Vintage Port

Vintage Port Wine one of the most known and expensive wines in the world is facing an identity crisis. In the past its rarity and its value was guaranteed by the stability of the climate. Therefore this wine was only declared Vintage every few years. But from the middle of the last century to nowadays a phenomenon have been occurred. Producers of Port wine were obligated to declared vintages more often than usual. The global warming was giving the first signs of its presence. Some people might say at least global warming is good for something, maybe! Some experts don’t have the same opinion. There are some grim predictions for the future of South Australia’s wine industry, with the global warming impact. Last month researchers around the world reported a high increase in the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere during the past two years. There are some studies being developed at University of Melbourne about the impact of global warming on the wine industry, and what they have found so far is scaring, if the trend continues there will be dire consequences. They say the quality of wine in important demarcated wine areas of the globe will be significantly reduced in long term.
Antonio Silva student at Algarve University in Portugal student of environmental ciences, said: “By the year 2020/30 the impact’s not that great, it’s between 0 and 4 per cent negative impact on quality, but looking out to 2050 this would increase to between 10 and 16 per cent negative impact on quality”
In the world of wines the Vintage Port is still in a high and deserved position. This type of wine is only declared Vintage in exceptional harvest years. But nowadays an exceptional harvest year is almost every year.
Last month the president of United Nations Kofi Annan had alerted the world for the importance of this matter saying that would be cheaper to reduce the green houses gases now than facing the consequences later.
The word vintage was created by English producers of Port wine to describe an exceptional harvest year; Although Port wine is a Portuguese Wine, its success it is also due to the bright contribution of the English people. England was the first market consuming this product and that was essential for its spreading around the world.
All we know about Port wine its styles and qualities available nowadays have happened slowly. The port production area was the first area in the world to be demarcated in 1756.
Nowadays Vineyards are graded by the wine institute of Douro and Porto, IVDP, there are six possible categories labelled from “A” to “F” and twelve other physical factors including productivity (the lower the yield, the higher the mark), gradient, aspect, soil, exposure and vine varieties. More than 1200 points out of 1680 is given an “A”. Vineyards with less than 200 points are given “F”. A vineyard with an “A” are authorised to produce up to 600 litters of Port per 1000 vines. Vineyards with a grade of "F" are normally only authorized to do table wine. About 90 varieties of grape are permitted to be grown in the demarcated Port wine region. Only 30 varieties can be found there and only 5 are considered to be of exceptional quality. These are Tinto cao, Tinta Roriz, Touriga Francesa , Tinta Barroca and Touriga Nacional . White Port with white grapes, Cedega, Gouveio, Viosinho,Rabigato and Malvasia Fina. The Touriga Nacional grape is considered by experts to be without doubt, the best grape for this wine. Unfortunately Touriga Nacional is not the most widely planted variety because produces only half the yield as the other grapes varieties. Touriga Nacional is the grape that gives Port wine its famous deep color and longevity. A Vintage comes from a harvest year of exceptional quality, and is bottled after two to three years. The Vintage wine to be recognized as a truly vintage has to mature in the bottle and it is only ready to drink after 15 to 50 years. The first vintages were declared around 1734. The best vintages from this century include 1994. 1992, 1991, 1985, 1977, 1970, 1963, 1955, 1948, 1945, 1935, 1931, 1927, and 1912. There is no doubt that the production of Porto Vintage wine has doubled in the last 50 years. why? Is it definitely to blame the global warming? Well some experts have no doubts about that. Others are not so sure. So what is really going on? Mr Telmo simoes, director of the wine institute of Douro and Porto, IVDP,is not sure about the global warming affecting the production he says: “well is true that the production of vintage has increased but I am not so sure that the global warming is to blame. In nowadays we have technology that permit us to reduce the effect of global warming, and the vintage wine to be vintage has to been created in excellent conditions, no much hot no much cold, so if is too hot it might damage the vine.” However Mr Edwin Dublin, sales adviser of Berry Bros & Rudd, Wine and Spirits Merchants in London has no doubt: “yes definitely, the global warming is the reason for that! There are vintages almost every year what else could be? But there are technologies that minimize the effects of a bad weather, the global warming it is not always good; if it is too hot it will damage the vines.
Mr Dublin believes that there aren’t bad effects on the value of Port vintage: “I believe the price of a vintage will always be determined by its age, a vintage will always be a Vintage”
Nowadays an average price of a Port vintage in Berrys Bros & Rudd with 3 or 4 years from its release it would cost between 20 to 50 pounds.
But what will happen to the quality? Is the quality at risk? Is Port wine being threatened? Are we assisting to an end of what is still is one of the best ones?

Squatters: A political Scream!

A squatter is someone that occupies an abandoned or unoccupied space or a house. The squatter does not rent, own or have permission to use. Statistics shows that there may be as many as one billion squatters around the world, approximately one of every seven people.
Many people ask themselves the true nature of squatters. Some just say they are a bunch of lazy people. Other says they are junkies or benefit seekers. Others say they are political activists. What are they then?
After spending a night with squatters in central London we brought very interesting information.
“Silvia”, 28, not the real name but that is how she asked to be named, Portuguese squatter living in London rolls up a cigarette while starts a conversation with me. “It is not a split, don’t worry” she says to me while we both laugh. She starts showing me the whole house that use to be a Pub and where is the home of 27 squatters. “We break into the house and then we changed the lockers”. Silvia tells me.

Squatters are normal people: they work, they have friends but they normally defend left wing measures for society. However the group of squatters I spent with that night do not do their way of living a political cause on a daily basis. Hugo, 29, also a Portuguese squatter living with Silvia says: “I am against capitalism, but if you ask me if I am left wing or right wing I really don’t think about the subject”. Sonia a Spanish squatter living in the house explains her experience: “I start being a squatter because I had a friend who was squatter and when I arrived to London he invited me to live with him without having to pay. Since I was unemployed and without money, I accepted. After a while living with them I noticed the spirit of cooperation and friendly atmosphere between squatters, that’s when I noticed I was a squatter too.”
Squatters reckon everyone has a right to have a house. They believe having a house should not be a privilege but a right. Hugo defends: “If we are homeless living in the streets and we see an empty house why should we stay outside?”
They are not parasites of society; they are completely integrated into the society. Being a squat is a civil matter, not a criminal offence and they are protected by law. To squat in many countries is in itself a crime; in others, it is only seen as a civil conflict between the owner and the occupants. Property law and the state have traditionally favored the property owner. Being a squatter in England is a civil matter but squatters are protected by section 6, criminal law act 1977 and amended by criminal justice and public order act 1994, which says that squatters have the same basic rights as anyone else and can not be evicted without the owners carrying out certain civil legal proceedings first. When they are asked to do so by the court, if they leave the property voluntary nothing can happen to them.
The relation with the neighbours is not always good, Hugo says: “the neighbours pick on us, they complaint about us for the minimal thing. I think it is natural they don’t know who we are, that is why we never last very long periods of time in the same place.”
They are extremely socially people; since the first time I called Silvia’s mobile phone she demonstrated me a great availability to help me with my reportage. I visited her place where she has been for 8 months now. “We are kind of gipsies, we are always on the move, and luckily I’ve been here for 8 months now without any problem”.
Sometimes we blame our generation (people born after 75) of a lack in political opinion. In fact it is really difficult to find someone with my age to discuss political issues. People keep agreeing with my political point of views! But this group of 27 squatters with ages between 25 and 30, that I spent the night with, in my sleep bag, with live music played by them have a very strong political opinion about everything. Sometimes when I asked them what were their political view, right wing or left wing, some of them answered me very quickly without thinking: “we are green and against capitalism”. There was in that building many art students such Hugo and Sonia and they normally have speeches of leftwing. Hugo, however, was the most curious guy that I conversed with, although all what he said was a left wing speech; he kept saying that he does not have a political side.
Their house is full of outdoors with political messages pictures of George W. Bush saying that this president is the terrorist number 1 and so on.
Hugo says: “I just want to have the same right of education that rich people have; if I pay rent I would not have money to pay my university fees, this is my way of saying to people that society is not equal to everyone. I am from an EU country but I have no right for a student loan if I started my course before 3 years of being in England! Why is that?! I thought we were living within a union without physical borders!”
It is easy to recognize squatting buildings: walls painted in yellow, green and red or frames with pamphlets in front of the window accompanied with the squat sign: a circle with an arrow, which says to other squats and everyone that the house is being squatted.

The experience I acquired during the night spent with the squat group, gave me the opportunity to learn and experience that squatters are people from all over the world with different backgrounds that find in that abandoned buildings their shelter and a safe place to live, including students who can not afford to pay the rent.
Hugo says: “in my point of view squatting is a good solution for homeless people, because if they squat at least they will feel that is less one problem for them to sort out, and they will start to sort out other problems like finding a job. Squatting means that you are in control of your life instead of being controlled by the capitalist home owners”.
Although Hugo, Sonia and Silvia do not see themselves as political activists (apart of being anti-capitalists) the squatting is pretty much a political act in itself. It is about reclaiming space and self-empowerment. Sonia defends: “Squatting is legal, necessary and free”. Silvia adds: “squatting is being free of a society that we don’t accept; squatting is life without money and the protest against capitalism. Squatters work together, share food and basic needs; this is our idea of society.”
In fact statistics estimate 864.000 empty houses in the UK, and if we analyze the numbers of homeless or people unable to pay rents we at least become a bit more neutral about this subject. The UK has one of the best laws and logistic in the western countries to squat excepting Switzerland and The Netherlands where there are streets completely occupied by squats. In the UK squatters have rights. This country protects squats from any aggression either by owners or police raids.
To squat a building is easy, Sonia explains: “first we break into the house, and then we have to change the locker immediately. After you change the locker we are in order to claim rights of possession and we have the right to refuse anyone to entry even the police. Police are more likely to pick up on foreigner squatters because they assume we do not know our rights, but it is something stupid because when police does raids without court permission they are the first ones breaking the law!”
Silvia is more political: “being a squat is having a social space outside the capitalism system”.
But squatters are not only a problem in the UK; this happen all over the world. For instance, who never heard about “Rocinha” a favela (slum) in Rio de Janeiro (Brazil)? This favela is home for more than 500.000 people. The only difference is that in UK many people choose that option of living but in Brazil squatters are extremely poor people do not have many options; for these people it is not a political protest. It is estimated that favelas are home for 25 million people all over Brazil. In Brazil there is another type of squatters, the rural squatter movement, such as the Landless workers movement that has approximately 1.5 million members.
In Europe is more cultural, an option or a political protest against the capitalism society. It is common all over Europe to see squatted buildings being used as social centres. Cafes bars, libraries and so on used to hold parties and concerts. These social centers are spaces for people to meet in a non-commercial setting. Squatters use these spaces for parties, political workshops, to watch movies and so on. These spaces are only a privilege for squatters where squatting is legal.
Many squatters in England in order to show they know their rights and show to others they are legally in possession of that property, they display in the front door a legal warning known as section 6. This section basically says that they are legally in possession of the property and whoever tries to enter in the building even if is the owner, is committing an offence. If no one claims the property after 12 years of its occupation the squatters may claim ownership of it.
In Spain this practice is not less known, in this country squatters are known as okupas. This movement had started in Spain from 1960s. As the Spanish economy was growing fast by 60s there was a creation of thousands of jobs in the capital Madrid and therefore there was a shortage of accommodation for people coming from more rural places of Spain.
In fact is not difficult to understand that squatting may be something good for the society. Those people I have spent the night with are people with projects, and most of them do not want to be squatters forever. Hugo says: “people should support squatters, because it is better to squat than sleep in sleep bags in the middle of the streets. I know about some people that did not have projects until starting squatting; their lives were based in asking money in the streets. Now that they have a home they have changed, they seem different people; they look to the future as they have the feeling that they belong to a community, and they feel welcomed when they return home by their big family, the squatters”.
Whatever is your position about squatters we have to understand that changing the law against squats may bring some other more serious problems for the society such as social exclusion, violence and worse of all: human misery!

Turkey...Europe or islam?

This week marks the 50th anniversary of the treaty of Rome which has established the European Economic Community. It started with six countries: France, Belgium, West Germany, Italy, Luxemburg and The Netherlands. After 50 years they are 27 and still counting. Turkey with a population of 57 million is begging to join the club but few European conservatives are reluctant. These conservatives say that Turkey may represent a shock of cultures within the Europeans since 95% of the Turkish population are Muslims. After many years of talks, European Union leaders have recently decided to open negotiations with Turkey with one condition: Ankara must recognise the Republic of Cyprus, withdraw its forces from the island and open its ports to Cypriote ships.
Turkish authorities declined this condition. Negotiations stopped! Some political voices around the world are saying that EU is taking this opportunity to deny the entry to Turkey. According to the last opinion polls only 21% of Europeans agree with Turkey becoming part of the EU against 70% of Turkish people. Turkey has been trying to become part of the EU for many years and things evolved very slowly until 1999 when turkey was officially recognised as a candidate. In order to join the club Turkey must: Open its ports to all the EU countries, It must be a democracy, must respect the human rights and minorities; in terms of economy must be a functioning marketing economy and be able to cope with the joining the common market. Finally, in terms of legality must be able to comply with obligations of the EU membership, including the adoption of the body of the EU law. There are much more conditions to Turkey to fulfil in order to become a member. These ones are the most important ones. All together are 35. However, because Turkey declined one of them, negotiations have slowed down. In December 2006 the Turkish Prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan had told that was an injustice: “The EU decision is an injustice against Turkey."
So far Turkey is being applauded by its efforts to reach the objectives proposed by the EU leaders. In October 2004 Turkish State television had started broadcasting as well as in Kurdish, a minority language in Turkey. Over the past five years the Ankara has passed to the Turkish parliament some reform packages including the ban of death penalty and zero tolerance policy towards torture. Some political experts say that turkey would bring a quick economic growth, a young workforce and a military force to the EU. These experts claim that Turkey is a modern country and there is no space inside of it for Islamic radicals. George W Bush and Tony Blair are feverous supporters however they count with the opposition of France.
Joana Turkman a Turkish student of art and design living in Lisbon, Portugal, defends: “I reckon Turkey has a huge potential with a huge market and a quick economic growth, besides would be a excellent ally with a huge army, but I understand that turkey must first fulfil the EU proposals to join it, otherwise Turkish immigration may spread across Europe and it might bring xenophobia and other problems.”
The fact is that xenophobia is one of the biggest concerns of the EU leaders since the majority of Turkey population is Muslim and unfortunately after the September 11th western societies are now more suspicious about Islamic cultures.
Conservatives across Europe are reluctant in Turkey becoming part of the EU because they see this nation as a threat to Europe. They fear among other things the Islamic extremists. But this is not a serious threat once Turkey has to accept all the rules and guidelines of Europe. One of the biggest fears is that Turkey would be able to block crucial decisions for the European Union based in religion. But before Turkey join the EU, European leaders should set rules of religious in politics. This might include the restriction to political parties to have one religious preference. Nevertheless this novel is far to be over. The presidential candidate in France, Sarkozy stated: “Turkey has no place in the European Union (…) not all countries have vocation to become members of Europe”
As all these reluctance against Turkey increase, extreme right wing viewers join the chorus of protests and Gerard Batten, UKIP MEP representing London protest not solely about Turkey but about the EU itself: “As such, I spend all my time campaigning for Britain’s withdrawal from EU. Why any country should wish to join such a corrupt, undemocratic and incompetent organization is a mystery to me and UKIP would strongly advice Turkey to withdraw its application immediately”
The fact is that UKIP MEPs voted against Turkey becoming member of the EU in the European parliament in Brussels.
However more and more political experts are warning Europeans that Turkey is a key element in the European project. Turkey economy is growing an average of 7% a year being much above average in the EU countries. If this trend continues in few years time Turkey will overtake Romania and Poland which are already EU members. In addition, its young population represents a major dynamism and a good opportunity for the development of the EU. Furthermore, Turkey is a full member of NATO and the Turkish military force is the second biggest in the world after United States of America and it would bring more military support to the EU. These political experts expect that the joining of Turkey to the EU would bring a better relation between the west and the Muslim world and its democracy would be a good example for the rest of the middle east.
Many Europeans believe that as a consequence of Turkey being a large Muslim country with a different culture might make it very difficulty for the EU to integrate Turkey inside the EU family. Others think that the EU can not enlarge anymore because being so big and so cultural different might lead the Union to be reduced to a mere zone of economic cooperation.

Global warming...Economy vs Future

Global warming is around us, we can feel it year by year. The 12 hottest years of ever happened in the last 11 years. Why?! Our lifestyle is to blame. We can not take public transports because our car is more comfortable, we are starving of electricity: washing machine, dishwasher, microwaves, television, dvd, computers, freezers etc. We demand electricity and oil from our governments, we need it to live! The CO2 is getting thicker and thicker in the atmosphere.
Glaciers are melting and if they continue to melt at the actual rate coastal countries they will have serious problems with coastal cities being flooded in the next 100 years. In the summer of 2003 thousands of Europeans died as a consequence of high temperatures. In that summer in some parts of south Europe temperatures substantially increased to 50 degrees Celsius. Fires across Europe have destroyed thousands of hectares of forests.
European Union announced last month a program to increase the renewable energy consumed in Europe to 45 %until 2020. That is a good initiative but what about the rest of the world? Well, there is the Kyoto protocol. Kyoto protocol or agreement is a pact between 122 countries around the world; however some of the bigger world's polluters did not sign that agreement, including the USA. The USA authorities say that this agreement would hurt the American economy with the loss of billions of dollars and thousands of jobs! This agreement was signed in Japan in the 11th of December of 1997, which is a pact to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and other greenhouse gases to below 1990 levels by the year of 2012. This is quite demanding since we are 4 years away from the deadline.
Nevertheless we should not wait for our governments to start acting. There are small things that we can do such as share our car with our colleagues, being prudent in the use of electricity at home not wasting it, as well as not wasting water. This is a fundamental issue and it must be a problem to concern every single individual.

Bush and his legacy

Bush started his legacy surrounded by controversy. His election in 2000 had to be decided by a court because Algore had the same number of votes as Bush. The jury had decided to favor Bush. After the September 11th attack to both the World Trade Centre and to the Pentagon, Bush declared a War on Terror with the invasion of Afghanistan to prevent the Taliban to support Al-Qaeda which is the terrorist group created by the most wanted Western enemy Bin- Laden (in Bush's words). In march 2003, against the will of the UN, there was a meeting between Bush, Tony Blair, Jose Maria Aznar and Manuel Barroso (called the Azores summit), and with the support of the three Governments London, Madrid and Lisbon, America invaded Iraq with the excuse that Saddam had Weapons of Mass destruction (proven to be false now). Iraquian people do now recognize that they would be better with Saddam Hussein rather than with a civil war happening provoked by the americans and the allied forces. For the last 4 years Iraq has became a chaos with hundreds of people being killed everyday. Iraq has now to face a civil war. Bush and his ideology of creating a democracy over the region are at risk. In 2006, the president of Iran and North Korea announced a nuclear program. North Korea is now known to be testing nuclear missiles over the Japan sea. Meanwhile Bush can not initiate another war involving Iran because he does not have anymore the public support to invade it. Furthermore the American Congress has an initial intention to remove all the American troops from Iraq and this may represent an indication of what the congress thinks about bringing about another war.

Climate

Bush said that there is no space for the Kyoto agreement within the American economy and the global warming is not a priority for him. Thousands of scientists worldwide are having every year more proves that the human being needs to start acting now to prevent carbon dioxide emissions to the atmosphere. This can provoke serious consequences for the environment since the Earth’s temperature might significantly elevate to 6 degrees Celsius till the end of century which can be catastrophic.
Conclusion
Is incredible how can a single man provoke so many damages over the world in only 7 years and his legacy is not over yet. He has created more distance between west and east. He has seriously damaged the UN organization; he does not sign climate agreements; he says to the rest of the world that America rules the globe and everyone with a different opinion is an enemy. He has weapons of mass destruction but he does not allow countries like Iran or North Korea to possess it. I perfectly understand these leaders position. I do not agree with nuclear weapons, and no one should have them, not even America. But how does Bush expect a different reaction from these two countries when he is constantly threatening them with a potential invasion. Iran and North Korea are trying to say to Bush that they are not Iraq and that America should not even think to invade them because they know how to defend themselves.

EU... a gift of two sides

If some might say that EU is crucial to small European economies, they might be right.. But there is the other side that is not very transparent.Let’s start from the beginning. It is good like in my case to come to England to study without the need of visas, passports or any other burocracies; my national ID card is enough to live in England forever...It is nice to know that thanks to the Euro my country has now a strong coin... and my Portuguese Passport is respected wherever I go in the world. I am feeling like a G8 citizen... BUT... and now comes to the other side.First I would like to say that I am not against the European Union, but some policies must be reviewed.Which countries are wining to belong to the EU? The biggest economies: France, Germany, Spain, England...why?! That is simple! Small economy countries as they are privatizing all the national companies, the richest guys in Europe are buying them. All the companies that use for tradition to belong to a country are now foreign companies. Therefore the top jobs do not belong anymore to the nationals of that country and the capital is going to foreigner hands, leaving a state even more dependent of the biggest economies. So shall we let the big ones to take over our small states? I am in favor to this Union but not to a United States of Europe and I am completely against a European Constitution.

Madrid's Hypocrisy

Despite that Spain has currently border disputes with two other countries: Portugal (Olivenza) and Marrocos (Ceuta), it is amazing the diplomatic pressure that Madrid is putting in London over the Gibraltar Issue. Unbelievably, there was a treaty to give Olivenza to Portugal and there was also a treaty to give Gibraltar to Britain in 1713.

Spain statment over Gibraltar:
"2. In ratifying the Convention, Spain wishes to make it known that this act cannot be construed as recognition of any rights or status regarding the maritime space of Gibraltar that are not included in article 10 of the Treaty of Utrecht of 13 July 1713 concluded between the Crowns of Spain and Great Britain. Furthermore, Spain does not consider that Resolution III of the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea is applicable to the colony of Gibraltar, which is subject to a process of decolonization in which only relevant resolutions adopted by the United Nations General Assembly are applicable."

The British statement

"With regard to point 2 of the declaration made upon ratification of the Convention by the Government of Spain, the Government of the United Kingdom has no doubt about the sovereignty of the United Kingdom over Gibraltar, including its territorial waters. The Government of the United Kingdom, as the administering authority of Gibraltar, has extended the United Kingdom's accession to the Convention and ratification of the Agreement to Gibraltar. The Government of the United Kingdom, therefore, rejects as unfounded point 2 of the Spanish declaration."