The C919, the first airliner designed entirely in China, successfully completed its maiden commercial flight, marking a major turning point for the Chinese aviation industry which has long aspired to compete with its Western counterparts.

Beijing has high ambitions for the C919 and hopes it will be able to compete with the most popular foreign planes, such as the Boeing 737 MAX and Airbus A320. According to state broadcaster CCTV, in the future, the majority of passengers will be able to choose to travel on these large, domestically designed aircraft.

A successful maiden flight

China Eastern Airlines flight MU9191, operated by C919, landed smoothly at Beijing International Airport nearly 40 minutes ahead of schedule, around 12:30 p.m. local time (04:30 GMT) , as reported by CCTV. A passenger on board the plane told CCTV that the flight was extremely smooth, comfortable and memorable, and that he would remember it for a long time.

The plane took off from Shanghai’s Hongqiao Airport early in the morning, CCTV footage showed. It is estimated that there were around 130 passengers on board. Before takeoff, dozens of people gathered at Shanghai airport to admire the sleek plane. Once on board, passengers received red boarding passes and were treated to a luxurious “themed meal” to celebrate the historic event.

China, which is striving to become self-reliant in the technology sector, has invested heavily in the production of this first Chinese airliner. Although state-owned Comac is responsible for building the aircraft, many of the plane’s parts come from different countries, demonstrating the international collaboration in this ambitious endeavor.

The C919, a modern airliner

The C919 has reached an important milestone by completing its maiden commercial flight. China now aspires to consolidate its position on the global civil aviation scene and become a major player in the aviation industry. This success represents a true symbol of the rise of Chinese industry in the field of aeronautics.

China Eastern Airlines announced that the C919 will be put into service from Monday for scheduled routes between Shanghai and Chengdu, according to CCTV.

The first copy of this narrow-body aircraft, capable of carrying 164 passengers, was officially delivered to the Chinese airline in December 2022. It marks an important milestone in the development of China’s aviation industry. Asia, particularly China, is a key market for aerospace giants such as Airbus and Boeing. The latter seek to meet the growing demand for air travel from an expanding middle class.

Airbus strengthens its presence in China

In April, Airbus announced plans to double its production capacity in China. An agreement was also signed for the construction of a second assembly line in Tianjin, in the northeast of the country, dedicated to the A320. The first assembly site in Tianjin, opened in 2008, currently produces four A320s per month, but Airbus hopes to increase this rate to six per month by the end of 2023.

The introduction of the C919 on scheduled flights between Shanghai and Chengdu is a significant milestone for China Eastern Airlines. This demonstrates China’s commitment to developing its aviation industry and becoming a major player on the global stage. Growing demand for travel in Asia provides ample opportunities for international aircraft manufacturers as they seek to meet the needs of the growing middle class. With the expansion of its production capacities in China, Airbus strengthens its presence in this strategic market and confirms its commitment to the Chinese aeronautical industry.

According to a recent report from Goldman Sachs, a renowned global financial institution, the world economy is predicted to be predominantly led by Asian countries by 2050. However, among the top ten leading economies, there will also be a South American country.

The report highlights Brazil as the South American nation that is expected to secure a position within the top ten, showcasing significant economic growth with a projected nominal GDP of 8.7 trillion dollars. Goldman Sachs analysis indicates that Brazil is anticipated to hold the eighth position in the ranking of the world’s leading economic powers by 2050, maintaining this position even after 25 years.

It is important to note that despite the recent slowdown in real GDP growth across developed and emerging economies, there are still nations that will continue to dominate the global economic landscape in the years to come. According to Goldman Sachs, the five largest economies in the world by 2050 will be China, the United States, India, Indonesia, and Germany.

These projections are based on GDP estimates combined with long-term real exchange rate projections, which allow for the anticipation of the real value of the US dollar in major economies over time. Looking ahead to 2075, the United States is expected to face a more challenging outlook, as it would be surpassed by China and India, securing the third position. Indonesia, on the other hand, is projected to maintain its fourth position. Additionally, an African economy, Nigeria, is predicted to emerge and occupy the fifth position.

Overall, the report highlights the shifting dynamics of the global economy, with Asian countries and Brazil expected to play a significant role in driving growth and development. It also underscores the importance of long-term planning and investment in emerging markets, as these nations are likely to offer significant opportunities for businesses and investors in the years to come.

However, it is important to note that these projections are subject to change based on a range of factors, including political and economic developments, technological advancements, and shifts in global trade patterns. As such, it is crucial for policymakers and business leaders to remain vigilant and adaptable in the face of these changes, in order to ensure continued growth and prosperity for their respective nations and industries.

Inflation is soaring in the country, the Turkish lira is collapsing and there are increasing signs of impoverishment of the population. At the same time, GDP and growth are on the rise. Experts assure us that the resilience of the Turkish economy is a puzzle. If Turkey frees itself from terrorist Islamist rulers, there is a great opportunity for sustainable development that the Turkish people truly deserve.

Talking about economics in Turkey is a bit like stepping into a ring with a masked opponent where all punches are allowed. You come out stunned and have the strange feeling of being completely disoriented. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who has been in power for twenty years, says it to anyone who will listen: you have to know how to “remain patient and maintain confidence” in times of crisis, because “we know what we are doing and we know how to do it.”

Finance Minister Nureddin Nebati, the third person close to the head of state to hold the post in two years, attempted a semantic explanation of the situation a month ago in Istanbul and in public, favoring “a heterodox approach” in a formulation that was convoluted to say the least, which, according to the former Türk Telekom board member, “represents an epistemological break with neoclassical economic thinking and is gaining ground with behavioral and neuroeconomic sciences.”

Viewed from above, the numbers actually make you dizzy. Since 2018, the country seems to have experienced only a succession of currency crises, each worse than the last. The Turkish lira (TL) has lost more than 28% against the dollar since Jan. 1. In 2021, it had contracted by 44%. The trade balance expanded by 430% in October. Inflation reached 85.5% over a year in the same month, the highest level in a quarter century, according to the Turkish Institute of Statistics. Specifically, this translates to a 117% increase in prices for transportation, 99% for food and 85% for housing. According to the Turkish Confederation of Trade Unions (DISK), these increases affect the lowest wages and precarious housing by 126% to 146%. In other words, a challenge knowing that more than half of Turkish workers are paid the minimum wage, i.e. 5,500 TL, less than 300 euros per month.

Being a money laundering haven, which was the main obstacle to its EU membership, or a tourist destination is not enough for Turkey, a third world country, to play the role of a first class country in terms of economy and finance by earning dirty money. We can all hear now the sound of its moaning and the devastation of its economic machine as one of the consequences of a long economic stagnation. The country is suffering deeply from the pandemic of declining tourism revenues and the real weaknesses of its economy, the one that was fueled by investments from around the world and the sale of real estate. The question is: “How will Erdogan’s government manage to control the protests of the population in the wake of a 300% inflation rate?

No one expected good inflation figures

The new peak reached since the AKP succeeded President Recep Tayyip Erdogan in power 20 years ago is fueling debate about it. A journalist and law professor Ersan Sen argue loudly on television. Sen says 59 percent of people can’t get by on their money anymore. “And another 27 percent say they are about to.”

People in an Istanbul market describe how bad the situation is for them. There is talk of inflation as high as 50 percent in a few weeks. One man says he keeps a close eye on rising prices. “I go to the market twice a week, on Monday and Thursday. And I always shop at the same stalls. But even between Monday and Thursday, the prices go up,” he says. Government talks about good tradeIn contrast, if you listen to Turkish Finance Minister Nureddin Nebati, things don’t sound so crazy. In a speech after the announcement of the new inflation rate, he gives the impression that he is trying to say, “Crisis – what kind of crisis?” The economy’s capacity utilization is around 79 to 80 percent, Nebati says. “In fact, the Turkish economy and population are not only living with high inflation since the new figures were announced. Inflation has been in double digits for years. But this is eating away at both the reserves of companies and the savings of the country’s inhabitants.

Experts expect a further rise experts like Hakki Öztürk, from the renowned Bahcesehir University, do not see the situation easing. “Inflation can go up to 70 percent and then fall back a bit,” he says. “In the best case, it will be around 45 to 50 percent by the end of the year.” Personnel costs are low. By contrast, price increases in other areas are all the more significant. In the transport sector alone, official statistics indicate an inflation rate of about 100 percent per year. Energy prices, which have recently risen sharply internationally, are acting as a catalyst in Turkey, which has few raw materials and depends on imports.

Low interest rates for more investment

Government is primarily responsible, says expert Öztürk. In defiance of all economic principles, it has continued to lower interest rates. “If there had been no interest rate cut, neither the exchange rate would have been as bad, nor inflation as high – and interest rates on government bonds in dollars and Turkish lira would not be as high either,” says Öztürk.Low interest rates for more investment – that is the heart of the so-called Turkish economic model. Low interest rates for more investment – that’s the heart of the so-called Turkish economic model. it will take time for it to work, says Finance Minister Nebati. It’s true: interest rates are low relative to inflation. And the exchange rate of the lira against other currencies has also stabilized – albeit at a low level.and this will continue, says Nebati: “Then agriculture will produce more. There will also be a boom here because of the good weather. Trade is also alive – and hopefully the war will end soon. And: Our income from tourism will increase beyond our expectations.”

Concerns in the tourism industry

At the same time, tourism entrepreneurs are worried about the war in Ukraine. For recently, a few million Russians and Ukrainians have come to Turkey. But none of this is due to the misery in which the opposition sees the country. According to the spokesman for the largest opposition party, the CHP, Faik Öztrak, only the government is to blame. “They said they would make Turkey one of the ten largest economies. But they only placed it among the ten countries with the highest inflation in the world,” Öztrak said. “Who is responsible for all this? Who is the head of the government of this country? Of course: Recep Tayyip Erdogan.”

The “special military operation” that Russia deployed in Ukraine marks a new stage in the conflict between these two countries, as well as the relationship between Moscow and Western powers. Shortly after the attack, most Russian stocks lost two-thirds of their value, forcing the government to close the market. It seemed that it was Ukraine that attacked Russia! However, this is not far from the truth, as crippling sanctions and global backlash will further isolate and suppress Russian tyranny.

If he invades Ukraine, Russian President Vladimir Putin would be starting a new global dispute with the West. He should think about how the last confrontation ended, analysts say.

MOSCOW — Vladimir Pozner was an English-language Soviet propaganda editor in 1962 in Moscow, a job that gave him rare access to American newspapers and magazines. That allowed him to follow the Cuban missile crisis outside the filter of the Soviet media and feel a world on the brink of war.

Pozner, a longtime Russian television journalist, says he feels something similar now.

“The smell of war is very strong,” he said in an interview on Friday, a day when shelling on the front line in eastern Ukraine intensified. “If we talk about the relationship between Russia and the West, and in particular, the United States, I feel that it is as bad as it was at any point in the Cold War, and perhaps, in a certain sense, even worse.”

Unlike in 1962, what now hangs over Europe is not the threat of nuclear war, but that of a major land war. But the sense that Russia and the United States are entering a new version of the Cold War, long raised by some analysts on both sides of the Atlantic, has become inescapable.

President Biden hinted as much Tuesday in the East Room of the White House, promising that if Russia invaded Ukraine, “we will bring the world together to oppose their aggression.” Russian President Vladimir Putin ratcheted up tensions on Saturday when he oversaw a test launch of nuclear-capable hypersonic missiles that can evade US defenses.

“We are entering a new stage of confrontation,” said Dmitry Suslov, a specialist in international relations at the Moscow Higher School of Economics. “After this crisis, naturally we are going to be much more explicit and open in recognizing that we are enemies, we are adversaries, with all the consequences that this entails.”

For now, no one knows how the world will come out of the crisis: whether Putin is staging an elaborate and costly hoax, or whether he really is about to launch the biggest military offensive in Europe since 1945. But it seems clear that Putin’s main goal is it is to reconsider the outcome of the original Cold War, even if it is at the cost of deepening a new one.

Putin seeks to dismantle the European security order that was established after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, when his country was weak and vulnerable, and to re-create the kind of geopolitical buffer zone that Russian rulers have felt they needed all along. the ages. He has given signs that he is prepared to achieve this through diplomatic means, but also through the use of force.

The crisis has already given Putin some tactical victories, as well as dangerous risks. Since last spring, when he first menacingly amassed troops on Ukraine’s borders, he has managed to attract the attention of Washington, a big deal for this Kremlin that, like in the Cold War, sees the confrontation with the United States as its defining conflict. But his actions have also incited anti-Russian attitudes and have further united Europe and the United States against Russia, something that should worry the Kremlin, since the West’s global economic and political power is still much greater.

Daniel Fried, a retired American diplomat who negotiated with Moscow during both the Soviet era and the Putin era, said he had a message for Russians who long for the days of the Cold War when their country was — according to his account — respected by United States. After all, the Soviet Union lost the original Cold War.

“You might get them back,” Fried said in an interview. “And it won’t go well for you.”

Unlike the Soviet council, Putin is not trying to wage a global ideological struggle nor is he — for now — bankrupting his country in a costly arms race. Russia is much more intertwined in the global economy, a situation some people still hope will help the world avoid such a deep and protracted East-West confrontation. And for the United States, it is China, not Russia, that now looms as the most serious long-term strategic adversary .

But for Putin, efforts to retrace his country’s defeat in the original Cold War have already lasted at least 15 years. In his speech at the Munich Security Conference in 2007, he declared his rejection of a US-led world order and warned of the “unexploded ordnance” left over from the Cold War: “ideological stereotypes” and “double standards” that they allowed Washington to rule the world while hindering Russia’s development.

This weekend, in one of many ominous developments in recent days, Russia will not attend the Munich conference, an annual gathering where, during previous tensions in the Putin government, Western officials had been able to meet with their Russian counterparts.

Instead, the Kremlin released footage of Putin in the Kremlin’s crisis room, directing test launches of his modernized nuclear-capable missile arsenal from bombers, submarines and ground-based launchers. It was a carefully timed reminder that, as Russian television recently told viewers, the country can turn American cities ” into radioactive ash .”

And Putin has massed a huge force in northern, eastern and southern Ukraine to signal that the Kremlin sees the former Soviet republic’s pro-Western turn as such a serious threat that it is prepared to wage war to stop it. The confrontation is somewhat reminiscent of the Berlin crisis of 1961, when the Soviets demanded that Western forces leave Berlin and East Germany finally built the wall dividing East and West. For some Russians, the fact that Ukraine is so much closer to Russia than to Berlin is what makes the new Cold War even more dangerous.

“At that time, the border passed through Berlin,” said Suslov, the Moscow analyst. “Now the border passes through Kharkiv,” a Ukrainian city on the Russian border that is a day’s drive from Moscow.

The Cold War also offers parallels for what could happen in Russia in the event of war. Analysts predict an even more authoritarian turn by the Kremlin and an even more ruthless pursuit of internal enemies with the justification that they are supposedly backed by the West. Pozner, a state television presenter who was born in Paris, lived for a time in New York and moved to Moscow in 1952, argued that Russia’s enemies in the West might even be quietly wishing for a war because it could weaken and discredit the country. .

“I am very worried,” Pozner said. “A Russian invasion of Ukraine is a catastrophe for Russia, first and foremost, in the sense of Russia’s reputation and what will happen inside Russia as a consequence.”

Some Russian analysts believe that Putin could still de-escalate the crisis and achieve a tactical victory. The threat of war has sparked a debate in Ukraine and in the West over the idea that Kiev might reject NATO membership. And the United States has already offered talks on a number of proposals that interest Moscow, such as placing missiles in Europe and limiting long-range bomber flights.

But Putin is making it clear that he wants more than that: a far-reaching, legally binding agreement to dismantle NATO’s presence in Eastern Europe.

The intensity of the crisis Putin designed is evident in the harsh language the Kremlin has used. Joining French President Emmanuel Macron in the Kremlin this month, Putin said Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky had no choice but to opt for a 2015 peace plan that Russia had pushed: “You may like it.” , they may not like it: you have to deal with it, friend”. At a joint press conference between Russian Foreign Minister Sergey V. Lavrov and his British counterpart Liz Truss, he said his conversation had resembled that of a “mute person with a person.” deaf”.

“Sometimes the discussions were quite heated between the Soviet and American leaders,” said Pavel Palazhchenko, a former Soviet diplomat. “But probably not as much and not as publicly as now. There really is no precedent.”

Palazhchenko, who was a translator for Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev in his meetings with American presidents, describes such language as a consequence of Russian frustration at ignoring the country’s security concerns. During the Cold War, Washington and Moscow agreed to historic arms control agreements. During the Putin era, little of that has happened.

“This is a clear emotional and psychological reaction to the years and even decades in which the West and the United States have disregarded Russian security concerns,” Palazhchenko said.

Doug Lute, a former US ambassador to NATO, rejects the idea that Russian interests were disrespected in the past, especially since Russia’s nuclear arsenal is “the only existential threat to the United States in the world.” But like Palazhchenko, he too sees lessons in the Cold War for getting out of the current crisis.

“We may be settling into a period where we have radically different worldviews or radically different ambitions, but even despite that political strife, there is room to do things in our mutual interest,” Lute said. “The Cold War could be a model to compete and cooperate at the same time.”

What if a possible Chinese invasion of Taiwan with the intention of obtaining (however politely!!!) the latest IC manufacturing technology results in the ashes of that technology? Isn’t it strategic to destroy at the right time the American technology used in TSMC making it inaccessible to the Chinese? The answer is ‘Yes’.

TSMC, for Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, is today the most strategic company in the world. Because it is practically the only one who knows how to manufacture the latest generation electronic chips. Because these chips, also called semiconductors (from the name of the property of the silicon substrate), are everywhere, in our kitchens, our living rooms, our telephones, our cars and the machines that manufacture them.

But also because Taiwan, where they are produced, is at the center of a standoff between China and the United States which could very soon lead to an armed conflict. Fighter planes and battleships criss-cross the sky and the waters of the Taiwan Strait which separates the island from its communist big sister.

With in particular for stake, the control of TSMC. However, the science behind such technology must reside in minds smart enough to know how to control and even sabotage at the right time. It seems that by using this simple strategic technique to destroy such tech by installed right equipments, the Chinese will become more polite and perhaps less savage!

China has changed and is no longer the “developing country” sometimes described in the past. Apart from its importance in trade with Europe, it is an actor with which relations have intensified in the fields of research and development or in that of technology. For the EU, China is both an economic partner and competitor, and a system and governance rival or alternative .

The objectives of the partnership
The EU’s primary objective is to be united against the Chinese giant. In March 2019, the European Commission published a strategic plan for China including concrete actions such as, for example:

To defend the objectives of the United Nations in matters of human rights, peace and security;

Commit to reducing CO2 emissions for the climate (China being both the first emitter, a builder of coal plants in other countries, but also the country that invests the most in renewable energies);

Agree with China to ensure peace and security in areas or countries where Beijing has influence such as Iran, the Horn of Africa, North Korea or the Gulf of Aden. Potential conflicts are numerous, including in the China Sea;

Find reciprocity in trade by avoiding protectionism or excessive support for local industries (via the WTO), as well as the difficulties linked to state ownership of certain companies;

Take into account in public contracts not only the price criterion, but also the working environment;

Strengthen security related to new technologies (such as 5G) to prevent hacking and espionage.

The aim of this plan is to adopt a less “naive”, more pragmatic and more realistic approach to the PRC, without giving in to overbidding, escalation or trade war. Balance is therefore difficult to find. But it is true that on each of the above points, examples abound of European failures. Overall, China has captured many markets by adopting operating rules that have allowed it to exercise “unfair competition” . To maintain its exchanges with Beijing, the European Union must therefore adopt a more offensive strategy.

Lessons from the past
Historically, the first diplomatic relations were established in 1975. A first strategic partnership plan was adopted in 2003. Others followed, until the recent “EU-China 2020 Strategic Agenda for Cooperation” plan , adopted in 2013.

This, now replaced by new objectives, remained very political and not very economical. The areas dealt with concerned peace, security, information, urbanization, climate, social progress, culture, education … Of course, the major sectors such as transport, aeronautics, energy , agriculture and more generally science and innovation were also discussed, but often succinctly to indicate that the two entities will cooperate and develop “joint initiatives” (joint laboratories, data exchange, etc.).

Finally, it seems after a few years that this has been done for the benefit of China. The example of the development of aeronautics or biotechnologies in China shows that Western countries have lost more than gained, both in terms of market share and technology transfer.

In the early 2000s, for example, France sold hundreds of Airbus A320s under contracts signed during official visits, with production and assembly in China as a counterpart with transfer of knowledge. Today, the China Commercial Aircraft Corporation is able to produce a new C919 aircraft , which will compete directly with the Airbus A320. The certificate of airworthiness could arrive this year and nearly a thousand orders have already been placed.

Today’s relationships and instruments
Moreover, despite these strategic plans, economic relations remain dependent on current events.

Even if the latest plan mentions the situation in Xinjiang (Uyghur Autonomous Region), a few words at a press conference can deteriorate relations. Recently, the European sanctions linked to the fate of the Uyghurs provoked the anger of China, which reacted with counter-sanctions which can go beyond the diplomatic sphere and result in the calling into question of trade agreements and in particular of the “Comprehensive Agreement on Investments” . However, these advances are crucial from an economic point of view. For example, German (Volkswagen, Siemens, BMW) or French (banks in particular) companies expect a lot.

In addition, China remains very firm in its will to implement its famous “Belt and Road Initiative”, and the countries of Eastern Europe are on the way. Moreover, relations with the European Union are often referred to as “17 + 1” (or 16 + 1), counting the countries of the East as one, which allows China to negotiate directly with them.

Other disputes over 5G and Huawei or the origin of the Covid also disrupt these relations. Europeans Nokia and Ericsson could provide the EU with 5G infrastructure, but Huawei is better placed on the price / quality level. Also, beyond these economic questions, political choices are taken into account, particularly with regard to security conditions , such as those related to data protection or the risk of espionage. With diplomatic language, we indicate that the EU is not opposed to any company but must avoid dependence on risky suppliers … China, for its part, sees it as disguised protectionism.

Despite everything, trade is important: the EU is the second largest trading power and the largest exporter of products and services. Together, China, Europe and the United States account for 46% of international merchandise trade in 2019. EU trade in goods (exports and imports) with the rest of the world represents around 15% of trade global. For goods, Europe’s leading export partners are the United States (406 billion) then China (210 billion), and in terms of imports, China (394 billion) then the United States (267 billion) according to Eurostat:

China EU.

In trade matters, the European Commission negotiates free trade agreements with the rest of the world, but the Member States have their say, through the Council of the EU (consulted) and the Parliament (which has a power of veto). The official objective of the EU is set in the Functioning Treaty of the European Union which specifies in its article 206:

“The Union contributes, in the common interest, to the harmonious development of world trade, to the gradual abolition of restrictions on international trade and foreign direct investment, as well as to the reduction of customs and other barriers. “

As a result, economic policy with China is turned, as in other geographic areas (Canada, Japan, etc.) towards negotiations aimed at developing trade and not protectionism. Nevertheless, the EU has equipped itself with tools to defend against unfair practices with very extensive competition law. The examples of sanctions against American firms (digital giants) are emblematic of this power.

In addition, the EU has integrated into its new trade strategy adopted in February 2021 called “Trade policy review: An open, sustainable and assertive trade policy” the respect of the Paris agreements on the climate and the respect of European standards (environmental by example). Without explicitly targeting China, these rules are a way of guiding economic policy.

They are accompanied by the trade defense instruments mentioned above. Anti-dumping is a typical example. A product is considered to have benefited from dumping when its selling price in Europe is lower than the price in the exporting country. This practice, which aims to capture markets in order to find itself in a dominant position, is often criticized against China. European legislation therefore aims today to speed up decision-making before it is too late because the markets and shareholdings are changing very quickly.

A recent example can be cited with the leather shoes imported from China . In 2006, to counter this dumping, the EU took radical measures by imposing customs duties of 19.4% on Chinese exporters on the grounds that they benefited from state subsidies contrary to WTO rules.

In conclusion, the EU intends to show its strength in its economic relations with China. For this, in addition to bilateral discussions, it strives to play a leading role within the World Trade Organization (WTO) by giving the Commission a negotiating role for all the Member States and expressing itself with one voice when negotiating trade treaties, instead of lining up behind the United States or leaving in disarray.

The Brexit has deeply divided the British political class. The two major parties, the Labor Party and the Conservative Party, have been divided throughout the process not only into supporters and opponents of the Brexit, but also and especially into supporters of a “hard Brexit” and a “soft Brexit.” MPs have slammed their party doors after decades of involvement, preferring to form a new parliamentary group. The Brexit will leave a lasting mark on the political class and force a realignment of forces. Regionalist groups have confirmed their electoral weight in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

After long and uncertain negotiations, the European Union and the United Kingdom reached an agreement on Dec. 24, 2020, sealing their new relationship. The 1,248-page agreement is intended to create a new legal framework for the post-Brexit period. The United Kingdom officially leaves the customs union on Jan. 1, 2021. A free trade agreement provides for the reintroduction of customs controls (which were abolished in 1993). The volume of trade between the United Kingdom and the European Union is around 700 billion euros per year.

The question arises as to the new geopolitical positioning of the United Kingdom vis-à-vis Europe and the world. A first option would be to join the European Economic Area (EEA), like Norway and Iceland, which would allow the United Kingdom to continue to enjoy the benefits of the Common Market (the four freedoms of movement of capital, goods, services and people … but Brexit supporters have protested precisely this last point!), without having a say in the content.

Currently, however, the requirement for access to the EEA is membership in the EU or the European Free Trade Association (EFTA). EFTA had been established in 1960 at the instigation of the United Kingdom as a rival to the EEC (European Economic Community), which had been established three years earlier, and at that time focused more on free trade than on the creation of common institutions and policies, in line with the British perception of the finality of European integration. The United Kingdom had to leave EFTA in 1973 when it joined the EEC.

There has been some talk of a return to EFTA, but such a project would likely face a veto from Switzerland, which is now the most populous and powerful member. This is related to the current balance within the association (two Nordic states, Norway and Iceland, and two Alpine states, Switzerland and Liechtenstein).There has been some talk of a return to EFTA, but such a project would likely face the veto of Switzerland, which today is its most populous and powerful member. This is related to the current balance within the association (two Nordic states, Norway and Iceland, and two Alpine states, Switzerland and Liechtenstein).

There has been some talk of a return to EFTA, but such a project would likely face the veto of Switzerland, which today is its most populous and powerful member. This is due to the current balance within the union (two Nordic states, Norway and Iceland, and two Alpine states, Switzerland and Liechtenstein).

Why do greenhouse gases let radiations in and why do they block it out!!!? Are they really biased? According to science sources  “in the solar system, most of the thermal energy received by a planet comes from solar radiation and, in the absence of atmosphere, a planet radiates ideally like a black body, the atmosphere of a planet absorbs and reflects part of these radiations thus modifying the thermal balance. Thus the atmosphere isolates the Earth from space vacuum like a greenhouse isolates plants from the outside air.”

In 1886, Svante Arrhenius was the first to take an interest in the greenhouse effect that CO2 could cause, rejoicing in its impact on rising temperatures. In the 1920s, this hypothesis seems to be confirmed by the American Meteorological Bureau, which reports the total melting of known glaciers.

In the 1970s, it was the fear of “global cooling ” that gained ground. Since 1940, temperatures have dropped making Arrhenius’ theory dubious for some. In 1988, the magazine Ciel et Espace still titled, ” The return of the great colds “. The year 88 remains that in which the heat prevails definitively and sees the creation of the IPCC whose main function is to forge the opinion of decision-makers on climate issues, its theses being as follows:

1CO2 emissions of human origin have increased sharply, accentuating the greenhouse effect and warm the planet.

Ideas, researchers and a certain complexity

Skeptical climatologists

Contrary to popular speech, many climatologists and atmospheric specialists fiercely fight the positions of the IPCC. Richard Linzen (Massachusetts Institute of Technology-MIT) the most eminent of them is the bête noire of the carbocentrists. Roger Pielke (University of Colorado), Roy Spencer (University of Alabama), Marcel Leroux (University Lyon-3)… etc are just a few names on a long list.

The “solarists”

They constitute a battalion provided and structured (Henrik Svensmark and Eigil Friis-Christensen, Nir Shaviv, Nicolas Scafetta…). According to them, most of the recent climatic variations are explained by solar phenomena. Obviously the IPCC replies that its calculations take this phenomenon into account. However, it is not on the variations in illumination that the ” solarists” draw attention, but on the cycles of solar eruption which vary the quantity of ionizing particles which reach us. The latter seem to play a fundamental role in the formation of clouds and therefore in the evolution of the Earth’s temperature. The CLOUD experiment at CERN confirms this idea.

The ” oceanists “

The thermal energy contained in the oceans is immensely greater than that contained in the atmosphere and constitutes a major element which must be taken into account. An article by Gilbert Combo and Prashant Saderhmukh (University of Colorado) published in 2008 in the journal Climate Dynamics , offers an explanation according to which the temperature variations of the continents are dictated by those of the oceans and not by the greenhouse effect.

Geologists

The questions asked by this specialty are as many thorns planted in the official thesis. How to reconcile the IPCC thesis with the proven reality of ice ages during which the atmospheric CO2 content was higher (5 times more in the Cretaceous-Jurassic, 15 times more in the Ordovician-Silurian)? The international congress of geology which was held in August 2008 showed that many specialists in the field are in frontal disagreement with the theses of the IPCC.

Physicists

They may well put an end to all controversy. The general idea simplified is that CO2 would play the role of glass which, in a greenhouse, traps heat. Its increase would therefore be at the origin of the greenhouse effect. Physicists have strongly criticized this approach. It is established that water vapor alone is responsible for at least 60% of the greenhouse effect, some authors go up to 95%. More serious, the warming mechanism proposed by official theory, violates the second principle of thermodynamics. In the eyes of physicists, this defect is the worst that can happen to a scientific theory.

In 2008, the American Physical Society (APS), supporting the theory of the greenhouse effect, published the climate-skeptical point of view of Christoper Monckton. Subsequently several ten members of the APS expressed a skeptical position. In October 2009, more than one hundred and sixty physicists, including Ivar Giaver, Nobel Prize winner in physics in 1973, sent a letter to the United States Senate to denounce the official position of the APS, affirm that the consensus displayed is an illusion, and insist on the fact that ” consensus is not an acceptable test of scientific validity “.

Some other ideas

Environmental sciences, Earth, meteorology … are also manifested. Syun Akasofu (University of Alaska Fairbanks) protests against the image conveyed by the IPCC and the media of the evolution of ice floes. Other assertions of the IPCC are challenged by Christopher Landsea, hurricane specialist (American Federal Agency for Oceans and Atmosphere) or by Paul Reiter (Institut Pasteur) on the spread of epidemics… etc.

Conclusion

The situation seems a little more complicated than the IPCC and the media are willing to tell us, making modeling complicated. Yet nothing seems to shake the certainties of the IPCC, which is reluctant to admit its mistakes. The “hockey stick” curve is the most famous example.

With the enthronement of the new emperor, Naruhito, scheduled for May 1, Japan will enter the Reiwa era (which can be translated as “beautiful harmony”). This name is for the first time taken from a Japanese text: the  Manyo-shu , the oldest collection of Japanese poems (8th century) . The system of imperial eras being derived from Chinese practice, the names chosen so far refer to verses of classical Chinese literature.

Suga, the top government spokesman,  said the name of the person who devised the new era name is being withheld upon their request, as well as out of concern the name could be strongly associated with one particular individual. He also said the government would not disclose the other candidate era names or how many were considered.

“For the first time in history, we have decided on an era name based on Japanese literature,” Prime Minister Shinzo Abe said, adding that the “Manyoshu,” which dates back more than 1,200 years, contains poems made by people regardless of their standing, and represents Japan’s rich national culture and long tradition.

“The era name represents a culture being born and nurtured by people’s hearts coming together beautifully,” he said.

“We have decided the new name to be Reiwa in the hope that Japan will be a country where each Japanese person can achieve success with hopes for the future like plum flowers that bloom brilliantly after the severe cold,” Abe said.

“I sincerely hope the new era name will be widely accepted by the public and become deeply rooted in the lives of the people of Japan,” he said.

Suga said a government decree on changing the era name and a Cabinet notice about the reading of the new era name were approved at a Cabinet meeting earlier that day. He said the decision came after a meeting of an expert panel on the era name, a hearing with the heads and vice heads of all Cabinet members.