Mediaboss Marketing

By TNH Staff January 6, 2020

(Photo by Eurokinissi/ Tatiana Bollari)

ATHENS After more than a decade of Greeks and businesses ignoring a series of No Smoking laws, big fines and enforcement under New Democracy have seen nearly 75 percent of companies inspected finally complying.

It seemed unlikely as successive governments promised to make sure the law was implemented before backing off, Greeks then smoking almost anywhere they wanted, but New Democracy has extended the ban even to parks where children play.

Smoking is not allowed in indoor public spaces but that has routinely not been followed as people could light up just about anywhere they wanted, including sitting at restaurant tables with No Smoking signs and smoking anyway.The National Transparency Authority found no violations were reported at three out of four of 570 bars, cafes, restaurants, indoor playgrounds and other such businesses that were inspected from Nov. 20, 2018, when new measures began, through the end of the year.

But 25 percent are still ignoring the law and tougher penalties, with inspections finding that 85 percent of those didnt have No Smoking signs up as required, and had put ashtrays on tables, which isnt allowed either.

But people were found smoking in 15 percent of establishments and it wasnt reported whether there were fines or other punitive measures taken. A special hotline set up for people to call to report violations got 7,000 calls, said Kathimerini in a report on the inspections carried out.

See the rest here:
New Democracy No Smoking Ban Crackdown Working - The National Herald

DECEMBER

December 2 Kosovos Special Prosecution charges six people with involvement in the murder of former Kosovo Serb political party leader Oliver Ivanovic, who was shot dead in January 2018.

December 5 Bosnias parliament confirms Bosnian Serb politician Zoran Tegeltija as the new President of the Council of Ministers the state-level government ending a political impasse that has dragged on for more than a year since the last elections.

December 10 BIRN learns that the indictment for the murder of politician Oliver Ivanovic says two prominent Kosovo Serbs, Milan Radoicic and Zvonko Veselinovic, were leaders of a criminal group responsible for the killing, and accuses several policemen of aiding the crime.

December 13 Human Rights Watch savages Bosnian officials for their failure to reform a constitution that a key European Court of Human Rights ruling condemned as discriminatory exactly a decade ago.

December 13 Big parties in and outside the government join forces to block planned reforms of the countrys election law, adding weight to reports of rifts inside the governing coalition.

December 16 The liberal mayors of Bratislava, Budapest, Prague and Warsaw meet in the Hungarian capital to sign a symbolic Pact of Free Cities, vowing to create a pro-European, positive alliance and collectively seek EU funds directly from Brussels.

December 18 Albanian lawmakers adopt controversial media laws that many say will undermine press freedom in the country, defying calls from the European Commission and other bodies to step back.

December 22 Romanians pay homage to the more than 1,100 people killed during the 1989 revolution that freed the country from more than 40 years of totalitarian rule.

December 22 In Croatia, a tight presidential election race ends with two contenders, former Prime Minister Zoran Milanovic and incumbent President Kolinda Grabar-Kitarovic, going into a run-off in January. Experts say conservative Grabar-Kitarovic is best placed to win.

December 24 Dragan Lukac, interior minister of Bosnias Republika Srpska, slaps an opposition MP who confronts him during a debate on a sealed document concerning Bosnias relations with NATO, triggering outrage from opposition lawmakers.

December 24 In North Macedonia, a courts failure to meet a deadline to issue a verdict could mean that the two-year trial of fugitive ex-prime minister Nikola Gruevski for abuse of office may need to restart from the beginning.

December 25 In Kosovo, talks between the two biggest parties hit a brick wall, raising the prospect of political paralysis and possible new elections.

December 26 Across the Balkans, liberal-sounding access to information laws vital for a free media have yet to bring real transparency to traditionally secretive countries, a BIRN report shows.

December 26 In a new twist to Kosovos complicated post-election coalition talks, the second-placed Democratic League of Kosovo says it will support a Vetevendosje-led minority government without joining it.

December 27 Lawmakers in Montenegro pass a controversial law on freedom of religion amid chaotic scenes in parliament, despite fierce objections from the Serbian Orthodox Church and pro-Serbian opposition parties. The law is supported by the ruling Democratic Party of Socialists, the ethnic minority Albanian, Bosniak and Croats parties and one opposition party, the Social Democratic Party. Thousands rally in the capital and other towns.

December 28 Leaders of North Macedonias two main parties are reportedly close to finalising an agreement on forming a technical caretaker government, 100 days ahead of early elections in April 2020.

December 30 In North Macedonia, the formation of a caretaker government ahead of April snap elections runs into problems because the opposition VMRO DPMNE party proposes an army officer as interior minister, which is not allowed under the constitution.

More here:
Timeline: A Year of Democracy in Central and Southeast Europe | Reporting Democracy - Balkan Insight

In some respects, 2020 is an unusually predictable year. The United Kingdom will leave the European Union on January 31st. There will be a general election in Ireland in the early months of the year and, in the North, the devolved political institutions will either be renewed and stabilised or face definitive collapse.

In the United States, Donald Trump will go on trial before the Senate and will almost certainly be acquitted of very grave and well-founded charges. The contest within the Democratic Party will become much more focused after the Super Tuesday primaries in California, Texas and other states on March 3rd. The process will produce a challenger to take on Trump in a presidential election in November that will leave its mark on world politics for a generation. There will be some welcome distraction in the form of the Euro 2020 football tournament and the summer Olympics in Tokyo.

And the Earth will continue to burn: there is little doubt that 2020 will be one of the hottest years on record. By the time the United Nations climate change summit takes place in Glasgow in November, we will be almost another year closer to irreversible damage to the natural systems on which human life depends.

It is somewhat ironic that, most probably in July, Nasa will launch the Mars 2020 rover. Its mission will be, in part, to determine whether Mars was once habitable for organic life forms before they were killed off by drastic climatic and atmospheric changes. If similar questions are not to be asked about Earth, the new year will have to be a much more decisive one than its predecessor.

The great dilemma of our time is that, on the one hand, the climate crisis cannot be tackled without rational, stable governments committed to joint action through global institutions and agreements. Yet, on the other hand, the big political shifts of our time have been towards unstable and irrational governments mobilising narrow and divisive forms of ethnic nationalism, isolationism and exceptionalism.

On the positive side, the green deal put forward by the incoming European Commission to make Europe the worlds first climate-neutral continent by 2050 is a serious response to the crisis. But it is vital that it is backed in 2020, not just through the EUs collective efforts and resources but through urgent action by member states themselves. Ireland, a shameful laggard on climate change, needs to transform itself into what it pretends to be: a global leader in confronting the crisis.

It is the climate crisis, more than any other single issue, that gives the US elections an epochal importance. Trump has been a malign presence in so many ways, but his most outrageous transgression of decency has been his withdrawal of the US from the Paris climate accord. In the long run if there is one 2020 will be seen as the year in which the worlds biggest economy, and worst carbon polluter, either embraced its basic responsibilities to humanity or turned decisively towards denial and destruction.

A win for Trump will be a terrible signal that the tide of reaction is still coming in. His defeat will be a victory for democracy and survival.

It is also the climate crisis that exposes just what a tragic waste of time and energy Brexit really is. Boris Johnson will have his moment of triumph at the end of January and there will no doubt be fireworks and starbursts of hyperinflated rhetoric about freedom. But the grim reality is that Britain is not going to be liberated not least because it was never oppressed.

Its attempt to find a place for itself in the world will drag on through 2020, but almost certainly without producing any resolution. Indeed, a resolution may be impossible, since the whole Brexit project is fundamentally anachronistic in an age when the need is for a much deeper pooling of national sovereignty in the face of an existential threat to humanity.

For Ireland, a particular concern will be whether, if Johnson carries out his promise to conclude the transition period at the end of 2020, the complex arrangements for a so-called border in the Irish Sea will be in place. Nothing in this saga so far has generated much confidence on that. But the travails of our neighbour must not be in 2020, as they have been in the last few years, an excuse for inertia in either part of our island. The political parties in Northern Ireland must accept their responsibility to govern. Something similar is true south of the Border.

There has been too much drift on too many issues the looming issue of Brexit has created a kind of suspended animation. Whatever the outcome of the election, there is a need for real animation on the housing crisis, on child poverty, on healthcare reform and on the decarbonisation of the economy.

If Ireland is to be an oasis of democracy in a turbulent world, it needs to prove to itself that democracy solves problems while its enemies continue to exacerbate them.

See more here:
The Irish Times view on the year ahead: Democracy put to the test - The Irish Times

IF the session of the Congress that came to a close on New Years Day may be described as the greatest ever held, the message which the President delivered to the assembled delegates in dissolving the gathering was in every way a fitting sequel to the proceedings of the session. It has been the pride and privilege of the President of the Congress, ever since that great institution came into existence, to dream dreams. Many of those dreams have already become realities, while the most important of them, that which transcended all others in its majestic sweep, the dream of Swaraj, associated with the revered memory of the Grand Old Man of India, has been brought within the range of practical politics. The dream of Pandit Moti Lal Nehru represents a further stage in the journey along the same road. What Dadabhai Naoroji and others, both before and immediately after him, were striving for was the recognition by England of Indias nationhood and the right of Indians themselves to direct their own affairs. This was naturally the first task before the Congress. The British Parliament has accepted our goal, and His Majesty the King-Emperor has told his Indian people in the most unequivocal terms that the fullness of political freedom is not only a legitimate ideal for them, but the only possible ideal. Now comes the next question, the question of how best, most speedily and most effectively to realise this ideal. The problem would be easy enough if what India wanted was a mere transfer of power from British hands. A part of the higher administration is already in Indian hands, and it would be a task of no insuperable difficulty to find Indians who could take over the controlling part of the administration. But that is not the problem. The Congress has never longed for the substitution for the Anglo-Indian of an Indian bureaucracy or oligarchy. She believes only in democracy.

Read the original post:
ORGANISED DEMOCRACY IS WHAT INDIA WANTS. - The Tribune

Getting Brexit done is now the irrefutable,irresistible, unarguable decision of the British people. These are thetriumphant words of our Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, hours after hisresounding win in Decembers general election. Yet even a cursory glance at thepopular vote casts doubt on this supposedly unequivocal mandate. Compared withtheir disappointing 2017 performance, the Conservatives only rose 1.2% to 43.6%of the overall number of votes cast. Yet faced with a divided opposition, they gained48 seats and a remarkable parliamentary majority that leaves them free toimplement to govern as they see fit for the next five years. Many of theiropponents will feel hard done by, and with good reason. The question is, why isthis system so broken? And can we should we rectify it?

British general elections are based on a system knownas First Past the Post (FPTP). This means each of the United Kingdoms 650constituencies, whichever candidate wins more votes than all others, theplurality, represents that area in the House of Commons. Though simple tounderstand and carry out, this system is inherently flawed andunrepresentative. On one hand, voters in so-called safe seats such as JeremyCorbyns Islington North, whomever they may support, are discouraged fromvoting by their inability to have any effect on the result.

In more marginal areas, MPs can be voted into power despitecommanding nothing near an actual majority. The constituency of Kensington is aprime example of this, where Liberal Democrat convert Sam Gyimah received over9000 votes. This allowed his Tory rival to win with 38.3% of the vote, defeatingthe Labour incumbent by just 150 votes, a deficit she would have likely overcomehad the Liberal Democrats not split the vote for Remainers. This is known asthe spoiler effect. Smaller parties risk damaging their own interests by stealingvotes from larger parties they agree with somewhat and handing victory to thosewith whom they disagree far more virulently. As a result, a reluctantelectorate finds itself forced to vote tactically and compromise on itspolitical convictions.

One possible solution to this problem is a systemknown as Mixed-Member Proportional Representation (MMPR). Under this model, alsoused in elections for the devolved Scottish Parliament and the London Assembly,candidates would be divided into two groups: local and national. Localrepresentatives are the winners of their constituencys vote, while nationalrepresentatives are then assigned so as to ensure the governing body is aproportional reflection of the preferences of the whole population. Using MMPR,the SNP would not, as they did this year, have over four times more Westminsterseats than the Liberal Democrats, despite winning barely a third of the votes. Whatsmore, every vote counts, so a Green vote in their Brighton Pavilion strongholdis as important as a Green vote anywhere else.

That said, MMPR is not without its flaws. Itscomplicated processes can be difficult to understand and impractical to carryout on a broader scale, explaining why only a select number of countries, suchas New Zealand, use it in nationwide elections. Proportional systems can alsolead to the growth of parties on the extremes of the political spectrum, such asthe BNP, which, though a technically more democratic outcome, may not be aparticularly desirable one. Perhaps the most significant problem, however, islegislative stagnation. Outright popular majorities in countries with diverse,multi-party systems are very uncommon. This makes broad coalitions necessaryand serious reform grindingly slow.

FPTP certainly does not share these drawbacks, diminishingthe power of widespread minority groups and favouring comfortable, or at leastworkable, majorities for parties with a widespread base of support. But therewill always be a trade-off between a system that faithfully represents the manyshades of popular opinion and one that is actually able to pass legislation andaddress key issues.

Perhaps the most effective and feasible compromisebetween these two goals is the Alternative Vote (AV). In this type of election,voters are allowed to rank their options from most to least favourite. If thereis no single party with an outright majority, the votes of the smallest partyssupporters are redistributed to its voters next preferred choices. Thisprocess is repeated until one candidate achieves a majority, and they areelected as that constituencys Member of Parliament. This system was roundlyrejected in the 2011 referendum on the subject with over two thirds of voters opposingit. Indeed, AV is far from perfect. It doesnt eliminate safe seats, couldincrease the likelihood of a hung parliament and can seem confusing and opaqueto the general public.

Nevertheless, AV is better than FPTP in one keyrespect: there is no spoiler effect, meaning the incentive to vote tacticallyis vastly reduced. Take Hartlepool, for instance, where Labour held on withjust 38% of the vote to the Tories 29. In an AV election, most of the 26% ofvotes cast for Brexit Party chairman Richard Tice would likely have beentransferred to the Conservatives, giving them the victory in an area that votedoverwhelmingly to leave the European Union in 2016. AV favours compromisecandidates that most constituents can live with, even if they arent theirabsolute favourite. Though by no means revolutionary, this system would help torestore the faith in politics of a disillusioned populace whilst also allowingfor functioning governments that most people can support.

It should come as no surprise that the ConservativeParty was vehemently opposed to the Alternative Vote in 2011. After all, it wasthe FPTP system that put them into government and has kept them there for thepast decade (though ironically, had the 2015 election been held under AV, it isthought the Conservatives would have won a larger number of seats). Genuineelectoral reform of any description is always difficult because those with theability to institute change rarely want to bite the hand that feeds them. In1997, New Labour were elected on a promise to reform the voting system. But havingwon a huge majority under FPTP, they were understandably unwilling to changeit. However, if we honestly value the principle of a true representativedemocracy, it is crucial that we dont just settle for a system as problematicand unsatisfactory as First Past the Post. Though Proportional Representation maybe an idealistic and impractical alternative, AV could serve as a sensibleGoldilocks option between these two extremes. A future without the need tosecond-guess other peoples decisions in the voting booth is undoubtedly apositive one. We should not let a blind aversion to change deter us from thepossibility of meaningful progress. It is only ironic that the best way toimprove Britains democracy might be to introduce a reform rejected at theballot box only a few short years ago.

The rest is here:
Opinion - Is This What Democracy Looks Like? - Cherwell Online