Religion

The Katowice Kindergarten

Thunberg.png

While Swedish 15-yo Greta Thunberg deserves absolutely no criticism for presenting in front of a COP24 audience for something she has been made to believe, the deliberate use of children to behave as political pawns is disgraceful, although hardly surprising from a body which has such dreadful ethics. Climate alarmism hit new lows when UN Secretary General Guterres and a collection of hand picked delegates fawned over Thunberg’s catchphrases like she was smarter than all of those there. Honestly if kids are so smart, why bother with pursuing tertiary education? Although the mainstream media might have had a point about the children being more mature than the adults.

Childishness seems to be a recurring theme at the COP24 summit. Whether it is the chanting and laughter brigades deployed to disrupt forums on coal or the “Fossil of the Day Awards” where the host brazenly shames representatives who don’t conform to the realpolitik of the climate alarmists, it is juvenile. There are even fossil fuel derived signs and a T-Rex suited sidekick to add to the childish antics of slagging off the Polish hosts for promoting clean coal.

There was touch of irony when the masked compere in a skeleton tuxedo lambasted Australia for having the hide to use its $100s of millions of carbon credits it earned from the Kyoto Protocol. So flimsy is the framework behind these self-coined “historic” agreements, that countries can get a bashing for adhering to the clauses agreed by the same body hosting the summit. Take that!

When will these stooges work out that shaming those that hold alternative views won’t win over the hearts and minds of those they haven’t convinced?  Why can’t they debate with reasoned arguments, facts and courteous common sense rather than tease those that disagree with them in the sandpit? Surely if the supposedly flaky arguments presented by skeptics are allowed to be heard without interruption, they’ll dig their own grave when asked to back up their own untruths? It is that simple. Ahh but to the cultural Marxists, there are no voices to be heard other than their own. A bit like the marching Maoist Chinese girls in The Last Emperor.

Let us be frank. The UN could not give two hoots for this girl other than what she can do to resurrect the fortunes of a conference that is dying in relevance. Think about it. In Copenhagen, 40,000 climate pilgrims showed up to COP-21. This was the summit where Al Gore mysteriously disappeared when it was shown his hockey stick prophecies were utter tripe. Katowice COP24 has managed 22,000 delegates and 7,331 observers. At least we can say there are far fewer hypocrites at this function shooting to maintain frequent flyer status.

COP summits are little more than a cash grab which is pretty obvious when looking at the delegates present. 42% of those at COP24 are from Africa lining up to receive millions in funding from guilt ridden Western nations. There is a reason why Guinea sent 409 delegates and Australia 30, even though the latter has twice the population of the former.

Although is there another reason why the political class is not listening to the kids? Thunberg is probably unaware many leaders of European nations have no progeny.

France’s Emmanuel Macron – no kids.
Germany’s Angela Merkel – no kids
UK PM Theresa May – no kids.
The Netherlands PM Mark Rutte – no kids.
Former Italian PM Paolo Gentiloni – no kids.
Swedish PM Kjell Stefan Löfven- no biological kids.
Luxembourg PM Xavier Bettel – no kids.
Austrian Chancellor Sebastian Kurz – no kids (although he’s only 32)
Scotland’s Nicola Sturgeon – no kids.
EC President Jean-Claude Juncker – no kids.
Incidentally Japan’s PM Abe also has no children.

CM is a fervent supporter of children learning and becoming passionate about certain topics, on the proviso that teaching faculties are prepared to debate both sides of the story in earnest and allow critical evaluation. As evidenced by the 15,000 strong school student led climate strikes across Australia, the Department of Education & Training should be fast tracking spirit levels to schools around the country to ensure there is balance in the classroom.

Sir David’s 22,000 disciples won’t be able to sustain frequent flyer mile status

Yes Sir David Attenborough, we’re doomed if we look at history of the very people in place to save us. Not withstanding the 22,000 climate change disciples who have flown to Katowice, Poland to pay homage at the altar of the UNIPCC to cling on to each other hearing about their inevitable extinction. What a shame that instead of embracing technology and live-streaming COP24 to help us mitigate impending disaster, government funded frequent flyer mile status of climate apparatchiks takes precedence to saving us from all of these dangerous CO2 emissions.

Apart from the 100% certainty of me being screened for explosives at Sydney Airport (yet again today), the other is that the growth in air travel suggests that more and more people are happy to save the planet, provided that someone else offsets on their behalf. CM has long argued this position. Our consumption patterns dictate the “true” state of care of the environment. It hasn’t stopped SUV sales dead in their tracks and last year the IATA forecast that the number of airline passengers is set to DOUBLE by 2030.  Hardly the actions of those frightened by climate change.

Oh but you can offset your carbon footprint! In its 2017 Annual Report, Qantas boasts,

We have the world’s largest airline offset program and have now been carbon offsetting for over 10 years. In 2016/17, we reached three million tonnes offset.”

Carbon calculators tend to work on the assumption of 0.158kg CO2/passenger kilometre.

In the last 10 years Qantas has flown around 1 trillion revenue passenger kilometres. While the literature in the annual report denotes one passenger offsets every 53 seconds, the mathematical reality is simple – 2% of miles are carbon offset. So that means that 98% of people couldn’t care less. Would dispensing with frequent flyer programs cut emissions? These loyalty programs by their very nature encourage more travel. The more you fly the more you can fly for free!  Surely the IPCC should scream for a ban here. Dispense with first, business and premium economy to maximise passenger loads each flight. Apologies for the preamble.

While the US is not a signatory to Paris, 19 of the G20 are. The irony is that the non-signatory nation has seen its total emissions fall while many of the others have not. What value the ink on a pledge? No sooner had President Macron thrown stones at America, that he’s backed down and postponed a fuel tax hike for 6 months to save his city from burning down. There it is in a nutshell. We’re told if we don’t act now we’re doomed. So 6 months is a long time in “immediate” speak. What we do know this is classic smoke and mirrors by Macron. In 6 months the fuel tax will be all but forgotten. Virtue signaling Exhibit A scrapped. Why doesn’t anyone in the media pick on China? It has promised to increase emissions out to 2030 and is a signatory.

Sir David should get cold chills lifting a rock on the recent saga surrounding the NATO signatories where we can learn how worthless pen strokes can be. In 2006, NATO Defence Ministers agreed to commit a minimum of 2% of their Gross Domestic Product (GDP) to defence spending. This guideline, according to NATO,  “principally serves as an indicator of a country’s political will to contribute to the Alliance’s common defence efforts.” In 2017, only 5 of the 28 members outside the US have met the 2% threshold – Greece, Estonia, UK, Romania & Poland in that order. Despite Greece’s economic problems elsewhere, it manages to honour the deal. NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said “the majority [not all] of allies now have plans to do so by 2024.” 3 more are expected to hit the target in 2018. So for all the good will in the world, is POTUS wrong to call the other 19 members slackers that ride off the US taxpayer when so many of them are only likely to hit the target 18 years after ‘committing’ to it?

Alas, who doesn’t want to breathe clean air? The question is once all of the hysteria of 100m sea rises, forest fires (sharply down from 70 years ago & 90% caused by arson or accidents), hurricanes (nothing extraordinary in the data to show increases in ferocity) or sinking islands (sorry 80% of Pacific atolls/islands are stable or rising) are properly analysed what is the most efficient way to get there? Even Turkey wants to be downgraded to a developing nation in order to benefit from wealth redistribution on climate.

What a masterstroke if signatories to Paris are prepared to take on America’s share of saving the planet. American taxpayers can feel happy in the knowledge that other nations are paying for their NATO commitments by rebating them with tax credits on climate, all the while ruining their domestic competitiveness along the way.  Why does Trump need to Make America Great Again, when the majority of nations are prepared to do it for him? Economist Paul Krugman shouldn’t be calling climate skeptics “sinners” but “saints”

The #IAmSoldierX mutiny

3CEB157F-3BA8-4F59-BD71-44577670BA96.jpeg

In the last two weeks the #IAMSOLDIERX campaign against terrorism has caught on like a firestorm in the UK. Numerous squaddies have been placed under investigation by the MoD for taking a selfie with Tommy Robinson who just happened to be in the same highway service area. One has been discharged.

Now serving soldiers and veterans are posting 1,000s of their own pictures with the above hashtag to protest the MoD’s bending to political correctness. Around 200,000 have signed a petition on http://www.StandWithOurLads.com to show the MoD they are against limp wristed folding to complaints made by minority groups who just happen to abhor Robinson.

Putting any personal bias against Robinson to one side, we should ask ourselves why he has two best selling books (which point to a two tier police state) on Amazon UK? He is no saint and admits as much. Yet he questions the double standards. They are pretty blatant.

Ask why a bunch of squaddies wanted a selfie with him? Do we presume that the couple of dozen 17yos in the picture who joined the army to defend their country are alt-right by wanting a picture with a celebrity with a bad boy image? We’d be hard pressed to find any 17yo turn down an opportunity to get a selfie with the famous. A selfie with a David Beckham? He was red carded in a World Cup. Bad role model.

What if it was Sid Vicious of the Sex Pistols? Would that infer squaddies were anarchists? Would they discharge troops for taking a selfie with Katie Price (aka Jordan) because a bunch of feminists complained that wanting a snap with a buxom former Page 3 girl was irrefutable grounds of inappropriate exploitation of women? Where do they draw a line?

How many times did we see UK armed forces appear on Top Gear? Jeremy Clarkson has said some pretty outrageous politically incorrect things in his time, even one which poked fun at terrorists. No repercussions…or is it Top Gear’s audience reach makes for such a great recruiting tool? The soldiers he promoted on the show loved the way he pushed their service.

Could it be the armed forces respect Robinson’s bravery (prison terms, death threats in/outside jail and kangaroo court trials) to call out gross injustices (e.g. grooming gangs) and government cover ups which turned a blind eye to 11-12yo girls being raped because they feared being thought of as racist?

CM read the entire 200 page Rotherham investigation. You can read the summarized  horror here. Robinson is not wrong in his fight over grooming gangs even if one questions his methods or dislikes his brutal delivery.

The BBC recently took up the exact same story which Robinson had spoken of for over a decade. He was pilloried for all that time as a far right wing racist for pointing out this black mark on the judiciary and constabulary. Only now does the mainstream media declare it safe ground after the event to report on it.

What of the 1000s of girls who have been permanently psychologically damaged because of political correctness? Are these girls a worthy sacrifice in defence of diversity? Labour MP Naz Shah tweeted that “these abused girls in Rotherham and elsewhere should shut their mouths. For the good of diversity.”

The Rotherham Inquiry showed evidence that the police deemed many of these underage girls unworthy of protection. The councils had known about it for decades yet chose silence for the sake of inclusion. It is all documented. It should make your blood boil. Arresting fathers for trespassing while trying to rescue their daughters from rape dens. It is absurd.

The majority of the grooming gangs in the UK have been Pakistani Muslim men. It is a fact.

Does it mean all Pakistani Muslims should be held under suspicion of being associated? Not at all. One could argue that the very political correctness which tries to protect them from being tied to such abhorrent behaviour makes it worse. The authorities would be far better placed to work with the affected communities to publicly out the perpetrators and show a united front that such behaviour won’t be tolerated under any circumstances.

Winning hearts and minds comes from collective purpose, not smoke and mirrors. Otherwise it becomes easy (rightly or wrongly) for people to jump to conclusions that sweeping it under the carpet is less hassle for law makers. Which is what is happening.

Others grooming gangs have been of Eastern European extraction. There have been white child sex traffickers too. It doesn’t matter who have perpetrated these acts – they should equally be dealt with under the law of the land. These squaddies would likely hold all of them with the same contempt. It is more than likely Robinson’s beliefs resonate against the soft approach to dealing with serious widespread problems. Failure to do so will lead to vigilantism which we saw with the Guardian Angels in New York in the 1980s.

There is a vigilante group in the UK operating since 2016 called Guardians of The North which lures online sexual predators and films them when making their scheduled encounter to engage in underage sex. 205 captured. 101 convictions. The videos are compelling. The excuses and denials are telling. We should applaud their dedication.

Why do they feel the need to operate? They claim the police are under budget and stretched so see a need to fill the void.

CM is not a vet and never served but the clear message from every person met that is or has been ‘behind the wire’ are all about the defence of freedom, be it speech, culture, religion or anything else. As long as laws are dispensed equally without fear or favour they’re content. If they see gross double standards or rigged application of justice they feel it betrays every reason they joined.

To have some young cadets face possible discharge for being in a photo is hardly a crime. Did the MoD teach these kids who they could and couldn’t take selfies with? There are rules and regulations over what is acceptable behaviour in the military. The photo doesn’t display them making Nazi salutes, holding offensive banners or anything remotely pushing hatred against any minority. .

F65A4BB0-C923-4B4F-9889-283FA6D37C30.jpeg

Does the MoD truly understand the morale of troops and veterans alike? There were 8 UK veteran suicides last week alone. There have been 42 this year alone in the UK. These Soldiers have also been posting pictures of the squalid conditions they live in, ones which prisoners would get immediate rectification were it discovered their basic amenities were in such disrepair. Many soldiers say morale in the UK forces is next to mix existent. This won’t help.

The whole saga is so sad. Who would have thought a bunch of squaddies would be slaughtered by selfie? Is this the way we treat our brave military souls? They deserve much better. The victims of sexual slavery deserve to have their story told to point out why diversity isn’t always as wonderful as the activists/apparatchiks would have us believe.

This movement seems to have momentum. How will the state react when so many that serve their country have had enough!?

Feinstein’s timing truly defending the rights of a sexual assault victim?

FFC44C27-733C-40EB-B3C9-D45A89939278.jpeg

There is absolutely nothing right about sexual harassment of any kind. CM wrote extensively here on the subject last year. CM also warned of the dangers of #MeToo turning into baseless witch hunts that could permanently stain the character of otherwise innocent people. CM contends that false claims should be equally punishable under the law to prevent false claims getting air.

Whether Supreme Court Justice-in waiting Brett Kavanaugh is guilty of harassment 36 years ago is nothing more than an allegation at this stage. All claims should be heard under the legal framework. However studying the timeline of events, there is a touch of convenience in Senator Diane Feinstein’s use of Christine Blasey Ford’s accusation letter.

Kavanaugh’s announcement as SC nominee was made mid July, 2018. Ford documented her supposed harassment encounter in a letter to Feinstein two weeks later, dated July 30th. Yet it would appear Feinstein sat on this nugget til September in order to maximize its utility to prevent Kavanaugh’s confirmation if all other political stunts failed. With any luck she can drag an FBI investigation into the mid-terms (i.e. the real goal).

If Feinstein truly wanted to defend the rights of a supposed sexual harassment victim, surely she should have acted immediately? No doubt she would need a bit of time to discuss with lawyers to understand if this constituted substantial evidence but sexual harassment is a serious claim and crime. Surely the united forces within the Democratic Party could summon the resources to expedite the allegation and use its validity to block.

As the party of supposed social values, what better way to derail the candidate than to release a real claim ASAP after legal checks and balances, including meeting the openly Trump hating Democratic professor were completed. Provided the evidence was incontrovertible it would sell itself. Could it be that the evidence is so sketchy that Feinstein knew it only served as a stalling tactic, hence delaying it by 6 weeks? This says more about the moral compass of the Democrats than Ford.

It seems that Ford does not want to testify under oath before the Senate Judiciary Committee until the FBI investigation. Yet the FBI will investigate what? The crime scene is 36 years old. Her recollection is vague at best. Interviewing people who were likely underage kids who were drunk at a party

Alas, as all of the stunts from Democrats, including Cory Booker admitting he may lose his position for leaking certain documents which turned out to support Kavanaugh not being racist, they pull out claims of sexual misconduct, in the hope it drags the confirmation beyond the Novemeber elections whereby a potential blue wave will potentially allow them to block Trump’s choice. Tactically a shrewd move, but utterly disgusting to true victims if proved untrue.

There is no reason to fault the Democrats wish to block a Republican choice for a vacant SCJ seat (which by the way was on the 2016 ballot given the subject was raised in the presidential debates because it was the first time since Eisenhower that an SCJ seat was empty at election time) on the basis of supposed conflicts in convictions and beliefs. No doubt the Republicans would do likewise. Yet citizens were given the chance to vote on a SC judge with their presidential choice. The names were all out there.

Unfortunately, to use a sexual assault allegation based on sketchy information given by the accuser who admits she doesn’t remember much 36 years ago is utterly reprehensible if the claims turn out to be false. There will be no surprise if the Dems get their goal achieved that Ford will quietly withdraw her claims.

Let’s be perfectly clear. If Kavanaugh is guilty of such a serious crime then he is unfit to serve on a SC bench. Should Ford’s claim turn out to be completely baseless then the Dems will reveal themselves as morally bankrupt to use such a tactic to besmirch someone’s reputation. The timing of the letter is convenient to say the least.

Is this the way forward? Everything that doesn’t stand on its merits or via democratic process will somehow be stopped by claims of sexual impropriety?

In this battle the only thing everyone should be united behind is that “justice” is properly served for the right reasons. Certainly not to dish up political character assassinations for convenience.

True victims tend to bottle trauma for substantial periods, usually decades. Yet rarely would they openly come out on a whim and chuck around claims which don’t help their own healing process.

Is Musk losing it?

F52C5B1C-71A6-4BC6-9339-4CDDC6AD7F10.jpeg

Is Tesla CEO Elon Musk losing it? More senior resignations from accounting and HR this week  reveal more cracks in the automaker. He emailed a journalist, calling him a “mother f*cker”. He went further to say he hoped the cave rescuer he called a “”pedo” sued him because a UK man who is single and spent so much time in Thailand must be a child rapist.

He rattled off he had “secured” funding of $420/share to go private and then all of a sudden he didn’t, prompting the SEC to investigate. He was then on radio with comedian Joe Rogan toking what is reportedly a mixture of tobacco and marijuana. Are these the actions of a man running a $50bn market cap company?

Clearly his board can’t control him.  With the shares collapsing and bond prices falling, refinancing will become problematic. Chief  Accounting Officer Dave Morton quit the company after revealing his concerns about the various obstacles Tesla faces.

Tesla’s Chief People Officer, Gabrielle Toledano, took leave in August and said she wouldn’t be returning to Tesla.

Musk has been a genius and visionary to get Tesla where it is today. Yet he is a direct victim of his own hubris. Sleeping under boxes with Tesla bankrupt written on them to living on the factory roof to rattling off about production hell while accusing families of drivers dead due to over reliance in a system he aggressively promoted.Tesla was technically asking for suppliers to refund a portion of the monies they were paid since 2016 to the EV maker so it could post a profit which is borderline accounting manipulation in an attempt to give the impression of an ongoing concern.

He also complained at the lack of support in the media despite being called out on this nonsense.

Musk’s compensation is also linked to a $650bn market cap, which is effectively saying to the market that his company will be worth more than Daimler, BMW, VW, GM, Ford, Toyota, Nissan, Honda, Renault, Fiat-Chrysler, Ferrari and Porsche combined. Just read that last sentence again. Do investors honestly believe that Tesla which consistently misses and is going up against companies that have been in the game for decades, seen brutal cycles, invest multiples more in technology and forgotten more than they remembered will somehow all become slaves to a company which has no technological advantages whatsoever?

The Tesla story is on the ropes. Expect more mega-releases on new products to try to keep the dream alive and the disciples faithful. I guess ‘Lucy in the sky with diamonds’ worked for The Beatles…

Yet more junk journalism from The Guardian

33ADFEE8-2402-4164-BECF-46D50C56A7FA.jpeg

No wonder The Guardian is begging for charity to stay alive when it publishes such a slanted narrative which essentially charges the Swiss of profiling against Muslims for something as trivial as a handshake.  CM wrote about this over two years ago.

Swiss authorities have denied the citizenship applications of two Muslim schoolgirls who refused to swim in a pool with boys based on religious grounds. Authorities cited the students’ refusal to comply with school curricula like all the other children of various races, backgrounds, and religions. Their refusal to assimilate to and respect the very culture they wanted to take them in and give them the privilege of citizenship was proof enough that they weren’t there to better Swiss society but to force its citizens to adopt their foreign beliefs.”

Stefan Wehrle, president of the naturalisation committee said, “Whoever doesn’t fulfil these conditions violates the law and therefore cannot be naturalised.”

Yet the Swiss are no easier on white immigrants they don’t think fit the bill as a desired citizen, even if resident for four decades.

“In Switzerland, unlike in the United States and many other countries, integration into society is more important for naturalization than knowledge of national history or politics. Candidates for citizenship must prove that they are well assimilated in their communities and respect local customs and traditions.

In Switzerland, local town or village councils make initial decisions on naturalization applications. If they decide a candidate is not an upstanding member of the community, the application will be denied and not forwarded to canton (state) and federal authorities for further processing.

DFE5E150-80C7-461C-8290-BF83ABE572F2.jpeg

That’s what happened in 2014 to Irving Dunn (pictured), an American who has lived in Switzerland for nearly 40 years. He was denied Swiss citizenship because he could not name any of his Swiss friends or neighbouring villages, authorities said. “The applicant’s answers have shown that his motive for naturalization is not about integration but about the personal advantages it offers,” the naturalization commission ruled.”

So if The Guardian wasn’t so busy painting narratives and did a bit of research on the Swiss immigration system they may win paying customers instead of pleading others to keep them afloat. Yes, the reason why you’re struggling is the quality of the journalism, not the bun fight over advertising revenue.

EU – 1.3m abortions, 5m births p.a.

DivMarr

Eurostat statistics on abortion reveal that Germany, France, UK, Spain and Italy alone terminate a combined 760,000 fetuses per annum. Across the EU-28 there are 1.25mn terminations. Without getting into a debate on abortion rights, the pure statistical number points to 20.4% of fetuses never make it out of the womb alive. Every. Single. Year. At that rate over 10 years that is 12.5 mn children that could have added to EU population sustainability do not occur but the EU seems to think embarking on mass migration is the only solution to plug the gap. Is it? Ironically child support is one area the EU is happy to cede control to individual Member States.

The fertility rate across the EU-28 is now 1.58 children per woman, flat for the last decade and down from 2.9 in 1964. Demographers suggest that a fertility rate of 2.1 is required in developed world economies to maintain a constant population (in the absence of any migration). The number of live births in the EU-28 peaked in 1964 at 7.8 million. In 2017 this had fallen to 5 million. There was a brief period (2003-2008) when live births in the EU-28 started to rise again, returning to 5.5 million by 2008 but the GFC sent it down again – as economic hardship tends to cause a decrease in births. So are economic incentives too low to cause a rebound?

France has the best incentives for children and the highest birth rate inside the EU at 2.0 up from 1.7 in the 1990s. Germany is around 1.4 drifting from 1.6 in the 1990s. The lives for child rearing French are eased by cheap health care, inexpensive preschools – for infants as young as 6 months old – subsidized at-home care and generous maternity leave. Mothers with three children can take a year off of work – and receive a monthly paycheck of up to €1,000 from the government to stay home. Families get subsidized public transportation and rail travel and holiday vouchers.

In order to stop the declining working population over time, imagine if Europe hypothetically put the onus back on consenting couples to take responsibility for their actions and makes abortions harder to access without compulsory consultation over options? Why not graphically show the entire process to get some sense of reality for both parties? You can gross yourself on this link.

Perhaps, in today’s electronic world, automatically deducting child support from fathers that run from responsibility might make sense? Why should the state pay for others’ lack of accountability? Even if the child is placed in foster care, why not wire child support to foster parents indirectly via the Ministry in charge of its administration? The population crisis is not going away in Europe. Why not provide more incentives to married/same-household couples?

Mathematically speaking the numbers are huge. Imagine if the million-plus fetuses every year had a vote to be raised with foster parents as opposed to being terminated, what they would choose? Consider the €23bn Merkel has spent on mainly economic migrants in the last 2 years being put toward preventing 200,000 abortions in Germany over that period? €115,000 to avert each one might have been better spent. That is a huge sum of money period.

CM is not advocating control over the womb but surely transparency in policy over individual responsibility is not a bad thing with respect to many issues, not just abortion. What level of economic incentives are required to prevent some couples/women choosing to terminate? Surely that plays a part in deciding to terminate. Consultation services with respect to the subject don’t seem too commonplace or at least structured in such a way as to prevent them.

According to Eurostat, since 1964 the divorce rate in EU-28 equivalents has doubled and the marriage rate has halved. For every eight marriages in 1964 there was one divorce, now there is one divorce for every two marriages.

The proportion of births outside of marriage now stands at 40%, from 27% in 2000 to less than 7% in 1964. 8.8 % of the EU-28 population aged 20+ lived in a consensual union (de-facto). In Japan the number of births out of wedlock is 25% according to the MHLW. The dynamics of the traditional nuclear family are fading.

51% of the Swedish population is now single household. 51%! While some is attributed to an aging population, 19 of the EU-28 members has a single household ratio of over 30%. 12 over 35%. By way of comparison, Japan’s single household ratio stands at 34.6% from 27.6% in 2000.

9E454726-9076-4241-8F2C-268C04B01FEC.jpeg

To further analyse the new ways of living together and to complement the legal aspect, statistics on consensual unions, which take into account those with a ‘marriage-like’ relationship with each other, and are not married to or in a registered partnership with each other, can also be analysed.  Sweden (18.3 %) has the highest rate followed by Estonia (16.4 %), France (14.3 %) and the lowest in Greece (1.7 %), Poland (2.1 %), Malta (2.5 %) and Croatia (2.9 %).

Is employment a factor?  It is mixed. Eurostat reported in Germany, the fertility of non-employed women has increased and that of employed women decreased, while in Spain, the opposite occurred; in Greece, the total fertility rate (TFR) of non employed women fell below that of employed women, changing from a positive differential of about 0.2 average live births.

Is education a factor? Apart from Nordic countries (Denmark, Finland and Norway), Portugal and Malta, in general, women with lower education had higher TFR between 2007 and 2011. Eurostat state the fertility of women across the EU over the same period with a medium level of education dropped by about 9%, while the decrease for women with high or low education was less significant.

Eurostat argues that economic recessions have correlation to falling child birth rates. Apart from the direct impact of economic crises at an individual level, the economic uncertainty that spreads during periods of hardship seem to influence fertility. From this point of view Eurostat believes the duration of a crisis may play an important role and, the duration and the depth of the current recession are unprecedented in some countries. The agency states,

The expected relationship is that negative changes in GDP correspond to negative changes in the TFR, possibly with some delay, thus showing a high positive correlation at particular lags. The correlation with the TFR is relevant in Spain and Latvia without any lag; in Bulgaria, Poland and Romania with one year of lag; and in the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Greece, the Netherlands, Finland, Sweden, Iceland, Norway and Croatia with two years of lag. Taking the overall average across countries, a change in GDP is mostly positively correlated with a change in the TFR within about 19 months.”

Do we cynically argue that stagnant child birth rates aren’t just a factor of societal changes? Perhaps a truer reflection on the higher levels of poverty in the EU since GFC and the harsh realities for a growing number of people behind the growing levels of populism who are suffering greater economic hardship than statisticians are presenting to the political class? Hard decisions must be made before they are made by external factors.