Viv(r)e la recherche se propose de rassembler des témoignages, réflexions et propositions sur la recherche, le développement, l'innovation et la culture



Rechercher dans ce blog

Affichage des articles dont le libellé est European union. Afficher tous les articles
Affichage des articles dont le libellé est European union. Afficher tous les articles

mercredi 21 juin 2017

Dear German friends (2) a problematic relationship

A few things we do not bear anymore

The previous blog was intended to resume the lessons of french last elections, namely that the European Union and the Euro are likely to explode in the absence of radical change in European policy, if our German friends do not cease to want a Europe that is a Bigger Germany, to dominate it, to run it their way.. 

Let’s just compare  Dear Mutti, a lowbrow grocer, to those great German Statesmen, the two Helmut Kohl, recently deceased, and Schmidt!

A few examples of what went wrong

The Greek crisis: the subprime crisis (Hey, by the way, what about Deutsche Bank) has turned into the debt crisis of states, hitting heavily the European weak link that was Greece. Indeed, the systematic cheating of the public accounts in Greece (with the complicity of whom?), the inexistence of  a state worthy of the name in Greece, that  could not last and was threatening the European area – explosion was possible. Okay, had to hit fast and hard, and you did it.
But, as good protestant, you could grant no absolution and had to punish the sinner until he cries tears of blood. The  best evidence of this will to punish is that it led to decisions that were detrimental, not only for Grece, but for all of Europe. Your delays, your concerns in the implementation of the European stability mechanism, in the buying of national  state debts by the Central Bank have cost billions. Today, even while the IMF insists on the necessary cancellation of part of the Greek debt, you ‘re still delaying this measure, indispensable to a dying Greece... for the cause of German elections. It's shameful, it is contrary to the purpose – for god sake, how the Greeks could rebuild a State in those conditions?

Deficits: of course, a current account deficit, unreasonable and renewed year after year, is not tolerable, nor sustainable for a State. But finally, intra European trade is such that the deficit of your partners contributes heavily to the surplus which you are so proud of. In the end, if we are a European Community, the deficit of these European countries towards Germany ihas no more importance than that of Wyoming towards California, right? It's across Europe that we must judge the deficit-Are we a community or not ?
And then, in times of crisis and moreover, when  interest rates are at their lowest, deficit  is better than recession, right?
Finally, there are also political considerations. Can you remember ? , The reunification of Germany with parity between East and West marks was economically wrong, but politically inevitable. Kohl did it, we understood it, a good  German reunification was necessary for Europe And, due to convergence towards euro, we had to endure interest rates greater than we might have had.  Instead of defending foot to foot your immediate interests., you should think of political agenda. Kohl and Schmitt did !

Abandon of nuclear power, for purely demagogic reasons, with the reactivation of coal or even lignite plants: this  was a crime against the economy (a more expensive energy), against global warming, against public health (thanks for the episodes of pollution). You have done much worse than this poor Trump, with its coal mines in Wyoming which no sound industrialist would  operate ! You did much worse, but no one seems to notice. Bravo ! Let’s agonize Trump !

Immigration : one day, you encouraged all refugees to immigrate and to come to Germany. Orban then decided to let all migrants who were piling up in the Hungarian stations, oddly, you were not pleased at all. Then you wanted to decide which country will host refugees and how many ( who gave you the power to do this ?).  Finally, sheepishly, you entered into an agreement of sequestering refugees with the Turkish neo-sultan, and now we depend on him, threatening to open the valves whenever he dislikes something (an article, a song, a sermon). Brilliant !
But who gave you a mandate to lead all  European Nations immigration policy? We understand that your catastrophic demography (by the way, why in a  so well governed country?)  incites you to encourage immigration, but this isn't the choice of everyone.

Your policy of competitiveness by low cost: the average hourly wage in France and Germany is about the same. But inequalities are much stronger in Germany. While some high technology sectors remained protected, in many others,  you ‘ve given up your strong industrial traditions for a policy of low quality, low wages. You have 22.5% of “working poors” against 8.8% in France (21.3% in England, 3.8% in Belgium). Your policy has not done miracles, it has simply turned unemployed into poor workers. You have even invented reverse auction -  work assignments at least asking. This is a policy that values work! You have completely unbalanced markets, french pork producers facing your giant abattoirs populated by overexploited Polish workers know something about.
This policy of competitiveness by cost, it's really the reverse of a model who could rally the majority of Europeans, the Rhine Capitalism Model- it’s the opposite of what made the reputation of your industry. You also had to cheat, and as you don't do things by halves, it gives Volkswagen. Focusing on competitiveness by cost instead of innovation, you  are now scandalized to see the Chinese taking the jewels of your industry, your robot manufacturers  and you want to limit their investments. But now, they are the  real industrialists!
And this policy of social crush,  of competitiveness by cost, and especially wage costs, you want to impose it on all over Europe !

And let’s speak of your  bulldozer way, the way you perverted the European Institutions, to impose your interests. Thus, for the catastrophic "liberalization" of the electricity market, while EDF was exploding, you managed to sell the idea that there was no monopoly in Germany, since there was a public distributor by Länder. Bravo! And it's just a small example.

No, that cannot and will not last for long !  It's five to midnight, five years before the explosion of the Euro and the European Community. You really have to  change, quickly and deeply. To change of Merkel and of policy

Good  election year !


mardi 20 juin 2017

Dear German friends (1) a problematic relationship


A problematic relationship

I quite like Germany, I like your serious and your relaxation, I appreciate your cities and your culture - I was still in Berlin a few days ago. One thing amused me: your newspapers apparently had some trouble to translate "La France insoumise" , they left in quotes, not translated, and explaining that insoumise  was something like rebel, but not quite. This concept, you obviously have some problems with !

Well, problems,  there are many others. You rejoice the victory of Emmanuel Macron, thinking that he will be a loyal liberal support of your Europe. Do not rejoice too quickly. Victory of Emmanuel Macron was not a victory for supporting his program, it was a victory of fear, fear in the first round of left-wing voters who feared a second round Le Pen Fillon, and voters on the right that were alarmed with a second round Mélenchon Le Pen; and the second round, the same. - but with a third of voters ready to leave the Euro and the European Community. Logically, the French have given their President the means to govern; but the record abstention shows clearly that there is no majority, no agreement to realize this type of reforms you like so much and urge us to make, such as the demolition of the labour code.

Don't be fooled. A large part of the french people voted against the Euro and the European Community; It is not that they are ready to leave  with a light heart ; even, I am afraid that , if asked the question, they would say that's not so much leave the European institutions they would like, but to evict you, as you have once again managed to be unbearable . And as for those who voted Macron, don't think they appreciate you a lot more -  a number of them have done so because they believe or hope that he will finally adopt a firmer attitude towards you.

Still, I don't think I am anti-German. My name may let think that I belong more to the Mediterranean sphere, but, by the way, I have at least as much Alsatian blood and family as southern. And for me, but not just  for me, I think it's five to midnight, that these really are the last five years that we give us and you to change radically the European policy.

 Otherwise, bye, bye Euro and European Community, or what will remain of it.  Because it will be better all destroy and leave it to the next generation to rebuild on a better basis.

One of your great statesmen just died. Helmut Kohl (and Helmut Schmitt before him) had a true political vision, they really make Europe  progress- and sometimes against the advice of economists. They knew, they had experienced it in their flesh, that politics has its own domain and  cannot be reduced to economy. They knew the importance of building a Europe where European Nations would live in harmony, in good society, in equality and would increasingly share a common future. 

What a contrast with Angela Merkel, with your Mutti, a lowbrow grocer, which sees Europe as a bigger Germany, defending, oh how effectively, German interests ; Which is normal since you are the best of the Europeans, those that everyone should imitate, oh how, confident and dominating are you again.  Angela Merkel has managed that, again, you are hated, and if European construction stops, your historical responsibility will be overwhelming.

It also seems to me that it is she who killed Helmut Kohl politically, and that he did not think much of her.

What’s wrong? Some answers in  next blog.

A clue. I've been among those who believed in the necessity of the Euro for political reasons, because I couldn't stand this apostrophe from the  Nixon Treasury minister : "the dollar is our currency, but it’s your problem." 

Well, you tell us now :  "euromarck is our currency, but it’s your problem."


It won't do!



jeudi 30 juin 2016

Glyphosate: a good decision

More a problem for IARC  than for glyphosate ?

By extending the authority of glyphosate for a limited period, until the European Chemicals Agency publishes its opinion, no later than at the end of 2017, the European Commission has not really reached a decision but took a solution of rational expectation. But the debate took a worrisome turn with the intense campaign calling for the withdrawal of glyphosate (the active principle of Round-upTM). For months, some environmentalists have argued that it is carcinogenic, based on a report by the IARC (International Agency for research on Cancer,), organization linked WHO (World Health Organization), which has classified it as "probably carcinogenic". However, this classification seems more questioning IARC, its methods, its ethics and its irresponsibility than glyphosate itself.
First,  no other agencies share the analysis of the CIRC. The international Program on Chemical Safety, the Guidelines for drinking water quality, the Core assessment group of the World Health Organization are in disagreement with the CIRC. As well as all other  safety agencies in the world, in particular the European Agency.
-In glyphosate evaluation, IARC has taken as only one external expert a certain Christopher Portier, statistician and non toxicologist, working for an association for the defence of the environment and leading for a long time a campaign against glyphosate. This commitment was not reported among the potential conflicts of interest in the report of the CIRC. The IARC and Portier then conducted an intense campaign to the European authorities, policies and media to discredit all the experts and reports that would not agree with their conclusions (i.e. all of them).
These methods, which are not the methods of debate in good faith and even make impossible any scientific debate, have rightly angered the German Federal Institute for risk assessment (BfR) - the rapporteur of the EU for glyphosate:
"The BfR has compiled the most comprehensive toxicological database probably in the world for glyphosate. This database includes hundreds of studies that have been made by many manufacturers of glyphosate or for their account, and thousands of references of the open literature. This huge amount of data shows that glyphosate is almost unique among the active substances of plant protection products. BfR believes that any database must be taken into account for the toxicological evaluation and evaluation risks of a substance, and not only a more or less arbitrary selection of studies. [...] The new classification of IARC of glyphosate as a carcinogen based on "limited evidence" in humans. This risk results from three epidemiological studies in the United States, the Canada and Sweden and is based on a statistical correlation between exposure to glyphosate and an increased risk of lymphoma non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. However, this assessment has not been confirmed in the very large cohort of the "Agricultural Health Study", also cited, nor in other studies. »
Following a second mandate from the Commission European to review the findings of the International Agency for research on cancer (IARC) regards the carcinogenicity potential of glyphosate or plant protection products containing glyphosate in review peer being the active ingredient, EFSA concluded that it is unlikely that glyphosate has a human carcinogen danger and that evidence do not support the classification of point view of its carcinogenic potential according to Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008. »
People who have not contributed to the work, which probably have not seen the evidence, which did not have the time to go into the details, which are not involved in the process, have signed a letter of support.
I'm sorry to say, but for me, with this letter, you leave the realm of science, you enter the field of lobbying and campaigns ('campaigning'), and this is not how EFSA works. For me, this is the sign that we are entering the Facebook science age. You have a scientific evaluation, you put it on Facebook and you count how many people 'like'. For us, this is not a progress. We, we produce a scientific opinion, we defend it, but we do not have to take into account if it is liked or not. »
The condemnation of the methods and practices of the IARC is devoid of ambiguity. However, EFSA position would be more solid, much more solid, if it came at what asked the European Commissioner health and have refused, on behalf of the industrial secret, manufacturers, supported by a decision of the European Union (ask you why we like Europe!): the publication of industrial studies which has, among other things, supported the EFSA decision. It is a position that is no longer tenable, and in health and environmental matters, manufacturers should be required to publish studies that justify their allegations, as pharmaceutical companies have come to accept to publish data from all clinical trials, positive or not. It is true that glyphosate industrials have agreed that these studies will be available in a given location, without the possibility to save or copy documents. It is obviously insufficient, and they cannot regain a credibility that in publishing and submitting their data freely to the criticism of all the experts.

IARC, an agency with evaporating credibility

Behind this is the scientific recognition of IARC, which is the only one among all the agencies to not rely on estimates of risks including the intrinsic risk and exposure. Thus the IARC also classified red meat and hot drinks as carcinogenic potential, like glyphosate and sausages  as carcinogenic – then more dangerous than glyphosate. The IARC precised it did not mean that it was necessary to forbid sausages, but simply need to have a balanced diet! If one follows the same reasoning, this means that it should not ban glyphosate, but use it in a balanced way. And there, we could agree.
In fact, the IARC seems to specialize in provocative and sensational statements which in fact, prove to be harmful. Its opinion on the carcinogenic nature of hot drinks earned him a stern warning from his tutelage (WHO): "the esophageal cancer is the eighth most common cancer in the world and one of the leading causes of cancer deaths. He invites the IARC to focus on "the factors for which there is evidence of established their causal role in cancer of the esophagus and other locations."
Health and especially the evaluation of the carcinogenic character of the compounds of our environment deserve indeed to be taken seriously, as well as issues that may result - in the case of glyphosate, effects on agriculture, and also on farmers if they replace it with more toxic herbicides. Glyphosate may seems to remain one of the most effective and one of the least toxic herbicides. An evaluation of  methods and ethics at the IARC seems necessary for this WHO agency to retain credibility.

The center of biological studies of Chize


To end on a more positive note, there are, and in France, little-known organizations that do a wonderful job in the assessment of agricultural practices. Thus, the center of biological studies of Chize (CNRS/Université de la Rochelle) can conduct studies closely involving researchers and farmers on an area of more than 450 km 2 and has more than 400 farms, 15,000 plots with practices very various. These experiments in real conditions in the field, provide the sometimes quite different results from those conducted in isolated patches. Thus, it seems that the quantities of nitrogen fertilizers and herbicides can be reduced by two without decreasing yields. The reason: it's a balance between the fertilizer, benefiting even weeds while herbicides in high doses destroy more rare and little annoying weeds than the most common, most damaging for crops; an effect difficult to show on isolated fields. So can be  set up an$ reasoned agriculture, based on scientific studies and the collaboration of farmers which, without renouncing the herbicides,  will decrease their disadvantages.