Mediaboss Marketing

Negotiators from the European Union and Japan say they're close to striking a major free trade agreement that could jump-start talks for other potential deals.

"An ambitious EU-Japan deal would send a powerful signal to the rest of the world that two of the largest economies are resisting protectionism, in favor of openness, of trade and investment," Cecilia Malmstrom, the EU's top trade official, said this week.

Related: Trump could start a trade war this week

The EU and Japan, which together account for more than a quarter of the global economy, traded roughly $140 billion of goods last year, according to EU data. The deal they are negotiating now would help boost that number.

Japan wants to remove high EU tariffs on products such as cars and electronics, and is also seeking lower regulatory hurdles for Japanese companies doing business in Europe. The EU is pushing for improved market access for agricultural products and lower tariffs on food products such as cheese, pasta, pork and wine.

American business could lose out

An agreement could put some U.S. businesses at a disadvantage.

"If the Japan-EU agreement is reached, Europe will be able to export agricultural products like pork and cheese to Japan with lower tariffs," said Junya Tanase, head of Japan foreign exchange research at JP Morgan. "This means that the U.S. agricultural sector will face some disadvantages in the competitiveness of exports to Japan."

The U.S. had its own chance to gain better access to markets in Japan, the world's third largest economy, through the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), the trade deal designed to reshape trade around the Pacific Rim. But Trump pulled the U.S. out of it at the start of his presidency, much to the dismay of Japan and other signatories.

Related: Japan and Canada want to resurrect Pacific trade deal Trump killed

Japanese and European negotiators are attempting to reach a deal ahead of next week's G20 summit of world leaders in Germany.

Japanese Foreign Minister Fumio Kishida told reporters on Thursday that negotiations would continue into this weekend with the aim of concluding a deal at the G20 meeting.

Meanwhile, the Trump administration may be about to antagonize key trading partners, including the EU and Japan, by announcing big tariffs on steel imports this week.

After quitting the TPP, the U.S. has shown interest in reaching a separate free trade deal with Japan. The two sides held economic talks in April, but those have since been overshadowed by Trump's push to renegotiate NAFTA with Mexico and Canada this summer.

However, an EU-Japan deal could prompt the U.S. to speed up the talks with Japan, JP Morgan's Tanase said.

And those aren't the only negotiations that could benefit, said Frederic Neumann, co-head of Asian economic research at HSBC. He pointed to the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, a China-led plan for a mega trade deal that has gained prominence since Trump torpedoed the TPP.

"The EU-Japan deal keeps trade liberalization rolling along and raises the prospects of more bilateral and even multilateral deals being signed in the coming two years by Japan," Neumann said.

-- Yoko Wakatsuki contributed to this report.

CNNMoney (Hong Kong) First published June 29, 2017: 6:31 AM ET

See original here:
Japan and Europe are racing to agree a big free trade deal - CNNMoney

STRASBOURG, France The European Union, whose parliament meets here on the French border with Germany, has not exactly been popular in recent years.

Complaints about unelected bureaucrats, lack of transparency, compromised sovereignty, unrestricted migration and costly member obligations have all fueled Euroskepticism.

But it seems the EU has finally gotten its groove back.

Two new surveys find that over the past year, citizens of member countries have decided that maybe this whole European idea the ambitious postwar project to promote continental peace and prosperity isnt so terrible after all.

The first survey, from Pew Research Center, polled people in 10 EU countries. In all but one, fond feelings for the union increased, most by a sudden huge amount. Here in France, favorability rose from 38 percent last year to 56 percent this spring. Across the border in Germany, it went from 50 percent to 68 percent. Even in Brexiting Britain, positive sentiment for the EU climbed from 44 percent to 54 percent.

The other survey, from the European Commissions Eurobarometer, also found an upswing in the share of European citizens who view the EU positively and have trust in it. Again, the upswing occurred in virtually every country.

Whats going on? How did the EU turn its reputation around?

To some extent, Europeans may simply be realizing that the grass isnt actually greener on the other side the other side being, in this case, life outside the European Union.

Britains upcoming exit has led to political chaos and economic uncertainty, not to mention sagging consumer confidence and departing jobs. Tens of thousands of jobs may leave Londons financial sector alone.

The same Pew survey found that majorities of nearly every country say Brexit will be bad for both the EU and Britain. Even a plurality of Brits believe Brexit will end badly for them. (Greece, which was threatening to Grexit the euro zone before departure portmanteaus were cool, is the only surveyed country in which a plurality believes Britain will be better off.)

Perhaps other EU members have watched Britains isolationist dysfunction and started to better appreciate the European project, even with its many flaws.

Not just coincidentally, in no country that Pew surveyed did a majority of respondents say they want to leave the European Union. This finding jibes with other recent polls.

Nonetheless, even though they dont want to leave, in nearly all of the countries at least half of respondents still want to hold a referendum to vote on whether to leave.

This may seem peculiar, given that Britain got such an unwelcome surprise when it held its own referendum. But this desire to hold a vote may reflect frustration with the lack of a say in what happens in Strasbourg (and Brussels, Luxembourg and Frankfurt, where other major EU business gets done). A referendum could be viewed as a way to gain more leverage over EU officials, even if the vote is really a bluff.

People think that voting will empower them, says Luigi Zingales, a University of Chicago professor who has studied economic and public opinion trends in the EU. Most Europeans are happy with the idea of some form of European integration and the common market. They just want more voice in the process.

Zingales also argues that a force bigger than Brexit may be more important in reviving the EUs reputation: the fact that finally, a decade after the global financial crisis struck, so many European economies are actually improving.

Zingales notes that in the Pew data, only his home country of Italy hasnt started feeling more warmly toward the EU. Italy also happens to be the only surveyed country whose citizens are more pessimistic about their economy today than they were a year ago.

Lending credence to this theory is that trust in the EU government and trust in national governments have been rising in virtual lockstep, according to the Eurobarometer data.

In other words, a healing economy may lead to less scapegoating, more political stability. As things get better, people realize they overreacted, and their far-right, anti-immigrant, anti-internationalist, burn-it-all-down feelings subside.

If economics are indeed whats driving the retreat from insularity in Europe, that bodes well for the United States, too. Our recovery, after all, is light-years ahead of most of Europes. Maybe our fever will break soon as well.

Read more from the original source:
Catherine Rampell: The newly popular European Union - Chippewa Herald

Michel Barnier addressing a press conference at the end of the first day of Brexit negotiations at the European Commission in Brussels. Photograph: Emmanuel Dunand/AFP/Getty Images

The European court of justice should have the power to fine the UK even once it leaves the EU, according to the blocs chief Brexit negotiator, Michel Barnier.

The court in Luxembourg should be able to request a lump sum or a penalty payment from the British government or the EU if either side breaks a future agreement on citizens rights or the UKs divorce bill.

A position paper from the EUs Brexit taskforce, led by Barnier, suggests that the two sides establish a joint committee to initially deal with any clashes once a withdrawal agreement is struck.

However, it adds: The withdrawal agreement should provide for an effective mechanism to ensure compliance by the parties with judgments of the court of justice handed down in accordance with the withdrawal agreement.

The EU says the House of Commons should legislate to ensure that the enforcement mechanisms agreed upon have legal force.

The document was published by the European commission as it consults with the 27 member states before the next negotiating session between Barnier and the Brexit secretary, David Davis, on 17 July.

A preliminary assessment by the commission of the UKs position on citizens rights, leaked to the Guardian, suggests there is general dissatisfaction with the UKs opening offer on the rights of citizens after 2019. There was, the document reports, a general lack of clarity many issues still to be clarified, no reciprocity, [a] lack of legal certainty, no lifelong protection against future changes of UK law [and] no directly enforceable vested rights and no European court of justice.

In Tallinn Estonias president, Kersti Kaljulaid, marking her countrys inheritance of the six-month rolling presidency of the European council, said she was not clear that negotiations about a future trading relationship would begin by October, as both sides hope. The European council has said it needs to see sufficient progress on citizens rights, the divorce bill and the border on the island of Ireland, before discussions can be had on a future free trade deal.

Kaljulaid said: Brexit is a negotiation process for which I now feel the European Union seems to be even slightly better prepared than the United Kingdom, which kind of shows us that when the European Union needs to react quickly it can do so with considerable speed and effectiveness.

During our presidency I dont exactly see how we can go so quickly to the discussions on the trade

Brexit will not define our presidency in any way. We want to talk about the European Unions future. And I believe we can now see the ice is starting to break really about the negativity concerning the European Union.

Partly, I believe this is because straight after the Brexit vote everyone in Europe realised that blaming Brussels is not cheap at all.

You may blame your country out of the European Union, which isnt anyones objective, not in the mainstream political scale at least. People started to think, Hold on, what have we got from the European Union project If you look at the hard statistics, almost every country is better off than they were at the beginning of the century.

See original here:
EU negotiator says ECJ should still be able to fine UK after Brexit - The Guardian

DEVELOPMENTS in the European Union are under the spotlight again as the formal negotiations have now started about the terms of Britains departure from the bloc. These come just a year after the nations referendum on its future EU relationship and the surprise decision, by a narrow margin, to leave.

Sustained opposition by the so-called Remainers in the period following the referendum delayed the governments invoking of article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty the procedure for ending EU membership but the Brexit negotiations are now expected to take up to two years.

Without providing a blow-by-blow account of the negotiating process, Prime Minister Theresa May has already announced proposals about reciprocal residency rights for some three million EU citizens already living in the United Kingdom (EU), and for one million Britons residing in EU countries. Although relatively straightforward, these have attracted controversy which is perhaps an indication of the likely difficulty of obtaining agreement on more complex issues like withdrawal from the single market.

Mrs Mays negotiating hand with the EU has surely been weakened by her failure to secure an overall majority in this months UK general election, but it remains to be seen what domestic parliamentary support she is able to attract, apart from the Democratic Unionist Party representing Northern Ireland, as the EU discussions develop, moreover, it is now clear that any deal will require parliamentary approval.

While the British people will continue to be divided over the terms of Brexit, it is clear that the government itself is determined to fulfill the referendum decision by withdrawing from the EU treaties and bureaucracies that no longer work for Britain. But at the same time it is insistent on maintaining a deep and special partnership with the remaining 27 EU member states. So while leaving the single market and customs union and reaching a separate trade agreement as well as the European Court of Justice thus allowing the nation to control its borders and restore its parliamentary sovereignty enabling it to make its own laws justiciable in its own courts this means cooperating fully on other major issues; from example, security and crime, the environment, education and scientific research together with cultural, technological, medical and sporting exchanges.

With the EU at a cross roads in the wake of Britains withdrawal, it is interesting to look from afar at the broader picture.

After the horrors of the second world war, the EUs founding principle was that nationalism should be suppressed by means of full European integration leading to creation of a federal superstate. The ambitions of the founding fathers have been met insofar as conflict between France and Germany, the traditional antagonists, has been avoided. But the insistence by current eurocrats on transforming the bloc, from a free trade area into a full economic and political union has served, ironically, to create tensions and divisions within the EU and precipitate a resurgence of the nationalism it was designed to prevent.

It now seems that Euroscepticism has grown to the extent that there is increasing resistance to ever-closer union on the part of nation states. With their varied history, culture, traditions, customs and languages, some EU members now seem reluctant to be subsumed into a federal superstate.

Nonetheless, two important steps towards this aim has been achieved the Euro single currency and the removal of EU internal borders through the Schengen Agreement. The Eurozone has been partially successful, but is seen by some as a flawed concept because of the huge disparities between its members economies Germany and France, for example, compared to Greece, with its residual debt problem, Portugal and even Spain and Italy which cannot operate effectively with the same interest and exchange rates. As for a borderless EU, the ongoing refugee crisis has resulted in alienation, xenophobia and distrust among EU member states which have been taking unilateral action to protect what they regard as their territorial integrity.

According to reports, the German Chancellor has stated explicitly that the EU should gradually turn economic and fiscal cooperation into political union. As far as Britain is concerned, it seems that, since it declined to join the Eurozone or participate in the Schengen arrangements, it would not have accepted any further steps towards such union leading to a federal state in the longer term. So, given the prevailing public mood, perhaps the victory for the Leavers, slim as it was, should never really have been in doubt.

In an increasingly inter-connected world, the future cohesion and prosperity of the EU, with its combined population of some 450 million, is of major concern. A Britain no longer constrained by what some see as the shackles of the EU is likely to be more outward-looking and will be free to reach trade agreements with the rest of the world. This could mean greater focus on the Commonwealth, including former colonial territories in the Caribbean, which is likely to benefit countries like our own.

Since European stability is important for global peace, it is encouraging that Britain has pledged full cooperation, post-Brexit, with its former EU partners. Thus, the rest of the world might reasonably hope that, even though the Brexit talks will be extensive and tough, the UK and the European Commission representing the other member states will not be permanently at loggerheads over the coming two years of negotiations. We can only trust that ultimately there will be a smooth divorce.

Read the original here:
Editorial: Uncertainty For Britain And European Union - Bahamas Tribune

By Dr. Mercola

"The next generation of Europe's children are safe from toxic dental mercury," proclaims Charlie Brown, president of Consumers for Dental Choice and the umbrella World Alliance for Mercury-Free Dentistry.

Starting July 1, 2018, amalgam use is banned for children under the age of 15 and for pregnant or nursing women anywhere in the vast European Union (EU)1,2 28 countries in all, with a population totaling more than half a billion people.

"This landmark achievement still has to be officially ratified," Charlie says, "but all three European Union institutions, the [European] commission, the Council [of the European Union] and the European Parliament have reached consensus."

"The ban on amalgam for children in Europe, we promise you, will reverberate in favor of the children across the world in America North and South, in Africa, and in Asia and the Pacific," said Brown.

"The game changer that will do in amalgam is the Minamata Convention on Mercury, which requires every participating nation to act to reduce amalgam use. The Convention is expected to become legally binding in the middle of 2017."

The hard-fought victory in Europe came after six grueling years of reports, hearings before the Commission, meetings at the Parliament, events in the national capital cities and in the E.U. capital city of Brussels and submission of testimony to a seemingly unending number of players.

Civil society the public mobilized at a level rarely seen on an issue so intertwined between environment and health concerns.

In an internet vote called by the European Commission, 88 percent of the public voted for a phase-out of amalgam as opposed to only 12 percent to keep amalgam and voter turnout was double that of any other Minamata issue.

European-wide nonprofit groups brought their networks to the forefront, and were joined by nation-based environmental and patient rights' groups from France, Germany, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Poland, Sweden, Denmark, the United Kingdom, Portugal, Spain and Italy.

At the outset of the campaign in 2010, every major EU institution supported amalgam. At the end, in 2016, no major EU institution did.

Brown pays particular homage to four Europeans who led the campaign: Elena Lymberidi-Settimo from Greece; dentist Dr. Graeme Munro-Hall from the U.K.; Marie Grosman from France; and Florian Schulze from Germany.

Mercury-containing amalgam is a primitive, pre-Civil War pollutant that has no place in modern dentistry. Compelling evidence shows that dental amalgams readily release mercury in the form of vapor every time you eat, drink or brush your teeth.

A single amalgam filling may release as much as 15 micrograms of mercury per day; 10 micrograms per day is average. To put that into perspective, eating mercury-tainted seafood can expose you to about 2.3 micrograms per day, and that alone was enough for scientists to call for a worldwide warning in 2006.

Brown, a twice-elected former attorney general for West Virginia, has committed nearly two decades of his life to protecting children and grownups around the world from the dangers of mercury amalgam.

Consumers for Dental Choice has been a Health Liberty partner with us since 2011, and this victory is a powerful demonstration of the impact you can have when you donate money to our Health Liberty partners.

We worked long and hard to identify these partners, and Consumers for Dental Choice is one of the most effective consumer protection organizations out there. Charlie has spearheaded the creation of an enormously dedicated and effective international team operating in dozens of countries on every continent.

I would personally like to thank all of you who donated to this cause earlier this year and in years' past. Your financial support is what makes these kinds of victories possible. Yes, you CAN make a difference in other people's lives.

Next, each of the 28 European countries must submit a plan for how they are going to reduce amalgam use in the remainder of the population. The most vulnerable, the children, are now protected from the dangers of amalgam, but in all reality, amalgam should not be placed in anyone, of any age or gender.

These plans are due by July 1, 2019, and by then, Charlie suspects most countries will opt to phase out amalgam entirely.

As for the United States and Canada, now that the entire EU is taking a strong stand to protect the health of children and pregnant/nursing women, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Health Canada will be pushed to reconsider their stance.

So far, they've both chosen to protect amalgam producers and the profits of pro-mercury dentists.

However, while the EU situation will turn up the heat on these agencies, Charlie urges all consumers everywhere to refuse to do business with any dentists who still use mercury amalgam in their practices, because consumer pressure is the fastest way to eliminate the practice.

In related good news, on December 15, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finalized a rule restricting dentists' mercury discharges.

After more than a decade of debating the issue and an additional five years of delays, the agency finally finalized requirements for dentists (placing or removing amalgam) to install amalgam separators to prevent mercury from being flushed down the drain, entering municipal waste water treatment facilities and being haphazardly released into the environment.

Dental offices are "the largest source of mercury in municipal wastewater, the largest consumer use and also the largest reservoir of mercury in use today," said Michael Bender, director of the Vermont-based Mercury Policy Project and a strong supporter of the World Alliance for Mercury-free Dentistry.

He called the separators, which the EPA estimates will cost dentists about $800 per year to operate, "a practical, affordable and available technology for capturing mercury." As reported by E&E News reporter Gabriel Dunsmith:3

"EPA pegs total discharge from dentists' offices at 5.1 tons annually. The new rule will enforce the use of amalgam separators, which capture mercury before it is discharged.

The technology will eliminate dental mercury discharge, the agency said, in addition to 5.3 tons of other waste metals. In a fact sheet, EPA said its new rule is a 'common sense solution to managing mercury that would otherwise be released to air, land, and water.'"

Seeing the EU decision as a springboard, Consumers for Dental Choice and the World Alliance for Mercury-Free Dentistry have launched a campaign to ban mercury amalgam for every child everywhere.

"We target 2020 as victory year for the world's children," said Brown. "This victory for Europe's children will lead us to for the children of Asia, Africa and America North and South. Amalgam belongs only in museums that feature failed medical strategies."

As noted by Lymberidi-Settimo, Zero Mercury Campaign project coordinator with the European Environmental Bureau:4With this agreement Europe takes an important step toward returning to world leadership in implementing the Minamata Convention. These steps toward a phase-out of dental amalgam will now resonate across the world."

As previously explained by Charlie, there's been a decades' long conspiracy of silence in the dental community, and for good reason. No patient in their right mind wants amalgams in their mouth once they understand that half of it is toxic mercury, and so it was kept a secret.

There was even a gag order on dentists preventing them from informing their patients that amalgam contained mercury, and dentists who dared speak out about amalgams risked losing their license for doing so.

This is why amalgams have misleadingly been called "silver fillings" a description based on their color rather than the actual composition of the material, 50 percent of which is mercury, NOT silver. Not only do amalgams leach mercury into your system, they also increase the likelihood of your teeth cracking and requiring additional dental work later on.

>>>>> Click Here <<<<<

For consumers, dental patients and dental workers, there is no advantage to amalgam none whatsoever. It isn't even a modern filling technologically. One group, however, does benefit: the "drill, fill and bill" dentists who cleverly make more money per chair per day doing assembly line dentistry. It's past time for these polluters to switch to mercury-free dentistry, and it's time too for their patients to either insist on mercury-free fillings or head out the door to another dentist.

What the pro-mercury dentists are not telling patients is that dentists are making money again on the back end. Being a metal that expands and contracts, amalgam can crack teeth and are not at all (like composites and ionomers) tooth-friendly. So amalgam costs us a lot more than composite once we factor environmental costs and future tooth restoration costs, or either one of those.

Composite materials are only about 20 percent more expensive than amalgam, and on small cavities there's no difference in price. Some materials, such as ionomers, are actually less expensive than amalgam. The conspiracy of silence kept consumer knowledge at bay for a long time. Fortunately, Zogby polls shows the number of people who know amalgam is mercury has doubled in the last eight years. And, as predicted, once they know it, they don't want it.

Dental mercury fans the flames of inflammation, which is a key factor in most chronic disease. It also impairs your body's ability to detoxify. You may be particularly vulnerable to the toxic effects of mercury if your immune system is in any way compromised, or if you are exposed to other toxins, in which case mercury has a tendency to become even more toxic.

General symptoms of mercury poisoning can easily be overlooked or misdiagnosed. If you have any of the following symptoms or a combination, you might want to have yourself screened for heavy metal toxicity:

Impairment of vision, hearing or speech, including light sensitivity

Lack of motor coordination

Muscle twitching and/or tremors

Weakness

Headaches

Itching or burning

Skin discoloration (red nose, cheeks or lips)

Profuse sweating

Elevated heart rate

High blood pressure

Mood swings, nervousness, anxiety, or irritability

Insomnia

For those of you who have mercury fillings, I recommend having them very carefully removed by a competent biological dentist who follows professional protocols for amalgam removal. It's VERY important to have it done correctly. When amalgams are removed, a large amount of mercury is released, and if the proper precautions aren't taken, your body can absorb a massive dose of mercury that can lead to acute kidney problems.

I experienced this myself more than 20 years ago when I had my amalgams removed by a non-biological dentist. Biological dentists, on the other hand, are well aware of these dangers. Some of the steps that need to be taken to keep you and your dentist safe during amalgam removal include:

Providing you with an alternative air source and instructing you not to breathe through your mouth

Putting a rubber dam in your mouth so you don't swallow or inhale any toxins, and using a high-volume evacuator near the tooth at all times to evacuate the mercury vapor

Using a cold-water spray to minimize mercury vapors

Washing your mouth out immediately after the fillings have been removed (the dentist should also change gloves after the removal)

Immediately cleaning your protective wear and face once the fillings are removed

Using room air purifiers

Disturbingly, many insurance policies still refuse to pay for composite fillings. Others that do cover composite fillings will only pay up to the cost of an amalgam, leaving you to pay the difference. As a result, people who have dental insurance are actually more likely to get amalgam than those paying out of pocket.5

When insurance companies refuse to fully pay for mercury-free composite fillings for all teeth, they harm more than your pocketbook. They harm:

Today, about 50 percent of American dentists offer mercury-free dentistry, up from 3 percent 20 years ago. To accelerate change in the U.S., Consumers for Dental Choice is urging all American consumers to demand mercury-free dentistry both from your dentist and from your insurance company. If they refuse, switch dentists; switch insurance.

At present, many insurance companies, including Delta Dental, Aetna, Equitable and Humana typically will pay only for amalgam in your molars, even though composite, not amalgam, has become the standard and mainstream filling material in North America. And, since mercury-free dentists again, about half of all dentists in the U.S. will not give you an amalgam filling anywhere in your mouth, the insurance company profits handsomely since you then have to pay the bill out-of-pocket even though you're insured! As previously noted by Brown:

"They sell an artificially low-price policy to get you in. That's a bait and switch. It's time to hold all of them accountable Challenge your insurance company; demand your claim be paid, and work with your mercury-free dentist to do that. We have the paperwork if you push the 'Demand Your Choice' button We can change this from the grassroots up. We're not going to wait on the FDA We're going to simply change the market."

>>>>> Click Here <<<<<

Originally posted here:
European Union's Major Institutions Agree to ... - Mercola.com