Tax liability is a major source of concern for anyone invested in Bitcoin and other digital assets. In sum, some have described it as nothing short of a nightmare.
But while some countries are putting pressure on investors and levying taxes on income and capital gains from Bitcoin transactions, many are taking a different approach—often with the aim of promoting better adoption and innovation within the crypto industry. They’ve implemented friendlier legislation, and allow investors to buy, sell, or hold digital assets with no tax liability.
Here’s our list of the nine most crypto-friendly tax jurisdictions.
———————

1. Belarus 🇧🇾

Belarus is taking an experimental approach to cryptocurrencies. In March 2018, a new law legalized cryptocurrency activities in the East European state, exempting individuals and businesses involved in them from taxes until 2023 (when it will come up for review.)
Under the law, mining and investing in cryptocurrencies are deemed personal investments, and so exempt from income tax and capital gains.
The liberal laws aim to boost the development of a digital economy, and technological innovation. The country was recently ranked third in Eastern Europe and 19th globally in levels of P2P crypto trading.

1. Germany 🇩🇪

Germany offers a unique take on taxing digital currencies such as Bitcoin. Unlike most other states, Europe’s biggest economy regards Bitcoin as private money, as opposed to a currency, commodity, or stock.
For German residents, any cryptocurrency held for over a year is tax-exempt, regardless of the amount. If the assets are held for less than a year, capital gains tax doesn’t accrue on a sale, as long as the amount does not exceed 600 euros ($692).
However, for businesses it’s a different matter; a startup incorporated in Germany still needs to pay corporate income taxes on cryptocurrency gains, just as it would with any other asset.

1. Hong Kong 🇭🇰

Hong Kong’s tax legislation on cryptocurrencies is a broad brush affair, even after new guidance was issued earlier this year.
Essentially, whether cryptocurrencies are taxed or not depends on their use, according to Henri Arslanian, a global crypto leader at PwC.
“If digital assets are bought for long-term investment purposes, any profits from disposal would not be chargeable to profits tax,” he wrote in March when the directive was introduced. But he added that this doesn’t apply to corporations—their Hong-Kong sourced profits from cryptocurrency business activities are taxable.

1. Malaysia 🇲🇾

In Malaysia, cryptocurrency transactions are currently tax-free, and cryptocurrencies don’t qualify for capital gains tax, because digital currencies are not considered assets or legal tender by the authorities.
But the law is currently fluid; it only applies to individual taxpayers, and businesses involved in cryptocurrency are subject to Malaysian income tax.
And things may soon change. Mohamad Fauzi Saat, director of Malaysia’s tax department said in 2018 that Malaysia was committed to working towards issuing comprehensive guidelines on the tax treatment of cryptocurrency by the end of 2020.

1. Malta 🇲🇹

The government of the so-called “Blockchain Island” recognizes Bitcoin “as a unit of account, medium of exchange, or a store of value.”
Malta doesn’t apply capital gains tax to long-held digital currencies like Bitcoin, but crypto trades are considered similar to day trading in stocks or shares, and attract business income tax at the rate of 35%. However, this can be mitigated to between five percent and zero, through “structuring options” available under the Maltese system.
Malta’s fiscal guidelines, published in 2018, also discriminate between Bitcoin and so-called “financial tokens,” equivalent to dividends, interest or premiums. The latter are treated as income and taxed at the applicable rate.

1. Portugal 🇵🇹

Portugal has one of the most crypto-friendly tax regimes in the world.
Proceeds from the sale of cryptocurrencies by individuals have been tax-exempt since 2018, and cryptocurrency trading is not considered investment income (which is normally subject to a 28% tax rate.)
However, businesses that accept digital currencies as payment for goods and services are liable to income tax.

1. Singapore 🇸🇬

Capital gains tax does not exist in Singapore, so neither individuals nor corporations holding cryptocurrency are liable.
But companies based in Singapore are liable to income tax, if their core business is cryptocurrency trading, or if they accept cryptocurrency as payment.
The authorities consider payment tokens such as Bitcoin to be “intangible property” rather than legal tender, and payment in the cryptocurrency constitutes a “barter trade” where the goods and services are taxed, but not the payment token itself.

1. Slovenia 🇸🇮

Slovenia is another country that treats individuals and businesses separately under its cryptocurrency tax system.
No capital gains tax is levied on individuals when they sell Bitcoin, and gains are not considered income. However, companies that receive payment in cryptocurrencies, or through mining, are required to pay tax at the corporate rate.
Notably, the Mediterranean country doesn’t permit business operations in cryptocurrency alone (such as only accepting Bitcoin as payment.)

1. Switzerland 🇨🇭

It’s no surprise that Switzerland, home to the innovation hub known as “Crypto Valley”, has one of the most forward-thinking tax policies too.
Cryptocurrency profits made by a qualified individual through investing and trading are treated as tax-exempt capital gains.
For the complete link to the written article - click here
Edit: hey thanks for the award, that was so awesome. Have a nice day everyone.

Previous post is here.

Grab the Pitchforks.

July/August 2014. The Pitchforks Are Coming… For Us Plutocrats

READ THE ABOVE ARTICLE!

I still remember reading this article back when, and I thought, exactly right. You can’t pull a reverse Robin Hood and grab from the poor to give to the rich. Eventually the guillotine comes out and heads roll. The cycle has happened before and it will happen again. Unless they somehow have a long range plan to stay rich and keep us poor. The controllers and the controlled. The best of us and the rest of us. The ones who call the war and the ones who fight in the war.
Now I'm not so sure about the essay, let me show you why.

Andrew Yang.

Do you remember when we started talking about Basic Guaranteed Income as a reality? It was roughly in 2016 when the conversations began to get serious. Countries ran experiments. Ostensibly this was presented as a solution to the coming wave of automation that will start performing the manual and mental labor that historically was provided by humans, leaving a whole lot of people to be fed. A whole lot of people whose labor won't be needed. But if this pandemic doesn't get too bad, at least we can look forward to getting a monthly cheque for just being alive, right?
September 18th 2019.

His candidacy is built on the theory that the millions of jobs lost to automation (think kiosks in drugstores and airports) led to the sense of frustration and instability among Americans that was linked to President Donald Trump’s election. He paints a gloomy picture of what automation will do to the future job market and offers a solution: a freedom dividend for every American over the age of 18. The idea of a dividend, Yang argues, is one Thomas Paine and Martin Luther King Jr. and hundreds of economists have supported. Alaska gives its citizens $1,000 to $2,000 a year. He says he’d pay for his policy with a tax on tech companies like Amazon. When he discussed the need to replace GDP as the measurement of economic success, he said U.S. life expectancy had dropped three years in a row for the first time ... "since when?” “1918!” many shouted (correctly). “That’s right, 1918, the year that the Spanish flu, a global pandemic, killed millions,” he said.

Wait. What. That's strange. Guaranteed Basic Income and the 1918 pandemic, all in one breath. You may have also taken note of his declining birth rate comment, almost like the planet is starting to have toxic effects on us. That's just a coincidence though. It has to be. This free money can't be real, can it? The pandemic stimulus money is only temporary, isn't it?
Might as well follow the white rabbit once again, see how far the rabbit hole goes.

What's the Beef on the Farm?

May 29, 2020. Every single worker at this U.S. farm has tested positive for coronavirus The outbreaks underscore the latest pandemic threat to food supply: Farm workers are getting sick and spreading the illness just as the U.S. heads into the peak of the summer produce season.
June 29, 2020. Advocates demand Ontario shut down farms as COVID-19 cases soar among workers.
May 7th, 2020. Why Meatpacking Plants Have Become Covid-19 Hot Spots.
How many outbreaks have shut down factories other than farms and meat plants? I'm not talking about a couple of cases, I mean shut down. I can't recall one. I've read of preemptive shutdowns because of a few cases, or due to supply chain hardships, but all or the entirety seem to be food companies or farms. That's a strange pattern, isn’t it? Could it have something to do with Sulfur Fertilizers and hydrogen sulfide from organic compounds mixing with the environments sudden increase from microbes? Nah.
But where are we going to get our food from to feed all of us Basic Income dependents? We have to eat, but we can't eat if we can't work the farms and meat plants, can we? That's quite the conundrum, isn’t it?

Robot Tractors and Bill Gates.

December 12, 2018. How self-driving tractors, AI, and precision agriculture will save us from the impending food crisis. Go inside the race to feed the 9 billion people who will inhabit planet earth in 2050. See how John Deere and others are working to change the equation before it's too late.
September 11, 2019. Bill Gates, the largest holder of Deere stock, recently bought even more after holding steady for a couple of years. Gates bought 87,000 more shares of Deere (ticker: DE) in late August. The purchase brought his holdings to 31,510,573 shares, a stake of just above 10%. Passing that threshold triggered the need for a regulatory disclosure. Gates, the co-founder of Microsoft (MSFT), filed a form with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Friday detailing his increased investment in the maker of tractors, trucks, and other heavy equipment.
That Bill Gates is a genius! I swear it's like he can see the future! It's too bad that he couldn't make an anti-virus program to save his life. Oh well, even if he couldn't make our computers safe from viruses, I'm sure he'll do better with us humans.
May 16, 2020. From Pope Francis to the Bond King, universal basic income is gaining support around the world.
JULY 10, 2020. Daily briefing: Spain begins an epic economics experiment in universal basic income.
July 13, 2020. Super-rich call for higher taxes on wealthy to pay for Covid-19 recovery.
July 13, 2020. 'Please Tax Us': Dozens Of Millionaires Urge Governments To Tax The Rich To Pay.
I never thought that I would see the day that the rich are pleading to be taxed. It's almost like they learned a thing or two and decided to not tell us to eat cake. Maybe they learned better and found some compassion?

Millionares Against Pitchforks.

January 23, 2020.

A group of wealthy celebrities and business people have signed an open letter calling on fellow billionaires and millionaires around the globe to support tax increases in an effort to alleviate growing economic disparity. Released on Thursday to coincide with the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, the letter states: “There are two kinds of wealthy people in the world: those who prefer taxes and those who prefer pitchforks. We, the undersigned, prefer taxes. And we believe that, upon reflection, you will as well.” The 121 ultra high-net-worth signatories, who call themselves “Millionaires Against Pitchforks,” include Disney heiress Abigail Disney, British actor and screenwriter Simon Pegg, writer-director Richard Curtis (“Love Actually”) and Sudanese-British telco tycoon Mo Ibrahim. Stressing that an estimated $8 trillion – nearly 10% of the world’s GDP – is hidden in tax havens, the letter urges the world’s wealthy “to step forward now — before it’s too late — to demand higher and fairer taxes on millionaires and billionaires within your own countries and to help prevent individual and corporate tax avoidance and evasion through international tax reform efforts.”

Almost six years later they act. SIX YEARS! And just as the COVID-19 pandemic has its first American case on January 20th. That was some fortuitous timing, wasn't it. It's just a coincidence that they found their compassion just as the writing was going up on the wall and the SHTF.
At least they're trying, right? Or they're playing a really long game, and holding back cards before they have to play them.
Me? I don’t believe the act for one second. If they really meant it, why didn't they speak out when the Panama Papers came out?
Or when this happened?

Malta car bomb kills Panama Papers journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia, a blogger whose investigations focused on corruption, was described as a ‘one-woman WikiLeaks’.

It's all smoke and mirrors. Basic Guaranteed Income has been slowly manipulated into awareness. The Pandemic has been as well. It's a perfect storm front to increase automation, which will increase productivity for the upcoming war, and free up the workforce to fight.
And I'm positive that the Panama Papers didn't go anywhere because it got slapped with a National Security classification, but that will have to wait for another post.
Keep your head up and eyes open.
Take care. Be safe. Stay aware and be prepared. Talk soon.

tldr: don’t buy it, unless you are into chinese knockoffs
First of all, I’m not affiliated with Icon Boards or Future Motion. I’ve stumbled upon the Iconwheel while doing research before buying the Onewheel Pint. Here’s what I’ve learned. All of this information is publicly available, I just compiled them into one post. I don’t want to hurt their business or say bad things about their product without actually trying it out myself.
So let’s get started. The first thing I usually check is the company's website, so let’s do that shall we?
First interesting thing, there are actually two companies named “Icon Boards”, one of them is a German LLC (GmbH) and the other one a maltese Company called “Emobility Group Limited”. In it's legal page it lists an address and company in Malta which seems to be a mailbox company. It was registered on Oct 20, 2016. I checked the address with Streetview, it’s just a normal house, no warehouse or industrial zone or office building. At the same address there’s also a company called "EuroTax Consulting Ltd.". This seems to be a company that helps you open a mailbox business in Malta, so you just have to pay 5% tax there and don't have to deal with much bureaucracy. On their website they call themselves a business consulting agency. This is probably legal and just a way to save taxes, but still unusual.
Then there is the German company “Icon Boards GmbH”. Again, this is all public information, you just have to do some digging to get them. This company was registered/founded on Feb 17, 2018 in Feldafing near Munich in Germany. The founder was replaced by Mister J. (I won’t use their full names) in October of 2018, but nothing else about the company changed, which implies that the founder and the current CEO may be very close. Again, I looked up the address of this company, and again, it’s just a normal house. Other than that the German company is pretty unsuspicious and normal. According to another business directory (not the one I normally use), the company has three (3) employees and “generates $331,000 in sales”, don’t know how accurate that information is.
Now on to the actual information from the website. It’s probably owned by the German company, since the registrant is German. Other than that the whole website is created as a German website (e.g. Impressum, DSGVO etc.). At that point the maltese Company didn’t really fit in but whatever. You can also tell by the information given on the website, that they’re shipping these boards from Germany via DHL, so they’ll either have a warehouse at another location in Germany or are shipping them out of their garage, idk. But under “support” they list the German address, but only as a “Service Address” which is only intended for return shipping. Also their shipping rates for any country that isn’t Germany are ridiculous. And if you visit the shop and check the prices, the Iconwheel is 250€ cheaper if you are on the German version of the site lol.
Which brings me to another interesting point. In their Terms and Conditions (AGB) they disclose that they don’t ship to the US. I wonder why?
So now onto the product itself the Iconwheel. This device probably isn’t made in Germany or Malta since it closely resembles the Chinese-made Unicool Dandan D2. Just look them up and compare them visually.
The Iconwheel or the Dandan D2 only has a 500W motor, compared to the 750W of the XR and Pint, the OG OW had a 500W motor. The battery only has 211 WhWh, the XR has 324Wh and the Pint 148Wh. So you could say the Iconwheel is something in between an OG OW and a XR with a bit less battery. Minus the app controls, actually good firmware (see video) and imo looks if you compare it to the Pint. Again, I’ve never ridden it, but there are comparisons of the Dandan D2 and a OW out there (see below).
Let me know what y’all think of this. And yes I have a lot of spare time and got bored and took a deep dive lol.
And also, Mister J. if you are reading this, please reach out, I do not intend to discredit you, your company or your product, I was just curious about “the German Onewheel”. please don’t sue me lol.
PS: sorry for bad english
German Business Directory
https://www.northdata.de/Icon+Boards+GmbH,+Feldafing/Amtsgericht+M%C3%BCnchen+HRB+239039
British Business Directory
https://www.dnb.com/business-directory/company-profiles.icon_boards_gmbh.29af13291c85ad7a085113d5bbdeceae.html
the other Business Directory (Malta)
https://registry.mbr.mt/ROC/index.jsp#/ROC/companiesReport.do?action=companyDetails&fKey=5df8dafc-cb12-4ddf-9ad2-835483d8771f
Website Info
https://who.is/whois/icon-boards.com
Dandan D2 video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=weFJUE-OhvM

Previous post is here.

Grab the Pitchforks.

July/August 2014. The Pitchforks Are Coming… For Us Plutocrats

READ THE ABOVE ARTICLE!

I still remember reading this article back when, and I thought, exactly right. You can’t pull a reverse Robin Hood and grab from the poor to give to the rich. Eventually the guillotine comes out and heads roll. The cycle has happened before and it will happen again. Unless they somehow have a long range plan to stay rich and keep us poor. The controllers and the controlled. The best of us and the rest of us. The ones who call the war and the ones who fight in the war.
Now I'm not so sure about the essay, let me show you why.

Andrew Yang.

Do you remember when we started talking about Basic Guaranteed Income as a reality? It was roughly in 2016 when the conversations began to get serious. Countries ran experiments. Ostensibly this was presented as a solution to the coming wave of automation that will start performing the manual and mental labor that historically was provided by humans, leaving a whole lot of people to be fed. A whole lot of people whose labor won't be needed. But if this pandemic doesn't get too bad, at least we can look forward to getting a monthly cheque for just being alive, right?
September 18th 2019.

His candidacy is built on the theory that the millions of jobs lost to automation (think kiosks in drugstores and airports) led to the sense of frustration and instability among Americans that was linked to President Donald Trump’s election. He paints a gloomy picture of what automation will do to the future job market and offers a solution: a freedom dividend for every American over the age of 18. The idea of a dividend, Yang argues, is one Thomas Paine and Martin Luther King Jr. and hundreds of economists have supported. Alaska gives its citizens $1,000 to $2,000 a year. He says he’d pay for his policy with a tax on tech companies like Amazon. When he discussed the need to replace GDP as the measurement of economic success, he said U.S. life expectancy had dropped three years in a row for the first time ... "since when?” “1918!” many shouted (correctly). “That’s right, 1918, the year that the Spanish flu, a global pandemic, killed millions,” he said.

Wait. What. That's strange. Guaranteed Basic Income and the 1918 pandemic, all in one breath. You may have also taken note of his declining birth rate comment, almost like the planet is starting to have toxic effects on us. That's just a coincidence though. It has to be. This free money can't be real, can it? The pandemic stimulus money is only temporary, isn't it?
Might as well follow the white rabbit once again, see how far the rabbit hole goes.

What's the Beef on the Farm?

May 29, 2020. Every single worker at this U.S. farm has tested positive for coronavirus The outbreaks underscore the latest pandemic threat to food supply: Farm workers are getting sick and spreading the illness just as the U.S. heads into the peak of the summer produce season.
June 29, 2020. Advocates demand Ontario shut down farms as COVID-19 cases soar among workers.
May 7th, 2020. Why Meatpacking Plants Have Become Covid-19 Hot Spots.
How many outbreaks have shut down factories other than farms and meat plants? I'm not talking about a couple of cases, I mean shut down. I can't recall one. I've read of preemptive shutdowns because of a few cases, or due to supply chain hardships, but all or the entirety seem to be food companies or farms. That's a strange pattern, isn’t it? Could it have something to do with Sulfur Fertilizers and hydrogen sulfide from organic compounds mixing with the environments sudden increase from microbes? Nah.
But where are we going to get our food from to feed all of us Basic Income dependents? We have to eat, but we can't eat if we can't work the farms and meat plants, can we? That's quite the conundrum, isn’t it?

Robot Tractors and Bill Gates.

December 12, 2018. How self-driving tractors, AI, and precision agriculture will save us from the impending food crisis. Go inside the race to feed the 9 billion people who will inhabit planet earth in 2050. See how John Deere and others are working to change the equation before it's too late.
September 11, 2019. Bill Gates, the largest holder of Deere stock, recently bought even more after holding steady for a couple of years. Gates bought 87,000 more shares of Deere (ticker: DE) in late August. The purchase brought his holdings to 31,510,573 shares, a stake of just above 10%. Passing that threshold triggered the need for a regulatory disclosure. Gates, the co-founder of Microsoft (MSFT), filed a form with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Friday detailing his increased investment in the maker of tractors, trucks, and other heavy equipment.
That Bill Gates is a genius! I swear it's like he can see the future! It's too bad that he couldn't make an anti-virus program to save his life. Oh well, even if he couldn't make our computers safe from viruses, I'm sure he'll do better with us humans.
May 16, 2020. From Pope Francis to the Bond King, universal basic income is gaining support around the world.
JULY 10, 2020. Daily briefing: Spain begins an epic economics experiment in universal basic income.
July 13, 2020. Super-rich call for higher taxes on wealthy to pay for Covid-19 recovery.
July 13, 2020. 'Please Tax Us': Dozens Of Millionaires Urge Governments To Tax The Rich To Pay.
I never thought that I would see the day that the rich are pleading to be taxed. It's almost like they learned a thing or two and decided to not tell us to eat cake. Maybe they learned better and found some compassion?

Millionares Against Pitchforks.

January 23, 2020.

A group of wealthy celebrities and business people have signed an open letter calling on fellow billionaires and millionaires around the globe to support tax increases in an effort to alleviate growing economic disparity. Released on Thursday to coincide with the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, the letter states: “There are two kinds of wealthy people in the world: those who prefer taxes and those who prefer pitchforks. We, the undersigned, prefer taxes. And we believe that, upon reflection, you will as well.” The 121 ultra high-net-worth signatories, who call themselves “Millionaires Against Pitchforks,” include Disney heiress Abigail Disney, British actor and screenwriter Simon Pegg, writer-director Richard Curtis (“Love Actually”) and Sudanese-British telco tycoon Mo Ibrahim. Stressing that an estimated $8 trillion – nearly 10% of the world’s GDP – is hidden in tax havens, the letter urges the world’s wealthy “to step forward now — before it’s too late — to demand higher and fairer taxes on millionaires and billionaires within your own countries and to help prevent individual and corporate tax avoidance and evasion through international tax reform efforts.”

Almost six years later they act. SIX YEARS! And just as the COVID-19 pandemic has its first American case on January 20th. That was some fortuitous timing, wasn't it. It's just a coincidence that they found their compassion just as the writing was going up on the wall and the SHTF.
At least they're trying, right? Or they're playing a really long game, and holding back cards before they have to play them.
Me? I don’t believe the act for one second. If they really meant it, why didn't they speak out when the Panama Papers came out?
Or when this happened?

Malta car bomb kills Panama Papers journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia, a blogger whose investigations focused on corruption, was described as a ‘one-woman WikiLeaks’.

It's all smoke and mirrors. Basic Guaranteed Income has been slowly manipulated into awareness. The Pandemic has been as well. It's a perfect storm front to increase automation, which will increase productivity for the upcoming war, and free up the workforce to fight.
And I'm positive that the Panama Papers didn't go anywhere because it got slapped with a National Security classification, but that will have to wait for another post.
Keep your head up and eyes open.
Take care. Be safe. Stay aware and be prepared. Talk soon.

State of the European Union 2018

Reddit Live Thread HERE (NOW OVER)

Location: Strasbourg, France.
TL;DR: The State of the European Union speech will be on Wednesday, 12 September, from 09:00 CEST to 10:00 CEST. It will be presented by Jean-Claude Juncker, the President of the European Commission. The parliamentary debate will be held after the speech.
Official live video feeds

• EBS+ schedule
• EBS+ live streaming
• European Parliament
• Facebook Live (Original Language)
• EUTUBE Live
• European Parliament (Youtube)
• Twitter Periscope
• Focus page on SOTEU on the Commission’s AV Portal

Other live coverage

• European Parliament News Hub - live ticker for social media posts by Members of the European Parliament

Live Blogs

• Euractiv Live Blog
• Politico Live Blog
• BBC Live Blog

Hashtags on social media
#SOTEU, #FutureOfEurope
Articles

• EU President Demands Higher Emissions Reduction Target In Final State Of The Union, Forbes
• Juncker paints ‘big picture’ of EU’s global role, Euractiv
• Juncker scorns Chequers proposals in state of union speech, The Guardian
• Juncker's state of the union speech to European Parliament, Reuters
• Juncker Warns of ‘Knee-Jerk’ Nationalism in Last Big EU Speech, Bloomberg
• Juncker to propose breaking dollar’s dominance in global markets , Euractiv
• Rated: Did Juncker deliver on his State of the Union promises?, Euronews
• "He lost touch with the citizens of Europe", Euronews
• Judging Juncker: From first speech to last, Euractiv
• The unstately state of Europe’s union, Politico
• The core of Juncker’s State of the Union speech: A federal border police, Euractiv
• Commission prepares fightback against populists on migration, Politico
• EU’s autumn obstacle course, Politico
• Oettinger: EU in ‘mortal danger’ from inside and out, Politico

Programme

The State of the European Union is an annual speech delivered each September by the President of the European Commission before the Members of the European Parliament (MEPs).
At 9:00 Brussels time, President Jean-Claude Juncker, will deliver his speech before a plenary session of the European Parliament. The speech reviews the successes and failures of the Union, declares its general political direction, and sets out the legislative agenda of the European Commission for the year.
Once the hour-long speech has concluded, the European Parliament then holds an open debate, going over the State of the European Union speech, and the political situation throughout the European Union.

Summary of Upcoming Commission Proposals:

• Improving the detection and removal of terrorist content online within one hour by companies like Google, or they will face fines
• New rules on stopping data misuse by EU political groupings (EPP, ALDE etc.)
• Scrapping the biannual clock change in the European Union
• Upgrading the mandate and resources of the European Border and Coast Guard Agency to a “genuine border police” with 10,000 officials by 2020
• Upgrading the European Asylum Support Office (future EU Asylum Agency)
• A new policy on returning migrants, including common conditions and timelines for returns
• Africa package (creating more paths for legal migration, tackling root causes of migration, trade agreement with Africa etc.)
• Strengthening the European Banking Authority to tackle money laundering and terrorist financing through more resources and greater enforcement powers
• Creating a European Cybersecurity Research and Competence Centre
• Commission initiative to strengthen the enforcement of the rule of law in the European Union
• Commission communication on the possible extension of the tasks of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office to include the fight against cross-border terrorism
• Commission communications on enhancing the use of qualified majority voting in common foreign and security policy and the internal market
• Single Market implementation and enforcement report
• Commission communication on the future of EU Energy and Climate policy, including the future of the Euratom Treaty
• Long-term EU strategy for reduction of greenhouse gas emissions
• "Towards a Sustainable Europe by 2030, on the follow-up to the UN Sustainable Development Goals, including on the Paris Agreement on Climate Change" reflection paper

The President of the European Commission

Jean-Claude Juncker
Term: 1 November 2014 - 31 October 2019
Jean-Claude Juncker started as a deputy in Luxembourg in 1984. Soon after, he started taking on various governmental roles. He because Luxembourg’s minister of finances in 1989, and subsequently became Prime Minister of Luxembourg, holding the office between 1995 and 2013.
Juncker held the Eurogroup presidency from 2005 to 2013, serving 3 terms. He was then chosen as the European People’s Party lead candidate for the 2014 European Parliament elections. He was proposed by the European Council afterwards, and the European Parliament voted in favour of him being President. He has previously announced he will not stand for a second term as President, meaning his tenure will end on the 31st October 2019.

Current European political topics

European Parliament Elections

Between May 23rd to the 26th 2019, elections to the European Parliament will be held. Following Brexit, the amount of MEPs will be reduced to 705, with some of the UK’s MEPs being redistributed to other member states and some being held in reserve for any potential enlargements of the EU.
The European Parliament has confirmed that it will follow the “Spitzenkandidaten” process once more. The European political parties will endorse ‘lead candidates’ ahead of the vote which will compete to be President of the European Commission. The European Council officially proposes a candidate for Commission President, ‘taking into account’ the results of the Parliament elections. However, the European Parliament has already stated it will reject any candidate who was not designated as a ‘lead candidate’ ahead of time.
Candidates:

Candidate	Date Announced	European Political Party
Maroš Šefčovič	4th June 2018	Party of European Socialists
Ska Keller	9th July 2018	European Greens
Manfred Weber	5th September 2018	European People's Party
Petra de Sutter	12th September 2018	European Greens

The European Commission is set to propose rules that could result in the political parties at the EU level (European People’s Party, Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe etc.) being fined up to 5% of their annual budget if they misuse personal data in a similar way to how Cambridge Analytica operated, trying to influence elections with this data.
As part of a broader package to counter online voter manipulation and personal data misuse for political purposes, the European Commission will recommend that governments should crack down on “micro-targeting”, the practice of sending personalised political messages to users without their consent. It will also be recommended that member states introduce stricter transparency requirements on online political advertising.
Commissioner for Justice, Consumers and Gender Equality Vera Jourova has said that voters should be able to “always understand when something is an online campaign, who runs the campaign, who pays for it and what they want to achieve.” However, she said that the EU wouldn’t go as far as regulating the online activity of any political grouping, stating that the internet is a “zone for free expression.”
Overview of the European Parliament elections, 2019

Eurozone

In the 2017 SOTEU speech, Juncker proposed an EU minister of finance, who would be a Vice-President of the Commission and also President of the Eurogroup, the informal meeting of Eurozone finance ministers. By extension, they would also be Chair of the board of the European Monetary Fund. This minister could oversee the use of EU budgetary instruments and represent the euro area at a global level.
In December 2017, the Commission proposed to integrate the European Stability Mechanism (to become the European Monetary Fund) and the Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance into EU law. The possibility of introducing an EU finance minister who would be a Vice President of the Commission as well as chair of the Eurogroup was also floated. They could oversee the budgetary instruments of the EU and represent the Euro area at a global level.
The Meseberg Declaration agreed between France and Germany calls for establishing a eurozone budget for competitiveness, convergence and stablisation within the framework of the EU. Resources would come from national contributions, allocation of tax revenue and European resources. However, 12 EU member states including Austria, Finland and the Netherlands questioned the need for any “fiscal capacity”, saying that there is “wide divergence” on the need for any budget, or at least what form it may take.
More recently, Germany’s deputy finance minister Jörg Kukies has stated that talks on a Eurozone budget should not distract from talks on the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF), the EU’s multi-annual budget. The “most pressing issue” was to figure out how the EU budget can contribute to stabilization, competitiveness and convergence. “This is a more relevant question than carving out a separate budget for the Eurozone”.
Under the Commission’s MFF Proposals, the European Commission proposed a €30 billion European Investment Stabilisation Function, which would provide back-to-back loans to a member state experiencing financial difficulties, provided they adhered to relevant EU budgetary rules beforehand.
A Convergence Facility for Member States actively trying to join the euro will be introduced, assisting member states with the reforms needed to do so. Bulgaria is actively attempting to join the euro, and will have to join the system of EU banking supervision (banking union) as well as the Exchange Rate Mechanism (ERM II) for 2 years before it can join the euro area.
A Reform Support Programme of €25 billion has also been proposed, which would provide financial incentives and also provide technical assistance for EU member states to carry out structural reforms. This programme is voluntary, and the money could be claimed back if the reforms are reversed.
In June 2018, EU leaders agreed in principle on making the European Stability Mechanism the backstop to the Single Resolution Fund. The Fund is used to wind down/resolve banks that have been declared failing or likely to fail by the European Central Bank, and shall reach the target level of at least 1% of the amount of covered deposits of all credit institutions within the Banking Union by 2024. The backstop should effectively double its capacity, providing around €55 billion of support.
Eurozone countries will work towards an agreement in December 2018 to change how the ESM functions, including creating the backstop to the Single Resolution Fund and how the ESM is governed. In future it could be integrated into EU law following the Commission’s proposal.
Eurozone finance ministers also agreed to work towards adopting a roadmap on starting political discussions on a European Deposit Insurance Scheme in December 2018. This Scheme would guarantee deposits of up to €100,000. When a bank is placed into insolvency or in resolution and it is necessary to pay out deposits, the national schemes and the European Deposit Insurance Scheme could intervene.
Factsheets on Deepening Europe’s Economic and Monetary Union

Migration

In June 2018, the European Council adopted conclusions on migration, calling on, among other things, for vessels operating in the Mediterranean to respect international law and not impede the work of the Libyan Coast Guard. Disembarkation platforms in third countries from which some asylum seekers could be relocated and voluntary controlled centres in EU member states were an option agreed to, though no country has currently agreed to host either. There was also agreement on the need to have dedicated funds to manage external migration in the next MFF.
The aim of ‘controlled centres’ inside the EU would be to improve the process of distinguishing between those individuals who qualify for refugee status, and those who don’t. The centres would be managed by a Member State with support from EU agencies. The Commission has offered to assist any member state granting access to their ports for disembarkation through a disembarkation team, which could include around 500 people from Frontex, Europol and the European Asylum Support Office. The EU budget could also cover all infrastructure and operational costs. The initial registration and asylum screening process could be as short as 72 hours.
For those Member States which agree to process a share of those disembarked from sea, the Commision is offering to allocate €6,000 per person relocated and will cover the transfer costs of €500 per person given to the country of disembarkation.
The European Commission intends to propose an upgrade to the European Border and Coastguard Agency (Frontex) to have 10,000 officiers by 2020, though most of them could be from a pool of national border guards to start with, with 50% of staff being permanent by 2027. It will have the power to bear arms, and would aim to intercept new arrivals, stop unauthorised travel between EU states and accelerate the return of rejected asylum seekers to their countries of origin, even without the consent of the member state. The agency would also gain more powers to exchange information with third countries. A senior EU official has been quoted as saying “we want to federalise external border protection as much as possible and help out countries on the front line.” However, certain EU member states such as Malta are reluctant about further competence shifts to Frontex.
The Italian government has recently been rejecting NGO vessels rescuing migrants in the Mediterranean from docking in Italy, though other member states such as Malta and France have done this as well. Italy has also rejected permission for Italian navy ships to dock in Italy to disembark rescued migrants, and threatened to torpedo Operation Sophia (the EU’s naval mission in the Mediterranean to combat people smuggling) if the rules weren’t changed to stop the automatic disembarkation of rescued migrants in Italy. The possibility of simply rejecting Sophia vessels from docking in Italian ports was also floated.
On 24th August, the Italian government threatened to withhold its EU budget contribution if other EU countries didn’t agree to taking migrants from the Italian Coast Guard ship Diciotti, currently stranded in an Italian port. The European Commission called a meeting of 12 EU member states, but no agreement was found at that meeting.
Only Ireland and Albania agreed to take in some of the migrants, and Italy also threatened to veto the EU’s next multi-year budget, the Multiannual Financial Framework if the EU didn’t start to share in the intake of migrants. The MFF is adopted by unanimous approval among member states following the approval of the European Parliament.
Commissioner for Budget and Human Resources Günther Oettinger pointed out that Italy refusing to pay its budgetary contribution would be the first time that event happened in the history of the European Union, and Italy would potentially face both late interest payments and sanctions.
The reform of the Common European Asylum System, comprising 7 proposals, may be touched upon:

Proposal	Description	Stage of legislative process
Dublin Regulation	Determines which member state is responsible for processing an application for international protection	EP adopted position, Council yet to adopt a position
Eurodac Regulation	Strengthen the Eurodac fingerprint database by collecting more data such as facial images to facilitate returns and help tackle irregular migration	Political agreement
EU Asylum Agency	Upgrading the European Asylum Support Office to a full EU Asylum Agency, providing guidance and assistance for assessments of asylum applications	Agreement, but won’t be adopted until other proposals finalised
Asylum Procedure Regulation	Aims to achieve a fully harmonised EU procedure for granting and withdrawing international protection	EP adopted position, Council yet to adopt a position
Qualification Regulation	Harmonised protection standards and rights for asylum seekers, ensuring asylum seekers are treated in the same way in all member states	Negotiations between EP and Council
Reception Conditions Directive	Harmonised EU reception standards for asylum seekers	Negotiations between EP and Council
EU Resettlement Framework	Common framework for EU member states resettling recognised refugees from outside EU territory	Negotiations between EP and Council

There will be a report on progress during the October 2018 European Council.
The latest proposals from the Austrian presidency are to have a form of “mandatory” solidarity whereby member states are free to help with migration either by taking in migrants, giving experts and equipment or contributing in some other way. However, Italy reportedly rejects this plan and wants more relocation of migrants. Background information: Finding solutions to migratory pressures
Background information: Reform of EU asylum rules
Commission factsheets on migration

Trade

In July 2018, President Trump and President Juncker came to an agreement on trade which provided for negotiations which would explore the possibility of negotiating a deal facilitating zero tariffs, zero non-tariff barriers and zero subsidies on non-auto industrial goods. Tariffs on automobiles are stopped for as long as there is suitable progress on negotiations, with the tariffs on steel and aluminium being reviewed.
Trump later dismissed the EU’s offer on tariffs as “not good enough” and said the EU’s trade policies were almost as bad as China’s after Commissioner for Trade Cecilia Malmström said the EU was “willing to bring down...our car tariffs to zero”, provided the USA did the same. The USA is holding out on the prospect of a partial trade deal within the next two months.
If tariffs on cars were to be introduced, the European Commission has been working on a list of US products that would face retaliatory tariffs.
Italy has threatened to veto the ratification of the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) negotiated with Canada. Currently, the trade deal is provisionally applied, meaning most of its provisions are in force pending the ratification of all member states. If a member state fails to ratify, provisional application has to be terminated.
In last year’s SOTEU speech, Juncker announced that all proposed negotiating mandates for future trade and investment details would be published, starting for the negotiations with Australia and New Zealand.
The status of the EU’s trade deal negotiations is as follows:

Country	Status
Australia	Negotiation, 2nd round in November
Canada	Provisionally applied since 21st September 2017, but CJEU case pending on the compatibility of its court system with EU law. Austria’s and Belgium’s ratification depend on the outcome of this case.
Chile	Negotiation, 3rd round concluded in June 2018, no new date set.
Indonesia	Negotiation, 6th round in October 2018
Japan	Signed, but yet to be ratified by the European Parliament and the Council of the EU. Aim to be applied by April 2019, before Brexit. No national ratification is needed.
Singapore	Commission has proposed decision to sign and ratify the EU-Singapore agreements. The FTA will only need European Parliament and Council of Ministers approval, while the Investment Protection Agreement will need that in addition to national ratification.
Mercosur	Negotiation, next round September 10th - 14th, will require national ratification.
New Zealand	Negotiation, 1st round concluded in July 2018
Mexico	Agreement in principle, aim to finish the legal text by the end of 2018.
Vietnam	Currently undergoing translation into all EU languages, Commission will then propose to sign and ratify the deal. Also split into a Free Trade Agreement (EP/Council approval) and an Investment Protection Agreement (requiring national ratification).

Rule of Law

In December 2017, the European Commission activated Article 7(1) for the first time in the history of the EU, citing threats to the rule of law and judicial independence in Poland. Infringement proceedings have also been launched against the Law on Ordinary Courts, and most recently against the Law on the Supreme Court, which may have forced around 40% of Supreme Court judges to retire. The Supreme Court has suspended the law as it awaits the results of a CJEU case on the law.
The European Parliament will vote on whether or not to Article 7(1) against Hungary later today, determining a clear risk of a serious breach of the EU’s values, after the Civil Liberties committee adopted a report recommending its activation. The European Parliament will have to vote by a ⅔ majority to trigger the article, though abstentions will not count towards this threshold. The European People’s Party, of which the governing party of Hungary Fidesz is a member, will be given a free vote on the matter.
Following this, a hearing will be conducted of Hungary where the Council can address recommendations to it. The Council needs to vote by a ⅘ majority to actually determine a clear risk of a serious breach of the EU’s values. This is separate from Article 7(2), which is the process leading to sanctions.
As part of the 2021-2027 MFF proposals, the Commission has proposed a mechanism whereby EU funding could be suspended to member states that don’t have independent judiciaries or flout the rule of law. The Commission would propose to suspend funding, and the decision is presumed to be adopted unless a qualified majority of EU countries votes against it. Individual beneficiaries of EU funding through schemes such as Erasmus+ should not be affected.
In October 2018, the Commission intends to produce a mechanism to promote the rule of law in the European Union, though it is not yet clear what form this may take.
The Commission will also produce a document which discusses the possibility of expanding the competences of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office to fight cross-border terrorism, which currently has a mandate to fight fraud against the EU budget. 22 member states (all bar Denmark, Hungary, Ireland, Poland, Sweden & the United Kingdom) are currently part of the project.

Brexit

The United Kingdom and the European Union have reached agreement on at least 80% of the draft withdrawal agreement text, including issues such as the rights of EU citizens post Brexit and the budgetary settlement that the UK will pay. Agreement was also reached on a transition period, where the UK would follow EU law and pay into the budget as if it was a member until December 31st, 2020. The UK can negotiate and sign deals during this period but not implement them unless authorised by the European Commission.
Negotiations are still needed on certain issues, such as the Protocol on Northern Ireland and the way a hard border can be avoided between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. The Sovereign Base Areas in Cyprus, Gibraltar, data protection, ongoing police and judicial cooperation, the role of the EU Court of Justice and geographical indicators are other areas that are yet to be resolved.
The UK Government published a White Paper (also referred to as the ‘Chequers’ agreement) on July 12th, 2018, leading to the resignation of Cabinet ministers Boris Johnson and David Davis from the government. The EU has also opposed this agreement, with Chief EU negotiator Michel Barnier stating that accepting it could be “the end of the single market and the European project.” It is still controversial in the UK as well, with a former Brexit minister Steve Baker predicting up to 80 Conservative MPs could vote against the agreement. The UK government may even scrap the agreement if the EU gives way on its hard position on the Irish border.
Some EU member states are considering giving Barnier a new mandate to help close a Brexit deal, which will be discussed at the Salzburg summit in a week's time. The planned timing of a deal and the remaining sticking points such as the Irish border will be discussed. Formal guidelines would be adopted by the October European Council, and talks would aimed to be concluded at a hypothetical special Brexit summit in November. However, other sources have said that the current guidelines are sufficient and that the UK may not like the content of hypothetical new guidelines.
The Brexit withdrawal agreement will need the consent of the European Parliament and a reinforced qualified majority vote (72% of the states representing 65% of the population) in the Council of Ministers. It will be accompanied by a political declaration on the future relationship between the UK and the EU, though negotiations can’t properly start until the UK becomes a third country.
Background information: Brexit
Background information: Brexit negotiations

Internal Market

Following a public consultation in which 4.6 million European citizens replied, the European Commission will propose to scrap the biannual change in the clocks. 84% of those who responded were in favour of scrapping the change. Commissioner for Transport Violeta Bulc has stated the change was unlikely to happen before 2021 at the earliest. EU countries are free to decide on their own time zones.
A “digital tax” was proposed by the European Commission whereby EU member states would charge a 3% levy on large companies like Facebook, Twitter and Google. This idea has proved controversial, with countries such as Ireland preferring a solution adopted at a global level to avoid stifling investment and innovation.
To facilitate agreement on the file, France has said it could consider ways to compensate Ireland for possible lost revenues from the proposal, and a "sunset clause" has been suggested where by the EU tax would no longer have effect once the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) comes up with a global solution. The aim is to agree on the EU tax by the end of 2018.

Foreign Relations

High Representative Federica Mogherini wants to see a binding agreement on relations between Serbia and Kosovo by the end of her mandate in November 2019. Recently, there have been suggestions of ‘border swaps’ between Kosovo and Serbia to agree on a deal. Some have been receptive to the idea, but countries such as Germany have rejected any border changes.
Germany has begun construction of Nord Stream II in German coastal waters, a controversial gas pipeline with Russia, despite the threat of US sanctions on the companies involved in financing the pipeline and the objection of some Eastern European states. President Trump has started that the project would make Germany a “captive” of Russia.
Germany, Finland, Sweden and Russia have given approval for the pipeline to pass through their territorial waters, but Denmark’s approval is still pending. Nord Stream 2 filed an application to Denmark for a new route that would avoid Denmark’s territorial waters altogether.
The European Commission also published a plan to provide €18 million in aid to Iran following some US sanctions being re-introduced on August 6th. In November, the US will introduce sanctions on oil. The EU has introduced a ‘blocking statute’ which forbids companies from complying with US sanctions. If firms are wanting to pull out of Iran to comply with US sanctions, they should get EU authorisation, but not if it is a business decision.
A communication on extending the use of qualified majority voting (QMV) in foreign policy will be produced, exploring the possibility of introducing QMV rules on human rights, sanctions, and joint civilian mission decisions. Certain sanctions regimes may keep unanimity rules, but it could be used especially when the EU has to implement UN sanctions. It will require unanimous agreement among all member states to move from unanimity to qualified majority voting rules.

Environment

On Monday, the European Parliament’s Environment committee voted for cutting emissions for cars and vans by 20% by 2025 and 45% by 2030, above the targets of 15% and 30% proposed by the Commission. The plenary of the European Parliament will vote on the issue next month.
Carbon prices under the EU’s Emissions Trading System (ETS) hit a decade high in August 2018 at €20 a tonne, following reforms to introduce a Market Stability Reserve that removes excess credits from the market.
The ETS provides ‘licences’ to pollute a certain amount each year. Those businesses that don’t have enough licences for the amount of pollution they give off are required to purchase more else they are fined, while those who have more licences than needed can sell the excess. The cap is progressively reduced over time so as to reduce carbon emissions within the EU.
The European Commission will potentially produce a long-term EU strategy for reducing greenhouse gas emissions in November 2018.

Previous State of the European Union Speeches

2017

President Juncker presented a much more upbeat picture of the state of the EU, saying "the wind is back in Europe's sails." He rejected calls for a multi-speed Europe, stating that “Europe must breathe with both lungs. Otherwise our continent will struggle for air.” He also stated that now was the time for completing the “European House” as the “sun is shining”.
He announced various proposals, such as creating an EU Cybersecurity Agency, trade negotiations with Australia and New Zealand, reforms of the Eurozone, opening up Schengen to Bulgaria and Romania, and moving to more qualified majority voting for certain decisions.

2016

For Juncker’s second SOTEU speech, he again put forward a somewhat gloomy picture of the state of the EU, stating that “our European Union is, at least in part, in an existential crisis”. This speech followed the UK’s vote to leave the European Union in June 2016.
He mentioned how the EU was currently facing many “unresolved problems”, and revealed proposals the Commission would be putting forward over the next year to try to resolve them, attempting to create a Europe that “protects, empowers and defends”.

2015

Juncker’s first SOTEU speech as Commission President mentioned how there was “not enough Union in this Union”, painting a somewhat dark picture of the state of the European Union at the time.
The main topics of his speech were migration, the Eurozone crisis, the UK’s (then) future referendum on EU membership, EU-Ukraine relations and addressing climate change.

2014

There was no State of the Union speech, as it was the year of the European Parliament elections.

Video TLDR of 2019 political and economic changes
https://youtu.be/4yeG6THgAaA?t=7
Madlads bustin Level 1 crooks on New Year's eve
NSS busted a criminal ring involving bankers and a currency exchange business. They colluded to exchange 36bln worth money at a "wrong" rate which resulted in 12mln damages, says NSS. A felony case is launched.
https://armenpress.am/arm/news/1000562.html
One last fake news before 2019 ends
A few months ago the govt increased soldiers' salaries.
As a result, soldiers finished 2019 with significantly higher earnings due to the avg 10% wage increase, despite a reduction in one-time bonus payments.
The avg soldier saw a 101k increase vs 2018.
In 2020 they'll get 216k more than in 2018.
Pashinhyan criticized "certain circles" for misinforming the public by claiming that soldiers' earnings were reduced.
https://armenpress.am/arm/news/1000571.html
2019 almost over
Kocharyan's friends and family gathered outside of jail to celebrate 2020:
https://youtu.be/KJ0Nct0EDIA?t=42
Reddit co-founder Alexis Ohanian spoke about the 2010s decade and his work. He posted a photo of himself with Mt. Ararat on the background:
https://news.am/arm/news/552688.html
Pashinyan: I walked half an hour on Year Year's eve and 90% of restaurants and cafes were diasporans and foreign tourists. "You invited, so we came", they said.
https://factor.am/211795.html
The last spice of 2019
Opera orchestra invites clueless guests to act as an orchestra conductor. Education Minister Araiyik Harutyunyan is today's maestro:
(5:21 - witness what happens when you pirate the "Sabre Dance" song off of a DVD then try to play it on $3 Chinese earphones)
https://youtu.be/Upi1UFeg8ws?t=72
President Sarkissian's message and photos:
https://youtu.be/MaeIf8v-zG8
https://www.lragir.am/2020/01/01/506222/
 
Parliament speaker Mirzoyan's message: https://youtu.be/fcH1X09DpT4
 
Artsakh President Bako Sahakyan's message: https://armenpress.am/arm/news/1000575.html
 
Former Preisdent Serj's message: https://news.am/arm/news/552640.html
 
Garegin B Catholicos of All Armenians has a message: https://armenpress.am/arm/news/1000573.html
 
1st Lady's Hakobyan's message (and photos): https://www.armtimes.com/hy/article/177401
 
Army's message: https://news.am/arm/news/552620.html
 
Prime Minister Pashinyan's New Year's message: https://youtu.be/eeWxVr-MxQ8?t=333
 
18:05 Final part, Pashinyan gets extra crazy, fireworks, dhol & zurna, a concert by Goran Bregović:
https://youtu.be/eeWxVr-MxQ8?t=1083
 
Photos from Republic Square celebrations
https://hetq.am/hy/article/111754
Photos of cool Christmas Trees in Yerevan: https://a1plus.am/hy/article/356809
Soldiers celebrating: https://youtu.be/bKMYW18DoVE?t=2
Soldiers dancing: https://youtu.be/kgc8U1sSJaQ?t=3
Soldiers doing Armenian berdapar dance: https://youtu.be/wRTxrAOy-nk?t=26
2020 begins with your favorite Roboserj news.
Pashinyan leaves the crowd in Public Square high and dry and visits a restaurant to celebrate 2020.
https://hraparak.am/post/4623feba37ab59dc992826b288191e47
https://news.am/arm/news/552662.html
Is it just me, or was Christmas a lot whiter in the 1960s?
Video compilation by CivilNet: https://youtu.be/_tTeRr6x3q0
Russia's GazProm will keep the gas prices the same for Armenia in 2020.
It sells gas to its subsidiary company GazProm-Armenia for $165 at the border, which then sells it to consumers for $290, per 1,000 m^3.
 
The 2020 gas negotiations happened throughout most of 2019. The main goal was to prevent another price hike that Armenia saw for 2019 when the price went from $150 to $165.
www.civilnet.am/news/2019/12/31/Գազպրոմը-2020-ին-չի-թանկացնի-Հայաստանին-մատակարարվող-գազը/373377
Foreign Affairs & Neighborhood
President Donald Trump signed an order approving the EastMed gas pipeline that will connect Israeli shores to Europe. The move is supported by Greece, Malta, Israel, and will deliver gas to EU nations.
 
Although Italy's PM opposed the pipeline earlier in 2019, an Italian govt agency sent a different message on Tuesday.
 
EastMed is opposed by Turkey because the pipeline will bypass Turkey and reduce its influence in the region.
It will also reduce Azerbaijan's "influence" over Europe because it will compete against the Azeri-Turkish TAP pipeline.
 
How much gas do regional players export to the EU?
Russia 202bcm
EastMed 10bcm projected for now
Azerbaijan 10bcm currently (projected 20)
https://www.seatrade-maritime.com/offshore/greece-cyprus-and-israel-american-chambers-hail-trump-signing-eastmed-act
http://www.ekathimerini.com/248018/article/ekathimerini/news/italy-fully-backs-eastmed
Soleimani drone strike
At the request of President Trump, a US drone airstrike killed the most senior Iranian general Qassim Soleimani, the only Iranian military man who received the Order of the Zulfiqar.
 
He was the mastermind of Iran's recent expansionism into the Middle East and was responsible for arming terrorist organizations, including Hezbollah. He was viewed as being more powerful than the president of Iran in foreign affairs.
 
Context:
Iran-backed militias recently killed an American soldier, and a group of Soleimani-backed militiamen stormed the US embassy in Iraq.
 
In response, the US conducted a drone airstrike on Baghdad International Airport, killing Soleimani and several other figures connected with Iran's military operations in Iraq, immediately after their jet landed at the airport. A high ranking Iran-backed Iraqi commando was also killed.
"The game has changed", said the US administration, vowing to conduct more retaliatory attacks if necessary. They described it as retaliation and a preventative measure.
 
Why was Soleimani in Iraq?
He has been frequently visiting Iraq to cooperate with Iran-backed Iraqi govt to help suppress the ongoing public protests and to cooperate with military operations in Syria. Iranian militias were recently blamed for the murder of hundreds of Iraqi protesters.
 
Soleimani had a rocky relationship with the US administrations.
Earlier he got into a Twitter spat with Trump, telling him "If you begin the war, we will end the war."
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo described Soleimani as a "terrorist" whose forces "killed 603 Americans".
Trump administration designated the IRGC group led by Soleimani as a "terrorist organization" at the time.
 
Soleimani's group was also sanctioned by Obama in 2011 for a failed attempt to assassinate the Saudi ambassador in Washington D.C. The US authorities caught the Iranian would-be assassins. They received lengthy sentences.
In 2007, the UN Security Council sanctioned Soleimani and other Iranian militias.
 
After the airstrike, Iran's Ayatollah Khamenei promised "severe revenge". Russia called it a "reckless" move. The UK criticized Soleimani's past activities and urged a de-escalation. Armenian MFA urged a de-escalation and peace in the region. Trump tweeted Murican_Flag.jpeg
 
Many Iranians mourned his death. Public prayers were held. Flags will be down for 3 days.
Meanwhile, many Iraqis, who oppose Iran's influence in their country, went on the streets to celebrate his death while waving giant Iraqi flags.
https://apnews.com/5597ff0f046a67805cc233d5933a53ed
https://www.voanews.com/extremism-watch/soleimani-mastermind-irans-mideast-expansion
https://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2020/01/02/flashback-obama-sanctioned-soleimani-for-attempted-terror-attack-in-washington-d-c/
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1212924762827046918
https://youtu.be/U1NlLK9BPaU
https://armtimes.com/hy/article/177423
https://www.un.org/press/en/2007/sc8980.doc.htm
Iraqis https://twitter.com/i/status/1212955403077767168
Low-cost airline Ryanair will add more routes. Yerevan-Thessaloniki ($33 1-way) and Gyumri-Athens ($20). Starting May.
Another route will connect Gyumri to southern German Memmingem city.
 
Ryanair isn't the only airline to launch flights to and from Armenia recently. Air Baltic, Wizz Air, and Transavia will take advantage of the new law that reduced the taxes.
https://armtimes.com/hy/article/177414
https://factor.am/211939.html
Netherlands (that's right folks, beginning Jan 1, 2020, it's officially no longer Holland) has designated Armenia as a safe country for travel. The rating is based on the analysis by their security and intel agencies.
https://armenpress.am/arm/news/1000601.html
Disclaimer: All the accused are innocent until proven guilty in the court of law, even if they may sound as being guilty. Currency in Armenian Drams unless specified otherwise. Older posts can be found at: PART 1 ; PARTa 2 ; PART 3 ; PART 4 , credits to Idontknowmuch.

Hi guys, I just read all the Football Leaks articles on Spiegel so far and made a bit of a summary, since I am sure most of you don't want to read everything (the summary is still long, but way shorter than the articles, believe me).
So for who is not informed, German newspaper and investigators Spiegel, together with lots of other newspapers did investigate and research the (second part of the) documents they received from Football Leaks, a portuguese hackergroup. This is 3,4TB of data which means about 70 million documents. They published the first articles, but there are many more to come in the next few weeks. More coming also on the topics doping, betting fraud and racism.
​
Man City:
In 2013 former French President Nicolas Sarkozy tried to raise money with the help of ManCity president Khaldoon Al Mubarak. A year later when ManCity was investigated by UEFA for FFP violation, Al Mubarak asked Sarkozy for help, who spoke with FIFA president Infantino. In the last 7 years Abu Dhabi has injected €2.7 billion into ManCity. In 2016 Infantino chose to directly negotiate an agreement with ManCity, and therefore bypassing the investigating chamber of UEFA. Between 2009 and 2011 ManCity has made a loss of €451M. ManCity threatened to take legal action against UEFA, if they would make them pay a penalty. 2014 the president of the investigating company of the UEFA recommended to exclude ManCity from the Championsleague. Infantino intervened and negotiated with City manager (and ex Barça VP) Ferran Soriano. Infantino actually told Soriano that he should make a proposal for the fine they would have to pay, so that it looks like FFP is still intact. In the end they settled on a $60m fine, which then Al Mubarak refused to pay. Infantino intervened again to make the fine drop to 20m, which UEFA investigating chamber initially refused to agree to. PSG was angry that ManCity's fine would be lowered, so the UEFA president promised PSG that their fine would also go down to 20m, while lying to Abu Dhabi that PSG's fine would be much higher than theirs. Since that agreement ManCity have spent €700m on new players. ManCity Secretary General Simon Cliff wrote after the death of one of the investigation chamber members in an email "one has fallen, there are six left."
EDIT (05.11.18): Additional Info
The year FFP was introduced, ManCity spent 9.9M pounds too much, apparently because of the termination of Mancini's contract. The only solution according to an Email where Chief Financial Officer Jorge Chumillas wrote "an additional amount of Abu Dhabi sponsorship revenues, that covers this gap". CEO Ferran Soriano suggested having sponsors pay the amounts they have to pay for the victory of the FA cup, even though ManCity had not won the FA cup. Ten days later many different apparently according to City "fully independent" sponsorship deals were adjusted, Etihad paying 1.5M more, Aabar 0.5M more, and the tourism authority 5.5M more than the deals they negotiated at the begin of the season. When Chumillas asked Simon Pearce if the dates of the sponsorship deals could be modified the answer was "of course, we can do what we want". Already in 2010 ManCity made a 15M deal with Aabar, who according to an email from Simon Pearce would only pay 3M, the rest comes from quote "his highness" (the sheikh). In December 2013 Pearce wrote that Etihad's (mainsponsor) contribution is 8M. According to the contract it should have been 35M. In 2015 Etihad officially had to pay 67.5M pounds per year, but inoficially they were still paying just 8M, the rest coming from the Abu Dhabi United Group, who give companies like Etihad the money to then give it to ManCity, so that everything appears in order.
Edit (06.11.18): Additional info from a new article
Another plan get Abu Dhabi money to the club was called "Project Longbow" (because the English used longbows to beat the French [in this context UEFA president Platini] at Crecy and Agincourt). This meant using parallel companies like Fordham to outsource the cost of image rights. 2013 ManCity sold the image rights of the players to the company that would later be called Fordham Sports Image Rights, which is attached to a company in the British Virgin Islands. This way money from Abu Dhabi could be injected. Officially Fordham paid players, without receiving anything themselves which UEFA investigators found suspicious, ManCity claimed that Fordham is an independent company and they don't know their business plan but agreed to the deal because it came at a good price. ManCity have recently stopped selling the image rights of their players, but Fordham still exists and has made in 2017 total losses 75M pounds.
Edit (07.11.18): Additional info
Pep Guardiola signed the contract with ManCity already in October 2015, 2 months after his last season with Bayern started. His salary in his first season with ManCity was 13.5M pounds, in his second it is 16.75M. Several weeks later a journalist from Sunday Mirror wrote that Guardiola has met with ManCity director of football Txiki Begiristain in Barcelona to discuss a possible deal. At this moment the deal was already long signed. ManCity then said this is wrong information and told the newspaper to remove the article. ManCity also compiled a riskreport on a potential sponsor called Arabtec, who have a terrible human rights record in UAE. Their marketing team advised them to not accept the deal, because it would let City appear in a bad light, but they went through with the deal anyways, but made it only a regional deal, in those countries were democratic values and human rights are not always a priority.
Edit (10.11.18): Another part
Since 2010 Manchester City has invested over a million euros a year in the so called "Right to Dream Academy" which has it's locations in African countries like Ghana. These children get a good education, but have also to work and travel a lot, and some around the age of 10 for example said that they have only time to call their parents on weekends, because their training schedule is so packed. Manchester City documents are referring to that invested money as "venture capital". The main point is not to have them at some point play for Manchester City's first team, but to loan and sell them, to make profit. After FIFA implemented new years in the last years, ManCity had to make changes at that academy, for example the Academy leader has taken control over a Danish team called FC Nordsjaelland, so that the academy players from Ghana can come to Europe through that club. There is an agreement that the Danish club can't sell Right to Dream Academy players without ManCity's permission. For being the third party club in that affair, they get 25% of the transferfee.
Edit (10.11.18): Now this should be the last part about ManCity
In 2015 City tried to get De Bruyne for 50M, but VW Wolfsburg didn't want to sell, because Volkswagen doesn't need the money. ManCity were pressuring them and ultimately they sold him for 75M. A year later they both Bayern and ManCity tried to get Sané, but ManCity offered to 20 year old a salary of 24.5M pounds over 3 years. Spending money like that was possible because they were able to increase and back-date sponsoring contracts with companies from Abu Dhabi at will. Also the TV money helps, last year they received €170M from the league, which is for example 75% higher than what FC Bayern gets. This helps making it possible paying salaries like €11M/year for Gündogan or >18M for Aguero.
Already in 2009 they were studying how to make the most profit and came to the conclusion that it's not enough to own just one club, but instead create a global network of subsidiaries which makes it easier to bring in profits. Back then Roberto Mancini signed 2 contracts on the same day: as coach for ManCity and as "adviser" to the Al Jazira Sports and Cultural Club in the Arabian Gulf League, both clubs owned by Sheikh Mansour. ManCity paid him a salary of 1.45M pounds, but the Abu Dhabi club paid him an even higher salary extra of 1.75M per year.
To create such a network, they not only own Manchester City, New York City and Melbourne City but have also stakes in league teams in Uruguay, Spain and Japan. Also they have cooperation agreements with clubs in Scandinavia and with an African Youth academy. Uruguay because there are many quality footballers & the local teams have limited budgets, also they didn't need to pay any taxes on the profits from player transfers. The investment in Girona is so that ManCity's academy players can develop and play in competetive men's football.
In 2008 City was bought for 100M pounds, in 2015 a Chinese media company bought 13% of the stakes of the City Football Group for 265M pounds, which shows that the value of ManCity has increased by a factor of atleast 10 in the last 7 years and Sheikh Mansour believes that there can be created a way higher value from football than what has been established until now.
​
PSG:
PSG received in total €1.8 billion from Qatar. They were also close to being excluded from UCL, but Platini and Infantino covered it up. Nicolas Sarkozy told Emir of Qatar Tamim Al-Thani in a meeting in 2010 that if he bought PSG & launched a sports channel in France (BeIN Sports), that he would instruct Michel Platini to award Qatar the 2022 World Cup.
Edit (07.11.18): Mbappé's transfer to PSG
Contract details about Mbappé at PSG are revealed. In the summer 2017 he nearly signed for Real Madrid, who offered €180M. His father was worried about the competition he would have at Madrid with forwards such as Ronaldo, Benzema, Bale. At the beginning of August he then told Monaco he would sign for PSG, who also agreed to pay 180M. The contract demands were 5M upfront and a salary of a total of 50M net over 5 years. Also he would receive an extra 30k/month to pay for his personal staff. He also demanded that in case he would win the Balon d'Or, his salary would rise so far, that he is the highest paid PSG player (more than Neymar). PSG refused. In case PSG would be excluded from UCL because of FFP, Mbappé's family wanted a monetary compensation. Monaco's owner received €124M out of the deal. The strange thing is that portoguese superagent Jorge Mendes (who is not Mbappé's agent) also received atleast 7.25M out of the deal. Spiegel are not exactly sure, but they say documents hint, that it might be for playing up the speculation that he would sign for Real Madrid, to increase his price.
Edit (10.11.18): Racism at PSG's scouting department
PSG had a recruitment policy which lasted from 2013 until Spring of this year, which discriminated against ethnic minorities at youth academy level. An example is when a talent called Yann Gboho was 13, PSG did not make an offer, only because he is black. The scout rated him highly, but he wasn't signed by the club after a meeting between people working at PSG's academy, because of his skin color. Until Spring 2018 the scouts had in their scouting documents to note the "origin" of players between the 4 categories: French, Maghrebi, West Indian and Black African. A PSG scout agreed to Mediapart that it should say white rather than French, because all the players they scout are French. PSG doesn't want them to sign players born in Africa, because you can't be sure of their date of birth, he said.
Note: After this was leak was published PSG made a comunicado, confirming the use of these scouting forms with illegal contents which were instituted on the personal initiative of the head of this department. They condemn all forms of discrimination and racism and already made an internal investigation at the beginning of last october to understand how such practices could exist and to decide on the necessary measures to take.
General:
In the coming weeks they will reveal the positive doping tests (note: plural) of a worldclass player who won the Championsleague multiple times. (Note: not many fit that criteria except Real Madrid players and some Barça players). Also the tax avoidance models of some EPL titans.
​
European SuperLeague:
The developments of a possible European Super League are more advanced than we thought. There is a binding term sheet thought to be signed this month. Started was this project by Bayern president Rumenigge. This would include 16 clubs. Bayern did already make research if the law made it possible to leave Bundesliga to join a Super League and also if they could forbid their players to play for the nationalteam. This would mean that these clubs wouldn't be part of Championsleague or National Leagues like La Liga anymore, and have every week a game against another European giant. This would totally mess up the balance between big and small teams in Football, and would overall be a disaster for Football. UEFA obviously trying to avoid this is heavily pressured and even blackmailed by ECA and the top clubs, which did lead to a reform, which allots greater revenues to those clubs that have found success in the last 10 years in the Champions League and Europa League. This means that there is less money for Europaleague and therefore smaller clubs .The reform also gave the ECA 4 director slots in a company joined with UEFA (one of which ex Barça board member Raul Sanllehi will fill), which will oversee all deals the UEFA makes. Bayern director Gerlinger who was the most essential person in all of this says the Super League was a possibility but is "as far away as ever". Meanwhile Real Madrid received on Octover 22 an email titled "Draft of an Agreement of the 16", which included the binding term sheet to create the Super League, which would be a breakaway from UEFA and the national leagues. This draft includes 11 founders (Real Madrid, FC Barcelona, Manchester United, Juventus Turin, FC Chelsea, FC Arsenal, Paris Saint-Germain, Manchester City, FC Liverpool, AC Milan and Bayern Munich) who have secured membership for 20 years, and 5 guests (which would initially be Atlético Madrid, Borussia Dortmund, Olympique Marseille, Inter Milan and AS Roma). The competition would have two phases: a group round and a knockout round. A company in Spain would be registered to make this possible. Shares of this company would be distributed: Real Madrid holding 18.77 percent, Barcelona 17.61 percent and Manchester United 12.58 percent. Bayern Munich would be the fourth largest shareholder at 8.29 percent.
​
More about Infantino:
Infantino also was vital that half of the money FIFA made would be distributed to the Associations in advance, without any control about what they would do with it (so that he would get reelected). In 2017 the investigators investigating Infantino were replaced by María Claudia Rojas, who has no experience in investigating, and is a good friend to the notoriously corrupt president of the columbian federation. She immediately cleared Infantino and did say that there are no investigations against him. After that also the FIFA code of ethics was changed (for example the word corruption disappearing). Rinaldo Arnold, a Swiss public prosecutor, is also a good friend with Infantino, who called him capo ("boss") in an email and who assured Infantino that the investigations wouldn't be against him and even offered to have the attorney general to publicly state that.
​
Edit: Added information from a new Article on 05.11.18
International Champions Cup (ICC):
A confidential document between Relevent Sports (note: the company organizing ICC and also want to have the Barça Girona game in the US) and FC Barcelona reveals how much money teams to play these friendlies: $3.25M per game. For the game against ManU there was a bonus of 750k, and for the Clásico in the USA a bonus of $6.5M. That's nearly $14M net for a week playing in the US with 3 games. In that contract were clauses: "if Messi didn't play for atleast 45min, Barça would receive 750k less, if Neymar didn't play 600k less, for Suárez 450k less".
According to Spiegel the chairman of Relevent Sports, Stillitano, has been trying for years to convince the biggest European clubs to play in a league, in which the best play against eachother. His goal is also to create a Superleague and lure them by showing them how big and plentiful the global revenues are.
​
Edit: Added information from a new article on 05.11.18 (info by Mediapart via @GFFN)
AS Monaco:
Apparently the AS Monaco owner and Russian billionaire Dmitry Rybolovlev attempted to hide a massive, illegal amount of funding into the team with a fictitious marketing contract and through the involvement of a series of offshore companies in the British Virgin Islands and Hong Kong. Over the time of 2 years he invested a total of €326M, which does violate the FFP. In 2014 a marketing deal was agreed to, that was in reality a yearly sum of €140M by Rybovlev. This deal did then later fell through, because the Dutch head of Swiss-based sports marketing agency had a disagreement with him and threatened to reveal the scam to UEFA. The Investigatory Chamber of UEFA did find some disturbing things, when going through Monacos finances, but the head of UEFA's FFP program Andrea Traverso did agree to help prepare the club for their Investigatory Chamber hearing.
By 2014 Monaco had made losses of €170M over 3 years. Because of their tiny city, they did not receive much money from ticket sales and sponsorship deals. Monaco's marketing director suggested to the president to build a close relationship with Platini, without "giving the slightest indication" that Monaco is violating FFP. Monaco made a marketing deal with AIM, which gave the agency the right to manage sponsorship and marketing for the club, but if Monaco did not make €140M per year revenue, AIM would have to pay the difference. The year before this deal Monaco had a total income (without TV money) of €14.4M, which would mean AIM has to pay €126M, which obviously is an absurd deal to make for AIM. This made Monaco have an income of 11m instead of losses of 116m like the year before. A company registered in the British Virgin Islands called City Concept Ventures "surprisingly" agreed to invest in AIM €140m for 10 years, exactly what they would have to pay to Monaco. The agency of AIM founder de Roos did receive €2.2M for participating in the scheme. This way the Monaco owner was able to put money into the club, through sponsorship contracts. This deal then later fell through, because Rybolovlev had fallen out with Prince Albert of Monaco and decided to stop investing into the club and therefore selling their players. UEFA never discovered this attempted scam.
​
Edit (06.11.18): Added information
Russian Clubs
Zenit St Petersburg, Dynamo Moscow & Lokomotiv Moscow all artificially inflated sponsorship contracts in order to avoid FFP sanctions & UEFA were complicit in this practice.
Edit (07.11.18): Added from a theblacksea.eu article
Zenit is owned by Gazprom, who pumped €113M into the club in 2012. UEFA was investigating in this. Zenit told them, that Russia's league has not the ability to generate revenues like European leagues and if they would have to comply with FFP, they would need to sell their best players. This would be very bad for Russia ahead of the world cup in 2018. UEFA seemed to accept that argument, because 6 months later they closed the case without excluding Zenit from the UCL. Similar things happened to Rubin Kazan, FC Lokomotiv Moscow and FC Dynamo Moscow. In the past 5 years the state Russia has injected over €1.65 billion into these clubs.
​
Edit (10.11.18): New article
"Superagent" Pinhas Zahavi and his involvement in deals like Neymar to PSG
Let's start this with a quote by him to the investigative journalist meeting him: "So, listen: I did the biggest transfers in the history of world football. There isn't a big deal in the world where I'm not involved," the agent said. "There's no place in international football where I don't have influence and power."
The Israeli playeragent Pinhas Zahavi is one of the most powerful agents in world football, who is already way longer involved in football transfers than agents such as Mendes or Raiola, he already was part of transfers in the 1970s. He is known to position footballers against their colleagues, coaches and club bosses, and trying to forcefully push for a move to a new club. As an agent he is nearly invisible. He normally doesn't speak to press and does only "appear in the shadows". No one knows how much money he has floating around or which channels it is floating through. Many of the companies he owns or works for are located in tax heavens such as Gibraltar, Cyprus, Malta, British Virgin Islands. He engages law firms in Brazil and Israel to provide him legal support. He often joins forces with other superagents such as Mendes, or Ramadani. There were investigations against him, but never was anything illegal proven. Officially he is paying his taxes in Israel. Many of his companies have their business accounts at banks in Switzerland.
Last summer Lewandowski asked him for help, so that he could leave Bayern. Zahavi spoke with Lewandowski's agent Barthels, who told him that Bayern wouldn't agree to let him leave. He then went to the German newspaper Bild and openly told them that Lewandowski wants to leave and Bayern are aware of it, which made it on the frontpage. However he did not succeed with his plan to have Lewandowski leave Bayern.
However he was a vital part of the Neymar to PSG deal. He was noted as second agent, apart from Neymar Sr. and was due to receive €10.7+2M from that deal. Zahavi wanted that this would be paid to one of his companies in either Switzerland or Cyprus, but PSG didn't agree to it and after some angry emails he accepted that the money would be paid to his accounts in Israel.
His commissions are negotiated on a deal-by-deal basis and always by mobile phone, so there are often no concrete documents, which makes it harder to track it. Also his companies in tax paradises are often buying the transferrights of young (often underage) talents, for example Markovic to Liverpool of which Zahavi's company had half the transferrights.
​
Edit (10.11.18): Article was behind a paywall on Mediapart, so I used the summary of someone of soccer, hope everything is correct
More about Neymar's move to PSG and also the "loyalty-bonus"
PSG had to pay each of his agents – his father Neymar Senior and Israeli agent Pini Zahavi – a commission sum of 10.7M + 8.7M for Santos. Total price of his transfer: €252M. Zahavi received a 1.5M payement the first year + 2M/year the next 4 years conditional on Neymar remaining with the club. His father received 6M the first year + 3M the following year. The operation to bring Neymar to Paris was codenamed “Gold”. Over a period of five years, the 25-year-old will cost PSG a total of 528 million euros. PSG first proposed a salary of 25M per year, but Neymar would succeed in obtaining 30M/year, free, for him, of social charges and tax. Means 54.7M/year for PSG. PSG were unable to reach an agreement that Neymar would not enter into deals with sponsors who were rivals of the club’s sponsors. PSG lacked the funds to meet the huge cost of the transfer. Information gained by the EIC suggests it was Qatar Sport Investment (QSI), owner of the club, which paid the entire amount.
Neymar wanted to make sure he was paid a bonus payment promised by Barça. This was a bonus sum of 64M agreed when he prolonged his contract exactly one year earlier. He had been paid 21M, but their remained a further 43 million euros that FC Barcelona was committed to pay him by midnight on July 30th 2017 at the latest. On the morning of July 31st, the money transfer had still not been made. FC Barcelona informed Neymar that the 43 million euros had been deposited with a solicitor and will be released to him only if the player certifies that he will remain with the club. Since then, a legal battle continues. The player is still demanding payment of the 43M, FC Barcelona are demanding that the player pays the club 73M representing a total refund of the bonuses that were offered to him for prolonging his contract. On August 22nd 2017, Tebas lodged his complaint against PSG with UEFA, accusing the French club of violation of the European football associations’ ruling body’s financial fair play rules, and ten days later UEFA opened its investigation into the matter. The probe was opened against a backdrop of not only the pressure of La Liga, but also the anger against PSG of other enemies, including German club Bayern Munich.
According to documents obtained from Football Leaks, paying off of the cost of Neymar’s transfer plus the player’s salary would amount to a total of 528 million euros up until 2022, equivalent to 105 million euros per year. That meant that PSG would have to attract more than 100 million euros in extra revenue each year, or sell players to compensate for the difference. Including Mbappe the number rises to 166M. PSG asked Nike for a sponsorship deal worth 100 million euros per year. Nike declined because the contract with PSG, which they paid just more than 20 million euros per year, was not due to expire until 2022.

It's become 'accepted fact' amongst many circles that New Labour massively promoted immigration and did little or nothing to restrict it. This is an odd sentiment given that immigration is actually higher under the current long-term 'anti-immigration' government, but it also lacks any nuance or respect for the facts. I think if you read about it then it becomes obvious that throughout the leadership there were serious concerns about the impact of immigration, in particular from a political perspective. That's not to say NL didn't ever advocate immigration, which of course they did at times.
Before continuing, I really recommend people digest this fantastic Guardian Long Read article - How Immigration Came to Haunt Labour: The Inside Story - It provides interesting insights to people on both sides of the debate
There are 2 key points -

• Blair had huge concerns about the number of asylum applications along with the asylum system and made big strides to reduce them, which he did successfully (GRAPH)
  
• Significant concerns about the impact of immigration from the A8 accession before it happened
  
• By the time Brown succeeded Blair there were already clear moves in place to try and resolve the issue, and Brown took a much more open 'pro-british' stance.
  

I'm going to focus more on EU migration and the accession of new states though and highlight a few common misconceptions and interesting points on the topic.
The Treaty of Accession 2003 was passed with support across the house of commons, allowing the accession of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia. Our politicians were greatly in favour of it. It's worth reading Hansard for some of the debates surrounding the accession bill.
On the 1st of May 2004 the 10 new members joined. Cyprus and malta are ignored from discussions which generally focus on the eastern bloc, who became known as the A8.
How do the seven year 'transition restrictions' work?
The basic structure of the transitional arrangements is as follows: [Commission Document]

• old Member States will apply national measures for 2 years following accession; old Member States may decide to liberalise access to their labour markets following accession
  
• first review by the Council on the basis of a Commission report before the expiration of the 2 year period following accession
  
• old Member States must then notify Commission whether they will lift the transitional arrangements and apply Community law, or whether they will continue with the transitional arrangements for a further 3 years
  
• one further review if requested by the new Member State
  
• in principle old Member States should fully apply Community law after 5 years following accession
  
• however, if there are serious disturbances (or a threat thereof) of the labour markets, they may prolong national measures for a further two years after notifying the Commission
  

Thus on the 2+3+2 principle member states are allowed to restrict FoM from accession states for a maximum of 7 years. Arguably the full period requires a state to be act in somewhat bad faith, which could explain the apparent presumption made by Blair that other EU countries wouldn't impose such harsh restrictions.

While Britain confirmed the decision in late 2002, most other member states did not make the decision until early 2004. The UK economy was booming at this time, leading to demand for workers. Conversely, other states such as Germany were suffering from economic stagnation and high levels of unemployment.
In Germany, Austria, France and Italy, months of public debate led to the imposition of transitional controls, largely because of fears over job displacement, and in turn pressure from trade unions. Despite the early rhetoric of embracing free movement from these “old states”, at the eleventh hour, 12 out of 15 of them imposed restrictions to varying degrees, with Germany and Austria imposing the maximum seven-year period.

We didn't massively underestimate the numbers of A8 migrants
It's a common point that we predicted only 13,000 would arrive per year. Some people may have believed as much, but the study on which this figure was based provided this estimate only if no other countries imposed restrictions. The actual predicted figure for the given scenario where Germany etc utilised their 7 year restriction period was around 46,000 a year, with the true ONS figure being about 50,000 (see article above)
Full Report - Dustman et al, 2003

Any figure chosen would be an ad hoc suggestion, but we would not think that more than one in three immigrants who had intended to migrate to work in Germany would instead migrate to the UK if Germany had a transition period

We didn't actually allow unrestricted immigration from the A8
In fact Labour introduced the EU worker registration scheme to both discourage migration and to help us keep track of changes caused by migration. This made it a criminal offence for workers not to be registered by their employers amongst other things (more info). This restriction was in place for the full seven year period until 2011. Admittedly it didn't work quite as intended, and is very different to a full ban on FoM, but it IS a restriction, and addresses some of the main concerns people had; in particular around welfare abuse and unemployment.
Essentially the issue isn't that they particularly wanted lots of migration and nor is it that they fucked up their predictions regarding migration numbers. It's that there was clearly a lack of discussion with fellow EU members about their intentions on the issue (where have we heard that before?) before making decisions. This article goes into the reasoning quite well

the decision was also conversely part of the wider control agenda to reduce irregular immigration. Visa restrictions for citizens from Eastern European countries had been lifted in 2001, so de facto labour mobility was already taking place. Given that the UK would have no power to deport the new EU citizens, the government’s view was that it would be better to make sure the workers who came did so legally, allowing the government to focus on deporting illegal immigrants.
Yet the main rationale for this decision had very little to do with immigration per se, but rather diplomacy. Britain was a keen supporter and indeed a “driver” of accession of Central and Eastern European countries into the EU from early on, with Margaret Thatcher setting the precedent. This was principally due to trading ties and a foreign policy interest in forging alliances with these states at the EU level.

It should also be noted that both predictive studies before (Portes et al, 2000 - mentioned in article above), and subsequent studies since (Dustmann et al, 2010; Migration Advisory Committee, 2018) have all indicated significant net contributions from the A8 group as a whole, regardless of localised concerns

We go on to compare the net fiscal contribution of A8 immigrants with that of individuals born in the UK, and find that in each fiscal year since enlargement in 2004, irrespective of the way that the net fiscal contribution is defined, A8 immigrants made a positive contribution to the public finances despite the fact that the UK has been running a budget deficit over the last few years. This is because they have a higher labour force participation rate, pay proportionately more in indirect taxes and make much less use of benefits and public services.

The key thing to take away from this is that the government then took action. Clearly mistakes were made along the way wrt new EU accessions, but I think it's clear those mistakes were quickly learnt from. They quickly realised that things had increased faster than anticipated and made efforts to both mitigate any downsides and stop it from repeating.
FULL restrictions were placed on Romanian and Bulgarian citizens following their 2007 accession
The treaty of accession was signed in early 2005, and the two states joined the EU on 1st January 2007, whilst Blair was still in office. These only ended in 2014. Only 8 countries utilised the full 7 year restrictions - France, Germany, Austria, Belgium, Netherlands, Luxembourg, United Kingdom and Malta with 10 allowing full FoM straight away. Seems the roles had switched to a degree
Thus it cannot be claimed that Blair happily allowed unrestricted Eastern European migration regardless of the cost. It's blatantly obvious that he realised the political/ societal cost.
Government initiatives around immigration

• In 2007 the 'Migrants Impact forum' was created

The Government has now begun to take action on the broader financial and social effects of immigration. A Migration Impacts Forum and a cross-governmental Migration Impacts Plan have been established, and the Department for Communities and Local Government now takes the lead on these issues

Throughout 2008 and 2009 numerous departmental/ parliamentary committee/HoC briefing reports were released on the topic.

• The 'Migration Impact Fund' was announced in February 2008 in order to provide funds for council to ease pressure on housing, schools and hospitals. This was scrapped without any fanfare by Cameron in 2010 with the statement:

"Ending the ineffective migration impacts fund will save £16.25m this year. We believe the impacts of migration are better addressed though controlling immigration, which is why the government will reduce the level of net migration back down to the levels of the 1990s – tens of thousands each year, not hundreds of thousands."

Absolutely laughable decision IMO and shows the 2010 govt didn't actually care about the localised impact of migration at all; something I think we can all agree exists. By all accounts the MIF seemed to be having a positive impact

Areas that, historically, have never experienced migration, have had the opportunity to work with and learn from those that have, whilst specific projects have improved the life chances of migrants themselves and have helped minimise the impact on host communities. The foundations provided by MIF will continue to help communities cope with demographic change caused by migration long after the specific funding stream is forgotten.

In numerous different communities

The MIF project in East Cambridgeshire has led to the development of a good practice model that can be passed on to other local authorities. There has been some improvement in housing conditions for migrant workers and in community cohesion.
previously we had only sufficient capacity to carry out inspections and interventions on a reactive basis, therefore in the main focussing only on the higher profile and reported problem properties. The MIF funding enabled employment of a dedicated HMO officer for the duration of the project to operate pro-actively, undertaking a programme of visits to migrant households to identify hazards and help secure improvement in conditions by advice, guidance and intervention with landlords and agents. Also, raising tenant awareness of respective rights and responsibilities and engagement with neighbours to assist improved relations, involving other services to assist a resolution where needed.

Finally, we can all see that the accession of former eastern bloc countries has caused tensions and added pressures of certain kinds, but i think it's worth adding some perspective and reminding ourselves why we were so supportive of it in the first place. In the words of Alina Mungiu-Pippidi in "Europeanisation without Decommunization: a case of elite conversion":

"The existence of a European option prevented Romania from staying as Albania or regressing to become a new Belarus … More than any constitutional or electoral law, European integration and the prospect of accession to the EU have shaped Romanian politics, and it is in this challenging environment that Europe achieved its largest success to-date. Romania's transition may have seemed long and strenuous for Romanians, but from Ceausescu's snipers and Iliescu's vigilante miners to the signing of the Accession Treaty with the EU [it] has taken only fifteen years."

Summary
New Labour under Blair weren't the vociferously pro-immigration party that people claim they were (even if they did somewhat liberalise immigration rules in some areas), and even less so under Brown. They did (rightly) espouse the benefits of immigration at times, but it's clear that they were acutely aware of the implications (particularly the political ones) of large-scale immigration/ asylum. The lack of restrictions on the A8 were clearly in-part a political decision and a blunder given what's happened since, but people need to see these decisions in context, and appreciate the efforts made subsequently to both limit the impact and ensure the same mistakes weren't repeated.
Appendix:
Interesting table showing exactly when EU countries allowed FoM between each other - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement_for_workers_in_the_European_Union#Summary
E: Someone just sent me this link about labour's overall stance on Immigration. It sums up the situation well https://mobile.twitter.com/BloomfieldSJ/status/1066774213376258048

Under Tony Blair, New Labour passed five migration-related bills between 1997 and 2007—that’s more than in any other policy area. Each one was about making it harder for refugees and immigrants to live here.

The Tories “voted to restore benefits to asylum seekers in 1999 and argued against our proposals to remove support from families whose claimed were rejected.” Yep, Tony Blair, a Labour prime minister, is making this boast about how “soft” the Tories are.

New Labour, to quote Hillary Clinton, did “get a handle on immigration”. They locked people up, left others destitute and talked about asylum seekers and migrants as if they were scum. And where did this lead us? Record votes for Ukip, Brexit and the normalisation of far-right arguments on immigration.

well that puts a lot of things in perspective....

I sent a letter to the Irish Finance Minister:
.

Dear Minister Noonan,
You may or may not be aware of the recent news surrounding digital currencies, the most popular of which is currently Bitcoin. Bitcoin is a decentralised independent cryptographic currency which facilitates immediate global transfer of value for little to no fees and has also proven itself as a store of value in a similar fashion as gold. Bitcoin is frequently termed "The currency of the internet". It's most probably that these types of digital currencies will continue to grow in popularity due to the frictionless, fee saving benefits that they provide end users. An entire technology based industry has been created to facilitate Bitcoin services including escrow companies, Bitcoin banks, trading exchanges and betting sites for example but by all accounts it's still very early days for digital currencies. The daily transactional volume of Bitcoin has recently surpassed that of Western Union (a financial remittance company) and at time of writing has a "narrow stock of money" which exceeds that of Croatia, Latvia and Malta to name a few.
The purpose of this email is a request for formal clarification from the state regarding the capital gains tax procedure that holders of these digital currencies may be liable for. Currently any profit on the disposal of an asset above EURO 1270 is liable for tax at a rate of 33%. The early investors of these currencies who are based in Ireland may see themselves limited by this in the scope of benefits that their foresight now affords them. Many of these people are the type of individual who have deep technical understanding and can spot trends before they happen; the inventors, innovators and creators of products and business. If this money is reinvested in tech startups instead of going to the tax coffers would bring great potential benefits to Ireland. If Ireland can demonstrate that it is friendly for Bitcoin businesses we can ensure that the benefits are not lost to other rival countries and similarly it would invite entrepreneurs here from countries where they may be mired with restrictions. If the regulatory framework is too prohibitive then digital currency startup companies will simply move to other more accepting nations.
I think that there should be no penalty tax for individuals who exchange Bitcoin to Euro in Ireland to encourage digital currency innovation here.
With digital currencies Ireland has an opportunity to distinguish itself as a leader when it comes to fostering new technology business and I would urge you to consider the matter. If you would like to discuss this topic or have any general questions about Bitcoin feel free to give me a call, my number is below.
Kind Regards,
drcross

.
.
His office replied back with:
.

An Roinn Airgeadais Oifig an Aire Department of Finance Office of the Minister Sráid Mhuirfean Uacht, Telephone: 353-1-676 7571 Baile Átha Cliath 2, Facsimile: 353-1-676 1951 Éire. LoCall: 1890 66 10 10 VPN: 8109 Upper Merrion Street, http://www.irlgov.ie/finance Dublin 2, Ireland.
Our Ref: 13/5859/MF
27 March 2014
Dear drcross,
The Minister for Finance, Mr Michael Noonan TD, has asked me to thank you for your correspondence regarding Capital Gains Tax (CGT) and Bitcoin. The delayed reply is regretted.
CGT is chargeable on gains made on the disposal of assets. Section 532(b) Taxes Consolidation Act 1997 states that any currency other than the currency of the State is an asset for CGT purposes. Where a person acquires any foreign currency i.e. other than Euro, he/she has acquired an asset for CGT purposes. If that person subsequently converts that foreign currency into Euro or into another foreign currency that would constitute a disposal of an asset for CGT purposes.
Crypto-currencies, such as Bitcoin, are not legal tender in the Euro area. E-commerce, including the use of virtual currencies, presents a challenge to tax administrations throughout the world. The Revenue Commissioners and tax administrations in other countries are actively monitoring developments. From the information provided, it is not clear how Bitcoin would be treated for CGT purposes. However, it is likely that gains accruing from speculation on Bitcoin would be liable for CGT in the normal way.
Persons are chargeable to CGT on such gains for a year depending on their residence and domicile. The first EURO 1,270 of an individual's net gains for a year (that is gains minus current year losses and losses brought forward from earlier years), is exempt from CGT with the balance taxed at a standard rate of 33%.
As regards reinvesting the proceeds of disposals of Bitcoin in tech startups, a capital gains tax relief for entrepreneurs who reinvest the proceeds from the disposal of assets made on or after 1 January 2010 in certain chargeable business assets was announced by the Minister in Budget 2014. The necessary legislation governing this relief is included in Section 45 of Finance (No 2) Act of 2013. Commencement of the legislative provisions is subject to EU state-aid approval. The purpose of the incentive is to encourage entrepreneurial activity by encouraging individuals who have disposed of assets in recent years to re-invest the proceeds into new productive business activities.
Subject to EU approval, the relief will apply from 1 January 2014 to individual entrepreneurs:
· - who have made disposals of assets since 1 January 2010 on which they have paid capital gains tax;
· - who invest at least EURO 10,000, in the period from 1 January 2014 to 31 December 2018, in acquiring chargeable business assets that will be used in a new business and
· - who subsequently (after a minimum period of 3 years) dispose of those chargeable business assets at a gain giving rise to a capital gains tax liability.
The relief will be given on the tax due on any chargeable gain arising on the subsequent disposal of the chargeable assets after a minimum period of 3 years and will amount to the lower of:
Ø the full amount of capital gains tax paid on the initial disposal made since 1 January 2010, or
Ø 50% of the CGT payable on the disposal of the new chargeable business assets.
If an entrepreneur reinvests the proceeds of that subsequent disposal in a further new business in the 2014-2018 period, the relief can also apply on a subsequent disposal of the chargeable business assets of that further new business. Where less than the full proceeds of a disposal on which capital gains tax has been paid are reinvested, only that proportion of the capital gains tax relative to the amount reinvested will qualify for relief.
The relief will be given in the form of a tax credit equal to the lower of the capital gains tax paid on the disposal of assets made on or after 1 January 2010 or 50% of the capital gains tax on any gain from the future disposal of the chargeable business assets.
The Minister hopes this information is of asistance.
Yours sincerely
Alex Lalor
Private Secretary