Posts Tagged ‘Lissabonfördraget’

Why the Euro is doomed – the German households net wealth is not EVEN HALF of that compared to Italians

9 mars, 2013

So the German people/taxpayers who so far have paid most of the bailouts of the bankrupt euro states (Greece, Spain. Portugal, Ireland etc), and were the bankrupt states insists on Germany paying EVEN more to “save the euro” (together with Sweden, Finland etc), don’t even have HALF THE NET WEALTH of the peoples they are bailing out!

No wonder that the German Bundesbank is keeping this report secret. Because I don’t think the people in Germany is going to be “very happy” when they discover the truth.

They have keep their economy in reasonably good shape and paid their taxes. Now they have to pay for the ones who didn’t.

And there is a new Germany Anti-Euro Party with some very prominent figures behind it. Its founders are a collection of some of the country’s top economists and academics, business people, journalist etc.

And by then way, this would never ever happen in Sweden. Because here, these same people, are the ones that have relentlessly driven (together with our “dear” politicians), the integration with EU and moving most of the power to Brussels. What a contrast.

See a few of my many previous EU posts here:

The economic mess and structural problems in EU and US – Part 1

Citizens! Forgive us for not arresting those truly responsible for this crisis: bankers and politicians

This is why the Euro is doomed

EU a stupid empire on purpose

EU – an unaccountable mess created by an undemocratic treaty – Now also a crony Bankocracy)

               (If you click on the graphs they become bigger)

20130301_EU2

Here are some of these articles about the growing poverty in Germany and the cover up of these facts. You have to brush up on your German to read most of these.

(My bold and underline)

Household Finance and Consumption Network (HFCN)

http://www.ecb.int/home/html/researcher_hfcn.en.html

Notenbanker zögern Bericht über Ungleichheit hinaus

http://www.faz.net/aktuell/wirtschaft/wirtschaftspolitik/armut-und-reichtum/verteilung-von-vermoegen-notenbanker-zoegern-bericht-ueber-ungleichheit-hinaus-12105481.html

A “Politically Explosive” Secret: Italians Are Over Twice As Wealthy As Germans

http://www.testosteronepit.com/home/2013/3/8/a-politically-explosive-secret-italians-are-over-twice-as-we.html

In December 2006, the ECB established the HFSC network of survey specialists, statisticians, and economists from its own ranks, national central banks of the Eurozone, and statistical institutes. The acronym stood for Household Finance and Consumption Survey. It would collect “micro-level structural information” on household wealth. A massive bureaucratic undertaking. Surveys went out in 2010. Results are now ready. No one in Europe had ever done a survey on that scale before. And no one might ever do it again. Because, in the era of bailouts and wealth-transfers, the results are so explosive that the Bundesbank is keeping its report secret—and word has leaked out why.

The surveys were conducted on a national basis, with each central bank publishing its own report. They would then be combined and summarized by the ECB into a cohesive picture of how wealthy—or how poor—people in various parts of the Eurozone were. A number of countries already published their reports, including Italy and Austria.

What the Austrian National Bank found was not pretty (20-page PDF). The considerable wealth in Austria was very unevenly distributed. The wealthiest 5% owned nearly half of the country’s wealth. Their median wealth was €1.7 million in diversified assets. The lower 50% owned only 4% of the country’s wealth. Of them, 83% rented their homes. Their median wealth was a measly €11,000 consisting usually of a car and a savings account. That’s half of the people! And 10% had a net wealth of less than €1,000.

This unequal distribution of wealth created a huge gap between median income (half the people earned more, the other half less) of €76,000 and average income of €265,000 (pushed up by a small number of extremely wealthy households). And that’s why some countries don’t even publish average income values. Too much truth would hurt.

Germany’s data is likely to be similar—but the Bundesbank is treating its report like a secret. Because the results are, let’s say, awkward for two reasons. The highly unequal distribution of wealth is one of them. The German government already went through wild gyrations late last year, and now again, over its Poverty Report that exposed some inconvenient facts that were then edited out—something that was leaked immediately, and it caused a ruckus [read…. Censored: Poverty Report in Germany].

Italy is the other issue. But it may be too hot for the Bundesbank to touch. Italy’s report (142-page PDF) finds that median household net wealth has increased 56% since 1991. And from 2008 to 2010, it increased by about 5% annually, despite the crisis!

But the wealth of German households stagnated during much of that time while they paid taxes out of their noses. And now they might learn that Italy’s median household wealth is €163,875—while Germany’s is closer to Austria’s, around €76,000. Less than half!

“Politically explosive,” sources at the Bundesbank whispered to the FAZ.

These reports show that in some countries, like Italy, where government finances have been in crisis, median household wealth is actually greater than in some financially healthy countries where governments have kept deficits and debts down.

Germany’s federal government only had a minuscule deficit in 2012. But high taxes and the citizens’ greater willingness to pay them—though cheating is a national sport—have over the years extracted a lot of wealth from the people and transferred it to the government. In Italy, people have been more adept at hanging on to their wealth. To the detriment of government finances. Other studies have shown similar trends, but never on such a scale with such detail, and in this “harmonized” and easily comparable manner.

It could stir up a firestorm in Germany. It’s not just jealousy. Strung-out German taxpayers would have to be bamboozled into bailing out the mountain of Italian government debt that the Italians, whose median wealth is twice that of Germans, refused to pay for. It won’t sit well. Not at all. It could become a political nightmare for Chancellor Angela Merkel, who faces an election in a few months and must keep any kind of tumult out of the scenery.

If the report ever sees the light of the day in unvarnished form—not a certainty given the debacle of the Poverty Report—Bundesbank statisticians will be trying to explain away the difference between countries like Italy and Germany. Household wealth is particularly high in countries with high homeownership rates, they will argue. In countries where renting is popular, like Germany, a considerable part of the housing stock is owned by the government and rented out in a subsidized manner. Thus the wealth is public, etc. etc. Because the bailout saga must go on. The messy reality that Germans can’t afford to bail out their richer neighbors must not be allowed to interfere with the grand and glorious saga of the euro.

Every country in the Eurozone has its own collection of big fat lies that politicians and eurocrats have served up in order to make the euro and the subsequent bailouts or austerity measures less unappetizing. Here are some from the German point of view….. Ten Big Fat Lies To Keep The Euro Dream Alive.”

The Italian report here (I BILANCI DELLE FAMIGLIE ITALIANE NELL’ANNO 2010):

http://www.bancaditalia.it/statistiche/indcamp/bilfait/boll_stat/suppl_06_12new.pdf

Part of the Austrian report here:

http://www.hfcs.at/de/img/fakten_zur_vermoegensverteilung_in_oesterreich_tcm14-251411.pdf

20130306_EU_0

The report “on Poverty and Wealth” (Lebenslagen in Deutschland) here:

http://www.bmas.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/PDF-Publikationen-DinA4/a334-4-armuts-reichtumsbericht-2013.pdf?__blob=publicationFile

Immer mehr Münchner sind arm

http://www.sueddeutsche.de/muenchen/armutsbericht-immer-mehr-muenchner-sind-arm-1.1501067

Bundesregierung schönt Armutsbericht

http://www.sueddeutsche.de/politik/einkommensverteilung-in-deutschland-bundesregierung-schoent-armutsbericht-1.1535166

Censored: Poverty Report in Germany

http://www.testosteronepit.com/home/2012/11/28/censored-poverty-report-in-germany.html

“On September 17, the German Labor Ministry sent a draft report “on Poverty and Wealth” to the other ministries to be rubber-stamped. Only the final report, once sanctified by Chancellor Angela Merkel, would be made public. The draft was supposed to remain hidden. But it seeped to the surface almost immediately. And it was hot. Too hot.

The massive data (PDF, 535 pages) described the tough reality that many people faced in Germany—a reality that got tougher every year. For example, in 1998, the lower 50% of the population owned 4% of all private wealth, while the upper 10% owned 45%. By 2008, the lower 50% owned only 1%, but the upper 10% had increased its share to 53% (at the expense also of the in-between 40%). Other reports have painted similar pictures.

The poverty report by Germany’s statistical agency showed that the “poverty rate” in Germany has been creeping up: in 2008, it was 15.5%; in 2009 it was 15.6%, and in 2010 it was 15.8%. Particularly hard-hit were people under 65 who lived alone. Their poverty rate was 36.1%. For single-parent households, it was 37.1%. The city of Munich issued its own poverty report. By taking into account Munich’s high cost of living, it found that nearly a fifth of its residents lived in poverty.”

Germany‘s New Anti-Euro Party

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/new-party-in-germany-goes-after-euro-skeptic-voters-a-887744.html

“A new party is forming this spring, intent on abandoning European efforts to prop up the common currency. And its founders are a collection of some of the country’s top economists and academics.”

Named Alternative für Deutschland (Alternative for Germany), the group has a clear goal: ”the dissolution of the euro in favor of national currencies or smaller currency unions.” The party also demands an end to aid payments and the dismantling of the European Stability Mechanism bailout fund.

”Democracy is eroding,” reads a statement on its website (German only). ”The will of the people regarding (decisions relating to the euro) is never queried and is not represented in parliament. The government is depriving voters of a voice through disinformation, is pressuring constitutional organs, like parliament and the Constitutional Court, and is making far-reaching decisions in committees that have no democratic legitimacy.”

Prominent Supporters

Alternative for Germany appears to be different, though it has yet to produce a party manifesto. Its impressive list of prominent supporters includes a large number of conservative and economically liberal university professors. The most notable name on the list is Hans-Olaf Henkel, the former president of the Federation of German Industries, but it also includes such economists as Joachim Starbatty and Wilhelm Hankel, who were part of the group that challenged Greek bailout aid at Germany’s Constitutional Court.

Main initiator Bernd Lucke, a professor of macro-economics from Hamburg, was a member of Chancellor Angela Merkel’s Christian Democrats for 33 years before leaving the party in 2011 as a result of euro bailout efforts. ”The current, so-called rescue policies are exclusively focused on short-term interests, primarily those of the banks,” Lucke told the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung this week.”

Here is a list of some the supporters:

http://www.alternativefuer.de/

“Die Alternative für Deutschland wird unterstützt von

Dr. Konrad Adam, Journalist (FAZ, Die Welt) und Publizist.

Walther Adler, Oberregierungsrat, Statistisches Bundesamt, Diez.

Prof. Dr. Hans–Günter Appel, Beiratsvorsitzender Nationale Anti–EEG–Bewegung.

Prof. Dr. Ronald Asch, Geschichtswissenschaften, Freiburg.

Dr. Bruno Bandulet, Journalist und Verleger, Bad Kissingen.

Prof. Dr. Charles Blankart, Volkswirtschaftslehre, Berlin.

Prof. Dr. Ulrich Blum, Präsident des Instituts für Wirtschaftsforschung Halle a. D.

Prof. Dr. Ursula Braun–Moser, Mitglied des Europäischen Parlaments (CDU) 1984–1994.

Peter Christ, vormals Leiter der Wirtschaftsredaktion ”Die Zeit” und Chefredakteur von Stuttgarter Zeitung, Manager Magazin, Sächsische Zeitung u. a., Luzern.

Prof. Dr. Ludwig Cromme, Mathematik, Cottbus.

Wolfgang von Eichborn, Richter, vormals Referent der SPD–Bundestagsfraktion, Ebersberg.

Dieter Farwick, Brigadegeneral a. D. und Publizist, Sigmaringen–Laiz.

Prof. Dr.–Ing. Thomas Albert Fechter, Maschinenbau, Wiesbaden.

Prof. Dr. Herbert Frohnhofen, Systematische Theologie, Mainz.

Dr. Alexander Gauland, Staatssekretär a. D., Potsdam.

Ass. Jur. Albrecht Glaser, Stadtkämmerer der Stadt Frankfurt/Main a. D., Bürgermeister a. D., Niedenstein.

Prof. Dr. Andrea Gubitz, Volkswirtschaftslehre, Frankfurt.

Prof. Dr. Gernot Gutmann, Volkswirtschaftslehre, Rektor Universität zu Köln a. D.

Prof. Dr. Wilhelm Hankel, Präsident der Hessischen Landesbank a. D., Königswinter.

Michael Heendorf, Kriminalbeamter a. D., Magdeburg.

Prof. Dr. Ing. E.h. Hans–Olaf Henkel, Praesident der IBM Europa, des Bundesverbandes der Deutschen Industrie (BDI) und der Leibniz–Gemeinschaft a.D.

Prof. Dr. Carsten Herrmann–Pillath, Volkswirtschaftslehre, Frankfurt.

Prof. Dr. Stefan Homburg, Volkswirtschaftslehre, Hannover.

Dr. Wolfgang Hönig, Generalbevollmächtigter a. D. der Commerzbank AG, Frankfurt.

Dr. Johannes Hüdepohl, Sprecher Bündnis Bürgerwille, Ahrweiler.

Markus Keller, Aktiva Consult GmbH, Frankfurt.

Gerhard Koning, Bankvorstand a. D., Kelkheim.

Wolfgang Kräher, Dipl.–Ing. Werkstofftechnik, Bad Dürkheim.

Caroline Kreusler, Klipp+Klar Unternehmenskommunikation, Hamburg.

Prof. Dr. Jörn Kruse, Volkswirtschaftslehre, Hamburg.

Dr. Klaus–Peter Last, freiberuflicher Softwarespezialist, 1991–1998 Landesschatzmeister von Bündnis90/Die Grünen Mecklenburg–Vorpommern.

Prof. Dr. Bernd Lucke, Hochschullehrer, Universität Hamburg.

Prof. Dr. Helga Luckenbach, Volkswirtschaftslehre, Gießen.

Dagmar Metzger, wordstatt GmbH, München.

Prof. Dr. Dirk Meyer, Volkswirtschaftslehre, Hamburg.

Stefan Milkereit, Steuerberater, Biebertal.

Klaus Müller, Horländer GmbH, Speyer.

Dr. Frauke Petry, Geschäftsführerin purinvent GmbH, Leipzig.

Prof. Manfred Philipp, Chemie, The CityUniversity of New York.

Prof. Dr. Hayo Reimers, Wirtschaftswissenschaften, Gießen.

Martin Renner, Cosmed Marketing und Kommunikation GmbH, Wuppertal.

Prof. Dr. Christian Rennert, Betriebswirtschaftslehre, Köln.

Prof. Dr. Gisbert Richard, Direktor der Universitäts–Augenklinik, Hamburg.

Dr. Thomas Rietzschel, Autor und Journalist, Roßbach.

Dr. Oliver Safarowsky, Chemiker und Betriebswirt, Köln.

Prof. Dr. Karl Albrecht Schachtschneider, Öffentliches Recht, Hamburg.

Bodo Schmidt, Kölnische Haus– und Grundstücksverwaltung, Köln.

Prof. Dr. Peter Schneider, Erziehungswissenschaft, Paderborn.

Hansjörg Schrade, ecofit, Stv. Vorsitzender Aktionsbündnis Direkte Demokratie, Reutlingen.

Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Schöhl, Wirtschaftsjournalismus, Darmstadt.

Wolf–Joachim Schünemann, ASS Versicherungsmakler GmbH.

Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Seeger, Neurochirurgie, Freiburg.

Dr. Bernhard Seitz, Aktionsbündnis Direkte Demokratie, Stuttgart.

Dr. Dieter Spethmann, Vorstandsvorsitzender Thyssen AG a. D.

Prof. Dr. Michael Stahl, Geschichtswissenschaften, Darmstadt/Berlin.

Prof. Dr. Joachim Starbatty, Volkswirtschaftslehre, Tübingen.

Dr. Norbert Stenzel, Geschäftsführer Wetterauer Lieferbeton, Bad Nauheim.

Prof. Dr. Roland Vaubel, Volkswirtschaftslehre, Mannheim.

Dr. Katharina Vocke–Schöhl, Geschäftsführerin und Dozentin, Darmstadt.

Prof. Dr. Heiner Willenberg, Didaktik der deutschen Sprache und Literatur, Hamburg”

Some points from the programme (again, you have to brush up on your German):

http://www.alternativefuer.de/programm.html

“Unser Standpunkt

In ernster Sorge vor politischen und wirtschaftlichen Fehlentwicklungen in Deutschland und in der Europäischen Union haben wir die Partei ”Alternative für Deutschland” gegründet. Die europäische Schulden- und Währungskrise hat viele Menschen davon überzeugt, dass die Altparteien zu einer nachhaltigen, transparenten, bürgernahen, rechtsstaatlichen und demokratischen Politik nicht imstande oder nicht willens sind. Wir formulieren Alternativen zu einer angeblich alternativlosen Politik. Dabei bejahen wir uneingeschränkt die freiheitlich-demokratische Grundordnung der Bundesrepublik Deutschland und die im Grundgesetz und in den Römischen Verträgen angelegte friedliche Einigung Europas.“

 Währungspolitik

 •Wir fordern eine geordnete Auflösung des Euro-Währungsgebietes. Deutschland braucht den Euro nicht. Anderen Ländern schadet der Euro.

•Wir fordern die Wiedereinführung nationaler Währungen oder die Schaffung kleinerer und stabilerer Währungsverbünde. Die Wiedereinführung der DM darf kein Tabu sein.

•Wir fordern eine Änderung der Europäischen Verträge, um jedem Staat ein Ausscheiden aus dem Euro zu ermöglichen. Jedes Volk muss demokratisch über seine Währung entscheiden dürfen.

•Wir fordern, dass Deutschland dieses Austrittsrecht aus dem Euro erzwingt, indem es weitere Hilfskredite des ESM mit seinem Veto blockiert.

•Wir fordern, dass die Kosten der sogenannten Rettungspolitik nicht vom Steuerzahler getragen werden. Banken, Hedge-Fonds und private Großanleger sind die Nutznießer dieser Politik. Sie müssen zuerst dafür geradestehen.

•Wir fordern, dass hoffnungslos überschuldete Staaten wie Griechenland durch einen Schuldenschnitt entschuldet werden. Banken müssen ihre Verluste selbst tragen oder zu Lasten ihrer privaten Großgläubiger stabilisiert werden.

•Wir fordern ein sofortiges Verbot des Ankaufs von Schrottpapieren durch die Europäische Zentralbank. Inflation darf nicht die Ersparnisse der Bürger aufzehren

Europapolitik

•Wir fordern ein Europa souveräner Staaten mit einem gemeinsamen Binnenmarkt. Wir wollen in Freundschaft und guter Nachbarschaft zusammenleben.

•Wir fordern, das Budgetrecht den nationalen Parlamenten zu belassen. Eine Transferunion oder gar einen zentralisierten Europastaat lehnen wir entschieden ab.

•Wir fordern, Gesetzgebungskompetenzen zurück zu den nationalen Parlamenten zu verlagern. Über Glühbirnen und Gurkenkrümmungen kann der Bundestag alleine entscheiden.

•Wir fordern eine Reform der EU, um die Brüsseler Bürokratie abzubauen und Transparenz und Bürgernähe zu fördern.

•Wir fordern, die Bezüge der Brüsseler Beamten auf Normalmaß zurückzuführen. Es ist schändlich, dass Tausende Brüsseler Beamte mehr verdienen als die Bundeskanzlerin.

•Das europäische Parlament hat bei der Kontrolle Brüssels versagt. Wir unterstützen nachdrücklich die Positionen David Camerons, die EU durch mehr Wettbewerb und Eigenverantwortung zu verschlanken.

Staatsfinanzen und Steuern

•Wir fordern, die Schuldenbremse zu achten und die Schuldenberge abzubauen. Auch Deutschland hat viel mehr Schulden als zulässig.

•Wir fordern, dass die Haftungsrisiken aus der Euro-Rettungspolitik endlich in der Finanzplanung berücksichtigt werden. Derzeit wird den Bürgern bewusst Sand in die Augen gestreut.

•Wir fordern eine drastische Vereinfachung des Steuerrechts. Der Bürger muss verstehen können, warum er in welcher Höhe besteuert wird. Die Cleveren sollen nicht besser behandelt werden als die Ehrlichen.

•Wir fordern ein Steuersystem, in dem Reiche absolut und prozentual stärker belastet werden als Arme. (Progressive Einkommensbesteuerung).

•Wir fordern, dass die Politik sich dem Einfluss von Lobby-Gruppen entzieht und einen bürgernahen Vorschlag – bspw. den Kirchhof’schen Steuerreformvorschlag – umsetzt

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>

The economic mess and structural problems in EU and US – Part 1

23 januari, 2013

EU, and the political elites behind it, is no longer a caricature or a joke. They have managed to become a joke of a caricature. An absurd Alice in Wonderland economic and political farce is playing out and the common people of Europe is, as usual, paying the price.

Here is just some updated data to some of my previous posts. It ain’t pretty to say the least!

(See my posts:

Citizens! Forgive us for not arresting those truly responsible for this crisis: bankers and politicians

This is why the Euro is doomed

EU a stupid empire on purpose

EU – an unaccountable mess created by an undemocratic treaty – Now also a crony Bankocracy)

The EU Crisis is anything but over regardless of what the political elites are trying to tell people in Europe. The ECB may have pushed the banking crisis temporarily back by promising unlimited bond buying. Yes, dear people, read that again – UNLIMITED!

That’s your tax money spent like a drunken sailor.

But soon there is NO MONEY LEFT.

So here we go again for the 7th, 8th or is it the 9th time so far – Europe’s banking system is breaking down again. No surprise to anybody expect or politicians and bankers.

Just start adding up the GIGANTIC NUMBERS and be utterly horrified!

This is the situation that politicians and the banks have put the common people of Europe in.

They are literally ruining us all. And WE, the common people, have to pay the price of their folly and speculations.

As a longtime observer of EU noticed:

Then again, on the insolvent continent, nothing really surprises us any more.”

And:

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”.

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

Remember that the Euro was always a political project. That’s why “they” haven’t done the”proper” economic policies. Because these policies would undermine the political purpose of the Euro. So they, the political elites of EU, are trapped. And that’s why the Euro was domed from the beginning.

And of course, none of this is covered in the mainstream/old media or by our “dear” politicians.

                                  Greece

Greek Bank Capital Needs at EU27.5 Billion, Bank of Greece Says

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-27/greek-bank-capital-needs-at-eu27-5-billion-bank-of-greece-says.html

Greece’s four largest banks need to boost their capital by 27.5 billion euros ($36.3 billion) after taking losses from the country’s debt swap earlier this year, the largest sovereign restructuring in history.

National Bank of Greece SA, the country’s biggest lender, needs to raise 9.8 billion euros, according to an e-mailed report by the Athens-based Bank of Greece (TELL) today. Eurobank Ergasias SA (EUROB) needs 5.8 billion euros, Alpha Bank (ALPHA) needs 4.6 billion euros and Piraeus Bank SA (TPEIR) needs 7.3 billion euros, according to the report. Total recapitalization needs for the country’s banking sector amount to 40.5 billion euros, the report said.”

To put this in perspective: The entire capital base of the Greek banking system is only €22 billion.

By saying that Greek banks need €27.5 billion Greece is essentially admitting that is needs to recapitalize its entire banking system. Also, you should know that Greek banks are still sitting on €46.8 billion in bad loans.

So the Greek banks have a capital base of €22 billion and bad loans of €46.8 billion.

There is a name for this – Bankrupt!

And remember, this is AFTER ALL the “rescue plans”, bailouts etc. already implemented so far by the “Troika” (IMF, ECB and EC).

                                                  Cyprus      

Cyprus is the euro area’s third-smallest economy in GDP terms, accounting for less than 0.2% of the region’s output. Yet the country urgently needs external funding and applied for an Troika (EC/IMF/ECB) programme last summer. In the meantime, the amount in question has risen to EUR 17.5bn (100% of GDP).

Read that again – 100% of GDP!

By mid-2012, larger banks like Bank of Cyprus or Cyprus Popular Bank alone reported loans to Greek borrowers that exceeded Cyprus’ GDP.

The Cyprus central bank’s emergency liquidity assistance (ELA) to the banking system skyrocketed from EUR150m in March 2012 to EUR 9.9bn (55% of GDP) in September.

So the Cyprus central bank only in September but in 55% of the whole Cyprus GDP into its own banking sector.

20130119_cyprus2

                                                 Spain

Bankia worthless says new report

http://www.euronews.com/2012/12/27/bankia-worthless-says-new-report/

Bankia’s shareholders have received a nasty new year’s surprise. They may lose most of their investments or even all of them says the Spanish bank rescue fund in its latest report.

According to FROB, the Fund for Orderly Bank Restructuring, Bankia has a negative value of 4.2 billion euros, and its parent group BFA is 10.4 bn in the red.

Valuation is key in the recapitalisation of Spain’s banking system, weighed down by massive bad loans accumulated in a property bubble that burst in 2008. Bankia/BFA is set to receive 18 bn euros of European aid, and become the country’s biggest bailout recipient.”

A little known fact about the Spanish crisis is that when the Spanish Government merges troubled banks, it typically swaps out depositors’ savings for shares in the new bank.

So when the newly formed bank goes bust,  your savings are GONE. Not gone as in some Spanish version of the FDIC will eventually get you your money, but gone as in gone forever.

This is why Bankia’s collapse is so significant: in one move, former depositors at seven banks just lost virtually everything.

In addition, things are going from worse to worst, as bad loans in Spain continue to accelerate to massive new record highs.

20130118_SPAINLOAN_0

Index of Spanish Industrial Output

index of Spanish Industrial Output

                                                 Italy

In Jan 2012, Italy’s government believed Italy’s 2012 GDP would come in at – 0.4%. The actual in (Q3) – 2,4% (so far).  Only a miss by 600%.

20130118_ITALYGDP_0

And the forecast for Italy’s GDP in 2013 is being lowered every month. Each one as inaccurate as the previous one.

20130118_ITALYGDP1_0

And then there is Ireland, Portugal, France….

Part two tomorrow about USA.

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 http://bloggar.se/om/USA” rel=”tag”>USA</a>

The active lying and deceit behind the creation of EU – The British story

5 januari, 2013

The all too familiar story how the political elite, in their own words and documents, decided to deceive and actively lie to the British people in an all out effort to join the “common market”.

Here is a piece by Christopher Booker and Richard North (see below) on the deceit and active lying behind Britain’s entry to the EU in their, the politicians, own words.

“The real problem the British people have had with the ‘European project’, as its insiders call it, is that they have never really begun to understand its real nature, and what was always intended to be its ultimate goal.

The chief reason for this is that our politicians have never properly explained it to us.

What makes this so much worse is that those who were most enthused by it, such as Heath, knew full well what ‘the project’ was really about — the plan to weld all Europe together under an unprecedented form of super-government.

They deliberately decided to conceal it from us, for fear that our anxieties about our loss of sovereignty might prevent them from being allowed to join.”

“Thus, stealthily assembled over decades, would this new ‘country called Europe’ finally take its place on the world stage. What we found most shocking in researching this story was that, when Britain’s leaders first considered joining the project, they were made fully aware of this hidden agenda.

As we see from Cabinet papers and other documents of the early Sixties, Prime Minister Harold Macmillan and his ‘Europe Minister’ Edward Heath were put completely in the picture about the secret ‘grand plan’. But in June 1961 the Cabinet formally agreed that it must not be revealed to the British people.

In Macmillan’s words, to admit ‘the political objectives’ of the Rome Treaty would raise ‘problems of public relations’ so ‘considerable’ that they should be kept under wraps. It was vital to emphasise only the economic advantages of British entry.”

“On the day we entered, he told the British people on television that any fears that ‘we shall in some way sacrifice independence and sovereignty’ were ‘completely unjustified’.

This was a deliberate lie, as no one knew better than him and the senior Foreign Office official who two years earlier had written a secret paper on ‘Sovereignty’.

The paper chillingly spelled out how it would be the end of the century before the British people woke up to how much of their power to govern themselves and make their own laws had been given away — by which time it would be too late.”

We seen this sad story repeated in country after country. The same behaviour with few exceptions.

This relentless drive at ALL COSTS from the political elites, on purpose, for a political union and European super state regardless of the will of the people.

And if the people protest and object, as they have EVERY time they where ALLOWED to, it doesn’t matter! Run them over, force it through one way or the other as the examples from the last 40 years clearly shows.

“At first it should be presented as just a trading arrangement, the ‘Common Market’ set up in 1957 by the Treaty of Rome. But the essence of that treaty was to create the core institutions of what Monnet always intended should one day be the ‘Government of Europe.

The idea was to work for ‘ever closer union’.

Treaty by treaty, it would take over more powers from national governments, based on the sacred principle that once power to make laws was handed over to Brussels it could never be given back.”

As I wrote in my post Citizens! Forgive us for not arresting those truly responsible for this crisis: bankers and politicians as the banderol of the police demonstration in Madrid so neatly summed it up:

”Citizens! Forgive us for not arresting those truly responsible for this crisis: bankers and politicians.”

The whole economic and political crisis in EU and USA summarized in one simple sentence.”

Citizens! Forgive us for not arresting those truly responsible for this crisis- bankers and politicians

And as I wrote in my post EU a stupid empire on purpose:

“This is one of the best and succinct descriptions of EU I have seen:

“The European Union is like a hospital where all the doctors are mad. It doesn’t matter what is wrong, the treatment is always the same – more integration – and it is always wrong. The best thing to do is never to enter it.

Once you are in, the best thing to do is to leave. If you can’t get out, you will probably die.”

I disagree with one thing this author says: “EU is the Stupid Empire”. EU is a POLITICAL project. The Euro is part of that political project.

A lot of  EU’s decisions make no economic sense whatsoever. In that regard, Peter Hitchens observation that “EU is the Stupid Empire” is completely right.  Not to mention the enormous cost to the common people of all these political motivated but economically disastrous decisions.

The economic side was always a way to “sell it to the people”. Step by step. So that the political agenda could be slowly, but steadily implemented. Until it was too late. The political elites new ALL along that had the EU project been presented to the people for what it really is, people in ALL countries would have rejected it.

BUT EU was on purpose designed this way. So that the people could not stop this political project.

Never forget that ALL the political elites, irrespective of party or ideology, in the EU countries were behind this. With very few exceptions.

One small example, before the referendum on the Euro in September 2003 in Sweden, ALL parties (with the exception of some communists, greens, socialists and some from the agrarian party, ALL big unions, ALL mainstream media, ALL the representatives of the business world etc was for the Euro. And they put massive financial and personal resources behind this.

But the Swedish people, wisely, rejected this with 56% to 42%.

In the latest opinion poll, December 2011, 87,6% of the Swedish people were against the Euro. 9,7 % for. (Update- one year later these figures are even worse).

They planned this, and wanted this. And they kept on purpose this real ideology behind the EU project well hidden from their citizens in their countries.

They kept everything on purpose, including treaties, SO technical and juridical that it was totally unreadable for the common people. Like the EU “constitution”.

Just to give one example of how meaningless the local parliaments have become:

In Sweden 65 to 85%, depending of which area, of “decisions” made by the Swedish parliament HAVE ALREADY BEEN DECIDED IN BRUSSELS.

I.E. The national Swedish parliament is in reality rubber-stamping Brussels decisions and implementing them.

That’s all!

And they cannot change even one syllable in these decisions. So much for “representing” the will of the people.

But of course, they are not telling us that. They pretend that ALL these decisions are made locally by the Swedish parliament as the “sovereign” representatives for the Swedish nation. When in reality they can, to the most part, only decide the colour of their on toilets.”

And sadly, and as usual, the mainstream media/old media has for the most part taken en active role in promoting this political union and the European Super State. Add to that, the press utter failure to inform the people of their respective countries how EU REALLY works. And what it means to people and the sovereignty of their countries.

Most journalists have no clue about the important “inner” bureaucratic game and ”the machinery” where nearly everything is decided. Instead, we see these useless reports and photo ops when the prime ministers or finance ministers meet. When in reality 99,8 or 9 % is already decided before they meet. Most of it is just a “show”. Often “very dramatic” late in to the night.

And this is nothing new.  We have seen so many different examples of this betrayal of journalist in their role as journalist. This is just sadly another.

Some other EU posts here:

Citizens! Forgive us for not arresting those truly responsible for this crisis: bankers and politicians

EU a stupid empire on purpose

EU – an unaccountable mess created by an undemocratic treaty – Now also a crony Bankocracy

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

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

EU – an unaccountable mess created by an undemocratic treaty

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

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

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

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

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

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

                       EU Youth Unemployment Rates

20121206_EUYouth_0

(My bold and underlining)

Monumental deceit: How our politicians have lied and lied about the true purpose of the European behemoth

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2255506/Monumental-deceit-How-politicians-lied-lied-true-purpose-European-behemoth.html

By Christopher Booker

Forty years ago today, in what was arguably the most fateful political move ever made by a British Prime Minister, Edward Heath took us into what was then called the ‘Common Market’.

Such a step had scarcely been mentioned at the previous General Election, and the British people had very little idea of what they were letting themselves in for, other than a trading arrangement that might make it easier for us to sell our goods to our Continental neighbours.

Four decades later, the picture could scarcely look more different. We have seen that supposedly cosy club we joined transformed, step by step, into a vast, bloated bureaucratic empire, imposing its suffocating rule over 27 nations.

We have also seen it plunged into the most destructive crisis in its history — one it has brought entirely on itself by its reckless dream of locking the countries of Europe together into the straitjacket of the euro.

During those 40 years the British have never been happy members of this club. Too often we have been out of step, and even bitterly at odds, with the rest — as in our refusal to join that single currency.

But today, as the EU’s inner core of countries drive towards ‘full political union’ in a desperate bid to save their doomed euro, the British now look at this swollen political monster with fearful bemusement.

Politicians of every party talk plaintively about the need for us to negotiate a ‘looser relationship’ with the EU, while opinion polls consistently show a growing majority wanting to leave it altogether — an option that even David Cameron no longer rules out.

Even on the Continent, influential voices are now recognising that something very significant is happening in Britain, as they suggest we should perhaps be allowed something never seen before — a mere ‘associate membership’ of the EU, allowing us to continue trading with it but without all its political superstructure.

How did we come to such a pass? Are we today looking at another historic crossroads, in its own way just as fateful as the one we faced back in 1973?

The real problem the British people have had with the ‘European project’, as its insiders call it, is that they have never really begun to understand its real nature, and what was always intended to be its ultimate goal.

The chief reason for this is that our politicians have never properly explained it to us.

What makes this so much worse is that those who were most enthused by it, such as Heath, knew full well what ‘the project’ was really about — the plan to weld all Europe together under an unprecedented form of super-government.

They deliberately decided to conceal it from us, for fear that our anxieties about our loss of sovereignty might prevent them from being allowed to join.

Ten years ago, with my co-author Richard North, I wrote a comprehensively researched history of the ‘European project’.

I had already been reporting for years on the incredible damage membership of the EU was doing to British life, through thousands of crazy directives and regulations, through the destruction of our proud fishing industry and the undermining of our agriculture, which was until 1973 the most efficient in Europe.

The real story, surprisingly, goes back to the 1920s, when a senior League of Nations official, Frenchman Jean Monnet, first began to dream of building a ‘United States of Europe’, very much on the lines that decades later would shape the European Union as it is today.

After World War II, Monnet, by then the second most powerful man in France, finally set the project on its way. He knew there was no chance of bringing such an astonishingly ambitious vision into being all at once. So his plan was that it should gradually be constructed, piece by stealthy piece, without ever declaring too openly what was intended to be its ultimate goal.

At first it should be presented as just a trading arrangement, the ‘Common Market’ set up in 1957 by the Treaty of Rome. But the essence of that treaty was to create the core institutions of what Monnet always intended should one day be the ‘Government of Europe.

The idea was to work for ‘ever closer union’.

Treaty by treaty, it would take over more powers from national governments, based on the sacred principle that once power to make laws was handed over to Brussels it could never be given back.

Ever more countries would be brought into the net, until the project reached its ultimate goal as a super-government, with its own president and parliament, its own currency and armed forces, its own flag and anthem — all the attributes of a fully-fledged nation state.

Thus, stealthily assembled over decades, would this new ‘country called Europe’ finally take its place on the world stage. What we found most shocking in researching this story was that, when Britain’s leaders first considered joining the project, they were made fully aware of this hidden agenda.

As we see from Cabinet papers and other documents of the early Sixties, Prime Minister Harold Macmillan and his ‘Europe Minister’ Edward Heath were put completely in the picture about the secret ‘grand plan’. But in June 1961 the Cabinet formally agreed that it must not be revealed to the British people.

In Macmillan’s words, to admit ‘the political objectives’ of the Rome Treaty would raise ‘problems of public relations’ so ‘considerable’ that they should be kept under wraps. It was vital to emphasise only the economic advantages of British entry.

Thus did Macmillan and Heath become drawn into complicity with that same web of deceit which was driving the ‘project’ itself (which is why we called our book The Great Deception).

Twice in the Sixties Britain made failed attempts to join the project — but within weeks of Heath entering Downing Street in 1970, he applied to Brussels a third time. Scarcely had negotiations begun than he learned that his future partners were already discussing the next steps along their path to full integration: a single currency, European defence forces, a common foreign policy.

Heath immediately sent word to Brussels pleading for all this to be kept quiet, because it might blow the gaffe with British voters.

For two years the negotiations continued, with Heath handing over all he was asked for, from giving away Britain’s fishing waters, the richest in the world, to become ‘a common European resource’, to the betrayal of our Commonwealth partners by excluding their goods from what had been for many their main export market.

Finally, Heath got what he was after: entry to the club — although he still pretended that the Common Market was little more than a trading arrangement.

On the day we entered, he told the British people on television that any fears that ‘we shall in some way sacrifice independence and sovereignty’ were ‘completely unjustified’.

This was a deliberate lie, as no one knew better than him and the senior Foreign Office official who two years earlier had written a secret paper on ‘Sovereignty’.

The paper chillingly spelled out how it would be the end of the century before the British people woke up to how much of their power to govern themselves and make their own laws had been given away — by which time it would be too late.

So began the dismal story which has been unfolding ever since. Already by the late Seventies, as the Common Market morphed into ‘the European Community’, we were becoming known in Brussels as ‘the awkward partner’.

Then came Mrs Thatcher’s five-year battle to win that rebate on our payments into the EU budget which, thanks to the ludicrously lop-sided conditions accepted by Heath, would have made us the largest single contributor by 1985.

In 1986 came the treaty called the Single European Act, which not only set up the Single Market but handed over to Brussels all sorts of other powers, including environmental laws which were to lead to everything from the shambles of our rubbish collections to building thousands of hated and useless wind turbines.

                                           EBC Balance sheet

EBC Balance sheet

In 1990, nothing did more to inspire hostility to Mrs Thatcher among her European colleagues, led by Jacques Delors, than her defiant opposition to the Maastricht Treaty, designed to create the European Union, introduce the ‘social chapter’ and, above all, to launch the single currency.

As soon as he replaced her, John Major proclaimed his wish for Britain to be ‘at the heart of Europe’ and signed the Maastricht Treaty (admittedly with those vital opt-outs for Britain on the single currency and the social chapter).

But seven years later he ended up more at odds with his partners than ever, as they imposed their worldwide ban on the export of all British beef products over ‘mad cow disease’, tried to sneak us into the social chapter under ‘health and safety’ rules and laid their plans for yet another integrationist treaty in Amsterdam.

Tony Blair, too, wanted to be ‘at the heart of Europe’, as the single currency approached (which he would love to have joined), signing us up to the social chapter with its damaging working-time rules, and two more treaties, at Amsterdam and Nice.

But he too found it hard to keep up with that relentless drive for ever closer union, as it led to seven years of tortuous negotiation to create ‘A Constitution for Europe’, eventually sabotaged by the voters of France and Holland, so that it had to be smuggled in by deceit as the Lisbon Treaty (which, among much else, incorporated the Court of Human Rights into the EU). Scarcely was the ink dry on Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s signature on that treaty than the EU was plunged into its worst-ever crisis over the euro, which today is spreading misery across southern Europe.

As always, the response of the EU’s leaders has been to call for yet ‘more Europe’, and a new treaty to force the eurozone members into ‘full political union’.

This is now leaving Britain more obviously marginalised than ever, condemned to remain in the outer ring of a club, many members of which would now be only too pleased to see the back of us.

This humiliating prospect has seen our politicians running around like bewildered sheep, bleating about the need for Britain to negotiate a ‘looser relationship’ with the EU, to get back to that trading arrangement we thought we were entering 40 years ago.

Astonishingly, this is now even being echoed as a possibility by those influential voices in Europe itself — even though the most fundamental rule of the club we joined back then was that, once powers are passed to Brussels, they can never be given back.

As David Cameron prepares to give that ‘very important speech on Europe’ he has promised us very soon, he could not do better than to meditate on the shrewdest words ever uttered by a Prime Minister about Britain and Europe. In 1973, as a junior member of Heath’s Cabinet, Margaret Thatcher made all the approved noises about how wonderful it was for Britain to join this club.

Once in office, however, she went on a painful learning curve, as she saw from the inside just what the real game was and how ruthlessly it was played. She was brought down in 1990 by an alliance of Europhiles in her party and their Brussels allies, because she was the last real obstacle to their Maastricht Treaty.

What really riled them was that she had seen through their true agenda and the disastrous course on which they were set.

With even Jacques Delors, the chief architect of Maastricht, suggesting it might be best for Britain to leave the EU, Mr Cameron should dwell on a passage from her last book, Statecraft.

That such an unnecessary and irrational project as building a European super-state was ever embarked on,’ wrote Lady Thatcher, ‘will seem in future years to be perhaps the greatest folly of the modern era. And that Britain...should ever have become part of it will appear a political error of the first magnitude.’

If Mr Cameron truly wishes to speak for the British people and our country’s future, he should bear those prophetic thoughts in mind.”

And Richard North complementing on the same subject:

EU politics: monumental deceit

http://www.eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=83462

“The piece serves to remind us that entry was perpetrated on the basis of structured deceit, with successive prime ministers (Macmillan and Heath) actively lying as to their broad intentions and the proposed relationship with the Six.

“Those utter fools who assert that the relationship was primarily economic (and has since gone off the rails) need to read the Cabinet Memorandum of 21 June 962, (originally referenced C. (61) 84 and now CAB/129/105), in which Macmillan set out the purpose of seeking full United Kingdom membership of the European Economic Community, as ”… the only effective way of securing our political objectives in the world, and of averting the dangers of continued division in Europe”.

Eur%20000-cab1

Then, in a note to his Cabinet colleagues on 10 October 1961 (Originally C.(61)162, now: CAB/129/107 – see above), Edward Heath asserted that the UK had been following closely the progress towards unity in fields other than those covered by the three communities.

He conveyed to his colleagues that it was the intention of the UK to work with the Six ”in a positive spirit to reinforce the unity already achieved”. Heath was ”convinced” that the UK and the Six ”share the same essential interests”, and that ”the habit of working together, once formed, will mean, not a slowing down, but a continued advance and the development of closer unity”.

From the very start, therefore, it was evident that Heath intended to take the UK into the EEC with a view to developing further political unity. The economic issues were always camouflage, and the label ”Common Market” was simply a ploy deliberately to obscure the real intent.

Cameron and modern-day politicians are now paying the price for that deceit, having to deal with a relationship founded on a bed of lies and poisoned by the continuing deception.

Such a situation is irrecoverable, which means there can only be one resolution – our withdrawal from the European Union. Simply, a relationship built on lies can never prosper, and can never be repaired. We need to start again to avoid what Thatcher called a ”the greatest folly of the modern era”.

And the first step starts with the admission that the EU and its precursors were never economic alliances. The economic aspects were always a means to an end, designed to secure political unity, something which has been foisted upon us by deceit, and of which we want no part.

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>

Citizens! Forgive us for not arresting those truly responsible for this crisis: bankers and politicians

20 november, 2012

Or this is why the Euro is doomed. And after that EU – Yes we have NO Money.

On Saturday November 17, police officers from all over Spain marched through Madrid, protesting austerity measures and cuts. They even apologized to the public for arresting the wrong people. One of the slogans was:

”Citizens! Forgive us for not arresting those truly responsible for this crisis: bankers and politicians.”

The whole economic and political crisis in EU and USA summarized in one simple sentence.

It complements what I wrote in my post EU a stupid empire on purpose:

“This is one of the best and succinct descriptions of EU I have seen:

The European Union is like a hospital where all the doctors are mad. It doesn’t matter what is wrong, the treatment is always the same – more integration – and it is always wrong. The best thing to do is never to enter it.

Once you are in, the best thing to do is to leave. If you can’t get out, you will probably die.

I disagree with one thing this author says: “EU is the Stupid Empire”. EU is a POLITICAL project. The Euro is part of that political project.

A lot of  EU’s decisions make no economic sense whatsoever. In that regard, Peter Hitchens observation that “EU is the Stupid Empire” is completely right.  Not to mention the enormous cost to the common people of all these political motivated but economically disastrous decisions. 

The economic side was always a way to “sell it to the people”. Step by step. So that the political agenda could be slowly, but steadily implemented. Until it was too late. The political elites new ALL along that had the EU project been presented to the people for what it really is, people in ALL countries would have rejected it.

BUT EU was on purpose designed this way. So that the people could not stop this political project.

Never forget that ALL the political elites, irrespective of party or ideology, in the EU countries were behind this. With very few exceptions.”

The EU bureaucrats and the political elites always fall back, when they have nothing else to say in defence of the EU, that this is a “peace project”. Well this “peace project” has now created social havoc, riots, and put country against country, and groups of countries against group of countries.

Tearing apart the EU at it’s seems. And ALL of this because they, the political elites, literally AT ALL COST want to preserve the POLITICAL project euro. Which is the cornerstone of the federal super state of Europe.

As I have said before, this has nothing to do with economics; it’s ALL about politics,

And that is why so many people still don’t understand what is going on. Because from an economical point these policies are total madness. Ruining and lowering the living standard of most people. And the political elites know this. But the political project is MORE important.

Then there is Ireland, Italy, Portugal, Cyprus, France….

Just start adding up the GIGANTIC NUMBERS and be utterly horrified!

This is the situation that politicians and the banks have put the common people of Europe in.

They are literally ruining us all. And WE have to pay the price of their folly and speculations.

One more slogan from the protests – They are the same

Depicting Spanish Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy (L) and the leader of the opposition Socialist Party (PSOE) Alfredo Perez Rubalcaba

The Big picture

This is from the IMF’s World Economic Outlook (WEO) Notice the rising trend of the 27 Developing Asian economies as a share of World GDP.  Bloomberg’s Chart of the Day notes that by the end of 2012, Developing Asia will account for 17.9% of World GDP, surpassing for the first time Europe’s 17-nation 16.9% share. The euro-area crisis has merely accelerated a trend that has been ongoing for several years – as former IMF board member Domenico Lombardi notes, makes it clear that euro-area economies need to address their structural reforms rapidly.

America is on the same path, as while China will top Europe by 2017 as a share of global GDP, USA will be passed in five years when Developing Asia will have topped the USA for the first time ever.

All graphs gets bigger if you click on it

Just one small example of all these stupid US policies, on Januari 1, 2013, dividend tax rates are set to rise from 15% to as high as 43.4%. This affects not only US taxpayers, but everyone on the planet who invests in the US stock market.

As a result of this tax policy, many investors who own shares in US companies will now see their after-tax dividends slashed by 33%.

This is putting a lot of downward pressure on stock prices, affecting almost everyone who currently owns US shares– pension funds and retirement accounts, rich and middle class, US and non-US citizens alike. It’s as if the US government is hanging a sign over the country saying ”PLEASE DO NOT INVEST HERE.”

It’s pure genius wouldn’t you say?

(See some of my previous posts on the economic situation in USA:

The US election – Yes we have NO bananas

How Obama loves the poor SOOO MUCH, especially the black, that they have had the largest single drop in income ever

In three graphs – Obama Economics

One more small example, in this case the UK, national government borrowing is already 22% higher than at this same point last year, a record year for borrowing. Meanwhile, the UK‘s budget deficit for August hit a record high.

I hope you get the picture- it isn’t pretty!

And the unemployment picture

And let’s continue with Spain:

Spanish bad loans

The figures are just out for the total Spanish bad loans during September: the loans that fell into arrears, (the part of a debt that is overdue after missing one or more required payments), increased by €3.5 billion from August, reaching €182.2 billion in September. This is 10.71% of the total Spanish bank loans of €1.7 trillion, and an increase from the previous month.

Putting the bad loan number in perspective, it is nearly double the €100 billion that the Spanish banks will receive as part of the bank bailout plan disclosed in July, and well above the ”only” €40 billion that Spain promises it will need to actually fund bank capital shortfalls.

If you compared as a percentage of GDP, it would be the equivalent of $2.8 trillion in US loans going bad.

(See also my post This is why the Euro is doomed.)

Spain’s Regional Debt

And Greece:

The Greece budget

The Athens Finance Ministry just released 2013-2016 its latest re-re-revised budget.

http://www.minfin.gr/content-api/f/binaryChannel/minfin/datastore/a7/91/b0/a791b0bf4bc73a9679bac65792933157d4cf7b27/application/pdf/%CE%9C%CE%95%CE%A3%CE%9F%CE%A0%CE%A1%CE%9F%CE%98%CE%95%CE%A3%CE%9C%CE%9F_2013.pdf

Let’s look merely on one data series: the brand new Debt/GDP, (ignoring the -4.5% 2013 GDP forecast, already – 0.5% worse than the just released IMF forecast for Greece for the same period, remember also that the May forecast of 2013 predicted ”growth”), and compared it to the Debt/GDP ”forecast” from May 2010, when the first Greek bailout was announced.

It ain’t pretty

The Greece Finance Ministry

This is the same Finance Ministry where the EU inspectors found this in their taxation archive section (see the video 5:20-5-48):

Watch this documentary from ZDF (in german). It shows where 2 ½ years of bailout funds went, or rather didn’t go. And why 2 ½ years to the day after the first bailout, not only is Greece not fixed, but is getting worse at a cost to taxpayers of nearly half a trillion Euro.

Die Griechenland-Lüge

http://www.zdf.de/ZDFmediathek/beitrag/video/1634150/Dokumentation-Die-Griechenland-Luege#/beitrag/video/1634150/Dokumentation-Die-Griechenland-Luege

The Troika and their “predictions”

The troika (the European Commission, the International Monetary Fund, and the European Central Bank), which are supposed to get Greece’s financial future in order cannot make even the most basic forecasting. And the Troika have made these “forecasts” repeatedly, which are a complete and utter joke.  But there is NO surprise here, this is ALL about politics. The same way that EU allowed Greece into the Euro knowing that every figure was false. But for political reasons they were allowed to enter.

And these “guys” are supposed to save Europe? Where all the important decisions are being taken on the ground of these “forecasts”?

The Greece unemployment

Again, It ain’t pretty.

I could go on, but I think I stop here.

You get the picture.

And of course, none of this is covered in the mainstream media or by our “dear” politicians.

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 http://bloggar.se/om/USA” rel=”tag”>USA</a>

This is why the Euro is doomed.

11 juni, 2012

As a complement to my previous post  EU a stupid empire on purpose

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/spains-real-debt-gdp-right-now-1466

And then there is Greece, Ireland, Italy, Portugal, Cyprus….

Just start adding up the GIGANTIC NUMBERS and be utterly horrified!

This is the situation that politicians and the banks have put the common people of Europe in.

They are literally ruining us all. And WE have to pay the price of their folly and speculations.

And after the Spanish bailout Ireland promptly requested a renegotiation of its own terms to match those of Spain.

And in six days there is the Greece election. Alexis Tsipras, leader of Greece’s leftwing Syriza coalition of course used this bailout to strengthening his party’s position.

“What we wonder is why did Europe cave to the Spanish demands before the Greek elections. Because, paradoxically, by yielding to a bailout plan, which at least superficially has been painted as one without conditions, it just cemented Syriza’s entire electoral platform as having absolute validity.

Then again, on the insolvent continent, nothing really surprises us any more.”

And of course, none of this is covered in the mainstream media or by our “dear” politicians.

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>

EU a stupid empire on purpose

21 maj, 2012

This is one of the best and succinct descriptions of EU I have seen:

“The European Union is like a hospital where all the doctors are mad. It doesn’t matter what is wrong, the treatment is always the same – more integration – and it is always wrong. The best thing to do is never to enter it.

Once you are in, the best thing to do is to leave. If you can’t get out, you will probably die.”

I disagree with one thing this author says: “EU is the Stupid Empire”. EU is a POLITICAL project. The Euro is part of that political project.

A lot of  EU’s decisions make no economic sense whatsoever. In that regard, Peter Hitchens observation that “EU is the Stupid Empire” is completely right.  Not to mention the enormous cost to the common people of all these political motivated but economically disastrous decisions.

The economic side was always a way to “sell it to the people”. Step by step. So that the political agenda could be slowly, but steadily implemented. Until it was too late. The political elites new ALL along that had the EU project been presented to the people for what it really is, people in ALL countries would have rejected it.

BUT EU was on purpose designed this way. So that the people could not stop this political project.

Never forget that ALL the political elites, irrespective of party or ideology, in the EU countries were behind this. With very few exceptions.

One small example, before the referendum on the Euro in September 2003 in Sweden, ALL parties (with the exception of some communists, greens, socialists and some from the agrarian party, ALL big unions, ALL mainstream media, ALL the representatives of the business world etc was for the Euro. And they put massive financial and personal resources behind this.

But the Swedish people, wisely, rejected this with 56% to 42%.

In the latest opinion poll, December 2011, 87,6% of the Swedish people were against the Euro. 9,7 % for.

They planned this, and wanted this. And they kept on purpose this real ideology behind the EU project well hidden from their citizens in their countries.

They kept everything on purpose, including treaties, SO technical and juridical that it was totally unreadable for the common people. Like the EU “constitution”.

Just to give one example of how meaningless the local parliaments have become:

In Sweden 65 to 85%, depending of which area, of “decisions” made by the Swedish parliament HAVE ALREADY BEEN DECIDED IN BRUSSELS.

I.E. The national Swedish parliament is in reality rubber-stamping Brussels decisions and implementing them.

That’s all!

And they cannot change even one syllable in these decisions. So much for “representing” the will of the people.

But of course, they are not telling us that. They pretend that ALL these decisions are made locally by the Swedish parliament as the “sovereign” representatives for the Swedish nation. When in reality they can, to the most part, only decide the colour of their on toilets.

Some other EU posts here:

EU – an unaccountable mess created by an undemocratic treaty – Now also a crony Bankocracy

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

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

EU – an unaccountable mess created by an undemocratic treaty

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

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

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

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

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

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

Peter Hitchens blog post here (my bold):

Why defeat an evil empire – and then embrace a stupid one?

http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/

”The European Union is like a hospital where all the doctors are mad. It doesn’t matter what is wrong, the treatment is always the same – more integration – and it is always wrong. The best thing to do is never to enter it.

Once you are in, the best thing to do is to leave. If you can’t get out, you will probably die.

Those of us who pay attention to history, politics and truth have known this for many years.

But as the EU’s ‘experts’ and ‘technocrats’ insanely destroy the economies ofGreece,SpainandItaly, it must now surely be obvious to everyone.

The EU, far from being a bright future, offers nothing but bankruptcy and decline.

If the old USSRwas an Evil Empire – and it was – the EU is the Stupid Empire. Obsessed with the idea that the nation state is obsolete, the EU has sought to bind its colonies tightly, while pretending they are still independent.

This is why what is essentially a modern German empire is not held together by armies, but by a sticky web of regulations and a currency that destroys prosperity wherever it is introduced (with one important exception, Germany itself, for whom the euro means cheap exports to Asia).

It is also why it has been built backwards, starting with the roof and ending with the foundations. Old-fashioned empires were at least honest.

They marched in, plundered everything they could cart away, killed or imprisoned resisters, suborned collaborators, and imposed their language on the conquered.

Other humiliating measures followed – forcing the newly-subject people to live according to the invader’s time, to pay special taxes to their new masters, to surrender control of their borders, to use the invader’s weights and measures, salute the invader’s flag and obey the invader’s laws.

Eventually, after a few years of imposed occupation money, set at a viciously rigged exchange rate, the subjugated nation’s economy would have been reduced to such a devastated and dependent state that it could be forced to accept the imperial currency.

The EU, which cannot admit to being what it really is, has to achieve the same means sideways or backwards. The colonial laws are disguised as local Acts of Parliament. The flag is slowly introduced, the borders stealthily erased, the weights and measures and the clocks gradually brought into conformity.

Resources (such as Britain’s fisheries) are bureaucratically plundered, giant taxes are  quietly levied, but collected by our own Revenue & Customs as our ‘contribution’, our banking industry is menaced.

Opponents are politically marginalised, collaborators discreetly rewarded, armed forces quietly dismantled or placed under supranational command. It is happening before our eyes and yet, while the exit is still just open, we make no move to depart.

Our grandchildren will wonder, bitterly, why we were so feeble.”

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>

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>

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

Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 3

21 november, 2009

And the press and mass media who have supported the greatest scientific and political scandal of modern times. AND taken an ACTIVE PART in suppressing facts and people opposing this hysteria. Continues to play the role of his master’s voice!

Betraying all that journalism is supposed to stand for!

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017451/climategate-how-the-msm-reported-the-greatest-scandal-in-modern-science/

Climategate: how the MSM reported the greatest scandal in modern science

By James Delingpole Politics Last updated: November 21st, 2009

Here’s what the Times has had to say on the subject:

E-mails allegedly written by some of the world’s leading climate scientists have been stolen by hackers and published on websites run by climate change sceptics.

The sceptics claim that the e-mails are evidence that scientists manipulated data in order to strengthen their argument that human activities were causing global warming.

(Yep – definitely an improvement on their earlier, non-existent coverage; but not exactly pointing up the scandalousness of this scandal).

And the Independent:

(Yep. Nada)

And here’s how The New York Times (aka Pravda) reported it:

Hundreds of private e-mail messages and documents hacked from a computer server at a British university are causing a stir among global warming skeptics, who say they show that climate scientists conspired to overstate the case for a human influence on climate change.

(Yep. That’s right. It has only apparently caused a stir among ’skeptics’. Everyone else can rest easy. Nothing to see here.)

And here’s how the Guardian has reported it:

Hundreds of private emails and documents allegedly exchanged between some of the world’s leading climate scientists during the past 13 years have been stolen by hackers and leaked online, it emerged today.

The computer files were apparently accessed earlier this week from servers at the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit, a world-renowned centre focused on the study of natural and anthropogenic climate change.

(Oh. I get it. It’s just a routine data-theft story, not a scandal. And a chance to remind us of the CRU’s integrity and respectability. And – see below – to get in a snarky, ‘let’s have a dig at the deniers’ quote from Greenpeace).

A spokesman for Greenpeace said: “If you looked through any organisation’s emails from the last 10 years you’d find something that would raise a few eyebrows. Contrary to what the sceptics claim, the Royal Society, the US National Academy of Sciences, Nasa and the world’s leading atmospheric scientists are not the agents of a clandestine global movement against the truth. This stuff might drive some web traffic, but so does David Icke.”

Here’s the Washington Post:

Hackers broke into the electronic files of one of the world’s foremost climate research centers this week and posted an array of e-mails in which prominent scientists engaged in a blunt discussion of global warming research and disparaged climate-change skeptics.

The skeptics have seized upon e-mails stolen from the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia in Britain as evidence that scientific data have been rigged to make it appear as if humans are causing global warming. The researchers, however, say the e-mails have been taken out of context and merely reflect an honest exchange of ideas.

(Ah, so what the story is really about is ’skeptics’ causing trouble. Note how as high as the second par the researchers are allowed by the reporter to get in their insta-rebuttal, lest we get the impression that the scandal in any way reflects badly on them).

Here is the BBC:

E-mails reportedly from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU), including personal exchanges, appeared on the internet on Thursday.

A university spokesman confirmed the email system had been hacked and that information was taken and published without permission.

An investigation was underway and the police had been informed, he added.

(Ah yes, another routine data-theft story so dully reported – “the police had been informed, he added” – that you can’t even be bothered to reach the end to find out what information was stolen).

Meanwhile, the Climategate scandal (and I do apologise for calling it that, but that’s how the internet works: you need obvious, instantly memorable, event-specific search terms) continues to set the Blogosphere ablaze.

For links to all the latest updates on this, I recommend Marc Morano’s invaluable Climate Depot site.

And if you want to read those potentially incriminating emails in full, go to An Elegant Chaos org where they have all been posted in searchable form.

Like the Telegraph’s MPs’ expenses scandal, this is the gift that goes on giving. It won’t, unfortunately, derail Copenhagen (too many vested interests involved) or cause any of our many political parties to start talking sense on “Climate change”. But what it does demonstrate is the growing level of public scepticism towards Al Gore’s Anthropogenic Global Warming theory. That’s why, for example, this story is the single most read item on today’s Telegraph website.

What it also demonstrates – as my dear chum Dan Hannan so frequently and rightly argues – is the growing power of the Blogosphere and the decreasing relevance of the Mainstream Media (MSM).

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

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.

Den svenska utrikesförvaltningens död

15 november, 2009

Den svenska utrikesförvaltningen (UD) är nu i praktiken “död” och begravd när nu Lissabonfördraget officiellt snart börjar gälla.

Den utveckling som tog sin början med Göran Perssons styre (1996-2006) där han med hjälp av Nuder och Danielsson plus statsrådsberedningen, AKTIVT arbetade för att degradera och sätta UD på ”plats”.  Allt för att göra UD till ett lydigt departement bland andra i regeringskansliet styrd av förvaltnings avdelningen.

Han ville bli av med alla dessa självständiga och kompetenta statstjänstemän/kvinnor som var ett hinder för den totala politisering av hela regeringskansliet som var hans strävan.

Den där gamla statsvetenskapliga modellen där regeringskansliet består av självständiga statstjänstemän som utför sina arbeten professionellt och utan partipolitiska bindningar, och några politiskt tillsatta personer i nyckelställning, är sedan läge död och begraven.

Hela regeringskansliet är nu i grunden GENOMPOLITISERAT NER TILL LÄGSTA NIVÅ.

Och den nuvarande borgerliga regeringen tog över detta utan att ändra något och har bara FORTSATT på denna linje.

Jag har alltid bedömt mina chefer (utrikesministrar) efter två mallar – dels hur de faktiskt sköter utrikespolitiken och dels hur de sköter departementet/myndigheten UD/UM

Och det är bara tyvärr att konstatera att Carl Bildt vad det gäller den senare frågan ÄR TOTALT OINTRESSERAD AV och har noll koll på vad som faktiskt händer på departementet och med dess personal.

Ej heller är han visat något som helst intresse för de kraftigt försämrade arbetsvillkoren, både ute och hemma. Och vi pratar här om allt från arbetsmiljö, godtycke i tjänstetillsättningar, extremt hård arbetsbelastning, urusel lön utom för chefernas gunstlingar etc. etc.

Som ett litet ex. kan tas de nya utlandsvillkoren UVA (som röstades igenom under den förra regeringen), som innebär att de utsända på våra ambassader, delegationer och konsulat FÖRLORAR mellan 7.000-25.000 kr I MÅNADEN NETTO i 91 % fallen.

Och vi pratar här OM DE FAKTISKA KOSTNADERNA för individen som det innebär att vara stationerad utomlands, och inte om någon tjusig representation under ”kristallkronorna”. 

Vilken annan arbetsgrupp skulle snällt finna sig i sådana försämringar? Om det vore ett privat företag så skulle LO slå på trummorna och ryta att detta var oacceptabelt och gå ut i strejkMen nu gäller det ju bara de tjänstemän som skall värna Sverige och vara vår spjutspetts utomlands så då är det tydligen inte så viktigt.

Med de nya villkoren så behandlas vi som den fattige kusinen från landet. Och vi behöver bara jämföra oss med våra nodiska granländer för att inse på vilken absolut bottennivå vi NU ligger.

För att nu inte tala om vi jämför oss med våra kollegor som jobbar åt svenska eller internationella företag utomlands.

Eller hemska tanke, om vi jämför oss med FN, EU och  det nya EEAS, IMF etc.

Men här kommer det fina i kråksången – UD anställda anses nämligen ”så värdefulla” att VI FÅR INTE STREJKA

Så här skrev jag för 2 ÅR SEDAN I mitt inlägg UD/RK: s lönepolitik:

”Föga anade man då vad som komma skulle. Jo, nog blev det individuell lönesättning alltid! Dvs. chefens gunstlingar och favoriter stack iväg som en raket vad det gäller löneutvecklingen. Däremot kärnan av duktiga medarbetare, framför allt sådana med lång erfarenhet och stor kompetens, och som alltid (dumt nog som det har visat sig) har ställt upp då det har behövts av en eller annan anledning.

Det är denna kärna av medarbetare som är ryggraden i all verksamhet i varje departement. De kan ”hantverket” utan och innan, lagar etc. och de är en grundförutsättning för den offentliga verksamhetens oförvitlighet. Kort sagt Sveriges fortlevnad som rättsstat.

Det är dessa personer som arbetsgivaren valt att inte belöna i den individuella lönesättningen förlovade land. Trofast förvisad om att de ändå lojalt kommet att ställa upp och därför behöver de inte ”belönas”.

Som lite kuriosa: I USA så finns det en federal etisk kod som gäller för alla statstjänstemän. Koden inleds med föreskriften, att ”Varje offentligt anställd skall sätta lojaliteten mot de högsta moraliska principer och landet före lojaliteten mot personer, parti eller myndigheter”. Någon motsvarande kod finns inte i Sverige. Utan här har det förutsatts, av hävd och gammal vana, att det är så statstjänstemän skall fungera. Det är med andra ord dessa kärnmedarbetare vi talar om och som utgör garanten för att det verkligen blir så.”

”Vi anses ju gubevars vara SÅ viktiga att vi har strejkförbud. Det märkliga är ju bara att om vi anses SÅ viktiga för samhällets funktion och överlevnad att vi måste ha strejkförbud (vi är en av de få yrkesgrupper som har det), varför har detta då inte synts eller markerats genom t.ex. våra löner och övriga arbetsvillkor??

Hittills har jag aldrig fått något bra svar av vår käre arbetsgivare, vare sig lokalt eller centralt.

Så ser situationen ut på det Utrikesdepartement som sägs utgöra en så viktig del av vårt värn av Sverige och våra relationer med omvärlden.”

Och situationen har bara blivit värre sedan dess.

Ex. det nya sjukvårdsförsäkringen utomlands, som mycket brådstörtat infördes utan förvarning den 27 april i år och skulle börja gälla den 1 maj. DVS. 3 DAGARS FÖRVARNING FÖR ETT HELT NYTT SJUKVÅRDS FÖRSÄKRINGSSYSTEM, där personalen kan få ligga ute med mycket stora sjukvårdskostnader innan de får ersättning.

Undrar hur svenska folket skulle reagera om reageringen plötsligt beslöt att slopa försäkringskassan och hela sjukvårdssystemet och införa ett helt nytt system 3 dagar senare? Och där man får betala sjukvårdskostnaderna direkt och kontant för att först LÅNGT senare få ersättning.

En vanlig svensk familj, där den ena partnern jobbar åt UD utomlands förutsätts alltså att ha en stor kontant buffert för att betala sina sjukvårdskostnader.

Intressant grepp av ”välfärdslandet” Sverige.  Vi är i praktiken tillbaks till det gamla ”feodala” UD där bara adel och rika borgare kunde jobba eftersom man inte fick någon riktig lön utan det var äran att få jobba där som räknades. Och man förväntades leva på sina tillgångar.

(Vid första världskrigets slut så var ca 50% av UD personal adliga, strax före andra världskriget var siffran omkring 30%).

Skillnaden numera är att det är en POLITISK adel som sitter på alla stolar samtidigt.

Och det här är inget ”gnäll” från champagnepimplande stroppar utan en beskrivning av TOTALT ORIMLIGA ARBETSVILLKOR för duktiga och kompetenta människor med familjer som valt att tjänstgöra i UD för att främja och ta till vara Sveriges intressen.

Och jodå, det finns inkompetenta personer på UD också, liksom över allt annars i Sverige.  Både på ”höga” och ”låga” positioner. Och där dessa personer har bidragit till denna förvrängda bild som råder om UD och arbetsvillkoren där. Vilket har fått till följd att mycket allvarlig kritik av arbetsmiljö och arbetsvillkor kan lätt avfärdas som ”tjafs” och ”gnäll” från privilegierade personer.

Och ingenting kan vara längre från sanningen. För att det finns några pellejönsar så skall inte en hel yrkeskår drabbas av fördomar och förakt.  Och där absurda arbetsvillkor och förhållanden (sett med vanliga svenska ögon) kan negligeras i trygg förevisning om att INGEN bryr sig.

Som någon så träffsäkert skrev: ”Bildt ägnar ingen uppmärksamhet åt den förvaltning, utrikesdepartementet, han är chef för. UD har istället blivit utrikesministern rundningsmärke”.

Jo, det finns faktiskt en person som har varit värre om någon undrar – Ola Ullsten (1979-82). Han var TOTALT ointresserad av ALLT som hade med departementet och den faktiska skötseln av myndigheten att göra och med ALLA dessa människor som arbetade där.

I EU:s nya utrikestjänst EEAS (the European External Action Service) så kommer antalet tjänster (och inflytandet) att fördelas mellan medlemsstaterna beroende delvis på fördelningsnyckeln till EU-budgeten. Sverige bidrar med ungefär 2,5-2,7% (varierar lite från år till år).

Det innebär att Sverige kan bidra med omkring 5-7 tjänstemän.

Och vilket inflytande kommer Sverige att få med dessa ca 2,6% när det finns drakar som Frankrike, Tyskland och Storbritannien som är vana att bestämma och få sin vilja igenom.

Tillkommer sedan alla halv och små drakar som Italien, Spanien, Polen etc.

Tror någon att EEAS kommer att tillvarata svenska intressen med de faktiska styrkeförhållanden som råder?

I Sveriges riksdag så måste man ha 4% för att överhuvudtaget komma in.

Kan någon nämna någon politisk församling (kommun, landsting, riksdag, partier etc.) där en grupp på ca 2,6 % har något som helst inflytande över någonting?

Än mindre har kommit in över spärrarna till dessa politiska organ?

Jag skall sluta här. Jag kunde fortsätta och ge ett otal exempel både ute och hemma på det som jag bara som hastigast har nämnt här ovan. Och mycket sorgset konstatera att den kompetenta personal och deras familjer som sägs utgöra ett första värn av Sverige (då vi numera inte har ett försvar som kan försvara Sveriges territorium), och sägs vara så viktiga för våra relationer och utrikeshandel, i många fall behandlas som skit.

Eller för att citera socialdemokraternas motion 2009/10:U340

”anför Socialdemokraterna att Sveriges representation utomlands är en viktig fråga för vår utrikes-, bistånds- och näringspolitik. Sverige måste ha en väl rustad utrikesförvaltning både på Utrikesdepartementet i Stockholm och på plats ute i världen för att kunna förstå politiska, ekonomiska och kulturella trender och för att kunna upprätthålla relationer som ligger till grund för samarbete på en mängd viktiga områden.”

http://www.riksdagen.se/webbnav/?nid=3324&doktyp=yttr&dok_id=GX05UU1y&rm=2009/10&bet=UU1y

Så näpet då att det var just sossarna som genomdrivit slaktandet av UD och försämringen av alla villkor främst på utlandssidan.

Hyckleri någon? Och förakt för hårt arbetande tjänstemän med familjer och deras levnadsvillkor under ofta svåra förhållanden utomlands.

Se även mina inlägg:

UD/RK: s lönepolitik

Sverige talar om för Världen hur den borde styras

Så här skriver några tidningar om det hela:

Nya utrikeschefen i EU får stor makt

http://www.dn.se/fordjupning/europa2009/nya-utrikeschefen-i-eu-far-stor-makt-1.982833

”Och dokumentet som DN tagit del av visar att den nya chefen för EU:s gemensamma utrikes- och säkerhetspolitik blir en tung och självständig maktspelare i Bryssel som styr över sin egen budget och sin egen personal.

Utrikestjänsten ”ska vara en avdelning av sui generis-karaktär (unik till sin karaktär), skild från kommissionen och rådssekretariatet. Den bör ha autonomi när det gäller sin administrativa budget och sin personalhantering”, heter det i dokumentet.

Varken EU-kommissionen eller EU-parlamentet får inflytande över denna nya maktbastion.”

Redesigning foreign policy

http://www.europeanvoice.com/article/imported/redesigning-foreign-policy/66221.aspx

“The Lisbon treaty will change the way the EU conducts its foreign policy, both on the top level and on the ground.

The Treaty of Lisbon will reshape the European Union’s institutional architecture for foreign policy from top to bottom. The top – a new-styled high representative for foreign affairs and security policy – is well-defined in the treaty. It is far better defined than the other senior position that the treaty creates, a president of the European Council.

The bottom – a new European diplomatic corps – is left in large part up to the new foreign policy chief, who early in his tenure is to propose to member states the details of its role and functioning.  Increased authority The Lisbon treaty hands the new high representative considerable authority. It adds the function of vice-president of the European Commission in charge of external relations to the existing portfolio of the current high representative, Javier Solana, who oversees the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) from the Council of Ministers secretariat.

He – or she – will also chair the monthly meetings of member states’ foreign ministers, replacing the foreign minister of the country holding the EU’s rotating presidency, the current arrangement.

Through this personal union of functions that are currently split between the European Commission and the Council of Ministers, the treaty aims to overcome some of the debilitating divisions between the two institutions that have hampered the EU’s foreign policy in past years. The development of the CFSP over the past ten years has outpaced the growth of co-ordination mechanisms in Brussels, although conditions on the ground often look less grim thanks to ad-hoc arrangements. The same applies to the EU’s military and civilian missions (13 at present, compared with none in 2002).

Double-hatting

The ‘double-hatting’ of the new high representative, which anchors the function both in the Commission and the Council of Ministers, is designed to address a problem that became evident years ago – a lack of strategic coherence between foreign policies driven by the Commission and by the member states.

In theory, the division between the two services is straightforward. The Commission handles routine policies towards third countries – enlargement, neighbourhood relations, trade, development assistance, humanitarian aid and so forth – while the high representative deals with security challenges, especially those that require a crisis response.

In practice, the two have frequently been at odds over who should do what, both in the field and at the policy-making level. Bernard Kouchner, France’s foreign minister, restated the problem before the French National Assembly last week (14 October) when he told parliamentarians that the EU’s activities in Afghanistan were “too dispersed between the Commission, the EU’s special representative and member states”. This, Kouchner said, prevented the EU from exercising its political leadership. “The Treaty of Lisbon,” he concluded, “will help us take our rightful place.”

Autonomous external service

At the local level, trial-runs of double-hatting have been undertaken in Macedonia and towards the African Union. These pilot projects are perhaps best seen as a precursor of the Lisbon treaty’s other main innovation in foreign policy – the European External Action Service (EEAS). The new service, which is to be set up as a body with autonomy from both the Council and the Commission, is to “assist” the high representative in fulfilling his mandate, according to the treaty, and is to draw its staff from member states, the Council and Commission. The main outlines of the EEAS are currently being debated. Its scope, status, financing and staffing are all up for negotiation because of the Lisbon treaty’s vagueness. The travails of ratifying the treaty led to an unhelpful secrecy about anything to do with the EEAS – policymakers in Brussels did not want to be perceived as taking ratification of the treaty for granted, for fear of alienating those in Ireland who were yet to vote in a second referendum.

After the Irish ‘Yes’ vote, some of this secrecy has now been lifted and the EU is now trying to make up for lost time and get the EEAS up and running. But the sense of haste and improvisation is less than ideal for laying the foundations of the EU’s new foreign policy. “

Smoothing the road from Nice to Lisbon

http://www.europeanvoice.com/article/imported/smoothing-the-road-from-nice-to-lisbon/66393.aspx

“Foreign policy

Member states’ security ambassadors, who meet in the Political and Security Committee (PSC), will meet under the chairmanship of a representative of the foreign policy chief, that is, a senior official of the European External Action Service (EEAS), the EU’s diplomat corps established under Lisbon.

The remit of the EEAS, whose exact set-up will be proposed by the high representative within a month of taking office and endorsed by EU leaders by next April, appears to have determined member states’ agreement, reached last month, on who should be in charge of which working groups. Nearly 40 working groups in the field of external relations prepare the Council’s work.

Member states have agreed that working groups in the field of trade and development will continue to be chaired by the EU’s rotating presidency, together with a few other groups including those on terrorism, international law and consular affairs.

By contrast, working groups on geographic areas, on most thematic areas such as non-proliferation or human rights, and on matters of security and defence will be chaired by an EEAS official representing the foreign policy chief. Even this second group of working parties, however, will continue to be chaired by the rotating presidency for a transition period – yet to be determined – of either six or 12 months.

The rules of procedure of the Council of Ministers will need to be adapted to reflect these changes.”

Se även

http://www.dn.se/fordjupning/europa2009/tva-nya-viktiga-poster-i-bryssel-1.982831

http://europaportalen.se/print_page.php?compID=1&newsID=45647&page=18001&preview=article&print=true&more=2

Se även mina inlägg om Lissabonfördraget:

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

EU, Lissabonfördraget och den ”NYA” övervaknings stormakten

varning-2

EU, Lissabonfördraget och den ”NYA” övervaknings stormakten

31 oktober, 2009

Välkommen till Stasi och KGB land DAG 304 – OM 31 DAGAR SÅ KOPPLAR FRA IN SIG FYSISKT PÅ ALLA KABLAR. Och då är den TOTALA MASSAVLYSSNINGEN AV SVENSKA FOLKET ETT FULLBORDAT FAKTUM.

Tack för det Sveriges riksdag och regeringen!

”I mitt inlägg   Välkommen till Stasi och KGB land DAG 280 – Är våra riksdagspolitiker hjärndöda?  så ställde jag frågan om våra riksdagsledamöter är hjärndöda.

Eller älskar de verkligen TOTAL Övervakning OCH STÄNDIG MASSAVLYSNING av HELA SVENSKA FOLKET – INKLUSIVE DEM SJÄLVA???

Nu vet vi svaret våra riksdagsledamöter är FAKTISKT hjärndöda. Och i total avsaknad av principer och ideologier.

158 RÖSTADE AKTIVT FÖR ATT INSKRÄNKA VÅRA FRI- OCH RÄTTIGHETER och  rättsstaten för vanliga medborgare I BROTT MOT grundlagen, Europakonventionen om mänskliga fri- och rättigheter och FN: s deklaration om mänskliga rättigheter.

Välkommen till Stasi och KGB land DAG 287: Nu vet vi svaret – våra riksdagsledamöter är FAKTISKT hjärndöda

Och fulspelet om telekom paketet fortsätter i vanlig EU stil.

Och lägg märke till att denna TOTALA nonchalerande av parlamentets vilja sker ENLIGT DET MEST ”DEMOKRATISKA” sättet av de tre varianter som finns. Mer än så här betyder inte europaparlamentet, och i förlängningen Europas folk, för makthavarna i EU.

DVS: INGENTING!

Och det är denna modell som våra intälägänta riksdagsledamöter och regeringar unisont hyllar som det ”stora demokratiprojektet”.

Vi, de Europeiska folken, kan tycka vad vi vill, det skiter man FULLSTÄNDIGT i från Europabyråkratin. They couldn’t care less.

Och lägg märke till ATT INGENTING AV DETTA HAR KUNNAT SKE UTAN VÅRA POLITIKERS AKTIVA, OCH I EN DEL FALL TYSTA, MEDGIVANDE OCH DELTAGANDE.

Jag har skrivit tidigare om Lissabonfördraget och dess katastrofala betydelse för svenska folkjets demokrati, våra fri- och rättigheter och våran rättstradition.

Läs här:

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

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

They, the politicians, take away our freedom and privacy – And All for nothing

Speech of the President Václav Klaus in the European Parliament

Där man röstar 5,6 gånger per MINUT i Europaparlamentet:

MEP sometimes vote up to 450 times in 80 minutes. I don’t know what is going on half the time. The civil servants draw up the list and if it’s vote nr 58 and the paper says vote YES you vote yes. And if it’s vote nr 59 and the paper says vote NO you vote no. It’s an absolute farce! It is a complete shame masquerading as democracy.”

Eller hur man MEDVETET har gjort Lissabonfördraget oläslig:

“They decided in the council that it’s not allowed FOR ANY institution in the European Union to print a consolidated version THAT CAN BE READ before it has been approved in ALL 27 member states.”

Eller hur Lissabonfördraget ger EU makten att UTÖKA SINA MAKTBEFOGENHETER UTAN ATT FRÅGA MEDLEMSSTATERNA OM LOV:

“The constitution gives EU the ability to amend ITSELF in the future without having to refer to more intergovernmental conferences. It gives EU the ability to legislate over literally every single aspect of our lives.”

“As Italian interior minister, Giuliano Amato said at the London School of Economics last February, ”The good thing about not calling it a constitution is that no one can ask for a referendum.

“…så här inför EU valet, kommer här några officiella citat från de som var direkt inblandade i Lissabon fördraget. (Det finns mycket mer).

Som på ett glasklart sätt visar vad det handlar om. Och hur MEDVETET detta falskspel är.

Där den politiska eliten i Europa AVSIKTLIGT konstruerade Lissabon fördraget så att vanligt folk INTE skall förstå och märka vad som är på gång.

EU ’är ju gubevars ett ”demokrati och fredsprojekt” i den officiella retoriken. När det i själva verket handlar om den största makt överflyttningen i Europas historia från folket och lokala parlament till EU byråkratin. Som är utformat efter den franska byråkratiska modellen som den såg ut på 50 talet. Med en oerhört hierarkisk och centralstyrd förvaltning som inte behöver motivera eller redovisa någonting inför medborgarna.

Och som vanligt har massmedia och våra politiker fullständigt svikit i denna fråga. Det har i och för sig funnits enstaka artiklar i pressen, och enstaka politiker som har beskrivit SMÅ DELAR av detta. Men de är skrivna på ”EU byråkratiska så ingen vanlig människa förstår vad det egentligen handlar om.”

Eller hur EU kommissionen består av dömda brottslingar:

“EU commission – Interesting “gang” wouldn’t you say:

Jailed for embezzlement and banned from holding public office for 2 years

– Old communist apparatchik

– Another old communist apparatchik convicted for providing false information and he is in charge of the EU’s (SIC!) Audit and Anti Fraud unit

Accused of lying to the European Parliament by auditor

– 20 of the commissionaires has said that they intend to IMPLEMENT the constitution EVEN before it is ratified”

Eller om hur formellt sett så olika partier ur ideologisk ståndpunkt (konservativa, liberala och socialdemokratiska ) ÄNDÅ röstar lika i 97% av EU-parlamentets slutomröstningar:

”Vi är många som har fått nog!

Det finns enstaka undantag bland de svenska europarlamentarikerna som gör ett bra arbete därnere. Men det spelar liksom ingen roll i det stora hela. Då det är partiledningar här hemma och partigrupperna därnere som verkligen bestämmer när det verkligen gäller.

Och röstsiffrorna visar just detta.

När sossar, moderater, folkpartister, Kd röstar lika i 89-91% av fallen.

Och när konservativa, liberala och socialdemokratiska ledamöter i 97 procent av alla EU-parlamentets slutomröstningar är överens.

Vad skall vi DÅ med dessa partier till? Och vad tog deras ideologier och partiprogram vägen? Och vad är det för ”parlament” där så officiellt ”motstridiga” ideologier är SÅ eniga

Det påminner lite grann om Nordkorea. Men där är man ju till 99,98% överens

Till detta tillkommer sedan detta intressanta fenomen att man i Bryssel röstar igenom saker som man officiellt i Sverige sagt att man inte stöder. Och som är 180 grader ifrån vad man säger i valmanifest och partiprogram.

Etc. Etc.”

”(Enligt planen förefaller det som om man bara tänker ge parlamentets delegation en timma den 4 november för att diskutera det förslag som slutligen kommer att komma från ministerrådet…..

”Åter igen blir det hårresande arbetsformer och framstressade beslut. Så här får det inte gå till. Och det är uppseendeväckande att EU:s enda folkvalda representanter, Europaparlamentet, låter sig behandlas som en femåring.)”

”Det jag kan säga med säkerhet är att jag tycker det här är ett fullständigt barockt sätt att ta fram lagstiftning på. Komplicerade juridiska texter som tas fram muntligt under kaosartade omständigheter, under en ordförande som beter sig på ett sätt som aldrig någonsin skulle accepteras i ett vanligt svenskt elevråd.”

”En ännu mer executive summary:

Rådet visar fullständigt förakt för parlamentet genom att helt bortse från allt det säger. De tänker köra över parlamentet och en gång för alla visa att det är de som bestämmer, och därmed basta.

Det här förfarandet kallas för ”medbeslutande”, för den som undrar. Det framhålls ofta som ett exempel på hur demokratiskt EU är.”

Etc. Etc.

Här nedan kommer några kommentarer från två personer som aktivt var involverade i telekom förhandlingarna:

Telekompaketet: Detta har hänt

http://christianengstrom.wordpress.com/2009/10/18/telekompaketet-detta-har-hant/

Telekompaketet: ny text

http://christianengstrom.wordpress.com/2009/10/21/telekompaketet-ny-text/

Kaotiskt delegationsmöte om telekompaketet

http://christianengstrom.wordpress.com/2009/10/21/kaotiskt-delegationsmote-om-telekompaketet/

Enligt reglerna är det Europaparlamentets 27-mannadelegation som bestämmer vad parlamentet ska säga till rådet. Sedan är det de tre förhandlarnas jobb att utifrån det mandatet sköta de så kallade trialogsamtalen med rådets representanter.

På det förra delegationsmötet den 7 oktober gjordes det helt klart att förhandlarna inte hade något mandat att föra diskussioner utifrån de förslag som rådet och kommissionen hade presenterat, utan att de skulle hålla fast vid parlamentets skrivning av tillägg 138, och försöka få rådet att berätta formellt vad de hade för invändningar mot det.

Innan gårdagens möte hade det förekommit uppgifter om att förhandlarna hade struntat i sitt förhandlingsmandat och svikit parlamentet. Det uppgifterna visade sig vara till 100% sanna.

När de tre förhandlarna träffade rådet hade de bara pratat om rådets och kommissionens förslag, och inte alls om parlamentets 138. Inte nog med att Vidal-Quadras inte gjorde någon hemlighet alls av det när vi träffades igår. Han hade dessutom mage att påstå att delegationen enhälligt hade givit honom det mandatet den 7 oktober.

Philippe Lamberts protesterade å det skarpaste mot den här verklighetsförfalskningen, och påpekade att det var både ohederligt och oprofessionellt av förhandlarna att bete sig så. Då tyckte Vidal-Quadras att Lamberts var ohövlig. Själv ansåg han inte att han hade gjort det minsta fel.

Jag backade upp Lamberts med att säga att jag hade precis samma uppfattning om vilket mandat förhandlarna hade fått på det föregående mötet. Eva-Britt Svensson (V) gjorde det också, men så mycket längre än så kom inte diskussionen i sak på den här punkten.

Den här diskussionen beskriver Lena Ek (C) som att vi ”mest gnällde om procedurfrågor”. Den beskrivningen får stå för henne. Om hon inte bryr sig om att de utsedda förhandlarna faktiskt representerar det mandat de fått av delegation, utan tycker det är okay om de kör sitt eget race och kuckilurar som de vill med rådet, då får hon tycka det.”

”Det jag kan säga med säkerhet är att jag tycker det här är ett fullständigt barockt sätt att ta fram lagstiftning på. Komplicerade juridiska texter som tas fram muntligt under kaosartade omständigheter, under en ordförande som beter sig på ett sätt som aldrig någonsin skulle accepteras i ett vanligt svenskt elevråd.

Det är otroligt mycket som skulle behöva förbättras i den här processen. Lena Ek och Centern får ursäkta, men jag tycker den här hanteringen av procedurfrågorna är både ovärdig och farlig.”

Ett hån mot parlamentet

http://christianengstrom.wordpress.com/2009/10/22/ett-han-mot-parlamentet/

För den som inte känner för att gräva ner sig i textjämförelser kan jag ge en executive summary:

Rådet har strukit alla formuleringar som parlamentet ville ha in för att garantera att ingen ska kunna stängas av från internet utan föregående rättegång, och gått tillbaka till något som i sak är identiskt med det som rådet och kommissionen tidigare föreslagit.

En ännu mer executive summary:

Rådet visar fullständigt förakt för parlamentet genom att helt bortse från allt det säger. De tänker köra över parlamentet och en gång för alla visa att det är de som bestämmer, och därmed basta.

Det här förfarandet kallas för ”medbeslutande”, för den som undrar. Det framhålls ofta som ett exempel på hur demokratiskt EU är.

Telekompaketet: Man häpnar!

http://henrikalexandersson.blogspot.com/2009/10/telekompaketet-man-hapnar.html

”I övrigt spårade det ur fullständigt. Massor med muntliga ändringar och kompletteringar kom in till Trautmanns kompromiss i ”direktsändning”. Efter en muntlig uppläsning (som ifrågasattes) begärde ordföranden mandat att få ta upp fortsatta diskussioner med rådet utifrån detta.

Vi förväntades alltså att ge klartecken till en rörig och delvis ifrågasatt text utan att ha fått en chans att läsa igenom den.

De gröna / Piratpartiet och vänstergruppen kunde inte gå med på detta. Vi ville ha en chans att se, läsa igenom och granska texten först. Vilket man alltså vägrade ge oss. Därför röstade vi helt enkelt nej till att ge delegationens ledning mandat att föra diskussionen vidare med rådet. Men, naturligtvis var vi i minoritet. [Förtydligande: Det röstades formellt inte. Men vi meddelade tydligt att vi inte stod bakom det ”konsensusbeslut” som fattades om att gå vidare.]

Detta är väldigt anmärkningsvärt. En lagstiftande församling vägras tillgång till ett vettigt beslutsunderlag. Istället förväntas man, i hast, ge klartecken in blanco till en text som verkligen behöver granskas – och i vilken det finns en uppenbar risk för slamkrypare.

Så får lagstiftning inte gå till!

Telekompaketet: Dagens trialog

http://henrikalexandersson.blogspot.com/2009/10/teledatalagringen-dagens-trialog.html

”Dock verkar det som om vissa medlemsstater blir allt grinigare ju mer det talas om internetanvändares rättigheter och om medborgerliga fri- och rättigheter i pappren. (Vi vet att fransmännen stretar emot, men en kvalificerad spekulation är att även britterna sätter sig hårt på tvären i ministerrådet.)

Inför nästa rond (Bryssel 4 november) jobbar EU:s svenska ordförandeskap på en ny text som utgår från det papper som låg på bordet i dag.

Vi har fått underhandsinformation om vad de filar på. Det verkar som om de fortfarande vägrar gå med på domstolsprövning innan eventuell avstängning av folk från internet. Däremot vill de ha fler brasklappar om när man skall kunna stänga av folk från nätet.

Såpass!

(Enligt planen förefaller det som om man bara tänker ge parlamentets delegation en timma den 4 november för att diskutera det förslag som slutligen kommer att komma från ministerrådet. Vilket blir tight, även om pappret som sådant sänds ut i förväg. Efter det, samma kväll, blir det möte med hela förlikningskommittén – det vill säga parlamentets 27 ledamöter och rådets 27 ledamöter. Där förväntas vi antagligen säga ja och amen till vad rådet har kommit fram till. Åter igen blir det hårresande arbetsformer och framstressade beslut. Så här får det inte gå till. Och det är uppseendeväckande att EU:s enda folkvalda representanter, Europaparlamentet, låter sig behandlas som en femåring.)

Detta känns helt oacceptabelt. På så många sätt. Kanske skulle detta kunna öppna för en återgång till gamla hederliga 138:an? För det verkar ju inte som om man tänker erbjuda oss något bättre.”

http://henrikalexandersson.blogspot.com/2009/10/rykten-om-telekompaketet.html

http://henrikalexandersson.blogspot.com/2009/10/och-sa-sjunger-vi-alla-we-shall.html

http://henrikalexandersson.blogspot.com/2009/10/measures-against.html

Det är inte bara fildelare som är i farozonen…

http://henrikalexandersson.blogspot.com/2009/10/det-ar-inte-bara-fildelare-som-ar-i.html

”En sak vill jag dock utveckla. Det gäller ministerrådets preliminära kompromissförslag, från trialogmötet förra veckan. Där diskuteras avstängning av användare från internet (och andra åtgärder) i dessa termer…

”…authorising the measures to be taken and to adopt urgent measures in order to assure national security, defence, public security and the prevention, investigation, detection and prosecution of criminal offences.”

Nu handlar det alltså inte bara om fildelare längre.

Avstängning från nätet (och andra ”åtgärder”) kan sättas in i en lång rad fall. Här skall man hålla i minnet att det finns många saker som är ”olagliga” i olika EU-länder. EU:s ramdirektiv mot rasism säger att man inte får förneka folkmord. (Det gäller dock inte alla folkmord. Bara vissa.) Och i Frankrike är det speciellt olagligt att ifrågasätta det turkiska folkmordet på armenier. I många länder är spelsiter förbjudna. På sina håll är läkemedelsinformation (som FASS) förbjuden. I Litauen får man inte skriva positiva saker om bögar. Reglerna för pornografi varierar EU-länderna emellan. Reglerna för reklam för sprit och tobak skiljer sig också. Och många saker som är offentlig handling i Sverige är olagliga att offentliggöra i andra länder.

Fyll gärna på med fler exempel i kommentarerna. Jag tog bara några som jag kom på på rak arm.

Internet kan alltså komma att bli sönderreglerat. Och folk kommer att kunna stängas av från nätet av många olika skäl. Vilka andra ”measures” medlemsstaterna och EU har tänkt sig kan man bara föreställa sig.

Lägg sedan till den europeiska arresteringsordern, som gör att man kan bli utlämnad till ett annat land för en handling som inte är brottslig i ens hemland. Så vad händer om en svensk startar en fransk blogg och ifrågasätter det turkiska folkmordet på armenier? Om en spanjor startar en bögporrsida som vänder sig till en litauisk publik?

(För ett par år sedan greps nätspelbolaget Unibets svenske VD Petter Nylander i Holland, när han var på väg till England – och begärdes utlämnad till Frankrike. Bland annat anklagades han för att ha sponsrat en fransk cykeltävling, vilket bryter mot de franska spellagarna.)

Och för att de ”mesures” man talar om skall kunna sättas in, så måste rimligen även rätten att vara anonym på nätet tas bort.

Det är alltså inte bara fildelare som bör försvara tillägg 138 till telekompaketet – som säger att avstängning av människor från nätet (eller andra, liknande åtgärder) inte får ske utan föregående rättslig prövning.

I ministerrådets preliminära kompromissförslag, som citeras ovan, är ordet ”föregående” rätt och slätt struket.”

Telekomsaker inför veckan som kommer

http://henrikalexandersson.blogspot.com/2009/10/telekomsaker-infor-veckan-som-kommer.html

Om någon undrade varför britterna är så hårdhudade motståndare mot tillägg 138 i EU:s telekompaket (ingen avstängning av folk från nätet utan föregående domstolsprövning) så gav Aftonbladet en bra ledtråd i går.

”Den brittiska regeringen förklarar krig mot de illegala fildelarna. Enligt ett nytt lagförslag ska piraterna kunna stängas av från internet – utan rättslig prövning.”

Det sägs alltså rakt ut att den brittiska regeringen tycker att det där med rättssäkerhet är övervärderat.

Obehagligt.

Och på onsdag är det alltså dags för en ny förhandlingsomgång om EU:s telekompaket.

Uppenbarligen hoppas avstängningsvännerna att det skall bli en snabb process.

Det ligger i luften att ministerrådet vill ha allt klappat och klart nu i veckan. Men parlamentet har ingen anledning att låta sig stressas in i något. Regelverket ger oss tid fram till årsskiftet.

Hur de engelska IP bolagen kämpar emot:

TalkTalk threatens legal action over Mandelson’s filesharing plan

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/oct/29/talktalk-threatens-legal-action-mandelson

“TalkTalk, the second largest internet service provider in the UK, has threatened to launch legal action if business secretary Peter Mandelson follows through with his plan to cut off persistent illegal filesharers’ internet connections.

Carphone Warehouse-owned TalkTalk, which has more than 4 million ISP customers and owns the Tiscali and AOL brands, claimed the government’s plan was based on filesharers being ”guilty until proven innocent” and constituted an infringement of human rights.

”The approach is based on the principle of ‘guilty until proven innocent’ and substitutes proper judicial process for a kangaroo court,” said Andrew Heaney, the executive director of strategy and regulation at TalkTalk. ”We know this approach will lead to wrongful accusations.”

http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20091028-712126.html

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125673511227012955.html

http://www.dontdisconnect.us/

Lisbon Treaty will usher in ‘European surveillance state’

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/6440812/Lisbon-Treaty-will-usher-in-European-surveillance-state.html

“Open Europe, which opposes greater European integration, said that the ratification of the controversial treaty will see powers over home affairs and justice policy “almost totally shifted to the EU level.

That will allow the creation of new EU-wide systems to monitor citizens’ private lives and movements, the think-tank said.”

“If it takes force, individual member-states’ ability to veto new EU-wide measures will be reduced, since it introduces qualified majority voting to most areas of justice and home affairs policy.”

“According to Open Europe, that opt-out is a “smokescreen” concealing the UK government’s role in promoting a common approach to home affairs policies.

In practice, the UK has often been a key driver of policy, and has in some instances even exported domestic initiatives to the rest of the EU, particularly those that increase the power of the state over the individual,” the report said.

In particular, the group said the UK has pushed for new powers to allow the holding and sharing of personal data across the EU, including travel records. Britain has also enthusiastically backed the use of European Arrest Warrants, the report said.

The report also suggests that the use of QMV in home affairs will allow EU ministers to bring in a raft of new surveillance measures, including a centralised system for storing and sharing personal data and “cyber patrols” monitoring internet access records.

New security bureaucracy could also be created, including an EU Committee on Internal Security, which Open Europe described as “a fledgling EU Home Office.”

There will also be more sharing of secret intelligence material between member-states, the report said. The EU already operates a Joint Situation Centre, which pools common intelligence material.

Stephen Booth, the Open Europe analyst who wrote the report, said: “We are fast approaching a situation where the EU will have the full coercive machinery of a state but without the proper democratic controls or robust checks on power that citizens should expect.

How can citizens expect their fundamental rights to liberty and independence from the state to be protected by unaccountable institutions which have a vested interest in creating more laws?

http://henrikalexandersson.blogspot.com/2009/10/jattestaten.html

Men EU handlar inte om det bästa – utan om det värsta.

Den som vill ha ett förbud mot ditt eller datt är nästan alltid mer motiverad, påstridig och högljudd än den som tycker att man borde kunna lämna folk i fred. Särintressen är som femåringar som tjatar tills de får som de vill. Och politiska ingrepp, regleringar och diktat går alltid att motivera med någon av de där goda föresatserna som vägen till helvetet är stensatt med.

Det finns en inneboende, närmast politisk-psykologisk, kraft som gör att centralstyrning och ”harmonisering” oftast landar i ”worst practice”.

Många svenskar röstade ja till EU för att få det bästa av Europa. För att Sverige skulle bli lite mer ”kontinentalt”. (Själv är jag inte oskyldig.) Men det visade sig att ljuset i slutet av tunneln var ett X2000-tåg, på väg i full fart rakt emot oss. (Eller ett TGV, då.)

Och nu skall Lissabonfördraget rullas ut. EU:s politiker kommer att kunna utöka unionens makt utan att behöva fråga medborgarna om lov. EU kommer att ta makten över juridiken, rättsväsendet och övervakningsapparaten. EU kommer att få militär kapacitet. Makten över den politiska klassens väpnade gren, polisen, kommer att överföras till EU.”

Se även:

Indisputable rewording of Amendment 138

http://www.laquadrature.net/en/indisputable-wording-of-amendment-138

Amendment 138 dead by lack of courage of the Parliament

http://www.laquadrature.net/en/amendment-138-dead-by-lack-of-courage-of-the-parliament

Amendment 138: Why does Trautmann persevere in giving up?

http://www.laquadrature.net/en/amendment-138-why-does-trautmann-persevere-in-giving-up

Amendment 138: European Parliament cannot give up citizens’ freedoms

http://www.laquadrature.net/en/amendment-138-european-parliament-cannot-give-up-citizens-freedoms

Memo: Improving Amendment 138 While Preserving its Core Principles

http://www.laquadrature.net/en/improving-amendment-138-while-preserving-its-core-principles

Amendment 138: The Parliament betrayed by its negotiators

http://www.laquadrature.net/en/amendment-138-the-parliament-betrayed-by-its-negotiators

Amendment 138: The European Parliament must stand up against the Council

http://www.laquadrature.net/en/amendment-138-the-european-parliament-must-stand-up-against-the-council

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”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/fra” rel=”tag”>fra</a>

varning-2

Välkommen till Stasi och KGB land DAG 280 – Är våra riksdagspolitiker hjärndöda?

7 oktober, 2009

Eller älskar de verkligen TOTAL Övervakning OCH STÄNDIG MASSAVLYSNING av HELA SVENSKA FOLKET – INKLUSIVE DEM SJÄLVA???

Det är en av de många aspekter jag har så svårt att förstå – Är våra riksdagspolitiker så TOTALT och enfaldigt naiva *******(fyll i tomrummet). Eller är det ännu värre – De förstår inte ens att de inte förstår?? 

Så för dessa riksdagsledamöter samt regeringen skall jag berätta den sedelärande historien om J. Edgar Hoover (chef för FBI från 1924 till 1972).

Nu var han ju INTE chef för FBI så extremt länge p.g.a. sin skicklighet eller ledaregenskaper, (han var däremot utomordentligt skicklig på att ge sig själv bra PR och att ta åt sig äran i de fall FBI lyckades).

Däremot så var han utomordentligt skicklig på att använda FBI: s resurser till att samla material om ALLA makthavare, eller kommande makthavare, i regeringen eller kongressen.

Klanen Kennedy försökte, och misslyckades totalt, med att avlägsna honom från sin tjänst.

Så här sa Lynden B. Johnson (President 1963-69) när en medarbetare frågade honom om varför han behöll Hoover:

”Better to have him inside the tent pissing out, than outside pissing in.”

Så, så kan de gå när man ger en person, eller organisation, total kontroll och tillgång till allt data. Och tänk OM Hoover hade haft tillgång till allt det regeringen nu har beslutat om.

Tänkte inte på det” som en känd TV figur (Peter Dalle) brukade säga till tjänstemannen (Claes Månsson) på patent och registreringsverket.

För att inte tala om vilket “mums” detta material är för utländska underrättelseorganisationer. Att användas vid framtida ”förhandlingar” med Sverige.

Så på det temat kommer här lite blandat kompott om FRA lagen,  hemlig avlyssning , tsunamibanden och Lissabonfördraget. Som alla går tillbaks till denna fundamentala frågeställning som berör kärnan i om Sverige numera verkligen kan kallas en demokrati..

Vi börjar med DN:s ledare om hemlig avlyssning och HUR LITE MAN VET OM DESS EFFEKTIVITET.

Notera vad som sägs om vad som krävs för hemlig avlyssning:

”För att en domstol ska ge polisen tillstånd att i hemlighet avlyssna en persons telefon- och datortrafik krävs att man kan anta att den misstänkte döms till minst 2 års fängelse för brottet.”

Det rör sig alltså om grova brott där straffet måste vara MINST 2 år.

Men för att avlyssna HELA SVENSKA FOLKET som nu kommer att ske med FRA lagen så ”krävs” INGENTING. Inte ens en futtig brottmisstanke där straffet bara är dagsböter.

NIX, nada, niente, nothing…   Man ”BARA” KAN göra det för att politikerna vill!

Sedan tillkommer datalagringsdirektivet m.m. som gör att ”myndigheterna” kan följa din mobiltelefon överallt, se var du befinner dig och vid vilken tid, vilka du ringer eller SMS: r etc. etc.

Alltså TOTAL ÖVERVAKNING OCH REGISTREING av svenska folket.

Där dessa uppgifter dessutom sparas i en mängs olika register och där data från dessa register delges till ”olika intressenter”, både inom och utom landets gränser.

Tack för det Sveriges riksdag och regeringen! Det känns väldigt ”tryggt”.

Notera OCKSÅ den låga effektiviteten.  Och då skall man komma ihåg att i det här fallet så är det DIREKTA insatser mot kända kriminella.

Och vad tror ni blir ”effektiviteten” om man Ständigt avlyssnar ALLA?

Ja, det svaret kan till och med en 5 åring räkna ut. Men inte våra intälägänta riksdagspolitiker och regeringen.

Se bl.a. mina inlägg:

CIA och Bruce Schneier – Varför FRA lagen INTE KOMMER ATT FUNGERA!

Välkommen till Stasi och KGB land – 13!

Välkommen till Stasi och KGB land – 44!

Välkommen till Stasi och KGB land – 46!

Välkommen till Stasi och KGB land DAG 47 – Björck avgår i protest mot FRA lagen

”Hemlig övervakning är ett allvarligt intrång i människors liv. Det kan bara motiveras om det är ett effektivt medel mot mycket allvarliga brott. Och det återstår att bevisa.”

Och vad är då TOTAL OCH STÄNDIG ÖVERVAKNING AV HELA SVENSKA FOLKET????

Ehhh.. Hallå är det någon där???

För första gången på mycket länge så håller vi medborgare varje enskild riksdagsledamot ansvarig för sitt röstande. Det går inte att fegt krypa bakom partiet och partipiskan för att urskulda sitt eget ställningstagande. Varje ledamot är ansvarig gentemot det svenska folket för sitt eget ställningstagande. Det går inte att svika fundamentala demokratiska principer och sedan skylla på partiorder.

Nürnbergrättegången fastslog en gång för alla att ”lyda order” är ingen som helst ursäkt för att genomföra en rättsvidrig och brottslig handling. Ansvaret vilar helt och hållet på den person som väljer att genomför orden. Det finns nämligen alltid ett val. Du kan alltid välja att INTE genomföra en orättfärdig order även om det blir kännbart för dig som individ. Det enda som krävs är nämligen lite civilkurage. Och i Sveriges riksdag så saknas det helt och hållet med några få undantag.

Som sagt – Det är ”värdiga” representanter vi har i riksdag och regering!

Och det blir ÄNNU värre om man lägger till försvarsaspekten. I Sverige skall alltså hela svenska folket massavlyssnas p.g.a. obestämda och odefinierade ”yttre” hot.

Och det hela blir ju ytterligare patetiskt och tragiskt med tanke på att det är samma regering (plus föregående) SOM TOTALT HAR MONTERAT NER VÅRT FÖRSVAR OCH FÖRMÅGAN ATT VÄRNA VÅRT TERRITORIUM.

Se mina inlägg: https://uddebatt.wordpress.com/category/forsvar/

Vi skall alltså massavlyssnas för att skydda oss mot ”yttre” hot SAMTIDIGT SOM VI INTE KAN FÖRSVARA VÅRT TERRITORIUM!

Och för detta skådespel så offrar våra intälägänta politiker svenska folkets integritet och rättssäkerhet!

Så här skrev jag i mitt inlägg: https://uddebatt.wordpress.com/2009/01/01/valkommen-till-stasi-och-kgb-land-dag-1/  och det gäller tyvärr ÄNNU MERA NU.

”Tack vare våra intälägänta politiker som har, i brott mot grundlagen, sålt ut allt vad fri- och rättigheter, och rättssäkerhet heter.

OCH DE FATTAR FORTFARANDE INTE VAD DE STÄLLT TILL MED!

OCH DE VÄGRAR ATT TA NÅGOT SOM HELST ANSVAR FÖR NÅGONTING!

OCH DE VÄGRAR ATT DEBATTERA ELLER FÖRKLARA VARFÖR!

Politikerna har med ”vett och vilja” förklarat krig mot sin egen befolkning genom att klassificera den vanlige svenske medborgaren som ”opålitlig” och ”potentiell brottsling”!

Där vi bara kan ”bevisa” vår oskuld genom att ”snällt” finna oss i en total MASSÖVERVAKNING och MASSAVLYSSNING.

Vi, det svenska folket, måste alltså först ”bevisa” att vi är ”oskyldiga” och ”värdiga” medborgare innan vi finner ”nåd” hos de höga herrarna och damerna.

En total pervertering av den rättsordning som gällt de senaste århundradena – Dvs. att du är OSKYLDIG TILLS NÅGOT ANNAT ÄR BEVISAT BORTOM ALLA RIMLIGA TVIVEL!

Och som en lök på laxen så är det vi, hederliga svenska skattebetalare, som TVINGAS BETALA FÖR VÅR EGEN ÖVERVAKNING OCH KRÄNKNINGEN AV VÅRA FRI- OCH RÄTTIGHETER!

Våra politiker har i och med detta, (dvs. Datalagringsdirektiv, Telekompaket, ACTA, IPRED, IPRED2, FRA1 och FRA 2), ENSIDIGT sagt upp det underförstådda ömsesidiga samhällskontrakt som finns mellan medborgaren och staten.

Dvs. medborgaren avstår från vissa saker mot att staten i gengäld garantera vissa FUNDAMENTALA saker. Såsom fri- och rättigheter och en fungerande rättsordning som syftar till att ge ett skydd för de FUNDAMENTALA DEMOKRATISKA PRINCIPER som ett fritt och demokratiskt samhälle behöver för att bestå.

Det hela bygger just på att det är ömsesidigt – vi avstår frivilligt från vissa saker för att i gengäld garanteras ett skydd från staten vad det gäller våra fundamentala fri och rättigheter. Samt en fungerande rättsordning.

Nu har våra intälägänta politiker sagt upp detta samhällskontrakt! Och totalt ”ryckt undan mattan” för ett demokratiskt samhälle.

Och de är inte ens medvetna om det!

Än mindre verkar de förstå konsekvenserna av detta beslut.

Det betyder också att vi, vanliga svenska medborgare inte längre är bundna av detta samhällskontrakt som våra politiker så total och ensidigt har sagt upp.

VAD VI VERKLIGEN BEHÖVER I DETTA LAND ÄR ETT SKYDD FRÅN ALLA POLITIKER OCH POLITISKA PARTIER SOM HAR ÖVERGETT SINA PARTIPROGRAM OCH SINA IDEOLOGIER!

Och där det bara är en sak som gäller – MAKTEN och MAKTENS BERUSNING!

Och lägg märke till att detta har ingenting med politisk ”färg” eller parti att göra.

Vad det handlar om är försvaret av fundamentala fri- och rättigheter och rättstraditioner.

Och en ”demokrati” värd namnet.”

Ledaren i DN här:

http://www.dn.se/opinion/huvudledare/avlyssning-utan-koll-1.967079

Elektronisk övervakning

Avlyssning utan koll

Publicerat 2009-10-05 00:05

Varje år utsätts allt fler svenskar för hemlig avlyssning. Hur många av dem som döms till straff över två år har ingen tagit reda på. Det är hög tid att undersöka.

För att en domstol ska ge polisen tillstånd att i hemlighet avlyssna en persons telefon- och datortrafik krävs att man kan anta att den misstänkte döms till minst 2 års fängelse för brottet. Då får polisen lyssna och läsa inte bara på de telefonnummer den misstänkte själv har, utan också sådana man vet att han ringer upp.

Samma regler gäller för hemlig kameraövervakning. I båda fallen gäller att de integritetskränkande åtgärderna måste vara av ”synnerlig vikt” för att föra en förundersökning vidare.

För tillstånd för hemlig teleövervakning är kravet att en dom slutar på minst sex månaders fängelse. Då får polisen kontrollera vilka nummer som haft kontakt med varandra när och var, men inte ta del av innehållet. Här kan det handla om barnpornografibrott.

I fjol fick polisen att avlyssna 990 personer, ytterligare 465 fick sin teletrafik övervakad, 77 personer följdes med hemlig kamera. Domstolarna sa bara nej till 8 ansökningar.

Rikspolisstyrelsen och Åklagarmyndigheten, som tillsammans rapporterar om teleavlyssning till regeringen varje år, förklarar det ringa antalet avslag med att ansökningarna är väl underbyggda – och det på grund av att åtgärden är ”resurskrävande och integritetskränkande”. En annan möjlighet är förstås att domstolarna inte tycker det hela är så mycket att bråka om.

Användningen av hemlig övervakning av olika slag har ökat i rask takt. För tjugo år sedan avlyssnades 218 personer, varav 203 för narkotikabrott. För tio år sedan var det 312 personer, där 251 misstänktes för grova drogbrott. I fjol var siffrorna 990 respektive 600. Då var alltså antalet avlyssnade i utredningar om mord, våld och rån och andra grova brott nästan lika stort som det totala antalet för tio år sedan.

Denna utveckling har skett samtidigt som polisen varje år klagat över resursbrist och samtidigt som polisen hävdar att åtgärderna är mycket resurskrävande.

Då vill det till att de ger effekt. Men om de gör det vet ingen. För det har ingen ens försökt undersöka på något vettigt vis, trots att vi genom åren haft fler statliga utredningar om hemliga tvångsåtgärder. I årets rapport från polisen och Åklagarmyndigheten är måttet på effektivitet att avlyssningen lett till att den misstänkte utsatts för ytterligare tvångsåtgärder, som anhållande eller husrannsakan. Det har skett i hälften av fallen.

Dessutom har 75 personer som talat med de avlyssnade i sin tur blivit misstänkta för brott.

De två myndigheterna är inte nöjda med effektivtetsmätningen, resonerar om att antalet misstänkta som avförts från utredningen (det vill säga avlyssnats i ogjort väder) också bör räknas.

Ett givet räknesätt är att följa upp hur många av de avlyssnade som verkligen döms till mer än två års fängelse, vilket är grunden för att tillåta hemlig tjuvlyssning- och -läsning. Men det har aldrig använts.

Av redovisningen för år 2007 framgår att 137 förundersökningar där hemlig avlyssning använts lett till ett eller flera åtal med fällande dom. Inget sägs om längden på straffen. Detta ska sättas i relation till att 966 tillstånd gavs för ändamålet. Andelen dömda är alltså ringa. Men effektiviteten kan vara sämre än så – att polisen lyssnat behöver ju inte betyda att den bevisningen var avgörande för utgången i målet.

Hemlig övervakning är ett allvarligt intrång i människors liv. Det kan bara motiveras om det är ett effektivt medel mot mycket allvarliga brott. Och det återstår att bevisa. Det är dags för justitiedepartementet att göra en grundlig undersökning.

DN

Och vad det gäller Lissabonfördraget så kan man NU Öppet och officiellt göra det man har gjort hela tiden i skymundan. Där EU i det tysta mycket medvetet har jobbat med att införa alla dessa ändringar enligt Lissabonfördraget. Som alltså INTE skulle kunna införas om något land sa NEJ. Eller förens ALLA stater hade skrivit under och ratificerat föredraget.  Allt enligt fördraget och vad ALLA regerings chefer sa vid undertecknandet.

Se mina inlägg om EU och Lissabon fördraget:

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

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

Artikel i SVD här:

http://www.svd.se/nyheter/inrikes/artikel_3610705.svd

”Den svenska regeringen anser dock att kommissionens skrivningar är ”väl försiktiga”, enligt uppgifter till SvD.se. Kommissionen utgick från att Nice-fördraget gäller och därmed krävs enhällighet i beslut inom det rättsliga området.

Men med Irlands ja till Lissabonfördraget och ett förväntat godkännande från både Polen och Tjeckien öppnas möjligheten upp för att gå längre. Den vetorätt som medlemsländerna har inom det rättsliga området idag tas bort om Lissabonfördraget införs och det krävs då enbart kvalificerad majoritet.

– Under förutsättningar att Stockholmsprogrammet ska fungera i en Lissabon-miljö så kommer det att ske en viss ambitionshöjning jämfört med kommissionens meddelande. Men exakt hur är svårt att säga eftersom det fortfarande pågår samtal och förhandlingar med medlemsländerna, säger Anders Hall, stabschef åt Beatrice Ask, till SvD.se.”

Och till sist hur regeringen vränger och förvränger sekretesslagen för att skydda makten. En lag och dess tillämpningar som jag är väl förtrogen med. Och gör PRECIS TVÄRTOM när det gäller våra trafikdata.

Eller som Peter Kadhammar så bra sammanfattar det:

”Bortom skrytet och självgodheten är Sverige ett litet slutet land där eliterna skyddar varandra. ”

Kolumnen i Aftonbladet här:

http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/kolumnister/peterkadhammar/article5916273.ab

Publicerad: 2009-10-07:

Reinfeldt, låt oss se tsunamibanden

Så fort våra älskade ­ledare – socialdemokrater eller moderater – ska beskriva Sverige skryter de om den svenska öppenheten.

Sverige är världens öppnaste land.

Nu vill justitieminister Beatrice Ask och statsminister Fredrik Reinfeldt hemligstämpla magnetbanden som visar datatrafiken i regeringskansliet efter tsunamin i Thailand 2004.

Banden ska vara hemliga i 70 år. Så var det med den öppenheten.

Sverige är världens öppnaste land länge öppenheten inte besvärar regeringen eller dess myndigheter. Om öppenheten kan medföra generande avslöjanden är den samhällsfarlig och då tar man fram hemligstämpeln.

Socialdemokraterna ville också sekretessbelägga tsunamibanden vilket inte är så konstigt. Regeringen Persson gjorde ju bort sig å det grövsta när den sattes på prov i en kris där hundratals svenskar omkom.

Hur ska man förklara att Reinfeldt vill göra samma sak?

Varningen att utomstående kan kartlägga regeringskansliets arbete med hjälp av magnetbanden är ett försök att vända vitt till svart: Ja, det är för att kunna kartlägga regeringskansliets arbete som vi vill se banden. Eller rättare sagt, för att kunna granska regeringskansliets icke-arbete, dess passivitet, usla organisation och möjligen högt uppsatta individers skandalösa inkompetens.

Jämför regeringens ynkliga hantering av tsunamibanden med en verklig storkris.

Under Watergateskandalen, som tvingade den amerikanske presidenten Nixon att avgå, avslöjades att han låtit spela in sina samtal med medarbetare. Richard Nixon ville bevara sina ord för eftervärlden.

När det kom till en utredning om kriminalitet ville han inte lämna ut banden, men kongressen tvingade honom: tusentals timmar av samtal som ger en intim inblick i Nixons sätt att styra USA.

Fredrik Reinfeldt – liksom regeringen Persson – vill hemligstämpla tsunamibanden i 70 år. 70 år!

Först när de saknar all betydelse, när de är en fotnot i vår politiska historia, ska allmänheten få veta vad de innehåller.

Bortom skrytet och självgodheten är Sverige ett litet slutet land där eliterna skyddar varandra.

Peter Kadhammar

Sanna Raymans kommentar i SVD ledarblogg här:

http://blogg.svd.se/ledarbloggen?id=15941

Med hänsyn tagen till regeringens bekvämlighet

Jag läser. Jag fattar inte. Jag ringer upp Beatrice Asks pressekreterare, Martin Valfridsson. För en stund tror jag att jag fattar. Så läser jag lite till och dimper ner i nollkoll-tillståndet igen. Ringer tillbaka. Lägger på, fortfarande osäker på om jag förstår. Är inte ens säker på att regeringen själv gör det

De så kallade tsunamibandens existens, som avslöjades av SvD, är en anomali. Hade vardagen trampat på som vanligt i Rosenbad den där vintern 2004/2005 hade de varit puts väck för längesen. Men nu blev det inte så. I stället plockade någon undan banden och gömde dem i ett skåp. Besvärligt, visst, men så kan det gå. Och nu som då kan man inte frigöra sig från tanken att den som gjorde detta, gjorde det av en anledning. 

Såväl den förra som den nuvarande regeringen har intresserat sig för att oskadliggöra banden. Den parlamentariska e-offentlighetskommittén har sett över frågan och vinnlägger sig om att se till så att besvär av den här arten inte ska återkomma i framtiden. Tricket blir att tryckfrihetsförordningen får ett tillägg: 

”Handling som förvaras hos en myndighet endast som ett led i teknisk bearbetning eller teknisk lagring för annans räkning anses inte som allmän handling hos den myndigheten. En säkerhetskopia anses inte som allmän handling.”

”…särskilt inte en säkerhetskopia som någon lömsk person gömt i ett mörkt rum i Rosenbad”, frestas man tillägga. Det hade också varit kontentan om enbart kommitténs uppfattning hade fått råda. Riktigt så övertydligt väljer inte regeringen att hantera saken. Tsunamibanden finns, alltså kan de vara allmän handling. Således föräras de en helt egen specialbestämmelse i sekretesslagen: 

”Sekretess gäller för uppgift i kopior som i säkerhetssyfte har genererats i regeringskansliets datasystem och som har bevarats med anledning av naturkatastrofen i Asien år 2004, om det inte står klart att uppgiften kan röjas utan fara för att Regeringskansliets verksamhet skadas.”

Regeringen har förstås rätt i att en säkerhetskopia kan vara allmän handling. Tsunamibanden är ju rätt och slätt trafikdata från en given period och innehåller följaktligen både information som är allmän/offentlig och information som inte är det. 

Valfridsson förklarar att tsunamibanden egentligen inte är så intressanta. ”Allmänna handlingar finns ju i vårt arkiv och kan begäras ut därifrån”. 

Joo… Men det vi undrar över är ju varför banden gömdes… Ursäkta ett fräckt påstående, men det verkar ju lite som att banden innehåller något som liksom inte finns i de där arkiven

Vidare är skrivningen i sekretesslagens specialbestämmelse märklig. Regeringen värnar nyspråkligt verksamheten i sitt kansli från faror och försöker få det att låta som om sakens tyngd tangerar rikets säkerhet. Men sådana handlingar har ju redan skydd i Tryckfrihetsförordningen. Den här skrivningen verkar snarare vilja skydda regeringens bekvämlighet. Det är faktiskt inte alls samma sak. 

Samtidigt närmar sig ett nytt FRA-beslut riksdagen. I ljuset av detta är det en särskilt ironisk sorg att se regeringen kämpa för att skydda Rosenbads integritet gällande – trafikdataGemensamt för de båda frågorna är att bekvämlighet har prioriterats högre än grundläggande principer. 

Sanna Rayman 2009-10-05 18:18

Och juristen Mark Klambergs kommentarer:

http://klamberg.blogspot.com/2009/10/regeringens-monumentala-hyckleri.html

tisdag, oktober 06, 2009

Regeringens monumentala hyckleri

Sanna Rayman har skrivit en ledare om varför regeringen inte vill att tsunamibanden ska offentliggöras. Det beror på att tsunamibanden innehåller trafikdata eller på vanlig svenska, information om vem som ringt eller skickat mail till vem inom regeringskansliet. Anledningen till att regeringen inte vill att denna information ska offentligggöras är rimlig, sådan information kan röja regeringskansliet arbetssätt. Jag brukar normalt inte vara en olyckskorp, men sådan information skulle kunna användas av politiska extremister, terrorister och främmande makter till skada för Sverige. I vissa situationer är det dock rimligt att regeringskansliet trafikdata röjs men det måste ske under kontrollerade former, t.ex. som när Johan Hirschfeldts katastrofkommission fick tillgång till banden för att kontrollera vad den förra regeringen gjorde i samband med tsunamikatastrofen 2004. Allt detta har behandlats av den parlamentariskt tillsatta E-offentlighetskommitten.

När det gäller medborgarnas trafikdata är det tvärtom, när en FRA-anställd läckte till SVT Rapport att FRA lagrar och fortsatt avser att i massiv omfattning lagra vanliga svenskars trafikdata (vem som ringer vem) så är det locket på. SÄPO engageras för att jaga rätt på läckan och ingen utredning tillsätts. Senare rapporteras att FRA överför stora mängder rådata (vilket omfattar trafikdata) till andra länder. Lagen som riksdagen har röstat igenom tillåter detta utan att saken diskuterats. Det är en skandal. Ledande politiker vägrar att svara på berättigade frågor.

Som en anekdot kan jag nämna varför jag motsatte mig alliansöverenskommelsen om FRA den 25 september 2008. Det berodde på att regeringen inte ville begränsa omfattningen av FRAs trafikdatalagring eller utbytet med andra länder. Som ett minimum kunde regeringen tillsatt en parlamentarisk utredning med oppositionen. Vid den tidpunkten representerade jag folkpartiet i E-offentlighetskommitten men jag valde som protest mot FRA-överenskommelsen att hoppa av det uppdraget. Cirkeln är sluten.

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”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/fra” rel=”tag”>fra</a>,<a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/F%F6rsvar” rel=”tag”>Försvar</a>

varning-2

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

23 maj, 2009

Som ett komplement till mitt inlägg EU – The inner game and the Corruption that Cost £684 931,5 per hour EVERY hour EVERY day EVERY year. And is increasing. så här inför EU valet, kommer här några officiella citat från de som var direkt inblandade i Lissabon fördraget. (Det finns mycket mer).

Som på ett glasklart sätt visar vad det handlar om. Och hur MEDVETET detta falskspel är.

Där den politiska eliten i Europa AVSIKTLIGT konstruerade Lissabon fördraget så att vanligt folk INTE skall förstå och märka vad som är på gång.

EU ’är ju gubevars ett ”demokrati och fredsprojekt” i den officiella retoriken. När det i själva verket handlar om den största makt överflyttningen i Europas historia från folket och lokala parlament till EU byråkratin. Som är utformat efter den franska byråkratiska modellen som den såg ut på 50 talet. Med en oerhört hierarkisk och centralstyrd förvaltning som inte behöver motivera eller redovisa någonting inför medborgarna.

Och som vanligt har massmedia och våra politiker fullständigt svikit i denna fråga. Det har i och för sig funnits enstaka artiklar i pressen, och enstaka politiker som har beskrivit SMÅ DELAR av detta. Men de är skrivna på ”EU byråkratiska så ingen vanlig människa förstår vad det egentligen handlar om.

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

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

6 maj, 2009

Så här inför EU valet tänkte jag bidra med lite godbitar om hur det egentligen går till i Europaparlamentet och Europa byråkratin.

Och det har INGENTING att göra med det officiella trams som sprids av våra ministrar och politiker.

Nu senast så har vi ju sett ett mycket illustrativt exempel på hur det går till när det gäller Telekompaketet. Där Europarlamentet i flera omgångar röstat för att inför vissa rättsäkerhetsgarantier och vissa garantier för Internetanvändningen (tillägg 138/46 och 166).

Men där rådet och kommissionen genom trixande och manipulation (ex. röst dagordningen) ser till att det till slut blir som de och Frankrike ville från första början.

Läs här om en del av allt detta fulspel:

http://mp.se/templates/Mct_78.aspx?avdnr=11913&number=169376

http://henrikalexandersson.blogspot.com/2009/05/telekompaketet-helvetes-javla-skit.html

http://henrikalexandersson.blogspot.com/2009/05/telekompaketet-citizens-rights.html

http://www.iptegrity.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=334&Itemid=9

http://www.laquadrature.net/en/telecoms-package-when-rapporteurs-betray-eu-citizens

http://www.iptegrity.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=333&Itemid=9

http://www.iptegrity.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=332&Itemid=9

http://www.erikjosefsson.eu/blogg/2009/04/26/faerdigfoerpackat-internet-packat-och-klart

http://www.fjellner.eu/langre-uppdatering-om-telekompaketet/

http://www.laquadrature.net/fr/victory-for-eu-citizens-amendement-138-was-voted-again

http://www.laquadrature.net/lawtracks/telecoms_package/

http://werebuild.eu/wiki/index.php/Main_Page

http://henrikalexandersson.blogspot.com/2009/05/fragor-om-telekompaketet-till.html

http://scabernestor.blogg.se/2009/may/regeringen-far-med-osanningar-lawful-content.html

Så vad Europas folk och europaparlamentet tycker spelar inte så stor roll. I slutändan är det kommissionen och vissa länder som bestämmer hur det blir (i det här fallet Frankrike).

Det är alltså DETTA GÄNG som regeringen vill ge MERA makt genom Lissabonfördraget.

Det är därför det är SÅDAN ENORM PRESS på Irland att de måste rösta IGEN eftersom folket ”röstade FEL”. På samma sätt som folket i Frankrike, Nederländerna och Danmark tidigare ”röstade FEL”.

På samma sätt som man tvingade Irland att rösta en gång till och ”rösta rätt” efter att folket sagt NEJ till Nice fördraget juni 2001.

Inte för att en ny omröstningen egentligen spelar en så stor roll annat än politiskt. Då EU i det tysta (mycket medvetet) är i full färd med att införa alla dessa ändringar enligt Lissabonfördraget. Som alltså INTE skulle kunna införas om något land sa NEJ. Allt enligt fördraget och vad ALLA regerings chefer sa vid undertecknandet.

”Problemet” var ju Irland där MAN MÅSTE folkomrösta när det gäller viktigare förändringar i konstitutionen (artikel 46). I alla andra EU länder  behöver man inte ta en sådan hänsyn till folkviljan utan där kan politikerna glatt bestämma själva oavsett vad medborgarna tycker.

Visst är det skönt med representativ demokrati där folket får sin vilja igenom.

Se även mina inlägg

Välkommen till Stasi och KGB land DAG 110 – Nu får det vara nog! – 2

Speech of the President Václav Klaus in the European Parliament

Sverige talar om för Världen hur den borde styras

Och min kommentar: https://uddebatt.wordpress.com/2009/04/20/valkommen-till-stasi-och-kgb-land-dag-110-%e2%80%93-nu-far-det-vara-nog-2/#comment-5190

”Vi är många som har fått nog!

Det finns enstaka undantag bland de svenska europarlamentarikerna som gör ett bra arbete därnere. Men det spelar liksom ingen roll i det stora hela. Då det är partiledningar här hemma och partigrupperna därnere som verkligen bestämmer när det verkligen gäller.

Och röstsiffrorna visar just detta.

När sossar, moderater, folkpartister, Kd röstar lika i 89-91% av fallen.

Och när konservativa, liberala och socialdemokratiska ledamöter i 97 procent av alla EU-parlamentets slutomröstningar är överens.

Vad skall vi DÅ med dessa partier till? Och vad tog deras ideologier och partiprogram vägen? Och vad är det för ”parlament” där så officiellt ”motstridiga” ideologier är SÅ eniga

Det påminner lite grann om Nordkorea. Men där är man ju till 99,98% överens

Till detta tillkommer sedan detta intressanta fenomen att man i Bryssel röstar igenom saker som man officiellt i Sverige sagt att man inte stöder. Och som är 180 grader ifrån vad man säger i valmanifest och partiprogram.

Etc. Etc.”

Artikel on EU parlamentarikernas löner och alla förmåner:

http://www.dn.se/fordjupning/europa2009/parlamentarikerna-far-chockhojd-lon-1.849544

Parlamentarikerna får chockhöjd lön

Efter valet får EU-parlamentarikerna höjd lön med 49 procent, från 54.500 kronor i månaden till cirka 81.000 kronor (7.400 euro).

Men parlamentarikerna har också förmåner värda flera miljoner kronor per år:

Pengar för att anställa en eller flera assistenter (max 2,3 miljoner kronor per år).

Traktamente, exempelvis när parlamentet sammanträder (3.278 kronor per dag).

Ersättning för ”allmänna utgifter” (drygt 550.000 kronor per år. Halva denna ersättning fortsätter att betalas tre månader efter mandattiden.)

Reseersättning för deltagande i parlamentets arbete. (Inget maxbelopp).

Reseersättning för arbetsresor i länder utanför Sverige (max 45.600 kr per år).

Ersättning för språk- och datakurser (max 55.000 kr).

Olycksfallsförsäkring (täcker läkarkostnader upp till 82.500 kronor per tillfälle).

Livförsäkring (faller ut vid dödsfall eller vid 60 års ålder, om man suttit minst tio år som ledamot).

Ålderspension: För varje år som parlamentariker får man 3,5 procent av lönen i pension från 63 års ålder (max pension är 70 procent av lönen).

Siffrorna bygger på en eurokurs på 11 kronor.

DN

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?

Nigel Farage on who’s who in the EU commission – Interesting “gang” wouldn’t you say:

– Jailed for embezzlement and banned from holding public office for 2 years

– Old communist apparatchik

– Another old communist apparatchik convicted for providing false information and he is in charge of the EU’s (SIC!) Audit and Anti Fraud unit

– Accused of lying to the European Parliament by auditor

– 20 of the commissionaires has said that they intend to IMPLEMENT the constitution EVEN before it is ratified

Expense Allowance Abuse by MEP

€URO-MP Millions Hit the Jackpot with EU

Daniel Hannan MEP: EU double standards on Tibet & Lisbon

On the day before the EU constitution was signed in Lisbon the resistance in Strasbourg demands a referendum across Europe.

As Italian interior minister, Giuliano Amato said at the London School of Economics last February, ”The good thing about not calling it a constitution is that no one can ask for a referendum.

EU Nationalism where you never ever take NO for an answer

Budget Busters!  The auditors have refused to sign off the accounts for 11 years in a row

Kafkesque EU Parliament: Corbett’s Report

European Parliament, Strasbourg, 7 & 9 July 2008. Richard Corbett MEP (PES) presents the Report on the amendments to the rules on the formation of political groups in the European Parliament. The report had not passed the Committee stage, but was nonetheless brought to plenary with ”compromise” amendments and adopted.

END OF NATIONS – EU Takeover & the Lisbon Treaty  – The Chicken Run in the EU Parliament

The constitution gives EU the ability to amend ITSELF in the future without having to refer to more intergovernmental conferences. It gives EU the ability to legislate over literally every single aspect of our lives.

Thos how oppose this treaty are mentally ill

The EU has become a racket

EU Hypocrisy on Climate Change

The EU and the Myth of Consensus on Climate Change

MEP Exposes The EU Lisbon Treaty!!!

They decided in the council that it’s not allowed FOR ANY institution in the European Union to print a consolidated version THAT CAN BE READ before it has been approved in ALL 27 member states

Van Buitenen’s final battle against EU corruption?

Irregularities in OLAF

The real face of European Union 1/6

The real face of European Union 2/6

The real face of European Union 3/6

The real face of European Union 4/6

“MEP sometimes vote up to 450 times in 80 minutes. I don’t know what is going on half the time. The civil servants draw up the list and if it’s vote nr 58 and the paper says vote YES you vote yes. And if it’s vote nr 59 and the paper says vote NO you vote no. It’s an absolute farce! It is a complete shame masquerading as democracy.”

The scrapping of trial by jury

The scrapping of Habeas Corpus

-The scrapping of innocent until proven guilty

-The scrapping of double jeopardy

-The scrapping of non disclosure

The real face of European Union 5/6

The cost to Britain is 1,3 million £ per hour every hour every day”

“This place is THICK with institutional corruption. You can buy an airlaine ticket to Strasburg for £45 return and be reimbursed £800. This has been going on for the last 20 years. The system is fraudulent an ROTTEN to the core.”

6 000 000 000 £ corruption per year. “They are to busy feathering their own nest.”

“The entire European Commission was forced to resign in disgrace”

The whole system is now so rotten that it is unreformable

“For the first time you are going to be ruled by people you cannot sack

The real face of European Union 6/6

“We have to vote for people who will not allow this continues surrender of sovereignty”

“A police fore with diplomatic immunity is an affront to democracy and highly dangerous”

Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”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


%d bloggare gillar detta: