Auch eine CD des “Künstlers” Bounty Killer findet sich bei Media Markt. Rodney Basil Price (36) alias Bounty Killer alias Warlord alias Poor People Governor erregte wiederholt Aufsehen aufgrund homophober Texte, sogenannter Battyman-Tunes, die zum Mord aufrufen („Lasst die Schwulen im Feuer brennen“). 2003 wurde ein Auftritt von Bounty Killer in London abgesagt, nachdem sich eine Schwulenorganisation bei Scotland Yard beschwert und dabei Zitate aus den Songs Another Level, Look Good und Mr. Wanna Be angeführt hatte. Im Sommer 2004 wurde Bounty Killer von den Organisatoren des belgischen Krakrock-Festivals ausgeladen, da „hasserfüllte“ Künstler nicht willkommen seien. 2008 plant der Veranstalter von Bounty Killer drei Konzerte in Essen, Berlin und München zu geben, was auf Proteste des deutschen Schwulen- und Lesbenverbandes (LSVD) stößt. Dies hat zur Absage des Berliner und zuvor des Essener Konzerts und einem nachträglichen Einreiseverbot geführt. Damit ist er ab 2008 durch die Bundesregierung im Schengen Informationssystem zur Zurückweisung an der Grenze ausgeschrieben. Nach einer entsprechenden Strafanzeige aus den Reihen des Deutschen Bundestages ermittelt jetzt die zuständige Staatsanwaltschaft gegen den Sänger. Seit dem 31. März 2009 sind die CDs The Fifth Element und Next Millenium in Deutschland indiziert.

La lâcheté avance masquée. Par définition puisque se montrer telle qu’on est demande un début de courage. Mais si la laide s’accommode de tous les déguisements, son préféré est sans aucun doute la raison. Ou plus exactement l’apparence de la raison…

“Si je recule, se défend cette bavarde, ce n’est pas parce que mon caractère est défaillant. C’est parce que je ne peux pas faire autrement. Mon ennemi est trop fort et moi trop faible. Vous ne voulez tout de même pas que j’engage un combat perdu d’avance? Ce ne serait pas raisonnable…”

Une fable désolante

Las! Ce discours désolant a été répété jusqu’à plus soif ces deux derniers mois dans l’affaire Kadhafi. La Libye est soudainement apparue comme un pays puissant, alors qu’elle n’est qu’un banc de sable unifié par les hasards de la colonisation étrangère. Un banc de sable vide et d’autant plus dérisoire qu’un fou règne sur lui depuis 40 ans.

Et que n’a-t-on pas dit du pétrole libyen? Il a semblé tout à coup indispensable à la Suisse, alors qu’une longue liste de pays tient à notre disposition de l’or noir en quantités plus importantes.

Face à la soi-disante puissance libyenne, la Confédération, elle, a été régulièrement présentée comme faible. Et comme il fallait bien expliquer pourquoi un pays ultrariche et hyperdéveloppé de 7 millions d’habitants devait plier devant un autre beaucoup plus pauvre, spécialement mal gouverné et moitié moins peuplé, une explication toute faite est sortie d’un haut de forme: la Suisse est seule, la Suisse est sans amis depuis qu’elle s’est refusée à l’Union européenne.

Seule la Suisse? Allons donc!

Les derniers développements de l’affaire sont venus heureusement contredire cette fable. La Suisse n’est pas isolée de l’Union européenne. Comment avait-on pu l’oublier? Elle fait partie, notamment, de l’espace Schengen. Et cette appartenance lui donne des droits, comme celui d’opposer son veto à l’entrée de dignitaires libyens dans certains des pays les plus importants du continent.

Il suffisait de le vouloir. Quand la Suisse a empoigné cette arme légale, ses pairs de l’Espace Schengen ont aussitôt respecté son désir. Avec de premiers résultats. Et qu’importe qu’il soit là moins question de solidarité politique que de solidarité juridique! Solidarité il y a. La soi-disante solitude de la Suisse n’était qu’un masque.

Bien sûr, la communauté internationale n’a pas volé au secours de la Confédération au premier écho de nos ennuis dérisoires. Elle vole rarement au secours des faibles, pourquoi donc volerait-elle au secours des forts? Elle a cependant aidé la Suisse à partir du moment où la Suisse a décidé de s’aider elle-même. Il sert toujours de montrer un peu de courage. La force, et la faiblesse, sont d’abord en nous. (E.D.)

Illustration by Manos Symeonakis

Tony Blair must be getting used to rejection by now. He left office in 2007 unloved and unwanted after 10 years as British prime minister. His attempt to win back some respectability as an international statesman by becoming a Middle East envoy has been a damp squib. And now his voyage to become the Europe’s first president appears to have foundered on the EU’s perennial rock of uncertainty.

In hushed tones and behind closed doors, European leaders last week seemed to reject the idea of Blair being appointed president of the European Council, a position created by the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty by all 27 EU member states.

Blair has some characteristics that would make him a suitable candidate for the role (charisma, valuable political experience, good communication skills, the ability to lead and diplomatic presence) but for many these are outweighed by the baggage he would bring with him (the Iraq War, his close ties to George W. Bush, his unpopularity in his own country, a pending investigation into whether he lied to his people and parliament and a fraught relationship with the EU in the past).

The fallout from the Iraq War is the biggest elephant in the room blocking Blair’s path to the presidency. The decision to hitch his wagon to George W. Bush’s lone star is something Europeans cannot overlook easily. But given the chance, Blair would probably explain that as the British prime minister, he had to make a decision – a very wrong one as it turned out – about whether to take part in a war. Had he been the prime minister of Belgium or Luxembourg, for example, perhaps his toughest foreign policy choice would have been what color bunting to get out when dignitaries visit from abroad.

Blair might even argue that having been through such a maelstrom and suffered the political consequences of his choices, he has the ideal experience to now be a unifying rather than a divisive figure. But even this does not dispel the dark cloud of mendacity that hangs over him. The Chilcot inquiry into Britain’s participation in the Iraq War will hopefully establish beyond doubt what Blair knew and what he told MPs and the public before committing troops to that conflict. The fact he’s due to face such an investigation appears to undermine his bid to become EU president. To risk having the first person in such a high-profile role publicly exposed as a liar would damage the Union. Of course, there would be more than a hint of hypocrisy in the air if he is rejected on this basis alone: Few of the 27 leaders who decide who fills the role are paragons of virtue themselves – any group that has Silvio Berlusconi as one of its most prominent decision-makers can hardly claim the moral high ground.

Perhaps that’s why some of them decided to suddenly create new criteria for any presidential candidate: his country would have to be a member of the eurozone and part of the Schengen Agreement – Britain is neither. If the EU’s aim is to appoint the best person for the job, then this shifting of the goalposts is preposterous. Theoretically, the EU president should be someone that’s transnational, not national, federal, not feudal. If he or she subscribes to the European project, then their homeland’s policy should be irrelevant.

Of course, Blair’s critics would argue that he’s always been at loggerheads with the Union, typified by his stance in 2003 in the buildup to the Iraq War, which was widely interpreted as an effort to split the bloc. However, Blair has engaged with the EU in more constructive ways as well. One of his first acts after being voted into power in 1997 was to abolish Britain’s opt-out of the Maastricht Treaty’s Social Protocol. He was also one of the proponents in 1998 of giving the EU a role in defense policy and was a champion of the bloc’s enlargement. He was the first British prime minister to put the UK’s budget rebate up for discussion in 2005, when he urged member states to reform the Common Agricultural Policy and cut the extensive waste and laziness that it leads to, as we are well aware of in Greece.

In June of that year, Blair stood before the members of the European Parliament and set out a vision for a less bureaucratic, more liberal and modern Europe. “The people of Europe are speaking to us,” he said of citizens’ waning interest in the EU. “They are posing the questions. They want our leadership. It is time we gave it to them.” More than four years on, that leadership is still absent and, as the turnout in June’s European Parliament elections indicated, interest in the EU is flimsy. These are issues that, theoretically, a European president could address.

The role has been created so that someone can preside over the European Council – the regular summits between the 27 heads of government – and coordinate its work. According to the Lisbon Treaty, the president should also “ensure the external representation of the Union on issues concerning its common foreign and security policy.”

Yet, what we have seen over the last couple of weeks is a climb down from this position. The message from Brussels last week was that it would be preferable for the president to come from one of the smaller member states, that he or she should be able to strengthen Europe from within, not necessarily give it a presence on the world stage, and be willing to play second fiddle to European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso and the 27 leaders.

“There is an argument that a political star as a president of the EU would lead to trouble with the president of the Commission and other leaders,” Robert Goebbels, the Luxembourg MEP who has launched a petition to stop Blair from being considered for the job, told Athens Plus.

It would be one of the EU’s more quixotic moments should it create an opening for a figurehead who could use diplomatic and communication skills to promote the Union to an increasingly apathetic public and give it a greater presence on the global stage only to then shackle him or her for fear of upsetting internal balances.

As the Dutch daily De Volkskrant put it in a recent headline: “Europe chooses: chief or messenger boy.” Given some of the names that have been mentioned as alternatives to Blair – Luxembourg Prime Minister Jean-Claude Juncker, Dutch Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende, former Finnish Prime Minister Paavo Tapio Lipponen, former Austrian Chancellor Wolfgang Schussel, former Belgian Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt and former Latvian President Vaira Vike-Freiberga – it seems the EU has decided there are too many indians to have a chief.

Presumably some of these politicians, if not all, are who The Economist had in mind when it referred to “the usual Europygmies.” Maybe, it’s a harsh assessment of men and women who are capable politicians in their domains, although hardly singular figures, but it underlines the challenge the EU now faces in trying to select someone to fulfill a role whose purpose remains unclear and undefined.

At least something is much clearer now: rejecting Blair was the easy part, too easy perhaps.

This commentary was written by Nick Malkoutzis and first appeared in Athens Plus on November 6, 2009.

Schengen hat unsere Grenzen sicherer gemacht und der Islam ist ein Teil Deutschlands. Zwei Standardwitze, die Dr. Wolfgang Schäuble nie müde wird, in eine trübsinnige Partyrunde zu werfen, um die Ausgelassenheit unter den anwesenden Trauerklößen anzukurbeln. Und jedes Mal erntet er brüllendes Gelächter.

Dr. Wolfgang Schäuble kann stolz auf sich sein. Nie hat ein Bundesinnenminister dem Vorwurf, er wäre eine Gefahr für den Bestand der freiheitlich-demokratischen Grundordnung, so sehr entsprochen wie dieser Mann, der dafür auch folgerichtig als Belohnung das Bundesministerium der Finanzen erhält, wo er weiterhin zum Nutzen irgendwelcher Leute tätig sein kann, die nichts mit dem Deutschen Volk zu tun haben.

Ungezügelter Volksverhetzung befleißigt sich unterdessen die Lausitzer Rundschau, die ungeniert von ausländischen Kriminellen schreibt, als deren Gönner und Förderer Dr. Wolfgang Schäuble so bravourös hervorgetreten ist, nicht zuletzt während der Gebäckknabberveranstaltungen mit den Vertretern rückständiger Bevölkerungsgruppen, über die als Islamkonferenzen in den Medien berichtet wurde.

Und die Diebe kommen vor allem aus Polen. Berndt Fleischer, Polizeisprecher aus Cottbus: „Klar sind auch Deutsche unterwegs, aber die richtigen Banden kommen meist aus Polen.“ Die bekommen von ihren „Auftraggebern“ sogar Bestellungen. Fleischer: „Da heißt es, bringe mir einen Audi A4 und dann ziehen die zu dritt oder viert los.“ Ein paar stehen dann Wache und einer knackt das Auto auf.

Und die Betroffenen haben noch Glück! Diebstahl ist versicherbar, nicht aber Brandstiftung, wie sie zum Alltag in Berlin gehört, die dort allerdings nicht als Verbrechen gilt, das zu verfolgen und zu bestrafen ist, sondern als alternative Diskussionsform über die sozial gerechte PKW-Typen-Verteilung.

So gesehen sind polnische Autoräuberbanden, die wegen der sicherer gewordenen Grenzen mehr Autos stehlen, als vor Schengen, schwer im Nachteil gegenüber linksalternativen Verbrechern, gelten diese doch als die modernen Robin Hoods, während die anderen einfach als Kriminelle dargestellt werden. Und daran sollte sich dringend etwas ändern.

]]> http://europe-liberte-securite-justice.org/2009/10/26/le-parlement-europeen-fortement-inquiet-concernant-schengen-les-retards-du-nouveau-systeme-dinformation-sis-ii-preoccupent-le-parlement/ Mon, 26 Oct 2009 07:25:41 +0000 lf5422 http://europe-liberte-securite-justice.org/2009/10/26/le-parlement-europeen-fortement-inquiet-concernant-schengen-les-retards-du-nouveau-systeme-dinformation-sis-ii-preoccupent-le-parlement/

Le Parlement européen s’inquiète des nouveaux retards et des coûts additionnels engendrés dans la modernisation du “Système d’Information Schengen”, une base de données gouvernementale qui stocke des informations policières sur les personnes ainsi que les biens volés ou disparus.

Les députés constatent que “de nombreux problèmes et retards” ont eu pour conséquence que “le nouveau système n’est toujours pas en service et que des doutes ont été jetés sur la viabilité du projet”. Ils demandent à la Commission, qui gère le contrat pour la mise en œuvre de SIS II, de faire connaître précisément les coûts additionnels engendrés par les retards.

Lors du débat qui s’est tenu le 19 octobre, le Commissaire à la Justice et aux Affaires intérieures, Jacques Barrot, a indiqué un surcroît d’un million d’euros pour le premier des deux jalons du système, et a annoncé que la Commission avait engagé des pénalités à l’encontre du contractant.

Les députés demandent pour leur part à la Commission de justifier sa confiance à l’égard du contractant actuel. Ils souhaitent éviter que le même scénario ne se reproduise pour le système d’information sur les visas (VIS), qui doit être basé sur la même plateforme technique que le SIS II. Concernant le VIS, Jacques Barrot a également indiqué que le contractant n’était pas parvenu à satisfaire les critères requis et que certains Etats Membres rencontraient des difficultés à adapter leurs systèmes nationaux au VIS.

La résolution, adoptée par 507 voix pour, 88 contre et 19 abstentions, avait été déposée par les groupes PPE, S&D, ADLE et ECR. (FR) (EN)

Le “SIS”, en opération depuis mars 1995, est une vaste base de données permettant aux Etats membres d’obtenir des informations sur des personnes mais aussi des objets de tous les pays de l’UE. Après les élargissements de 2004 et 2008, le système devait être modifié pour tenir en compte de l’arrivée des nouveaux Etats membres et permettre une utilisation plus efficace et sûre des données.Le “SIS II” a rencontré des difficultés techniques qui ont retardé sa mise en application, prévue maintenant pour le dernier trimestre 2011. Plusieurs pays, dont l’Irlande, le Royaume-Uni, Chypre, la Bulgarie, la Roumanie et le Liechtenstein ne seront pas intégrés dans le SIS dans sa forme actuelle et attendent donc la mise en place du SIS II. Le VIS doit de son côté permettre de lutter contre le « visa shopping » (lorsqu’un demandeur auquel un visa a été refusé par un consulat renouvelle sa demande auprès d’un autre consulat, éventuellement sous une autre identité), de simplifier les contrôles aux points de passage des frontières extérieures en rendant plus aisée la détection des faux documents et de lutter contre l’immigration illégale en contribuant à l’identification et au retour des personnes en situation irrégulière.

Filling a great deal of airtime and column space in the media of late, the neuralgic visa liberalization issue has become a focal matter for both lawmakers and citizens alike. Should the conditions set out by the European Commission be fulfilled, citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH) would see an easing of restrictions on travel within the Schengen area. The European Commission Delegation to BiH recently confirmed that 90 percent of the requirements had been met.

Headway has been made by the country’s lawmakers in fulfilling the requirements of the Road Map, albeit at a dawdling pace. Politicians have been publicly accusing one another of feet dragging and blocking key processes. This has acted as a wearisome distraction from collectively continuing on the path forward.

BiH Council of Ministers Chairman, Nikola Špirić, however announced last week that the biggest step in fulfilling the requirements had been achieved and that he would “do everything in his power” to reach agreement on the final requirements – the establishment of a local server for exchange of police data and the adoption of a strategy for the fight against corruption.

Nevertheless, the implementation of biometric passports, stalled by problems with a German printing house and concern over fraudulent birth certificates, is a requirement yet to be achieved. Furthermore, disagreement over the reappointment of a state-level Minister of Security has compromised meaningful direction in the adoption of a strategy for the fight against corruption – although some claim it has created breathing space.

However, benchmarks within the Road Map and the consistent work of the EU Police Mission have served as parallel incentives in improving security conditions within BiH. Besides the drawn out political squabbling, the strategies and action plans legislated through parliament will be of genuine benefit to the country’s security.

On this, EUPM Senior Immigration Advisor Neil Tuffrey says: “Many Roadmap issues need to be addressed for the sake of the security of the citizens and not just because there is a reward on offer from the EU. Clearly, the International Community will wish to use ‘soft power’ such as the Roadmap to its maximum extent, but the progress made on a range of issues needs to be continued long after visa free travel is granted to BiH citizens.”

Top-level International Community representatives, including EUPM Commissioner, Stefan Feller, and EU Special Representative, Valentin Inzko, have welcomed agreements reached by the country’s politicians, while the European Commission expressed its optimism that BiH could be added to the White Schengen list by mid-2010, dependent on the final conditions being met. The White Schengen List is a list of countries outlined by the European Union where no visa is required for their citizens to enter the territory of EU member states for a maximum period of 90 days.

Rund um das Schengener Schloß findet am Sonntag, dem 18. Oktober 2009 die traditionelle Hunnefeier statt. Der Winzerort im Dreiländereck Deutschland-Luxembourg-Frankreich bietet ein abwechslugsreiches Programm mit Kunsthandwerker- und Flohmarkt mehr

Since 2008, I completed moving online all my activities, and therefore the country or territory is irrelevant.

I planned to do this research here in BeNeLux “pro bono”, but it did not happen- hence, the online sharing.

We are heading toward interesting times but, as usual, time is the main constraint.

if you want, move directly to what I foresee

Few days ago, with the beginning of the month of October 2009, I kept my schedule and switched gear.

As previously promised, I will keep writing on my blog articles on the impact of political and technological/scientific changes and innovation.

Despite what you can read on the websites (e.g. PartnershipIncubator.Com), the online activities will still be “pro bono” probably for some time, while I transition my company toward a de-facto non profit role (i.e. only on applied and basic research on innovations, presented via the articles published on the blog, with consulting and other activities to keep the activity self-sustaining).

In my case, I simply used as a “milestone” the expiry date of my current residency permit in Brussels, 2012-01-02.

Actually, my target is end December 2011.

I still do not know if I will be able to do in Brussels what I was doing in other countries (mainly: consulting, project and change management, information technology-related activities, support to the business development of SMEs).

Therefore, from October 1st I simply started splitting my online activities from whatever I will do until end 2011.

I will keep reporting and observing on institutional and economical changes in Europe, but I will do that from outside Schuman, as anyway all the articles that I published did not receive any input or support from the local drinking crowd, and therefore I prefer to share my ideas via a public forum, instead of just in the local watering holes.

Why 2011? Because I want to complete few local language skills, by expanding my Dutch language skills and recovering/improving my old rusty German, while preparing for post-2011, by consolidating some old projects that I had prepared pre-2003 in UK, and reviewing further language skills.

Between now and end 2011, depending on where and what I will do, I will see if the old idea (from January 2006, when I applied for a residency permit) of having a normal occupation in BeNeLux, while doing “pro bono” support via PartnershipIncubator.Com is feasible with the new language skills, or if it will make more sense to relocate, and maybe help to create a team somewhere else.

It is a small world- and, moving online, borders become even more irrelevant.

There are some calls to stifle innovation by creating artificial online borders- but it is akin to re-instating border controls within Schengen: a temporary, cumbersome, and annoying palliative.

Considering that ICANN (the authority overseeing Internet) has been de facto released from the US government control, it would be funny to try to create virtual national borders.

The alternative? Shifting everything to the ITU (International Telecommunications Union), with a Gosplan-style planning and filtering of every innovation before it is deployed on the market.

Frankly, it is technically and economically unfeasible.

Technically, because most of the new technologies are based on existing ones- it is the”crowdsourced” or “viral marketed” agreement between users that generates new uses, communities, platforms.

Economically, because most recent innovations (e.g. the “OpenSource” software that is the engine of many online sites) was created by tiny outfits or individuals, and none of them would be able or interested in following the regulatory path. Hence, a centralize technology approval system would stifle innovation- unless it were intuitive and automated: paperless, and hassle-free.

Personally, I do not believe that much in public funding for research- unless it comes with an “open licensing” approach, i.e. the results of the research are public, not subject to copyright or patenting, but allowing the free development of derivative products.

I underlined products, because I think that the European Union should ignore the misleading suggestion that a patenting or copyright system for software and business ideas/processes would protect the small players.

Unless defending a copyright or a patent becomes free, small innovative companies that are built around an idea or product will never have the resources (human and financial) to enforce a level playing field with larger entities.

Under the current system, the benefits from an extension of the intellectual property rights protection would be only for current patent owners building artificial red-tape to stifle innovation produced by nimbler entitities (as common in the pharma industry), or specialized legal offices, focused on “mass producing” patent applications.

Small companies simply cannot afford the current intellectual property protection system.

Maybe, a way to balance the free-innovation with intellectual property rights and other public interest protection would be to transfer the control of the patent registration and the Internet routing mechanisms respectively to the WIPO and the ITU.

And give the option to give a tiny slice of the rights to the institutions as an “insurance” for the legal protection.

As I wrote above- interesting times.

Muito se discutiu já a eventual necessidade de um novo aeroporto internacional para a capital.

Muitos defendem que o actual aeroporto da Portela está já estagnado na sua capacidade, sendo o novo aeroporto uma necessidade para o desenvolvimento da capital e, consequentemente, do país.
Outros criticam a decisão, advogando que protege interesses privados ou que é um investimento incomportável na actual situação económica nacional e internacional.
Uma das questões mais discutidas foi mesmo a localização da nova infra-estrutura.
É uma decisão polémica, na linha de outras decorrentes de uma política de forte investimento em infra-estruturas de transportes, protagonizada pelo actual executivo governamental.
Aparte de todas as questões já sobejamente discutidas em praça pública, venho aqui hoje apresentar-vos uma questão que foi ignorada nos debates públicos, quer técnicos, quer políticos – a questão da transportadora aérea nacional e da sua posição face ao alargamento de capacidade trazido pela nova infra-estrutura.

Nos anos 90, com a  queda de fronteiras do espaço Schengen e a desregulação do mercado do transporte aéreo possibilitou-se a instituição de várias novas companhias de transporte, baseadas num paradigma completamente novo – as companhias de transporte aéreo de baixo custo, ou low-cost.

Estas novas companhias abordam o mercado de uma forma muito agressiva, quase predatória, oferecendo voos em tudo semelhantes aos já existentes, em horário, destino e frequência, absorvendo o negócio das operadoras já em função.
A actividade da nossa principal transportadora aérea sempre se baseou, como muitas outras, em monopólios de mercado, sobretudo no mercado brasileiro, muito graças à influência do seu gestor, de nacionalidade brasileira, junto das autoridades do país. Recentemente, companhias europeias como a alemã Lufthansa, começaram a operar rotas que contornam a rede da TAP, desfazendo parte do seu monopólio.
Esta situação, entre inúmeros factores, contribui actualmente para a difícil situação económica da empresa pública.
Mas o que aqui nos traz é outra perigosa ameaça, de manifestação menos evidente, mas que podemos já comprovar no dia-a-dia do aeroporto de Francisco Sá Carneiro, no Porto. A atitude predatória de empresas como a RyanAir começa a ameaçar fortemente a TAP, já que ocupa uma parte significativa do seu actual mercado.
Este efeito ainda não se fez sentir de forma notória em Lisboa porque a sobrelotação do aeroporto da Portela não permite a entrada das novas operadoras, servindo actualmente de providencioso “guarda-chuva” ao negócio da transportadora nacional.
Com a entrada em operação do novo aeroporto de Alcochete as novas operadoras poderão inundar o mercado, deixando a TAP numa posição potencialmente difícil, especialmente se não tiver ainda, na altura, redireccionado o seu negócio para a posição privilegiada que poderá ter no mercado africano.
É uma situação que não parece ter sido equacionada pela administração central, que numa altura de crise profunda do sector empresarial nacional, poderia concertar esforços com a TAP no sentido de tomar as decisões que melhor servissem o interesse nacional.
Uma eventual opção a estudar seria a criação de um aeroporto mais pequeno, apenas para operadoras de low-cost, localizado nos arredores, preservando o aeroporto da Portela, que beneficia de uma posição privilegiada em relação ao centro da cidade, para as operadoras antigas. Isto possibilitava que a TAP continuasse a servir o segmento mais lucrativo – o business.
É uma medida discutível no âmbito da ética de mercado, mas de prática comum em países com políticas mais proteccionistas. Não parece, portanto, lógico, que um país que tem tantas dificuldades para garantir um bom ambiente ao desenvolvimento empresarial, tome posições contrárias à afirmação da sua economia.
Esperemos, no entanto, que, tratando-se de um assunto eticamente tão delicado, este espaço sirva de plataforma para a discussão pública da questão.
Apelo a todos para que deixem o seu comentário.

Algumas notícias na internet:

• TAP espera crescer 5% no Brasil este ano
• TAP perdeu 105 mil passageiros em Maio
• Grupo TAP mantém “situação financeira crítica”
• TAP corta dez voos semanais para o Brasil e aumenta frequências para África
• TAP faz cortes no Brasil mas mantém frequências de voos para Minas Gerais

Cypriot laws on immigration have been amended to conform to the European Union’s acquis communautaire and thus visa obligations for foreign nationals reflect EU regulations and obligations.
Cyprus is a signatory to the Schengen agreement and while it has missed the target date of 2008 for implementation, it is expected that the island will implement the agreement within 2009.
Foreigners wishing to work in Cyprus require an employment visa, issued by the Immigration Office (www.police.goc.cy). This also applies to EU citizens, who are however able to work freely in Cyprus and are granted employment visas automatically. Non-EU nationals employed at the top level of management by international companies with operations in Cyprus are generally granted employment visas with no problems, however professional and clerical staff are only granted employment visas if no suitably qualified Cypriot candidate is available.

I en bobleverden av studier, schengen-avtalen og europeisk trygghet er det vanskelig å forstå hvordan verden fungerer. Slikt lærer man veldig fort det øyeblikket man møter den strenge grensevakten med knurrende vakthund og tenker stille at man kanskje skulle ha bestilt visum på forhånd.

Det er lett å være anarkist, lett å spytte på feilende statssystem som aldri kan tilpasses en levende folkemasse, lett å ignorere det meste som heter regler for å “kjøre sitt eget løp” nøyaktig likt de andre i omgangskretsen. Det er også lett å studere nasjonalisme, statsgrenser og å kjefte om hvor skadelig det er for mennesket å segregere seg i slike kunstige bobler.

Det er også like lett å reise ut i blå, naiv tankegang om at man kan ignorere slike statsegregeringer og reise nomadisk gjennom verden. Denne naiviteten sprekker imidlertidig grensevakten på den litt lyssky russiske grensestasjonen langt inne i skogene en plass. Ingen snakker engelsk, du skal lete lenge etter norsk. Du vet at du er helt alene langt vekk fra det du kjenner til. Steinansiktet til vakten er vanskelig å tolke. Det er derimot ikke knurringen til hunden.

Da det kommer klart fram at du ikke har visum, og at du håpet på å prate deg ut av det, blir du satt i et mørkt rom noen timer. De har selvsagt tatt passet ditt, pengene dine, og alt annet av papirer. Du tenker at ingen egentlig vet at du var i landet du forlot da du kom til grensen, at ingen snakket engelsk der heller, og at du veldig fort kan “forsvinne” uten et spor hvis de som tok papirene føler for det.

Takket være en skytsengel får du tilbake papirer og får en dirrende pekefinger pekende til veien du kom fra. Du får ikke lov å dra til inn i landet, men du får ivertfall lov å dra tilbake. Ikke at det gjør noen forskjell. Alt står på cyrillisk og du er ikke akkurat språkekspert.

Det er et streif av naivt overmot som gjør at du får ideen om å vandre over grensen gjennom skogene isteden. Merkelig nok er ikke verden så truende når du først har kommet deg vekk fra skumle vakter. Du fester ryggsekken godt på og vandrer inn mellom golde trær og myrområder.

To timer senere henger du fra et tre med rasende kjøtere under deg. De er fem store beist med blodsmak i munnen. Den ene har til og med revet en bit av leggen din som nå dingler i de siklende kjevene. At Russland skulle ha hundepatruljer tenkte du ikke på. Vaktene lar deg henge der en stund. Om de tror det vil lære deg en lekse eller om de håper du vil miste taket og spare dem utgifter til hundefor er uvisst. Harmløse Bergen frister litt i bakhodet mens du prøver å ikke dryppe for mye blod ned på beistene og gjøre dem enda galere.

Patruljen forlater deg til slutt. De tenker vel du har forstått poenget og vil dra tilbake. Du må innrømme at det frister lite å prøve igjen. La oss heller gå over til plan B, for du liker ikke helt taktikken til Kina når det kommer til Tibet, og sommeren er enda ikke over. Har Kina hundepatruljer tro?….

Regulation (EC) No 810/2009 establishing a Community Code on Visas (Visa Code) has been published in the Official Journal.

The regulation establishes the procedures and conditions for issuing visas for transit and stays in the territory of the Member States not exceeding three months in any six-month period.

The Visa Code applies from 5 April 2010.

Kein anderer Grenzübergang in Niederösterreich verzeichnete in den letzten zwanzig Jahren so viele Ein- und Ausreisen wie der Grenzübergang Berg. Die Erweiterung des Schengen-Raums am 21. Dezember 2007 bedeutete aber den Wegfall der Grenzkontrollen nach Osteuropa.

Eine große Mehrheit der Slowaken unterstützte den Beitritt des Landes zur Schengen-Zone. In Österreich wurden aber zugleich Bedenken hinsichtlich einer möglichen Invasion von Kriminellen und Prostituierten geäußert.

Dank der Autobahn Wien-Bratislava hat sich die Fahrtzeit zwischen den Städten deutlich verkürzt. Trotzdem habe ich den verlassenen Ort auf der Pressburger Strasse B9 wieder besucht.

Ich interessiere mich seit Jahren für Orte wie Industrieruinen, leerstehende Fabrikgebiete oder aufgebene Flugülätze. Der Grenzübergang Berg wurde vor zwei Jahren geräumt, alle Häuser stehen aber noch. Und ein leeres Kaffeehaus hat immer noch offen…

Ende einer Kindheit. Sommer 1989

Bedrohungen wie organisierte Kriminalität machen an nationalen Grenzen nicht halt. Eine europäische polizeiliche Kooperation ist daher unabdingbar.
Text von Beate Wegscheider

Innere Sicherheit galt bislang als Kernaufgabe moderner Nationalstaatlichkeit. Um den veränderten Erscheinungsformen von Kriminalität effektiv zu begegnen, musste sich die Art der Prävention und Repression entscheidend ändern. Jürgen Storbeck – ehemaliger Direktor von Europol – erscheint auf Grund der Internationalisierung der Kriminalität auch die Internationalisierung der Verbrechensbekämpfung das wichtigste Vorhaben zu sein.

“Wir können nicht mehr von einer kleinen Behörde in Tirol, in Bayern, in Brandenburg gegen eine große weltweit agierende Organisation ermitteln. Da haben wir nur eine Froschsicht auf das Kriminalitätsgeschehen statt der notwendigen Adlersicht”, so Storbeck. Daher ist eine gemeinsame europäische Intelligence-Arbeit notwendig, um eurpaweitem Verbrechen effizient zu begegnen.

Denn Europa ist heute nicht nur ein gemeinsamer Wirtschafts- und Sozialraum, sondern auch ein gemeinsames kriminalgeographisches Gebiet. Mit der “Froschansicht” können nur kleine Teile der organisierten Kriminalität erkannt werden. “Damit können wir sie nicht wirklich ausschalten, sondern nur die Glieder dieser kriminiellen Organisationen, die unbedeutenden Mitglieder. Das war eigentlich die Idee der Gründung von Europol”, sagt Storbeck.

Schengen und Europol

Schengen und Europol verdeutlichen eindrucksvoll den Fortschritt betreffend einer europäischen Kooperation im Polizeibereich. Beide wurden mit dem Ziel errichtet, einen Raum der Freiheit und der Sicherheit in Europa zu schaffen.

Durch den Abbau von Grenzkontrollen wurde die Einsetzung von Ausgleichsmaßnahmen notwendig. Diese sollen helfen, die Sicherheit zu erhalten. Demgegenüber ist die Verhütung und Bekämpfung der grenzüberschreitend agierenden Kriminalität die zentrale Aufgabe der Europol. Im Gegensatz zu Schengen, welches insbesondere auf den Fahndungsbereich ausgerichtet ist, dient Europol zur aktiven Recherche bei Ermittlungen und zur intelligenten Auswertung von Daten.

Auf Grund der schwerfälligen Konsensfindung auf EU-Ebene, neigen die Mitgliedstaaten dazu, polizeiliche Befugnisse im nationalen Einflussbereich zu halten. Storbeck betont: “Polizeiliche Arbeit, die Ausübung von Exekutivmaßnahmen, auch gegenüber dem eigenen Bürger, ist ureigenstes staatliches Verhalten. Das will man nicht abgeben.”

Europol wird daher in absehbarer Zeit weder Exekutivbefugnisse erhalten, noch zu einer europäischen Polizei aufsteigen. Vielmehr soll Europol eine strafverfolgende Behörde für Schwerverbrechen werden, von welchen mehrere Mitgliedstaaten betroffen sind. Europol wird demnach ausschließlich für europaweit agierende organisierte Kriminalität zuständig sein.

Die Zukunft für Europa

Auch die Justizbehörden der EU-Staaten arbeiten immer enger zusammen. Mit Eurojust wurde 2002 das Vorgehen der zuständigen Behörden der Mitgliedstaaten bei der Verfolgung schwerer grenzüberschreitender und organisierter Kriminalität verstärkt. Weiters liefert Eurojust schnelle Information über fremdes Straf- und Strafverfahrensrecht.

Einen Quantensprung bezüglich der polizeilichen Kooperation in Europa stellt der Vertrag von Prüm dar. 2005 von den Gründerstaaten Österreich, Deutschland, Frankreich, Spanien und den Benelux-Staaten unterzeichnet, soll der Vertrag zur Vertiefung der grenzüberschreitenden Zusammenarbeit in Europa beitragen.

Mit “Prüm” gewähren sich die Staaten gegenseitig Zugriff auf ihre Polizei-Datenbanken und damit den Austausch von beispielsweise DNA-Profilen, Autohalterdaten und Fingerabdrücken. Gleichzeitig regelt die Vereinbarung auch die Unterstützung bei Großereignissen, grenzüberschreitende Verfolgungsfahrten und liefert Informationen über politische Aktivisten und Migranten.

“Europol hat wie keine andere Behörde ein gemeinsames polizeiliches Bewusstsein geschaffen. Dadurch ergibt sich wirklich ein proeuropäischer Ansatz”, ist der ehemalige Europol-Chef Storbeck überzeugt. Das wird durch Verträge wie Prüm weiterentwickelt.

Für die polizeiliche Zusammenarbeit in Europa wurden damit wesentliche Impulse gesetzt. Zunehmend sind die EU-Staaten dazu bereit, sich in Sicherheitsfragen europaweit zu koordinieren. Der Grundstein für eine einheitliche, rechtliche und freiheitsorientierten Union ist damit gelegt.

Dieser Artikel von Beate Wegscheider wird im GLOBAL VIEW 03/2009 (Ende Septemer 2009) erscheinen.

Tuffare tag eller vad kommer ut av detta? Denna vecka räknas antalet resande svenskar in också!

“I ett tidigare dokument specifieras vad detta innebär. Kommissionen vill inrätta en databas där uppgifter om personer från tredje länder registreras. Tid och plats för in- och utresa ska noteras tillsammans med uppgifter om hur länge personen får stanna inom EU.

Till skillnad från tidigare beslutade register ska detta också innehålla information om personer som inte behöver visum för att vistas inom EU. Uppgifterna ska enligt dokumenten sparas i fem år och innebär att så gott som alla icke-EU-medborgare som åker in i Schengen-området måste lämna ifrån sig fingeravtryck.

“Ungefär som i USA”, säger kommissionens talesperson till SvD.se. Uppgifterna ska sedan användas för att upptäcka personer som olagligen stannar för länge.”

EU förbereder hårdare gränskontroller, SvD

Mvh/:)Smileth

Men for hva? Stein Ørnhøy skrev i Dagsavisen torsdag at ”Schengen har skylda”, og ramset opp problemer som kriminelle bander fra Øst-Europa som herjer i Norge, utenlandske tiggere og svart arbeid. Jeg er helt enig med Ørnhøy i at Schengen-avtalen er med på å skape store samfunnsproblem. Men det er ikke e han nevner som er de verste konsekvensene av avtalen. Langt i fra.

Som Ørnhøy skriver er kjernen i Schengensamarbeidet at grensene mellom medlemslandene gradvis bygges ned, og personkontrollen avskaffes. Det skal være enkelt for EU-borgere å forflytte seg innad i unionen. Samtidig bygges de ytre grensene opp. Det blir stadig vanskeligere for mennesker fra ikke-EU-land å komme seg inn i ”Festning Europa”.

EUs felles asyl- og flyktingepolitikk strammes inn gang på gang. I mai i år skrev Dagsavisen at Det Europeiske Flyktningerådet mener at mennesker som trenger beskyttelse ikke lenger har noen lovlig måte å komme seg til Europa på. Dette fører til tusenvis av mennesker risikerer livet for å komme hit ulovlig. Mange dør i forsøket. Hver uke er det overfylte båter som forliser, mennesker som dør av sult og tørste på joller som driver til havs. Til nå har man over 13 000 dokumenterte dødsfall, trolig er det reelle tallet mye høyere. Hvorfor debatterer vi ikke dette, Ørnhøy?

For meg er det uforståelig at Norge og andre EU-land kan godta at dette skjer. Mens vi sitter i den europeiske hagen vår og soler oss , dør folk i tusentall like utenfor gjerdet. Er det greit å bare sitte å se på?

Og verre skal det bli. I fjor foreslo EU-kommisjonen en rekke nye innstramminger av EUs grensekontroll. Italia innførte like før sommeren en ny praksis i samarbeid med Libya: Båter som forsøker å krysse Middelhavet fra Afrika til Italia, blir stoppet lenge før de når land. De blir sendt rett tilbake dit de kom fra, uten at myndighetene sjekker om det er flyktninger med behov for beskyttelse. Dette bryter klart med fundamentale menneskerettigheter. Både FN og Vatikanet har protestert på praksisen, men hvor er de norske stemmene?

Så lenge Norge er med i Schengen er EUs yttergrenser også våre yttergrenser. Likevel er debatten i Norge nærmest fraværende. Ungdom mot EU ønsker å si opp avtalen, fordi vi ikke vil være med på et system som er grunnleggende urettferdig og tar uskyldige liv. Tør noen ta den virkelige debatten om Schengen?

Sigrid Z. Heiberg

Leder i Ungdom mot EU