| |The No Europe report and no deal under BREXITThe EU Commission is calling the UK's bluff on a No Deal option. However, if the EU make issues so difficult intentionally, because of their political obsessions (see following article), it is worth reflecting on the result of a "No Europe" report produced in the late 1980s.
In 1987, UK Commissioner Arthur Cockburn, Vice-President of the Delors' Commission and Commissioner for the Internal Market, Tax Law and Customs, arranged, through his cabinet, for a study to be conducted on the benefits of the European Common Market and referred to as "No Europe". According to an ex-Commission official who was asked to look into this study with a view to coordinating it, meetings organized by an Italian consultant, supposedly organised to secure a participatory input, were clearly following a tight pre-established agenda with useful contributions being ignored by the consultant concerned. The official concerned therefore decided not to have anything to do with this report. However, in conversations with members of Cockburn's cabinet it emerged that in spite of the consultant's attempt to show up benefits, these were unconvincing. As a result the study was recommissioned making use of a management consultancy company to do a more "thorough" job. The outcome was essentially a repeat failure to come up with any significant benefits from Europe. For those working at the Commission who were aware of the outcome this was puzzling, it seemed to question the very existence of the Common Market. For those outside the Commission the outcome was somewhat disconcerting given the strong political arguments on either side of the pro-Europeans and skeptics.
This report would have been circulated to some within the Conservative party and no doubt in the government of Margaret Thatcher. In Berlaymont, the Commission HQ on Rue de la Loi, it was nowhere to be found and very soon it was no longer recognised by its name.
This has implications with regard to a situation of a no deal. If the EU continues its stalling tactics, see below, the so-called transition period could help make a no deal work.
EU tactics on BREXIT becoming obviousA SEEL workshop was held for APE journalists on the weekend of 8-9 October, 2017. This was organised to bring journalists up to speed on their strategic decision analysis department's concern that mainstream media are not picking up on the EU tactitcs to frustrate the UK's ambitions with respect to BREXIT.
Anyone who deals with transition and innovation processes know that the final design can only have beneficial results if a model of the objective is set out as a target and then the options for achieving that objective can be identified and optimised. When it comes to two political groups seeking a mutually beneficial outcome, the decision analysis model needs to be based on the objective of a mutually advantageous future state, in short, the likely trading relationship.
The European Union's aproach to BREXIT has been to frustrate, intentionally, this normal logical process. This is because they want to create difficulties for the UK because they don't want an example to other disgrutled member states; they dont want the UK to leave. If the UK had been a member of the Eurozone things would have been very different with the ECB, some Eurozone representative and probably the IMF working to underlime the whole process as they did in Ireland and Greece.
The second string to the EU's bow, is even more important. By instisting on sorting out the political question first the EU is preventing the UK from negotiating new trade deals with third parties to help smooth out the transition. The EU inisists on the illogical approach of first of all negotiating the divorce, money to be paid and Northern Irish border question before going on to basic structure of a mutually beneficial trading arrangement. Trading arrangements provide a far clearer picture of the likely future trade cashflows for all EU countries and the UK as well as between institutions participating in programmes and projects of mutual interest. On this basis the identification of transition priorities in respect to law and regulations become well-defined as does the quantification of any budget contributions become completely self-evident. The likely future trading arrangements then provide practical guidance on the Northern Irish border question in terms of regulations and management techniques.
The legal basis and approach by the European Commission with the ECJ hovering in the background is completely illogical because it will cause harm to both the UK and EU citizens through the impacts on business. This legal bluster is designed to create intene frustration and political embarassment for the UK government in the hope they will fail or desist; it is a direct interference in the internal politics of the country motivated by a dislike of the outcome of the BEXIT referendum.
The EU obsession with the "political" question has become more intense with the UK's insistence that it will be released from ECJ jurisidiction in relation to EU citizens living in the UK; a position that upset the ECJ judicial mindset which considerd their jurisdiction over the "European constitution" and European citizens as sacrosanct. Today we see the same rigid position in the case of Spain today, that sees separation as something to be resisted and at least made difficult.
Prodi had a plan,
Angela Merkel prevented any public referenda
As has often been observed, this rigid inflexible approach is undermining democracy in Europe where paradoxically the whole concept of the "Europe of regions" has been promoted by the EU Commission in the past 30 years. In contrast to this "open" approach the reality has been an embedding of a pervasive prescriptive legal system throughout the EU under the ECJ which is marked by inflexibility and marginalizatiomn of the EU ciizens. This contrasts with English Common Law, almost obliterated by waves of adoption of EU legislation, that is more flexible and adaptibe to changing circumstances.
D'Estaigne debased the Convention
The image of Angela Merkel as today's "leading EU champion and politician" is paradoxical when in reality she is the person who engineered the cynical marginalizaion of referenda in relation to the a new "European Constitution" and which was to have been subject to public referenda. The move towards creatiing such a constitution was initiated by Romani Prodi, President of the European Commission in 2000, who identified the widening European "democratic deficit" as a serious issue. Therefore, some 17 years ago the fact that Europeans are increasingly distrustful of the institutions which take decisions on their behalf but can do little about it within the European Union, had become a serious political issue. Prodi proposed a grandiose solution, a US-style founding fathers-type constitutional convention.
This eventually went forward but the true colours of European planner's mindset became crudely evident by the subsequent procedures and political decisions. The first very negative anti-democratic signal was the antics and behaviour of Valerie D'Estaigne as President of the so-called Convention on the European Constitution. This "convention" became a case study in how to marginalize the population by demonstrating an inability to manage a participatory process. It was an exercise in sickening crude bullying elitism. The outcome, predictably was a Constitutional document that passed too much power to Brussels and it was obvious that the public could not accept it.
Angela Merkel, realising that the European population would not accept such a Constitutional document demonstrated her complete lack of democratic credentials by writing an open and cynical letter to Member State leaders. She explained that public referenda were not needed to get the Constitution accepted. All of the provisions could be imposed on the public by calling the Convention an "amending treaty" which would not need any public referenda. The result was the Lisbon Treaty, imposed on the people of Europe as a monument to the massive and shameful European democratic deficit greatly assisted by Angela Merkel, today the EU's "leading politician" and EU "champion".
Labour proposes a more balanced BREXIT negotiation approach Geoffrey Black, APE, London
On 25th April, Sir Keir Starmer, the Labour Party's Secretary for Exiting the EU, delivered an excellent explanation of the different approach of the Labour Party to BREXIT negotiations. It is odd that the UK mainstream media did not provide much coverage of this announcement because it represents a better alternative to the somewhat cavalier approach adopted by Theresa May.
Far from accepting a series of assumptions, the Labour Party has adopted a more strategic approach that is supported by a range of options and thereby not cutting and drying any position. An important and honourable aspect is a unilateral declaration of EU Citizen's rights protection which Labour would introduce on their first day in office, if elected. This is a far more responsible position than the "intent" of the Conservatives. Labour aims to dispel the doubts of EU Citizens in the UK as a priority so as to eliminate any further stress and uncertainty; something others do not appear to be concerned about. The questions that such a move would weaken the UK's bargaining position with respect to UK citizens in Europe is a somewhat base concern and somewhat shameful.
Labour makes no assumptions concerning a likely "hard BREXIT" which most serious analysts consider to be irresponsible in economic and social terms. Starmer agreed that this means movement of people needs to continue but Labour would seek an agreed basis for controlled movement. In fact this is a discussion taking place in the EU at the moment.
It is encouraging to see the Labour Party come up with a more mature presentation on an approach to BREXIT negotiations. In doing so Labour has demonstrated a capacity not to just combat Conservative policies on BREXIT but to rather present a better alternative. So on the BREXIT debate the Conservatives have lost ground and we have yet to discuss the many other policy issues concerning the performance of this government; something the Conservatives had wished to avoid.
Theresa May wants to make this a battle on "who can lead the country" but at the moment the question is becoming what are the actual interests of the people of Britain over the next few years. Demands for change in the current government's policies appear to be high on the agenda but they wish to avoid this type of discussion.
The electorate have seen the "fear factor" tactics deployed by the Conservatives in the Scottish Referendum and the EU Referendum. It worked, just, in the case of the Scottish Referendum but failed in the case of the EU Referendum leading to the resignation of David Cameron. They will attempt to use this again in the last 2 weeks of th electoral campaign when people will need to keep their focus on which approach to BREXIT is likely to result in better outcomes and which policies they would like to see enacted in the country in relation to Health, social care, the economy, investment and innovation and economic growth. With the main security risks today come from terrorists who have a penchant for committing suicide so it is clear that the Trident nuclear "deterrent" isn't a deterrent with such people. The old Soviet Union has gone and the old justifications for possessing a nuclear arsenal considerably weakened. Part of the Conservative fear factor spoiler tactics will be of course to ask whether or not Jeremy Corbyn would press the nuclear button. Of course there are those who think this macho intent has some sense; it doesn't. It is only somewhat irresponsible and slightly deranged individuals like Michael Fallon who have spoken of the possibility of the UK carrying out nuclear first strikes. This is clearly complete and utter nonsense. To add to this sordid mix, Boris Johnson has not helped things by offering to provide the USA with a la carte internationally illegal attacks on Syria to order.
Not living in a tin pot republic and with a need to get rid of irresponsible Lilliputian politicians, the people of Britain should not put their faith in decision makers who dice with death, murder and mayhem, with such ease. These sorts of insane proclamations and the underlying aggression and associated violence of which the world has become increasingly fatigued need to be dispelled and removed from the discourse of constitutional democracy. Britain needs a change towards responsible international leadership seeking peace and goodwill for all, not based on military might or the pea brained goofy logic of "if you are not with us you are against us" and of course "all options are on the table", that is, "negotiation" based on threats of violence.
POST SCRIPT: Keir Starmer has written in the 1st May edition of the Guardian Newspaper concerning his doubts about Theresa May's Apporach to BREXIT, it is worth reading:
State-sponsored violence and the undermining constitutional democracy
Isobelle Daufine, Paris, EORecent history shows that the most significant state-sponsored violence that has destroyed the lives of innocent non-combatants has been sustained by the United States from Vietnam (Agent Orange) to the CIA's support of Iraqi use of poisonous gas against Iranians with the financial support of Saudi Arabia. It is therefore ridiculous that the USA has gone through the theatre of feigned offense at a false flag "chemical attack" to blame it on the Assad Regime before any evidence has been collected and analyzed. The evidence is a badly-produced amateur video placed on social media and produced by people supported directly by the governments of the UK and USA (see below).
The complaint about a reported 80 or so people killed should be contrasted by the millions who have been killed by US-sponsored warfare, economic sanctions and covert actions carried out or promoted by US administrations. To claim to be the greatest democracy in the world with a constitution that contains safeguards and checks and balances to avoid inappropriate decisions is absurd. Absurd because the administration and most of the Congress and Senate are in the hands of those who have "financed" their election campaigns or various other things, such as getting their offspring through expensive universities. The US government is essentially run by financiers and manufacturers of weapons of mass destruction as Dwight D Eisenhower warned against in his famous "Military Industrial" speech. Just as Eisenhower warned, the current state of failure of the US democratic systems, and loss of voice of the people of America in determining their own future, is the result of the power of amoral forces undermining constitutional democracy. This is also the result of there being no effective checks and balances on the military arms of the administration that hold sway over the State Department and the White House. Unfortunately, in this context, the US Constitution has nothing to offer on bringing these real aspects of US government action under a control and direction that reflects the will of the people. The US Constitution, for this reason, is inappropriate and entirely unexceptional for a country with so much military power and with a track record of such incompetence in its use as evidenced in millions of dead innocents who litter the soil over which US-related campaigns have passed leaving countries in chaos during the last 50 years. This has been of significant intensity in the Middle East more recently giving rise to the European immigration crisis and spreading instability throughout the world. The track record is abysmal and, with all it's military might, the track record is one of failure to achieve objectives. The resulting oppression and obliteration of people's freedoms from fear and mayhem caused by these irresponsible ventures is not inspiring example of "leadership" for a country which has the affront to consider itself to be the leader of the so-called "free world".
Hollywood and the failing States
Amir Habib, Cairo, EmacipationThe recent events leading to Donald Trump agreeing to have the US fire around 50 Tomahawk missiles to impact the area of a Syrian airfield was the cause of widespread embarrassment. This was because the images reporting on the so-called chemical attack were inconclusive. Ibn Nr has noted that the videos that appeared in Western media tended to showed photogenic children and in one scene with two patients there were some 20-odd burly "medics" all wearing medical face masks and doing precious little. The other scenes showed people running and shouting with a dynamic video sequence of back shots showing the circular symbol of the Oscar winning Hollywood idols, the White Helmets, a propaganda arm of Al Nusra. Although promoted as a civil defence force their role is to video specific mounted scenarios to be fed to the Western media. Their propaganda has been swallowed hook line and sinker by US and more particularly UK authorities who have provide them in total of over £70 million in funding. This is an absurdity when people in London and Stockholm are suffering from the consequence of murderous actions of sympathizers of this very same terrorist group.
Boris Johnson is one of the many Western politicians who are thoroughly misguided in using the group's output as well as in supporting them with UK tax payer's money.
The explanation that an air raid resulted in the rupture of stored chemical warfare containers hidden by Al Nusra is a more convincing explanation of the cause of the release of gas. On the other hand Ibn Nr is of the opinion that Al Nusra is quite capable of releasing gas on a limited scale to secure footage to produce coverage to blame the Assad Regime. At this stage of the war against Isil, Isis or Daesh the Syrian Government has absolutely no reason to risk losing momentum by attracting the inevitable outcome of actually using chemical weapons. They have been successful with the Russians in negotiating freedom of civilians as well as having the terrorists move out, as in Aleppo. However, this could only happen when the terrorists realized they were going to lose. The US action has interfered with this aspect of the peace process.
President Trump's actions were illegal and just a show. He did not wait for any investigation of the so-called chemical attack before taking action; he was taken in by a poorly produced propaganda video. The claims that the Russian guarantees of the Syrian regime ridding itself of any chemical weapons are unsafe has no grounding in facts when US teams assisted in the destruction of chemical stockpiles. This process was very thorough. This line of reasoning that Russia was not up to the job was used by Rex Tillerson the new State Secretary, in the absence of any proof of who carried out the attack. Tillerson's slow and pedantic prepared script approach is a matter of increasing concern. It is clear that the USA continues to protect Al Nusra front in Syria in spite of their being considered to be a terrorist organization responsible for murderous activities. The only way the terrorists could have gained any control over any Syrian material was by previous captures of inventory. According to Ibn Nr, most of the existing chemical weapon materials in Syria is in the hands of the terrorists who have obtained supplies via Turkey.
|"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.” |
Hitler's Minister of Propaganda
Lastly, it is estimated that in Mosul in Iraq some 320 civilians have been killed by "allied" attacks in the last 3 weeks where as in Syria the figure is around 120 and yet all of the media attention is on the so-called chemical attack where is alleged up to 80 people died.
If you repeat it enough people will believe you
Stefan Stein,Berlin, APE
A depressing amount of the "news" and public statements of actions of various regimes emanating from CNN, BBC as well as the CIA, Pentagon and the State Department consist of little more than a scandalous and shameless range of baseless assertions, unattributed sources and complete absence of evidence, is an outstanding example of the crudest form of propaganda based on lies. This same approach was exercised and explained by Joseph Goebbels, Hitler's Minister of Propaganda (see the box on the left).
The obsequious sycophant
Isaac Goldberger, New York, APE
Boris Johnson, the British Foreign Secretary, is clearly out of his depth. His repeated appearances as Trump's lap dog and obsequious sycophantic sideshows demonstrate a parochial eagerness to please "America" by repeating, without question, doubtful mantras from the Beltway. His behaviour has become an increasing embarrassment and subject of jokes and derision amongst international leadership and diplomatic circles. It is amazing that the people of the United Kingdom have to endure a representation by a clown on the international stage. This is unacceptable.
Geoffrey Black, APE, London
Theresa May called general election in the UK to be held on 8th June 2017. She justified this on the basis of there being too much disagreement in Westminster and unity in the country meant she needed a new mandate to provide a strong support in carrying out BREXIT negotiations. There is no evidence to support this assertion and it is more likely that the aim is to gain another 5 years of fixed term parliament when currently the polls indicate the Conservatives will win comfortably and increase their majority.
The other political parties, however, see this as an opportunity to call attention to the government's record on a range of issues of more immediate importance to the electorate. The Conservatives will not be able to avoid this discussion and it is of interest to see what comes out in the very rushed production of party election manifestos.
The tone of the election on the Conservative side is already descending to low levels with the firing off of personal insults largely aimed at the Labour party leader Jeremy Corbyn. Jeremy Corbyn suffers not so much from bad policies but from a biased UK media somewhat akin to the CNN syndrome in its treatment of Donald Trump. So far the polls give the Conservatives a commanding lead of 20 points over the Labour party but it is notable that Labour have a majority support from the under-40s. Part of the challenge is for Labour which has the highest political party membership in the UK and is the largest socialist party in Europe, to get the younger generation to actually go out and vote on the day. The Conservative can rely on the over 60s who all tend to vote.
An embarrassing, unintelligent report
Paul Hammond, Washington
The Director of National Intelligence of the government of the United States, has released a highly embarrassing report entitled, "Background to "Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections": The Analytic Process and Cyber Incident Attribution."
This report is embarrassing because it is such an amateur cut and paste job with little input from professional intelligence analysts and containing basic errors in facts, out-of-date information and other details pointing to a product of a seriously uninformed team. It is even worse that the "dodgy dossier" signed by Tony Blair in the run up to the Iraq war which he attempted to pass off as an intelligence assessment. These reports are highly politicized and products of the post-truth and "fake-fact" environment that permeated the Westminster filter bubble under Blair then and that pervades today's Beltway.
For an "intelligence briefing" dealing with such serious accusations, the range of levels of certainty of conclusions in the document are unacceptable for any responsible decision-maker. The assessment contained in the unclassified report is stated to be supported with "high confidence" by the CIA and FBI and by NSA with moderate confidence. At the back of the document three levels of confidence are defined with the high confidence, this being the highest level, signifying that "High confidence in a judgement does not imply that the assessment is a fact or certainty; such judgements might be wrong". This definition which, in reality, is a disclaimer, and is simply not serious for the field of cyber crime.
It also provides no justification for the deportation of 35 Russian diplomatic staff from the USA.
Rather than provide anything convincing concerning Russia's attempt to influence the US election, the document provides a considerable amount of irrelevant information on the Russia Today (RT) channel.
For those interested in understanding the rise of cross-border news of which RT is a world leader, it is worth reading the independent report produced by PwC UK (Pricewaterhouse Coopers UK plc) entitled The rise of cross-border news. Margarita Simonyan, Editor in Chief of RT explains the reason for this independent report as, "We wanted to understand the motivation of viewers and readers of cross-border news - and we believed this understanding would help all providers of global news deliver a service that meet users' needs".
Also, in order to clear up the misinformation concerning RT propaganda see the internal APE Brief RT_20160520. Our APE General Editorial Advice is that little or no additional resources should be allocated to this non-story.
Diversionary tactics wont save corrupt Macedonian politicians
JB Swift, Brussels
Solomon Weiskopf, Skopje
Balkan Insight has stated in a recent article that the European Commission expressed “concern” on Monday over the “tensions and the negative rhetoric” present in Macedonia in the past few days". This must be the understatement of the year.
During the Christmas period there have already been a lot of emails flowing between top EU officials, exchanges in corridors and even in some closed seasonal cocktail excounters as they react to media advisories and wires that point out the widespread extent of VMRO DPMNE party corruption and intimidation. In particular the use of a broken "agricultural policy" in influencing voting patterns and which helped swing the election towards VMRO DPMNE. Already the subject of the possible suspension of agricultural funding has been raised.
The VMRO DPMNE leader, Nikola Gruevski, has accused the State Electoral Commission, DIK, and foreign diplomats of interfering in the election process trying to steal their election victory. He even accused DIK of "unlawful" decisions, said that foreign ambassadors were interfering in its work, and threatened to shut down civil sector groups allegedly linked to George Soros.
According to Deutsche Welle:
"Calls for protests in front of the US Embassy in Skopje on social media were later supplemented with threats against opposition supporters and publishing of their home addresses accompanied with the message "Get ready, we're coming." Speaking during a VMRO rally on December 15 one party official told supporters to prepare for the "Night of Knives," possibly referring to events in Nazi Germany in 1934 known as the "Night of the Long Knives."
Being a visceral parochial politician in a tiny country, Gruevski sees the EU as a source of money to be fooled by cynical cosmetic "reforms", such as in the agricultural sector, to keep money flowing. In order to avoid official investigations, suspension of funding or the black listing of consultancy companies who actively assist VMRO DPMNE operatives manipulate EU funds, he is resorting to displacement activities consisting of threatening international officials. However, he does not appear to understand that they will not respond the way that national ministry officials do, who obey so as not to risk losing their jobs. International officials do not come within the grip of such intimidation tactics that have been the hallmark techniques of VMRO DPMNE's operational norms.
The recent appearance of death threats on the website Imgur is the sort of thing Gruevski's small minded extremism attracts and encourages. Fake death notices have appeared on the US and EU Ambassadors Jess Baily and Samuel Žbogar including their images and also includes the former EU mediator in Macedonia, Peter Vanhouotte, and former European Parliament rapporteur on Macedonia, Richard Howitt.
No further comment needed.
Salt & Vinegar option under BREXIT
JB Swift, Brussels
Donald Tusk, President of the European Council, assertion that no BREXIT is better than hard BREXIT and that leaving will only leave salt and vinegar. This exposes a behind-the-scenes effort on the part of a wide range of interest groups to try and reverse the UK's decision to leave the European Union.
What is not being accepted is that no one has quantified the benefits of remaining. In the 1980s UK European Commissioner Cockburn commissioned a study called "No Europe". This was supposed to calculate the benefits of being in Europe. The initial study came up with no benefits so the study was repeated, again coming up with no significant benefits. This report was a source of embarrassment and was therefore binned by the Commission. However, the fundamental message of the report was not lost on those who had read the report, especially some members of the UK Conservative party. It should be remembered that Cockburn was a UK Commissioner proposed by the Thatcher government. The significant enlargement that took place since then including Central European countries helped exacerbate the so-called democratic deficit and the current likelihood of enlargement going beyond Bulgaria into the Balkans is bringing the spotlight onto doubtful democratic practice and less EU benefits for existing EU Member States, especially in the area of agriculture.
The concern with the likely intensification of the democratic deficit was a major issue in bringing about BREXIT. This is also an emerging issue in France who wish to maintain the benefit of massive EU agricultural financial transfers to their agricultural sector. The bottom line here is that many in Britain know that the European Commission has no bargaining position if a country wishes to leave the EU because it is not possible to quantify the benefits of remaining; indeed, with enlargement, they will become negative. Any "hard exit" will prejudice European exporters to the UK. This means trying to punish, or threatening to punish the UK, bordering on economic sanctions, will only hurt Europe. This is why there is a panic in the European Commission. In any case, the British have a preference for eating fish and chips with salt and vinegar and this tradition will continue after BREXIT.
Macedonian election result increases likelihood of more EU member state exits
Marion Fonseca, Skopje.
Ljubomir Frckovski, the former Macedonian interior and foreign minister was never optimistic about the outcome of the recent Macedonian election. In an interview with DW he stated that he believed that Macedonia has a big problem with democracy. "That is why it is so important not to attribute too much meaning to the election process in Macedonia." Modern dictators, such as those who have been part of the Macedonian populist party, have been able to manipulate elections. That is why the entire election process "needs to be taken out of the hands of the government and there needs to be international monitoring in place. Fortunately this is now going to happen in Macedonia."
The problem is the international observers could not monitor cash payments made to poor rural inhabitants who are kept in their low income status by defective and corrupt agricultural sector policies. This state of affairs is sustained by the ruling party who drag their feet in relation to the introduction of better policies to enhance producer incomes and in line with the Common Agricultural Policy of the EU. According to a rural development strategist working at the European Commission in Brussels, "This Macedonian election result is a disaster and will only feed discontent amongst those Euro-skeptics whose main motivation is to live in a Union that is free of corruption and a democratic deficit." He added, "This only contributes to the feeling that certain countries are not welcome in the EU until they eliminate political corruption. The current talk about Balkan integration into the EU only helps destabilize the confidence of member state populations in the EU creating momentum for member state exits from the EU."
Other observers say the European Commission should be paying urgent attention to the development of agricultural sector policies and should address the lack of freedom of journalists in Macedonia. They live in a regime of fear pervading the environment of reporting on political matters. In March Peter Vanhoutte, who mediated between the Macedonian political parties, stated, "I am shocked by the current situation, the atmosphere of fear, suppression of freedom, by the high number of people currently in detention for the simple fact that they opposed this government or refused to obey its rules." Vanhoutte was regularly targeted by pro-government media and by the ruling party in a cavalier manner, who declared him to be persona non grata because of his outspoken critique of the government.
Samuel Žbogar, Head of the Delegation of the European Union in Macedonia points to needed reforms in Macedonia
Solomon Weiskopf, Skopje
Samuel Žbogar, Head of the European Union Commission Delegation in Macedonia visited Prilep at the end of November together with the British Ambassador, Charles Garrett. He expressed the hope that the upcoming elections would be conducted in a fair and credible manner leading to a new government that would engage in implementing serious reforms and helping create conditions for a path to Europe. Žbogar is recently-appointed and appears to be unaware that the European Commission has come under mounting criticism from more rational Macedonian observers and international agricultural sector experts for its ineffective oversight and lack of response to more obvious emerging issues relating to the agricultural sector. Agricultural policies remain subservient to a singular function as a "voting machine" favouring the VMRO-Democratic Party for Macedonian National Unity (VMRO–DPMNE). Distorted policies favour those who rent substantial areas of state land and who illegally sub-let it to gain all of the subsidies. Those who rent and work the land receive no policy benefits. Staff at the ministry of agriculture admit that since this practice took hold the relevant land rental records have not been updated at the Ministry. The Ministry policies also favour processing industries who support political parties and at the expense of the majority of low income producers. It is obvious to those who work in the sector that Macedonia has no chance of achieving fair elections as long as the agricultural sector policies favour the corrupt electoral process in favour of VMRO–DPMNE.
The IPARD programme, the main consumer of EU tax payers' funds, is a continuing failure being unable to absorb projected funding because of self-imposed intentional spoiler tactics conducted by VMRO-DPMNE aperatchiks. The EU Commission pre-accession Progress reports are particularly weak on agriculture issues. However comments on the ongoing poor performance of IPARD is a permanent feature in these reports during the last 3 years, including the report for 2016. Besides impractical and somewhat non-transparent investment funding under IPARD which many consider to favour supporters of the main political party, technical assistance projects funded by the EU have difficulty in advancing under the prevailing conditions within the Ministry of agriculture. According to a recent detailed article in Emancipation
, ministry officials have admitted that several EU-funded projects related to policy have failed and that project managers providing technical assistance have been driven to resignation out of frustration due to VMRO-DPMNE apparatchik interference. Ministry officials have alleged that if consultants, brought in at EU expense to assist on policy issues, disagree on the current approach, then elements from the VMRO DPMNE will ensure that they are "eased out" through withdrawal of support and the creation of obstacles such as non-cooperation. A senior member of a management committee that oversees the current progress of an EU-funded policy project at the ministry of agriculture, has alleged that during the last three months significant resources appear to have been withdrawn from the team leader who was attempting to introduce improved policy methods.
The ministry pays lip service to the introduction of compliant legislation and so-called administrative structures but, in practice, agricultural policy continues to be out of line with the European Union's Common Agricultural Policy. This is to the detriment of farmers' income and sector economic development. The deployment of actions and means dedicated to undermining free elections continues. This requires urgent action and, in particular, the attention of the Head of the EU Delegation in Skopje.
British ambassador to Macedonia's presentation on relations with the country
Sarah Muskin, Sofia
An unusual YouTube presentation, featuring the British Ambassador to Macedonia, represents a rather distinct approach to diplomacy. This is an informative video where the Ambassador, Charles Garrett, presents Macedonia in a very positive light and explains UK relations with Macedonia. The attractive aspect of this video is the lack of hype and the simple exposition of some aspects of positive collaboration between countries; well worth watching. To see this video click here
. Apeurope authorizes detailed study on the costs & benefits of Brexit
Nevit Turk, Paris
During the Apeurope Annual General Meeting held on 10th October, Group correspondents registered their extreme frustration at the absense of evidence-based positions, on all sides, during the recent European referendum. With the decision to leave the European Union, this lack of clarity continues. The vascillation and delays by all British polictical parties in defining any coherent position is alarming and the posturing of the European Commission officials and some heads of state of Member States is unacceptable. Therefore, in the continued absense of any positive government or Commission action the Apeurope Board has authorized a study on the "Costs & Benefits of the UK leaving the European Union".
This study will analyse the sector and foreign trade partner potential opportunities, gaps and impacts arising from the new options that now exist with BREXIT. This has the objective of providing a basis for identifying mutual benefits to the remaining European Union's members and to the UK.
On the question of foreign investment in the UK drying up with BREXIT, some recent confidential corporate executive conclaves are concluding that the UK's prospects are better outside the EU because the economy will grow faster than the EU as a result of the incremental growth in UK trade with non-EU countries. The organization of negotiating teams, with many members coming from British Commonwealth countries, is impressive and there is a large build-up of trading profiles being prepared, not with the EU, but with a long list of global partners. Whereas the UK started BREXIT with weak negotiation resources the current capabilities have already surpassed the somewhat sclerotic approach associated with the EU Commission typified by secrecy and a very poor public image such as their poorly handled TTIP negotiations.
|The return of the UK fishing grounds|
will be a major economic and
social benefit of BREXIT
There is a poorly appreciated fact surrounding the UK regulatory environment for financial services and a long established flexibility in the way the UK-based financial sector handle just about any challenge, sets London apart from any other world financial centre. This has its drawbacks but remains a well known, but seldom admitted, reality. The European Commission dreams that BREXIT will result the global financial centre migrating to Frankfurt, or anywhere else in mainland Europe, but according to traders this is unlikely to come true for the foreseeable future. At the moment European centres do not have the right combination of capabilities, experience and regulatory environments or, frankly, any track record to contemplate substituting London as the global financial centre.
The Whale in the coming BREXIT talks
John Templer, Shetland
In some of the preparatory exchanges concerning the Apeurope Study "Costs & Benefits of the UK leaving the European Union" one delegate pointed out that one of the most shocking give-aways by the Heath Conservative government, when the UK entered the European Union in 1972, was the UK's fishing grounds, amongst the most productive on the planet. This had a significant negative social and economic impact on the British fishing industry. BREXIT provides the damaged UK fishing industry and the UK fishermen the opportunity to regain their former prominent contribution to Britain's Agricultural, Fisheries and Forestry sector by supplying the UK with home-caught fish.
The current catch value, official and unofficial, is around £500 million. Much fish coming to the UK market goes through large EU-based factory ships who simply sell fish caught within these waters to UK fishermen or land the fish for port-side markets. With BREXIT the national fishing communities' income could double to around £1 billion.
The re-establishment of British sovereignty over the former UK fishing grounds would be a major tangible benefit of BREXIT. In preparation to this major benefit it would make sense, in terms of managing the total manageable catch (TAC) to come to agreement with Iceland on management and to only permit EU vessels to fish under license paid to the UK treasury. License income would be used to monitor fish stocks and prevent abuse arising from unacceptable catching practices such as avoiding catching and killing very young fish needed to grow stocks for the sustainability of the industry.
This could become the Whale in the BREXIT negotiation fish tank when discussions get going. Several countries, France and Spain and indirectly The Netherlands, have much to lose with this aspect of BREXIT. The solution, of course, is for EU Commission and other Member State heads to stop their talk about punishing Britain for BREXIT but to come to a satisfactory settlement of things like this; there are many more to come and Emancipation News will be setting these out here.Putin's Useful Idiots?
Dimitri Ivanov, London
An American NGO called the Henry Jackson Society, has just published a document by an Andrew Foxall of the so-called Russia Studies Centre. This document is entitled, "Putin's Useful Idiots: Britain's Left, Right and Russia"
, demonstrates a lamentable misunderstanding of Russia's policy with repect to so-called left and right movements worldwide. There is no depth to this document with most references being all very recent, most dated 2016 and one or two 1990s vintage. In fact the analysis is plain wrong and reflects perhaps the writer's age and lack of experience with the fundamentals of Russian motivations going back beyond the initiation of World War II. The writer has simply bought into the recent Clintonesque and John Kerry State Department-driven paranoia about Putin. The personalisation of this document, centred on Putin, is typical of the brand of knee jerk journalism that is the US mainstream media today. This cannot be considered to be a serious researched document reflecting the current motivations of Putin.
Any amateur student of history knows that Russia has a well-established habit, like the USA, of funding sympathetic political movements. In fact the USA dedicates somthing like 500 times more funding to foreign political movements and NGOs than does Russia. Indeed, Russia learned some of these techniques from the USA. It is notable that although there is ample evidence of USA funding of foreign political activity as well as regime change supported by bloody wars, the Clinton campaign and security agencies in the USA could not come up with any evidence for Russian interference in the recent US election. Of course even the FBI was accused of acting on behalf of Russia. There is by contrast excessive amounts of evidence concerning USA interference in foreign elections as well as support of the so-called right in Ukraine as well as terrorist groups in the Middle East and of strong political support for Saudi Arabia in spite of evidence of their involvement
in the murderous events of 9-11 in downtown New York. One cannot equate this behaviour with anything to do with freedom, democracy and the rule of law but the author of this document does not want to be bothered with such details but simply wants to deliver on attacking Putin.
One bizarre recommendation by this individual is a that politicians should be required to register the fact that they will participate in coverage by such media organizations as RT. This is a MacCarthyism excess. RT receives funding from the Russian government in the same way as Voice of America in the USA or BBC in the UK. Most US mainstream media are essentially stenographers for US government output, especially in the case of foreign affairs and State Department output so that on these stations it is difficult to get alternative point of view across.
A self-imposed or funded censorship creates enormous bias in news coverage, indeed, the experience of Bernie Sanders during the primaries, provides ample evidence of this. RT has a range of programmes that are managed by people who would not accept any editorial orientation from RT. For example Larry King and his program "Politicking", Ameera David's "Boom Bust" and Afshin Rattansi's "Going Underground"". These are all programs that provide a rational and alternative view of opinions and all off them grill interviewees from any side.
Finally, to highlight where this document goes wrong, like the USA, Russia provides "support" to people whose ideas are potentially against the interests of the country. Such people, mainly on the right, are seduced into misunderstading of provision of platforms, and even funding, signifies support for their basic philosophies; it doesn't and never has done. It is largely designed to raise their profile and expose them so as to line up domestic opinion against them. This succeeded in the case of the National Front and most other ultra right wing UK parties to the benefit of the UK population.
In disagreement with Stalin, Leon Trotsky pointed out the danger of the right (Fascists) and Stalin made him pay the ultimate price. However, the lesson arising from the Nazi fiasco caused Russia to finally understand Trotsky's analysis at a great human cost. The recent Ukraine events saw the US State Department support of neofascist paramilitary units. There were calls for NATO expansion into Ukraine. NATO, however, had demonstrated its willingness to alter its etablished defensive role willy nilly to pursue a proactive regime change in Libya, under the guise of an innocent "no flight zone". This created a significant change in the perception of the stablity of NATO as a reliable adversary alliance both within the UK as well as in Russia. The evidence is there for all to see that NATO's intervention resulted in chaos and the spread of ISIS and a major European immigration crisis which Muammar Gaddafi had predicted and had prevented. This led, naturally, to the Crimean outcome in light of the important Russian naval base and ethnic make-up of Crimeans, mainly Russian speakers. Ukrainan events at the time was showing TV coverage of Ukrainan neo-fascists clubbing members of Russian ethnic groups to death. This is not to argue that what has occurred is right it is simply to point out that there were good reasons for this move in strategic terms as well as in terms of the security of the population in Crimea. When the West acts in a way that does not demonstrate a consistent strategy there is a problem of predictability resulting in instability. The only way to stop this growing global chaos is to take decisive actions.
In such a world there is a need for balanced rational analyses to identify options for possible soltions. The shallow nature of this journalistic publication devoid of objective analysis with rights reserved by a UK registered charity calls into question why this organization has a charitable status when it is wasting money on such polemic that contributes nothing to the debate.Hollande's reclassification of "collateral damage" to "war crimes" is just ridiculous, he must be getting desperate
Francois Hollande is a real disappointment. He needs to understand that the French proudly led the disastrous Libyan invasion that led to the murder of Gadaffi and created a failed state in what was one of the richest countries in Africa. This also led to massive migration into Southern Europe and a negative narrative absorbed by people born in France as well as others who now try and terrorize the people of France. The French government have shown a good degree of incompetence in this story. This was all initiated as a result of a knee jerk reaction attempting to align France with USA State Department desires. But no one can deny that this action, like others in Afghanistan, Iraq and now Syria were punctuated with atrocities and war crimes but the "handling" of all such event was to simply put these down to "collateral damage" and therefore in a baskets labeled "mistakes" or "not worth investigating".
Francois Hollande is now demonstrating typical French leader's penchant of cow towing to the US State Department's line by trying to add weight to the State Department's hysterical theatrics by pushing a motion in the UN Security Council that they knew Russia would have to refuse. Like the United Kingdom, France followed the USA's very bad example of walking out of the Security Council when the Syrian US Ambassador was to speak. These people are supposed to be diplomats but they act like a group of uncouth scoundrels who no longer feel they need to hear the opinions and presentation of facts by any opposition. This is after all why they exist and are there. They are not there to set a bad example to the world demonstrating their tendency to only listen to one side. Things might be very different if the USA State Department and UN Ambassador would only present credible evidence supporting their claims to show who is really responsible for any specific event that might be classified as a war crime. These accusations are serious enough for the US to be required to support such claims with real time evidence. The current state-of-the-art monitoring surveillance systems being deployed could present such evidence if it existed but, because they are unable to present any evidence, the truth appears not to be with the USA and its partners. They rely on bluster and assertion. Since they have been unable to present any evidence when required, and on a repetitive basis, their credibility is low and increasing numbers have increasing doubts about th sincerity of the USA. Resorting to histrionics and accusations of "barbarism" and the like is shallow theatrics that only makes them look ridiculous. Is this behaviour a less-than-subtle attempt to distract attention from a failed foreign policy based on blind aggression?
The attack on the Syrian forces in Aleppo was not "a terrible mistake" it was coordinated by several coalition units (to not isolate the US contribution) and attacked an area known to be occupied by the Syrian government forces for over 2 years. The reason the "mission" could be "called off immediately", as claimed by John Kerry, was because so much ordinance had been thrown at the location, killing over 62 soldiers, that it was already "mission accomplished" within a very short time lapse
The EU insistence on supporting failed US/NATO/"coalition" middle east "policies" sustains the immigrant pressure on the EU
This title says it all, because of the weak European leadership at Member State and Commission levels, constituencies of the European Union, the people, continue to pay a high price for the yawning democratic deficit of the European Union. No wonder the United Kingdom voted to leave, they see more promise without this expensive suffocating overhead.
In a shaky Europe where the UK is giving the impression that it will not compromise on border controls while the UK is a major EU market for European companies and employs many Europeans, lands the EU and not the UK with a problem. Markets have reacted the wrong way, leading to a further devaluation in the UK pound. This has helped UK business export growth helping strengthen the UK's trading independence from the EU. The more the disoriented heads of some Member States, including Angela Merkel who was the one who encouraged all heads of state not to provide the European electorate with a vote on the new constitution, and the confused Commission President continue on the line of punishing the United Kingdom the more such individuals will expose their lack of credibility as representatives of anything approaching a participatory democracy. This typical continental reaction, harking back to the 1930s is hardening the position of many in the United Kingdom and encouraging many more in Europe to consider following the United Kingdom to regain their sovereignty as constituents in true democracies.
Paranoid NATO warping Europe's foreign policy
NATO’s 28 leaders took decisions to bolster the Alliance’s deterrence and defence at the first working session this year. They would have been better deployed discussing how to close down this failed institution. But the robot-like Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg plods on taking his instructions and reading his prepared briefs in an unconvincing manner always acting as spokesperson in chief for the US arms industry and murky lobbies who want to stoke up support for an organization that is destabilizing the world. Maybe the EU should present NATO with a bill to pay for the chaos created by the mass migration into Europe resulting from its failed military efforts. Keeping the cold war alive and well appears to be NATO's main current role.
European Union Foreign Policy is failing it's Citizens
The recent past events in the Ukraine are yet another example of the failure of the European Union Member States to implement a sound independent Foreign Policy. The recent lauding of a Ukrainian Prime Minister, Arseniy Yatsenyuk, by the European Commission does not hide the fact that he was hardly elected by a democratic process when those who put him in power used selective and calculated violence and murder to remove a democratically elected President and to fill the main Government portfolios with representatives of Neo Nazi parties of the "Right" who profess anti-Semitic and anti-ethnic Russian views. The EU policies appear to have been quite effective in stoking up this sort of polemic not only in the Ukraine but increasingly in Member States of the EU, encouraging many citizens to reflect on the possibility that life might be more agreeable if their countries were no longer members of the Union.
Read more ....
Governments that spy on citizens
The recent revelations concerning secret surveillance of private communications on the world wide web by the USA National Security Agency will not have been surprising to anyone who had read the book "Cypherpunks - Freedom and the Future of the Internet" by Julian Assange and others (published by OR Books at the end of 2012 - shown right). Whereas before there was a sort of plausible denial that such activities were being carried out by the USA and UK government agencies, it would seem that now the facts are seeping out to the general embarrassment of those who would like to uphold a more wholesome if not rational image.
President Obama has exposed his weakness by trotting out the tired time-tested justification that if people want security they need to give up some of their privacy (read freedom).
This was the underlying thrust of Nazi and Fascist "reasoning" used to control the middle classes who accepted official outrages against others for fear of becoming conspicuous by rebelling against it and becoming marginalized. This regime of fear lets the government off the hook in their particularly aggressive treatment of whistle blowers and is a testament to the command and control absolutist approach to defending the image of officialdom and governance, through intimidation.
Read more ....
EU military spending is 'elephant in the room' and key
factor in European debt crisis
We remind people of a report that argues that high levels of military spending played a key role in the unfolding European economic crisis and continues to undermine efforts to resolve it. The report was produced by the Transnational Institute and the Dutch Campaign against the Arms Trade. The report, "Guns, Debt and Corruption: Military spending and the EU crisis", demonstrates how military budgets across Europe have been largely protected, at a time of severe social cuts. EU's military expenditure totalled €194 billion in 2010, equivalent to the combined annual deficits of Greece, Italy and Spain. The latest data released today by the Stockholm International Peace Institute suggests little change in these overall trends. The report unveils how high levels of military spending in countries such as Greece, Cyprus and Spain at the epicentre of the Euro crisis played a significant role in their debt crises. Much of the military spending was tied to arms sales by creditor countries like Germany and France. In Portugal and Greece, several major arms deals are being investigated for serious irregularities. Yet creditor countries continue to hawk new arms deals to debtor countries whilst demanding ever more stringent cuts in social services.
The report argues that resolving the economic crisis will require cancellation of the debt tied to corrupt arms deals and a redirection of military spending towards social needs. It highlights research that spending on education and public transport creates double the number of jobs as investments in defence.
Report author Frank Slijper said: “Global military spending was still at a record €1.3 trillion in 2011 despite the global economic crisis. Even in Europe most
countries still spend more than ten years ago. The only austerity that Europe really needs is one imposed on the military and the arms industry.”
“It is time for Brussels and EU member states to publicly acknowledge the 'elephant in the room' of the current EU economic crisis and that is the role of
military spending. At a time of harsh cuts in social services, it is morally unjustifiable to spend money on weapons that should be invested in creating jobs
and tackling poverty.”
The report has been released in the EU as campaigners in around 30 countries held over 100 events worldwide to protest record levels of military spending and to call for resources to be reallocated to anti-poverty and environmental sustainability programmes. The report can be downloaded here where other recent reports can be accessed. NATO remains a major vector in maintaining military expenditure irrespective of need.
Ólafur Ragnar Grímsson
How constitutional principles saved a nationLike all politicians facing the challenges of demands being made by owners of assets of failed private banks, Ólafur Ragnar Grímsson, President of Iceland, faced pressure from creditors for the government to bail out private banks with government revenue or loans and to compensate deposit holders. Rather than panic under the immense pressure of the extra-constitutional pressures brought about by the IMF, banks and media, Ólafur Grímsson took time to reflect upon and to analyze the issue. In completing his decision analysis he had to take into account the direct pressure from Gordon Brown and Alastair Darling.
President Grímsson did not react in a knee-jerk fashion as Gordon Brown and the US Governments had done. The solution of these so-called "democracies" was to force normal people, including farmers, nurses, doctors, factory workers and fishermen pay for the mistakes made by the management of big banks. He recognized immediately that such a "solution" was completely unconstitutional; the demands of the "financial system" posed a threat to democracy. Indeed, President Grímsson was one of the first politicians to openly express this problem of the undermining of democracy through an unfair imposition of taxes, levies and other forms of financial sequestration on innocent citizens engineered by the IMF and governments in countries who themselves had succumbed to the extra-constitutional pressures from banks.
Ólafur Grímsson refused to sign the IMF and other agreements the British government tried to impose leading to the UK branding Iceland in the same category as Al Quaeda and other terrorist organizations. In face of this disgraceful attempts at intimidation Ólafur Grímsson proposed a referendum so that the people of Iceland could decide whether or not they were willing to pay for the bail out of the private banks. Naturally the people of Iceland, given the opportunity to express their preferences, refused to support such a bail out when the referendum was held. Since then Iceland has recovered while countries who succumbed to the extra-constitional pressures face increasingly difficult circumstances as exemplified by the current events in the UK and the disgraceful treatment of the people of Cyprus, Greece, Spain and other countries at the hands of the IMF, ECB and European Commission.
The intensification of currency conflict
The paralysis in the necessary dynamics of economies has led to falling confidence in future prospects. The recognition of this fact is causing some reflection on the necessity for growth. However, this "solution" is bound to be shaped along traditional Keynesian lines of public expenditure. This creates a strategic problem of avoiding price stimulus in the face of excessive "quantitative easing" and the early requirement to raise interest rates to prevent transforming the recession into slumpflation.
Because interest rates are being held low investment portfolios are increasingly absorbing positions on soft and hard commodities, including gold and silver.
With each country thinking that "quantitative easing" and low interest rates will help stimulate exports as a result of the fall in purchasing power of the national currency, the pernicious reality is that most countries today are involved in a currency conflict. This currency conflict also exists within nations where savers are being penalized and those on fixed income from financial investments have found their real incomes decline by in excess of 60%.
The overall decline in confidence in the major currencies of the US dollar and Euro has led to major trading partners in Asia to begin trade agreements under which their currencies are pegged and directly convertible without making use of an intermediate "international" currency.
The bad precedent set in the Cyprus deal
The current "solutions" to the economic debt crises such as quantitative easing and low interest rates hurt savers and it is important to emphasize that savers are not those creating debt. Savers help banks survive by providing funds to them. However these funds remain the property of savers. The decisions made this weekend include a move to have some of those with current and savings accounts in Cypriot banks pay a levy in excess of 20% as a condition for the bail out, is a disgrace. This undermines the necessary level of confidence in the neutrality of banks enforced through an underlying lack of respect for basic constitutional considerations. This is an act of theft manipulated through the prevention of people accessing their own property in the form of money while the robbery takes place. This solution attacks the very people who have done nothing wrong. This undermines the already shaky European Commission's, and therefore the European Union's legitimacy as democratic institutions. Why is the European Parliament doing nothing? Why do our UK politicians say nothing about this unacceptable abuse?
Issues of constitutional economics
Constitutional economics is largely associated with the work of James Buchanan who received the Nobel Prize for his contributions to this field.
The recent experiences of Ireland, Portugal, Hungary, Italy, Greece and Spain have raised questions as to the role of constitution in economic policy as the foundation of democratic participation in the formulation of economic policies. Broadly speaking, as a fundamentally "regulatory" organization the European Union continues to consolidate its operations in the name of freedom and democracy and the rule of law but in reality law is being used to rule over a geographic zone without effective participatory democracy and therefore with declining freedoms.
The arbitrary nature of European decision-making has been highlighted by the current economic crisis which was caused initially by an over-valuation of mainly US-inspired derivatives that were purchased world wide by gullible banks and other types of investor. Evidence appears to indicate that many transactions in this domain were fraudulent and in several cases client funds were "lost" while executives, during the period leading up to the admission of failure, paid themselves very large bonuses that had no relationship to performance. Several European banks were affected by the downward valuations of portfolios and the degree of failure led to several governments believing that the only solution was to bail out these banks. The theory was that by handing money to the banks to "build up their balance sheets" lending would start again and the economies would recover. However, the transfer of government funds to the bank bail outs raised government debt and imposed current and future rises in taxation on the constituencies as well as cut backs in public services. The combined effect has been "austerity" and an evolving recession making it less likely that banks will lend. In the meantime bank executives continue to pay themselves multi-million Euro bonuses on top of multi million Euro salaries in a continued cavalier attitude to the use of public funds and to shareholders.
The effective devaluation of currencies arising from low interest rates and "quantitative easing" was expected to stimulate exports. However, as explained in the previous article a currency conflict exists in competitive devaluations resulting in disappointing export performances.
Greece, the first major casualty of Europe's democratic deficitGreece has essentially lost its right to rule.
Sovereignty has been traded for loans from the IMF and Euro group in order to pay of creditors and, in the main, private banks.
The deprivation to be enforced on the population of Greece is the price to be paid for irresponsibility on the part of the European Union and, in particular, the European Commission, for not monitoring and auditing the state of affairs of Greece as part of the Single Market and as a member of the Euro in particular.
the birth & death of democracy...
Behind the scenes Germany presses its interests by demanding proof that the Greek politicians will deliver on what they have voted to undertake while, at the same time, obtaining front end loadings and pay backs in the form of arms sales to Greece for German manufacturers. Naturally the arms sales were agreed to by politicians and not be the people of Greece.
The strategic disintegration of Europe? The potential candidates for future European enlargement confront challenges that threaten the cohesion of the European Union.
In a visit to Serbia in August 2011, Angela Merkel commented on the unwelcomed development of parallel structures supported by the Serbs in Kosovo which undermine the Kosovo state. It would seem that the direct purpose of undermining the state is a common and continuing policy of the Serbian psych affecting areas where Serbs live outside Serbia. These proclivities persist encouraged by appeals, by local politicians, to Serbian nationalism. A case in point is Bosnia and Herzegovina. The Dayton Accord resulted in three devolved areas within the State of Bosnia & Herzegovina in the form of the Serb Republic, the Federation of Bosnia & Herzegovina and District Brcko. It is reported that there is a persistent effort on the part of Serb Republic local government entities to undermine support for the consolidation of, or operation of, state institutions.
This is achieved through a consistent withdrawal of support for project decisions that relate to the development of state administrative structures.
Since the satisfaction of the European Legal requirements for accession include the development of state entities responsible for coordinating development and the observation of European Law in each sector, this anti-state stance is creating a significant wastage of funds where projects do not progress because of intransigence emanating from Serb Republic interests. The European Union has been observing this with some dismay and is now encouraging Bosnia to implement necessary reforms so that Bosnia can apply for membership of the EU. The European Council President, Herman van Rompuy, after a meeting with the Bosnian Prime Minister Vjekoslav Bevanda, said,
"With other countries in the Western Balkans taking resolute steps toward the union, there is no reason why (Bosnia) should slip behind."
A basic condition is stronger central government and changes in the country’s constitution. One basic issues is that the current constitution violates European Law by restricting the running of the joint presidency to the three main communities and excluding others such as Jews or Roma. The Bosnian political system has been in grid lock through a lack of ability of the three main community representatives to agree on the formation of a government following elections in October 2010. Neighbouring countries, such as Croatia, is expected to join the EU soon and Montenegro and Serbia are now recognized candidates.
While the entity populations of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and District Brcko and the Bosniak and Croat communities wish to see much more integration, the Bosnian Serbs through the entity Serb Republic, insist on more autonomy for their area while continuing to undermine central government initiatives.
The overall progress of the surrounding states could result in Bosnia & Herzegovina becoming isolated from the benefits that accrue to the others as they join the EU. For example Bosnia, stands to gain significant payments from the EU Common Agricultural Policy, a vital issue in a largely rural economy. However, Bosnia's agricultural exports will be compromised and the cost of agricultural imports will rise as a result a decline in incomes resulting from Bosnia's slow progress.
Improving the effectiveness of Bosnian development
One of the normal practices under development projects is the application of participatory decision-making in the use of funds including the evaluation of tenders for goods, works and services. Where one of the participants is not willing to support the acquisition of goods, services or works in a timely manner in favour of a state activity, these parts of development projects become non-productive either through unacceptable delays or never being implemented.
One of the responsibilities of funding agencies is to apply a realistic due diligence to project design to avoid some quite serious mistakes that have led to an inability of Bosnia & Herzegovina to absorb funds by applying them effectively. Where participatory approaches have been applied in Bosnia involving substantial funding, such approaches have turned out to prove to be unwarranted. This creates a direct challenge to the European Union's approach to development for accession where the state institutions need to be strengthened so as to coordinate development and ensure legislation is adapted and enforced. Where control over funds is passed to participants who oppose the state, such projects will not only fail but they will undermine the EU objective of establishing appropriate administrative structures to oversee the application of European Law and regulations. In such circumstances the parties opposing the state and cynically motivated by the wish to "capture" funds as opposed to supporting the overall EU objectives.
The European Union is in urgent need to hold meeting with other donors, including the World Bank, to ensure that future projects do not contain procedures that undermine the Bosnian state. This issue must be addressed so as to avoid the exposure of EU funding to corruption and the undermining of the objectives of preparation for candidacy.
Lastly, The European Union has suffered fractures in coherence and unity as a direct result of cash diplomacy as exercised by the USA in Central and Southern Europe. The risks of such manipulation by Russia in the Slav and Serbian enclaves throughout the Balkans, or US or other externally driven cash diplomacy, is even greater in the Balkan regions because of the very low income levels.
The European Union needs a consistent and clear policy on what is expected of accession states and part of the process of accession should include the development of state institutions that are independent of developed governance to the degree that they can effectively protect minority interests as opposed to becoming the victims of forces arising from the manipulation of minority interests in the hands of local politicians and politicians located inside or outside Bosnia & Herzegovina. Certainly, as long as Serbia continues to give support to enclave politics in Kosova and Bosnia & Herzegovina then by design or by default, they disrupt European Union interests.
Serbian progress to accession should be slowed down because their "foreign policy" undermines future EU cohesion. Their accession to the EU should only be validated when the issues in Kosova and Bosnia & Herzegovina have been resolved through a strengthened state apparatus upholding Human Rights and able to uphold and enforce all other aspects of European Law across the entities.