


Response:




Response:



“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).
Important Article:
“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.
Reference:
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).
















I don’t know if I should laugh or cry, but what sort of discussion should be from people who gave us IKEA, Volvo and tiny meatballs. We know that the Swedish needs to prove their worth in the world on other venues, than the Eurovision and hair-styles of Zlatan Ibrahamovic. Still, the recent of willingly sending Pro Bono people to mediate between the long serving, self reliance and thief in chief, the National Resistance Movement wizard, President Yoweri Kaguta Museveni and the Opposition leader, creator of Forum for Democratic Change (FDC) Dr. Kizza Besigye are supposed to talk between cups of tea and biscuits provided with Swedish hospitality.
“The Swedish Government has confirmed that it has been approached and, has accepted, to mediate planned talks between President Museveni and former presidential candidate, Dr Kizza Besigye” (…) “The government of Sweden is involved in supporting and promoting dialogue in many parts of the world, as part of its policy of conflict prevention and support to peace processes. Sweden has been asked to facilitate a possible dialogue in Uganda,” Swedish Foreign ministry spokeswoman Katarina Byrenius Roslund, noted in reply to email inquiries from this newspaper. The “discussions are still at an early stage”, she noted, adding: “When there is concrete progress to communicate, we will do so” (…) “Ms Annika Söder, the Swedish state secretary, has been agreed on by the principals as the mediator for the expected talks. She flew into the country last week and held separate back-to-back meetings with the President and Dr Besigye on Thursday and Friday, respectively, in what knowledgeable sources described as “exploratory” (Butagira, 2017).
First and foremost, can the Swedes explain the content of tear-gas into public meetings, police blocking, detaining of FDC Youths, falsified charges against the FDC leadership, the Public Order Management Bill who is created to stop meeting of anyone else, than the loyal men of Museveni. How can there be talks between the parties?
Secondly, when every travel and meeting of FDC and Besigye is met with heavy police force, blocking of main roads and tear-gas when they congregate. What is there to discuss? What perimeter of Kasangati he is allowed to leave before it is an issue? What sort of ideas do the Swedes have in mind, except selling Volvo and SAAB to Uganda, instead of Isuzu and Toyota!
Seriously, that the Government of Sweden must either be blind or ill-minded if they think this will give way. If they know the history of Nairobi Talks of 1980s. When the National Resistance Army and the other parties gathered to iron out the differences. Than that was used to forge more way for the NRA agenda and silence the others with guns and ammo. Not generate peace without knowledge of Museveni landing on top. So this is in his blood and the blood that is shed for him to gain all power.
Global IDP Database wrote this about his negotiations:
“In July 1985, conflict between some Langi and Acholi soldiers led to the overthrow of the Obote regime. The coup, which brought General Tito Okello to power, shattered the military alliance between the Acholi and Langi and escalated ethnic violence. The Okello regime invited all fighting groups and political parties to join the military government. Every armed group and political party, with the exception of the NRA, joined the administration. The NRA, however, engaged the regime in protracted peace negotiations held in Nairobi. In December 1985, the Nairobi Agreement was signed under the chairmanship of President Moi of Kenya. However, the Agreement was never implemented and Museveni seized power on the 25th January 1986” (Global IDP Database, P: 18, 2004).
So will the Swedish buy into the mantra that everything can be reassembled and rebuilt? Since they want to forge a relationship between Besigye and Museveni. Museveni, who rather take up guns and get rid of opposition and vowed last year to destroy the opposition. Well, I am sure the Swedish we’re busy finding ways to export designer materials, than following the post-election dogma of Museveni. Since a man who only believes “he is the only man with a vision”. That is the man who is supposed to co-operate and negotiate with an advisory! Really?
A man who doesn’t want to talk about succession and doesn’t want to speak about his lingering in charge. A man who has run a country and nation since 1986, has nothing more to win or to gain by playing soft. If he does so and the Swedish is dumb enough to buy into the fake wood and think they get mahogany, than they will offer donor-funding and possible other prices for the so-called negotiations between the NRM and FDC. Even as the FDC Headquarter we’re a year ago a crime scene and many members and leaders we’re detained on manufactured charges.
There shouldn’t be these sort of talks at this point, if so, than the Swedish are legitimizing the thieving of Museveni and his NRM elite. Does the Swedish government want that on their plate? Is that the Swedish people’s prideful mission to support and trust in a corrupt and militarized government, while they at the same time is using Besigye as pawn?
The Swedish government, if they care should back-off, go home to Stockholm. Cut their aid and stop the talks. As they will only give more way to dictator and his clientele at the Okello House. There aren’t anything else to give.
Did the Swedish government do any research and care about the track-record of the Museveni regime? Have they seen how many mysterious deaths and men who has worked close who has either had to flee or been detained by his regime? Have the Swedish considered their implications in establishing legitimacy of the current leadership? Who doesn’t care if they bankrupt their country? While they are driving expensive cars on the State coffers?
Does the Swedish government need this win or this talks to gain international recognition, and not only sell IKEA furniture? Time to take the dozens pieces and assemble that the chairs in Umeå, and step away from Kampala.
Or do the Swedish government and their team no problem with losing their credibility for helping a fellow dictator? Peace.
Reference:
Butagira, Tabu – ‘Sweden to mediate Museveni, Besigye talks’ (29.03.2017) link: http://www.monitor.co.ug/News/National/Sweden-to-mediate-Museveni–Besigye-talks/688334-3868674-b3fqil/index.html
Global IDP Database – ‘PROFILE OF INTERNAL DISPLACEMENT : UGANDA’ (17.06.2004)















The ways of the Tories government to notify and to become independent from Europe and European Union, opens up the doors into the darkest alleys of their history. They are re-entering the darkest hours of the United Kingdoms history, when they are thinking of using the legislation of the tyrant and king Henry the VIIIs, the Tudor reign and most famous king. Who used all sorts of laws to oppress and silence the ones who wasn’t follow his orders. Therefore, that the modern day Parliamentarians and the Cabinet under Prime Minister Theresa May thinking of unleashing the tyrants powers and extend their power. Show’s the lack of democratic flexibility of the current leadership in White Hall. When they cannot through consensus and through procedure, and parliamentary sessions with the elected leadership of the kingdom.
That seems hard as the Brexit, makes hurdles and ways the Government and Conservative Party didn’t anticipate, as they are continuing to postpone and unleash uncertainty on the public. Together with the extended use of time, as well as the government doesn’t reveal their ideal scenarios. So there isn’t public knowledge of how the current leadership and cabinet wants to succeed in their Brexit negotiations. The White Paper on the Brexit earlier this year, was more a wish-list, than an initial document saying what could be interfering and could be problematic. The interesting is that the House of Lords comes with better work and stronger paper assessing their legality and use of laws to become sovereign from European Union. Though, with warning effect if the Conservative Party plans to use the legislation of the tyrant Henry VIII. If anyone would have heard that Angela Merkel thought of using draconian laws of Nazi-Germany, it would have created havoc inside Germany and also abroad. The same should be happening, when the United Kingdom thinks of using Tudor Dynasty worst laws to break from Europe. There should be other ways to regain freedom and make it in a transparent and accountable way. Just take a look at what the House of Lords wrote!
What the Minister needs to do before Brexit:
“The Minister sign a declaration in the Explanatory Memorandum to each statutory instrument amending the body of EU law stating whether the instrument does no more than necessary to ensure that the relevant aspect of EU law will continue to make sense in the UK following the UK’s exit from the EU, or that it does no more than necessary to implement the outcome of negotiations with the EU” (…) “The Explanatory Memorandum to each statutory instrument sets out clearly what the EU law in question currently does (before Brexit); what effect the amendments made by the statutory instrument will have on the law (as it will apply after Brexit) or what changes were made in the process of conversion; and why those amendments or changes were necessary” (HL Paper 123, P: 4, 2017).
Henry VIIIs legislation:
“in the context of environmental legislation … it is particularly important that, where existing EU laws have been implemented into UK laws (either by way of primary or secondary legislation), these are in the main amended or repealed only by Parliament, or only after sufficient parliamentary scrutiny has been provided. It must only be in exceptional and limited circumstances that Henry VIII clauses are used to amend existing environmental legislation or that transposed by way of the GRB in secondary legislation” (HL Paper 123, P:15, 2017).
“Should this occur, the UK will need to have a version of EU law, amended to fit the circumstances of a non-negotiated Brexit, put in place by the date of the UK’s exit from the EU. The Government must give careful consideration to what kind of contingency plan would be needed in order to deal with any rejection of the Brexit deal by either side” (HL Paper 123, P: 19, 2017).
“We note, in addition, that the DPRRC has already considered the possibility of expanding the use of these strengthened scrutiny procedures. In the same report it states that “We have considered whether the strengthened scrutiny procedures covered in this Report might appropriately be made available in respect of delegated powers which, while they are not Henry VIII powers, nonetheless give Ministers discretion to legislate widely across important areas of public policy. This could provide Parliament with an enhanced scrutiny role over significant statutory instruments that would otherwise be subject only to the affirmative procedure. We draw this possibility to the attention of the House.” The ‘Great Repeal Bill’ would seem a suitable candidate for such an expanded use of a strengthened scrutiny procedure” (HL Paper 123, P: 32, 2017).
So if you thought the House of Lords reports devastating enough. There are enough of articles and words on the legislation that the Conservatives thinks of using. That the HM Government should not think again of using it. As the legacy of the king and his rule wasn’t in an hour of peace or justice. It was more of tyranny and devastation in the will of one man. Now the same could open as the altering of power from the chambers of Westminster, could easily damage the will of people to support the cabinet and the parliament. When they know that they can take the power without hesitation and without thinking vetoing the rule, as they continue to control the kingdom. Certainly, the people of United Kingdom, did not vote for the supremacy of the cabinet and parliament over the people. They have voted for the Parliament and their members to represent them and their interests. That is not withhold to take control and overrule the public, as the laws of Henry VIII does!
What Henry VIII did:
“Yet, contrary to the popular perception, it was the Statute of Proclamations itself which demonstrated that in Tudor England there were at least perceived to be some limitations on royal power. The statutory programme of the Reformation Parliament changed England. Maybe it did give Henry VIII everything he wanted, but he needed Parliamentary consent. In the 1539 Parliament itself, the Act of Six Articles defined doctrinal matters as the king wished. Literally. His own handwriting covers the draft manuscript. In brief it was Catholicism, with the King replacing the Pope. And how did the Merrie Monarch, as Head of the Church, exercise his new powers? Shortly afterwards three Catholics were hanged drawn and quartered for treason: three Protestants were burnt alive for heresy. And they were dragged to their deaths, two by two along the filthy road; one martyr of each faith was carried on the hurdle side-by-side with the martyr of another” (Rt. Hon. Lord Judge, 2016).
Against use of Henry VIII:
“Moreover, it hardly needs stressing that the proposed use of Henry VIII powers in legislating for Brexit would dramatically undercut the very basis on which its supporters sought this momentous change. The sovereignty of Parliament was central to the case of those campaigning to leave the EU. The use of Henry VIII powers attacks the foundations of this principle, strengthening the executive and weakening Parliament. Parliamentary sovereignty demands real Parliamentary scrutiny” (Liberty, 2017).
So when you have a King like Henry VIII and his legacy, that the a modern day Parliament wants to use his legislation and his use of powers. Proves the lost democratic values within the Parliament and White Hall. That they are revising their place in Europe, by going back in time to a King and his legislation, seems preposterous, still in our day and age. The Theresa May government doesn’t care about how and why, instead of the result. They don’t care if their ways of battling the uncertain with tools of tyrants, make them open the ways of tyranny.
Since this sort legislation and laws should have been turned away and only remembered for their aggressively attacks on society and giving powers to the king. That this is sort of function the Cabinet and Conservative Government seeks before notifying European Union and the Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty.
Certainly, is this the legacy the parliament and Conservative Party of our day want to leave behind? That they resurfaced ghost draconian legislation to regain more power and give them ability to overpower and control the laws as they leave the European Union. So, the House of Lords and the House of Commons, should have the common sense and stop the laws and the applications made by the rule of Henry VIII time. That they are in the minds and considered proves the lacking trust they have in consensus and modern democratic values, as the Conservative Government thinks these sort of laws is in place when they repeal the EU legislation that is part of the UK laws of modern day Britain. Peace.
Reference:
HL Paper 123 – ‘The ‘Great Repeal Bill’ and delegated powers’ (07.03.2017), House of Lords, United Kingdom
Rt. Hon. Lord Judge – ‘Ceding Power to the Executive; the Resurrection of Henry VIII’ (12.04.2016)
Liberty – ‘Liberty’s Written Submissions to the House of Lords Constitution Committee Inquiry into the Legislative Process: Delegated Powers’ (January 2017)