Press Secretary Sabrina Singh said that US “policy does allow for Ukraine to conduct counter fires to defend itself from Russian attacks coming over that border region,”including Kursk Region, where an incursion by Kiev’s forces has been ongoing since early August.
On Monday, White House National Security Council spokesman John Kirby told reporters that Washington was aware of Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky’s “desire” to be allowed to fire US weapons such as ATACMS missiles, which have a range of up to 300km (186 miles), deep into Russia. “We will keep the conversations with the Ukrainians going [on the issue], but we are going to keep them private,” he said.
“Extremely serious conclusions” can be drawn from the latest statements coming from Washington, Zakharova said on Friday. “Ukraine has been given a carte blanche for operations in Russian regions,” she added.
Read more UK backs Ukraine’s use of long-range missiles inside Russia – media
“Furthermore, the administration of [US President] Joe Biden is obviously getting ready to make new concessions to Zelensky and give him a free hand to use virtually any type of American weapons, including [for attacks] deep into Russian territory,” the spokeswoman stressed, as cited by RIA Novosti.
Through its continued support for Kiev, Washington “has effectively become a party to the armed conflict over Ukraine,” she insisted.
“The US course towards escalation is becoming increasingly outrageous. It seems that the American elites have cast aside the last vestiges of common sense and believe that anything is allowed to them,” Zakharova said.
Earlier this week, Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov compared the US and their allies to “children playing with matches” over their continued speculations about greenlighting Ukrainian strikes deep inside Russian territory. “It is a very dangerous thing to do for grown-ups, who are entrusted with nuclear weapons in one or another Western country,” he said.
READ MORE: West ‘playing with fire’ – Lavrov
Russian President Vladimir Putin warned earlier that Moscow might engage in an asymmetrical response to the US supply of long-range systems to Ukraine, by arming groups or countries hostile to Washington – such as North Korea – with advanced weaponry.