Actor Bradley Whitford reiterated his disdain for President Donald Trump in a tweet to his 272k Twitter followers on Wednesday, describing the president as a “charlatan racist sexual assaulting useful idiot of Vladimir Putin.”
The West Wing actor dismissed the Trump administration’s long list of achievements — which Breitbart News has extensively detailed — by reducing the president to nothing more than a “charlatan racist sexual assaulting useful idiot of Vladimir Putin.”
“Sure @realDonaldTrump is a charlatan racist sexual assaulting useful idiot of Vladimir Putin, but how are we gonna run against these amazing #GOP healthcare and infrastructure achievements???” Bradley Whitford said.
Despite Whitford’s claim, there is no legitimate evidence showing Trump to be a racist, sexual assaulter, or puppet of Putin. The Mueller report, specifically, found no evidence of collusion or conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia, despite countless Democrat claims suggesting otherwise.
This is far from the first time the political actor has expressed disdain for the president publicly. In August, the Get Out star called Trump an “unapologetic White Nationalist who is inspiring the wholesale slaughter of American citizens” in response to the shootings that took place in El Paso, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio.
Last month, Bradley Whitford lamented Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s status on the Supreme Court, remarking that he was nominated by a “partisan, vile, temperamentally unqualified president.”
Pop star Justin Bieber shared intimate details about his life in an interview published this week, opening up about how he abstained from sex for over a year so he could feel closer to God.
In Vogue, Justin Bieber admits to having a “legitimate problem with sex” and claims that he was celibate before marrying model Hailey Bieber.
The “Sorry” singer also reflects on his past behavior and problems with drugs and alcohol.
“I found myself doing things that I was so ashamed of, being super-promiscuous and stuff, and I think I used Xanax because I was so ashamed,” the 24-year-old said. “My mom always said to treat women with respect. For me that was always in my head while I was doing it, so I could never enjoy it.”
“Drugs put a screen between me and what I was doing. It got pretty dark. I think there were times when my security was coming in late at night to check my pulse and see if I was still breathing.”
Indeed, Bieber has a past of erratic behavior, including a feud with his Los Angeles neighbors that culminated in him serving probation and paying damages for egging their house.
Dutch Foreign Minister Frans Timmermans | Marco de Swartl/Getty Images
Timmermans takes Poland complaints to the people
Commissioner says Warsaw is acting ‘in clear disregard’ of the constitution.
Frans Timmermans, the European Commission’s first vice president, on Thursday opened up a new front in his campaign against “serious constitutional crisis” in Poland — a direct appeal to the people.
More than four months after the Commission first said it considers the rule of law in Poland to be at “systemic risk,” Timmermans sent a blunt, direct message about the refusal of Andrzej Duda, the Polish president, to swear in three judges appointed by the previous Polish government to the country’s constitutional court.
First published in Poland’s Rzeczpospolita, the letter is a sign that a year of diplomatic efforts by the Commission, aimed at getting the Polish government to change course, have failed.
Timmermans laid out his view that the Polish government’s handling of its independent courts “endangers the very foundations on which the European Union is built,” and rejected claims by Warsaw that the Commission is interfering in domestic politics.
“This is not a political question. The European Commission fully respects the right of the Polish government to implement its political program. That is how democracy works,” Timmermans wrote. But he added that the government’s refusal to swear in the three judges amounted to an attempt to destroy the rule of law.
He said it is “crucial that whatever the government’s program entails is done in full accordance with the Polish constitution and the law itself.”
Timmermans reserved particular criticism for the Polish government’s refusal since March to publish decisions by the Constitutional Tribunal.
Those verdicts relate to a series of laws passed by the ruling Law and Justice party aimed at governing the operations of the tribunal, but which the tribunal found in various ways violate the constitution.
Timmermans said the rule of law in Poland is now “in a state of partial paralysis” with worse to come. Three new laws regarding the Constitutional Tribunal are either on the desk of President Duda waiting for his signature, or near the final stages of parliamentary debate.
“These laws would give the president of Poland the right to appoint an ‘Acting President’ of the tribunal, in clear disregard of the provisions of the Polish constitution concerning the election of the president and vice president of the tribunal. I am deeply concerned by these new developments,” Timmermans said.
Timmermans’ letter (in English)
One year of constitutional crisis in Poland
Over the last year, what started as a relatively simple dispute over the composition of the Polish Constitutional Tribunal, has turned into a serious constitutional crisis related to the respect for the rule of law.
Before the parliamentary elections of 25 October 2015, the Sejm had decided to elect five new judges to the Tribunal. Three of them were elected for vacancies which, according to the existing law, should have been filled by the previous Sejm and two other judges should have been elected by the current Sejm. After review of a constitutional claim challenging legality of the provisions that formed a legal basis for these decisions, the Constitutional Tribunal, in its judgement of 3 December 2015, decided that the election of a first group of three judges was compatible with the Constitution whereas election of two other judges was not valid.
However, the Sejm decided that it would not only proceed to the election of judges to the two mandates still vacant, but also to annul the election of the three lawfully elected judges and elect three other candidates instead. The decision to elect three new judges was overturned by the Constitutional Tribunal in a ruling of 9 December 2015, which stipulated that, in line with the Constitution, the President of Poland should swear in the three judges which had been lawfully elected by the Sejm before the parliamentary elections. Unfortunately, the Polish authorities did not implement these judgments. To this date, the three judges, lawfully elected by the Sejm, have not been sworn in by the President.
In addition to this, the Sejm adopted on 22 December 2015 the Law amending the Law on the Constitutional Tribunal which contained numerous provisions that, if applied, would significantly hamper the functioning of the Tribunal. This law was declared unconstitutional by the Constitutional Tribunal on 9 March 2016. It was also criticised by the Venice Commission, advisory body attached to the Council of Europe, in an opinion that was explicitly requested by the Polish government. Yet again, the Polish government did not recognise the validity of this judgment, and refused to publish it. More seriously still, the Polish Government refused to recognise from then on the legitimacy of the judicial activity of the Constitutional Tribunal.
On 22 July 2016 the Sejm adopted a new Constitutional Tribunal Act which removed some of the problems, but also created new ones. The Venice Commission also criticised this new act, which was partially struck down by the Constitutional Tribunal on 11 August 2016. Again, the Government refused to recognise the judgment and refused to publish it. Worse still, since 11 August, the Government has not recognised nor published any of the judgments of the Tribunal.
It is in the light of these facts that the European Commission was compelled to activate, for the first time ever, its Rule of Law Framework. It adopted, on 27 July 2016, a recommendation to the Polish authorities and established that there is a systemic risk to the Rule of Law in Poland. The main elements of this recommendation were simple enough: that the dispute on the composition of the Tribunal should be resolved in accordance with the judgments of the Constitutional Tribunal, and that more generally, the Polish authorities should respect and implement all judgments of the Tribunal, including those concerning the reform of the Constitutional Tribunal Act, and not just those which appear politically suitable.
Regrettably, since the adoption of the above mentioned recommendation, the situation has not improved. The Tribunal is by now in a state of partial paralysis, as three judges of the Constitutional Tribunal elected by the previous Sejm are not participating in its work. This leaves the Constitutional Tribunal unable to decide cases in composition of a full bench, which requires participation of eleven judges. Moreover, currently, three new laws regarding the Constitutional Tribunal are in preparation introducing new provisions on the election of the President of the Constitutional Tribunal. Two of these laws are waiting only for a signature of the President of State and the third one is a subject of legislative proceedings in the Sejm. These laws would give the President of Poland the right to appoint an “Acting President” of the Tribunal, in clear disregard of the provisions of the Polish Constitution concerning the election of the President and Vice-President of the Tribunal.
I am deeply concerned by these new developments, which threaten to deepen the rule of law crisis in Poland. I therefore call on the Polish authorities not to put into force the new laws before the Constitutional Tribunal has had the occasion to examine their constitutionality. I also call on the President of Poland to urgently swear in the three judges elected by the previous Sejm. And I call on the Government of Poland to publish, and fully respect, all the previous judgments of the Constitutional Tribunal.
This is not a political question. The European Commission fully respects the right of the Polish Government to implement its political programme. That is how democracy works. However, the ballot can never be used to override respect for the rule of law, and it is therefore crucial that whatever the government’s programme entails is done in full accordance with the Polish Constitution and the law itself.
The Constitutional Tribunal is a central body for ensuring respect for the rule of law in Poland. It is only the Constitutional Tribunal which can ensure the constitutional review of the laws [Acts of Parliament] and other legal acts adopted by the constitutional organs of the Polish state. That is why the effective functioning of the Constitutional Tribunal is so important: to make sure that legal dispute can be settled at national level. However, a Tribunal which is not composed in accordance with the law, and which is not independent, will not be able to carry out this crucial function.
Poland is an important Member of the European Union. It contributes significantly to the Union, and benefits from its participation in the internal market. This Union can only work if all Member States accept the binding force of the EU law in all areas. This is crucial for the implementation of all Union policies, including the internal market, and it is the basis for the mutual trust between Member States.
All Member States signed up to the EU Treaties and the fundamental values that are enshrined therein, on which the Union is founded. And this is why I call on the Polish authorities to end the constitutional crisis which endangers the very foundations on which the European Union is built. Not because the Commission says it, but because it is the right thing to do for Poland, its citizens and the proper functioning of its democracy.
Frans Timmermans, First Vice-President of the European Commission, responsible for Better Regulation, Inter-institutional Relations, the Rule of Law and the Charter of Fundamental Rights
A Trump campaign video, which featured music from Queen and was shared by President Donald Trump to his twitter account last week, has been taken down after the band’s publisher issued a complaint.
The clip used in the tweet, which contained a footage of President Trump speaking to supporters at rallies, also included Queen’s hit song “We Will Rock You.”
When attempting to view the clip from President Trump’s feed, a message now appears that states, “This media has been disabled in response to a report by the copyright owner.”
After the release of the clip, a representative for the group told Buzzfeed the band had “already entered into a process to call for non use of Queen song copyrights by the Trump campaign. This is ongoing.”
Buzzfeed also stated the representaive for the band told them the Trump campaign was not authorized to use the song.
Last week, the estate of Prince took aim at President Trump after Prince’s classic song “Purple Rain” was played at his rally in Minneapolis, the home of the pop rock legend.
“President Trump played Prince’s ‘Purple Rain’ tonight at a campaign event in Minneapolis despite confirming a year ago that the campaign would not use Prince’s music,” Prince’s estate said. “The Prince Estate will never give permission to President Trump to use Prince’s songs.”
Follow Kyle on Twitter @RealKyleMorris and Facebook.
It’s going to be a tough year for British diplomats in Brussels.
Morale is low, and the ranks of the U.K.’s representation to the EU are increasingly threadbare. Planned new positions have been abolished, vacant positions are proving hard to fill and the two top jobs are now empty.
Prime Minister Theresa May’s government has canceled at least 24 EU-related jobs since the referendum, including nine posts at its Brussels representation, also known as UKREP.
But Brexit campaigners want more scalps. Douglas Carswell, UKIP’s only member of the British parliament, tweeted Wednesday: “I doubt that a single civil servant working at UKREP or the Foreign Office voted for Brexit.”
Former UKIP leader Nigel Farage wants the resignation of Ivan Rogers, the U.K.’s ambassador to the EU, to be the first of many. And former cabinet minister Iain Duncan Smith told BBC radio that Rogers had leaked confidential information that embarrassed ministers, suggesting Rogers could no longer be trusted.
The BBC reported in December that Rogers had warned London that Brexit could take as long as 10 years, and some Tories seized on this as proof he is not loyal.
Getting out or getting on
At UKREP, Rogers’ resignation has left staff members “reeling,” according to one British diplomat. “The next appointee, whoever that will be, will have their work cut out with an extra layer of public pressure which won’t make it any easier,” the diplomat said. Another described the situation as “a sinking ship.”
On Wednesday evening, Tim Barrow, a career diplomat, was named as Rogers’ replacement.
But according to a third diplomat, who also spoke on condition of anonymity, it’s not all doom and gloom. “Some are getting out,” the diplomat said. “Others getting on with it.”
In theory, UKREP should be the base camp for Britain’s Brexit negotiators. But diplomats have struggled to even stay in the loop, with May’s government reportedly sidelining senior figures in the civil service.
Rogers wrote in his resignation note Tuesday that “serious multilateral negotiating experience is in short supply in Whitehall, and that is not the case in the Commission or in the Council,” urging former colleagues “to keep on working at intensifying your links with opposite numbers [in the Department for Exiting the EU.]”
Communication lines getting thinner
Other European embassies to the EU can rely on their compatriots inside the EU institutions to share information and act as a sounding board for influencing strategies. For U.K. diplomats that resource is increasingly hard to tap. For more than a decade, the U.K. has struggled to take up its share of positions inside the European Commission. The number of British Commission staff has fallen by around 50 percent since 2005 and is barely one-third the number of French staff, for example.
Previously, U.K. governments addressed that by loaning experts to the Commission to help with specific expertise, planting valuable eyes and ears inside the EU system. But the new British government changed that. In November 2016, Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson abruptly ended the Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s funding of around 50 British civil servants on loan to the Commission.
Meanwhile, other U.K. government efforts at soft power as they manage the EU exit have been thwarted. Both Malta and Estonia rejected offers from the British to loan officials to help them manage their turns at the EU’s rotating presidency in 2017. Such exchanges were considered standard practice prior to the Brexit referendum.
The task of recruiting staff to UKREP itself is becoming tougher. For senior staff facing off with figures such as the EU’s chief Brexit negotiator Michel Barnier, the prospect of running negotiations under hard Brexit instructions may seem like a poisoned chalice. “I don’t think anyone in their right mind would take it,” says one former UKREP staffer.
For those recruited to more junior roles, prospects include being surrounded by colleagues with low morale while paying Belgian taxes on lower-paying local contracts, now that the era of cushy diplomatic postings is over.
Current UKREP vacancies have a starting gross salary as low as €3,024 per month, which means less than €2,000 monthly in the pocket, after Belgian income taxes and social security charges have been applied.
On Thursday’s broadcast of ABC’s “The View,” co-host Joy Behar yelled at the audience saying, “listen this isn’t a MAGA rally, OK?” during an interview with Donald Trump Jr. and Kimberly Guilfoyle, while they battled over the outing the whistleblower.
The Commission ruled that Ireland's tax agreements with Apple amounted to illegal state aid | Leon Neal/Getty Images
Apple appeals Commission’s €13 billion tax ruling
Company claims there are many errors in the Commission’s ruling.
Apple appealed today to the General Court of the European Union, dissecting the European Commission’s August decision that the iPhone maker owed Ireland up to €13 billion in back taxes, plus interest.
The company claims the Commission made many errors in its ruling, a redacted copy of which was released today in Brussels. Apple, which has its European headquarters based in Cork, Ireland, refutes claims its Apple Sales International (ASI) subsidiary paid a tax rate as low as 0.005 percent. The company also disputes the Commission’s conclusion that no employees were involved in Apple Sales International’s business activities.
The Commission ruled that Ireland’s tax agreements with Apple amounted to illegal state aid because they were not available to all companies and therefore gave the iPhone maker an unfair edge over rivals.
ASI is part of Apple and these employees conducted business for ASI using a power of attorney, which is entirely legal and normal for global businesses, the company claimed.
Apple also challenges the Commission’s conclusions regarding the cost sharing arrangements among Apple’s subsidiaries, which determined where taxes were paid. Sharing development costs of its intellectual property does not mean Apple’s IP is in Ireland and all of its profits should be taxed there, the company said.
“If their opinion is allowed to stand, Apple would pay 40 percent of all the corporate income tax collected in Ireland, which is unprecedented and, far from leveling the playing field, selectively targets Apple. This has no basis in fact or law and we’re confident the ruling will be overturned,” the company said in a statement.
A newly-released survey shows the favorability of comedian and A-lister Kevin Hart remains largely intact following his ouster as host of the 2019 Academy Awards over resurfaced homophobic wisecracks.
As first reported by Variety, Spotted, a research and analytics company specializing in celebrity data, released a survey showing Hart’s “consumer approval” metric, which combines the “likability, relatability, and trustworthiness among U.S. consumers” recuperated 50% following the Central Intelligence star’s apology for the jokes.
Variety‘s co-editor-in-chief, Andrew Wallenstein, writes:
Spotted CEO Janet Comenos cited Hart’s high “consumer approval” ranking, which measured in the top five-percent among celebrities before the controversy, for the comeback.
“Kevin Hart has an uncanny ability to recover from scandal,”Comenos said. “His ability to quickly rebound is directly correlated to how high he scores in terms of consumer approval, pre-scandal. When a celebrity is so well-liked in the eyes of consumers, just like a mother’s favorite child, they can almost do no wrong.”
“While his first Instagram fumble was perceived by some to be reprehensible, Hart has been unapologetic for years about his the comedic missteps he made earlier in his career, and his learnings from that era,” she added. “Overall, consumers viewed the choice that he made to instead step down on his own accord, rather than to apologize, as an expected move.”
The Oscars have a longstanding host problem, but Hart’s swift firing over old anti-gay quips has led to bigger questions about the gig and the liability of social media histories.
It’s just the latest controversy for the organization that puts on the Academy Awards, which is trying to combat declining ratings for its marquee event while weathering the pressure of being a focal point for the shortcomings of the entertainment industry as a whole.
Immediately after Hart was confirmed as the show’s host, some journalists began tweeting reminders of Hart’s past comments. By Thursday morning, a few publications had written articles about them. The outrage escalated, Hart commented but did not apologize, stoking even more outrage, which culminated with Hart’s announcement that he was stepping down as host of the 91st Academy Awards.
As the dust has settled, the situation has proved vexing for some in the entertainment business. Actor D.L. Hughley commended Hart for his decision.
“A Comedian says something that offends people and refuses to apologize?” Hughley tweeted. ”(Expletive) ’em if they can’t take a joke! Well done #KevinHart.” Snoop Dogg posted an even more colorful Instagram video in support of Hart.
The advocacy organization GLAAD wishes Hart hadn’t stepped down, however.
“Hart’s apology to LGBTQ people is an important step forward, but he missed a real opportunity to use his platform and the Oscars stage to build unity and awareness,” said GLAAD President and CEO Sarah Kate Ellis.
The Academy of Motion Pictures Arts & Sciences has yet to address Hart’s departure and is reportedly considering a host-less program. Hart said the film academy told him he had to apologize or he would lose the gig. On December 7, he bowed out on his own, issuing an apology to his millions of Twitter followers.
“I have made the choice to step down from hosting this year’s Oscar’s….this is because I do not want to be a distraction on a night that should be celebrated by so many amazing talented artists,” Hart tweeted. “I sincerely apologize to the LGBTQ community for my insensitive words from my past.”
“I’m sorry that I hurt people.. I am evolving and want to continue to do so. My goal is to bring people together not tear us apart. Much love & appreciation to the Academy,” the Night School star added. “I hope we can meet again.”
Ever wondered why the north London giants have a cannon in their badge or why they are called what they are?
Club nicknames have long been a part of the football fabric and every team has their own affectionate shorthand which is used by fans.
Arsenal are known as ‘The Gunners’ and the club’s identity, including their badge, is heavily imbued with the idea behind their name.
Goal takes a look at why Arsenal are called ‘The Gunners’, other nicknames, their badge and more.
More teams
Contents
Why is Arsenal’s nickname ‘The Gunners’?
Arsenal’s nickname ‘The Gunners’ is a reference to the club’s origins, having been formed by workers from the Royal Arsenal armament factory in Woolwich.
The Royal Arsenal produced munitions, weapons (such as artillery and small arms) and explosives,
The nickname complements the club badge, which famously incorporates a cannon. Early versions of the club badge also included the words ‘The Gunners’.
Cannons has been a prominent feature of the Arsenal crest since 1888 and the original crest was based on the coat of arms of the Woolwich borough.
Despite moving from Woolwich to Highbury in 1913, Arsenal retained their name and iconography, though the club badge has occasionally been altered.
Return to top
Why does Arsenal’s badge feature a cannon?
A cannon features on the Arsenal club crest as a visual motif which recognises the foundational years of the north London outfit.
Workers from the Royal Arsenal armament factory in Woolwich formed the club in the late 19th century, with the name and badge reflecting that heritage.
The current badge features a single golden cannon facing eastward. However, there have been variations on the theme over the years.
Originally, the club took inspiration from the coat of arms of the Metropolitan Borough of Woolwich, which was three vertical cannons with lions’ heads at the bottom.
Following the club’s move to Highbury, a newly designed club badge began to appear on official correspondence.
In the early 1920s, a horizontal, westward-facing cannon was commonly used. The inspiration for the style of cannon used in the new design is said to derive from the crest of the Royal Arsenal Gatehouse.
The westward-facing cannon was used in various forms until 2002, when the new club badge was unveiled, featuring an eastward-facing cannon.
Return to top
What other nicknames do Arsenal have?
As well as ‘The Gunners’, Arsenal are sometimes referred to as ‘The Gooners’, which is a play on the original nickname.
While ‘The Gooners’ is understood to be a simple variation of ‘The Gunners’, it has been suggested that the alternative nickname has roots in hooliganism.
Hooligan ‘firms’ – gangs of violent supporters – were particularly commonplace in British football during the 1970s and 1980s, with one of Arsenal’s ‘firms’ known as ‘The Goon Squad’ or ‘The Gooners’.
However, the nickname has been reclaimed and has no connotations of violence any more.
Other nicknames for Arsenal are used by rival supporters, such as ‘Boring, boring Arsenal’, which is a reference to the style of football played by the club during the tenure of George Graham.
‘Same old Arsenal’ is another nickname of sorts, which comes from a chant of rival supporters directed at a perceived underhandedness in their play. The chant goes: “Same old Arsenal! Always cheating!”
Return to top
Are any other teams known as ‘The Gunners’?
‘The Gunners’ is a relatively unique nickname in football, but there are a number of clubs who use a similar moniker.
Spanish club Eibar, for example, are known as ‘Los Armeros’, which translates in English as ‘The Gunsmiths’ – a variation of gunner.
Like Arsenal, Eibar’s nickname comes from the fact that the city has a history of arms manufacturing and arms dealing.
Though it is not quite the same, Australian Football League (AFL) team Essendon are nicknamed ‘The Bombers’. Interestingly, Essendon were also known as ‘Same Old Essendon’ or ‘The Same Olds’.
A dispute between the EU and Norway over snow crabs in the Svalbard archipelago in the Arctic is being seen as a proxy fight for an even more valuable prize: oil.
In an unusually dramatic series of clashes above the Arctic Circle, Norway seized one EU vessel this year and expelled several others from its waters, insisting that the European Commission has no right to issue fishing licenses off the remote Svalbard islands governed by Oslo.
While Brussels and Oslo insist that their disagreement hinges exclusively on the right to harvest the large, lucrative crustaceans — which can fetch up to €4.50 per kilo according to the Norges Råfisklag — many experts argue that the two parties are all too aware of far deeper geostrategic implications as major world powers scramble for control of Arctic resources.
The big concern for Norway is that the shellfish sets a legal precedent. If outsiders can come in and scoop up the crab, that also wins them the right to hunt for oil, gas and other minerals.
Part of the reason for the legal concern is that crab stocks are classified differently from fish. Because they live a sedentary life on the seafloor, they are seen as a resource belonging to the continental shelf. If the EU or other countries stake a successful legal claim to the crab, then it would be harder to challenge their entitlement to mineral resources.
“The snow crab is a test. What happens now decides what will happen in every other issue,” said Rachel Tiller, a scientist at the SINTEF Ocean group, a research institute headquartered in the Norwegian port of Trondheim.
The U.S. government estimates that the Arctic holds 22 percent of the world’s undiscovered oil and gas deposits. Statoil already has 130 wells in the Barents Sea surrounding Svalbard. The Norwegian company will begin exploring for five other licenses to the southeast of the islands this summer. This is a new form of gold rush for Svalbard, which has historically been a center for coal mining and whaling.
Experts say this potential for untapped energy resources could make the snow crabs a smokescreen in a quest for black gold.
“This [snow crab] resource became a reason to underscore that the continental shelf is Norwegian,” said Willy Østreng, professor of Polar Research at the Norwegian Academy of Sciences. “There has been an interest in oil and gas resources since the 1970s.”
A treaty dispute
The crux of the disagreement hinges on interpretations of the Svalbard Treaty. Norway, Sweden, Denmark, the United Kingdom, Japan, the Netherlands, Italy, France and the United States signed an accord in 1920 that granted Norway sovereignty over the archipelago but preserved each signatory’s right to unfettered access.
Oslo says the text recognizes its sovereignty over the continental shelf surrounding Svalbard, including its resources: snow crab, oil, minerals and gas.
“As a sedentary resource harvested on the continental shelf, it’s possible that the way Norway treats this issue could set a precedent if they find oil, gas, minerals and genetic resources on the continental shelf. If Norway opens it up for extraction, that would imply that all signatory states would need to be treated like Norwegian citizens,” said Harald Sakarias Brøvig Hansen, a doctoral research fellow in marine law and fisheries at the Fridtjof Nansen Institute.
Oslo flatly rejects any suggestion that the crab could open a door to an oil rush.
“The shelf area where snow crab harvesting occurs is not opened for petroleum activities and there are no plans for such opening,” a government spokesperson said.
Crab smokescreen
Brussels only recently made a major U-turn to refute Norway’s sovereignty over the seabed and its resources. Lowri Evans, the former director general of maritime affairs and fisheries at the European Commission, sent a letter in 2015 requesting EU countries to stop issuing licenses for snow crab.
But at the end of 2016, the Commission decided to issue licenses to 16 vessels from Latvia, Lithuania and Spain permitting them to harvest snow crab. A spokesperson for the Norwegian government said Oslo was “very surprised” by the move. “Self-licensing by others violates international law,” the spokesperson said.
The Commission didn’t immediately respond on the reason for its decision.
Norwegian authorities detained one of the licensed crabbers, the Senator, from Latvia, on January 16, 2017, for setting 2,600 snow crab traps. The Norwegian Supreme Court had convicted the Senator of illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing over two decades earlier, meaning it was blacklisted in Norwegian waters.
The EU remains adamant about its right to issue licenses for Svalbard as a signatory to the Svalbard Treaty.
“The EU and Norway hold divergent views on the interpretation of relevant international treaties in respect of fishing in the waters around Svalbard,” European Commissioner for Fisheries Karmenu Vella said.
Despite politicians downplaying the idea that the dispute is about more than crab, Brøvig Hansen said the conflict would make other areas of cooperation between the EU and Norway more difficult, especially since climate change is altering the Arctic landscape and opening up access to resources that were previously covered by ice.
As environmental change creates a growing number of management challenges, “we can see snow crab as an example of what we’ll see more in future,” Brøvig Hansen said.