EU News

The United States must not allow its Bagram military base in Afghanistan to become a new Guantanamo Bay if it wants European Union help to close the prison on Cuba, EU officials said Thursday.

In one of his first acts in office, President Barack Obama ordered the closure within one year of Guantanamo Bay, where about 245 people are still detained and which has been widely viewed as a stain on the U.S. human rights record.

But Obama has yet to decide what to do about the jail at Bagram, where more than 600 prisoners are held, or whether to continue work on a $60 million prison complex there.

Washington wants the EU to help it close Guantanamo by agreeing to accept discharged prisoners who cannot be returned to their own countries for fear of torture.

But a confidential EU policy paper, obtained by Reuters, said such help would depend on Washington’s overall anti-terrorism policies, including assurances that Bagram or other camps would not become new Guantanamos.

“I would find it very surprising, if the (U.S.) policy remained the same while Guantanamo was closed, to see the EU mobilize itself,” EU anti-terrorism coordinator Gilles de Kerchove told Reuters.

The EU policy paper said: “It would not be in conformity with EU fundamental rights policies to simply transfer Guantanamo elsewhere (i.e. in Bagram) without solving the underlying question of the detention of terror suspects for indefinite time and without trial.”

An EU delegation will travel to Washington in mid-March to discuss the issue. The EU is keen to improve transatlantic ties, damaged by the 2003 war in Iraq, but countries are divided over whether to take in Guantanamo detainees cleared for release.

Some like Spain and Portugal have said they are willing to, while others like the Netherlands have said they are not.

The bloc’s interior ministers agreed Thursday that it would be up to each country to decide if it accepted former inmates but that they would try to arrange some coordination — at least sharing information on these individuals, Czech Interior Minister Ivan Langer told a news conference.

De Kerchove said it would be a long time before EU states got answers from Washington and took any decision.

One condition would be for EU states to be supplied with full information — whether classified or not — on any detainee they considered taking in, Langer said.

U.S. authorities have cleared several dozen prisoners for release, including 17 members of China’s Muslim Uighur minority. But they have remained at Guantanamo because U.S. officials fear they would be tortured if returned to China.

Langer and the EU policy paper said the United States should also take in some of the cleared detainees. “The responsibility of closing Guantanamo is first and foremost that of the United States,” the document said.

“The former inmates that could be taken in the EU are those who face no judicial charges, can be freed, cannot go back to their country of origin and want to be transferred to Europe.”

European Union summit in Brussels: The EU prepares for Obama

By Peter Schwarz | On Friday, the 27 government leaders of the European Union (EU) met for a special summit in Brussels. The invitation had been extended by French President Nicolas Sarkozy, who currently holds the presidency of the European Council. It marked the seventh summit meeting since France took over the presidency in July.

The official aim of the meeting was to draw up a common European position for the world economic summit that is taking place next weekend in Washington. This gathering of the so-called G-20, comprising the old industrialised countries (the G-8) and newly industrialised countries such as China, India, Brazil and Mexico, will discuss proposals to confront the international financial crisis.

If one is to believe the host of Friday’s meeting, Sarkozy, the EU reached a common position in Brussels. “We held very comprehensive discussions, and I can say that Europe has a very detailed point of view,” he said at the end of the summit. “We will be defending a common position, a vision for restructuring our financial system.”

However, if one examines the concrete results of the summit, it becomes clear that they do not go further than a series of vague and superficial proposals to better supervise the international financial markets. The meeting agreed on five guidelines that the Europeans will be advocating in Washington.

First, the rating agencies that evaluate the credit-worthiness of financial firms should be regulated and supervised. Second, accounting standards should be harmonised worldwide. Third, all banks, funds and other financial instruments should be subject to “appropriate rules,” and this should also apply to tax havens. Fourth, “codes of conduct” should be established to avoid “excessive risk-taking” in the financial sector. And fifth, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) should oversee these new global rules and become the “axis of a renewed international system.”

Precisely how the IMF should do this remains unclear. This question caused sharp disputes in the run-up to the summit. French proposals for the IMF to direct international economic policy met with vigorous opposition in Germany and Britain. Swedish Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt also warned against “over-regulating our economy once again.”

The German newspaper Die Welt warned that Sarkozy’s proposals would lead to the “primacy of politics in economic questions” and said they represented an attack on the “independence of the European Central Bank in monetary policy.”

The same newspaper summed up the Brussels meeting with the words: “The Europeans are not exactly staking their claim to play a leading role in the building of a new world financial order from a position of strength. The differences of opinion are still too great within the union, and are barely covered over by the newly found unity around a common negotiating position.”

More important than the vague proposals to regulate the financial markets was the demand of the Brussels gathering for a new world financial summit to be held in 100 days in order to formulate concrete measures following the discussion at next weekend’s meeting. By that time, the newly elected President Barack Obama will have been in office for one month. The European heads of government are obviously less concerned with making agreements with the outgoing Bush administration than with determining whether the new administration is prepared to make any concessions.

Even before the Washington meeting, Bush has warned against over-regulation of the international markets and called on the participants not to use the crisis “as an excuse for restricting the free market or for new commercial barriers.” In contrast, Obama after his election victory, telephoned several European leaders and promised joint action regarding the financial crisis. At least this is how German government spokespersons have interpreted a 15-minute discussion between Obama and Chancellor Angela Merkel.

However, the Europeans are not prepared simply to wait for the change of administrations in the US. They are far from sure whether politics in the US will fundamentally change under Obama. They are seeking to use the transition period to strengthen their own position. Asked whether it would not be better to wait until Obama takes office on January 20, President Sarkozy responded that the economic crisis was so serious that the world “cannot wait, not even for the world’s largest economy.”

Speculation over a new international financial order, a “Bretton Woods II,” which has been circulating in the European media for weeks must be seen in this context. The 1944 Bretton Woods agreement established the foundations of the post-war financial order.

The agreement was based on the economic and political supremacy of the United States. The present financial crisis, which began in the US, is interpreted in Europe to a large extent as signalling the end of this supremacy. A new financial order, it is said, must be established on a multilateral basis and take more strongly into consideration the interests of newly industrialised countries such as China, India and Brazil—and, above all, Europe.

Thus, the weekly Die Zeit regards the financial crisis as a “rare opportunity to reshape the global economy.” The newspaper writes in its November 6 edition: “This time an order should arise which does not simply serve the old powers of the West, but also the emerging economies in Asia, Latin America and the Gulf, and which makes it possible for the state to re-conquer some of the terrain that it abandoned to the market…. The outlines of a new world order are coming to the fore.” The article adds that states should “cooperate more closely” and that the new, global problems require “a new, global steering committee.”

The same article warns that the crisis not only offers an opportunity to shape the global economy, but also the danger that each individual country “pursues its own interests at the expense of the others.” It asks anxiously, “Which will prevail in the end?”

If one considers the facts presented by Die Zeit itself, the answer to this question is clear: The belief that a new and stable economic order will emerge from the present crisis is a pipe dream. All the experiences of the twentieth century argue that the replacement of one great power by another power or group of powers—i.e., the supplanting of US supremacy by a new order placing Europe and the emerging markets on an equal footing, as Die Zeit proposes—cannot proceed peacefully.

The faint-hearted proposal of the Brussels summit to eliminate some of the worst speculative excrescences from the international financial markets comes at a time when the crisis has already spread into the real economy. According to the IMF, the entire world economy is sinking into a recession for the first time since the Second World War. However, when the survival of whole branches of industry and financial interests in the hundreds of billions of dollars are at stake, there cannot be any peaceful agreement between rival capitalist states.

As far as hopes in Obama are concerned, in the few days since his election he has left no doubt that he is committed to defending the most powerful financial and economic interests in the US. He has surrounded himself with advisors who come from the same circles that have ruled the US for decades.

Europe itself is torn by conflicts. Die Zeit describes some of the disputes raging in the run-up to the Washington summit. “Already it appears that some states could break away in order to secure an advantage for themselves,” the newspaper writes. Britain is suspected of favouring a bigger role for the IMF “because the country enjoys much influence in it and because the financial services industry is particularly important for the country.” Die Zeit quotes an insider who said: “They’re only concerned about protecting the City of London.”

The newspaper sums up the situation in the European Union in the following way: “The EU states are clear that they can have international weight only if they come to an agreement. But because Germany fears for its own influence, and France has, for a long time, produced only populist proposals, there is great resistance to any institutionalisation of collaboration.”

Secret EU security draft risks uproar with call to pool policing and give US personal data

Europe should consider sharing vast amounts of intelligence and information on its citizens with the US to establish a “Euro-Atlantic area of cooperation” to combat terrorism, according to a high-level confidential report on future security.

The 27 members of the EU should also pool intelligence on terrorism, develop joint video-surveillance and unmanned drone aircraft, start networks of anti-terrorism centres, and boost the role and powers of an intelligence-coordinating body in Brussels, said senior officials.

The 53-page report drafted by the Future Group of interior and justice ministers from six EU member states - Germany, France, Sweden, Portugal, Slovenia, and the Czech Republic -argues Europe will need to integrate much of its policing, intelligence-gathering, and policy-making if it is to tackle terrorism, organised crime, and legal and illegal immigration.

The report, seen by the Guardian, was submitted to EU governments last month following 18 months of work. The group, which also includes senior officials from the European Commission, was established by Germany last year and charged with drafting a blueprint for security and justice policy over the next five years.

Baroness Scotland, the UK attorney general, had observer status with the group to assess the implications for Britain, whose legal system, unlike continental Europe, is based on the common law.

The group’s controversial proposals are certain to trigger major disputes, not least its calls for Europe to create an expeditionary corps of armed gendarmerie for paramilitary intervention overseas.

The report said the EU would fail to beat terrorism unless it developed a full partnership with Washington, a process currently pushing ahead in fits and starts.

“The EU should make up its mind with regard to the political objective of achieving a Euro-Atlantic area of cooperation with the United States in the field of freedom, security and justice,” it said.

Such a pact, which should be finalised by 2014 at the latest, would entail the transfer of vast volumes of information on European citizens and travellers to the US authorities. Negotiations have long been under way to agree such a pact, but have been bedevilled by divergences in privacy law and data protection regimes.

The US is already demanding that EU countries sign up for a battery of security measures on transatlantic flights and the supply of personal information on passengers if they are to enjoy visa-free travel to the US. Under one such accord struck in March between Washington and Berlin, the Germans are to make DNA and biometric information on travellers available.

The European Commission and the US homeland security department are also trying to iron out discrepancies in privacy laws to allow the wholesale exchange of data. The aim is to reach a binding international agreement this year or next.

Last month the American Civil Liberties Union wrote to MEPs pressing Brussels to reject US pressure because the US is “a country that, in privacy terms, is all but lawless … US privacy laws are weak. They offer little protection to citizens and virtually none to non-citizens.”

While urging a comprehensive transatlantic electronic pact, the Future Group focuses mainly on boosting police cooperation and integration between EU states, policies which would reinforce the powers of European agencies and institutions bearing acronyms such as Europol, Eurojust, Frontex, and Sitcen and perhaps see new agencies established to deal with security and intelligence operations.

Several member states, not least Britain, will have deep qualms about the proposals, with the British likely to balk at automatic pooling of national intelligence.

Anti-terrorist campaigns can only be effective if “maximum information flow between [EU] member states is guaranteed,” the report said. “Relevant security-related information should be available to all security authorities in the member states.” It said “networks of anti-terrorist centres” was a possible solution.

While cooperation between national police forces in the EU was advancing, the report conceded that the sharing of espionage and intelligence material was a “considerable challenge” as it clashed with the “principle of confidentiality” that is the basis for successful exchanges.

The report calls for a bigger role for “Sitcen” in coordinating intelligence sharing. Sitcen, or the Joint Situation Centre, is a shadowy intelligence body based in Brussels which started as a foreign policy tool supplying analysis on international crises to Javier Solana, the EU foreign policy chief, but which now focuses on counter-terrorism and internal security policy.

Key points

· National security services and intelligence agencies need to collaborate much more closely

· New EU internet-based propaganda campaign to defeat radicalisation and terrorist recruitment

· Create “European Gendarmerie Force” for deployment and intervention abroad. Pooling of EU funds for such missions

· Common EU immigration policies. By 2014, EU leaders should make the political decision on whether to enter a “Euro-Atlantic area of freedom, security, and justice” with the Americans

MEP Tries to Certify Bloggers

However, further down the report they do quote the proposal’s originator, Ms Mikko MEP (Who hasn’t replied to our email) saying

So, there you have it; there is a plan to have bloggers ‘Officially Certified’ by the EU. Lets hope sanity throws this idea onto the dustbin of history where it belongs.

In the meantime, Ms Mikko can find our response by referring the reply given in Arkell Vs Pressdram.

EU Constitution author says referendums can be ignored

By Bruno Waterfield in Brussels | Future referendums will be ignored whether they are held in Ireland or elsewhere, Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, the architect of the European Union Constitution said.

The former President of France drafted the old Constitution that was rejected by French and Dutch voters three years ago before being resurrected as the Lisbon EU Treaty, itself shunned by the Irish two weeks ago.

Mr Giscard d’Estaing told the Irish Times that Ireland’s referendum rejection would not kill the Treaty, despite a legal requirement of unanimity from all the EU’s 27 member states.

“We are evolving towards majority voting because if we stay with unanimity, we will do nothing,” he said.

“It is impossible to function by unanimity with 27 members. This time it’s Ireland; the next time it will be somebody else.”

Mr Giscard d’Estaing also admitted that, unlike his original Constitutional Treaty, the Lisbon EU Treaty had been carefully crafted to confuse the public.

“What was done in the [Lisbon] Treaty, and deliberately, was to mix everything up. If you look for the passages on institutions, they’re in different places, on different pages,” he said.

“Someone who wanted to understand how the thing worked could with the Constitutional Treaty, but not with this one.”

France and Germany are putting pressure on Ireland to hold a second referendum which would allow the Lisbon Treaty to come into force before European elections on June 4 2009.

Mr Giscard d’Estaing believes “there is no alternative” to a second Irish vote, a view shared by Nicolas Sarkozy, the French President.

Mr Sarkozy, who takes over the EU’s rotating presidency next week, will use a Brussels summit on October 15 to force Ireland to find a way out of Europe’s Treaty difficulties.

“Everyone agrees it has to be sorted out by the time of European elections,” he said at the weekend.

Václav Klaus, the Czech President has continued to insist that the Lisbon Treaty “cannot come into force” after the Irish vote.

“The EU cannot ignore its own rules. The Lisbon Treaty has been roundly and democratically rejected by Ireland, and it therefore cannot come into force,” he told El Pais newspaper.

“Any attempt to ignore this fact and make recourse to pressure and political manipulation to move the treaty forward would have disastrous consequences.”

Mark François, Conservative spokesman on Europe, also insisted that it was time that European politicians started to respect the Irish No vote.

“The Irish people gave an emphatic No to the Treaty of Lisbon on a record turnout and it would be good for politicians of all countries to respect this democratic decision,” he said.

“The point is particularly clear to us here in Britain as the Irish were fortunate to be given a referendum which we were denied by our Government.”

An opinion poll for the newspaper Libération has shown 44 per cent of the French want Ireland to vote again and 26 per cent want the ratification process to continue without Ireland.

But a quarter of those polled want to abandon the Treaty and 52 per cent think the Irish No vote is going to dominate Mr Sarkozy’s EU presidency.

Democracy in the EU Institutions

Blair Watch | There is much debate over the Irish rejection of the Lisbon treaty, but what I’m finding interesting is how a democratic decision by an electorate is regarded in the EU institutions. Remember, most nations have ratified the treaty by shoving it through their national parliament, often with little debate.

How people respond and react will say a lot about how democratic Europe really is. This is a little difficult, with the Eurosceptics being too hungover to speak and many others keeping their heads down, but let’s see if we can round-up the blogs etc and see what we find.

Earlier I said how I overheard Andrew Duff, leader of the Liberal Democrats say ‘We will not accept this decision’. So far there is no confirmation that ZANU-PF have offered him a job as Press Spokesman.

Tory MEP Richard Corbett has a thoughful piece wondering where to go from here, but pointing out that Ireland must have an internal debate about what they want from a treaty and how to address these concerns. Stanley Crossick thinks

We already knew that the referendum is not an appropriate mechanism for approving a complex treaty. We already knew that the European Union has not successfully been ‘sold’ to its citizens. We already knew that a veto is unacceptable in a union of 27.

One wonders if he would have written the same thing about the mechanism if the vote has been Yes, but the fact that the EU hasn’t been ’sold’ is the key point.

Aiden Gibson makes a case for a Pro-Europe No vote. EU Observer supports the Lisbon treaty but reflects that the EU hasn’t made enough progress on improving democracy, thansparency or efficiency. A very interesting article.

In a disturbing development, the Irish Daily Mail has published a secret memo where EC Vice-President Margot Wallstrom will ‘tone down or delay and pronouncements from Brussels that may be unhelpful’. Bruno Waterfield of the Daily Telegraph takes up the story.

More comment is here. We will add links as we find them, please leave your suggestions in the comments.

The EU was designed from the very start to be a top down organisation, mainly by people who were deeply affected by WWII and its aftermath. They designed a set up where ‘we know what’s best for you’ ruled the day. They also narrowed down decision making to make it more manageable, or malleable depending on your perspective.

Today things are different. Politics has changed, on the one hand many parties have moved to the centre and blurred the lines between them. Younger readers may not know this, but in the UK there once was a very real difference between Labour the Conservatives. Really.

Faced with a preceived lack of difference or choice, allied to the rise of the internet, people became disillusioned and cynical. They also felt less involved, less interested. One aspect is the rise of single issue politics, either as a simple “Out of Europe Now’ or protests against veal calf exports, road building etc.

People still have some sort of connection to their MP, but not to their MEP’s who have unmanagabley large constituencies. They are also working in Brussels and Strasbourg, physically remote from their constituents. Indeed one reform that could be helpful is to close down Strasbourg and have one seat of government.

The Irish citizens, like a great many other countries inhabitants, would if they were allowed to, have given the EU a bloody nose. Not entirely because they want out of the EU, but they want an accountable and democratic EU. The message is clear: “We’re here, take notice of us”.

Will Europe make real and serious attempts to be open, transparent and above all, democratic? The replies of Eurocrats and Brussels insiders to the referendum will be the earliest indication.

Watch them like hawks. We disagree with UKIP as we feel there is a chance, albeit slim and against massive odds, to build an open Europe, but an essential requirement is that those employed or funded by the European institutions must be willing do do whatever it takes to ensure these fundamental reforms are discussed and implemented, and we mean a lot more action than writing meaningless, bland and turgid press releases and reports that essentially say as little as possible or occasional maealy mouthed press conferences.

Jean -Paul Satre Famously said ‘Hell is other people’, If he’d been still around he would realise that Hell is in fact reading EU documents.

We need a real commitment to transform the European Project from a top-down institution to a bottom up one.

Have Government officials broken EU rules?

IC Wales | QUESTIONS have been raised over whether European rules are being broken in the running of a new £92m business grant scheme. The concerns follow a meeting at the Holland House Hotel in Cardiff on Thursday, when senior Assembly Government officials briefed members of the Welsh business community about the new system.

Someone who attended the meeting, who did not wish to be identified, told the Western Mail: “Some of us who were invited to the Holland House meeting were shocked at the implications of what was said. It seems the Assembly Government is intending to use money from the European Regional Development Fund as revenue support for the running of the Single Investment Fund (SIF), announced by (Deputy First Minister and Minister for Economy and Transport) Ieuan Wyn Jones in April.

“This will include paying the salaries of the new ‘relationship managers’ who will be responsible for liaising with companies seeking business support.

“My understanding of EU regulations is that this breaks the ‘additionality’ rule, under which money from European programmes is meant to be used to supplement core government spending on economic development.

“ Instead, it seems the European money is being used as a substitute for core government spending. It appears to me and others that this is a clear breach of EU rules.”

The member of the business community said the amount of money allocated to the SIF by the Assembly Government was significantly less than had been available in the past.

“The £92m budget represents a cut of about 33% compared to previous years, if you add up the various pots of money the SIF has replaced. We were told at the meeting that, in future, bids for aid would be competitive and companies from different sectors and regions would have to compete against other projects for aid. This at a time when the Welsh economy is 63% public sector.

“Fears were expressed in the meeting about the policy and timing of this move. There were also concerns that the Valleys and West/North Wales would again suffer from such a policy.

“The figures pose the question, where has the European Commission’s Objective One money gone in the past eight years? It has had no impact on the real economy. Why? Because the funds were raided by the Assembly Government to spend on other budgets, especially pay and jobs in the public sector.

“In Ireland, Objective One money was used to greatly improve the country’s transport infrastructure. In Brittany, which has received lower levels of European aid, money has been used to develop new tourism and leisure facilities in fishing ports.

“ We have little tangible to show in Wales after eight years of top-level European aid.”

An Assembly Government spokesman said: “These claims are simply inaccurate. It is clear that the person making them has misunderstood the information given at the meeting, and it is a pity that they did not raise their concerns with us at the time, rather than through the press.

“No European funding has been used to pay staff from the Department (for Economy and Transport) for their roles as relationship managers in the new ‘Flexible Support for Business’ structure. This new system of flexible, streamlined support, and the creation of the Single Investment Fund, is exactly what the business community has been calling for over a number of years.

“The Single Investment Fund was only introduced in April, and is being rolled out in stages. Therefore it is wrong to compare the value of the fund now with previous support programmes, as the fund does not currently reflect the full extent of our widespread support for businesses across Wales.

“At the end of the previous programme, EU-supported projects will have created up to 46,000 net additional jobs and supported the launch of some 2,400 new small and medium businesses. The impact of this is clearly demonstrated by employment levels in West Wales and the Valleys, which have risen by 11% since 1999, compared with a 9% increase across Wales and 7% across the UK.

“The new round of European funding programmes provides us with the opportunity to build on this progress and deliver further real improvements across the Welsh economy.”

Last night the member of the business community who raised the concerns insisted: “I do not believe I misinterpreted what was said.”

Watchdog: European DNA Database a Potential Nightmare

By Mick Meaney - RINF | Speaking at a news conference, European Data Protection Supervisor, Peter Hustinx, raised concerns over the European DNA Database, criticising its lack of safeguards to protect tourists and the public travelling around the EU.

“In some cases it will be a nightmare not only for citizens but also law enforcement authorities. What might have been done responsibly has not been done well,” said Mr Hustinx.

“Tourists could find themselves suspects in a cross-border criminal investigation merely for having had a drink at a motorway service station,” he said.

He criticised Germany saying: “I’m afraid we can’t do much to repair the problem. I found it regrettable that the Germany Presidency used the dynamics of the presidency to get something adopted that should not have been adopted in this way. The safeguards are not clear, harmonised or even available.”

Germany held the rotating EU presidency at the time, which meant the rules were adopted in just four months, making the European Union rush through the procedure at the expense of safety.

The rules, as agreed by interior ministers in 2007, allow police to identify a suspect from hair, fingernails or sperm and will be able to check DNA data gathered in other EU member states.

Commenting on Mr Hustinx’s statement, a German official said: “The data protection safeguards were based on a model used by seven countries - Germany, Austria, the Benelux countries, France and Spain - in a pilot of the DNA-sharing scheme, and they were regarded as adequate.”

According to Mr Hustinx the model “did not address differences in various EU national legislations was too complex to function efficiently.”

Renditions Ruin the EU Case

By David Cronin | Collusion between European Union governments and a secret U.S. torture and kidnapping programme has damaged the EU’s efforts to promote human rights throughout the world, an internal paper drawn up by Brussels officials has admitted.

In 2001, the EU approved guidelines on how diplomats representing it should raise concern over the ill-treatment of detainees with the authorities in foreign countries. These guidelines stemmed from a stated commitment to “carry out systematic and sustained action in the fight against torture.”

A new EU assessment of how the guidelines are being applied acknowledges that some governments have accused the Union of double standards because some of its member states have been implicated in the so-called extraordinary rendition scheme operated by the Central Intelligence Agency of the U.S.

The internal paper, seen by IPS, recommends special efforts to “strengthen EU credibility”.

It says that “coherence needs to be assured” between the EU’s stance against torture during its foreign policy work and its own track record on protecting human rights within the Union’s own borders. “Full respect” for human rights should be guaranteed when formulating policies designed to fight terrorism, and expulsion of foreigners should not occur in cases where there is a likelihood they will be tortured, persecuted or murdered once they return to their home countries, the paper adds.

David Miliband, the British foreign secretary, confessed in February that two CIA planes used in the kidnapping and torture programme had landed in Diego Garcia, a British-controlled island in the Indian Ocean, in 2002. This was a reversal of previous denials by the London government that CIA flights had landed on British territory.

Several other EU governments, including Germany, Sweden, Portugal, Ireland and Italy have been accused of allowing their countries be used by the CIA for covert operations. Poland and Romania have both been criticised by the European Commission for their reluctance to provide information about claims that the CIA ran secret detention centres on their soil.

A 2007 report by an inquiry committee in the European Parliament concluded that at least 1,245 CIA flights passed through European airspace or stopped at the continent’s airports between the end of 2001 and the end of 2005.

Claude Moraes, a British Labour politician who sat on the Parliament’s committee, said that the result of the EU’s collusion with the CIA is “a credibility gap when we lecture other countries about torture.

“The allegations are not going away,” he added, referring to reports in late April that the British security service MI5 had “outsourced” torture of United Kingdom citizens to Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence agency (ISI).

Several British nationals arrested in Pakistan have been quoted as saying they were severely beaten by ISI agents before being interrogated by men believed to work for MI5.

Chloe Davies from Reprieve, an organisation that has carried out detailed research into the CIA’s activities, said that Europe’s reputation as a defender of human rights has been tarnished.

“Little by little European powers’ collusion in the kidnap, rendition and torture of terrorist suspects is coming to light,” she said. “We now know that the CIA operated ‘black sites’ in Poland, Romania and apparently even on British territory in Diego Garcia.

“On many occasions CIA aircraft have been allowed to land on or cross European territory, en route to the kidnap and rendition of ghost prisoners to torture in secret prisons in countries like Syria, Jordan and Egypt. In addition European governments have allowed hundreds of prisoners to be ferried through their jurisdiction to illegal imprisonment, torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment in Guantanamo Bay (the U.S.-run camp in Cuba).”

The internal EU paper also recognises that there has been criticism of flaws in the EU rules aimed at preventing the export of equipment used for torture or the death penalty.

While these rules were introduced in 2005, a report by Amnesty International published last year found that loopholes in them meant that spiked batons known as ’sting sticks’ used by the Chinese police and ‘hanging ropes’ used for executions in Sri Lanka, India, and Trinidad and Tobago could still be traded.

Since the Amnesty report was issued, the British government has undertaken to ban export of spiked batons and to work with other EU governments to curb the export of torture tools not explicitly covered by the 2005 rules. Amnesty had cited examples of British-made hanging ropes being used to execute prisoners in Trinidad and Tobago and of handcuffs engraved ‘made in England’ used to shackle detainees in Guantanamo Bay to walls and ceilings.

Human rights groups slam EU over Tibet stance

EUOBSERVER / BRUSSELS - Human rights groups Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have slammed the European Union’s stance over Tibet, calling the reaction “tepid” and demanding much more robust pressure on China from the 27-nation European bloc.

“Once again, this is a test for the European Union, which needs to decide whether it’s going to be a serious player or just sit on the sidelines,” Human Rights Watch’s Asia director, Brad Adams, told the EUobserver.
“The EU’s reaction has been tepid and needs to be much stronger,” he said, criticising the statements from both the European Council and European Commission calling for restraint from both protesters and the Chinese authorities.

“While there has been violence on both sides, the ultimate responsibility lies with China. They’ve created the conditions for the unrest.”

“You can see the difference between how they are dealing with China and how they dealt with Burma, when there was a similar crackdown,” he said, referring to the autumn 2007 assault by the Burmese military junta on high-profile dissidents and Buddhist monks in which thousands of protesters were rounded up and unknown numbers killed.

At the time, the EU banned imports of gemstones, timber and metal from the country.

“The EU shouldn’t just take strong action in response to human rights violations of small states, but also strong states, like China,” said Mr Adams.

Meanwhile, Amnesty International echoed their fellow human rights campaigners. “We’ve seen a very weak statement from the council,” said Susi Dennison, the group’s external relations officer at its Brussels office, in an interview with the EUobserver.

“And the EU presidency statement called on China to respect international democratic principles, but China actually needs to go further and adhere to its international legal obligations, such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the UN Convention Against Torture.”

“The EU needs to be pushing for the Chinese government to account for detained citizens in particular, and in the run-up to the Olympics, while the world is watching, they need at a minimum to press China to live up to the human rights commitments that it made ahead of winning the games.”

“Specifically, Amnesty is calling on the EU to push for China to allow an independent investigation, letting in international observers.”

Mirroring Amnesty’s demands, the Human Rights Watch official said: “We’ve called for China to let in the UN to conduct an independent probe into alleged abuses, and we’d like the EU to echo that call.”

European Parliament president opens door to boycott
There have been stronger statements coming out of some member states, such as France and Italy, said Ms Dennison.

Italian President Giorgio Napolitano said that the EU should put forward a common denunciation of the events in Tibet. “What is happening is deeply worrying, and there are no doubts that what we have said so far will be reiterated more vigorously.”

Meanwhile, the country’s foreign ministry summoned the Chinese ambassador to Rome for talks on the unrest.

French Socialist leader Francois Hollande said Monday (17 March) that his country should consider boycotting the games, while France’s foreign minister said he was considering boycotting the opening ceremonies.

But the EU collectively has been ineffective, said Ms Dennison, while other member states have hidden behind the EU statements.

“When the EU speaks with one voice, it is at its most powerful. Unfortunately, this is similar to our criticisms we had of the EU over Darfur.

“The EU has the ability to speak with one voice, but too often, it doesn’t use it.”

Hans-Gert Poettering, the centre-right president of the European Parliament, who, speaking on German public radio on Tuesday (18 March), said that politicians should reconsider attending the opening of the Beijing Olympic games if the attacks from Chinese authorities continue.

“One has to say to the Chinese: if the repression continues like this, it will cause political leaders who plan to attend the opening of the Olympic Games, as I plan to, to consider whether such a trip is a responsible move,” President Poettering told Deutschlandfunk radio.

He also said he did not rule out a wider boycott of the games. “We must send a signal to Beijing,” he added.

Mr Poettering’s words are a departure from the president’s initial comments on the topic, who the day before had repeated the other European institutions’ call for both sides to show restraint, adding that he hoped that the upcoming Olympic Games in Beijing would be a success.

Christina Gallach, spokesperson for EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana, responding to the complaints from human rights groups about double standards regarding Burma and China, said: “The relations between the EU and China are totally different from those between the EU and Burma.”

“The EU has bilateral agreements with China and various human rights dialogues with the country. Our relationship with China goes back 30 years.”

“Whereas we have expanded sanctions on the Burmese junta. There is no comparison with Burma.”

She also said that it is not foreseen that the EU will have a special envoy for Tibet, as they do with Burma, a key demand of Tibetan protesters.

‘Classic Chinese lock-down on information’
Meanwhile, European and International journalists’ associations are calling on the EU to beef up its language around freedom of the media in Tibet. International and Hong Kong journalists have been banned from the region, while foreign television news reports have been blacked out in China, along with access to stories and video about Tibet on the internet.

“The EU should immediately press the Chinese authorities to open the door to scrutiny by the international media,” said Aidan White, general-secretary of the International Federation of Journalists. “What we’re witnessing is a classic Chinese lock-down on information, a cordon sanitaire to stop journalists reporting and the world from knowing what’s going on.”

France-based Reporters Sans Frontieres on Tuesday urged political officials to boycott the 8 August Olympic opening ceremony.

“China has not kept any of the promises it made in 2001 when it was chosen to host these Olympics,” the press freedom organisation said. “Instead, the government is crushing the Tibetan protests and is imposing a news blackout.”

The Peoples’ Republic of China say that demonstrators have killed 13 civilians in protests in recent days, while exiled Tibetan leaders in India say some 100 people may have been killed by the Chinese authorities.

UK MEPs fined after EU treaty protest

Four British MEPs have been fined hundreds of pounds for staging an EU treaty referendum protest in the European parliament.

The president of the European parliament, Hans-Gert Pöttering, has docked the allowances of MEPs involved in the disruption of the parliament last December.

Dozens of MEPs, many of them from the Conservative party and the UK Independence party, disrupted business in the parliament in Strasbourg by heckling at and protesting against EU leaders who signed the new EU charter of fundamental rights.

As Pöttering, José Manuel Barroso, the president of the European commission, and the Portuguese prime minister, José Socrates, signed the charter - which Britain says will not apply in the UK - the British-led band of Europhobic MEPs unveiled banners and T-shirts demanding a referendum on the EU treaty.

Nine MEPs face sanctions as a result, including British Conservative MEP Roger Helmer, independent MEP Jim Allister and Ukip’s Roger Knapman, who will all lose three days’ allowance. The MEPs’ daily allowance is €287.
Ukip MEP Godfrey Bloom learned he will be fined two days’ allowance for his part in the fracas.

Gary Titley MEP, Labour’s leader in Europe, denounced the protest: “I hope we have seen the back of those bully-boy tactics. Democracy is about respecting each other.”

Bloom said: “A quarter of a million people voted for me to protest against the EU and I’m not going to stop doing that because a few Euro-nationalists decide to take away my pocket money.

“I was proud to stand shoulder to shoulder with MEPs from across Europe to protest at the repulsive behaviour of the European parliament.

“It’s probably hard for these chaps to understand because they’re a bit tight, but the people they have made suffer with these proposals are the small charities because that’s who I give my allowances to.”

Knapman said he was too long in the tooth to be told what to do by a German president.

The EU’s control structure, inside and outside Britain

The following are all involved with building the EU dictatorship. An estimate of the percentage of members involved with this agenda or its associated corruption is shown alongside. This is not an exhaustive list.

A society of 140 politicians and the powerful, whose main concern is building the EU police state: 96%.

All our Prime Ministers since Ted Heath have been Bilderbergers. This society has sufficient members within the leaderships of the Conservative, Labour and Lib Dem parties, that it can choose the candidates who stand for leader. It chose John Major, Tony Blair, David Cameron and Gordon Brown (who joined in 1991), all of whom work for the Bilderbergers and for the EU, not for the voters they pretend to represent. That is why your vote makes no difference.

Has the Queen been persuaded by the Bilderbergers to sign the five illegal treaties? She risks prosecution for treason, and has failed in her personal constitutional duties as a monarch.

Amongst its 27 nations, Britain is the main target. They know from our long history the EU dictatorship cannot be built while there is a strong and freedom loving Britain on its doorstep.

For that reason the EU’s British sympathysers have been undermining us with scores of Frankfurt School subversion techniques since the 1950’s, including control of the media, the corruption of our courts, political correctness to prevent debate, undermining teachers and the family.

That is why, for example, the French don’t implement many EU regulations, but in Britain our fifth column implements the lot, and gold plates them.

Controls development of the EU. Set up by Adolf Hitler for this purpose. Recruits British politicians including Heath, Rippon and Jenkins, and major British newspapers for the EU. Some of our top politicians are DVD controlled, we may not know who until their deaths.

The leadership: 75%. Penetrated by a pro-EU leadership since the 1960’s, the Conservative Party is the primary instrument of the European Union in Britain. Francis Maude stated the Party founded Common Purpose in 1970.

The Conservatives say at elections they will do something minor about the EU (eg. Cameron promised to leave the European People’s Party; he didn’t). They never do - its leaders are deeply dedicated to the EU; the likes of Cameron and Francis Maude would rather be in the EU than be in power, traitors to their nation and to Conservative voters.

Their leaderships (60%) have been EU controlled for 15 years. A vote for these three parties is a vote for the EU dictatorship. We have a one party state.

The top 10% of Britain’s 400,000 freemasons. Most freemasons would be horrified if they knew what their own leadership are up to, or what their real goals are. See http://www.bilderberg.org/masons.htm to find out.

(It is difficult to be promoted above the rank of sergeant in the police if you are not a freemason, slightly higher ranks in the Army, Royal Navy and RAF).

Law Lords 80%, Lawyers as a whole: 65%. British justice is now utterly corrupt. See our August issue. Law Lords refuse to enforce our long and written British Constitution, under which the EU is an illegal regime. They are themselves guilty of misprision of treason - the crime of refusing to act when they know treason has been committed.

The EU’s criminal local control organisation with 25,000 members: 60% involved. Many members think its all above board, and do not realise they have not been selected.

Common Purpose have penetrated the BBC, where four hundred of them control news and current affairs, our newspapers, council executives, the Church of England, the NHS which over 20 years they have deliberately destroyed from within, social services, our police and many more. Common Purpose members control the Quango budget, £124 billion, and the NHS budget, £90 billion, ie about £210 billion, or 1/3 of our taxes. See our Book Review, page 6.

Among all the above, there are about 25,000 dedicated British traitors sabotaging our nation, with 100,000 useful idiots iimplementing the EU’s corruption. and feeding off its gravy train.

17 councils to hold referendums?
Many people doubt we’ll ever be given a referendum, so the local councils of East Stoke, Purbeck, in Dorset, Charfield in South Gloucestershire, Newton and Noss Mayo, and possibly South Hams in Devon are holding their own referendums on the EU.

The Campaign Alliance for Referenda in Parishes has now got 17 other councils in the South West interested.

In our view their question “Do you want a referendum on the EU” is the wrong one. It should be “Do you want your council, county or nation to be abolished by the EU (currently by the Reform Treaty?)”

Under our British Constitution these referendums are legally binding on the government, whose power is legally limited to implementing the wishes of the people.

This constitutional limit on government power was confirmed as recently as May 2007 in the High Court ruling in the Chagos Archipelago case. Government has been breaking the British Constitution for some time - they must be stopped.

YOU can force a referendum on your council, using Part 3, Schedule 12, paragraph 18, sub paras 4&5 of the 1972 Local Government Act as follows:

1. Six residents must sign a letter announcing a parish or town meeting with at least 7 days notice, and it must start after 6pm. 2. Inform the press and local dignitaries. 3. At least 10 people on the electoral role must show up. Propose and second a motion that a parish poll should be held on whether or not the EU’s Reform Treaty should be ratified. At least 10 voters, and 1/3 of those present, need to vote in favour for the poll to take place. Under the Act, the council must hold the poll within 25 days.

This question gives the council the power to take direct action if our utterly corrupt Westminster Parliament continues to refuse to obey the wishes of the people.

We call upon all Britain’s 19,579 paid councillors and 20,000 unpaid councillors to propose a motion for a referendum in their council.

EU visitors to have fingerprints taken

BRUSSELS Every visitor to the European Union would have to provide fingerprints before being allowed to enter, under plans unveiled yesterday to clamp down on illegal immigration.

The move to record the arrival and departure of non-EU citizens and to store the data in a single European database is part of a wider overhaul of border security. It is aimed at the largest single category of illegal migrants: people who remain once their visa or permit has expired.

Franco Frattini, the EU Justice Commissioner, argued that the existence of the electronic register containing a visitor’s personal details and final destination would make it possible to identify overstayers.

The scheme, which must be approved by all 27 EU governments before it can come into force in 2013 as proposed, has been criticised by civil rights groups. They fear that it could lead to a “fortress Europe” mentality against foreigners and to identity theft if the data were lost or stolen.

VIDEO: MEP Exposes The EU Lisbon Treaty

We Are Change Ireland attended the Training Day on the Lisbon Treaty on Jan 2008 in Dublin. This was organized by Irish MEP Kathy Sinnott. Danish MEP Jens-Peter Bonde exposes the lies and manipulations by the EU elites to hide the significance of the treaty by making it unreadable.