Posts Tagged ‘Lisbon Treaty’

The scam that is called EU and the Euro is behind the present crisis

4 juni, 2011

In this to the point, pedagogic and very telling video (by Clarke and Dawe), the whole madness behind the euro and the present crisis in Greece,Spain,Ireland,Portugal,Italy, etc. is explained.

All thanks to our “dear” local and European politicians and banks (private and central banks, ECB) etc.

“Roger, Financial Consultant: They lent all these vast amounts of money to other European economies that can’t possible pay them back.”

“How can broke economies lend money to other broke economies who haven’t got any money because they can’t pay back the money the broke economy lent to the other broke economy and shouldn’t have lent them in the first place because the broke economy cant pay it back”.

I think even a 5 year old can understand this. But not “our” politicians and bankers.

And remember this video was done a year ago. So now the situation (and the figures) is worse by a factor of two.

Thank you for ruining the common people in all our countries!

And this is on top of their efforts to drive us back to the Stone Age through the Global Warming Hysteria.

(See for example my post: Portugal – The perfect example of how the ”Green” economy destroys a country and sends it into the Abyss)

So this is a double whammy courtesy of “our” elected “representatives”.

Clarke and Dawe – European Debt Crisis

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>, <a href=” http://bloggar.se/om/yttrandefrihet” rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/fri-+och+r%E4ttigheter” rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter</a>

Annonser

Who the Hell do You Think You Are: The Euro Game Is Up!

30 november, 2010

As always, a very refreshing and direct to the point speech by Nigel Farage in the EU- parliament on November 24(see video below):

“We don’t want that flag, we don’t want the anthem, we don’t want this political class, we want the whole thing consigned to the dustbin of history.”

Just who the hell do you think you people are? You are very, very dangerous people indeed.Your obsession with creating this Euro-State means that you’re happy to destroy democracy. You appear to be happy for millions and millions of people to be unemployed and to be poor. Untold millions must suffer so that your Euro-Dream can continue.”

If you rob people of their identity, if you rob them of their democracy, then all they are left with is nationalism and violence. I can only hope and pray that the euro project is destroyed by the markets before that really happens.”

As I have said many times:

The political elite in Europe DELIBERATELY constructed the Lisbon Treaty so that the common people COULD NOT UNDERSTAND IT and comprehend what was going on.

I.E. THE  LARGEST TRANSFER OF SOVEREIGNTY AND POWER FROM the people and local governments to the EU central level.

And the people were NOT allowed to have their say and to vote on it.  With one exception, Ireland.  Its constitution made it impossible for the politicians not to have a referendum.

The result – the people of Ireland voted NO 54 to 46 %.

But of course – The political elite in Europe doesn’t accept a NO from the people.

As already have happened before in France (2005 – 55% NO) Netherland (2005- 62% NO), Ireland (2001- 54% NO) and Denmark (1992 – 51% NO)  

They started their maneuvering, twisting, some minor concessions here some more money and transfers there etc.

At ALL COST they had to have a Yes on this one. And they got one a year later.

How many times does the voters have to vote NO before NO is really a NO? Or what part of NO! don’t you understand?

And a very INTERESTING Account of how former French President Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, in a meeting with Gorbachev in January 1989, told Gorbachev that Europe in 15 years time is going to be a FEDERALSTATE.

How in the HELL DID HE KNOW THAT??????

Well the answer is very simple – because that’s been the plan all along from the political elite in Europe.

And surprise, surprise, he become the author of the European constitution (2002-03).

Wouldn’t you say that that was another “lucky” coincidence?

Nigel Farage’s speech very accurately describes the EU mess and the consequences for the common people who have to pay the price for this elitist political project. But he is a rare exception – most politicians in the EU countries ARE STILL LOUDLY praising and singing the hallelujah choir.

Here in Sweden ALL political parties (except the new SD party) now support EU. The greens and the communists, who were opposed, now in practice accept it.

It is fantastic – The whole political class in every country has WILLINGLY AND GLADLY SURRENDERED their national sovereignty and power to EU AGAINST THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE IN ALL THESE COUNTRIES.

After the Lisbon Treaty the national parliaments are a mere joke and charade for local consumption, since 70-80 of all decisions now are all ready made and decided in Brussels. The national parliaments roll is in practice just to put a “local flavor” on what have already been decided in Brussels.

See also my previous posts on EU and the Lisbon Treaty:

EU- an expensive pile of festering rubbish, mired in corruption, surrounded by inept and impotent politicians

EU – an unaccountable mess created by an undemocratic treaty

EU: s foreign minster performance so far – lacklustre and a pushover 2

The HUGE difference between EU and USA in response to Haiti.

EU: s foreign minster performance so far – lacklustre and a pushover

The New EU foreign minister – An undemocratic appointment to an undemocratic post created by an undemocratic treaty

EU – The inner game and the Corruption that Cost £684 931,5 per hour EVERY hour EVERY day EVERY year. And is increasing

EU – The aim of this treaty is to be unreadable and unclear AND it can not be understood by ordinary citizens

The EU Auditors have, for the 15th year in a row, refused to sign off the EU’s accounts owing to Fraud and Mismanagement in the budget

See also:

Den svenska utrikesförvaltningens död

Nigel Farage harangues EU President Herman van Rompuy, February 24, 2010

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om =” http://bloggar.se/om/fri-+och+r%E4ttigheter rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/yttrandefrihet rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>

varning-2

EU- an expensive pile of festering rubbish, mired in corruption, surrounded by inept and impotent politicians

23 oktober, 2010

Italy is a member of the EU. It is charged with running the government of Europe, through the European Council and other institutions, alongside our own government. Yet you have a government which can’t even sort out its own rubbish problems, and it is telling us, the British people, how to run our affairs.

In a way though, the experience is a more than adequate symbol of Europe – an expensive pile of festering rubbish, mired in corruption, surrounded by inept and impotent politicians, which is managing to piss of the local population so much that they are driven to rioting. We should be so proud to belong to such an exclusive club – and hope to share in the end game some time soon.! 

As a complement to my previous posts on EU and the Lisbon Treaty, (see my posts:

EU – an unaccountable mess created by an undemocratic treaty

EU: s foreign minster performance so far – lacklustre and a pushover 2

The HUGE difference between EU and USA in response to Haiti.

EU: s foreign minster performance so far – lacklustre and a pushover

The New EU foreign minister – An undemocratic appointment to an undemocratic post created by an undemocratic treaty

EU – The inner game and the Corruption that Cost £684 931,5 per hour EVERY hour EVERY day EVERY year. And is increasing

EU – The aim of this treaty is to be unreadable and unclear AND it can not be understood by ordinary citizens

The EU Auditors have, for the 15th year in a row, refused to sign off the EU’s accounts owing to Fraud and Mismanagement in the budget

See also:

Den svenska utrikesförvaltningens död

Here is accurate, direct to the point analyses by Richard from EUReferendum

http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/10/our-partners-in-government.html

Our partners in government

Posted by Richard Saturday, October 23, 2010

If anything can be taken to define the ”European” experience, it is this amazing confrontation over the rubbish of Naples. Over this one issue, we have Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi vowing to put a stop to an ongoing dispute over whether to build another dump in a national park near Naples, after violent clashes between police and protesters.

As the rubbish piles up in Italy’s third-largest city, Naples, and at least 20 police offers were injured in violent clashes with protestors. Thus is Berlusconi forced to say: ”We expect that within 10 days, the situation in Terzigno can return to normal.” And this at a news conference in Rome after an emergency meeting – about rubbish?  He needs an emergency meeting about rubbish?

What has triggered this is the government’s plans to build a new dump in Terzigno, which is located 20 kilometers (12 miles) southeast of Naples in Vesuvius National Park. This has for years met with fierce opposition by locals, who have repeatedly blocked access to the existing waste disposal site there. Then, on Thursday, police confronted around 2,000 demonstrators, who threw stones, marbles and firecrackers and used tree trunks to block access to the dump.

Berlusconi also announced he would release €14 million ($20 million) to modernize the existing facility, which the protesters say is overflowing and causing health problems.

The bigger problem, however, is that the site is overflowing with Camorra, the Naples version of the Mafia, who have taken control of waste management in the region. And while the current report refers to the crisis being a major issue for the Italian government for several years, with Berlusconi declaring a national disaster in 2008 – which is when we picked it up, also charting EU involvement – the problem goes back over 14 years. And still the Italians can’t sort it out.

Despite this, as we noted in 2008, Italy is a member of the EU. It is charged with running the government of Europe, through the European Council and other institutions, alongside our own government. Yet you have a government which can’t even sort out its own rubbish problems, and it is telling us, the British people, how to run our affairs.

In a way though, the experience is a more than adequate symbol of Europe – an expensive pile of festering rubbish, mired in corruption, surrounded by inept and impotent politicians, which is managing to piss of the local population so much that they are driven to rioting. We should be so proud to belong to such an exclusive club – and hope to share in the end game some time soon. 

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om =” http://bloggar.se/om/fri-+och+r%E4ttigheter rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/yttrandefrihet rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>

varning-2

 

EU – an unaccountable mess created by an undemocratic treaty

12 september, 2010

Above a short but very succinct description of the Lisbon Treaty and what it really means for the common people.

The EU’s president Herman Van Rompuy:

Today, people are discovering what a ‘common destiny’ in monetary matters means. They are discovering that the euro affects their pensions, savings, and jobs, their very daily life. It hurts,” he said.”

The political elite in Europe DELIBERATELY constructed the Lisbon Treaty so that the common people COULD NOT UNDERSTAND IT and comprehend what was going on.

I.E. THE  LARGEST TRANSFER OF SOVEREIGNTY AND POWER FROM the people and local governments to the EU central level.

And the people were NOT allowed to have their say and to vote on it.  With one exception, Ireland.  Its constitution made it impossible for the politicians not to have a referendum.

The result – the people of Ireland voted NO 54 to 46 %.

But of course – The political elite in Europe doesn’t accept a NO from the people.

As already have happened before in France (2005 – 55% NO) Netherland (2005- 62% NO), Ireland (2001- 54% NO) and Denmark (1992 – 51% NO)  

They started their manoeuvring, twisting, some minor concessions here some more money and transfers there etc.

At ALL COST they had to have a Yes on this one. And they got one a year later.

How many times does the voters have to vote NO before NO is really a NO? Or what part of NO! don’t you understand?

And a very INTERESTING Account of how former French President Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, in a meeting with Gorbachev in January 1989, told Gorbachev that Europe in 15 years time is going to be a FEDERAL STATE.

How in the HELL DID HE KNOW THAT??????

Well the answer is very simple – because that’s been the plan all along from the political elite in Europe.

And surprise, surprise, he become the author of the European constitution (2002-03).

Wouldn’t you say that that was another “lucky” coincidence?

Below are just a small number of articles describing the EU mess and the consequences for the common people who have to pay the price for this elitist political project.

See also:

Den svenska utrikesförvaltningens död

See also my other post on the Lisbon Treaty:

EU: s foreign minster performance so far – lacklustre and a pushover 2

The HUGE difference between EU and USA in response to Haiti.

EU: s foreign minster performance so far – lacklustre and a pushover

The New EU foreign minister – An undemocratic appointment to an undemocratic post created by an undemocratic treaty

EU – The inner game and the Corruption that Cost £684 931,5 per hour EVERY hour EVERY day EVERY year. And is increasing

EU – The aim of this treaty is to be unreadable and unclear AND it can not be understood by ordinary citizens

The EU Auditors have, for the 15th year in a row, refused to sign off the EU’s accounts owing to Fraud and Mismanagement in the budget

‘LIVES AT RISK’ AS EU BANS CHECKS ON FOREIGN NURSES

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/195115/-Lives-at-risk-as-EU-bans-checks-on-foreign-nurses

“UKIP health spokesman David Campbell Bannerman said: “People’s health and in some cases their very lives will be put at risk at the altar of being good Europeans.” Katherine Murphy, of the Patients Association, said: “It beggars belief that patients are to be put at such obvious risk from EU legislation.”

Safety tests on EU nurses working in Britain scrapped for being ‘discriminatory’

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/7958662/Safety-tests-on-EU-nurses-working-in-Britain-scrapped-for-being-discriminatory.html

http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/08/lives-at-risk.html

http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/08/roll-on-day.html

European police to spy on Britons: Now ministers hand over Big Brother powers to foreign officers

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1297621/Ministers-hand-Big-Brother-powers-EU-police.html

“Ministers are ready to hand sweeping Big Brother powers to EU states so they can spy on British citizens.

Foreign police will be able to travel to the UK and take part in the arrest of Britons. They will be able to place them under surveillance, bug telephone conversations, monitor bank accounts and demand fingerprints, DNA or blood samples.

Anyone who refuses to comply with a formal request for co-operation by a foreign-based force is likely to be arrested by UK officers. “

http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/07/in-europe-and-ruled-by-europe.html

http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/07/conspiracy-in-plain-sight.html

Governance in the 21st Century

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/15/0/17394484.pdf

David Cameron will back down in fight with EU, say officials

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/david-cameron/7861400/David-Cameron-will-back-down-in-fight-with-EU-say-officials.html

“Belgium has acknowledged that there will be a major battle over proposals to give the EU powers to vet budgets before they are presented to national parliaments.

Formal legislative proposals on ”budget peer review” and increased ”budgetary surveillance” to prevent another euro zone debt crisis will be tabled by the Commission Wednesday.

There is a question of sovereignty if the role of the European Commission in economic government is reinforced,” admitted the Belgian source.

Belgian officials, with strong French and German support, are pushing hard to set up new EU supervisors to police financial markets, giving European authorities the power to dictate to regulators in the City of London. ”It is necessary to transfer some decisions away from national to European authorities,” said the source.

EU officials have warned British diplomats that the Lisbon Treaty means it will have to compromise on sovereignty because Britain does not have veto for either the budget scrutiny or financial market supervision measures.

Belgium is also ready to pick a fight with Britain over plans for new European-wide taxes to directly fund the EU independently of contributions from national treasuries.

We can also explore, for example, the financing of European projects via new sources of revenue,” said the government source.”

An Old Battlefront Returns in War on Euro

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,703613,00.html#ref=nlint

“explained why the euro has always been a monstrosity, and why it will and must fail. Although the current plans to ”get a living corpse to walk” are touching, he scoffed, one thing is already clear: The euro bailout package will only save the banks.”

Wilhelm Hankel, professor for currency and development policy, Ministry for Economic Cooperation, the Foreign Office, chief economist of Bank for Reconstruction, the head of the department of money and credit in the Ministry for Economic Affairs and one of the closest staff members to the German economy minister Karl Schiller. etc.

”As was once the case before the outbreak of the French Revolution, Europe‘s politicians have now lost any sense for the rights, concerns and expectations of their citizens.

Dieter Spethmann, the former CEO of the giant German industrial conglomerate Thyssen.

“He criticizes Berlin for demanding solidarity with Europe while demonstrating no solidarity whatsoever with its people. Hundreds of billions of euros are being destroyed in Germany ”because the country has taken on the role of the monetary union’s paymaster,” Nölling says. ”In violation of all laws, we are being forced to rescue a currency that cannot be saved.”

Wilhelm Nölling, former member of the Bundestag for the SPD, finance minister for the city-state of Hamburg and president of Hamburg’s state central bank.

“But he finds it undemocratic that citizens are simply being forced to be part of a community in which one country is required to bail out another. ”What is happening here is almost dictatorial,”

Karl Schachtschneider, constitutional law expert, lawyer and professor.

Galileo Satellite Needs Extra Financing of $1.85 Billion, Le Monde Reports

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-06-25/galileo-satellite-needs-extra-financing-of-1-85-billion-le-monde-says.html

EU takes on extra 18 MEPs for £7 million

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/7849918/EU-takes-on-extra-18-MEPs-for-7-million.html

http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/06/to-barricades.html

“This was done by permanent representatives, known as ”EU ambassadors” who met behind closed doors yesterday to sign off the amendment. The amendment must now be ratified in all the Union’s 27 countries and will require primary legislation in the UK – ”potentially opening up dissent among Conservative MPs who campaigned for a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty.”

Actually, though, it isn’t an amendment to the Lisbon Treaty. According to the EU Council, it is a ”protocol amending the protocol on transitional provisions annexed to the treaty on European Union, to the treaty on the functioning of the European Union and to the treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community.”

Now, if you can actually work out what that is saying, we are talking about an addendum amending an addendum which sets out changes to transitional provisions. It doesn’t even change a treaty. It simply changes the speed at which a previously agreed change to the treaty comes into force.”

Ordinary people were misled over impact of the euro, says Herman Van Rompuy

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/currency/7767898/Ordinary-people-were-misled-over-impact-of-the-euro-says-Herman-Van-Rompuy.html

In the first public admission of the scale of the popular backlash, Mr Van Rompuy acknowledged that ”growing public awareness” of the euro zone’s problems was ”a major political development.”

Today, people are discovering what a ‘common destiny’ in monetary matters means. They are discovering that the euro affects their pensions, savings, and jobs, their very daily life. It hurts,” he said.”

“The President of the European Council, the body that brings together EU leaders in summits, also confessed that the euro had been flawed from the moment of its creation in 1992, a situation that had not been made clear to voters.

”We are clearly confronted with a tension within the system, the ill-famous dilemma of being a monetary union and not a full-fledged economic and political union,” he said. ”This tension has been there since the single currency was created. However, the general public was not really made aware of it.”

“Vincenzo Scarpetta, an analyst for the pressure group, said: ”The euro zone crisis is not simply about economic failure but also a breakdown in trust between the political class and European citizens. The EU elite simply got it wrong on the euro.”

The euro crisis is a judgment on the great lie of ‘Europe

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/7754100/The-euro-crisis-is-a-judgment-on-the-great-lie-of-Europe.html

“What we are witnessing here is a judgment on the entire deceitful and self-deceiving way in which the ”European project” has been assembled over the past 53 years. One of the most important things to understand about that project is that it has only ever had one real agenda. Everything it has done has been directed to one ultimate goal, full political and economic integration. The headline labels put on the various stages of that process may have changed over the years, such as building first a ”common market”, then a ”single market”, finally a ”constitution”. But by far the most important project of all was locking the member states into a single currency.

This was always above all a political not an economic project, to be driven through at any cost, which was why all those ”Maastricht criteria” laid down to bring it about were repeatedly breached. But as expert voices were warning as long ago as the 1970s, when it was first put on the agenda, there was no way economic and monetary union could work unless it was run by a single all-powerful economic government, with the power to raise taxes.

As was advised by Sir Donald MacDougall’s report to Brussels in 1978, it could only work if, following the US model, between 20 and 25 per cent of Europe’s GDP was available to such a government, to enable a huge transfer of wealth from richer countries such as Germany to the poorer, more backward countries of southern Europe – and how ironically has that come about!

When the 10-year-long construction of the euro began in the 1990s, all these warnings were ignored. The cart was put before the horse. So fixated were the Eurocrats on the need to get their grand project in place that the ”rules” were treated as mere window dressing. The member states were locked together willy-nilly in a one-size-fits-all system, with a single low interest rate, enabling countries such as Italy, Spain, Portugal and Greece to live on a seemingly limitless sea of borrowed money. And now, entirely predictably, judgment day has come.”

As alarming as anything, with this tsunami roaring down on us, has been the sight of our new leaders preening themselves with their list of irrelevant little ”coalition policies” and babyish boasts about the ”greatest democratic shake-up since the 1832 Reform Act”, as if none of this was happening. As one analyst put it: ”They are like children let loose in the sweet shop, seemingly oblivious to the horrendous reality unfolding before us.”

Europe’s deflation torture is a gift to the Far Left

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/ambroseevans_pritchard/7756879/Europes-deflation-torture-is-a-gift-to-the-Far-Left.html

Communist leader Jerónimo de Sousa said last week that the country was being reduced to a ”protectorate of Brussels”, cowed into submission by financial blackmail. He invoked the civil war in 1383 when the country rallied heroically to expel the foreign opressor – with English help, the ”ultimato inglês” as he calls it – from Portuguese soil.

”It is not just the Communists who are worrying about this. There are a great numbers of Portuguese who are concerned that this country built over the centuries, for better or worse, on a foundation of sovereignty and independence is endangered by accepting everything that comes from Brussels without a trace of patriotism. The EU’s claim of economic and social cohesion is just propaganda,” he told Publico. “

It was refreshing to read ”The Euro Burns” by Michael Schlecht, Die Linke’s economic guru, arguing that the primary cause of Euroland’s crisis is ”German wage-dumping”. He shows from Eurostat data that German labour costs rose 7pc between 2000 and 2008, compared to 34pc in Ireland, 30pc in Spain, Portugal, and Italy, 28pc in Greece and Holland, and 20pc in France. Again, my loose translation.

Germany ran an accumulated trade surplus of €1,261bn over the period, while Spain ran a deficit of €598bn, and Portugal €273bn. This shell game was kept afloat by recycling German capital to Club Med debt markets beyond sustainable levels until it all blew up over Greece. The Club Med victims are now trapped. “

“The North-South divide within EMU has been allowed to go so far that any solution must now be offensive to either side, and therefore will be resisted. The euro is becoming an engine of intra-European tribal hatred. Brilliant work, Monsieur Delors.”

Less influence and a slower recovery: the dangers for Britain of crisis at heart of eurozone

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article7133980.ece

“The euro was a political invention not properly thought through. Its collapse would have profound consequences.”

European Union expecting £6.3bn budget increase

The European Commission has proposed a £6.3 billion increase in the EU’s budget despite its calls for governments to cut national public spending.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/7639712/European-Union-expecting-6.3bn-budget-increase.html

http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/04/more-for-our-masters.html

While every one of the 27 EU member states is looking to cutting public expenditure – some more than others – the EU is demanding a £6.3 billion increase in its budget to bring its spending ”into line with its new powers under the Lisbon Treaty.”

So much for the claim that Lisbon was a mere amending treaty, but then the ”colleagues” always have lived on a diet of lies, confident that when the chips are down, they can still hold out their hands and the member state governments will come rushing to throw money at them.

In the 2010/11 financial period, British taxpayers will have to hand over £7.9 billion – that is £7,900,000,000, or more than £400 for every household – to keep the ”colleagues” in the luxury they most certainly do not deserve, while the EU enjoys a budget of £113 billion for its 2011 financial year (which coincides with the calendar year).

This situation is beyond irony as the commission has been urging on member state governments cutbacks in their own finances, and – according to Bruno Waterfield – is calling for a six percent cut in British public spending by 2013.

At the same time, we are continually assailed by EU laws and requirements which further add to the cost of governance and daily life, all promulgated by institutions where profligacy is their middle name. And to this, we append our now ritual question – and the reason we do not rise up and slaughter them all is?

The question becomes less rhetorical with each passing day – the pics are of the Résidence Palace in Brussels, that £280 million monstrosity to house the European Council, symbol of being ”in Europe but not ruled by Europe,” as that idiot Cameron would have us believe.”

The EU Is in Crisis Mode—Once Again

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304739104575154060733970280.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

“It is easy to overcook the idea of the European Union being in crisis. It is always said—by its supporters and its critics alike—to be approaching one sort of exciting denouement or another. But then it passes, the caravan moves on and in time another potential disaster that can be negotiated around swings into view.”

“Even the death of the EU constitution, which seemed like a serious impediment to the progress of the project, wasn’t much of a setback in the end. It was simply reborn as the Lisbon Treaty.

The motive force behind the EU is integration and the creation of a continent-wide power block. National governments and the Brussels-based bureaucracy have so much invested in advancing that cause that any obstacles will not be allowed to cause more than temporary interruptions. They have become expert at improvising ways to press on regardless.”

“Yes, after much wrangling a deal to support stricken Greece is in place, but only with the Germans enforcing strict conditions. This is a sticking plaster solution. What must come, logically, is something close to a form of economic government by those states that want to stay as the inner core of the euro. It might be called by another name, but that is what it will be.

And that leads to a full-blown political crisis for the EU itself. The choice for various countries then is between trying to be part of an inner core organized around the euro with coordinated fiscal policy, or standing outside it in a trading zone built on cooperation rather than coercion.

The Eurosceptics, in countries such as Britain, are just starting to realize this. The euro’s problems will force its strongest members into much closer integration than even they currently envisage. Other than breaking up the euro they can do nothing elsestanding still isn’t an option. In this way that old discussion about there being two distinct Europe’s inside the EU is coming back rapidly into fashion. Sounds like it has the makings of a proper crisis.”

EUROBAROMETER 73 – PUBLIC OPINION IN THE EUROPEAN UNION

http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/eb/eb73/eb73_first_en.pdf

”EU popularity ratings are hitting a nine-year low.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/7996747/Brussels-has-broken-our-power-to-rule.html

Brussels has broken our power to rule

The EU has become a lumbering, unaccountable mess, says Christopher Booker.

By Christopher Booker, Published: 7:00PM BST 11 Sep 2010

The latest findings of Eurobarometer, the EU’s own polling organisation, show that less than half its citizens now believe it is a “good thing”. In many countries, its popularity is at record lows, and only 19 per cent see the EU as “democratic” (in Britain, Finland and Latvia this is as low as 10 per cent).

What makes this particularly ironic is that in 2001 the EU’s leaders issued their Laeken Declaration, admitting that the EU faced a crisis through its “democratic deficit”. Their remedy was the process designed to give Europe a “constitution”. After eight years of negotiation, obfuscation, lies and referendum-reverses, they got the constitution they wanted (although they had to disguise it as the Lisbon Treaty). The upshot of this tortuous attempt to “bring Europe closer to its peoples” is that those peoples see the EU as less democratic than ever.

Meanwhile, armed with its new powers, the inflated engine of our EU government rolls on, more power-crazed than ever. It is spending £800 million on setting up its new worldwide diplomatic service, with 100 of its officials earning more than our own shrunken and virtually irrelevant Foreign Secretary William Hague.

Also now on the table are the EU’s options for imposing its own taxes, the front-runner being a tax on financial transactions to which Britain, as a world financial centre, would contribute 70 per cent, more than 300 billion euros a year. Britain and the City will also be hit hardest by the EU’s seizure of control over the regulation of financial services.

Our Chancellor, George Osborne, has just conceded the EU’s right to “supervise” the contents of national budgets, taking away much of a power Parliament has exercised for centuries. Britain also seems likely to lose what remains of the EU budget rebate won by Mrs Thatcher, putting up our yearly contributions to the EU by another £3 billion – even though, for every £1 we get back from Brussels for our farmers, we already hand over £2 to farmers in other countries.

Theresa May, our Home Secretary, weakly claims that she wants reform of the European Arrest Warrant, when half of all those affected by it are being extradited from Britain. The EU’s response, in effect, is that we agreed to this travesty of justice and we must learn to live with it.

But no current issue better illustrates the bizarre nature of the system to which we have surrendered the power to run our country than the chaos inflicted on our hospitals by the enforced application of the EU’s working time directive. Led by John Black, head of the Royal College of Surgeons, medical professionals protest that this is threatening many patients’ lives.

Even the European Commission freely admits, in a recent “communication” to the European Parliament and sundry others, that its rules are, in practice, highly “unsatisfactory” and in need of urgent reform. But it adds that attempts to amend the directives have been going on since 2004 and that any chance of getting the reforms needed will involve so many consultations and negotiations that little is likely to happen for years.

Of course, if we still had the power to run our own country, this crisis in the NHS and much else besides could be sorted out within months, But since our Government seems quite happy to continue handing over even more powers to this crazy system, there is nothing we can do about it – until eventually the whole lumbering, labyrinthine, unaccountable, undemocratic mess implodes under the weight of its own contradictions.

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om =”http://bloggar.se/om/fri-+och+r%E4ttigheter rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/yttrandefrihet rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>

varning-2

EU: s foreign minster performance so far – lacklustre and a pushover 3

8 februari, 2010

This is an answer to comments by SwanLake and a continuation of the discussion in my posts:

EU: s foreign minster performance so far – lacklustre and a pushover 2,

The HUGE difference between EU and USA in response to Haiti. and EU: s foreign minster performance so far – lacklustre and a pushover

There are other long time key players involved in this drive for one world government. Their arguments have varied but for the last 35 years environment, and now the Global Warming Hysteria, had been the main driving force behind it.

You will find that some of the key figures keep popping up in all of these organisations. In a complex web these organisations intermingle and cross support each other. Even if they are formally separate with slightly different agendas.

So in this post I will point to the Club of Rome and of Maurice Strong. Both key players in the planning and execution of these ideas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Club_of_rome

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurice_Strong

Here is a long article about Strong from 1997:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n16_v49/ai_19722906/?tag=content;col1

Maurice Strong has demonstrated an uncanny ability to manipulate people, institutions, governments, and events to achieve the outcome he desires. Through his published writings and public presentations he has declared his desire to empower the U.N. as the global authority to manage a new era of global governance. He has positioned his NGO triumvirite, the IUCN, WWF, and the WRI, to varnish U.N. activity with the perception of ”civil society” respectability. And now he has been appointed Senior Advisor to the U.N. Secretary General and assigned the responsibility of reforming the United Nations bureaucracy. The fox has been given the assignment, and all the tools necessary, to repair the henhouse to his liking.

http://sovereignty.net/p/sd/strong.html

And he is an ”intresting” figure to say the4 least.

Strong did business deals with arms dealer Adnan Khashoggi, and wound up with a 200,000-acre ranch in Colorado – which his wife, Hanne, runs as a New Age spiritual colony called the Baca.

http://www.algerie-defense.com/2009/11/adnan-m-khashoggi-an-arms-dealer-returns-now-selling-an-image/

2005 Oil-for-Food scandal and hiring practice criticisms

In 2005, during investigations into the U.N.’s Oil-for-Food Programme, evidence procured by federal investigators and the U.N.-authorized inquiry of Paul Volcker showed that in 1997, while working for Annan, Strong had endorsed a check for $988,885, made out to ”Mr. M. Strong,” issued by a Jordanian bank. It was reported that the check was hand-delivered to Mr. Strong by a South Korean businessman, Tongsun Park, who in 2006 was convicted in New York federal court of conspiring to bribe U.N. officials to rig Oil-for-Food in favor of Saddam Hussein. During the inquiry, Strong stepped down from his U.N. post, stating that he would ”sideline himself until the cloud was removed”. Strong now lives in Beijing.[14]

Strong was the UN’s envoy to North Korea until July 2005. According to Associated Press his contract was not renewed ”amid questions about his connection to a suspect in the UN oil-for-food scandal”, Tongsun Park, as well as due to criticism that he gave his stepdaughter a job at the UN contrary to UN staff regulations against hiring immediate family.[15]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurice_Strong

See also http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1126198672832_8/?hub=Canada

“In 1978, a mystic informed Hanne and Maurice Strong that ”the Baca would become the center for a new planetary order which would evolve from the economic collapse and environmental catastrophes that would sweep the globe in the years to come.” The Strongs say they see the Baca, which they call ‘The Valley Of the Refuge Of World Truths ,'” as the paradigm for the entire planet and say that the fate of the earth is at stake. Shirley MacLaine agrees – her astrologer told her to move to the Baca, and she did. She is building a New Age study center at the Baca where people can take short week-long courses on the occult!

Apparently, the Kissingers, the Rockefellers, the McNamaras, the Rothschild’s, and other Establishment New World Order elitists all agree as well, for they do their pilgrimage to the Baca – where politics and the occult – the New World Order and the New Age – all merge. Watch Maurice Strong and watch the Baca!”

He told Maclean’s magazine in 1976 that he was ”a socialist in ideology, a capitalist in methodology.” He warns that if we don’t heed his environmentalist warnings, the Earth will collapse into chaos.

In 1990, Strong told a reporter a scenario for the World Economic Forum meeting in Davos, Switzerland – where 1,000 diplomats, CEOs and politicians gather ”to address global issues.”

“Each year the World Economic Forum convenes in Davos, Switzerland. Over a thousand CEOs, prime ministers, finance ministers, and leading academics gather in February to attend meetings and set the economic agendas for the year ahead. What if a small group of these word leaders were to conclude that the principle risk to the earth comes from the actions of the rich countries? And if the world is to survive, those rich countries would have to sign an agreement reducing their impact on the environment. Will they do it? Will the rich countries agree to reduce their impact on the environment? Will they agree to save the earth?The group’s conclusion is ”no.” The rich countries won’t do it. They won’t change. So, in order to save the planet, the group decides: isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?

This group of world leaders form a secret society to bring about a world collapse.
It’s February. They’re all at Davos. These aren’t terrorists – they’re world leaders. They have positioned themselves in the world’s commodity and stock markets. They’ve engineered, using their access to stock exchanges, and computers, and gold supplies, a panic. Then they prevent the markets from closing. They jam the gears. They have mercenaries who hold the rest of the world leaders at Davros as hostage. The markets can’t close. The rich countries…?

The journalist adds, ”and Strong makes a slight motion with his fingers as if he were flicking a cigarette butt out of the window. I sat there spellbound…. He is, in fact, co-chairman of the Council of the World Economic Forum. He sits at the fulcrum of power. He is in a position to do it.”

WEST magazine May, 1990 entitled ”The Wizard of the Baca Grande”:

“Journalist Elaine Dewar, who interviewed Strong, described why he loved the UN.

He could raise his own money from whomever he liked, appoint anyone he wanted, control the agenda,” wrote Dewar.

He told me he had more unfettered power than a cabinet minister in Ottawa. He was right: He didn’t have to run for re-election, yet he could profoundly affect lives.”

Strong prefers power extracted from democracies, and kept from unenlightened voters. Most power-crazed men would stop at calling for a one world Earth Charter to replace the U.S. Constitution, or the UN Charter.

But in an interview with his own Earth Charter Commission, Strong said ”the real goal of the Earth Charter is it will in fact become like the Ten Commandments. It will become a symbol of the aspirations and commitments of people everywhere.” Sounds like Maurice was hanging out at his spirit ranch without his sunhat on. “

In 1991, Strong wrote the introduction to a book published by the Trilateral Commission, called Beyond Interdependence: The Meshing of the World’s Economy and the Earth’s Ecology, by Jim MacNeil. (David Rockefeller wrote the foreword). Strong said this:

”This interlocking…is the new reality of the century, with profound implications for the shape of our institutions of governance, national and international. By the year 2012, these changes must be fully integrated into our economic and political life.”

In an essay by Strong entitled Stockholm to Rio: A Journey Down a Generation, he says:

Strengthening the role the United Nations can play…will require serious examination of the need to extend into the international arena the rule of law and the principle of taxation to finance agreed actions which provide the basis for governance at the national level. But this will not come about easily. Resistance to such changes is deeply entrenched. They will come about not through the embrace of full blown world government, but as a careful and pragmatic response to compelling imperatives and the inadequacies of alternatives.”

”The concept of national sovereignty has been an immutable, indeed sacred, principle of international relations. It is a principle which will yield only slowly and reluctantly to the new imperatives of global environmental cooperation. What is needed is recognition of the reality that in so many fields, and this is particularly true of environmental issues, it is simply not feasible for sovereignty to be exercised unilaterally by individual nation-states, however powerful. The global community must be assured of environmental security.”[8]

And here are some more quotes:

“We may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrial civilization to collapse.

Licences to have babies incidentally is something that I got in trouble for some years ago for suggesting even in Canada that this might be necessary at some point, at least some restriction on the right to have a child.”

“After all, sustainability means running the global environment – Earth Inc. – like a corporation: with depreciation, amortization and maintenance accounts. In other words, keeping the asset whole, rather than undermining your natural capital.”

“I am convinced the prophets of doom have to be taken seriously.”

Maurice Strong Interview BBC1972

From Jesse Ventura how was a believer:

How Strong since 2005 (after the UN scandal), moved to Beijing and became an agent for the Chinese government. And helps them to sell and trade carbon credits. Making another fortune for himself.

An interview about his book “Where on Earth are you going?” from April 24,2001

Maurice Strong’s unprecedented rise to power. From the CBC documentary ‘Life and Times’ (2004).

The documentary presents Strong in an very favorable and glowing light .But it give some interesting insights. Such as the influence of his socialist principal. And how he was vetted by globalist kingpin David Rockefeller in the mid-40s, at the United Nations headquarters in New York City, after Strong landed a job there with the help of people who had connections to the UN.

And here are some more quotes from previous posts about the goal behinf the Global Warming Hysteria:

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 76

“In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.”

–          The Club of Rome’s The First Global Revolution (1991) by Alexander King and Bertrand Schneider – Page 75

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 39

The political stream was the pursuit of Maurice Strong and all those descendants of the Club of Rome including President Obama who want one world government with total control over everybody. That goal has not changed. The 1974 report of the Club of Rome titled, Mankind at the Turning Point says, “It would seem that humans need a common motivation…either a real one or else one invented for the purpose…In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.” (my emphasis). H. L. Mencken’s comment that, “The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule” is validated.

ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL COOLING – This increase in CO2 emissions over the past 63 years has resulted in over 40 years of global cooling

The desire to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule it” — H L Mencken

Here are some revealing quotes from some environmentalists. They are SOOOO humane are they not:

The First Global Revolution” (1991, p. 104) published by the ”Club of Rome”: In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill…. All these dangers are caused by human intervention… The real enemy, then, is humanity itself.”

I suspect that eradicating smallpox was wrong. It played an important part in balancing ecosystems.

—John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal

Human beings, as a species, have no more value than slugs.

—John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal

We advocate biodiversity for biodiversity’s sake. It may take our extinction to set things straight.

—David Foreman, Earth First!

Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on earth, social and environmental.

—Dave Forman, Founder of Earth First!

If radical environmentalists were to invent a disease to bring human populations back to sanity, it would probably be something like AIDS

—Earth First! Newsletter

Human happiness, and certainly human fecundity, is not as important as a wild and healthy planets…Some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along.

—David Graber, biologist, National Park Service

To feed a starving child is to exacerbate the world population problem.

—Lamont Cole

Poverty For “Those People”

We, in the green movement, aspire to a cultural model in which killing a forest will be considered more contemptible and more criminal than the sale of 6-year-old children to Asian brothels.

—Carl Amery

If I were reincarnated, I would wish to be returned to Earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels.

—Prince Phillip, World Wildlife Fund

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/yttrandefrihet” rel=”tag”>yttrandefrihet</a>, <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/fri-+och+r%E4ttigheter” rel=”tag”>fri- och rättigheter, Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/USA” rel=”tag”>USA</a>

EU: s foreign minster performance so far – lacklustre and a pushover 2

6 februari, 2010

This is an answer to comments by Swan Lake and EU itself a disaster:

The HUGE difference between EU and USA in response to Haiti. and EU: s foreign minster performance so far – lacklustre and a pushover

The New EU foreign minister and the new European President are both undemocratic appointments to undemocratic posts created by an undemocratic treaty.

A short but very succinct description of the Lisbon Treaty and what it really means for the common people.

That these people are so lackluster and bland apparatichs is not a coincidence according to this article. And there are merits to their arguments.

Another factor is the usual squabble among the top EU nations to get THEIR candidates to the most important posts. And here nations like Sweden CAN ONLY WATCH AND HAVE TO ACCEPT WHATEVER ARE THE OUTCOME.

One small step for union, one giant leap for uniformity

“In fact, the anointing of Mr van Rompuy and Baroness Ashton is completely in accord with the new arrangements that brought about their promotion. The Lisbon Treaty – née the European Constitution – is not about politics. Its chief purpose is to do with management and it has thus created additional layers in an attempt to impose “consensus” more firmly on the still distressingly nationalistic member states.

In that respect, the new executive directors seem ideal. Both have risen without trace through the pathways of management – we are tempted to recall the Peter Principle relating to advancement and competence. Both have reputations that resonate only among their own managerial classes and both lard their public utterances with the buzzwords of managementspeak. Post-Lisbon Europe could hardly be better served.

While commercial management can sometimes be imaginative and innovative and benefit from big personalities, those are not qualities required in bureaucracies. Their survival depends upon a certain drab uniformity (see “consensus” above) enforced by Kafkaesque regulation unintelligible to those outside the circle. Consequently, Mr van Rompuy will direct an army of civil servants whose job will be to bamboozle the leaders of the member states into what can be presented to their voters as the desirable “European” approach.

Baroness Ashton will command a budget of £3.6 billion a year and 3,000 new  bureaucrats spanning the globe to mould the foreign relations of what used to be 27 sovereign governments into a similar “European” position.”

For such responsibilities, a distinct lack of charisma is beneficial. Already there have been mutterings among governments that their foreign affairs ministries are being downgraded and concern at a suggestion that their ministers should become EU envoys instead. How long before similar diminution overtakes national justice departments, social security ministries and treasuries? In order to complete this process, Brussels has calculated that for the moment it needs an invisible managerial hand, rather than a political Colossus, so as to confuse potential opposition.

These are early days, however. The European project is a long-term venture and far from being popular (which is why the successor to the rejected Constitution was not generally submitted to electorates and written in such a way as to avoid unpredictable votes in the future). That being so, the appointments of two unknowns were designed not to frighten the horses – hence Mr Farage’s difficulty in responding. The promoters of the single European state know that their vision can only be realised through attrition, not by revolution. Our new managers have the task of achieving a bland, ideology-free European uniformity. Once that is in place, their successors will be free to go all out for full European Union.”

http://www.junepress.com/PDF/Vol%2015%20No%204%20-%2018th%20December%202009%20(Leading%20Article).pdf

The political elite in Europe DELIBERATELY constructed the Lisbon Treaty so that the common people COULD NOT UNDERSTAND IT and comprehend what was going on.

I.E. THE  LARGEST TRANSFER OF SOVEREIGNTY AND POWER FROM the people and local governments to the EU central level.

And the people were NOT allowed to have their say and to vote on it.  With one exception, Ireland.  Its constitution made it impossible for the politicians not to have a referendum.

The result – the people of Ireland voted NO 54 to 46 %.

But of course – The political elite in Europe doesn’t accept a NO from the people.

As already have happened before in France (2005 – 55% NO) Netherland (2005- 62% NO), Ireland (2001- 54% NO) and Denmark (1992 – 51% NO)  

They started their manoeuvring, twisting, some minor concessions here some more money and transfers there etc.

At ALL COST they had to have a Yes on this one. And they got one a year later.

How many times does the voters have to vote NO before NO is really a NO? Or what part of NO! don’t you understand?

 

And a very INTERESTING Account of how former French President Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, in a meeting with Gorbachev in January 1989, told Gorbachev that Europe in 15 years time is going to be a FEDERAL STATE.

How in the HELL DID HE KNOW THAT??????

Well the answer is very simple – because that’s been the plan all along from the political elite in Europe.

And surprise, surprise, he become the author of the European constitution (2002-03).

Wouldn’t you say that that was another “lucky” coincidence?

Here is the account from Vladimir Bukovksy describing an amazing meeting between President Gorbachev and representatives of the Trilateral Commission, which included David Rockefeller and Henry Kissinger.

”In January of 1989, for example, a delegation of the Trilateral Commission came to see Gorbachev. It included [former Japanese Prime Minister Yasuhiro] Nakasone, [former French President Valéry] Giscard d’Estaing, [American banker David] Rockefeller and [former US Secretary of State Henry] Kissinger. They had a very nice conversation where they tried to explain to Gorbachev that Soviet Russia had to integrate into the financial institutions of the world, such as Gatt, the IMF and the World Bank,” said .Bukovksy

”In the middle of it Giscard d’Estaing suddenly takes the floor and says: “Mr President, I cannot tell you exactly when it will happen – probably within 15 years – but Europe is going to be a federal state and you have to prepare yourself for that. You have to work out with us, and the European leaders, how you would react to that, how would you allow the other Easteuropean countries to interact with it or how to become a part of it, you have to be prepared,” added the whistleblower.

 ”This was January 1989, at a time when the [1992] Maastricht treaty had not even been drafted. How the hell did Giscard d’Estaing know what was going to happen in 15 years time? And surprise, surprise, how did he become the author of the European constitution [in 2002-03]? A very good question. It does smell of conspiracy, doesn’t it?” said Bukovksy.

“Paul Belien: You were a very famous Soviet dissident and now you are drawing a parallel between the European Union and the Soviet Union. Can you explain this?

Vladimir Bukovsky: I am referrring to structures, to certain ideologies being instilled, to the plans, the direction, the inevitable expansion, the obliteration of nations, which was the purpose of the Soviet Union. Most people do not understand this. They do not know it, but we do because we were raised in the Soviet Union where we had to study the Soviet ideology in school and at university. The ultimate purpose of the Soviet Union was to create a new historic entity, the Soviet people, all around the globe. The same is true in the EU today. They are trying to create a new people. They call this people “Europeans”, whatever that means.

PB: But we have a European Parliament which is chosen by the people.

VB: The European Parliament is elected on the basis of proportional representation, which is not true representation. And what does it vote on? The percentage of fat in yoghurt, that kind of thing. It is ridiculous. It is given the task of the Supreme Soviet. The average MP can speak for six minutes per year in the Chamber. That is not a real parliament.”

Mr Bukovsky called the EU a “monster” that must be destroyed, the sooner the better, before it develops into a fullfledged totalitarian state.

“It is no accident that the European Parliament, for example, reminds me of the Supreme Soviet. It looks like the Supreme Soviet because it was designed like it. Similary, when you look at the European Commission it looks like the Politburo. I mean it does so exactly, except for the fact that the Commission now has 25 members and the Politburo usually had 13 or 15 members. Apart from that they are exactly the same, unaccountable to anyone, not directly elected by anyone at all. When you look into all this bizarre activity of the European Union with its 80,000 pages of regulations it looks like Gosplan. We used to have an organisation which was planning everything in the economy, to the last nut and bolt, five years in advance. Exactly the same thing is happening in the EU. When you look at the type of EU corruption, it is exactly the Soviet type of corruption, going from top to bottom rather than going from bottom to top.

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/865

And some citations from the leading figures behind the Lisbon Treaty:

EU – The aim of this treaty is to be unreadable and unclear AND it can not be understood by ordinary citizens 

Jean Claude Juncker – Prime Minister of Luxembourg

”Britain is different. Of course there will be transfers of sovereignty. But would I be intelligent to draw the attention of public opinion to this fact?

There is a single legal personality for the EU, the primacy of European law, a new architecture for foreign and security policy, there is an enormous extension in the fields of the EU’s powers,”

– Daily Telegraph 3 July 2007

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1556400/Dont-tell-British-about-the-EU-treaty.html

Karel de Gucht, Belgian Foreign Minister

“The aim of the Constitutional treaty was to be more readable; the aim of this treaty is to be unreadable…The Constitution aimed to be clear, whereas this treaty had to be unclear. It is a success.”

Flandreinfo, 23 June 2007.

Jean-Luc Dehaene,  former Belgian prime minister, and former Vice President of the Convention which wrote the EU Constitution

The Economist of 9 August 2007 quoted some revealing remarks by Jean-Luc Dehaene. The Economist said that in an interview in Le Soir, he said it was “dangerous talk” to want “too much transparency and clarity” in the EU. On 17 October 2007 European Voice quoted him as saying, “The paper [the Reform Treaty] is incomprehensible. Good! We need incomprehensible papers if we are to make progress . . . We have to be realistic.”

http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9619050

Giuliano Amato, former Italian Prime Minister and the other former Vice President of the Convention which wrote the EU Constitution.

He said, at a meeting of the Centre for European Reform, recorded by Open Europe, on 12 July 2007 that EU leaders “decided that the document should be unreadable. If it is unreadable, it is not constitutional, that was the sort of perception… . In order to make our citizens happy, to produce a document that they will never understand! But, there is some truth [in it]... any Prime Minister – imagine the UK Prime Minister – can go to the Commons and say ‘Look, you see, it’s absolutely unreadable, it’s the typical Brussels treaty, nothing new, no need for a referendum’ Should you succeed in understanding it at first sight there might be some reason for a referendum, because it would mean that there is something new..”

The good thing about not calling it a Constitution is that no one can ask for a referendum on it.” – 21 February 2007.

Valerie Giscard d’Estaing, former president of France and president of the Convention which wrote the EU Constitution

Writing in Le Monde on 14 June 2007, a few days before the form of the “reform” proposals had been settled: ”A last good idea consists of wanting to preserve part of the Constitution and camouflaging this by distributing it among several texts. The more innovative provisions [of the Constitution] would be simple amendments to the Nice and Maastricht treaties. The technical improvements would be gathered together in a bland and uncontroversial treaty. These texts would be put to Parliaments to vote on them one at a time. Thus public opinion would be led to accept, without knowing it, the proposals that we dare not present to them directly….All the earlier proposals will be in the new text, but will be hidden and disguised in some way.”

http://www.lemonde.fr/cgi-bin/ACHATS/acheter.cgi?offre=ARCHIVES&type_item=ART_ARCH_30J&objet_id=993865&clef=ARC-TRK-D_01

On 26 October 2007, writing again in Le Monde he said, “The Lisbon Treaty itself cannot be understood by ordinary citizens since it can be understood only by also reading the treaties which it amends. . . The institutional proposals of the constitutional treaty – the only things which mattered for the members of the European Convention – are in the Lisbon treaty in their entirety but in a different order and inserted into previous treaties. – What is the purpose of this subtle manoeuvre? First and above all to escape from the constraint of having to hold a referendum by dispersing the articles and by renouncing the constitutional vocabulary.”

http://www.lemonde.fr/opinions/article/2007/10/26/la-boite-a-outils-du-traite-de-lisbonne-par-valery-giscard-d-estaing_971616_3232.html

Dr Garret FitzGerald, former Irish Prime Minister

”The most striking change (between the EU Constitution in its older and newer version ) is perhaps that in order to enable some governments to reassure their electorates that the changes will have no constitutional implications, the idea of a new and simpler treaty containing all the provisions governing the Union has now been dropped in favour of a huge series of individual amendments to two existing treaties. Virtual incomprehensibility has thus replaced simplicity as the key approach to EU reform. As for the changes now proposed to be made to the constitutional treaty, most are presentational changes that have no practical effect. They have simply been designed to enable certain heads of government to sell to their people the idea of ratification by parliamentary action rather than by referendum.” – Irish Times, 30 June 2007.

Angela Merkel, current Chancellor of Germany and president of the EU from 1 January 2007 to 30 June 2007

We have renounced everything that makes people think of a state.” Gone are the words, constitution, flag, anthem and motto.

Speaking to the European Parliament, on 27 June, Angela Merkel was keen to point out, “The agreement reached in Brussels [23 June 2007] enables us to retain the substance of the Constitutional Treaty. ”  “At the same time, the Reform Treaty contains major advances for the European Union’s capacity to act. Indeed, in some areas we even went further than in the Constitutional Treaty.”

“European integration has to be striven for and consolidated time and again.”

http://www.eu2007.de/en/News/Speeches_Interviews/Juni/0628BKinEP.html

And all this striving for Grandeur and Pomp by the leaders of EU, they Demand Obedience and Attention as if they think they where ancient emperors. Not, as they are supposed to be, servants of the people of Europe

All paid by the taxes from the common people.

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/156108/European-President-Herman-Van-Rom

EUROPEAN PRESIDENT HERMAN VAN ROMPUY SLAMMED FOR ‘ACTING LIKE A KING’ 

Thursday February 4,2010 , By Martyn Brown

THE new European President Herman Van Rompuy was slammed yesterday for “acting like a king” after trying to host his first EU summit in a palace.

Mr Van Rompuy originally wanted to hold the gathering in the 18th Century Palais d’Egmont in Brussels.

But after pressure from Europe’s capitals, he switched the Brussels meeting to another prestigious, but less regal, building hundreds of yards away from the usual office block venue where EU leaders meet.

Diplomats are still predicting “chaos” when EU leaders get together next week in the Bibliotheque Solvay, a cramped 100-year-old library that does not even include interpreter booths.

Far from being a king, Mr Van Rompuy, 62, has been dismissed by his sister Christine, a member of a rival political party, as a clown.

She helped produce a mocking poster last year of her brother sporting a red nose and clown’s hat in an election. Next week’s talks will focus on proposals from Mr Van Rompuy to give the EU more “economic governance” powers in the aftermath of the recession and after implementation of the Lisbon Treaty, which came into force last month.

A diplomat said the palace plan “had to be stopped,” adding: “Who does he think he is, some kind of king?”

Mr Van Rompuy’s spokesman said that the idea was to move to a venue reminiscent of the Union’s original informal “fireside” meetings of leaders. He said: “The President wants to create a more intimate atmosphere for dialogue.”

Diplomats are concerned Mr Van Rompuy might be trying to push EU leaders into agreeing economic proposals without support from national delegations – housed in a different building without communication links.

He has already insisted he alone will draw up a paper proposing economic targets and policy for the year 2020 to be set at the EU level.

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/USA” rel=”tag”>USA</a>

EU: s foreign minster performance so far – lacklustre and a pushover

5 februari, 2010

As a complement to my previous post about EU, EEAS and Haiti here is some more on EEAS or the EU foreign service and the new foreign minister.

As I wrote in my post:

The New EU foreign minister – An undemocratic appointment to an undemocratic post created by an undemocratic treaty

“And the background of the new EU foreign minister (the High Representative for Foreign Affairs). Here main qualification seems to have been here lack of diplomatic experience. And that she is a Labour Baroness (she worked with business to abolish inequality), and has never held an elected office before. As the Gerald Warner so aptly point out: “this serial appointee is custom-made for high EU office”.

As Peter Ludlow, the European Strategy Forum, a Brussels think-tank put it: ”She would be a first rate disaster”.

Or as a French official said: ”She has little experience and is a bizarre choice”.

But they always complain don’t they.

And as Andrew Duff, a Liberal Democrat MEP, described her ”reassuringly dull.”

European people – You have been forewarned.”

Well it seems that the commission acted very quickly. As expected. And which they have prepared for even if they where not officially allowed to do that before the Lisbon Treaty went into force.

The commission also made a power grab, as expected, to even further strengthen it’s power over foreign policy. And of course “lady” Ashton was no match for them.

Well, she has lived up to all these “expectations”.

Ant the British are VERY Worried that EEAS is going to take over. Especially since the Britain’s Foreign Office is in financial and budget crisis and is scaling back representation abroad.

But the Swedish Foreign Office is NOT worried or concerned. We apparently have MUCH MORE INFLUENCE AND RESOURCES THAN THE BRITISH.

And the Germans are also worried. But don’t worry, be happy!

“The decision to give 54 of the European Commission’s 136 delegations full ambassadorial status was taken without any public announcement when the Lisbon Treaty entered into force three weeks ago. “

“Mats Persson, director of the Open Europe think tank, said the new EU embassies would, for ”all practical purposes”, take over the job of representing Britons on the world stage.

Common EU embassies means that Britain can be overruled on crucial diplomatic matters, such as on how to respond to human rights abuses in a conflict-ridden country,” he said.

“Mark Francois, the Conservative spokesman on Europe, said: ”It is crucial that these new EU delegations do not try to stray into the work of national embassies. The growth of the EU’s diplomatic representation presents a stark and regrettable contrast to the financial crisis facing Britain’s Foreign Office.”

“Geoffrey Van Orden, a Conservative MEP on the parliament’s foreign affairs committee, warned the commission was using the Lisbon Treaty and Lady Ashton’s dual role as a commissioner and foreign minister to undermine national sovereignty.

”The Eurocrats want to shift foreign policy away from the nation states to the commission. She is the instrument for this,” he said.

”Her whole thrust is in the direction of the commission. Her office is in the commission. It is providing the resources. Her power base is there. I would say to national governments – beware your foreign policy is at risk.”

“Many larger EU member states, including Britain and Germany, are concerned that José Manuel Barroso, the commission president, is plotting to keep national diplomats out of senior European diplomatic corps jobs.

Mr Barroso’s decision, late last year, to remove ”neighbourhood” affairs, EU foreign policy for neighbouring countries such as Ukraine and the Balkans, from Lady Ashton’s brief as commissioner was widely seen as a power grab. “

Ashton is not a strong figure politically and her weakness is allowing the commission to empire build – which was not the idea behind her post,” said one diplomat. “

“The European Union’s High Representative for Foreign and Security Policy was in Washington yesterday to meet with Hillary Clinton at the State Department, but she was barely a blip on the Beltway radar screen. Even the underwhelming David Miliband, hardly a household name on this side of the Atlantic, managed to significantly overshadow the visit of his EU counterpart when he delivered an exceedingly dull and unimaginative statement on the forthcoming London conference on Afghanistan before the Senate Foreign Relations committee.

There was virtually no US press coverage at all of Catherine Ashton’s first trip to the United States as the EU foreign policy supremo, and she hardly set Foggy Bottom alight. Almost every major American news outlet ignored her presence in Washington, which is hardly surprising given that few reporters here would have any idea who she was.

Even her remarks at a joint press conference with the Secretary of State merited barely any attention, with the major press focus upon Clinton’s views on Haiti and Iran. Ashton’s comments were lacklustre and flat, betraying a striking dearth of foreign policy experience and knowledge. She also clearly lacks the presence, gravitas and charisma to be an international statesman, and bears all the hallmarks of a spectacularly unqualified apparatchik appointed way above her station as part of a cynical backroom deal between Europe’s big players.”

See also:

Den svenska utrikesförvaltningens död

See also my other post on the Lisbon Treaty:

EU – The inner game and the Corruption that Cost £684 931,5 per hour EVERY hour EVERY day EVERY year. And is increasing

EU – The aim of this treaty is to be unreadable and unclear AND it can not be understood by ordinary citizens

The EU Auditors have, for the 15th year in a row, refused to sign off the EU’s accounts owing to Fraud and Mismanagement in the budget

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/7045354/More-than-50-EU-embassies-open-across-the-world.html

More than 50 EU embassies open across the world

More than 50 European Union embassies have opened across the world since the Lisbon Treaty came into force three weeks ago.

By Bruno Waterfield

Published: 7:00AM GMT 22 Jan 2010

The move has led to fears that British consular facilities could be shut down as Brussels establishes itself as a world power.

Critics say the 54 new embassies in countries including Afghanistan, China, India and 33 African nations will shift power away from the British foreign office towards a new EU diplomatic service.

Embassies in the key capitals of Beijing, Kabul and Addis Ababa, the seat of the African Union, are regarded as marking a major shift to giving the EU a role as a global player to rival nation states.

The embassies will takeover national bilateral missions in the 54 countries where they are set up, headed by ambassadors who are empowered to speak on behalf of the EU as a whole.

”They are going to be a bit more political,” a Brussels official told the EU observer website.

The decision to give 54 of the European Commission’s 136 delegations full ambassadorial status was taken without any public announcement when the Lisbon Treaty entered into force three weeks ago.

Twelve of the embassies are in Asia and the Pacific Ocean, including Australia, China, India, Indonesia and Vietnam. A network of 33 in Africa will cover countries ranging across the continent from Ghana to Kenya and South Africa to Zimbabwe. Eight of the new-model units are in Europe in Armenia, Georgia, Macedonia, Moldova, Norway, Serbia, Switzerland and Ukraine.

A decisions over New York has been delayed amid a fierce political battle over the EU’s role in the United Nations Security Council.

Mats Persson, director of the Open Europe think tank, said the new EU embassies would, for ”all practical purposes”, take over the job of representing Britons on the world stage.

Common EU embassies means that Britain can be overruled on crucial diplomatic matters, such as on how to respond to human rights abuses in a conflict-ridden country,” he said.

In order for common embassies to work, EU member states must have shared national interests. This simply isn’t the case, particularly in Africa where the EU has consistently failed to act in a unified manner in the past.”

The Lisbon Treaty has created an embryonic diplomatic corps, the European External Action Service, under the control of an EU foreign minister, a post held by Baroness Ashton.

A text, agreed by European leaders, including Gordon Brown, last October gives the EU ”delegations” the objective of taking over consular work, a new role that could lead to British consulates being closed in remote countries to make cash savings.

EU delegations could gradually assume responsibility, where necessary, for tasks related to diplomatic and consular protection of Union citizens in third countries, in crisis situations,” the text states.

Mark Francois, the Conservative spokesman on Europe, said: ”It is crucial that these new EU delegations do not try to stray into the work of national embassies. The growth of the EU’s diplomatic representation presents a stark and regrettable contrast to the financial crisis facing Britain’s Foreign Office.”

The Conservatives have accused the government of drafting plans to close overseas embassies and consulates as part of a wider programme of spending cuts.

An internal Foreign Office memorandum, leaked to the Tories, has urged diplomats to fire staff and close some overseas posts.

The Foreign Office has defended the new EU embassies.

”The EU’s foreign policy will become more consistent and effective, without costing the British taxpayer anymore because this is about redeploying existing resources,” said a British diplomat

”We are rightly proud of the consular service we offer to British and indeed EU nationals around the globe and there are currently no plans for the EU to take on that role.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/6968450/Ashton-has-lost-control-of-EU-foreign-policy.html

Baroness Ashton ‘has lost control of EU foreign policy’

Baroness Ashton’s political inexperience has allowed the European Commission to seize control of Europe’s foreign policy from national governments, MEPs and diplomats have warned.

By Bruno Waterfield in Brussels

Published: 6:24PM GMT 11 Jan 2010

During a hearing in the European Parliament on Monday, Lady Ashton faced repeated questions over who was really in charge of Europe’s foreign affairs and security policy.

The Labour life peer, who has never held elected public office or a post as a diplomat, has been instructed by national governments to set up a new diplomatic corps, the European External Action Service (EEAS), to carry out EU foreign policy independently of the commission.

As High Representative, or foreign minister, a post created under the Lisbon Treaty, Lady Ashton, 53, is also supposed to preserve the control of the Council of the EU, representing national governments, over foreign policy while also being a commission vice-president.

But since taking up her post on January 1, she has been criticised for failing to assert her own authority, for basing her office in the Brussels executive’s headquarters and for using commission officials as her key advisers.

Geoffrey Van Orden, a Conservative MEP on the parliament’s foreign affairs committee, warned the commission was using the Lisbon Treaty and Lady Ashton’s dual role as a commissioner and foreign minister to undermine national sovereignty.

”The Eurocrats want to shift foreign policy away from the nation states to the commission. She is the instrument for this,” he said.

”Her whole thrust is in the direction of the commission. Her office is in the commission. It is providing the resources. Her power base is there. I would say to national governments – beware your foreign policy is at risk.”

Following the introduction of the Lisbon Treaty at the end of last year, a turf war has broken out between commission officials and diplomats over control of the foreign minister and EEAS.

Many larger EU member states, including Britain and Germany, are concerned that José Manuel Barroso, the commission president, is plotting to keep national diplomats out of senior European diplomatic corps jobs.

Mr Barroso’s decision, late last year, to remove ”neighbourhood” affairs, EU foreign policy for neighbouring countries such as Ukraine and the Balkans, from Lady Ashton’s brief as commissioner was widely seen as a power grab.

Diplomats have also noted the growing influence over Lady Ashton of Joao Vale de Almeida, Commission director general for external relations, who was Mr Barroso’s closest and most senior adviser until last June.

Ashton is not a strong figure politically and her weakness is allowing the commission to empire build – which was not the idea behind her post,” said one diplomat.

During Monday’s confirmation hearing in front of the parliament’s foreign affairs committee, Lady Ashton denied that she allowing the commission to take control.

”It is not a land grab. It is collaboration,” she said.

MEPs will vote on the new commission, including Lady Ashton on Jan 26. Charles Tannock, a Conservative MEP, said he was ”underwhelmed” by her performance. ”But I suspect that we will still support her,” he added.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100023314/the-eus-foreign-policy-chief-is-no-kissinger-baroness-ashton-proves-a-flop-in-washington/

Nile Gardiner is a Washington-based foreign affairs analyst and political commentator. He appears frequently on American and British television and radio, including Fox News Channel, CNN, BBC, Sky News, and NPR.

The EU’s foreign policy chief is no Kissinger: Baroness Ashton proves a flop in Washington

By Nile Gardiner World Last updated: January 22nd, 2010

The European Union’s High Representative for Foreign and Security Policy was in Washington yesterday to meet with Hillary Clinton at the State Department, but she was barely a blip on the Beltway radar screen. Even the underwhelming David Miliband, hardly a household name on this side of the Atlantic, managed to significantly overshadow the visit of his EU counterpart when he delivered an exceedingly dull and unimaginative statement on the forthcoming London conference on Afghanistan before the Senate Foreign Relations committee.

There was virtually no US press coverage at all of Catherine Ashton’s first trip to the United States as the EU foreign policy supremo, and she hardly set Foggy Bottom alight. Almost every major American news outlet ignored her presence in Washington, which is hardly surprising given that few reporters here would have any idea who she was.

Even her remarks at a joint press conference with the Secretary of State merited barely any attention, with the major press focus upon Clinton’s views on Haiti and Iran. Ashton’s comments were lacklustre and flat, betraying a striking dearth of foreign policy experience and knowledge. She also clearly lacks the presence, gravitas and charisma to be an international statesman, and bears all the hallmarks of a spectacularly unqualified apparatchik appointed way above her station as part of a cynical backroom deal between Europe’s big players.

The unaccountable mandarins of Brussels may like to see themselves as the gilded guardians of a rising superpower, but in reality the international voice of the European Union is still nowhere near as powerful as that of individual European nation states, and that is how it should stay. I was relieved therefore that the EU was not represented by a far more formidable figure with considerable weight and popularity in America, like Tony Blair. Had the former Prime Minister swanned into town as the president of the European Union, there would have been a bank of television cameras awaiting his presence, and his views would have been widely reported.

As I wrote at the time of her completely ridiculous appointment, Ashton’s ascent to power in Brussels will, temporarily, help rein in European ambitions to be a major actor on the world stage:

Anything that undermines the Lisbon vision of the EU as a powerful supranational force is a good thing, and the appointments of both Baroness Ashton and Herman Van Rompuy will do that in spades. Better a weak non-entity as foreign minister or president than a powerhouse Henry Kissinger at the helm if the nefarious European Project is to be defeated.

Baroness Ashton’s pitiful lack of impact in her first foray in America demonstrated that the EU is currently an emperor with no clothes, lacking the power to be a global political force. But, there is no room for complacency among those of us who believe in the sanctity of the nation state, and are opposed to the rise of a federal Europe.

The fundamentally undemocratic Treaty of Lisbon will dramatically erode sovereignty in Europe, and over the next few years it will significantly drive a European foreign policy and defence identity. As the euobserver has just reported, the EU has already “converted 54 out of the European Commission’s 136 foreign delegations into embassy-type missions authorised to speak for the entire union” in preparation for the creation of a new EU diplomatic corps.

There is also rising support in the White House and State Department for the European Union’s grand ambitions, an extraordinarily foolish approach for a US administration to take, but not out of character for the Obama admininistration. As Hillary Clinton made it amply clear in her press conference, Washington is now an unequivocal backer of ever-closer union in Europe. As she put it yesterday, speaking alongside Baroness Ashton, “I expect that in decades to come, we will look back on the Lisbon Treaty and the maturation of the EU that it represents as a major milestone in our world’s history, and not just in Europe and not just in the Euro-Atlantic community.”

There is a very real danger that over the next decade, Washington will increasingly do business directly with the EU, at the expense of individual European capitals. This would be a grave mistake on the part of the United States, and would result in a significant weakening, rather than strengthening, of the transatlantic alliance, as well as the further decline of the Anglo-American Special Relationship.

The next British government must firmly oppose and do all in its power to fight the rise of a European foreign and defence policy, and ensure that vital matters of national interest are decided in London and not Brussels. It must also send a clear message to Washington that American support for a federal European superstate will only serve to undermine the Anglo-American alliance.

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/USA” rel=”tag”>USA</a>

The HUGE difference between EU and USA in response to Haiti.

5 februari, 2010

Or the mouse that whined.

Five years ago when the Indian Ocean tsunami disaster happened, EU called for a three-minute silence (three times longer than is customary to remember the millions who died in two world wars) and proposed a ”donors’ conference” in Jakarta nearly two weeks later to discuss what might be done.”

In contrast, within hours the US took the lead in forming an alliance with Australia, India and Japan, and sent in two battle groups fully equipped to deal with such an emergency.

Now in Haiti the same pattern repeats itself again.

“Within hours of Port-au-Prince crumbling into ruins, the US had sent in an aircraft carrier with 19 helicopters, hospital and assault ships, the 82nd Airborne Division with 3,500 troops and hundreds of medical personnel. They put the country’s small airport back on an operational footing, and President Obama pledged an initial $100 million dollars in emergency aid.”

And what did EU do?  It acted as usually “very forceful” and hold a press conference. Yes, a boring press conference!

Meanwhile, across the Atlantic, the European Union geared itself up with a Brussels press conference led by Commission Vice-President Baroness Ashton, now the EU’s High Representative – our new foreign minister. A scattering of bored-looking journalists in the Commission’s lavishly appointed press room heard the former head of Hertfordshire Health Authority stumbling through a prepared statement, in which she said that she had conveyed her ”condolences” to the UN Secretary-General, Ban Ki-Moon, and pledged three million euros in aid.”

The people of Haiti MUST BEE VERY REASSURED AND COMFORTED BY THE THOUGHT THAT EU:s foreign minster had a press conference and sent her ”condolences” , NOT TO HAITI OR THE PEOPLE AFFECTED BUT TO  the UN Secretary-General, Ban Ki-Moon.

This is the same EU that pride itself of being a dominant world power. And the bureaucrats in Brussels have even bigger ambitions that that.

In fact, the EU have had a ”Rapid Reaction Mechanism” since 2001 (Council Regulation (EC) No 381/2001of 26 February 2001)

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32001R0381:EN:HTML

AS WE HAVE SEEN AGAIN AND AGAIN – It’s NEITHER RAPID NOR REACTING!

And to top it off EU (the usual suspects) criticised USA for ”occupying” Haiti.

That’s how you gain respect and trust – You talk loud, do nothing and harshly criticise the ones that actually do anything.

EU in a nutshell.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/7005887/Haiti-response-shows-the-difference-between-the-EU-and-a-superpower.html

Haiti response shows the difference between the EU and a superpower

The earthquake in Haiti provoked prompt and effective action from the US, and waffle from the EU, says Christopher Booker

By Christopher Booker

Published: 6:49PM GMT 16 Jan 2010

Compare and contrast the initial responses of two ”major world powers” to the Haitian earthquake disaster. Within hours of Port-au-Prince crumbling into ruins, the US had sent in an aircraft carrier with 19 helicopters, hospital and assault ships, the 82nd Airborne Division with 3,500 troops and hundreds of medical personnel. They put the country’s small airport back on an operational footing, and President Obama pledged an initial $100 million dollars in emergency aid.

Meanwhile, across the Atlantic, the European Union geared itself up with a Brussels press conference led by Commission Vice-President Baroness Ashton, now the EU’s High Representative – our new foreign minister. A scattering of bored-looking journalists in the Commission’s lavishly appointed press room heard the former head of Hertfordshire Health Authority stumbling through a prepared statement, in which she said that she had conveyed her ”condolences” to the UN Secretary-General, Ban Ki-Moon, and pledged three million euros in aid.

A gaggle of other Commision spokesmen followed, to report offers of help from individual member states, such as a few search and rescue teams, tents and water purification units. We were also told that an official EU representative would be trying to reach Haiti from the Dominican Republic, to stay for a few hours before returning to report what he had found.

Memories might have gone back to December 2004, which saw similarly contrasting responses to the Indian Ocean tsunami catastrophe which cost nearly 300,000 lives. Again, within hours the US took the lead in forming an alliance with Australia, India and Japan, and had sent in two battle groups fully equipped to deal with such an emergency, including 20 ships led by two carriers with 90 helicopters. President Bush immediately pledged $35 million, later rising to $350 million. Because they were self-sufficient, the US forces pulled off a stupendously successful life-saving operation, almost entirely ignored by the British media, notably the BBC (whose journalists on the spot were nevertheless quite happy to hitch lifts from US helicopters).

The EU, by contrast, pledged three million euros for the tsunami victims, called for a three-minute silence (three times longer than is customary to remember the millions who died in two world wars) and proposed a ”donors’ conference” in Jakarta nearly two weeks later to discuss what might be done.

The only real difference between these two episodes is that, in the five years which have elapsed since 2004, the EU has even more noisily laid claim to its status as what Tony Blair liked to call ”a world superpower”, capable of standing on the world stage as an equal of the US. Anyone who witnessed the dismal showing at Thursday’s press conference of the High Representative, which would scarcely have passed muster at a board meeting of the Hertfordshire Health Authority, might well cringe at the thought.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/centralamericaandthecaribbean/haiti/7054716/Haiti-earthquake-Lady-Ashton-under-fire-over-EU-visibility.html

Haiti earthquake: Lady Ashton under fire over EU ‘visibility’

Baroness Ashton, the European Union’s foreign minister, has come under fire for failing to visit Haiti and letting America take command of the international aid response.

By Bruno Waterfield

Published: 5:22PM GMT 22 Jan 2010

Lady Ashton, who had little or no diplomatic experience when she took the High Representative of Foreign Affairs job last year, is in charge of the EU’s crisis and humanitarian aid response.

France, which accused the United States of ”occupying” Haiti earlier this week, has been dismayed by the EU’s lack of ”visibility” during international relief efforts over the last 10 days.

Michel Barnier, the French internal market commissioner, is said to have briefed against Lady Ashton by pointing out France’s foreign minister was ”immediately available” on the ground following the Asian Tsunami in 2004.

He denied the claim and insisted ”she can count on me to work with her on strengthening Europe’s foreign and defence policy – an area of work I have always been interested in”. But French press reports have described Mr Barnier as ”seething” and ”enraged” that EU had not acted on his ideas, a failing emphasised by US control of the Haiti relief operation.

Following the tsunami, Mr Barnier wrote an influential report calling for the creation of an EU civil protection force called ”Europe Aid”.

Joseph Daul, a senior centre-right MEP and a close ally of Nicolas Sarkozy, expressed regret that Lady Ashton was absent when Hillary Clinton, US Secretary of State, visited Haiti at the weekend.

Just about everybody was in Haiti at the moment when these people are suffering, and Europe was not present,” he said. ”If it would have been in our hands, we would have sent someone.”

Daniel Cohn-Bendit MEP, the former French student radical and leader of the European Greens also attacked her.

”I am very sceptical about Lady Ashton,” he said.

A spokesman for Lady Ashton said she had organised an emergency meeting of EU aid ministers that raised over £350 million in pledges for Haiti.

http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/01/talk-talk.html

Talk, talk

Posted by Richard Tuesday, January 19, 2010

The EU should consider forming a rapid reaction force to deal with future emergencies like the Haiti earthquake. This is according to ”the EU’s new president,” retailed to us by the ever diligent BBC.

”We have to reflect about a better instrument for reaction,” says Herman Van Rompuy. After providing emergency aid to Haiti the EU should consider a ”humanitarian rapid reaction force”, he said.

In fact, the EU set up a ”Rapid Reaction Mechanism” in 2001, under Council Regulation (EC) No 381/2001 – with the intention of dealing with precisely the eventualities that Rompuy is setting out, and which so lamentably failed in the 2004 Tsunami and again in Haiti.

In fact, the initiative goes way back to the European Council meeting in Helsinki on 10 and 11 December 1999, when the member state leaders gathered to discuss the European Union’s ”non-military crisis-management capability.”

More than ten years on and we are no further forward than we were then – countless reports and study groups have been commissioned, there have been countless meetings, working groups and conferences, with millions of euros having been spent. Yet, when the chips are down, the EU is nowhere to be seen.

It was ever thus, and will always be so. All the EU is ever good for, when it comes to action on its own part, is talk. But this is not ”victimless” state of affairs. Because the issue is being dealt with at a ”European level”, member states are actively discouraged from making their own plans and arrangements.

Thereby, national capabilities are wound down yet, in the lethargic, inept grip of the EU institutions, nothing is done to replace those capabilities – still less to enhance the overall effort. And, when there is a crisis, because the EU claims the lead role in responding, no member state can step forward to fill the vacuum created by the EU’s painfully obvious inadequacies.

Thus, once again we get clarion calls (if anything Rompuy says could be called ”clarion”), dusting off ancient press releases to demand yet again a ”humanitarian rapid reaction force”. In ten years time, no doubt, they will be recycling the same press releases, demonstrating, once again, that using ”EU” and the word ”rapid” in the same sentence is an oxymoron.

Yet, despite its ongoing inadequacies, the one thing the EU will never do is recognise its own uselessness and walk away from its grand pretensions, leaving the heavy lifting to national agencies.

As in all things to do with the EU, its ambitions of glory outstrip any practical considerations. Even the lives of disaster victims are of little consequence when it comes to promoting the European agenda.

http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/01/tsunami-all-over-again.html

The tsunami all over again

Posted by Richard Monday, January 18, 2010

As the full horror of the disaster in Haiti begins to emerge, we seem to be going through a cycle which is all too familiar – most notable from December 2004 when the tsunami struck south Asia.

Then – as we were to observe many times – the world was split into two main categories: those who did something about it, and those who talked about doing something about it.

In the former category fell the United States which took the lead in forming an alliance with Australia, India and Japan, and within hours had despatched two battle groups fully equipped to deal with such an emergency, including 20 ships led by two carriers with 90 helicopters.

The EU, in the meantime, took nine days to launch a ”donors’ conference”, the start of grotesque bidding process which had different nations vying with each other to be seen as the most generous.

In the immediate aftermath of the tsunami, president Bush pledged $35 million and then, under pressure from the media and other nations – to say nothing of the United Nations, which accused the US of being ”stingy” – increased contributions to $350 million.

But, as was already becoming apparent, money was the lesser of the problems. What was really needed was immediate, practical assistance, and it was that which the US-led alliance was best able to give.

We remarked at the time that the collective value of the hardware that the US alone deployed was well in excess of $2 billion, yet the provision of this form of direct aid did not figure in the cash sums offered by the US government.

However, the EU sought to learn from the experience and has since attempted to enhance its capabilities. But, despite multiple initiatives to reinforce the EU’s ”emergency and crisis response capacities”, all the EU could manage this time by way of immediate response was to hold a Brussels press conference led by Commission Vice-President Baroness Ashton, now the EU’s High Representative – our new foreign minister.

This lacklustre response was noted by Booker in his column yesterday, who recorded how a scattering of bored-looking journalists in the Commission’s lavishly appointed press room heard the former head of Hertfordshire Health Authority stumbling through a prepared statement, in which she said that she had conveyed her ”condolences” to the UN Secretary-General, Ban Ki-Moon, and pledged three million euros in aid.

Despite the pretentions of the EU in building a rapid reaction force to deal with disasters, that was never going to come to much. But in its development aid – alongside the UN – the EU prides itself in being the world’s leading contributor and a champion of third world development, standing in the forefront of fund-raising efforts.

Thus, again we see the same dynamic, with Claudia Rosett reporting that the tranzies are passing round the begging bowl, and it is left to the US, once again, to make the running.

Within hours of Port-au-Prince crumbling into ruins, the US had sent in an aircraft carrier with 19 helicopters, hospital and assault ships, the 82nd Airborne Division with 3,500 troops and hundreds of medical personnel. They put the country’s small airport back on an operational footing, and President Obama pledged an initial $100 million dollars in emergency aid.

Yet, despite the tranzie’s enthusiasm for collecting huge sums of money, very little seems to have been learned from the tsunami experience. A year after disaster struck – with $13 billion of aid pledged – much of it was unspent. Two years later, the situation was much the same, in what amounted to a running scandal. By 2007, there were calls to re-allocate the unspent funds.

Despite all this, the most ”constructive” idea the EU has had to date is to call for an international conference. Yet Haiti has already had its fair share of such conferences, the latest being a donor conference, held in April 2009.

This was organised in the aftermath of four devastating tropical storms. At the time, there were peldges of $324 million over the next two years, short of the $900 million Haiti’s prime minister said he needed, but the sum later increased to $760 million. However, by November 2009, only $21 million had actually been disbursed.

Some of the problem has been that much of the UN’s efforts have been devoted to climate change – even in the context of disaster relief. And such is the obsession of the EU with the issue that its efforts on disaster relief have been similarly focused.

Yet, surveying the disaster that is Haiti, few will dispute that the high casualty rate and the ensuing chaos stems from the lack of effective governance over a very long period of time.

Thus, while US forces – aided by small aid contingents from other countries – are engaged in a desperate race against time to rescue trapped people and care for the immediate needs of the survivors, the real tragedy is that so little has been achieved before the event that would have better prepared Haiti for the disaster that has just struck.

On both counts, therefore – in terms of immediate relief and long-term aid, the tranzie nexus of the EU-UN has failed once again. And once again it has been left to nation states such as the US to pick up the pieces. One day the world will re-learn the lesson that trans-national agencies are an evolutionary dead-end and that the core or civilisation is and will remain the nation state.

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/USA” rel=”tag”>USA</a>

The EU Auditors have, for the 15th year in a row, refused to sign off the EU’s accounts owing to Fraud and Mismanagement in the budget

22 november, 2009

And here we go again! 15 years in a row – must be a world record of a sort.

And remember – This is our money they are misspending.

http://openeuropeblog.blogspot.com/2009/11/here-we-go-again.html

Here we go again

The European Court of Auditors has, for the 15th year in a row, today refused to sign off the EU’s accounts.

EU anti-fraud Commissioner Siim Kallas anticipated this predicatable development in a piece on EUobserver yesterday in which he attempted to pin the blame for the mismanagement of EU funds on national governments and regional authorities.

(In classic Commission style, he also tried to ward off all critcism and shut down debate by getting in there first with the trademark ‘anti-EU’ jibe: ”some quarters will yet again use the report to promote their own anti-EU agendas, which have little or nothing to do with the report’s findings.”)

But, as we argue today in a new briefing, the problem is with the EU budget itself. It is dominated by two failing policies which even the current UK Government is essentially opposed to: the Common Agricultural Policy, and the so-called Structural Funds. The sheer size and complexity of these two top-down spending programmes means the EU’s budget is wide open to waste and mismanagement, regardless of whether the blame lays with the Commission or the member states. The budget therefore represents extremely bad value for taxpayers’ money.

Also, while mismanagement of the accounts continues to be problematic, arguably the most important issue is the fact that the EU budget is hugely wasteful and irrational in terms of what the money is actually spent on, and where the money is spent.

To illustrate this, we have today published a light-hearted list of 50 new examples of EU waste, which may make you smile and despair in equal measure.

50 new examples of EU waste

http://www.openeurope.org.uk/research/top50waste.pdf

http://www.openeurope.org.uk/media-centre/pressrelease.aspx?pressreleaseid=126

Open Europe publishes 50 new examples of EU waste

10 November 2009

Today, the EU’s accountants – the European Court of Auditors (ECA) – have published their annual report on the EU’s budget. The ECA has refused to give the EU’s accounts a clean bill of health for the 15th year in a row, owing to fraud and mismanagement in the budget. Like last year, the auditors did sign off the Commission’s own accounts, saying that they accurately represented how much money was raised and spent.

Although the ECA’s report is about the management of the accounts, the occasion represents an opportunity to take stock of the EU budget as a whole. Because while mismanagement of the accounts continues to be problematic, arguably the most important issue is the fact that the EU budget is hugely wasteful and irrational in terms of what the money is actually spent on, and where the money is spent.

The budget is dominated by two failing policies which even the current UK Government is essentially opposed to: the Common Agricultural Policy, and the so-called Structural Funds. The sheer size and complexity of these two top-down spending programmes means the EU’s budget is wide open to waste and mismanagement, regardless of whether the blame lays with the Commission or the member states. The budget therefore represents extremely bad value for taxpayers’ money.

To illustrate this, Open Europe has produced a list of 50 new examples of EU waste. The list is by no means comprehensive, but designed to show the types of peculiar projects on which EU money has been wasted in the past. They give a light-hearted illustration of what is wrong with the EU budget, and the need for fundamental reform.

Open Europe Research Director Mats Persson said:

”The Commission tries to put the blame for fraud and waste on the member states, but the real problem is the EU budget itself. The EU’s spending programmes are overly complex, irrational and hopelessly out of date. Until they are subject to root-and-branch reforms, or scrapped altogether, waste and fraud will continue.”

”Too often, EU money is wasted on inefficient projects which are based on unrealistic expectations or for which there is no real demand. Because of the way the EU’s spending schemes are set up, bizarre or wasteful projects can receive funding which never would have received money if subject only to national spending priorities. Unfortunately, the focus of the EU budget is to get the money out of the door, not to spend the money wisely.”

“Surely, in a recession, we can think of better ways to spend £100 billon a year?”

To read Open Europe’s 50 new examples of EU waste see here:

www.openeurope.org.uk/research/top50waste.pdf

To read some background on the EU budget, please see below.

TOP 10 EXAMPLES OF EU WASTE

€173,000 for a luxury golf resort

€173,274 in EU funds were given to the luxury golf resort, Monte da Quinta Club, in the Algarve, Portugal,[1] where guests can choose between “the comfort of a villa with garden and private pool, or be dazzled by deluxe suites”.[2] There is also a luxury spa, health club, several restaurants and bars, shops and a hairdresser.

€2,500 for Chairman of Porsche’s hunting retreat

Wolfgang Porsche, supervisory board Chairman of Porsche, received €2,500 in EU rural development funds for a small estate in Bavaria, Germany, where he goes hunting in his free time.[3]

€100,000 for a luxury Spanish hotel chain

€99,877 in EU funds for 2009 alone were granted to Tils Curt, a chain of luxury restaurants and hotels across Spain, established in 1880. The funds were given as part of the Regional Development Fund.[4]

‘Donkeypedia’: the blogging donkey

As part of the EU’s €7 million ‘Year of Intercultural Dialogue’ initiative, the European Commission ran an art education project called “Donkeypedia”, in which a donkey travels through the Netherlands, and primary school children meet and greet the donkey. The aim of the project was “creating a reflection of all European identities. What are the similarities, what are the differences? What is it that makes Europe as unique as it is? Donkeypedia will try to make this feeling tangible by interacting and in dialogue with its surroundings while walking a European route through several countries and collecting data to support this image.” The donkey, named Asino, also maintained a blog throughout the walk. One entry reads: “We started really early today, Cristian slept in a bed in a house. It was a crazy morning waking up. I was under a chestnut tree sleeping in sand, when I opened my eyes there were animals all looking at me. I was embarrassed! Now I understand a little how people from different cultures may feel in the Netherlands.”[5]

€80,000 for a Swedish ‘virtual city’ in Second Life

In early 2008, Sweden’s third largest city, Malmo, was given an EU grant worth 800,000 Swedish kronor (€80,000), to create a virtual version of itself in “Second Life” ­- a virtual fantasy world inhabited by computer-generated residents. The project was an attempt to reach out to young people and envisioned some of Malmo’s most famous buildings – such as its library and university – to be mirrored in Second Life. In addition, the project included plans for a virtual “citizens’ office”, in which City officials could do their work and meet with those inhabitants of Malmö who were active in Second Life (the number of Malmo residents active on Second Life is thought to be very small).

In May 2009, Malmo was launched as a ‘virtual city’. By then, the budget had been busted – and the project had been subject to massive criticism, as Second Life was no longer regarded as the future of social media – particularly not amongst young people. One of the politicians involved in the project said: “Malmö wants to be at the forefront of IT, but we’re aware that Second Life is probably not at the absolute forefront anymore.” Joakim Jardenberg, of Swedish IT company Mindpark, added that he thought the project was a “bizarre joke” at first. “Second Life has never been particularly popular in Sweden. Facebook would have been a better tool”, he said. In March 2010 the project will be evaluated. If virtual Malmo does not have enough visitors by then, the project will be shut down.[6]

€850,000 for a ‘gender equal’ wood design centre

Local politicians in Orsa, a village of 5,000 inhabitants in Sweden, wanted a new wood ‘design centre’, describing the idea as “a catalyst and meeting place for all creative activities”. The project description stressed that “the building would clearly display a gender equality design.” The project won co-financing from the EU’s structural funds, which provided €850,000 of the €1.7 million that was budgeted for the project. However, when the funds ran out, the politicians decided to combine the wood design centre with the village’s other EU project, a wildlife centre, which had cost €3.2 million up to that point. The wildlife centre was in need of a spectacular new entrance hall – which became the wood centre. In their final report on the project the politicians confessed that the building had not necessarily promoted cultural events, but proudly emphasised that all parts of the building were “equally accessible regardless of gender.”[7]

€400,000 on a Marathon for a United Europe

In September 2008 the EU spent €400,000[8] on a “Marathon for a United Europe” for young people from across the EU. Among the aims for the three-day event in Greece was to “promote and support European citizen ideals.”[9] On the official website the Marathon is described as “a completely European event supporting in every way the harmonious and prosperous coexistence of young people under the EU umbrella.”[10]

The Swedish cannabis farmer

A Swedish farmer received around 2,000 kronor (€200) in subsides from the EU for land on which he grew cannabis plants. Selling the drug is illegal in Sweden, but growing the plant is allowed if it is used for “industrial” purposes – for example to produce robust nets – provided that the so-called THC dose in the plant is below 0.3%. The subsidy to the Swedish farmer was paid from the EU’s Single Farm Payment scheme, and the farmer had filled in all forms correctly. However, since farmers receive subsidies from this scheme irrespective of what they have grown on their land, there’s no obligation on the Swedish farmer to inform the authorities about what he actually intends to use the cannabis plants for.[11]

€400,000 to get children drawing portraits of each other in the name of European citizenship

“Alter Ego” is an art competition running in at least 22 EU countries. The aim of the project, which used €400,000 of EU funds[12], is to encourage young people aged 14 to 18 to “explore different and varied identities, by creating a double portrait” – a portrait of themselves and someone from a different cultural background[13]. The competition is intended to “Raise the awareness of all those living in the EU, in particular young people, of the importance of developing an active European citizenship.”[14]

€198,500 for EU puppet theatre network in the Baltics

In 2008, the Estonian State Puppet theatre received €198,500 in EU funds for a project with the Latvian State Puppet theatre and Vilnius puppet theatre, which aimed to “develop the cooperation between the puppetry masters and museology specialists with the EU in order to find new and innovative ways on how to archive the puppet performances and present the exhibits in the puppetry art museums; encourage the Baltic countries to take more actively part in the intercultural dialogue; encourage the creation of puppetry art museums in other European puppet theatres.”[15] This is not to be confused with the €105,996 EU grant the Estonian State Puppet Theatre received in 2006 “to explore the similarities and diversities within a range of European cultures and cultural expressions”, as reported in last year’s list of examples of EU waste.[16]

NOTES FOR EDITORS

1) For more information, please contact Mats Persson on 0044 207 197 2333 or 0044 779 94 606 91.

2) Open Europe is an independent think-tank calling for reform of the European Union. Its supporters include: Sir Stuart Rose, Executive Chairman, Marks and Spencer plc; Sir Crispin Davis, Former Chief Executive, Reed Elsevier Group plc; Sir David Lees, Chairman, Tate and Lyle plc; Sir Henry Keswick, Chairman, Jardine Matheson Holdings Ltd; Lord Sainsbury of Preston Candover KG, Life President, J Sainsbury plc; Sir John Egan, Chairman, Severn Trent plc and Lord Kalms of Edgware, President, DSG International plc; Hugh Sloane, Founder, Sloane Robinson.

For a full list, please click here: http://www.openeurope.org.uk/about-us/supporters.aspx

BACKGROUND

WHAT DID THE AUDITORS SAY IN THEIR REPORT ON THE 2008 EU BUDGET?

In its report on the 2008 EU budget, the ECA refused to sign off on how the money from the EU’s 2008 budget had been spent. While saying that the overall situation is improving, the Court noted that a number of spending areas in the budget are still “materially affected by errors”. These include the EU’s policies on cohesion; research, energy and transport; external aid and enlargement; and part of the agricultural programme.

However, the ECA gave an unqualified or clean opinion on the reliability of the 2008 EU accounts. This means that the Court considers the EU Commission’s accounts to present a fair and accurate picture of how much money was spent out of the EU budget.

The Court concluded that cohesion policy, or the Structural funds, which is the second largest spending area in the budget (representing almost a third of the budget), “remains problematic and is the area most affected by errors.” The Court estimated that at least 11 % of the total amount paid out in grants from the Structural Funds should not have been paid out in the first place.

Crucially, the auditors noted that “In many situations the errors are a consequence of too complex rules and regulations. Simplification, therefore, remains a priority.”

“Agriculture and natural resources” – part of the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) – was given a clean bill of health for the first time.

To read the ECA’s report, click here: http://eca.europa.eu/portal/pls/portal/docs/1/3258349.PDF

BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON THE EU BUDGET

The EU budget is worth about €975 billion (£875 billion) between 2007-2013. According to the Treasury, the UK pays in almost £10 billion a year into the EU’s budget, on average (after the rebate), and gets back about £5.2 billion on average. Crucially, the UK’s net contribution will go from £3 billion in 2009-10 (gross contribution £7.6 billion) to £6.4 billion in 2011-12 (gross contribution £12 billion), according to the Treasury’s projection.[17]The UK is also the EU country that receives the least back from the budget per head.

Ultimate responsibility lies with the Commission

The EU Commission has consistently argued that responsibility for the mismanagement of the EU budget lies at the national level, not with itself, as 78 per cent of EU funds are distributed by member states in agricultural payments and structural funds. However, as the ECA made clear in this year’s report, “Responsibility for the legality and regularity of spending on Cohesion Policies starts in the Member States, but the Commission bears the ultimate responsibility for the correct implementation of the budget.” And in previous reports, the ECA has noted, ”Regardless of the method of implementation applied, the Commission bears the ultimate responsibility for the legality and regularity of the transactions underlying the accounts of the European Communities (Article 274 of the Treaty).”

No link between spending and need

Crucially, the link between spending and need in the EU budget is weak. Per head, the top three recipients of EU funds continue to be old member states – Luxembourg, Belgium and Greece. France continues to be the largest recipient of EU funds of any member state in absolute terms. France receives €89 billion from the EU between 2007-2013, compared to €46 billion for the UK.

The CAP is particularly bad in this respect. The CAP currently transfers money from the poorest member states to countries like France and Spain. For example, in 2004, the 10 new member states paid nearly €1 billion more into the CAP than they got out of it (€835 million).

KEY AREAS OF EU WASTE

Agriculture

· The EU spends some €54 billion a year on various types of farm subsidies (compared to €42 billion in 2001). In its opinion on the 2008 EU budget, the ECA signed off parts of the agricultural budget but stated that the “rural development” spending is still subject to errors. The ECA noted that 32 % of the transactions involving EU rural development funds were affected by error.

Even without the fraud and mismanagement, the CAP is a wasteful and distorting policy:

· According to an OECD estimate for 2006, the ”real” cost of the CAP is 125 bn euros a year, paid through higher prices and added taxes. The report also estimated that food in the EU is on average 20% above the world price, due to EU subsidies and tariffs.

· This hits the poor hardest because the bottom fifth of households in the UK spend 16% of their income on food – double the proportion spent by the richest fifth (7.5%)

· According to a 2005 report by Oxford Economic Forecasting, scrapping the CAP and reforming tariffs could make the bottom 10% of earners £437 a year per person better off.

· Since the introduction of the so-called Single Farm Payment a large part of CAP subsidies are now based on ”area” and have nothing to do with actual farming and production. As a consequence, a large number of non-farmers are now receiving subsidies. In recent years there has been a rash of stories about payments to golf clubs, various royalties, pony clubs and a number of large multinationals such as Coca-Cola.

· The real winners from the system are landowners, as subsidies allow owners of land and suppliers of inputs to put their prices up by an equivalent amount and so ”capture” the money spent on subsidies.

Structural Funds

· In its report, the ECA found that for the Structural Funds – which are worth around €45 billion a year 43% of the funded projects contained ”errors”. In terms of ”financial impact” the Court concluded that around 11%, of the total amount reimbursed to member states in 2008 should not have been reimbursed – the same share as last year.

Like the CAP, even without the notorious problems with fraud, the Structural Funds remain largely wasteful:

· The Structural Funds are aimed at creating jobs and boosting Europe’s competitiveness. In particular, the objective is to help poorer regions catch up with richer ones. However, there is no conclusive evidence that the Funds have had any positive economic impact. In fact, as the OECD has argued, the rate of ”convergence” in the EU is very slow – at the current rate of convergence it would take 170 years to halve divergence across the regions in the EU. (OECD 2007)

· The EU will spend close to 310 bn euros in 2007-2013 on the Structural Funds. Of this, only slightly more than 50% will go the new member states – the rest will be spent in the EU-15. (DG Regio 2006)

· Bizarrely, each region, no matter how rich, receives some sort of EU funding. For example, one of the richest regions in Germany, Lüneburg, was granted a staggering 900 million euros from the EU for the 2000-2006 financial period.

· Even within the regions, the funds are poorly targeted. Research by Open Europe found that as little as 10-30% of funds given to South East England were spent in the poorest one-fifth of areas.

· As the ECA has pointed out separately, the EU’s so-called N+2 rule (allocated funds must be paid out within two years or the money will be cancelled), encourages fast rather than wise spending. This has exacerbated problems with poor project selection.

· Even though regions now have significant autonomy in deciding which projects to select (they must select projects, or the funds will be cancelled), there are still restrictions on what they can spend the money on. For instance, national authorities are not allowed to spend funds on social housing.

Culture and citizenship projects

· The EU has a robust budget for promoting European culture and citizenship, particularly among young people. While this may on the face of it sound like a worthwhile way to spend money, it is clear from the EU’s many policy documents and project briefs that the underlying aim of culture and citizenship initiatives is to promote the idea of European integration and ‘ever closer union’.

· The EU makes millions of euros a year available in EU grants to all manner of projects intended to promote the EU and its policies in everything from schools to concert halls to cinemas, and even directly funds NGOs and organisations promoting European integration. This is an unacceptable use of taxpayers’ money, since it unfairly favours those who wish to see a more integrated EU at the expense of those who do not. Worse, it does not allow for a balanced debate about the future of Europe, and this is especially worrying when school children and young people are the targeted audience.

· In 2008 alone, the EU spent more than €2.4 billion promoting European integration and ‘ever closer union’ through a myriad of funding streams and through the various Commission departments – DG Culture, DG Education and Citizenship, and DG Communication. [18]

· For example, more than €34m was dedicated to “Fostering European Citizenship”, and a further €62m was spent on “Developing cultural cooperation in Europe.” The very candidly stated aim of this is to generate support and justification for European integration. As the 2006 decision on the “Europe for Citizens” policy notes: “The Treaty establishes citizenship of the Union… It is an important element in strengthening and safeguarding the process of European integration.”

· Likewise, the EU’s €400 million Culture Programme states that: “For citizens to give their full support to, and participate fully in, European integration, greater emphasis should be placed on their common cultural values and roots as a key element of their identity.”

· Many of the examples of this nature are included in our 50 top examples since they are simply bizarre, and it is very difficult to imagine how they could possibly represent value for taxpayers’ money.

· There is also the wider question about whether or not the EU should even have a budget for culture, citizenship, education and communication in the first place, since it has no democratic mandate to legislate in these areas. ——————————————————————————–

[1] Algarve regional development agency; http://www.ccdr-alg.pt/ccdr/parameters/ccdr-alg/files/File/upload//PO_Algarve_21/Projectos_Aprovados/Quadro_aprovacoes_webpage_emp_rev.pdf p.2

[2] See the club’s website here; http://www.mqclub.com/MQ.aspx?tabId=13&code=en

[3] TAZ, ‘Bayerische Promis streichen Agrarhilfen ein’, 4/8/2009; http://www.taz.de/1/archiv/print-archiv/printressorts/digi-artikel/?ressort=wu&dig=2009/08/04/a0076&cHash=0f03d0b936

[4] Andalucian Regional Government, Account of Operations by Beneficiary: Andalucian Operative Programme FEDER, September 2009; http://www.dgfc.sgpg.meh.es/aplweb/pdf/DescargasFondosComunitarios/(2104)AN1.pdf p.182; see also; http://www.tilscurt.com/

[5] http://www.donkeypedia.org/

[6] Tillväxtverket (Swedish managing authority for the structural funds), see ”Projektbanken”, http://projektbanken.tillvaxtverket.se/sb/d/1335/a/8133; Sydsvenskan, “Nu finns Malmö stad i Second life”, 10 May 2009, http://sydsvenskan.se/malmo/article430331/Nu-finns-Malmo-stad-i-Second-life.html : Sydsvenskan, “ Experterna gör tummen ner för Malmö stads satsning”, 6 May 2009, see http://sydsvenskan.se/malmo/article430333/Experterna-gor-tummen-ner-for-Malmo-stads-satsning.html

[7] Näringsliv och utvecklingskontoret, Orsa Kommun ”Slutrapport Designtorg Trä (W3041-991-02) 1 Januari 2003-30 september 2007, see http://www.projektbanken.z.lst.se/rapporter/Fil-200810311193.pdf ; Expressen, ” Björnkramar för miljoner”, 3 August 2009, see http://www.expressen.se/Nyheter/1.1659350/bjornkramar-for-miljoner

[8] http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/education_culture/calls/docs/grants08dira.pdf

[9] http://www.britishcouncil.org/greece-sport-marathon-for-a-united-europe.htm

[10] http://marathonforaunitedeurope.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=50&Itemid=92

[11] Aftonbladet, “Odlar cannabis med EU-bidrag”, 19 August 2009, see http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/article3128434.ab

[12] http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/education_culture/calls/docs/grants08dira.pdf

[13] http://www.eunic-europe.eu/EUNIC-website/fileadmin/user_upload/Press_info/Alter_Ego.pdf

[14] http://www.pact-online.ro/aedi-en.php

[15]http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/culture/funding/2008/selection/documents/selection_strand_1_2_1_2008/selectionresults_strand1.2.12009.pdf

[16] See: http://www.openeurope.org.uk/research/top100waste.pdf

[17] See, http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/european_community_finances_2009.pdf)

[18] For more see here: http://www.openeurope.org.uk/research/hardsell.pdf

The New EU foreign minister – An undemocratic appointment to an undemocratic post created by an undemocratic treaty

20 november, 2009

A short but very succinct description of the Lisbon Treaty and what it really means for the common people.

And the background of the new EU foreign minister (the High Representative for Foreign Affairs). Here main qualification seems to have been here lack of diplomatic experience. And that she is a Labor Baroness (she worked with business to abolish inequality), and has never held an elected office before. As the Gerald Warner so aptly point out: “this serial appointee is custom-made for high EU office”.

As Peter Ludlow, the European Strategy Forum, a Brussels think-tank put it: ”She would be a first rate disaster”.

Or as a French official said: ”She has little experience and is a bizarre choice”.

But they always complain don’t they.

And as Andrew Duff, a Liberal Democrat MEP, described her ”reassuringly dull.”

European people – You have been forewarned.

Se my post about EEAS:

Den svenska utrikesförvaltningens död

Se also my other post on the Lisbon Treaty:

EU – The inner game and the Corruption that Cost £684 931,5 per hour EVERY hour EVERY day EVERY year. And is increasing

EU – The aim of this treaty is to be unreadable and unclear AND it can not be understood by ordinary citizens

Articles here:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/danielhannan/6608253/A-President-of-Europe-When-did-we-ask-for-that.html

“A President of Europe? When did we ask for that?

One thing is clear about the new EU president, who will be named at a private dinner in Brussels: whoever it is, you won’t have had any say, says Daniel Hannan.

By Daniel Hannan

Published: 5:53PM GMT 19 Nov 2009

Who will it be? Who will emerge as the President of Europe, le plus grand de tous les fromages, the man who gets to snap his fingers and drawl ”Yo, Obama”?

One thing is clear: whoever it is, you won’t have had any say. Barack Obama got to be president of 300 million Americans after an exhaustive, and exhausting, series of primaries and ballots lasting over a year. By the end of that campaign, Americans knew exactly what they were getting. The man who will be president of 500 million Europeans, by contrast, will be selected at a private dinner in Brussels tonight.

In true EU style, the dinner will involve a lot of horse trading. Other jobs are in the frame, notably that of EU foreign minister. Balances must be struck: if one position goes to a large country, another will go to a small country. If Western Europe gets one prize, Eastern Europe will want another. If a Christian Democrat wins one plum, a Socialist can expect another.

And they are plums: quite apart from a largely tax-free salary of nearly quarter of a million pounds, you get 20 staff, a housing allowance, an entertainment allowance, a driver and a lifelong pension. No wonder that old freebiemeister Tony Blair was so interested – even if he is now out of the race.

In a sense, though, who gets the job matters less than the fact of its existence. When did you vote to create a President of Europe? When did you vote to give the EU a foreign minister, overseas embassies, a diplomatic corps? When did you vote to set up a pan-European system of criminal justice, complete with a European Public Prosecutor? All these things proposals are in the Lisbon Treaty, which comes into effect a week on Tuesday. Yet, despite the fact that all three British parties promised us a referendum on the treaty, we never got one.

How appropriate: an undemocratic appointment to an undemocratic post created by an undemocratic treaty.”

 

Herman Van Rompuy and Baroness Ashton land top EU jobs

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/6609229/Herman-Van-Rompuy-and-Baroness-Ashton-land-top-EU-jobs.html

” The little-known Belgian federalist and the Labour peer who has never held elected office were selected at a meeting in Brussels.

EU leaders chose the Belgian prime minister as the first President of the European Council. Britain’s European Trade Commissioner was made the High Representative for Foreign Affairs.

The surprise combination emerged after Gordon Brown ended Tony Blair’s hopes of becoming president, abandoning his support for his successor and proposing Baroness Ashton for the foreign job instead.

The Prime Minister’s switch surprised European leaders, not least because of Baroness Ashton’s lack of diplomatic experience.

A former health authority chairwoman made a peer in 1999, she held a string of low-key ministerial posts until last year when she was sent to Brussels as an interim replacement for Lord Mandelson on his return to the Cabinet.

Mr Van Rompuy is a poetry-writing economist almost entirely unknown outside Belgium until he emerged as EU leaders’ choice for a president who could not possibly overshadow national leaders.

A staunch advocate of European integration, he has backed policies including a European-wide tax on all financial transactions to fund EU work.

The choice of two low-key candidates for the new posts reflected European leaders’ reluctance to transfer too much power to Brussels-based officials. Originally, the two jobs created by the Lisbon Treaty were intended to give the EU strong and unified voice in global affairs.

But Baroness Ashton’s lack of experience on the diplomatic stage was criticised last night. ”She would be a first rate disaster,” said Peter Ludlow, of the European Strategy Forum, a Brussels think-tank.

Andrew Duff, a Liberal Democrat MEP, described the peer as ”reassuringly dull.”

French diplomatic sources questioned Britain’s seriousness over proposing Baroness Ashton for Europe’s most senior foreign affairs post.

We think it is a British trick to point at Ashton while really preparing the ground for someone or something else,” said a French official. ”She has little experience and is a bizarre choice. It would be a sign that European diplomacy is downgraded to an economic policy post.”

British sources defended the nomination of Baroness Ashton, a Labour peer who has no formal diplomatic experience and has never won elected office. ”She is regarded by other European leaders as a very strong candidate,” said Mr Brown’s spokesman.

Another UK source said that by proposing her for the job, Mr Brown was ensuring the high representative could not be considered Europe’s foreign minister. The source said: ”This means the job is not a foreign minister job, it’s a job of co-ordinating policies among 27 members.”

Mr Brown had publicly campaigned for Mr Blair to take the presidency, but switched positions after European socialist leaders made clear they would not support the former premier.

As it became clear that the chances of a Blair presidency were declining, the Prime Minister made a decisive intervention and nominated Baroness Ashton,” Downing Street said.

But the demise of Mr Blair’s candidacy threatened to unleash some of the bitterness that marked his relationship with Mr Brown when the two men were in Government together.

Many diplomats in Brussels think that Mr Brown had not done everything he could to advance Mr Blair’s cause, considering the Prime Minister’s backing for his predecessor as half-hearted at best.

Anthony Seldon, Mr Blair’s biographer, said Mr Blair was ”disappointed” by what he saw as a lack of support for his candidacy in Britain.

The former Prime Minister has been left deeply ”disappointed that many of his friends in Europe, and a number of fellow countrymen, didn’t do more for his cause,” according to Dr Seldon.

A source close to Mr Brown insisted that he did everything he could for his predecessor. ”There is no question of being half-hearted,” the source said.

But one British Government source expressed irritation that Mr Blair persistently refused to declare himself a candidate for the post, apparently insisting that he would not seek the job but would accept it if it was offered to him.

The source said: ”If Tony had bothered to campaign, he might have had it, but he wouldn’t lower himself so we had to do it all for him.”

The end of Mr Blair’s presidential bid was major boost for Mr Van Rompuy. Before the dinner, his other main rival for the presidency, Jan Peter Balkenende, the Dutch Prime Minister, pulled out of the race and publicly declared ”I’m not a candidate”. The decision was made last night over a dinner of wild mushrooms, spiced sea bass and chocolate fondant.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/6613112/Baroness-Ashton-ticks-all-the-right-EU-boxes.html

Baroness Ashton ticks all the right EU boxes

Just because you have never heard of her, that does not mean that Baroness Ashton, the new EU foreign minister, is negligible, says Gerald Warner.

Published: 9:44AM GMT 20 Nov 2009

Bang go the reputations of Metternich and Talleyrand. European diplomacy has a dynamic new exponent and it is none other than Baroness Ashton of Upholland (not, apparently, a derogatory remark made about the Netherlands No voters in their Lisbon Treaty referendum), the newly anointed High Representative for Foreign Affairs of the European Union.

And, wow, does this lady tick all the boxes. Just because you have never heard of her, that does not mean she is negligible. Hers is a CV to die for. Her first political office was as vice-chairman of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament; now she is in charge of European security policy. As Director of Business in the Community she worked with business to abolish inequality (that is why she is a baroness, unlike less equal people). From there she rose to global realpolitik, chairing Hertfordshire Health Authority, not to mention the board of governors of her children’s school.

After that, her career went stratospheric as she became successively Vice President of the National Council for One Parent Families (an iconic post, that), Leader of the House of Lords (thus successfully abolishing at least her own inequality) and UK European Commissioner in succession to the Grand Duke Mandy. She was also voted Politician of the Year by Stonewall, thus reinforcing her PC credentials. Now comes the final apotheosis, as successor to Richelieu, Bonaparte and Bismarck in shaping the destinies of Europe.

What’s not to like? From a Eurofederalist, right-on, PC, anti-Little Englander point of view? But the more discerning observers will already have noted the Baroness’s supreme qualification for Europower and endorsement by the elite: she is totally untainted by any experience of democratic election at any stage in her career – unless you are small-minded enough to count her coronation by EU leaders as a momentary brush with a miniscule ballot box. Horses for courses: this serial appointee is custom-made for high EU office.


%d bloggare gillar detta: