Two weeks of  Kopenhaven really got to me. I was unable to watch the news, because of the omnipresent climate change. I don’t want to hear it anymore, all those lies and all those good-hearted politicians only wanting to save our planet…for god’s sake!

But what it was good for is as follows:

The demonstrators were treated like extremists, the security standards were so very strict that even the reporters got cranky because they weren’t able to report the propaganda as usual. They had to pass security always, even when they wanted to got to toilet. Yeah, poor reporters. Most of the demonstrators were held captive minimum once they attended the demonstrations and were treated more than rough: sitting on the pavement for ours, being beaten by the police and the media seemed to agree with all those actions.

Well, at least, the end (of the year) is nigh, so let’s sit back and watch how this year is going to end.

Although I believe that nothing will ever change politics, politicians and economy, I hope that maybe one day we the peoples of the world will get a chance for real change.

So maybe this is going to be my new years pledge: to see through more of the lies propaganda tells and try to wake up some more sleeping beauties.

So, merry christmas and a revolutionary new year for everyone!

Lubomir Kopecek, political science professor in Brno, spoke with GLOBAL VIEW about Vaclav Klaus’ popularity in the Czech Republic and the president’s vision of the EU.
Interview by Mireille Pelletier

Recently, Czech President Vaclav Klaus has been criticized, mostly negatively, about the Lisbon Treaty, but he is still greatly popular in his own country. What is his particular vision of Europe and the EU that makes him so well-liked?

Having a close look at the beginning of the 1990s, Vaclav Klaus was one of the founding fathers of the Civic Democratic Party (ODS), the most important Czech right wing party and also one of the fathers of the economic transformation. Therefore, a large segment of the Czech society sees Vaclav Klaus as one of the “heroes” of this era.

It is important to mention that his aims and the orientations in the 1990s are connected with several generations of Czech people. He is associated with the regime change after 1989, with the improvement of the Czech economy, and with changes in Czech politics. In this way, Vaclav Klaus is strongly entrenched in Czech society.

This is a man who has a big reputation and is appreciated; not only by the right but by many sides in Czech society. Many people do not agree with Mr Klaus, but he is respected and visible.

Mr Klaus wanted to put a footnote on the Lisbon Treaty with the so-called Benes decrees. Do you think that Czech people think that he is right to do so, or is it perceived as unnecessary?

Associate Professor Lubomir Kopecek from Masaryk University in Brno was talking to GLOBAL VIEW about Vaclav Klaus.

Five or six years ago, the ODS was opposed to the Lisbon Treaty, but the party changed its opinion to a more pragmatic view. Now the party’s leader, Mirek Topolanek, says that they are not in favour of the Lisbon Treaty, but they do not resist it. Other parts of the Czech political spectrum, like the Social-Democrats, the Christian-Democrats and the Greens, strongly support the Lisbon Treaty. Generally speaking, in the Czech society there is not a big Euro-optimism linked to the Lisbon Treaty.

Vaclav Klaus is very often categorized as europhobic. Do you think that this is the case or do you share the view that this is far-fetched?

Vaclav Klaus is scared of the trajectory in which the EU has evolved over the last 15 or 20 years. I do not know if this can be labelled europhobic. From my point of view, it is euroscepticism. He has not reacted against European integration; he has reacted only against the direction.

The deep end of European integration, from the point of view of Mr Klaus, is happening too early and might not be such a good thing, because we do not have something in common as “European people.” Instead we have many nations and many different cultures. The Lisbon Treaty does not stipulate that there will be supra-nation or supra–state, but we in Europe are in a situation in which Mr Klaus considers the Lisbon Treaty as one of the steps in this direction.

Mr Klaus even compared the EU to the former USSR. Do you share the view that the Czech president sees the EU as a threat to democracy, since the populations do not have a real voice?

You refer to an EU model, which I think for Mr Klaus is the EU after the Lisbon treaty. For Mr Klaus there is some “danger” from the EU. After the Maastricht Treaty, the EU turned into an organisation or quasi-state, which is not democratic and is against the nation state.

The EU gives more power to bigger nations and less to smaller ones?

Yes, as well. I observe that Vaclav Klaus looks at how the EU is functioning and its move towards supra-national decisions. It does not have so much to do with the power of bigger states. This factor is also important, but I think for Mr Klaus the mechanisms and the functioning of the EU after the Lisbon treaty are generally “dangerous.” Nevertheless, I personally believe the biggest problem is the shift of the EU to a quasi-state organisation.

What expectations do Czech people have on the EU in general?

Generally, following the enlargement of the EU and EU-membership of the Czech Republic in 2004, the majority of Czech people stated that the EU is a good thing. Be that is it may, this is a general opinion only. With a closer look, the opinions prove to be different, because the EU interferes more in the spheres of taxes or social and foreign policy.

One other important thing for the majority of Czechs is the fact that the EU is something that is located in Brussels. It is not present in the Czech reality. It is one of many problems that European institutions, European structures and European politicians are far away from the point of view of Czech people.

People in the Czech Republic do not see what is going on in the EU?

This is a problem because the common, everyday man thinks that the EU is something that is outside the reality of his country and fellow citizens. We live in the reality of some village, region or nation state. We have issues with the fact that the structural orientation of the EU is not so visible and also with the fact that direct contact with most EU politicians is very weak.

Generally speaking, it is difficult to stay updated of what is going on in Brussels. Given that one lives far away from this epicentre of the EU’s activities, it often does not correspond to the reality of everyday life.

Vaclav Klaus has been often criticized as someone who is contradicting himself.

I do not think he is contradicting himself. We have the EU and there is no other alternative like Central European Unified States. It is unrealistic. However, Vaclav Klaus’ vision is a different European Union. Mr Klaus envisages an EU without deepening integration, an EU without anything like a Commissar for International Relations, as a strong figure in the international community.

For Mr Klaus, the EU should be a relatively loose international organisation with cooperation activities in the spheres of economics and defence, but not in the sphere of common political asylum or common foreign policy. I think for Mr Klaus it is not about time to favour strong integration efforts by the EU.

What would be Mr Klaus’ future vision of the EU?

I do not really know exactly, but if you look at the trajectory of the European Union, you can see that it is subject to changes. I do not know what kind of EU we will see in the coming few years. If you look at the Vaclav Klaus’ strategy, you have to think about the Benes decrees.

This is what he imposed as a condition for signing the Lisbon treaty. If you look at it, it is very clever, because it is not for everyone, but for almost all Czech people. It is the guarantee that the Benes decrees will not change in the future. This is brilliant, because everyone agrees that the change of the decrees is “dangerous” for the Czech Republic.

And if you look at the approach of the Social-Democrats, they said yes to the Benes decrees, they support and agree with the signature of the President, but only if there is a guarantee that the decrees will not change. In this sense, it is a very important demand that Mr Klaus made.

And this is something really important to the Czech people?

Maybe not for the entire country. But if you look at recent public opinion polls, maybe 80-90% of the people support this condition that Mr Klaus imposed.

Mr Kopecek, thank you very much.

Mireille Pelletier conducted this interview for the magazine GLOBAL VIEW in Brno in November 2009.

David Davis

Well, it was nice to dream if only for a second or two. Via the eternally-estimable Devil, we learn that Douglas Carswell has tabled a Bill, asking for a referendum on the UK’s membership of the EU.

It won’t happen like that, of course. Carswell will get his marching orders and P-45 from the Camoron, and for now we’ll have business (or not any) as usual. But one day, one day…..

And to end, a comment on the front of The Devil’s thread on that posting, stated that it says in the Register that “online publications are to be regulated by the PCC”. But not those of Soviets, for these are “marketing material“. Well, the Libertarian Alliance Blog has just this minute become one of the LA’s “marketing publications”. Officially. You have read it here first!

The Libertarian Alliance is a Soviet, at last.

This is an old video (although newly uploaded) and after the last one exposing the evils of Communism and Marxism, thought it best to do the same with our own treasonous snakes.

Many thanks to johnrigs321 for the upload.

Many laws for us, no laws for the Bastards that Be.  We were doomed the day we came into existence.

On Friday 11th December 2009, Paul Gogarty TD, launched a foul mouthed rant at Deputy Emmet Stagg. Maybe he was feeling the pressure of Budget 2010 of which his party, the Green Party are a part of. Unfortunately he may have been better placed facing his leader and telling John Gormley to F**k off, for running this country as far as possible into the ground. But since the Budget was announced, I have not heard of any Green Party member on any media feed saying anything about the Budget. Is this because they are fearful of a backlash against them or do they think that if they say nothing, people will just think it was all the idea of Fianna Fail ?

People who are blind, did not ask to be blind but yet the money they lose is only the cost of a glass of whiskey in the K Club bar. But if we blindfolded some of our Government Ministers, they would surely reverse this decision.

The money a Carer will lose is the price of a cigar to a property developer. But yet they do it for the love of a family member and it is a thankless job and the Government have really let you know how they feel about you. To me, I think you do a fantastic job and I say THANK YOU for being such a caring person.

The money a mother will lose on her Child Benefit is the cost of a lunch in the Leinster House bar.

But to that mother it is the cost of two loaves of bread and two containers of milk or maybe some money off her ESB bill that she has run into arrears with. Or money for school books or uniform or it maybe just a treat for kids because the downturn is not of her kids making.

“ITS NOT MY MAKING, THIS DOWNTURN”

Well this is what we hear from people all the time, trying to justify their uncalculated and afterthought policies that only effect the voiceless.

We let the boss of FAS to resign with a massive pay packet and an Audi car because he would have been entitled to it, had he taken them to court. Run along a few months to last week and the incoming boss of FAS will also be getting a new car and guess what type it is ? you got it, an Audi car. Now what was wrong with the old car, could it not have been kept as it was a FAS car after all.

Better still, why not just let him go and if he dared take FAS to Court, fight him all the way and take the chance.

But they are spineless creatures.

We all voted for the Lisbon Treaty, for or against does not matter but we voted. But yet the Government are not happy with the way the monkeys voted and they bring it back again to us to vote.

At the last local elections, a Fianna Fail councillor called to my day the night before the election. I told him he had some neck calling to my door with what has been going on. He replied that I had it good for ten years and what was wrong with me. I bid him farewell and told him that I hoped he and his colleagues lost their seats. He did lose his seat but soon after the Town Council he sat on gave him a nice juicy reward for doing so. This is wrong, the People spoke by not voting for him and yet he is rewarded by the local authority for losing his seat. Money that could be better spent on local issues not on rewarding the loser.

Some information on Paul Gogarty, if you have never heard of him before his outburst.

Profile of Paul Gogarty TD

First elected to Dáil Eireann in May 2002 and returned in May 2007. Paul Gogarty TD represents the constituency of Dublin Mid West

Paul first joined the Green Party in 1989 and since then he has been active on many issues locally including the promotion of school places, community facilities and public transport. He was elected to South Dublin County Council in 1999 (topping the poll in the Lucan, Palmerstown and Quarryvale area). During his time on the Council he fought tirelessly on behalf of local communities still suffering from the consequences of bad planning decisions made by other political parties.

Paul Gogarty TD represents the constituency of Dublin Mid West which includes the large population areas of Clondalkin and Lucan as well as towns and villages such as Brittas, Newcastle, Palmerstown, Rathcoole and Saggart. Paul is the Green Party’s Spokesperson on Education and Science; Sport; Dublin. He is Chair of the Education and Science Committee in the Oireachtas.

Paul Gogarty TD was instrumental in protecting some of the lands along the Liffey Valley from speculators and pushed far harder than other public representatives to ensure that the new town of Adamstown will be developed in a sustainable manner, with sufficient infrastructure and facilities provided in tandem with housing.

In line with the Green Party’s policy on double jobbing, he resigned his Council seat in 2002, co-opting Cllr Fintan McCarthy, who was subsequently elected in his own right in the 2004 local elections. He still continues to work on local issues throughout the constituency, liaising with Green Party local representatives and Council officials. His constituency office has built up a reputation for an effective and discreet response to issues of concern.

As a TD, Paul has supported community groups throughout the constituency on a range of local issues, including CE cutbacks, planning applications and the healthcare system. His motto is “Not Just at Election Time” and he regularly distributes newsletters in built up areas outlining his work on behalf of the community. Recent campaigns include protecting the Liffey Valley at St. Edmundsbury from housing development, seeking funding for urgent school roof refurbishments in North Clondalkin, the M50 widening scheme in Palmerstown, a school places campaign in Lucan and the retention of respiratory treatment facilities at Peamount Hospital, Newcastle. He has supported the work of groups such as Rally Round the Tower in Clondalkin, the combined Action Group in Palmerstown, LTQL and FIG in Lucan and the combined residents in Newcastle, Saggart and Rathcoole.

Thanks to Paul Gogarty’s website for text and photo and if you want to know more about Paul’s work log onto www.paulgogarty.com

As a Liberal a belief in the importance of freedom has always been pretty central to my political philosophy.  There are many reasons why I dislike the authoritarian instincts of Conservatives or the meddlesome top-down approach of Labour but many of these come back to the central importance of freedom in the final analysis.

I’m not fundamentalist about it - freedom is not the only value in my universe - but without a large measure of both political and economic freedom we are all poorer – both literally and metaphorically.

So I naturally agree with a cry for freedom that reminds us that, 

The founding texts of the English Constitution – charter, petition, bill of rights – have one thing in common: they create nothing.  They assert old freedoms; they restore lost harmony.  In this they guided America’s Revolution, itself a codification of earlier colonial liberties.”

But herein lies a difficulty.  For the author is Ambrose Evans-Pritchard writing in the Telegraph of all places and the subject of his attack is the Lisbon Treaty which came into force earlier this week.   As he puts it,

Europe’s Constitution – the Lisbon Treaty, as we know it – began as a sort of Magna Carta.  EU leaders agreed at Laeken in 2001 that the Project needed restraining…   People do not want Europe inveigling its way into “every nook and cranny of life”, they said.  Needless to say, insiders hijacked the process …  The text says much about the heightened powers of EU bodies, but scarcely a word to restrain EU bailiffs and constables.

The Charter of Fundamental Rights … asserts that the EU has the authority to circumscribe all rights and freedoms…  In other words, our Magna Carta has been superceeded.

He concludes that in doing so the EU has crossed a subtle line and is no longer legitimate.  I agree.

And for my money that precipitates the EU into a crisis – but it is a crisis of ideas as well as of legitimacy as the Economist’s Charlemagne blog pointed out this week in a post headed “Europe: where are the big ideas?”   He quotes with approval Jacques Delors, the former European Commission boss,

“But we are not making any proposals … and to propose something, there has to be much more co-operation between us.  But no, everyone is in their own corner. Germany is run from Berlin, France has turned into “Greater France” and Britain is more and more anti-European…  If Europe does not take care, within ten years we will have a world run by two powers: the United States and China.”

He goes on to quote Poul Nyrup Rasmussen, president of the Socialist Group,

“The old democratic contract is broken. Globalization has taken sovereignty away from the nation state, leaving people vulnerable to forces outside their control. Europe is the only means to regain this lost sovereignty and to empower people once more. But if we do not act now, the danger we face is the withdrawal of democratic consent from the European project. It will happen slowly but surely if we do not change the way we do politics.”

 Perhaps the best summary comes from one of the comments (rewt66),

It seems to me that there are two Europes.

There is the Europe of the liberal democratic tradition, of the rule of law, of stable institutions, and of transparent and accountable government.

And then there is the EU, which essentially decided to force a constitution down the throats of those that didn’t like it. (“Ireland voted against? That’s unacceptable. They’ll just have to vote again. Nothing will be permitted to block this constitution – certainly nothing so trivial as a democratic vote!”) The EU creates a maze of bureaucracy (so much for transparency) and removes the decisions further from the people (making accountability harder).

It seems to me that the EU is, if not diametrically opposed to the best traditions of Europe, then at least not fully in keeping with them.

So what is going on?   In which direction does salvation lie?

The answer, I suggest is that we must rediscover our ancient freedoms and insist that the EU is remodelled to comply with them.  It means a Europe where power is clearly understood to be delegated upwards, not downwards and where bureaucrats are servants, not masters – in short a Europe where democracy (and hence legitimacy) is restored.

All of which is a little difficult for the Liberal Democrats.  In theory the party is fully subscribed to the idea that freedom should be a guiding principle, in practice the it is so clueless it has blundered into supporting the exact opposite.   Tragically, Nick Clegg and his coterie have not understood that there are different ideas about how Europe should work; instead of working up alternative proposals based around freedom and democracy they have naively swallowed the establishment party-line that ‘there is no alternative’ (shades of Margaret Thatcher) and, in limply surrendering to the establishment framing, they have lost the battle.

It has also left the Liberal Democrats in a terrible mess as a party that thinks it believes in freedom but actually promotes the opposite.  

We have by far the best and most trusted economic brain in Parliament at a time when that really matters, we regularly win local elections all round the country and the two big parties both looking utterly unconvincing;  yet despite all this we are nevertheless managing to flatline in the opinion polls?  Is there a connection between this lack of support at national level and our muddled message on freedom.  You Bet!   Not that it’s the only factor, but it’s certainly an important one and if we want to move forward and actually be a liberal party it’s one we have to resolve.

For one thing is certain; the ancien regime is dead – the political leadership is preoccupied with chasing poll ratings, the bureaucrats are consumed by office politics and the theologians have gone for the intellectual drivel that is neoclassical economics.   Do we, as a party, want to join the dead establishment or lead the revolution?   If the latter, we must lift our game but I see little evidence of this so far.

by Olga Chetverikova
First Published: Dec. 10, 2009 – Strategic Cultural Foundation

After an annual meeting of the Bilderberg Club in May 2009, the establishment of the global management system of institutions seemed to have been given a boost, repeating the plots of American apocalypitc blockbusters.

As soon as the financial top had opted for a lingering crisis, global managers were instructed to work in two major ways: first, to invent a myth about the danger of swine flu pandemic (in order to take control of the national healthcare systems and reorganize the World Health Organization (WHO) into a global healthcare ministry) and impose a threat of global warming to gain control of world natural resources and introduce a unified ‘green’ tax (alongside with creation of a new sub-national managing body- an international ministry of ecology).

Both tasks aim to intimidate the population and thus substantiate any policies undertaken by international organziations. Chairman of the Board of Governors ‘British Petroluem’, Peter Suterlan, once frankly admitted that he would like to impose fear of global warming in order to increase taxes and make people revise their lifestyle.

The implementation of the first scenario suggested by the Bilderberg Club is currently underway.

After the WHO announced the A/H1N1 pandemic on July 11, 2009, a real hysteria was launched in mass media worldwide, and people were told to get prepared for the pandemic in November and undergo vaccination (in 2005 the WHO added an amendment to its Charter which says that duirng a pandemic the organization does not recommend but gives instructions and orders, and the number of vaccines should be no less than 4.6 billion). The operation reached its peak when in late September Barack Obama signed a decree to impose ‘a flu pandemic sanitary emergency’, which means that the citizens could be vaccinated against their will and kept in special quarantine zones. Amid panic, Americans and West Europeans were involved in mass immunization, which unveiled that the pandemic had been paid in order to let pharmaceutical companies thrive on it, and also as a weapon against ‘unwanted’ population (and now we all know what a swine flu vaccine is). It was also used as a so-called ‘innovative’ mechanism of handling political processes- which was so actively used in Ukraine. In view of this, the WHO gained extra powers and strengthened its status.

Now we are witnessing another show titled “The UN Copenhagen climate change conference”, currently held in the Danish capital (it will run through December 18) and aiming to work out a document to limit global emissions and replace the Kyoto Protocol which expires in 2012. Thirty thousand participants, including 60 heads of states and prime mnisters, have arrived there on December,7.

The EU, being one of the major organizers of the summit, had elected its first President, who was immediately described in the media as a creature of the Bilderberg club: on November, 15, a few days before his appointment, Herman Van Rompuy met with the club`s top managers at Val Duchesse castle outside Brussels, where he spoke about the need to revise the mechanism of the EU`s financing and suggested a unified ‘green’ tax which would go directly to Brussels. The fact that the issue was covered in the media proves that members of the Bilderberg Club are no longer going to conceal that they are the real bosses in Europe.

Such confidence annoyed some of the European Parliament members. One of them, an Italian Mario Borghezio, said: “All three candidates (for the role of the EU president) often attended meeting at the Bilderberg club, and I think that they should explain whether they are honest candidates representing their native country or just members of secret groups which had been organized to discuss pressing social and other kinds of issues”. Another MP, an Englishman Nigel Farage criticized Rompuy`s appointment and called him a ‘puppet-leader’ in the hands of Barroso. He even dared to say that the EU is an authoritarian dictatorship ruled by bureaucracy which is not elected by anybody. Commenting on the Lisbon Treaty, Farage told the delegates: “It took you 8,5 years of intimidation, lying and disrespect towards democratic referendums to lobby this deal!”

Immediately after his appointment as the EU President, Van Rompuy (known in Europe as ‘master of compromising’) assured his patrons that he perfectly understood all the tasks he was facing. Speaking at a press-conference, Herman Van Rompuy said that 2009 has become the ‘first year of global management’ (he meant the G20), while the Climate Summit in Copenhagen is a next step in this direction’.

The Danish government carried out a reshuffle and appointed Lykke Friis, pro-dean at the Copenhagen University, as Climate Minister to replace Connie Hedegaard, a member of the Bilderberg Club. The latter swapped her title to First Commissioner on the EU Climate, which was introduced in October 2009 especially in order to control the reduction of CO2 emissions by 20% by the year 2020. Hedegaard is a member of numerous committees and organizations, including the Danish Atlantic Treaty Association led by Robert Gunther.

What goals are being pursued in Copenhagen this time?

Lord Christopher Monckton, former adviser to Margaret Thatcher, explained: “When I read this treaty I see that the authors are talking about the establishment of ‘one world Marxist government’. The second purpose is the transfer of wealth from the countries of the West to third world countries, in satisfaction of what is called, coyly, ‘climate debt’ – because we’ve been burning CO2 and they haven’t. We’ve been screwing up the climate and they haven’t. And the third purpose of this new entity, this government, is enforcement,” Monckton warned. He then noted that the new treaty would be supported by most of the third world countries ‘as they think they will receive money for it’. And the US President will sign it without expecting two thirds of the Senate and the Congress to ratify it.

And the ‘world government’, which would be empowered to interfere in other countries` economic and ecological policies, and the ‘enforcement’- these all are just mechanisms to ‘transfer resources’ which actually means reforming economies of the non-western countries with the use of progressive technologies in order to gain control these resources within that level of consumption permitted in the West that would guarantee a drop in the planet`s population.

It is no secret that the 1992 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change was adopted after the idea of global warming resulting from anthropogenic factors had been promoted among scientists. In 1997 the Kyoto Protocol was prtensented as an international agreement linked to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. The Protocol sets binding targets for 37 industrialized countries and the European community for reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions .These amount to an average of five per cent against 1990 levels over the five-year period 2008-2012. The US, being the world`s biggest emitter of greenhouse gases, has not ratified the Protocol. The EU (now comprising the Baltic States and the countries of Eastern Europe) took the burden of the responsibility to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 8%, Japan and Canada- by 6%. The Protocol limits emission in Russia and Ukraine to a percentage increase or decrease from their 1990 levels. The developing countries, including China and India were not included in numerical limitation of the Kyoto Protocol.

However, the implementation of the Kyoto deal failed to help in resolving environmental problems but added a new commodity to the international market: quota on GHG. It turned into a pure speculation and let the financial capital grasp onto a vital energy sector in the developing countries. Due to their imperfect industrial policies, the developed states could not succeed in modernization and GHG reducing. That is why they found another means to fulfill their obligations: a developed state helps a developing one to reduce emissions and then counts the limited tons of GHG as if those were reduce on its territory. Very soon hundreds of companies and foundations joined this ‘green’ quota games hoping to thrive on it. In the long run, the international environmental market received the strongest expansion ever, and it originally there were only three purchasers: the World Bank, the governments of the Netherlands and Japan, now their number has increased sharply, and professional speculators now make up to 40% of the participants in hydrocarbon exchanges.

Having accepted the conditions, Russia later faced an ambiguous situation: the country has large stocks of free greenhouse gases but this is because in 1990s its industry was in severe crisis, and all emissions then even fell below 30%.

The international community plans to introduce new emission quotas to restrict industrial development and impose western environmental standards that require implementation of very costly projects (and these expenses will never be compensated by the sums earned on ‘green’ quotas trading). And taking into consideration that climate in Russia requires constant expenditures on energy, the country will hardly be able to restore its industrial power.

A group of developed nations have prepared a brand new document especially for the Copenhagen summit. The document says that the divison into developed and developing nations has long become outdated, while today all the states should be obliged to cut GHG emissions and provide assisstance to the poorest countries. The treaty is expected to be legally binding as well so that the states approved new rules at the governmental level. But the differences between the participants were so great that they only managed to agree on a road map plan without discussing the figures.

However, high promises of financial and investment assisstance proved to be more effective than legal mechanisms, and ahead of the summit the leading developing nations followed in the West`s footsteps and pledged GHG emissions cuts by 2020. The EU announced a 20% reduction from the 1990 level, while the US said it will reduce its emissions by 17% from the 2005 level (in accordance with a draft law approved by the House of Representatives). India claimed it wil reduce 20-25%, whiel South Korea and China announced the figures of 30% and 40-45% respectively.

Russian WWF, Greenpeace and Ecoprotection activists said ‘Russia should play the leading role at the talks. We can and should remain at the 1990 level of 30%. And then we shoud proceed with further reduction”. At the Russa-EU summit in November, Dmitry Medvedev said the country would try to reduce its GHG emissions up to 25% by 2020, and added that by 2050 Russia will be ready to cut emission by no less than 50% in comparison to the 1990 level.

This kind of unanimity hides the real differences between the participants of the summit and the gravity of environmental problems and adds fuel to the fire caused by the idea of ‘catastrophic global warming’. Recently, the Prince of Wales Charles has delivered a report in which he said that ‘nations have less than 100 months to act to save the planet from irreversible damage due to climate change.

Global management does everything to hide the real state of affairs. It ignores information and scientific research from alternative sources, especially if the threat of global warming and its anthropogenic factors are being argued (mind the recent leakage of e-mails from the University of East Anglia`s Climatic Research, the so-called ‘climate gate’).

In the past 20 years a powerful system of ecological ‘brainwashing’ has been created which serves the participants in ‘green’ business who can thus control the Earth`s natural resources. But in their attempts to keep the world`s population deluded, global speculators and their servants among politicians have long surpassed reasonable limits.

I remember an old Russian proverb: the devil is scary when you cannot see him but when you do he makes you laugh.

Translated from the Russian original by the Strategic Cultural Foundation

Source: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=16494

Related:

Copenhagen and Global Warming: Ten Facts and Ten Myths on Climate Change

Bilderberg Van Rompuy the New EU President (With Video)

UN´s Copenhagen Conference on Climate Change: Communist World Government without Steaks and Global Unity Religion without God

Al Gore Set To Become First “Carbon Billionaire” (With Videos)

The Bilderberg Group and the project of European unification

World Health Organization ‘Manufactured’ The Global Swine Flu Scare — Suspected Of Corruption

PRESENTATION – Lord Christopher Monckton Speaking at Bethel University on Global Warming

DOCUMENTARY – The Great Global Warming Swindle – 2007 –

The Swine Flu Fear Mongering and Pandemic Propaganda can Stop Now

The End of the Nation States of Europe

Global Dictatorship Based on the EU Model

VIDEO – Global Warming Hoax, Planned in 1961

Mega Corruption Scandal At The WHO

**On Dec 1st the Lisbon treaty was finalized- this is the beginnings of the further push towards a GLOBAL Government. Already now Germany has declared mandatory Sunday Law ( the only day that people can rest and worship on) In a matter of time the rest of the world will merge together collectively under one global government. with one currency , ONE LEADER, one religion , one day of worship! All those who come against these things will be put to death – Revelation 13.

I am still looking for articles and videos but here are some for now…

Why does the Lisbon Treaty matter?

Already 70-80% of national legislation is based on EU directives. National parliaments to a large extent are simply the executors of EU legislation. This marginalisation of national legislation would increase with the new treaty.

The Lisbon Treaty would have precedence over the Constitutions of member states, even though it contradicts with several of them; regulations dealing with sovereignty, defence and the economy of the Irish Constitution are incompatible with the Lisbon Treaty.

The course has been set for a centralised EU state, which is claiming global power

MY THOUGHTS ON IT – IN UNDERSTANDABLE TERMS:

The treaty Enables the govt of the EU to override individual countries constitutions and are the beginnings of the ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT. Essentially the EU is a testing ground and already they are pushing for globalization.

Links:

• Attac exposes the Lisbon Treaty
• Lisbon Treaty – Cant trust them!
• EUROPA: The Lisbon Treaty
• Treaty of Lisbon- Wikipedia

HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE REBORN

 LISBON TREATY – The seige of the UK Part 1

LISBON TREATY – The Seige of the UK Part 2

LISBON – SPEEDING UP THE DAILY FINES?

DAILY FINES are the ultimate weapon the European Commission can use against Ireland for its failures under European environmental law. Changes in the Lisbon Treaty will speed up the legal process required to impose these fines. What are the changes and will they make a difference?

Sara Dillon, then a visiting lecturer in EU environmental law at UCD, suggested some 10 years ago that Ireland was Europe’s ‘reluctant jurisdiction’.

More than a dozen stinging judgments from the European Court of Justice [ECJ] bear witness to the jurisdiction’s ‘reluctance’.

Environmental judgements against Ireland range from the failure to protect key animals and their habitats through illegal landfills to failures in waste water treatment. While the results sometimes lead to specific legislation or capital expenditure, the Judgments have also resulted in new structures in administration.

The Commission was convinced that one of the reasons for poor performance of Ireland’s water treatment works was unaccountable local authorities who were not subject to any externally supervised authorisation regime. Under national legislation agreed with the Commission after a 2002 Judgment against Ireland, the EPA can now impose a regulatory regime and prosecute Councils for breaches of standards.

In the 2005 waste case, the Commission gathered together more than a dozen well-documented examples of unauthorised polluting landfills sent to them by citizen groups and environmental organisations, largely unbeknownst to each other. The Court accepted the existence of a ‘structural failure’ and the case has served as an impetus for a range of reforms in the field of waste management, including the creation of a national enforcement network, a new complaint system and multi-annual funding of enforcement-related work.

That case also advanced EU law as it was the first to establish the principle of a ‘general and persistent’ breach. Until this case the Commission could only request remedies for examples cited during the legal proceedings. Under the ‘general and persistent’ breach ruling further similar cases can be added even after a judgement and still be included in the list that must be addressed to avoid daily fines.

In fact, Member States are not necessarily panicked by an adverse Court judgement since the prospect of financial penalties is a long way off. Until 1992’s Maastricht Treaty, Court judgments were simply declaratory – a form of ‘name and shame’. But daily fines for failure to comply with a judgment are a different kettle of fish.

After 14 years of pursuit by the Commission, in 2005 France paid a lump sum fine of €20m, plus €57.7m for each 6 months of continuing non-compliance with a judgement on failure to control fisheries. The seriousness was due, at least in part, to the fact that in fisheries ‘when a Member State fails to fulfil its obligations, it prejudices the interests of the other Member States and of their economic operators’.

Fines to date have generally been much smaller than the one imposed under the fisheries regime but they have also taken many years. Two environmental fines to date – Spain’s failure to protect bathing waters and Greece’s condemnation under waste directives – took five and ten years respectively. Greece pleaded local opposition as the cause of their delay but were fined €20,000 a day. While Spain’s tab was significantly less than that, France’s delay in transposing the Directive on GMOs cost them €20 million.

Ireland is amongst the worst performers in the EU when it comes to complying with adverse environmental judgements. That said, the Commission has only formally requested fines against Ireland to date in one case – a 1999 ECJ ruling that Ireland was failing to assess the impact of peat extraction on Ireland’s bogs (amongst other land use changes). The proceedings, which sought daily fines of €26,000, were withdrawn in 2005.

Shortly afterwards the Commission tightened its policy, signalling that, in general, it would not make such withdrawals in the future. In fact, Ireland’s dramatic failure to enforce the Programme of Measures agreed to barter the withdrawal of the case may now result in a further return to the Court, which – like all Courts – is not noted for forbearance when its Judgments have been ignored.

Lisbon – if accepted – will add combating climate change to the EU’s fundamental aims and create a new environmental competence in energy. But it also addresses these long delays in bringing infringement cases from Judgement to fine. The current requirements will be simplified by giving the Member State only one opportunity to plead its case against the fines, cutting substantially the administrative time.

While Ireland is by no means the worst in implementing Directives on time – as opposed to actually enforcing them – Lisbon would also permit the Commission to seek fines immediately in a case of late transposition, a regular occurrence across Member States.

Based on Dáil replies to parliamentary questions in February 2009 and the limited information publicly available on ongoing proceedings, there are about 28 environmental cases at various stages against Ireland and 7 where fines are being sought. The hot money for the first Irish environmental fine is evenly divided between aquaculture and waste, with peat extraction coming up fast from behind.

Tony Lowes

With the heinous stigma it has earned, I’ll forgive anyone who wishes to express outrage at what I’m about to say. Aside from the obvious inhumanity it committed, we can learn so much about the future of the structure of the EU, by looking at the construct of the Third Reich. It sounds preposterous but hear me out.

Stripping away it’s wrathful nature–purely for this exercise–anyone could look at the skeletal blueprint of it’s socio-economic and political structure and say it seemed idealistic on paper; a political system which wished to blur out countries’ differences for commonality. The Third Reich government, despite it’s “best” efforts, was not a coordinated, co-operating body, but a collection of individuals each trying to gain more power and influence through it’s President. This process allowed more scrupulous/ambitious individuals to get away with implementing the more radical parts of the “common good” ideology, and in doing so, win political favour. Ultimately the economy of the Third Reich failed because it was not enough of a command economy to “succeed” in the way the Soviet did, nor was it capitalist enough to rely on the strength of private enterprise the way it did in America.

It is one thing to be an optimist, it is quite another thing indeed to be ignorant to the proven pattern of causality. The direction in which the EU and The Lisbon Treaty is headed will be for similar consequences, optimism or not. Britain as one of the strongest countries in Europe, has far too much, not least in the way of it’s heritage with the US, to lose for the sake of “commonality” with it’s EU neighbours. One of the greatest things that has come out of this extremely long period of peacetime, is our freedom to vote. At a pinnacle moment in Britain’s history, this is EXACTLY why we need a true spearhead to lead the country in exercising our right, now more than ever.

You will remember that on Friday I posted a report on the Tripartite Lords, Commons and European Parliament meeting held the day before.  I deliberately didn’t mention any of the names of those present, but nevertheless tried to give a rounded account of what transpired.

One thing I didn’t mention and decided to leave for later was a very significant comment by one of the Lords present.  He (all except one of the peers present were male) made the obvious and strikingly simple point that were the Tories ever to form a government they would have to engage with the European Union. Britain is, after all, a fully paid up member and has been for over 30 years.

Were there to be a Conservative government, they would have no option other that to take part in the Council of Ministers.  Government Ministers would have to go to the Council Ministerial meetings. If they failed to attend Britain would be left completely out in the cold.  Not going to Council meetings would mean the government could not stand up for Britain’s interests, surely a very grave dereliction of duty.  Again, I am not going to divulge the name of the Lord who put forward this view, except to say he has been a leading Conservative and therefore speaks with some weight.  However, what he said is not rocket science.  The Tories would have no choice but to be present in the EU and do their best for us, the British people.

This again shows the complete madness of Tory policy on Europe.  They are trying to be neither one thing nor the other.  On the one hand, the Tories do not want to withdraw completely from the EU while on the other they think they can change EU agreements to suit their own agenda.  As I have said many times before, renegotiation of the treaties and agreements is a non-starter.  All of these were closely fought before being signed by all the EU member states.  Given this, it seems extremely unlikely that any, let alone a majority, of EU countries would be willing even to contemplate tearing up what already exists just to placate one particular member state. 

The fact that the Tories had huge difficulties setting up the European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR) Group in the European Parliament shows, I believe, just how marginalised they have become in Europe.  The Tories have, as I understand it, lost support from Angela Merkel and Nicolas Sarkozy as well as other centre-right governments in Europe.  In all honesty, I really cannot see any way in which they would be able to get enough agreement from enough of the 27 EU member states to change any of the EU treaties. 

This leaves the option of withdrawing completely from the EU.  This, at least, would be an honest policy and is now achievable as the Lisbon Treaty allows countries to leave the EU.  However, it appears Cameron doesn’t want to go down this route. The Tories are stuck with their impossible promises. In all seriousness, would you put your trust in a political party whose leaders are so obviously muddled on a topic as important as Britain’s role in Europe?

by My Corporate Resource, December 7, 2009.

We think that what lawyers and law firms choose to write about is a good proxy for what is important to their corporate clients. So what were law firms writing about last week? After a week’s absence due to the Thanksgiving Holiday, here is last week’s Top 10.

1. All Change Please–The Lisbon Treaty Comes Into Force. On December 1, 2009, the Lisbon Treaty came into effect, amending the current Treaty on European Union (the 1992 “Maastricht Treaty”) and the Treaty establishing the European Community (signed in Rome in 1957). Together, the two amended Treaties (the former retains its title while the latter becomes the “Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union” or “TFEU”) establish the European Union and govern its operation. So what does the Lisbon Treaty do and why is it hailed as one of the most momentous steps in European integration over the last 60 years? And if it is so important, why is it being greeted with a “If its Lisbon, it must be Thursday” level of disinterest/ennui?

First and foremost, the Lisbon Treaty brings the institutional and legal framework underpinning Europe relatively up-to-date. Regardless of where one stood on the merits of a unified Europe, the framework was acknowledged as unwieldy and almost incomprehensibly fragmented when discussions began on a new treaty. That was 8 long years and 12 new members ago…(continue reading)

UPDATE: The violence rages on. The police brutality against citizens and demonstrators is outrages. Now, they even have policemen disguised as civilians, working together with the police, kicking and hitting demonstrators and even passers-by. My solidarity to all demonstrators. Please do not stop reporting. The world needs to see more than this propaganda on TV!! For more information, videos and photos please see this link.

One year ago the greek police shot a 15-year-old boy. What happened after that has become history – at least for some people. It had and still has influence on their daily lives, because since then, nothing seems to have changed. Even though their new president made many promises of which none has come true.

I’m of course talking about the riots in Greece, which took place a year ago and which were connected to great violence from every side. Police as well as demonstrators.

Since then we’ve heard a lot and often about Greece again. And so it is today.

The cities are burning, the country where democracy was born, has become a state of angry, young people, having and seeing no future, if the system goes on working like it is.

I’m against violence, because there is nothing that justifies it. But though I understand why it is used by some demonstrators. What to do in a country you have no perspective? Especially when you’re young and want to reach something? When your whole life is over before it has begun? When there is no chance to get a job, to have a health insurance, to build a home even to get your scratch of education?

This is of course a very dark way to put it, but nevertheless, from what I’ve heard and read, many people feel like that.

Thousands of people got to the streets and were demonstrating peaceful. It seems as if the police has orders to detain as many people as possible. The problem is, that only a fraction of what happens is shown and reported in the media, most of it shows the violence of the demonstrators and silences the fact that the police has its part in it as well.

Why, for example, are policemen allowed to overrun demonstrators by motorcycle? Whatever violence the demonstrators use – the force with wich the police reacts is more than is allowed, more than what should be possible and it should be stopped. It seems to me that the rage becomes publicly shown hate which justifies every step taken and manifests in killing and detaining demonstrators.

Please follow this link, to get more information from the activists point of view, watch the videos and think about what’s going on there. Learn more about their goals and reasons for the actions taken.

And apart from the violence, I’m saluting: the solidarity the greek are able to show each other, their endurance for protesting and for claiming what they believe to be right – real democracy and freedom, a perspective in life and a social state.

But it seems as if some people use the Greek as an excuse to burn police stations even in Germany. That was said by their news report “Tagesschau”.

But first things first.

In Berlin and Hamburg there were attacks against the offices of ministers and secretaries, and the “Bundekanzleramt”, like the office of the german chancellor. Those were only “colour attacks” meaning that balloons or similar things filled with colour were thrown at the walls and windows.

In Hamburg a police station was attacked with molotov cocktails and a few police cars burned down. No one was hurt. That was in the night from saturday to sunday.

Then the news reported that a text was given to a newspaper (Hamburger Morgenpost), where a group calling themselves “Koukoulofori” (which means something like the hooded or masked) claimed responsibility for these attacks and furthermore threatened to repeat the attacks. They legitimate their attacks with the dead of 15-year-old Alex last year and see it as protest against the regime in Greece.

Though the police thinks it is authentic, I prefer being a bit more careful. Who knows how this could be used to impose new regulations and anti-terror laws in every european and other country in this world. Because then it is not only the islamic terrorists, but the left-wing terrorists as well, they have to “protect” us from. There could be a lot more behind it than we now think of. But of course, that’s just conspiracy talk.

But again it is shown how any action any event in this world seems to affect the whole rest of it. How everything that is directed against the system is used by the same system and inverted to take it as a weapon against the people, who try to break free of it.

That’s why I don’t think violence will get us to where we want to go. But when you don’t know where you go, or if you can go – that’s a point of hopelessness, frustration and anger that breaks itself free of any scepticism and rational behaviour.

I don’t justify it, I only think that it’s human and so could happen to every single one of us given the right circumstances…

Welcome to this new blog!

These are exciting times for Europe and its citizens.

The Lisbon Treaty has just  pushed through – also by bullying small countries like the Czech Republic into it – and with former Belgian Prime Minister Herman Van Rompuy, the European Union has its first sort-of President.                                                  

On the world stage, Mr. Van Rompuy will represent half a billion Europeans, who had no say on who should be their representative at all.

We wish him all the best, although we seriously doubt that he can bring about the change that Europe needs at this point.

First and foremost, the member coutries need to get rid of their huge piles of debt and their record deficits.

There are only two ways for these member states to achieve that:

1) Increase taxes.

2) Reduce spending.

We want Mr. Van Rompuy to know that we prefer the second option.

The European Independent supports  European politicians, who understand that  free and open markets, minimal bureaucracy, fiscal dicipline and direct democracy are the only keys to what one day could become the greatest country on earth.

Hollywood taught me about Democracy

No Usage Based Billing

Four Google execs may face jail terms because they didn’t pull an offensive video from their site BEFORE anyone complained about it.

Surprisingly, it didn’t seem to be a very big story, yet it is a perfect illustration of the incredible danger facing the internet. There is no way that large busy websites or the ISPs that host them can possibly monitor all of the material that is uploaded to the internet without seriously curtailing what is being uploaded to the internet.

For instance, when logging into Flickr I am told:

“There were 2,710 uploads in the last minute ”

Thousands of people upload images to Flickr every minute. It would take thousands of people to screen those images. If Flickr was forced to hire thousands of people to police the images members upload to the site, suddenly what Clay Shirky calls “ the transaction cost” would stop being nearly nil because the cost to maintain Flickr would skyrocket. It is doubtful that Flickr or YouTube or any other wildly successful website could cope with this without going bust.

Wikipedia, for example, has many people all over the world contributing articles and changing other people’s articles all the time. You would think that this would result in all kinds of internet vandalism happening.   But it doesn’t.   Sometimes people make mistakes, and the way Wikipedia works is that other people can fix those mistakes, And they do. And Wikipedia users also correct deliberate misinformation or vandalism.   So even if someone attempts to do a bad thing and vandalize wikipedia articles or disseminate misinformation on Wikipedia, Wikipedia is policed by its own editor/users.

As soon as anyone complains to Google, or YouTube, or Flickr about offensive content, the content is taken down. Now, I have to tell you, even though I am not by any means a young pup, in terms of understanding the internet, “I am only an Egg.” The internet we know today didn’t exist twenty years ago.

Like most people, I’ve been busy, so I wasn’t paying very much attention. Every now and then some new toy or gizmo having to do with computers would pop up — like iphones or ebooks or blackberrys. Or some new uber-cool thing like blogging or facebook or twitter or VOIP would suddenly be everywhere. And we can’t forget endless tales and dreams of dot com millionaires. The way the wold works has been changing very very fast. Six months ago I had no idea what Usage Based Billing was. About two months ago I started writing a simple little article explaining the mechanics of how the internet works. It turned out to be incredibly difficult to learn, let alone explain and mushroomed into “the alphabet series”. Simple? No, and the more I learn the more important I realize Net Neutrality is.

So I do understand why most people don’t even realize that this stuff is going on, or even that it matters. But the thing is that the internet has been slowly growing up and becoming more important in the world, and at the same time a much larger force for change. Which is why it is so important that there be Net Neutrality. Because the internet has come so far so fast it is especially important that it not be turned against it’s users.

Alongside Net Neutrality people in this brave new world are also talking about file sharing, “3 Strikes laws” and ACTA. Terms like piracy and theft are being hurled around and “copyright infringement” has been elevated to a near executable offense.

Why now?

It is no secret that governments around the world have been lobbied long and hard by the “copyright lobby” large media corporations, music and movie companies who are attempting to legislate prograss back into the twentieth century and change the way we think. They have been turning their media might into a propoaganda tool of epic proportions. Because of the incredible power that they can bring to bear, copyright laws around the world are being changed to appease these lobbyists.

Hollywood taught me spying on citizens is bad

Copyright law “improvements” enrich the lives of Americans

An inflammatory Chicago Sun Times headline reads Woman arrested for trying to record ‘Twilight’ on digital camera. The article recounts a story about a young woman who is being criminally charged– to the same extent and in the the same way a professional bootlegger would be charged– for recording scenes of her sister’s birthday party at the movies. The video picked up about 4 minutes of movie fragments. This is the equivalent of charging a teenager with one joint as a drug dealer, or the child who swiped a tempting lollipop from the grocery store with grand theft. It is simply not reasonable.

I’ve taken photographs of family and friends on special occasion trips to the movies. I’ve made videotapes of birthday parties. If you make a video of a child’s birthday party and a movie or video game was playing on the TV in the background, you too could be criminally charged. Under ACTA what will happen when you email a copy of this copyright infringing video to Grannie in England? Will she be fined or jailed or will you?

These laws are already absurd. And then… here comes ACTA.

All of the citizens of the world are being deliberately excuded from all ACTA negotiations. President Obama, so recently praised for his commitment to Net Neutrality, believes this to be a matter of National Security.

There is a huge difference between “personal use copying” and “commercial bootlegging” which the copyright lobby is lumping together as “piracy”. This is all a wrongheaded attempt to legislate away progress. Instead of trying to adapt with the technology, the copyright lobby has chosen to pour millions (billions?) into lobbying for this legislation that will not in fact do anything to stop commercial bootlegging. To give the appearance of doing something they instead choose to criminalize the mostly young citizens who are not harming this special interest group. Personally, I would rather see the best and brightest of Canada’s younger generation find themselves in universities rather than jail.

ACTA is bad. Very Very Bad.

Hollywood Influences

Growing up I learned a lot from “Hollywood”.

Like most Canadians of my generation TV and Movies gave me a better understanding of the American legal system than the Canadian.

Hollywood taught me that:

• free enterprise is admirable.
• free speech is important
• individuals have rights
• democracy is good, and good government is responsive to the wishes of the citizens
• communism is bad, because the government spies on its citizens
• a person should be considered innocent until proven guilty

BUT.

Apparently that was all just “content”.  ACTA makes it pretty clear that Hollywood’s true objective is for governments around the world to:

• suppress free speech,
• shackle their competitors,
• dismantle democracy,
• spy on citizens and
• throw out the rule of law to punish people on the basis of unsubstantiated accusations.

The saddest part is that it isn’t for some misguided ideological reason that they think will improve the world. This is pure greed.

ACTA links

“Canada and its international trading partners each have distinct copyright policies, laws and approaches for addressing the challenges and opportunities of the internet. Canada’s current framework provides strong intellectual property protections and our copyright laws apply in the digital context, including on the internet. Moreover, Canada’s regime for

the protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights is fully consistent with its international obligations.”

– The Honourable Tony Clement, The Hill Times – Canada’s Politics and Government Newsweekly

YET.

Somehow Canada continues to participate in the secret ACTA treaty negotiations.

“Secret ACTA negotiations would criminalize Canadian internet use” says New Democrat Digital Issues Critic Charlie Angus, who demanded that Tony Clement reveal the ACTA negotiation mandate letter. Tony Clement Responds To Concerns That ACTA Will Circumvent Canadian Copyright Law

Ambassador Kirk: People would be “walking away from the table” if the ACTA text is made public . Maybe that is what should be happening.

Russell McOrmond tells us about:

Word manipulation, hypocrisy, and the so-called Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) in it world.

Bytestyle TV’s Shelly Roche tells us a few things about ACTA, including the fact that it is being undertaken as an executive order, and therefore will not require ratification by the U.S. Congress. If it’s any consolation, American citizens are being kept just as much in the dark as Canadians, and, well, every other country in the world. ACTA: Internet Users Guilty Until Proven Innocent and ACTA: Will Corporate-Run US Government Destroy the Internet?

The Electronic Freedom Foundation Senator Bayh Responds on ACTA illustrates just how badly informed Americans (including Senators) are about ACTA.

Fortunately all Senators weren’t created equal. Senators blast Obama’s secret trade talks as Fox head calls for ‘3 strikes’

Michael Geist brings us: EU ACTA Analysis Leaks: Confirms Plans For Global DMCA, Encourage 3 Strikes Model

Where Paolo Brini passed along the news that the ACTA “negotiations now are not compliant with the Lisbon Treaty, which has come into force the 1st of December” EU negotiators show too many incompatibilities between ACTA and EU laws and Telecoms Package: 3-strikes forbidden in Europe He says further that “The agreement between the Council and the Parliament led to a new amendment which clearly forbids 3-strikes, in the sense meant by ACTA, and restrictions to fundamental rights without following very precise parameters (not respected by ACTA).”

Jamie Love’s blast from the past: Seven Secret ACTA documents from 2008 which includes the link to a PDF of the “Canada Non-Paper on institutional issues under the Agreement” is then discussed in Howard Knopf’s EXCESS COPYRIGHT: Canadian Proposal for ACTA Secretariat

Wired Magazine weighs in with the Threat Level column: Privacy, Crime and Security Online Report: U.S. Fears Public Scrutiny Would Scuttle IP Treaty Talks

New Zealand would like to know: Dunne: What are we signing up to, Mr Power? – 4 December 2009

Last week on BoingBoing Cory Doctorow passed along Javier “Barrapunto” Candeira’s information on the Spanish activists issue manifesto on the rights of Internet users which was created to battle the proposed suspension of due process “in the name of ’safeguarding Intellectual Property Laws against Internet Piracy.”

1 .- Copyright should not be placed above citizens’ fundamental rights to privacy, security, presumption of innocence, effective judicial protection and freedom of expression.

2 .- Suspension of fundamental rights is and must remain an exclusive competence of judges. This blueprint, contrary to the provisions of Article 20.5 of the Spanish Constitution, places in the hands of the executive the power to keep Spanish citizens from accessing certain websites.

3 .- The proposed laws would create legal uncertainty across Spanish IT companies, damaging one of the few areas of development and future of our economy, hindering the creation of startups, introducing barriers to competition and slowing down its international projection.

4 .- The proposed laws threaten creativity and hinder cultural development. The Internet and new technologies have democratized the creation and publication of all types of content, which no longer depends on an old small industry but on multiple and different sources.

5 .- Authors, like all workers, are entitled to live out of their creative ideas, business models and activities linked to their creations. Trying to hold an obsolete industry with legislative changes is neither fair nor realistic. If their business model was based on controlling copies of any creation and this is not possible any more on the Internet, they should look for a new business model.

6 .- We believe that cultural industries need modern, effective, credible and affordable alternatives to survive. They also need to adapt to new social practices.

7 .- The Internet should be free and not have any interference from groups that seek to perpetuate obsolete business models and stop the free flow of human knowledge.

8 .- We ask the Government to guarantee net neutrality in Spain, as it will act as a framework in which a sustainable economy may develop.

9 .- We propose a real reform of intellectual property rights in order to ensure a society of knowledge, promote the public domain and limit abuses from copyright organizations.

10 .- In a democracy, laws and their amendments should only be adopted after a timely public debate and consultation with all involved parties. Legislative changes affecting fundamental rights can only be made in a Constitutional law.

The Spanish government withdrew the draft law that would have legalized punishment without due process.

Spanish Blogroll:

[this is only a smattering of the websites bearing the manifesto... a Google search shows "de aproximadamente 351,000 de manifiesto en defensa de los derechos fundamentales en internet"]

• http://www.blogbuscadores.com/1133/manifiesto-%E2%80%9Cen-defensa-de-los-derechos-fundamentales-en-internet%E2%80%9D/
• http://www.escolar.net/MT/archives/2009/12/manifiesto-en-defensa-de-los-derechos-fundamentales-en-internet.html
• http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=186879394498
• http://www.microsiervos.com/archivo/internet/en-defensa-de-los-derechos-fundamentales-en-internet.html
• http://alt1040.com/2009/12/manifiesto-en-defensa-de-los-derechos-fundamentales-en-internet
• http://mangasverdes.es/2009/12/02/manifiesto-en-defensa-de-los-derechos-fundamentales-en-internet/
• http://www.kriptopolis.org/defensa-derechos-internet
• http://ciberderechos.barrapunto.com/article.pl?sid=09/12/02/086200&from=rss
• http://gallir.wordpress.com/2009/12/02/manifiesto-en-defensa-de-los-derechos-fundamentales-en-internet/
• http://www.nicobour.com/2009/12/07/manifiesto-en-defensa-de-los-derechos-fundamentales-en-internet/
• http://www.juanmarketing.com/manifiesto-derechos-internet/2009/12/07/
• http://www.scriptor.org/2009/12/manifiesto-en-defensa-de-los-derechos-fundamentales-en-internet.html
• http://bu2on.blogspot.com/2009/12/manifiesto-en-defensa-de-los-derechos.html
• http://freakdimensions.blogspot.com/2009/12/manifiesto-en-defensa-de-los-derechos.html
• http://nachovegas.blogspot.com/2009/12/manifiesto-en-defensa-de-los-derechos.html
• http://www.futboldelux.com/2009/12/05/manifiesto-en-defensa-de-los-derechos-fundamentales-en-internet/
• http://www.softwarelibre.net/manifiesto_en_defensa_de_los_derechos_fundamentales_de_internet_i_ii
• http://www.mariallopis.com/2009/12/07/manifiesto-en-defensa-de-los-derechos-fundamentales-en-internet/
• http://swlibre-annapon.blogspot.com/2009/12/manifiesto-en-defensa-de-los-derechos_07.html
• http://lamazmorradecuco.blogspot.com/2009/12/manifiesto-en-defensa-de-los-derechos.html
• http://www.decemuladores.com/foros/noticias/29519-manifiesto-en-defensa-de-los-derechos-fundamentales-en-internet.html
• http://www.economiasolidaria.org/documentos/manifiesto_en_defensa_de_los_derechos_fundamentales_en_internet
• http://gamebyte.es/literaturizate/manifiesto-en-defensa-de-los-derechos-fundamentales-en-internet/
• http://periodistas21.blogspot.com/2009/12/en-defensa-de-los-derechos.html

and the list goes on….

Bravo Spain.

Talk about this.

And please, contact your MP, Prime Minister Harper as well as the Honourable Ministers Clement and Moore.

Because ACTA is bad. Very very bad.

STOP Usage Based Billing

Later today, I will be chairing the last meeting of the General Affairs Council during this presidency. As the Copenhagen climate summit has just started, today’s meeting will also serve as an opportunity for possible small adjustments to the Union’s mandate in the negotiations. Discussions on the conclusions for the European Council on 10-11 December will also be held. The European Council later this week is the point where the Presidency will be delivering on a number of the priorities set.

Enlargement is also on the agenda for the General Affairs Council, with a view to adopting conclusions. In the margins of the meeting, I will also host an informal discussion with colleagues on disaster management. The new Treaty contains a solidarity clause, which obliges Member States to assist each other in case of a disaster. However, if this is to work in practice, the Union will need a more effective and well-coordinated capacity to manage disasters. During today’s discussion – accompanied by Swedish Christmas ‘glögg’ and traditional Santa Lucia saffron buns – we will have a first exchange of views on how this capacity should be developed further.

And Pitt the Younger rolls up his map. Queen Victoria is not amused. Monarchs from Alfred the Great to Richard the Lionheart and Elizabeth I, generals from Marlborough to Montgomery, all hang their heads in sorrow.

Great Britain is sovereign no more; she has surrendered to Europe:

At midnight last night, the United Kingdom ceased to be a sovereign state

We woke up in a different country today. Alright, it doesn’t look very different. The trees still seem black against the winter sun; the motorways continue to jam inexplicably; commuters carry on avoiding eye contact. But Britain is no longer a sovereign nation. At midnight last night, we ceased to be an independent state, bound by international treaties to other independent states, and became instead a subordinate unit within a European state.

This is really the culmination of a process that’s been going on for years, as more and more national “laws” originated as regulations issued by the unelected Eurocrats in Brussels. And MEP Hannan, the author of the article, is right: how it came about is a disgrace. All three major UK parties had promised a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, the document that created the EU superstate, but when push came to shove after the failure of the referenda on the proposed EU constitution in France and elsewhere, the idea was dropped. On the question of national sovereignty, the most basic of all political questions, the elites in Great Britain couldn’t dare ask the people, for fear they might say “no.”

And that would make the leaders look foolish at Continental cocktail parties. Can’t have that, you know.

I know some friends in the UK would mock this American as a nutty right-winger, but I can’t help but be sad at this development. It was from Britain that we inherited our ideas of democracy, limited government, and the inalienable rights of freeborn citizens. And now the British government has tossed that all away, regardless of what their people might wish. Let’s be clear: the EU is not a democracy. It is a statist bureaucracy with some of the trappings of democracy: the president is chosen, not elected. The European Parliament, while it gains some new power, still remains a rump, not the democratically elected source of all laws for the EU’s citizens. And while the now-subordinate national governments retain some powers and opt-outs, the pressure for further integration under the Eurocrats of Brussels will be almost irresistible – it’s in the nature of bureaucracies to expand, and EU leaders seem anxious to accede, probably so they can have a shot at the plum EU jobs.

Adieu, Britain. It was a nice special relationship while it lasted.

AACHEN, Germany(WJC)–Defense attorneys in the Nazi war crimes trial against Heinrich Boere, 88, in Germany have filed a motion to dismiss the case against him arguing the European Union’s Lisbon Treaty invalidated the case against him. Attorney Gordon Christiansen said treaty, which came into force on 1 December, meant nobody could be prosecuted a second time in a different EU country for the same crime.

Boere, a Dutch-born German national, was tried in absentia in the Netherlands in the late 1940s, but never served his life jail term because Germany does not extradite its own citizens. He has admitted in news interviews that he assassinated three people in 1944 as a member of an SS hit squad during Germany’s occupation of the Netherlands from 1940 to 1945.

The court in the western German city of Aachen halted the trial to consider the objection. The case is one of two big war-crimes trials currently on-going in Germany, the other being that of Ivan Demjanjuk, 89, in Munich.

*
Preceding provided by World Jewish Congress

Top of the bill at the Tripartite meeting between the House of Lords, House of Commons and the European Parliament was the ever present climate change talks at Copenhagen.  This is undeniably the most important issue facing the world.  This did not, however, stop the two UKIP MEPs present coming out with what were rather feeble attempts to deny the man-made nature of the climate change we are currently suffering.

Although I don’t often attend these Tripartite meetings which are held two to three times a year, I strongly believe they are a good idea.  The meetings keep us all in touch and prevent the two parliaments occupying completely parallel universes where there is no contact whatsoever.

The debate on climate change was a case in point.  The MEPs were able to tell the Lords and MPs that Commission President Barosso intends to fund climate change to the tune of 30 – 50 billion Euros.  A lively debate followed, focusing on developing alternative energy sources and energy saving measures.  Although the economic downturn is making the former more difficult, it is probably helping the latter in which, incidentally, the UK has a good record.

The meeting moved on from climate change to the hugely problematic regulation of hedge funds.  80% of hedge funds in Europe are in the City of London, making this a substantially British issue.  The general feeling of the meeting was that since hedge funds only risk their own money, they are not a problem in the way the banks have shown themselves to be.

And finally, we looked at what seem to most people outside parliamentary procedures the arcane processes used in the European Parliament.  It is, of course, worth noting that since there is a high turnover of MEPs, over half the European Parliament elected earlier this year are new, and may also be struggling with some of these matters.

European Parliament Committees will, of course, be interviewing Commissioners in the middle of January, and there is no cast-iron guarantee that all Commissioners will be confirmed.  It will be made more complicated in that President Barosso has redrawn Commissioner portfolios to some large extent.

One of the main conclusions of this Tripartite meeting was that the Lisbon Treaty has changed the landscape.  Lisbon gives the European Parliament much greater power.  As one of the members of the House of Lords on the Committee succinctly put it, “The Lisbon Treaty has ended the democratic deficit at a stroke.”

This is great!  I’m so happy for the EU animals. Hopefully, this will lead to a more vegan diet for many people, now that they realize that these animals are sentient beings.

Many Eastern faiths have recognized all animals and creatures as Sentient Beings for millenniums.

VegNews : Animals Get Legal Status

Europe has legally recognized animals as sentient beings according to the Lisbon Treaty, which went into effect December 1. Article 13 of the treaty states, “…the Union and the Member States shall, since animals are sentient beings, pay full regard to the welfare requirements of animals…” [full text]

Moral Values T-Shirt by okawastudios