I want to thank you all for being here this morning. I admire your dedication to openly discuss matters of the EU, the states that are involved in it and the citizens that reside in them.
A few weeks ago, my colleagues and I, President Barroso and President Van Rompuy, have just finished the EU – Russian Summit. We have discussed many avenues into deepening the relations between Russia and the EU. The Partnership and Cooperation Agreement of 2008 with the EU has given us some improvement, and we would want to deepen economic integration and coöperation even more. Therefore, we are looking into the possibilities of enhancing and replacing this agreement. The Partnership for Modernisation is in implementation, and in due time we will see advancement in investment and trade, technical standards, and sustainable low-carbon economy promotion. The EU – Russia Energy Roadmap 2050, signed by the EU Energy Commissioner Günther Oettinger and Russian Minister for Energy Alexander Novak, is focused on ensuring energy security and fair energy distribution to both EU and Russia while maintaining a transparent and competitive market. Human Rights in Russia have always been aligned with the EU. The mobility of Russian and EU citizens, which I will go into detail later on, have been on negotiations for an upgraded visa. This might mean a complete upgrade of the Schengen Visa or something similar; why this does not happen now, I will discuss later on. Of course, the hot topic nowadays is the Syrian crisis and the steadfast willingness of the EU to participate, which I see as completely unnecessary. Continue reading “Vladimir Putin and the EU”→
I passed by your “miting de avance” expecting no more from you, and you’ve met my criteria for low standards. Yes, once again you’ve disappointed me. You stood there, rallying your troops in hopes to convince those who are in the Ampitheatre that you are the better option. Your parties’ population combined was literally more than twice the potential voters who sat, interestingly, between the two parties, acting as a buffer. Your meeting and efforts were practically useless in my opinion. Please, don’t give me that hopeful thought of “Those who were there will spread our ideas and platforms” because they won’t. They’ll probably forget about them when they get home only because there are more important matters to take care of than trying to remember the candidates for college batch president, whose name must have been echoed over and over–to a point where the bearers think of themselves at the third person. Sure enough, you’ll immediately throw Article III Section 4 of the 1987 Constitution (I can hear you googling); I’ll give you credit for that, but just partially since you seem to be taking advantage of it. Speaking of echoing, why are you so intent on getting your own party to echo your ideas–literally echo what you’ve just said. Aren’t you supposed to convince the potential voters? I’ve seen these buffer people; they were most probably sitting there thinking, “Oh, this is rather entertaining. I’m glad I came here to kill time,” or perhaps, “Why are they saying it again? I heard you the first time.” One thing is sure; they were just sitting. I swear, the most enthusiastic people at the “meeting” were those coming from your own parties. You are well aware that your own parties support you, so why excite them more than they already are? You know they’ll vote for the party they represent. Go for the voters for crying out loud! In fact, before initiating the Miting de Avance, make sure that the people who matter the most are the majority. And if you haven’t figured that out by now, they’re the voters. If your current strategies don’t convince the voters otherwise, you should know something’s not right. I’m not saying that you’re doing it wrong–wait. No. I am saying that you are doing it wrong. Just because COMELEC doesn’t set the ‘right’ parameters on how to do your campaign that doesn’t give you the incentive to act like beheaded chickens. Surely, you have the resources to produce original plans. So what if your strategies have been tried and tested! Sir Ken Robinson back in his 2006 TED talk said, “If you’re not prepared to be wrong, you’ll never come up with anything original.” Common sense, innovativeness, courage, and creativity seem to have been muted from your repetitive ‘howling technique’. My professors, who spent more years teaching than being an undergrad at DLSU, are always annoyed each time you knock at their doors. Please, don’t think that you’re not bothering us when you are granted permission to campaign in our rooms, because you are a bother.
A friend of mine said that the independent candidate has the most realistic platforms out of all of you; unfortunately, I have not had the pleasure to meet this person. [If you’re interested in his platform, click here.] You can see what you can achieve when you look at students at uni from a different perspective—especially when you see them as students. Get your eyes out of those shades of yellow and orange, and see what the students need and NOT what you THINK the students need.
It is within our interest to progress even further as an industrialised state. Although, we cannot ignore the fact that the lands of millions of our brothers will be taken by the tide caused by rising sea levels. The risk of monetary gain is minuscule compared to the price that these small islands would have to face. Our belief still stands: Liberty. Equality. Fraternity.
France stands on the principle of equality. Tax exemption and carbon credits to industries and states by cap and trade is unconstitutional. The new proposed solution to the reduction of carbon emissions aligns with our principle of equality. The inability to purchase carbon credits to be used for industrialisation is not equality. France agrees to this solutions since it is beneficial to the Group of South-Pacific Islands through long-term economic gain. If nobody will save our brothers, who will?
Question from the professor:
Are you willing to take these people as part your state when their land disappears?
We will accept them as refugees. We will not erase their identity as members of their own state and risk them losing their sovereignty.
My professor instructed us to attend a forum on China‘s foreign policy making. She also instructed us to create a paper on it, and here it is.
A Reaction to H.E. Chinese Ambassador Ma Keqing
A forum on China’s foreign policy was held last Friday at William Hall Theatre, and the guest of honour was none other than Her Excellency Chinese Ambassador to the Philippines, Ma Keqing. This forum was held two days after Xi Jinping succeeded as General Secretary of the Communist Party of China, the highest rank any official could achieve, which was preceeded by China’s current President, Hu Jintao. In all honesty, I was quite surprised that the Ambassador agreed to have this forum when she would most often decline television interviews on the matter of the West Philippine Sea dispute. Most, if not all of us were expecting to hear the Ambassador talk on that issue; although, we partially knew that the forum would not come to that. Tensions are high as they all ready are; I believe that tackling that maritime issue would only ensue more anxiety and degrade the image of the university. There are some details that the Ambassador talked about that came into my attention: 1) the economic improvements of China during its past years, 2) the fact that it is not China’s intention to be a state that expresses aggressive military power, and that 3) China has always been about peace and cooperation with its neighbours. Continue reading “To H.E. Chinese Ambassador Ma Keqing”→