congress

The Ministry of Labor wants death leave to be extended to 10 days. Obstacle: Congress

by

The Ministry of Labor plans to approve by royal decree law the extension of leave for the death of family members up to 10 days. Although the formula would allow its entry into force immediately after the Council of Ministers, there is a risk that the measure will end up being overturned later in Congress. Just like share El País, the Secretary of State for Labor, Joaquín Pérez Rey, confirmed this Tuesday that “the intention would be for the rule approving leave for bereavement and death to be an urgent rule” and that his “predisposition is to do so through a royal decree law shortly.” The Government’s strategy. By processing the norm as a decree law instead of as an ordinary draft law, the ministry led by Yolanda Díaz seeks to ensure that the extension of permits is applied immediately, without waiting to complete the entire parliamentary procedure. That would make the measure come into force the day after its publication in the BOE, although it then requires validation by Congress within a maximum period of one month. According to account In the middle, during that period, workers who suffer a family death could now access extended leave. Agreement. Job agreed with CCOO and UGT On December 15, the paid leave for the death of a spouse, common-law partner or relatives up to the second degree (parents, children, siblings, grandparents and grandchildren) was extended from the current two days (extendable to four in the event of displacement) up to 10 days. These could be used continuously or discontinuously within four weeks after death. Furthermore, just as share El País, the agreement includes a new 15-day permit for palliative care, divisible into two fractions over a period of three months, and one day of leave to accompany someone who is going to receive euthanasia, regardless of family ties. Rejection. The employers’ association CEOE and Cepyme have opposed the proposal because they consider that “it represents a new attempt to transfer to companies the cost and responsibility of public policies on care that corresponds to the Administration,” as they indicated in a statement. The lack of consensus in social dialogue marks the position of the PP, which has already announced its vote against following its criterion of rejecting labor measures that do not have the joint support of unions and employers. Key vote in the air. Parliamentary arithmetic turns Junts and PNV into decisive pieces in approving or not the measure. Just like they point From El País, the Catalan nationalists have already joined together with PP and Vox to overturn the reduction in working hours and have maintained very critical positions with other proposals rejected by unions and employers, such as the increase in the self-employed quota. For the measure to be approved, the Executive would need the support of the entire left plus the support of Junts and PNV, or at least the yes of one and the abstention of the other. Comparisons with Europe. Labor has been highlighting Spain’s delay compared to neighboring countries in regards to death leave. From the middle they point out that Portugal extended the paid leave for the death of a spouse in 2023 to 20 days, equal to that of children, while in France 12 working days are granted for the death of children and 14 if the deceased is under 25 years of age. According to the ministry, the current two days in Spain are insufficient to face a duel. A controversial vote. The decision to take the measure through a decree law responds to a clear intention to make it difficult for the opposition to reject it, since it is a measure of high social sensitivity. “suffering from the death of a son or daughter” is “not a question of the right or the left,” counted Pérez Rey in the middle. Cover image | Wikimedia Commons In Xataka | Deepfakes are much more than a bad joke. Now the Government wants them to be a violation of the right to honor

The PSOE wants Mark Zuckerberg to appear in the Congress of Deputies. It is a gesture towards the gallery

by

The PSOE wants to investigate a “possible massive violation of the privacy of millions of users” uncovered a few months ago and to do so has requested the presence of several Meta executives in Congressamong whom is its CEO Mark Zuckerberg. The problem is that it is entirely unlikely that your request will be fulfilled. what has happened. The PSOE registered the request in Congress last Wednesday the 4th. In addition to Mark Zuckerberg, they also request the presence of Javier Oliván, head of operations at Meta, and José Luis Zimmerman, director of public affairs at Meta in Spain and Portugal. They count in The Countrythat during an intervention at the Metafuturo forum, the President of the Government assured that “in Spain, the law is above any algorithm or big technology. And whoever violates our rights will pay the consequences.” The reasons. everything comes following an investigation directed a few months ago by the group IMDEA Networks in which they accused Meta of spying on users through their Android apps. Specifically, they claim that Facebook and Instagram spy on the traffic that comes from the browser, evading Android permissions, allowing users to know their browsing habits even if they use the browser’s incognito mode. Meta would have carried out this practice for at least a year, starting in September 2024. The reality. How likely is it that Zuckerberg will set foot in the Congress of Deputies? From little to nothing, and the PSOE knows it. It is not the first time that a country requests the appearance of the CEO of Meta in its institutions. In 2018 Five countries came together requesting their presence in the United Kingdom to investigate Facebook’s disinformation and electoral influence after the Cambridge Analytica scandal. They were the United Kingdom, Canada, Argentina, Ireland and Australia. Meta’s response was “it is not possible for Mr. Zuckerberg to be available to all Parliaments.” Richard Allan, who was then vice president of political solutions at Meta, attended in his place. What will surely happen. In a statement published by EFEMeta has assured that he will collaborate “constructively with the authorities in this matter”, but at the moment they have not said anything about who will attend. In its request, the PSOE names two other Meta officials. It’s as if they admitted knowing that Zuckerberg won’t go and directly put a second and third option. The profile with the most votes to go to Congress is José Luis Zimmerman, who, as we said, is responsible for public affairs in Spain and Portugal. Zuckerberg’s appearances. The CEO of Meta has sat in front of politicians in the United States on several occasions, the first time in 2018 at the Capitol for the Cambridge Analytica scandal. A year later he returned to give explanations about Facebook’s cryptocurrency, Libra. In 2021 he had to answer questions about the role of social networks in the spread of hoaxes and extremist ideas. Outside the United States he has only appeared once, it was in 2018 in the European Parliamentwhere he was harshly criticized for avoiding many issues. Images | Meta, Wikipedia In Xataka | Faced with the housing crisis, the Government has opted for rent with an option to buy. You forget something: there is no

Europe has been warning for years that firing in Spain is a bargain. Now Congress is making a move with the “restorative dismissal”

by

Unfair dismissal in Spain is a bargain for companies. At least that is what the European Committee of Social Rights (CEDS), dependent on the Council of Europe, has been telling Spain for years. Throughout this time, the Government has turned a deaf ear to the recommendations from Brussels. However, an unexpected turn caused by the mistake of a representative of the Popular Party During a vote in Congress, a Non-Law Proposal (PNL) by Sumar was allowed to prosper, which urges the Government to present a bill to reform the laws that prevent the application of the restorative dismissal that Europe has actively and passively requested. Europe has been warning since 2021. When Spain ratified in 2021 the European Social Charterassumed the commitment to harmonize its labor legislation with its principles. Since then, the European Committee of Social Rights (CEDS), an advisory body of the Council of Europe, has reiterated that the Spanish system, based on a fixed calculation of 33 days per year worked and a maximum of 24 months, does not meet the criteria of said commitment. The problem is that the European Social Charter is a set of guidelines, but it is not binding, and the CEDS is a consultative body, so it cannot demand legislative modifications from Spain. Its resolutions are recommendations, valuable from a legal and political point of view, but without executive force. This lack of obligation has allowed Spain to postpone reforms that would change the way compensation is calculated for employees for unfair dismissal. The cornerstone: article 24. The point of greatest friction to undertake the reforms is found in article 24 of the European Social Charter. It requires “the right of workers dismissed without valid reason (unfair dismissal) to adequate compensation or other appropriate relief.” This means ensuring that compensations to employees for unfair dismissal must be “appropriate and dissuasive”. Something that, as a general rule, does not occur in the system of fixed compensation that is currently applied in all judicial processes for unfair dismissal. This time the request has not come from Europe. Despite having dictated different resolutions and requestsnothing has changed in Europe’s position, nor has it gained power to force Spain to implement the legislative changes. However, what has changed is internal politics. In September, a Non-Law Proposition promoted by Sumar managed to get ahead thanks to the voting error of a PP deputy, repeating the scene that in 2022 allowed approve the labor reform. This NLP does not modify the law itself, but it does urge the Government to begin the legislative process to adapt the regulations to the European framework. This implies the opening of a social dialogue table with unions and employers and, subsequently, the preparation of a bill that must return to Congress to be voted on. The reform of the regulations to legislate unfair dismissals, therefore, is still a long way off, but for the first time the Executive is obliged to put it on the table. “Restorative dismissal” is not a type of dismissal. Among all the CEDS recommendations, none has generated as much debate as the so-called restorative dismissal. The name can lead to confusion: it is not a new category of dismissal as the disciplinarynull or inadmissible, but refers to a proposal to transform How compensation is calculated when a dismissal is declared unfair. Europe considers that the current Spanish system is too predictable and, in many cases, insufficient. The result is that companies can treat unfair dismissal as a more or less easy cost to assume and choose which employees or how many to dismiss based on the cost of the operation. Restorative dismissal causes this calculation to vary from one employee to another and is under the sole discretion of a judge, which would prevent companies from calculating in advance the final cost of the dismissal. What is restorative dismissal?. As its name indicates, restorative dismissal is a model that seeks to individualize the severance payment to the specific damage it causes to the dismissed employee, instead of an automatic calculation based in days per year worked. Judges could assess specific factors in each case, taking into account factors such as the age and social situation of the worker, the real probability of re-entering the labor market, the economic and personal impact of the dismissal, or the size, solvency, or economic capacity of the dismissing company. Based on these factors, for example, a 60-year-old worker with children and a 24-year-old single worker who were fired by the same company in similar positions would obtain different compensation because, statistically, the older one would have less likely to return to the labor market than the young person. Europe understands that this flexibility is essential to repair the real damage of dismissal and to act as a preventive mechanism. Deterrence, protection and less business calculation. The objective of restorative dismissal is not only to better compensate the worker based on the impact caused, but also to discourage the appeal of unfair dismissal and that, if companies really have economic problems that justify dismissals, they do so through dismissals for objective reasons. If the cost is no longer predictable, the company loses the ability to make profitability calculations. This protection measure especially affects precarious groups who, due to their low salary or short seniority, are very cheap to fire: young people, women and precarious workers. Furthermore, Europe insists that the reinstatement after dismissal inadmissible should no longer be optional for the company as it is currently, and should become a real possibility imposed by the court when it is appropriate. Restoration, in this sense, is not only economic, but also labor-related. Justice has its hands tied. Despite Europe’s insistence, the Spanish courts have rejected impose compensation higher than the current scale included in the article 56 of the Workers’ Statute. The reason was not a lack of judicial will, but the absence of a legal framework that would allow additional compensation to be established without generating legal uncertainty. In Xataka | … Read more

Congress will force Renfe to return the money for delays of 15 minutes. Renfe’s response: we’ll see

by

Last year, Renfe expanded the strict criteria for returning money to its customers in case of delay. The measure came with controversy since these criteria had been applied since 1992 when the first AVE was launched. Almost 25 years later, the company relaxed these criteria to the point that two million passengers lost their money last year. Now, Congress forces Renfe to return to its previous criteria. But Renfe is not up to the task. When and how much money does Renfe return? Right now, to receive a partial payment for our ticket, the delay on the Spanish high-speed Renfe has to exceed 60 minutes. From 2024the company does not give half the money if the delay does not exceed one hour. In the event that we aspire to receive a full refund of the ticket, it will not arrive until we exceed 90 minutes. What has changed? Yesterday, November 13, The Congress of Deputies approved the Sustainable Mobility Law. It included an amendment from the Popular Party that returned the compensation that Renfe has to apply to those prior to the 2024 change. That is: Delays of more than 15 minutes: payment of 50% of the ticket Delays of more than 30 minutes: 100% payment of the ticket The change is substantial because this summer, four out of every 10 Renfe high-speed trains have arrived late. However, with the changes applied from 2024 they have been left without a refund around two million passengers. We’ll see. This is what the Ministry of Transport seems to say. And in statements to EFEsources from said ministry have described the amendment (which has been supported by Vox, Junts, ERC, Podemos and BNG) as “a demagogic operation and a toast to the populist sun.” Not only that, since The World They already state that Transport assures that they will look for “the legal formula to maintain the current system.” That is, the customer does not receive any refund for their ticket until after 60 minutes of delay. And that the total amount is not delivered until after 90 minutes. In the media they also report that Transport sources have indicated that the decision “only wants to penalize Renfe, a Spanish and public company, and not competing companies.” such as Ouigo and Iryo”, while highlighting that Renfe is a “public company that is fundamental to the structure of Spain”. In addition, Óscar Puente himself, Minister of Transport, has questioned the amendment. “Let’s see how it goes,” they say in The World who has responded about the new obligation. At a disadvantage? What Transport maintains is that the amendment promoted by the Popular Party puts Renfe at a clear disadvantage compared to Ouigo and Iryo. What the Government alludes to is that the reimbursement conditions by these companies are less favorable for the client, allowing them a competitive advantage. Ouigo compensates in the following cases: Delay of more than 30 minutes and less than 60 minutes: 50% refund of the ticket in a non-refundable purchase voucher. Delay of more than 60 minutes and less than 90 minutes: 50% refund of the ticket in a refundable purchase voucher. Delay of more than 90 minutes: 100% refund of the ticket in a refundable purchase voucher. Iryo partially or totally refunds the money in the following situations: Delay of more than 30 minutes and less than 60 minutes: refund of 50% of the ticket in purchase voucher or cash. Delay of more than 90 minutes: 100% refund of the ticket in purchase voucher or cash. Competence. What the Ministry of Transport points out is that this puts them at a disadvantage compared to the competition because Renfe adapted its compensation criteria to formulas similar or equal to those offered by its competition. However, the amendment introduced in the Sustainable Mobility Law only toughens the criteria for Renfe. It must be taken into account that the company has been around for more than a year experiencing a punctuality crisis. Although the Government points out that its punctuality is among the best in Europe, criticism has surfaced because trains that do not arrive on time have multiplied. Of course, when sharing roads with Ouigo and Iryo, it may be the case that a road blockade due to a breakdown of the latter ends up causing a delay in times when Renfe does have to return 100% of the ticket and its rivals will only deliver half of it. Photo | Carlos Teixador Cadenas in Wikimedia and Congress of Deputies In Xataka | If the summer has taught us anything, it is that Spain does not need more trains. You just need them to work.

a bizarre vote in Congress leaves the closure intact

by

What started as a political maneuver by the Popular Party to open the door to prolonging the life of Spanish nuclear power plants ended up becoming one of the tightest and most surprising votes of the legislature. The amendment that sought to suppress the closing dates of Almaraz, Ascó and Cofrentes was rejected by a single vote, a minimal difference that was only possible thanks to the – unexpected – abstention of Junts. The result was 171 votes in favor – PP, Vox and UPN -, 171 against and seven abstentions from Junts, who shot down the proposal. The Government breathed a sigh of relief, although the underlying debate—what to do with nuclear energy at the height of electricity demand—remains more open than ever. Congress stops the PP nuclear amendment. The amendment introduced by the PP in the Sustainable Mobility Law It intended to eliminate from the ministerial orders the dates for the definitive cessation of operation of the Almaraz, Ascó and Cofrentes plants. With this, the popular parties sought to open the door to possible extensions, especially at a time when the owners of Almaraz They have already formally requested extend its useful life until 2030. According to El PaísJunts left the vote in suspense until the last moment, leaving it unclear whether they would vote with the PP and Vox or support the Government. His abstention finally tipped the balance. The movement was even surprising due to the political context: it came just 24 hours after a tough confrontation between Míriam Nogueras and Pedro Sánchez, in which the Junts spokesperson accused the president of being “cynical and hypocritical.” However, in the vote the strategy was different because Catalonia consumes more electricity from nuclear origin than any other community. What does this rejection really mean? Although politically the vote had a huge impact, technically things remain more or less the same. The amendment would not have automatically extended the life of the plants, but it would have modified ministerial orders without requiring the report of the Nuclear Safety Council (CSN), a mandatory requirement by law. Besides, They remembered a precedent: In 2012, the PP itself demanded this report when it reopened the discussion on the Garoña plant. The tension was amplified because the debate had no direct relationship with the Mobility Law, a regulation linked to the receipt of 10,000 million euros of European funds, as various media emphasize. The PP amendment thus introduced an energy element in a text on sustainable mobility, which increased unrest among the Government’s partners. So, is the nuclear shutdown schedule still valid? Yes. With the fall of the amendment, the calendar agreed in 2019 between the Government, Enresa and the electricity companies remains intact. The calendar, as we have already explainedit looks like this: Almaraz I: closure in 2027 Almaraz II: 2028 Chests: 2030 Ascó I and II: between 2030 and 2032 Vandellós II and Trillo: until 2035 However, the fact that the calendar is still standing does not mean that an extension is ruled out. Contrary to what it may seem, the rejection of the amendment does not prevent companies from requesting an extension nor does it block the Government from authorizing it. As the Executive himself recalled —as cited by El País—: “The right to request an extension is not created by a ministerial order, but by current regulations.” In fact, as mentioned above, Iberdrola, Endesa and Naturgy have already formally requested that Almaraz remains operational until 2030. Administrative clash. The real problem is technical and bureaucratic. According to The Independentthe bureaucratic procedure has been crossed unexpectedly: the CSN can take up to a year to issue its report, but the regulations force the plant to request closure in March 2026, if the calendar is not reviewed before. That means Almaraz could be asking to close while the CSN evaluates whether it can continue operating. A scenario that no one thought of in 2019 and that adds more uncertainty to the nuclear transition. Everything that nuclear encompasses. Added to this is the Government’s position. The Minister for the Ecological Transition, Sara Aagesen, has reiterated on several occasions the three red lines of the Executive, that the expansion does not entail costs for citizens, guarantee of nuclear safety and security of supply. However, these three conditions clash precisely with the diagnosis that they make the electric ones: operating the plants beyond 2027 with the current tax burden is economically unviable if the market does not exceed €65-70/MWh. The expected prices are around 55, so Iberdrola and Endesa insist that keeping the nuclear park open requires alleviating taxes that, according to the Ministry, would end up having an impact on consumers’ bills. The economic debate does not end there. Enresa’s fund for the dismantling of the plants only covers 43% of the real cost. According to figures that we have had access to in Xatakathere is a hole of 11.6 billion euros not yet financed, a fact that overrides any discussion about deadlines and extensions Can Spain do without nuclear power? The underlying issue is no longer political, but technical. Spain wants to build a 100% renewable system, but it has yet to be demonstrated that the network can sustain that model without the stability that nuclear energy provides. The new digital systems that must replace inertia of the reactors are still in the testing phase, and the CNMC has detected inconsistencies in the frequency and voltage control procedures. In parallel, regions with strong industrial and digital growth—such as Aragon, which is experiencing a data center boom—warn that the network is practically at the limit. Simply put: companies ask for time; The territories ask for certainties; The Government asks for guarantees. An official closure, but an open debate. Congress has closed the door to the PP’s fast track, but it has not closed the nuclear debate. On paper, the calendar remains intact; In practice, the transition coexists with technical tensions, industrial interests and territories that fear what will come next. The question … Read more

Congress was regulated by food waste in Spain. And it has ended up approving wolves hunting

by

The Wolf It sneaks In Congress. Again. And this time with such resounding consequences and after such an unexpected turn that has even called attention of the foreign press. Yesterday the lower house He endorsed That the wolf loses the armor he had achieved in 2021 and can be funded again north of the Duero, something that the PP had tried In 2024. Moreover, Congress has also opened the door that if the community legal framework changes (and in Brussels They already work so that it is) the protection of the wolf is reduced to the south of the river. The curious thing is the shortcut that has been used to retouch the wolf’s legal framework: The law on food waste. What happened? That the wolf has begun to lose its legal armor in Spain. Or what is the same, it will fallen again. At the moment north of the Duero, although once changed The community regulatory framework (Something what He already works the European Commission) its protection could also be reduced to the south. The key step for this regulatory modification was given yesterday in Congress thanks to the votes of the PP, Vox, Junts and PNV. What exactly has changed? The legal framework. Yesterday, during the processing of the food waste law, the lower house gave green light to several amendments centered on the wolf and basically return the species to the situation in which it was before 2021when It was added to the list of wild species in special protection regime (Lespres), What in practice vetoed his hunt north of the Duero, something that already happened to the south of the river. To be precise, yesterday the Congress voted Several thingsnot always with the same distribution of support (Junts abstained in an amendment and backed others, for example). The most important points are basically two. The first is A change In the Royal Decree developed by Lespres to eliminate the protection of the populations of wolf north of the Duero, allowing autonomies to decide on their hunt. And the other modification? The second change looks beyond, both in the calendar and territorial level. During the vote of yesterday the Congress He opened the door that the protection of the wolf can also be reduced to the south of the Duero if the legal armor of the wolf is modified at the community level. Maybe it sounds like something distant or abstract, but it is not. The EU has already activated its Administrative machinery To reduce the status of the species now and go from “strictly protected” to “protected.” In December the CE itself He informed that his proposal had brought the support of the Permanent Committee of the Bern Convention. And once that initial obstacle has not surpassed, it has not taken long in get to work To retouch the habitat directive. How have they achieved it? In Spain the wolf has been starring in political chronicles for some time. That is not new. In April 2024 the Congress already gave A first step In the same direction so that the species cease to be untouchable. The really curious thing about yesterday’s movement, beyond the bottom, is the form. How it has been done. The PP took advantage of the new Loss prevention law and food waste to incorporate its amendment on wolf hunting during the previous process in the Senate. The turn is so curious that it has even caught the attention of The international pressalthough the popular amendment has managed to connect both issues: the food waste and the legal status of the wolf. Its main argument is that with their attacks on sheep and cows directly affect the sector, generating tons of waste. “They suppose an impact on the generation of livestock foods of four million kilos of meat, since there were more than 14,000 dead cattle between calves, cows, foals and sheep,” collect the amendment. Before even the vote in Congress, the Association for the Defense and Study of the Iberian Wolf (ASCEL) already labeled “offensive” and “abuse of power” that the legal status of the wolf is addressed in a law dedicated to waste. Have there been reactions? Yes. In every way. For the PP the objective is “End the nightmare” that thousands of farmers live. The minister for ecological transition, Sara Aagesen, sees it differently and He warned Wednesday that lowering the protection of the wolf in Spain would be a “precipitated, reckless” movement and “contrary to science.” Outside the political arc, the measure has generated different reactions. Yesterday the Royal Spanish Hunting Federation (RFEC) celebrated A decision that, in his opinion, will help “the conservation” of the species and its “coexistence” with livestock. In another release Much harder environmentalist in action spoke of “hate” and “killing”, and warned: the amendment “turns its back on science.” What do the figures say? Recently Juan Carlos Blanco, an expert in the species, explained to The country that right now in Spain there are between 330 and 340 herds of wolves, which would result in some 2,300 animals. The vast majority (95%) are distributed in areas affected by the normative change endorsed by Congress, in Castilla y León, Galicia, Asturias and Cantabria. The Ministry for Ecological Transition warned These days that you are collecting data precisely to advance in its “responsible management.” If the wolf has sneaked into the political debate, both Spanish and European, it is for another aspect: its impact on rural and livestock. Just a year ago The PP warned that communities such as Cantabria or Galicia are giving “subsidies for the protection of their livestock” because “there are 35 attacks on average.” Moreover, he estimated that since the wolf had legally armored the number of lost animals exceeded the million. Now, once the new modification was published in the BOE, it will be the autonomies that will determine how many wolves may be hunt. Images | AR Higher School of Environment (Flickr) and Rjime31 (Flickr) In Xataka | You … Read more

Congress has shown its intention to extend its useful life

by

The Congress of Deputies has approved This Tuesday a non -law proposition (NLP) on the extension of the useful life of the Nuclear power plants in Spain. The initiative, presented by the Popular Party, has come forward with 171 votes in favor (of the 349 cast), thanks to the support of Vox and a UPN deputy, in addition to the abstention of Junts and ERC. Of course, being a non -binding figure, its approval does not entail any change in the formalized closing calendar six years ago, but it does reflect the position of the chamber and summons the government to assess possible measures in that direction. No change in the nuclear blackout. The Government marked the course of the future energy policy in 2019, when it agreed with the National Radioactive Waste (Enresa), Iberdrola, Endesa, Naturgy and EDP company, the stepped closure of the five nuclear power plants in the country. It is expected that dismantling tasks will begin in 2027 and extend until 2035, with some facilities ceasing to produce electricity before others. To do this, several measures are being launched in parallel, such as the development of a radioactive waste cemetery and a portable laboratory for transfer. Nuclear remains a significant energy source. According to the Nuclear Forumwith electricity data, nuclear plants generated 19.57% of electricity in Spain in 2024. It was not only the technology with the highest number of hours of operation at full power (83.27% of the total hours) , but also the second most important production source in the country, only behind wind. At present, government plans go through renewable energies, But some actors believe that this bet will result in a less robust and stable electrical system than the current one. Nuclear centrals from Spain Europe attends the “rebirth” of nuclear. While Spain keeps firm its nuclear closure calendar, in much of Europe the trend is the opposite. A clear example is Francewhich a decade ago planned to reduce its dependence on atomic energy, but in 2022 it changed course. Not only did he abandon that idea, but decided to bet on new reactors. Finland, Slovakia, Poland, Czech Republic and Hungary They have also announced or are considering the construction of new nuclear plants. The reasons for doing them are many, but one of them is artificial intelligence (AI). AI and Nuclear Energy. Data centers that train next -generation language models require huge amounts of energy. These avant -garde infrastructures operate with the most advanced processing units of companies such as NVIDIA, which triggers their electric demand. Given the need for an abundant and stable supply, technological giants have begun to close agreements to directly access nuclear energy. Microsoft, Google, Oracle and other companies have already taken steps in that direction. And some governments, such as the American and French, are supporting these initiatives. The United States has given green light to the use of federal lands for the construction of data centers and seeks to expedite both permits and access to nuclear energy. Meanwhile, France advances strongly to become a key actor in the sector. Not only is it promoting “the largest campus in Europe” With investment of United Arab Emiratesbut also promotes a data center of more than 1 power gigavatio In collaboration with Fluidstack. “Electricity is available, you just have to connect”, Emmanuel Macron said this week. A small victory, although without concrete changes. As we have seen above, the non -law proposition has come forward with the support of Junts and ERC, Catalan parties in whose region are the nuclear power plants of Ascó I, Ascó II and Vandellós II. These facilities generate 60% of the electricity consumed in Catalonia, which underlines the relevance of the debate. However, beyond reflecting a political position and reviving the discussion about the future of nuclear energy in Spain, the measure does not alter the planned closing calendar. Today, the official plan continues its course and there is no indications that it will be modified. Images | WILLTRON ( CC by-SA 3.0) | Ministry for ecological transition and demographic challenge In Xataka | We are two years after the beginning of the “nuclear blackout” in Spain. Go against the countercurrent raises many doubts and few certainties

US House approves immigration detention law that could be the first that Trump enacts

by

The US House of Representatives on Wednesday gave final approval to a bill that requires the detention of migrants who are in the country without permission and who have been accused of theft and violent crimes, the first measure that President Donald Trump can enact it, after Congress—with some bipartisan support—moved quickly in line with the president’s plans to toughen measures against illegal immigration. The passage of the Laken Riley Act, named after a Georgia nursing student who was murdered last year by a Venezuelan, shows how dramatically the political debate over immigration has shifted to the right following Trump’s election victory. . Immigration policy has often been one of the most entrenched issues in Congress, but a crucial group of 46 politically vulnerable Democrats joined Republicans to pass the strict proposal by a vote count of 263 in favor and 156 against. . “For decades, it has been nearly impossible for our government to agree on solutions to problems at our border and within our country,” said Republican Senator Katie Britt. He noted that it is likely to be the “most significant immigration bill” that Congress has passed in nearly three decades. However, the bill will require a massive increase in the capabilities of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), but does not include any new funding. Meanwhile, the new president has issued a series of executive orders aimed at sealing the border with Mexico to immigration and ultimately deporting millions of migrants who lack permanent legal status in the United States. On Wednesday, Trump also canceled refugee resettlement and his administration has said it intends to prosecute local law enforcement officials who do not comply with his new immigration policies. Republican congressional leaders have made clear that they intend to follow the same path, although their biggest challenge will be finding a way to approve funding to actually implement Trump’s strict plans. “What he’s doing is starting what will ultimately be our legislative agenda,” said House Speaker Mike Johnson. House Republicans initially passed the legislation last year with the support of 37 Democrats in a move intended as a political rebuke to then-President Joe Biden’s handling of the southern border. He then languished in the Democratic-controlled Senate. This year, Republicans, now in control of both houses of Congress, have made this their top priority. When it came before the Senate, 12 Democrats voted in favor of the measure, and when the House voted on a version of the bill earlier this month, 48 Democrats supported it. A majority of adults in the United States favor deporting immigrants convicted of violent crimes, according to a recent poll by the NORC Center for Public Affairs Research and The Associated Press. However, only about 37% of U.S. adults favor deporting migrants in the country illegally who have not been convicted of a crime. “While the bill is not perfect, it sends a clear message that we think criminals should be deported,” said Rep. Tom Suozzi, a New York Democrat who has urged his party to support stricter enforcement of the law. immigration law. Under the bill, federal authorities would be required to detain any migrant arrested or charged with crimes such as shoplifting. The scope of the proposal was expanded in the Senate to also include those accused of assaulting a police officer or crimes that injure or cause the death of someone. The bill also gives state attorneys general standing to sue the federal government for damages caused by federal immigration decisions. This gives states new power in immigration policy when they have already been trying to counter presidential decisions under the Trump and Biden administrations. Democrats unsuccessfully tried to have that provision removed from the bill in the Senate, saying it would inject even more uncertainty and partisanship into immigration policy. Ultimately, even the Trump administration will likely struggle to implement the new requirements unless Congress follows up later this year with funding. Republicans are currently planning how to push their priorities through Congress through a party-line process known as budget reconciliation. They have estimated the cost of funding Trump’s border and deportation priorities at approximately $100 billion. Trump has “established the largest domestic logistics undertaking of our lifetimes, which is the deportation of the majority of aliens who are in the United States illegally,” said Ken Cuccinelli, who led U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services during the Trump’s first term, to a Senate panel recently. Cuccinelli noted that it would require an increase in immigration judges, prosecutors and other staff, but Trump has also paved the way for using military assets, bases and other resources to carry out mass deportations. The Department of Homeland Security has estimated that the Laken Riley Act would cost $26.9 billion in the first year to implement, including an increase of 110,000 ICE detention beds. Most Democrats criticized the lack of funding in the bill as evidence that it is a piecemeal approach that would do little to fix problems in the immigration system but would burden federal authorities with new requirements. “The authors of the bill stated that it would result in the arrest and detention of dangerous criminals, but it will not because it is a completely unfunded mandate,” said Democratic Senator Chris Murphy. Others expressed concerns that the bill would deprive migrants, including minors or beneficiaries of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, of due process rights. Senator Alex Padilla said federal authorities would now be forced to prioritize detaining migrants arrested for minor crimes such as shoplifting, rather than those who commit serious crimes. Overall, there is no evidence that migrants are more likely to commit violent crimes. Several studies have found that immigrants commit crimes at lower rates than those born in the United States. Groups that advocate for restrictive immigration policies dispute or dismiss those findings. But Republicans pointed to the bill’s namesake, Laken Riley, and how she was murdered by a Venezuelan migrant who had previously been arrested by local authorities but released while his … Read more

US House approves immigration detention law that could be the first that Trump enacts

by

WASHINGTON— The US House of Representatives on Wednesday gave final approval to a bill that requires the detention of migrants who are in the country without permission and who have been accused of theft and violent crimes, the first measure that President Donald Trump can enact it, after Congress—with some bipartisan support—moved quickly in line with the president’s plans to toughen measures against illegal immigration. The passage of the Laken Riley Act, named after a Georgia nursing student who was murdered last year by a Venezuelan, shows how dramatically the political debate over immigration has shifted to the right following Trump’s election victory. . Immigration policy has often been one of the most entrenched issues in Congress, but a crucial group of 46 politically vulnerable Democrats joined Republicans to pass the strict proposal by a vote count of 263 in favor and 156 against. . “For decades, it has been nearly impossible for our government to agree on solutions to problems at our border and within our country,” said Republican Senator Katie Britt. He noted that it is likely to be the “most significant immigration bill” that Congress has passed in nearly three decades. However, the bill will require a massive increase in the capabilities of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), but does not include any new funding. Meanwhile, the new president has issued a series of executive orders aimed at sealing the border with Mexico to immigration and ultimately deporting millions of migrants who lack permanent legal status in the United States. On Wednesday, Trump also canceled refugee resettlement and his administration has said it intends to prosecute local law enforcement officials who do not comply with his new immigration policies. Republican congressional leaders have made clear that they intend to follow the same path, although their biggest challenge will be finding a way to approve funding to actually implement Trump’s strict plans. “What he’s doing is starting what will ultimately be our legislative agenda,” said House Speaker Mike Johnson. House Republicans initially passed the legislation last year with the support of 37 Democrats in a move intended as a political rebuke to then-President Joe Biden’s handling of the southern border. He then languished in the Democratic-controlled Senate. This year, Republicans, now in control of both houses of Congress, have made this their top priority. When it came before the Senate, 12 Democrats voted in favor of the measure, and when the House voted on a version of the bill earlier this month, 48 Democrats supported it. A majority of adults in the United States favor deporting immigrants convicted of violent crimes, according to a recent poll by the NORC Center for Public Affairs Research and The Associated Press. However, only about 37% of U.S. adults favor deporting migrants in the country illegally who have not been convicted of a crime. “While the bill is not perfect, it sends a clear message that we think criminals should be deported,” said Rep. Tom Suozzi, a New York Democrat who has urged his party to support stricter enforcement of the law. immigration law. Under the bill, federal authorities would be required to detain any migrant arrested or charged with crimes such as shoplifting. The scope of the proposal was expanded in the Senate to also include those accused of assaulting a police officer or crimes that injure or cause the death of someone. The bill also gives state attorneys general standing to sue the federal government for damages caused by federal immigration decisions. This gives states new power in immigration policy when they have already been trying to counter presidential decisions under the Trump and Biden administrations. Democrats unsuccessfully tried to have that provision removed from the bill in the Senate, saying it would inject even more uncertainty and partisanship into immigration policy. Ultimately, even the Trump administration will likely struggle to implement the new requirements unless Congress follows up later this year with funding. Republicans are currently planning how to push their priorities through Congress through a party-line process known as budget reconciliation. They have estimated the cost of funding Trump’s border and deportation priorities at approximately $100 billion. Trump has “established the largest domestic logistics undertaking of our lifetimes, which is the deportation of the majority of aliens who are in the United States illegally,” said Ken Cuccinelli, who led U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services during the Trump’s first term, to a Senate panel recently. Cuccinelli noted that it would require an increase in immigration judges, prosecutors and other staff, but Trump has also paved the way for using military assets, bases and other resources to carry out mass deportations. The Department of Homeland Security has estimated that the Laken Riley Act would cost $26.9 billion in the first year to implement, including an increase of 110,000 ICE detention beds. Most Democrats criticized the lack of funding in the bill as evidence that it is a piecemeal approach that would do little to fix problems in the immigration system but would burden federal authorities with new requirements. “The authors of the bill stated that it would result in the arrest and detention of dangerous criminals, but it will not because it is a completely unfunded mandate,” said Democratic Senator Chris Murphy. Others expressed concerns that the bill would deprive migrants, including minors or beneficiaries of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, of due process rights. Senator Alex Padilla said federal authorities would now be forced to prioritize detaining migrants arrested for minor crimes such as shoplifting, rather than those who commit serious crimes. Overall, there is no evidence that migrants are more likely to commit violent crimes. Several studies have found that immigrants commit crimes at lower rates than those born in the United States. Groups that advocate for restrictive immigration policies dispute or dismiss those findings. But Republicans pointed to the bill’s namesake, Laken Riley, and how she was murdered by a Venezuelan migrant who had previously been arrested by local authorities but released while … Read more

Log In

Forgot password?

Forgot password?

Enter your account data and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Your password reset link appears to be invalid or expired.

Log in

Privacy Policy

Add to Collection

No Collections

Here you'll find all collections you've created before.