As far as I am concerned people may eat as much horse meat as they like. As much, anyhow, as they can eat of e.g. cow, calf, chicken or crab. As long, that is, as the animals have been treated properly before setting out for the journey through the abattoir and on to the diming table.
Consequently, concerning the recent horse meat scandal, my indignation is not aroused by the present of horse meat – but by what the scandal reveals: that the EU food control has broken down in the most pathetic way, and that we, the consumers, are left at the mercy of organised criminals and unscrupulous food manufacturers in the sacred name of the Single Market.
In the EU animals are a commodity, alive or frozen, subjected to the unlimited free movement within the Union. Consequently it is not unusual for a pork chop to have travelled all over Europe before ending up on my frying pan. The horses of the recent scandal were slaughtered in Romania, sold to the Netherlands, sold on again to Cyprus in order to be bought by a French company which sent the meat to be processed at a factory in Luxembourg, after which the resulting product was sent by way of Swedish-based Findus to the frozen foods counters in most EU countries. But the EU Single Market is not only a single market for goods, but also for crimes. And during its journey the meat was “transformed” from being cheap horse meat to becoming expensive beef. And the super profit went straight into the pockets of criminals, enabling them to bribe civil servants and politicians and thus become still more powerful. This is scary!
Consequently it is an understatement of the century when highly placed persons in the EU calls the horsemeat scandal a “labelling problem”. Naturally they are right in saying that it is in itself a scandal that what the labels say is not what the packets contain. When the label says “beef” the consumer should as a matter of course be able to trust that the packet contains beef.
But the true scandal is that this has been taking place for months without being found out and stopped immediately. And that there is no guarantee that there is not more of the same out there in the shops. In this specific case the problem was not discovered until the Irish food control happened to test 27 burger products and to find traces of horse DNA in 10 of them. In some cases there was 75 per cent horse meat in a beef burger!
But horse meat is not dangerous, some people will say. And that is quite right: horse meat as such is not dangerous. Unless, that is, it is full of remnants of medicine because it comes from horses who have been given medicine against various diseases. It could be horse AIDS which is quite widespread in Romania.
But if it is possible for organised criminals to swindle over the sort of meat they will also be able to swindle over the quality of the meat. This leads to the harsh fact that at present the authorities are unable to guarantee be it species, quality or health in manufactured foods. The uninhibited travelling of meat products around the EU proves that the market for foods is out of control.
The short term solution would be to establish an efficient national food control which does not give a contract for the task to foreign authorities, mafia controlled abattoirs or private super market chains whose first priority is profit. In the long run we need a fundamental change in the way food is organised. It is, among other things, about bringing an end to the long transports of living and dead animals, ensuring a connection between where the animals are raised, where they are slaughte
In both cases such solutions will clash with the EU Single Market rules. That means that we shall have to make a choice. The alternative will be more scandals discovered – and still more scandals remaining undiscovered.
Søren Søndergaard is MEP for The Danish People’s Movement Against the EU Translation: Luise Hemmer Pihl
Will it never stop? Month by month the number og Norwegians saying that they are against EU membership.
The most recent poll, made by Sentio for Nationen, a newspaper, shows a record high share of the respondents on the No side, 79.8 per cent, while only 12.6 side with Yes.
The No side leads in all age groups and in urban as well as rural areas.
Two years ago, an investor, Jens Ulltveit-Moe doneted 100.000 Norwegian kroner (appr. € 12.000) to Høyre, Norway’s Conservative Party, to encourage the party to work harder for Norwegian EU membership, according to NKR, Norway’s public broadcasting company. He is not deterred by the crisis in the Eurozone. He says:
”The countries in Southern Europe will have to undergo the same drastic economic measures as Norway and Sweden underwent during the early 1990es. At the end of that period our economies were strengthened. I am convinced that the same thing will happen in Southern Europe, but the process is going to be more noisy. However, the initial change of governments in Greece, Italy and Spain are promising.”
Stoltenberg: I am not going to make a third attempt
During his recent visit to the Congress of the German Social Democratic Parti (SPD) Norway’s prime minister, Jens Stoltenberg, affirmed the close ties between his party and the SPD, despise Norway’s being outside the EU, writes Nationen.
Mr Stoltenberg added, however, that he was not going to make a third attempt to make the Norwegians vote for EU membership, as he would have to be quite certain to win a referendum.
Norway has had two referenda on EU membership, in 1972 and 1994, both resulting in a No.
Sources: http://m.nrk.no/m/artikkel.jsp?art_id=17904313 http://www.nationen.no/2011/12/04/politikk/eu/jens_stoltenberg/arbeiderpartiet/tyskland/7090831/
In Italy EU membership has always been seen as the natural thing, the thing that nobody questions. But as the economic crisis threatens Italy, the opinion is changing. A recent (April 18th 2011) survey by Swg for www.Affariitaliani.it shows that 63 per cent of the respondents want to leave the EU.
Among center-right adherents the figure is 83 per cent, while 36 per cent of center-left voters agree.
The background is the economic crisis as well as the problems created for the Italian society by the influx of migrants from North Africa. When asked who is to blame, 41 per cent point to the EU and 29 per cent to the Italian government.
Just published, the NEW EUROPEAN, Vol. 20, no. 1, edited by Luise Hemmer Pihl:
EU-related article on Palestine, food security, local communities, the nation state and something as rare as an Italian EU-critical book.
You can order free PDF version from email@example.com or simply download it here.
Only one third of respondents believe EU membership has been positive for the United Kingdom.
The level of animosity towards the European Union (EU) in Britain remains high, a new Angus Reid Public Opinion poll, published July 12, 2011, has found.
In the online survey of a representative national sample of 2,003 British adults, a majority of respondents (57%) believe that EU membership has been negative for the United Kingdom, while only one third (32%) think it has had a positive effect. The wording of the question was: ”Overall, do you think EU membership has been positive or negative for the United Kingdom?”
Respondents aged 18-to-34 are more likely to express positive feelings about the EU (45%) than those aged 35-to-54 (31%) and those over the age of 55 (22%). Half of Britons (49%) say they would vote against the United Kingdom remaining a member of the EU if a referendum took place, while only one-in-four (25%) would vote to stay. Older respondents favour the idea of abandoning the EU by a 3-to-1 margin (68% to 19%).
Finally, Britons oppose the notion of the UK adopting the euro as its national currency by a 10-to-1 margin, with 81 per cent of respondents saying they would reject this course of action in a referendum.
See more at Angus Reid Public Opinion.
373,000 coupons petitioning for an ”in or out” referendum on British EU membership were presented to PM David Cameron on january 31st.
Five senior MPs helped to carry the sacks containng the coupons to 10 Downing Street.
”The message has been delivered straight to the door of Number 10. The Prime Minister will certainly take note of the strength of feeling on this,” said Tory MP Philip Hollobone.
Kate Hoey, a former minister and Labour MP for Vauxhall in south London, said: “The Daily Express should be congratulated. This shows that a huge number of people believe we should leave the EU. Politicians of all parties need to take note.” A Downing Street spokeswoman said: ”We will respond in the usual way”.
The campaign was conducted by British newspaper Daily Express and resulted in 350,000 signed and posted coupons as well as 23,000 website signatures.
Read the full story here.
Par ALAIN BOURNAZEL
Le septième sommet européen qui s’est tenu à Bruxelles, les 16 et 17 décembre, fut, comme les précédents, consacré à la crise financière. Cette constance du problème suffit à montrer que le mal est à la fois profond et durable. Il paraît bien lointain le temps du rêve idyllique où M. Trichet déclamait ingénument que le Fonds Monétaire International (FMI) n’aurait pas à intervenir en Europe car les pays de l’Union européenne étaient à l’abri d’une crise du fait de l’euro. Aujourd’hui, la crise c’est l’euro et le FMI est appelé à la rescousse.
L’Allemagne dicte sa loi
Avant le sommet européen, Mme Merkel, comme à l’accoutumé, a exposé sa stratégie au Bundestag. Elle a souligné que la monnaie unique profitait tout particulièrement à l’Allemagne. Donc il fallait défendre l’euro. Notre Président de la République n’ayant, semble-t-il, sur ces questions que les idées vagues qu’il faut bien appeler l’ignorance, a immédiatement accepté la thèse de la chancelière allemande. Dans le couple franco-allemand, c’est la femme qui commande.
Et le Conseil européen de poursuivre dans la stratégie qui consiste à essayer de remplir un tonneau sans fond. Le capital de la Banque Centrale Européenne (BCE) est pratiquement doublé ; de 5,76 milliards d’euros, il doit progressivement être porté à 10,76 milliards. Par ailleurs un fonds permanent de secours pour résister aux crises financières doit être mis en place, ce qui nécessite au passage une modification du traité de Lisbonne. Ce fonds que Mme Lagarde qui a décidemment le sens de l’humour qualifie « d’ajustement majeur » a pour objet de rassurer les marchés sur la capacité de résistance de la zone euro ;
Le culte de l’idole
L’Antiquité avait connu le culte des idoles. Cet acharnement à vouloir à tout prix défendre l’euro a quelque chose de pathétique ; les générations futures auront sans doute du mal à comprendre cette vénération enfantine et idolâtre pour un système non seulement inefficace mais malfaisant. Où est-elle la prospérité qui nous était naguère promise par la zone euro? L’austérité imposée par la crise accule la Grèce aux lisières de la guérilla urbaine. Malgré trois plans de rigueur depuis 2008, et des secours financiers importants du FMI et de l’Union européenne, l’Irlande est enlisée dans un déficit abyssal qui atteint 32% de son PIB. Et l’agence Moody’ vient de baisser de cinq crans sa note. Le Portugal est en crise. L’Espagne vends une partie de ses aéroports et supprime l’allocation de fin de droit que touchaient 700 000 personnes ; le chômage frappe 20% de la population active. L’agence Moody’s vient de placer le pays sous surveillance négative. L’Italie conjugue une croissance faible (1%) et une dette considérable 1900 milliards d’euros.
La France n’est pas épargnée
Depuis le passage à l’euro, la France accuse une perte de compétitivité. L’investissement est poussif. La croissance se situera aux alentours de 1,6%. Mme Lagarde annonce une croissance de 2% pour 2011 ; non seulement elle a le sens de l’humour mais elle rêve. L’Europe de Bruxelles enfonce chaque jour davantage les pays de l’Union dans uns catastrophe qui leur coûte cher aujourd’hui, et qui, dans peu de temps, leur coûtera très cher. Bref, les pays européens sont placés à un carrefour décisif. Où bien en finir avec l’Europe de Bruxelles. Où bien affronter des révolutions.
The Sick Europe of the Euro
In this article, Alain Bournazel, president of Rassemblement pour l Indépendance de la France (RIF) and member of the TEAM Board, comments on the situation of the Euro after the December 2010 EU Summit. Alain Bournazel stresses the fact that Germany is the country which profits most from the Euro, but that the common currency is harmfuld to most other EU countries, and that France is among those. The article compares the faith in the Euro with the cult of idols in the Antiquity and continues:
”There is something pathetic about this stubborn insistence on defending the Euro at all costs: probably future generations will find it difficult to understand this childish idolatry and veneration for a system which is not only inefficient but even harmful.”
The article also sums up a number of the well known arguments against the Euro and sums up the situation in these words:
”In short, the European countries are at a decisive crossroads. They must either put an end to the Europe of Brussels or face revolutions.”
Binding the euro to the krone would make more sense that the other way round, says an American economist Peter Schiff:
”As Denmark is pursuing a financial and monetary policy that is better than that of other European countries, it does not make sense to bind the krone to the euro. In actual fact it would make more sense to bind the euro to the Danish krone. If you want to cheat in an examination you do after all glance towards the cleverest guy in the class – not towards the most stupid one.”
This is the unambiguous message to the politicians and people of Denmark in an exclusive interview at epn.dk with the American economist and president of the investment company Pacific Capital, Peter Schiff, who has become well known for predicting the global financial crisis.
The interview can be found (alas, in Danish) here.
We urge the Danish parliament to ask the people of Denmark before continuing to transfer sovereignty to the EU in the economic area, says The People’s Movement against the EU in Denmark
The AGM of The Peoples Movement against EU was held in Aarhus the 30th-31st October and gathered up to 200 participants from Denmark and abroad. The AGM was especially marked by dissatisfaction with the fact that a majority of the Danish parliament apparently will say yes to the Lisbon Treaty changes. This allows the EU to establish a fund for countries in financial difficulties. It comes just 11 months after the Treaty entered into force. This is one more step in the transfer of sovereignty in the economic area from the national parliament to the EU. The money for the fund can only come from the member countries with a further increase in Denmark’s net contribution. A contribution that is already more than 10 billion Danish Kroner (about 1,3 billion Euro) a year. We therefore call on the parliament to ask the Danish population, before continued transfer of sovereignty to the EU in the economic area, says the national board of The Peoples Movement at the AGM.
Reunion of the Danish opposition to the EU
The AGM was marked by the new situation for the cross-political opposition to the EU in Denmark after the former MEP Jens-Peter Bonde’s June Movement was closed last year after the defeat in the elections to the EU parliament. After the June Movement is closed forces must unite in the People’s Movement, says co-founder of the June Movement and former long-standing board member of the June Movement Niels I. Meyer. He was candidate in the elections to the national board of The People’s Movement and was elected. Several key members of the June Movement have also joined the People’s Movement lately.
Statements, prizes and greetings
The AGM demanded respect for the Danish euro opt out and urged the parliament to denounce the possibility for the French president to appoint members of the EU parliament. The AGM also adopted a statement saying that Denmark should give the UN peace work in Western Sahara higher priority than the EU’s interests by rejecting a fishery agreement with Morocco if it covers Western Sahara.
Max Andersson, spokesperson for the EU-committee in the Swedish Green Party, was handed over the international Clog Award (award for standing firm on the EU-issue) for his efforts against the EU and the euro. The Danish Clog Award went to two local trade unions for a many months long dispute in Brønderslev against underpayment of Polish workers.
The AGM received greetings from TEAM, EU Democrats, People’s Movement in Ireland, Heimssyn in Iceland, No to the EU, Norway, Folkrörelsen No to the EU in Sweden and Alternative to the EU in Finland.
Read more about The Peoples Movement against the EU in Denmark.
Hands off from the Czech President
German human rights activist condemns diplomatical and pseudo-journalist excesses
(Presseerklärung vom 15.10.2008)
On October, the 11th of 2009, the British Sunday Times has exposed, that the German and French diplomats have intervened towards the Czech government, in order to reach either the start of an impeachment procedure against the Czech President Vaclav Klaus, or a change of Czech Constitution in order to to take away his veto right against laws consenting to international treaties like the Lisbon Treaty.
According to the Sunday Times, however, under the Czech constitution a president can be impeached only if he commits high treason against the country’s independence or its territorial integrity and democratic order.
Sarah Luzia Hassel-Reusing, a German human rights activist, who had filed a de-facto in large parts successful constitutional complaint (file number 2 BvR 1958/08), against the German law consenting to the Lisbon Treaty, comments:
“The Czech President is doing exactly the opposite of what would allow an impeachment procedure. With the refusal to ratify the Lisbon Treaty, he preserves the independence of Czechya, because art. 2 of prot. 26 on services of general interest would oblige Czechya, to commission nearly all sovereign tasks to private corporations. With the Lisbon Treaty, europe-wide acting private corporations would subjugate the administration, most of the courts, the drafting of laws, and with erosion mechanism of art. 18 TFEU, even the national security (military, secret service, production of passports and banknotes) and law and order (police, jails). With this fast erosion mechanism, the organs especially of the small and medium-sized member states would be degraded to a façade. They would loose the control over the state, most of which would be run be private firms with private profit and power interests. Like the German company Arvato, which is already running the district administration at East Riding (Yorkshire, Great Britain), and which is interested to run much more municipal administrations all over Europe - possibly also at Prague. Behind Arvato stands the media giant Bertelsmann, which can strongly influence the public opinion. And the Bertelsmann Foundation is counselling countless politicians in Germany and Europe. Strangely enough, the above-mentioned diplomats are lobbying for their own privatization, possibly without knowing this.
The functional privatization of all EU member states, which the Lisbon Treaty would prescribe, would a change of the type of state toward the ‘Gewährleistungsstaat’ (guaranteeing state) - a mass experiment, the consent to which could only be achieved by giving massively incomplete information to the parliamentarians - a case of error or fraud (art. 48 resp. art. 49 Vienna Treaty Law Convention). Most of the theory the ‘Gewährleistungsstaat’ comes from German jurists and has found support, i. a., by the EU Commission, and by interested corporations.”
On the 10.10.2009, an even worse incident has happened at Prague. Mrs. Christina Janssen, a journalist, who is working at the Prague studio of the public German radio ARD, has published a comment on the Czech President.
In her comment, she has explicitly warned, that he should not lean too far through the window, because he might fall. She has mentioned three historical defenestrations in the history of Czechya, one of which had caused the Thirty Years’ War. She has warned: “Was die Tschechen daraus lernen könnten, wäre vielleicht, die Fenster lieber geschlossen zu halten.” (“What the Czechs possibly could learn from it, might be to keep the windows closed.”)
Her comment ends with the words: “Die Fenster stehen offen - und Klaus lehnt sich weit hinaus. Aber es müsste ja nicht gleich wieder ein Fenstersturz werden: Er könnte einfach zurücktreten.” (“The windows are open - and Klaus leans out far. But it does not have to become another defenestration: He could simply resign.”)
A clear threat, that the President of Czech Republic might be defenestrated - illustrated in violent fantasies of a German journalist.
The civic and human rights activist Sarah Luzia Hassel-Reusing comments:
“Mrs. Janssen acts in this way, because President Vaclav Klaus refuses to ratify the Lisbon Treaty. She uses many expressions, which might be regarded as a disparagement of the Czech President. If someone in Germany disparages the German President, the result can be a jail sentence between three months and five years (§90 of the German criminal code), if the German the German President agrees to the criminal prosecution. She has called the Czech President a ‘populist’, a ‘nationalist’, and an ‘egomaniac’. She regards him as “angezählt” (as having been given the count). She supposes, that the Czech President is leading a war in his mind against the EU and the EU Reform Treaty. She states, that Czechya is regarded as the ‘Tollhaus Europas’ (madhouse of Europe), just because the President refuses to sign the Lisbon Treaty.
The text of Mrs. Janssen contains many violations of the human dignity (art. 1 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, UDHR). This is especially grave, because it is directed against an elected President of a sovereign state, so that it might also touch the dignity of the Czech people, and shows a large amount of disrespect to the human right to vote (art. 25 UN Civil Pact).
Further, Mrs. Janssen’s text disregards the human right of the Czech people to self-determination (art. 1 UN Civil Pact, art. 1 UN Social Pact), because he has been elected into office, and she belongs to the German people, not to the Czech people.
The violent words in Mrs. Janssen’s text show a grave lack of consciousness with regard to the human right to safety (art. 9 par. 1 UN Civil Pact).
The freedom of speech certainly contains the right to tell one’s opinion about Presidents of other states, but it has limits, where the human rights and the reputation of other persons are at stake (ar. 19 par. 3 lit. a UN Civil Pact).
The aggressive formulations in Mrs. Janssen’s text look rather like intelligence service - like than news media - like. The ARD should, with respect to the international understanding (art. 9 par. 2 Basic Law (German constitution)), consider dismissing Mr. Janssen soon and should consider an excuse towards the President of Czechya.”
The human rights activist concludes with a further legal consideration: “I do not see a sound legal basis for the above-mentioned interventions of German diplomats and of a German journalist. Czechya is a sovereign state (art. 2 par. 1 UN Charter). The German Constitutional Court has, in the first Lisbon judgement prohibited the supra-nationalization (no. 255 + 342 of the judgement) of the common foreign and safety policy of the EU, so that the rank of the CSFP stays below the national constitutions of the member states and below the UN Charter. So also the CSFP can contain no sufficient legal basis to overrule sovereignty of a state.”
Sarah Luzia Hassel-Reusing
Thorner Str. 7, 42283 Wuppertal (Germany)
human rights activist under the protection of UN resolution 53/144
Lawyers Against Lisbon (Press Release)
We, the undersigned, have decided to vote “No” on Friday and recommend that our fellow voters do so as well.
The EU’s Constitution (for that is what the Treaties culminating in Lisbon amount to) has been developed, and continues to develop, without adequate democratic participation. Most regrettably, Lisbon was deliberately written to further preclude this. “The Economist”, whose Europhile credentials are impeccable, had the integrity to note this as drafting proceeded. The titles of the relevant articles - Hee-hee Voters Fooled Again and Journalists for a Cover-up - must make any genuine democrat’s blood run cold.
Public opinion in the EU states has not been able to arrive at an informed view on the merits of the Treaty because of the way in which it was written. Even to us, as lawyers accustomed to dealing with abstruse documents, the Treaty as signed is well-nigh unreadable.
We acknowledge some good things in the Treaty, but cannot support further extension of Union competences while the ethos of democratic exclusion continues to hold sway. The Union leadership has now developed the habit of discarding democratic methods reflexively, if they do not produce the right answer.
Indeed, we fear that the Union may already have gone further than is inherently possible while remaining politically legitimate. The choice now is either to go fully federal or to revert to a community of more or less equal states. Lisbon is an unsatisfactory mish-mash from this perspective.
Brendan Nix S.C.
Joe Noonan, Solicitor
Fergus O’Rourke B.L.
John McGuiggan B.L.
23rd Sept 2009
say Farmers for No in their Press statement
Speaking at the Ploughing Championships, Farmers for No spokesman, David Thompson today said:
‘THE IFA arguments in favour of Lisbon are totally bogus. If we vote No, Ireland remains a full and active member of the EU, with full access to the EU market and ECB credit etc. Padraig Walsh and Minister Brendan Smith know this of course, but try to hoodwink people with this because they know there are no benefits in the Lisbon Treaty for Ireland.‘
‘At the key Council of Ministers, under Lisbon our voting strength will half. We need more than goodwill or mercy when negotiating on behalf of Ireland; we need to keep our voting strength and get respect for our position.‘
‘Because we voted NO, at the moment, Ireland is at the political centre of Europe. However, if we vote Yes, eaten bread is quickly forgotten and we become an irrelevance overnight.‘
‘Article 207 of Lisbon is clear that we lose our World Trade Organisation veto if we vote Yes. This would be a terminal mistake for Ireland and something the Irish people could never forgive the Yes advocates for.‘
‘Oh yes, the IFA sponsored poll is completely bogus, it is popcorn and propaganda. According to the Millward Brown study after Lisbon, 48 per cent of farmers voted no, in our experience of talking to farmers, the percentage will be even higher this time. Why is it higher? Because farmers notice a bad deal for agriculture and rural Ireland when they see it.’
Human rights activists condemn interference of former soldier firm
(press declaration from the 27.09.2009)
On the occasion of the eight anniversary of the assassinations of the 11.09.2001, the former safety firm al-Qaeda has, in the form of a certain Aiman al-Sawahiri, threatened Germany in case, that the Germans do not use the elections to the Bundestag for a change (“Umkehr”). At the weekend before the 21.09.2009, Bekkay Harrach, who also is regarded as belonging to the management level of al-Qaeda, put this more precise, that, if Germany did not withdraw its troops from Afghanistan, a rude awakening after the national elections would be imminent (1).
Now, at the first glance, it looks as if al-Qaeda interfered into the German election campaign for the Bundestag, in order to do an illegal kind of advertisement for parties or politicians, who demand the withdrawal of the German soldiers. This seems, however, psychologically regarded, absurd, because such threatening videos rather increase the willingness of the population to make sacrifices for military interventions in the name of the fight against the terror.
At the 25.09.2009, eventually, an audio message of a certain Osama Bin Laden has been published, who is regarded as the boss of al-Qaeda. In that message, he threatens even the whole of Europe, if the Europeans did not withdraw from Afghanistan (2).
For the investigation of the suspected motive, the time of the publishing seems to be even much more relevant than the content of the criminal and strange threatening messages. According to the point of view of German human rights activists, it looks like the mercenary network al-Qaeda wants to attract the public attention, in order to distract the attention from something else, which is happening at the same time, namely the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty.
Therefore, it is important to know, that al-Qaeda is former Saudi Arabian security firm, which has, in the 1980ies, supported the integration of mercenaries into the local Mujahideens in Afghanistan (3).
For the insurgence in the 1980ies in Afghanistan, at least 13.770 private soldiers have been deployed. They’ve been rather criminals, which have been disliked in their home countries, then they became islamists (4).
al-Qaeda has, at that time, operated in that milieu as an ally at least of the American and of the Pakistani secret services (3).
Already during the Afghanistan war in the 1980ies, a part of the mercenaries have gone into the drug business. As a result, the number of drug addicted persons at Pakistan has risen from 5.000 (1980) to 70.000 (1983) and finally to about 1.3 millions (1986) (5). These enormous numbers raise the question, if the al-Qaeda network itself is, besides in the mercenary business, also involved in the drug business. The former FBI translator Sibel Edmonds has explained to the US Congress, that al-Qaeda is at 95% financed by drug money (6).
This thesis is supported by the fact, that al-Qaeda has trained and supported the UCK in Kosovo/Kosova (6), which is of immense importance for the distribution of drugs in Europe, which have been cultivated in Afghanistan (3).
al-Qaeda is a mercenary company, which has slipped into the organized crime.
The Islamic façade has, primarily, two functions. Firstly, they can recruit suicide assassins for less money this way, then if they had to motivate them with money alone. Secondly, this camouflage helps them, to veil the identities of changing clients. Security firms are fighting for nothing else than for economical profit. And, by far, not every of them adheres to law and order. Money determines for whom or against whom they fight. This is shown very clearly by the assassinations of the 11.09.2001, which give the impression, that possibly someone else has been able to pay better than the US government at that time. This seems not to have hindered the same firm al-Qaeda, to stay working in Kosovo/Kosova (3).
Already in 1994, al-Qaeda has been active in Albania and on the route (in the region, which is the main distribution centre for the selling of Afghan heroin to Europe) with a market value of 400 billion $ per year (3). A military commander of Bin Laden has fought in the Kosovo conflict on the side of the UCK, which is deeply involved into the drug traffic (3), (6).
According to a statement of John Kasich, a member of the US House of Representatives, from the 05.10.1999, Osama Bin Laden has also appeared, when the USA have built up their relations to the UCK in 1998 and 1999 (3).
Mercenary firms, western ones as well as islamist-camouflaged ones, have been under contract in the Bosnia war, in the Kosovo war, and even in 2001 in the attack of parts of the UCK against Macedonia (3).
On the 10.09.2001, the then US minister of defence, Donald Rumsfeld, has, in a speech of principles, tried to get support for partial functional
privatization (“transformation”) of the US troops (8). The crime of the
11.09.2001 has led to such a fear and confusion at the USA, that there has taken place no sufficient debate with regard to his speech of principles of the 10.09.2001, before in the time following the US army has been reduced by 15%, and before even so sensitive tasks like fighting services and interrogations have been commissioned to private companies (9). Completely in the interest of al-Qaeda, because this has made the market for mercenary firms in the USA and, according to their example, much further, increase dramatically. According to the US example, Great Britain has even privatized the guarding of embassies and even a part of its fighting services in Afghanistan (10).
If now an assassination by al-Qaeda or by whomsoever took place at Europe, the demand in Europe also for private security services would be immensely increased. Just in the interest of the mercenary sector.
The “Treaty of Lisbon” (11) would be the next step for the growth of the market for soldier firms of any couleur. So there is a motive for mercenary firms like al-Qaeda, and for their suspected clients, to covertly support the “Lisbon Treaty”. Because this treaty would basically oblige the member states to commission private companies with their non-sovereign tasks (“services of general economical interest”, art. 14 TFEU) and with their sovereign tasks (“non-economical services of general interest”, art. 2 of protocol no. 26 to the “Treaty of Lisbon” on “services of general interest”).
At the first glance, it looks, as if the “Lisbon Treaty” would at least omit inner and outer security and the most fundamental structures of the state from the commissioning (art. 4 TEU). There is, however, an erosion mechanism contained on the basis of the prohibition of economical discrimination (art. 18 TFEU), by means of which one could claim at the European Court of Justice (ECJ), that any task, which has been commissioned to private companies in at least one member state, would have to be commissioned to private firms in all EU member states 12.
This way, already with the enactment of the Lisbon Treaty, an erosion mechanism would be started, that by means of law suits to the ECJ a part of the fighting services and the jails (like in Great Britain) would have to be commissioned EU-wide.
Very much in the interest of mercenary companies like al-Qaeda would be the solidarity clause (art. 222 TFEU) of the “Lisbon Treaty”, according to which the EU member states would have to deploy military in the interior for the prevention of terrorist attacks. al-Qaida could, already by threatening, cause an obligation for military interventions in the interior. And more and more of this military would have to be commissioned, because of the erosion mechanism described above, to private security firms.
A draft resolution of the Council of Europe (doc. 11787) shows the dangers of the growth of the mercenary sector world-wide (13). It depicts the danger of the violation of universal human rights, of the humanitarian international law, of civil law and criminal law, of increasing influence of private firms and political elites on governmental decisions with regard to foreign, safety, interior, and defence policy whilst violating democracy, and even of threatening the peaceful coexistence of the states. At 2008, the mercenary sector world-wide has already had about 1 million employed people in over 1.000 firms with a turnover of more than 200 billion $.
The time of the threats by al-Qaeda is of special importance. On the 17.09.2009 and on the 18.09. 2009, four new constitutional complaints against the laws accompanying the “Lisbon Treaty”, have been filed at the German Constitutional Court. Three of them (file number 2 BvR 2167/09) have had mainly the goal, to prevent the change of the type of state to the functionally privatized state mentioned above (14). On the 22.09.2009, the four constitutional complaints have not been admitted for decision by the Constitutional Court. On the 25.09.2009, the German President has ratified the Lisbon Treaty.
The atrocious threats of al-Qaeda against Germany have had the effect, that significant parts of the German population and of the German media have been distracted from the constitutional complaints, which are so uncomfortable for the mercenary sector.
The threat of the 25.09.2009 against Europe, however, seems to refer more to the Irish referendum, with the suspected motive to abuse, of all things, the need of the Irish people to more safety, in order to put through mercenary interests, which are threatening their safety.
The following questions need to be investigated urgently:
The sources referred to in the footnotes only serves the explanation of this press declaration. One cannot conclude from this, that the authors of those texts would share the conclusions of this press declaration or vice-versa.
- on al-Sawahiri TAZ article of the 24.09.2009 “Terrorvideo zum Jahrestag des 11. September Al-Qaida droht Deutschen und Obama”
- on Bekkay Harrach TAZ article of the 21.09.2009 “Al-Qaida gegen Deutschland neues Terrorvideo aufgetaucht” and TAZ article from the 22.09.2009 “Ein gefährlicher Mann”
(2) - on Osama Bin Laden TAZ article of the 26./27.09.2009 “Al-Qaida-Botschaft II Bin Laden droht Europäern”
(3) “Der inszenierte Terrorismus – die CIA und Al Quaida” (von Michel Chossudovsky)
(4) Dr. Andreas von Bülow, Im Namen des Staates , Piper publishing house, p. 418
(5) Dr. Andreas von Bülow, Im Namen des Staates, , Piper publishing house, p. 210-211
(6) “Amerikanische Tiefenereignisse und das weltweite Drogennetzwerk der CIA” (von Peter Dale Scott)
(9) “The Shock Doctrine. The Rise of Disaster Capitalism”, Naomi Klein, Metropolitan Books (New York) and Knopf Canada (Toronto)
on the erosion mechanism, which is postulated already today by the EU Commission from sovereign to non-sovereign, see message from the 20.11.2007 (file number KOM (2007) 725)
(15) “Die Medien und ihre Fährtenleser des Terrors” (Ekkehard Sieker)
V.i.S.d.P. (authors of this press declaration):
Volker Reusing + Sarah Luzia Hassel-Reusing
Thorner Str. 7, 42283 Wuppertal (Germany)
human rights activists according to UN resolution 53/144
Constitutional Court ignores anti-constitutional change of the type of state towards the “guaranteeing state” for the second time and publishes incorrect information; situation of peaceful resistance (art. 20 par. 4 Basic Law) enacted?
press declaration from 24.09.2009
On the 22.09.2009, the Constitutional Court of Germany has not admitted for decision four constitutional complaints, each of which have contained applications for interim injunction. One constitutional complaint has been filed at the 17.09.2009 by Prof. Dr. Kerber (file number 2 BvR 2136/09) and three at the 18.09.2009 by the internationally well-known citizens and human rights activist Sarah Luzia Hassel-Reusing (file number 2 BvR 2167/ 09). You find her complaints here.
The Constitutional Court has published misleading press statement in which it gives the impression, as if at the 22.09.2009 only one constitutional complaint had not been admitted for decision!
Here’s press statement by the THE CHURCH OF IRELAND GAZETTE from the previous article in full:
THE CHURCH OF IRELAND GAZETTE
3 Wallace Avenue, Lisburn BT27 4AA
Sunday 23 AUGUST 2009
The following is a statement by the Church of Ireland Gazette editor, Canon Ian Ellis, on the Lisbon Treaty referendum debate.
I hope that there will be a ‘clean’ debate on the Lisbon Treaty in the run-up to the 2nd October referendum. Both sides must avoid character attacks and unjustified accusations of lying. If either side makes an incorrect statement, that is not necessarily a lie. Lies are deliberate and deceptive statements made in the full knowledge that they are wrong.
The Churches have a role in this debate in terms of encouraging people to participate, to engage in ‘fair play’ and, on 2nd October, to exercise their democratic right to vote. There are serious arguments on both sides of the Lisbon discussion and everyone has the right to be heard and respected. However, the Churches themselves, as institutions, should remain neutral. The fact that the people are being asked to vote again on the treaty indicates the seriousness of the situation. On the other hand, it is not fair to suggest that the Lisbon vote is about being at the heart of Europe or about being good Europeans. That kind of moral blackmail is not ‘fair play’. The referendum is only about the Lisbon Treaty and its provisions for the EU. Is this how the EU should be? That is the question for voters and they should feel entirely free to express their wishes.
I was surprised that the European Commission entered the Irish debate on Saturday, commenting on the Farmers For No group’s understanding of the treaty. Challenges made to whatever groups in the referendum run-up should be made by the Irish parties involved and should not eminate from the European institutions. Inevitably, there will be differences over the interpretation of the treaty, but it is not for the EU itself, or any of its institutions, to enter into what must now be an Irish discussion. Because the debate is about the nature of the EU, the EU must ‘leave the room’. [ENDS]
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
Canon Ian Ellis, Editor
Tel. from NI: 07930-256564
Tel. from Republic of Ireland 0044-7930-256564
The Church of Ireland Gazette is editorially independent.
Volker Reusing and Sarah Luzia Hassel-Reusing
Thorner Str. 7
42283 Wuppertal (Germany)
Dear ladies and gentlemen,
on a Saturday, in the afternoon of September, the 5th of 2009, there will be a demonstration against the “Treaty of Lisbon”.
The organizers are interested in many participants and in speakers from Poland and Czech Republic. For more detailed informations, please look at the official flyer of the demonstration, or contact Jürgen Elsässer and Sandra Müller.
Volker Reusing + Sarah Luzia Hassel-Reusing
Comment by DECLAN GANLEY AND JENS-PETER BONDE
Today , Thursday 11 December 2008 @ 09:13 CET
EUOBSERVER / COMMENT - The French president yesterday told the group leaders of the European parliament that he has made a deal with the Irish government to hold a second referendum in Ireland to ratify the Lisbon treaty first rejected on 12 June by 53 percent of Irish voters.
None of the representatives of the Irish people who voted No to the Lisbon Treaty were consulted by the Irish government before they struck a deal with the French Presidency. The Irish government has simply ignored the result of the referendum and betrayed those people who voted No in the majority.
by Niall, Ireland
To understand the Machiavellian machinations behind the EU Project we must examine the psychological roots of the rapacious centralisation of power. Watching Europe’s political class squirm after Ireland’s No vote, I couldn’t help but feel that some of them know something we don’t: there is an agenda that must be met. Ireland could not be threatened into sealing the nEU Deal, yet it’s business as usual for the fanatical Eurocrats who are adamant nothing will get in their way.
It is evident, for those with eyes to see, that political discord between rival criminal cartels is purely for public consumption. Bread and circuses. Policy is not shaped by party politics. Decisions are made by a few: everyone else adjusts or starves. Weapons of financial mass destruction deployed by Central Bankers and Disaster-Capitalists, under the guise of protecting the markets and improving the efficiency of the system, vacuum the wealth of the nations – the work people produce – into ever fewer hands.
By Address with Editor
Tuesday June 24 2008
IRELAND, using what the whole of Ireland thought was a democratic system, has said a clear ‘NO’ to the Lisbon Treaty. Others might disagree as to the outcome of the vote Ireland had, but still that vote took place with voters thinking that their wishes would be respected. It looks like the voters, as far as you’re concerned Mr Cowen, were wrong.
You have decided to say the equivalent of “stuff ye all” and do what EU bullies are telling you to do. You are second-grading the voices of the population that has placed you in the position of power you hold. It appears you have decided to force the Irish people to vote again because you didn’t like the result the first time!
If you cannot represent the thoughts and wishes of the people on this island called Ireland Mr Cowen, then it’s time for you to go. You are supposed to be working for the people of Ireland, not the thugs and bullies of the EU, particularly French President Sarkozy and Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso.
Using a supposed democratic legal system, the Irish people were given a choice. Now, because your real masters are not happy with our decision you have, it appears, decided to totally ignore the voters, bide your time and try in a while to shove another vote on the Irish people again.
This is no longer about who is right and wrong in a ‘YES or ‘NO’ vote. This is about representing the people that voted in what they thought was a democratic vote. You will be a disgrace to the system of democracy with a forced re-vote. This is about having the courage to stand up to the thug bullies of Europe and say “No, you cannot push us around!”
They all agreed and signed up to a legally binding democratic system. Now that it hasn’t gone their way, they want to force the little voters of Ireland into giving them their way. Every child in Europe’s playgrounds knows that’s called bullying! Are you Mr Cowen, turning a blind eye to their attempts at pushing the people of this island around? Are you going to stand up and actually do something about it?
Mr Cowen, if you and Fianna Fail decide to force a second vote on us, here is a message from the people of Ireland… Do the decent thing — quit.
Address with Editor
Here are links to LIVE RESULTS:
It just had to happen. Finnish, Estonian and Greek parliaments have today proved for the last time before the Irish spectacle that current European national political elites have flown far, far away from their electorates.
Shame on them, shame on us for having such representatives.
A large majority of Finnish deputies – 151 out of 200 – on Wednesday (11 June) voted in favour of the document, while 27 opposed it and 21 were absent, according to AFP news agency.
A little later on Wednesday afternoon, the Estonian parliament also approved the Lisbon treaty. Its vote was almost unanimous: 91 votes in favour and one against. Nine MPs abstained.
The Greek parliament ratified the Lisbon treaty with 250 to 42 votes late on Wednesday, just hours before Irish citizens vote on the document. With Greece, 2/3 of EU states have started or completed the treaty’s ratification.
More on that in EUobserver.
British voters would back radical moves to negotiate a new, looser relationship with the European Union, a survey has shown.
The Sunday Telegraph reported on a new ICM poll for Global Vision, which found that when British voters were asked about their ideal relationship with Europe, 41 per cent chose one based simply on trade and co-operation.
Some 27 per cent wanted Britain to stay a full EU member while 26 per cent wanted to withdraw altogether.
If the “trade-only” option were offered in a referendum, 64 per cent said they would vote in favour.
Asked what should happen if Britain sought to negotiate a looser relationship but other nations blocked the move, 57 per cent said the UK should leave the EU, while 33 per cent said it should stay in.
As foretold before the results of the polls went upside down. From today the YES side has the lower hand with 30% while the NO side rose up to 35%.
Irish Times reports:
The poll shows the number of people intending to vote No has almost doubled to 35 per cent (up 17 points) since the last poll three weeks ago, while the number of the Yes side has declined to 30 per cent (down 5 points).
The number of undecided voters is still a significant 28 per cent (down 12 points) while 7 per cent won’t vote.
Future days until June 12th will be filled with different activities in Europe and Ireland. Europe will start its football “circensem” on Saturday, Mr. Bush will represent USA in summit with EU in Slovenia on Monday and Tuesday. Thursday seems so far away. TEAM encourages people of both in Ireland and Europe to do their best in this coming week and to make this a historic NO for empires and YES for the people’s democracies.
Opinion poll shows huge rise in anti-Lisbon sentiment
New poll shows Yes strategy has backfired, says No group
Latest Irish poll shows EU treaty heading for defeat
Art-exhibition in Slovenia: “Overheard Focuses”
How we can once more save Europe from the Dark Ages
Lisbon treaty poised on a knife edge
Irish voters poised to kill off EU ‘stealth constitution’
Lisbon would be a giant leap in the dark
Cowen must not yield to Yes blackmail
by Laurent Dauré & Dominique Guillemin
On February 4th, the French Parliament voted in the bill modifying title XV of the French Constitution in Versailles, and three days later, on February 7th, the Treaty of Lisbon was formally ratified.
The Lisbon Treaty, which provides for the reform of the EU’s institutions, was drawn up to replace the draft European constitution, which was first rejected on May 29th, 2005 by 55% of French voters and then on June 1st, 2005 by 61% of Dutch voters.
How did we go from the voters’ refusals to the adoption of the text by Parliament in 2008? Before the 2005 public vote, Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, chief author of the constitution, declared: “It is a good idea to have chosen the referendum, so long as the outcome is yes.”(1) And one year later: “The rejection of the constitution was a mistake which will have to be corrected.”(2) In spite of the French and Dutch NOs, some countries did adopt a constitution which had little chance of success, an indication that the initial project was not amendable: “If it’s a Yes, we will say ‘On we go’, and if it’s a No we will say ‘We continue.’ (…) If at the end of the ratification process, we do not manage to solve the problems, the countries that would have said ‘No,’ would have to ask themselves the question again.”(3)