Parlament de Catalunya: Have now declared them a Catalan Republic independent from Spain! (27.10.2017)
I write what I like.
Today is a unique day, the General Election in the United Kingdom. That Theresa May herself ushered in and grinned while doing. She was confident because of the Conservative Party lead and support, that it would be walk-in-the-park to regain and strengthen her party before Brexit negotiations. Instead, she has fallen and bad. So bad she do not have majority in Parliament as she thought she was entitled to have. The public was not agreeing with her methods, neither was her campaign anything to run around the mill about and no one will say: “Well done lads”.
The winner is the opposition candidate and his party. That is Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn and his campaign. A manifesto of progressive social welfare state ideas. That would support youth, health-care and build the state. He was moderate in tone, but progressive in stances and promises. It was something rare and neat. Corbyn deserves praise for his attitude amongst all the hatred, sceptics and pundits who expected him and his party to fall. The dominant problem was not the grass-root mobilization, but the Members of Parliament who has revolted against the man.
While Theresa May has been able to screw-up all on her own. Corbyn has built a party from scratch in some sense and used his connections in Unions to spark interest. To the amazement of the left, which May has sounded more and more alike. Part of me feels that she has more similar opinions of Nigel Farage, than of her old mate David Cameron and George Osborne. That is just me, I guess.
With this amazing defaulted campaign that has shattered the dreams of strong Conservative Party united to negotiate with European counterparts. Instead, she has belittle herself and has to ask for help. Not by just anyone, but the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP). She needs help from the DUP and their support to gain majority. Before the election, the mandate of the Conservative was strong enough on their own.
Now the help come from the London friendly Northern Irish. Just think about the shit-storm it would have been, if the Labour Party went into alliance with Sinn Fein (SF) or Scottish National Party (SNP). It would have created havoc and the world would have hassled the leadership of Labour. The world clocks would have stopped and the Tube in London would have gotten massive delays. However, since it is the Conservative and their needs, we all should just be merry.
Well, the handout of loyalists to London in Northern Ireland is all fine, but at what cost is it for the May government. Since, an arrangement of these sorts has to leeway for the alliance partner and not just for the show. That she says she will deliver a government for the ‘National Interest’ is bit weird, as the whole election was about her ego and her drive for total control. Something the voters has taken away. She will not get full majority, Theresa May needs support… the Tories cannot run alone.
If the Tories and May government hadn’t run this snap and quick elections, she would still been able to have majority and also have more power in the Brexit negotiations. Now she is weak, the tea isn’t strong. Corbyn and Labour has surged, because the Tories run on weak manifesto and worse campaign. May might be good to write legislation and be a Parliamentarian, but as a campaign leader she was unstable. The public saw this and the strength she didn’t show the public, as she even abstained from open and national televised debates. That was distasteful and showed arrogance to the public.
That also Liberal-Democratic Party (Lib-Dems) gotten more seats in Parliament. That Tories and SNP lost seats, shows how their workings has gone against them. That the Tories will defend their minority government in honor of the willing party DUP. The DUP as of now will decide what they deserve for being the king-makers.
May has really lost, not only her strength, but her credibility. She has been all-out swinging, but not delivering. Shredded with her ego and therefore when Corbyn and his team been modest in their approach they have gotten more sympathy and while May created apathy. This is the reason why so many turned Labour and lost faith in her. While Corbyn have showed character. Theresa May haven’t showed this. The Tories are bleeding now, therefore they need the support of DUP to be able to create a new cabinet.
The ones who voted the Tories because they feared the ‘Coalition of Chaos’, she will now run her own if she get an agreement and gives way to DUP. That the DUP Arlene Foster will use her leverage to eat of the plate and create hardships for May. The cost will come to the forefront the coming days. Even if the Tories have the senior Cabinet Ministers and the Tories have the formal minority government alone. They will still need to kiss the ring of Foster. She is not even trusted in Northern Ireland, so it is interesting that a bleeding Prime Minister begs from someone who is not trustworthy in NI.
This here will be saga of chaos and chaotic affairs, this is not a stronger United Kingdom government before negotiations with Brussels. Because the Tories have to keep their own shop at bay and also their new partnership with the NI DUP. This will be a fragile company… and how it goes will escalate the coming days. What we do know is that the Tories lost, May lost and the Corbyn’s of the world had a massive victory. Peace.
“I’m clear: if human rights laws get in the way of tackling extremism and terrorism, we will change those laws to keep British people safe. After the London Bridge attack, I said “enough is enough”, and that things need to change to tackle the threat we face. And tonight I set out what that means: longer prison sentences for people convicted of terrorist offences; deporting foreign terror suspects back to their own countries; restricting the freedom and movements of terrorist suspects when we have evidence to know they present a threat, but not enough to prosecute them in court” – Theresa May (06.06.2017 – at a rally at Slough, United Kingdom).
That Prime Minister Theresa May are obliged to amend her laws and ask for provisions to change them through Parliament. She is fine to do so and follow the procedures of the state, to make the most draconian laws able. As the Tories already before the grand-elections started to unleash laws of old, that we’re in the fashion of King Henry IV. These laws was amend and gives more powers to the government over the Parliament. So the Conservative Party in the United Kingdom has already shown force and will of taking the powers in their hands.
Theresa May isn’t the first to use terrorism to control and to suspend laws to gain more power. That is usually a sign of oppressive behavior and of the Orwellian society. Clearly, a human being like May should consider her words. If not she really wants to show that she can act so much, that she wants to take away freedom and liberties from her own citizens. Instead of believing in the set freedoms and provisions done by the United Nations Charter and ratified legal framework that the United Kingdom must have.
Still, there are enough signs that she doesn’t need to do so, as the provisions that are in place has not and will not overpower a sovereign, neither will it create interference of state control in troubling time. That is if she really cares about the liberties and the just societies the United Nations legal framework put in place.
OHCHR own Fact Sheet on Human Rights and Terrorism:
“International and regional human rights law makes clear that States have both a right and a duty to protect individuals under their jurisdiction from terrorist attacks. This stems from the general duty of States to protect individuals under their jurisdiction against interference in the enjoyment of human rights. More specifically, this duty is recognized as part of States’ obligations to ensure respect for the right to life and the right to security” OHCHR, P: 8, 2008).
“These challenges are not insurmountable. States can effectively meet their obligations under international law by using the flexibilities built into the international human rights law framework. Human rights law allows for limitations on certain rights and, in a very limited set of exceptional circumstances, for derogations from certain human rights provisions. These two types of restrictions are specifically conceived to provide States with the necessary flexibility to deal with exceptional circumstances, while at the same time—provided a number of conditions are fulfilled—complying with their obligations under international human rights law” (OHCHR, P: 23, 2008).
Than it is the United Nation Security Council own definition:
“Security Council Resolution 1963 (2010) reiterates that effective counter-terrorism measures and respect for human rights are complementary and mutually reinforcing, and are an essential part of a successful counter-terrorism effort, and it notes the importance of respect for the rule of law so as to effectively combat terrorism. Resolution 1963 (2010) “thus encourages CTED to further develop its activities in this area, to ensure that all human rights issues relevant to the implementation of resolutions 1373 (2001) and 1624 (2005) are addressed consistently and even-handedly including, as appropriate, on country visits that are organized with the consent of the visited member State”.
It is really serious when the United Nations and the OHCHR are saying there no issues between respecting the Human Rights Law legal framework and countering terrorism. Even if the resolutions and legal framework are critical and makes the state more bound to respect the terrorists. This still, doesn’t stop them from having provisions and having strict security in the Member States. The Member State themselves are putting forward rule of law and also has to incriminate inside their territory. However, the security is for the reason of the liberty and freedom of all citizens and all rights to all human beings. It is strange that Prime Minister Theresa May wants to suspend it, while the UNSC and OHCHR are saying it is possible.
That she has to go this far to gain support. Seems more like she could join Nigel Farage and Paul Nuttal, than following the Conservative leadership of the past. These words would not have come from David Cameron or anyone of his kind. This shows how fragile and how hell-bent is on winning this election by any means. That she has to promise on the final leap to suspend rule of law and take away basic human rigths. As the Police Service and Security Organization in our time cannot be able fight terrorism by the means and the values, that most of Europe see as natural. That the Police and Army get stronger laws and more draconian ones to make sure the United Kingdom can oppress and silence freedoms. Instead of fighting it through the means of strengthening the Police and the Intelligence, as the UK has one of the most sophisticated Security Organization in the world. It should have the capacity and if the Conservative had been serious about it, they would have fixed the issue during the last 8 years. Peace.
Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) – ‘Human Rights, Terrorism and Counter-terrorism – Fact Sheet No. 32’ (July 2008)
United Nation Security Council – ‘PROTECTING HUMAN RIGHTS WHILE COUNTERING TERRORISM’ (10.09.2015) link: http://www.un.org/en/sc/ctc/rights.html
“If I was to really get at the burr in my saddle, it’s not politics — and this is, I think, probably a horrible analogy — but I look at politicians as, they are doing what inherently they need to do to retain power. Their job is to consolidate power. When you go to the zoo and you see a monkey throwing poop, you go, ‘That’s what monkeys do, what are you gonna do?’ But what I wish the media would do more frequently is say, ‘Bad monkey’.” – Jon Stewart
This week’s interview with the Plymouth Herald as she was campaigning in the South West of England. As the General Election of the United Kingdom runs closer. I feel it is important to show grace and tact to the local constituencies. Plymouth is a marginal seat and with the dwindling polls of the Conservative and less of a percentage between the Conservative Party and the Labour Party.
Therefore the coalition of chaos is getting closer, than the strengthening the Tories for the Brexit negotiations. Instead of showing class and policy as the Tories could have had a better campaign, as their manifesto was a sensation of tax-breaks for the rich and cuts on welfare. In the margin’s of error is that the Labour Party has a social-caring manifesto and where they are putting forward meaningful policies. Even if Jeremy Corbyn are seen as Marxist, but he is more consistent, than what the Prime Minister Theresa May. We can see how she lacks campaigning and being honest with the pledges. Prime Minster May are again nonsensical in her interview.
In Plymouth, Theresa May botched an interview, it is horrific how little she answered and how little she answered. As the Plymouth problems didn’t matter or if she even had been briefed about the situation. This is as if she didn’t want to mind it and thought it would be easy to answer the local press. Because with just looking into two of the four questions asked by the Plymouth Herald to Prime Minister May, she didn’t really answer with anything. It is not like the Conservative Party head honcho had any answers or thought true the implications of Brexit to the constituency of Plymouth. Take a look!
Q: “Prime Minister, welcome to Plymouth. We’re in one of the most marginal seats in the country here. Are you getting nervous, and do you see Plymouth as a ‘must win’ next week?” (…) A: “No, I’m very clear that this is a crucial election for this country” (…) “We stand at an important moment, we need to make sure we get the Brexit negotiations right, but also have a plan to take this country forward, to build a stronger, more prosperous future for Plymouth, for families here and across the whole of the United Kingdom” (…) “So I’m going out and about around the whole country, talking to people with that very clear message that they face a choice on June 8.” (Blackledge, 2017).
Q: “A lot of people in Plymouth voted for Brexit because they saw a better future ahead. How will your Brexit plan make Plymouth people better off?” (…) A: “I think there is a better future ahead for Plymouth and for the whole of the UK” (…) “There are opportunities when we leave the European Union. But we need to have the right government in place, the right plan to grasp those opportunities” (…) “We need to get Brexit right, just 11 days after the GE we will start those Brexit negotiations. I’m the Prime Minister, I’m the party leader with the plan for those negotiations” (…) “But it’s about more than this. it’s about building that prosperous future for families in Plymouth and around the whole of the country” (…) “I’m confident we can do that, I’ve got a plan for a stronger Britain, I’m confident we can build that stronger economy with better opportunities for young people, better opportunities for families, and I’m optimistic about that because I believe in Britain and I believe in the British people.” (Blackledge, 2017).
This here is a proof of the lacking policies and guidelines for the future with the Tories. If you believe the Brexiteers and the Tories after this one, than your blind. The blindness will be eating you and you would be walking in total uncertainty. Since PM May isn’t answer the questions. She is just bringing a word-salad instead of actually coming with wisdom of how she will deliver the promises. Like Plymouth doesn’t get any consideration or concern.
The constituency of Plymouth and the problems there are not worth her time. Instead more important to say the whole United Kingdom will be prosperous without the European Union. Even if there isn’t anything in the near future proving that the Brexit will be positive. If it will be so, it isn’t because the Tories have been prepared or had a well-figured out polices to become independent from the European Union. The Tories here is on the limb. Tories isn’t proving that they care about Plymouth and doubt that is the only constituency that May has no current plan to help. Peace.
Blackledge, Sam – ‘The four key questions put to Theresa May that Plymouth wanted answered’ (31.05.2017) link: http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/here-is-what-the-prime-minister-had-to-say-to-the-herald-this-morning/story-30363776-detail/story.html#QxRrRf1Fj11MiaRm.99
Her Majesty Treasury and Her Majesty Government, the Tories and their White paper on legislation concerning sanctions are interesting read, as you can see how combined the laws and the execution of the framework have been with the European Union, as well as the legality connected with the United Nations Security Council. This proves how laws and combined efforts have been the norm in Europe of late. That the United Kingdom government have complied and worked directly with Brussels and New York, to establish the information and the legal assistance to sanction state, businesses and individuals crossing into the United Kingdom.
Therefore, this White Paper from the HM Treasury says certain aspects the government have to work upon and how the kingdom have to make new laws to fix the issues. These issues has to be handled as the Brexit will certainly impact the legislation on sanctions and how the UK going to handle it. The words of the report is telling and expel the facts in a deep way, secondly the report also colorfully extend the needed for different sort of laws; that is both open-government and also making sure data get kept secret. This shows how much work the UK government have with rewriting and reforging their own legislation with the leaving of the EU. That cannot be worked out with a few phrases, but has to be build on a which paradigm and what precedence the Tories government seem fit. Just take a look!
“This consultation is about the legal powers we need to maintain sanctions as a viable instrument of foreign policy. It is not about the policy goals themselves or how we will align UK sanctions in future with those imposed by the EU or other international partners. However we recognise that sanctions require broad application to be effective and we will continue to work closely with allies and partners to this end” (HM Government, P: 5, 2017).
“The legislation will need to be in place before we leave the EU to ensure that we can preserve current UK sanctions policy, although entry into force will be timed to coincide with the date of our actual withdrawal. While the UK is a member of the EU we will continue to exercise all the rights and obligations of membership including with respect to the Common Foreign and Security Policy” (HM Government, P: 8, 2017).
“Those subject to UK sanctions will be able to challenge their listing by requesting an internal review, where this is consistent with our obligations under UN Security Council Resolutions (UNSCRs). The sanctions will remain in place while the challenge or request is being considered” (HM Government, P: 21, 2017).
“The Government will always seek to sanction an individual or entity on the basis of open-source evidence which can be disclosed to the listed person in the event of a legal challenge. However, in certain cases the Government may wish to rely on sensitive material, the disclosure of which would be damaging to national security, international relations or another public interest. In order to protect the sensitive material from disclosure but make it available to the presiding judge, a closed material procedure should be available” (HM Government, P: 22, 2017).
“Asset-freezing regimes will contain grounds for permitting otherwise prohibited activity to authorise the release or making available of certain frozen funds or economic resources to pay for:
a) the essential needs of natural or legal persons, entities or bodies b) reasonable and necessary professional fees and reimbursement of incurred expenses associated with the provision of legal services c) the fees or service charges for routine holding or maintenance of frozen funds or economic resources and d) extraordinary situations or expenses. This will continue the licensing practice that the Government currently operates. Exemptions for country sanctions regimes will be further defined within either secondary legislation or by reference to statutory” (HM Government, P: 26, 2017).
“Any new sanctions legislation would provide the Government power to obtain and share information relating to sanctions. The Government’s ability to share information will extend to Government bodies, agencies, regulators, businesses, operational partners, other public bodies and international partners. It will be similar to the ability to obtain, use, and share information under current EU legislation and will be consistent with, and subject to the safeguards in, the existing UK and international provisions regarding the sharing of information” (HM Government, P: 36, 2017).
These laws that they have to fix and make are substantial if the United Kingdom still wants to comply with the United Nations Security Council, as well as if they wish to have good functioning body with the rest of the European Union. Even though the legality and the dominion will be all United Kingdom and their sovereign powers as a state, they still need to be in coherent with the rest of the world.
This shows that the powers of the Tories and the questions left behind and the unknown hurdles of the current leadership. As this is just one sort of legislation that has to be fixed in due time and with the process of both houses. That the importance of the sovereign state make sure that their laws are complied, that their statutes can be used and that the sanctions can be put on actors that breaches the codes of the United Kingdom. Certainly, the Tories Government and Brexiteers didn’t think of the issues complied with the legality of sanctions. Peace.
HM Government – ‘Public consultation on the United Kingdom’s future legal framework for imposing and implementing sanctions’ (20.04.2017) link: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/609986/Public_consultation_on_the_UK_s_future_legal_framework_for_imposing_and_implementing_sanctions__Print_pdf_version_.pdf
Usually, I wouldn’t mind that the United Kingdom calls an election, any election for their House of Commons. As they are doing it now and then, especially as the Prime Minister Theresa May is playing her cards. She is playing them with high risks.
That there are 23 Tories that are under question for their Election spending in 2015 could be reason for her sudden approach as the By-Elections aren’t as easy as the Prime Minister expecting. Even as the Labour party is split between the Pro-Corbyn and the Blairites. So May thinks she can eats the spoils in June 2017.
Just as the people forgets as they we’re triggering the article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty and the European Commission and the European Parliament are setting their standards for the Negotiations. She needs to risk her own party and her kingdom. Braze yourself, the United Kingdom is surely not UNITED.
The UK is not united, we should hope that the Northern Irish votes in drones for Sinn Fein and that the Scottish vote for Scottish National Party. That the Welsh are voting for whoever who isn’t the Tories. So that the Conservative Party can be hard hit for putting David Davis as Brexit Minister, Boris Johnson as Foreign Secretary and so on. That David Cameron was a smug educated brother was well-known. But Theresa May is just arrogant!
That Theresa May weeks after triggering the Article 50 are triggering her own elections, proves her own, high and mighty belief in herself. Since when the Holyrood or the Scottish Parliament voted for a new referendum, they we’re told by the House of Commons and Prime Minister. “It was not the time; to have elections because of Brexit”. Still the same woman saying so is calling for elections. She herself is getting people to the ballots, as she said to the Scottish: “Fuck off!”.
That Prime Minister May could tell off Nicola Sturgeon and the Scottish Parliament without any cause of concern, but within a month call her own election. Show’s that she doesn’t care about other things than her own power. She doesn’t care about the sovereign, about the United Kingdom or the British Isle’s. What is more important and only thing that is important is that she has POWER.
PM May in Number 10, is creating her ‘Little Britain’, her own little chappie and image of Hard Brexit needs to have sufficient power inside the House of Commons. That she might get that after the election in June 2017. Might be true, but she shows that the risks it all, as the place of reality might have differed. The unknown facts of Brexit and how that will cost. If you think Scotland become an ugly duckling outside of United Kingdom, how do you think the United Kingdom will be outside the European Union?
Why can still the UK have their referendum, but PM May holding back the Scottish possibility for liberty, is it only fair to have their own sovereign in London and at Whitehall, but not Holyrood? Can she be a bit serious. The world is following and we now know that PM May has only her self interest and winning political gain for herself, not the better for United Kingdom or the provinces of the British Isle’s.
The Northern Irish and Scottish should prepare to vote against the Tories, the Welsh should also as their industry hasn’t been taken cared of under the Tories. If you don’t care for voting the Labour, than vote the Liberal Democrats (Lib-Dem) or even Greens as protest against the PM May arrogance. That would be healthy choice as the Conservative Party are just a cobbler covered of United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP). Does the British people want to go totally to the Right? Or are the British Isle a right-wing country now, who fears Europe and cannot handle to import produce and people from the rest of the world?
Since this from the same country who had no problem being the empire where the sun never set. The country who could steal cotton, tea and labour from the whole planet earth. The country who could destroy the industry of clothes in India, so they had to import Tweed from London. So this country should be thinking twice, as their legacy as colonial, will never let go and their Leylands are still in the car graveyards all over the world. Peace.
“The people back home wouldn’t buy a ring if they knew it cost someone else their hand” – Maddy Brown (Blood Diamond, 2006).
The European Union are acting out of care and thinking of transparency for the industrial imports and mineral exporters. This is happening just a little month after the United States opened up their legislation for importing more from conflict zones. While the European Union plans to close the gate from areas and from sources that export Conflict minerals.
So the EU laws are becoming more stricter than the United States, even if the law they have enacted in the European Parliament and Council of the European Union, will be effective from 2021. So it is 4 years until it has giant effect and gives time to refinery and importers to change behavior. Something that is necessary, as well as the public have to grow concern of the affects of buying conflict minerals. Even as the conflict minerals still come into the market of Europe and into the refineries so the consumers doesn’t know and cannot follow where their products who contain minerals comes from war-zones.
That the European Union takes this serious and acts upon this Nobel, and proves that they does not want to support militias and guerrillas that keeps control of mineral rich areas and their exports to supply weapons and continue warfare in for instance the African Great Lakes Region. Take a look!
Background of new rule:
“This Regulation, by controlling trade in minerals from conflict areas, is one of the ways of eliminating the financing of armed groups. The Union’s foreign and development policy action also contributes to fighting local corruption, to the strengthening of borders and to providing training for local populations and their representatives in order to help them highlight abuses” (EU, P: 8, 2017).
Conflict Minerals from Great Lakes Region:
“The Commission and the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy should regularly review their financial assistance to and political commitments with regard to conflict-affected and high-risk areas where tin, tantalum, tungsten and gold are mined, in particular in the African Great Lakes Region, in order to ensure policy coherence, and in order to incentivise and strengthen the respect for good governance, the rule of law and ethical mining” (EU, P: 16, 2017).
Trade of Minerals funds armed conflicts:
“Preventing the profits from the trade in minerals and metals being used to fund armed conflict through due diligence and transparency will promote good governance and sustainable economic development. Therefore, this Regulation incidentally covers areas falling within the Union policy in the field of development cooperation in addition to the predominant area covered which falls under the common commercial policy of the Union” (EU, P:17, 2017).
“Article 3: Compliance of Union importers with supply chain due diligence obligations
1. Union importers of minerals or metals shall comply with the supply chain due diligence obligations set out in this Regulation and shall keep documentation demonstrating their respective compliance with those obligations, including the results of the independent third-party audits” (EU, P: 23, 2017).
Date of Application:
“Articles 1(5), 3(1), 3(2), Articles 4 to 7, Articles 8(6), 8(7), 10(3), 11(1), 11(2), 11(3), 11(4), Articles 12 and 13, Article 16(3), and Article 17 shall apply from 1 January 2021” (EU, P: 51, 2017).
What the statements on the law:
“The Commission will consider making additional legislative proposals targeted at EU companies with products containing tin, tantalum, and tungsten and gold in their supply chain should it conclude that the aggregate efforts of the EU market on the responsible global supply chain of minerals are insufficient to leverage responsible supply behaviour in producer countries, or should it assess that the buy-in of downstream operators that have in place supply chain due diligence systems in line with the OECD guidance is insufficient” (…) “In the exercise of its empowerment to adopt delegated acts pursuant to Article 1(5), the Commission will take due account of the objectives of this Regulation, notably as set out in recitals (1), (7), (10) and (17). In doing so, the Commission will, in particular, consider the specific risks associated with the operation of upstream gold supply chains in conflict affected and high-risk areas and taking into account the position of Union micro and small enterprises importing gold in the EU” (…) “In response to the request of the European Parliament for specific guidelines, the Commission is willing to develop performance indicators specific to the responsible sourcing of conflict minerals. By means of such guidelines, relevant companies with more than 500 employees that are required to disclose non-financial information in conformity with Directive 2014/95/EU would be encouraged to disclose specific information in relation to products containing tin, tantalum, tungsten or gold” (EU, P: 57-58, 2017).
The European Union is doing something positive with this. That they show effort and care for the imports and what affects the export has locally, so if the minerals export is shady, the export will cease. So if the due diligence regulation works and the industry complies, the effect can be enormous. The consumer will also know that there are not supporting by third party purchase to pay for ammunition rebels, warlords or guerrillas in far away lands. This should all be seen as step of making a better world and honorable society. Where the money is where the mouth is! Peace.
Council of the European Union – ‘Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council setting up a Union system for supply chain due diligence self-certification of responsible importers of tin, tantalum and tungsten, their ores, and gold originating in conflict-affected and high-risk areas – Outcome of the European Parliament’s first reading (Strasbourg, 13 to 16 March 2017) – (20.03.2017).