#ACTA - The Government loves it

This briefing has just come through from HMG about the upcoming vote on the ACTA.

1.      UK views

·         The UK supports ACTA because we believe it will help to stem the flow of counterfeit and pirated goods.  We signed the agreement on 26 January.

·         ACTA is about tackling large-scale infringement activities pursued by criminal organisations, which frequently pose a threat to public health and safety. It is not about limiting civil liberties or harassing consumers.

·         The UK position has been clear throughout: that ACTA should not require the introduction of any new legislation in the EU and that it should reflect the acquis communutaire. We believe that the final agreement is fully consistent and in line with existing EU law.

2.      European Parliament consideration

The INTA committee is responsible for producing the EP report and the first discussion is expected shortly.  The EP has the power of consent over the agreement.

3.      Points for debate

·         Innovation and creativity have been identified as areas of economic importance for the EU and the UK. Adequate protection and enforcement of IPRs is a key component in helping innovative and creative industries to thrive. 

·         Counterfeiting and piracy of intellectual property rights is a major global issue.  A 2005 report by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) calculated  the value of trade in counterfeit and pirated goods at $250bn (£162bn), approximately 2% of all global trade.  Criminal organisations involved in counterfeiting and piracy are often the same that commit drug trafficking or money laundering.

·         ACTA will provide EU and UK industry and creators with better protection on overseas markets, which is essential for business to thrive, to encourage innovation and increase consumer protection. The benefits to business include:

o        the potential reduction in counterfeit goods flowing into the UK;

o        strengthened IPR systems abroad, based on foreign nations adjusting their IPR framework to coincide with that in the UK and EU; and,

o        improved collaboration in tracking the international flow of counterfeit goods.

·         ACTA has been criticised for its perceived impact on individual citizens.  However, ACTA is about tackling large-scale infringement activities pursued by criminal organisations. It aims to improve the enforcement of existing IPR laws, not create new ones.  There will be no substantive change to UK or EU law in order to comply with ACTA.

UKIP will oppose, while the Tories, Labour and the Lib Dems decided it was not worth discussing,

ACTA was nodded through the UK Commons, via the "European Scrutiny Committee" without a debate or vote.

On the 7th September 2011 there were "22 Documents not raising questions of sufficient legal or political importance to warrant a substantive report to the House" on that committee.

Two of those documents were the final proposals for ACTA as follows:

"Draft Council Decision on the conclusion of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, Australia, Canada, Japan, the Republic of Korea, the United Mexican States, the Kingdom of Morocco, New Zealand, the Republic of Singapore, the Swiss Confederation and the United States of America."
- see reference number "12193"

and

"Draft Council Decision on the signing, on behalf of the European Union of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, Australia, Canada, Japan, the Republic of Korea, the United Mexican States, the Kingdom of Morocco, New Zealand, the Republic of Singapore, the Swiss Confederation and the United States of America."
- see reference number "12190"

Oh those lovers of freedom

Cathy Ashton is hard

OK, maybe not hard but is after hard power capabilities for Europe,

If Europe is to be a credible player in the world, it requires more than just soft power.

What is interesting about this speech today to the Euroepan Defence Agency is this statement,

Defence Ministers have already recognised that it is better to have excellent collective capabilities than unsustainable or unattainable national ones. Since the informal EU Defence Ministerial in Ghent in 2010 there has been a strong political will to pool and share capabilities more systematically.

Interestingly Liam Fox was a stay away at this Ghent meeting, sending junior scrote Gerald Howarth to watch the meeting.

Another stay-away from the meeting was Britain’s Defence Secretary Liam Fox, who before he took over as minister in the Conservative-led coalition government in May had been a critic of close EU defence integration. Officials said Fox’s stand-in, Gerald Howarth, the minister for international security strategy, expressed doubts about the usefulness of the European Defence Agency, which other nations would like to see play an expanded role in coordinating armaments cooperation. Morin complained that Britain’s long-standing veto of an increased budget for the agency was holding back its effectiveness.

The questyion reamins over Britain's involvement in the EDA. According to the reports the Tories were all for pulling out, but the Lib Dems kept them in for two years.

Before (the) general election, the Conservatives threatened to pull Britain out of the EDA if they won power. However, since the formation of the coalition with the Liberal Democrats, the government's position had softened - with ministers now stating the UK will remain a member for two more years, after which the position will be "reviewed".

Those two years are coming up, so has the MOD made a decision, will Phillip Hammond bite this bullet?

Dancing while Athens (Rome/Lisbon etc) Burns

Every now and again I have a go at the Eurocrat Trade Unions. This load of self-satisfied, publicly-subsidised parasites just get up my nose. The feeling I am sure is mutual as this page on one of the Unions websites' makes clear,

Hoaxes about European Civil Servants are often circulated as a weapon against the European Union. Civil servants are scapegoats in this war waged by eurosceptics. They are pictured as incompetent, no good, pampered, lazy, arrogant, useless fat cats, parasites and so on and so forth

.
This is from the Website of the Union for Unity. They describe themselves thusly,

We want to work for the dignity of European officials and agents, to defend all those men and women without which European integration would never have been possible, and without which its future is threatened.

But why would anybody think that these people are in any way the "incompetent, no good, pampered, lazy, arrogant, useless fat cats, parasites" we might think them to be? Could it be because they organise events like this in the middle of the Financial Crisis that is eating its way across the continent and devouring lives, livelihoods, jobs, hopes and aspirations?

Fête
pour une Europe solidaire

Festival on 3 March 2012 in the Berlaymont from 19hrs to 1 o'clock

19h à 19h30 accueil avec un verre - welcome

19h30 à 20h45 concert Olla Vogala

20h45 à 21h45 buffet

21h45 à 1h soirée dansante - dancing floor

How could anybody think they were out of touch?

The Madness of Crowds

ComRes has been doing some polling of the Brussels elite about the Financial Transaction Tax.

Their results are unsurprising if not depressing.

Six in ten MEPs also believe that such a tax will be welcomed by their constituents
Overall, MEPs and Brussels Influencers don’t think that an FTT will make Europe’s banking sector less competitive worldwide

So that is general, what about specific. What about those who should have a clue,

Perhaps the most intriguing result is the fact that while a majority of members (or substitutes) of the Economic Affairs committee of the Parliament (59%) believe that such a tax will make Europe’s banking sector less competitive worldwide, yet they would still support its introduction (63%)

So even those who know that it is a bad idea, still support it.

Given what the Brussels meeting today is supposed to be about growth, jobs and competitiveness this is just maddening.

Farewell then Greece

The FT has an extraordinary leak of German plans for the future of Greece. Essentially if they come to pass we will no longer be able to describe Greece as a country. A nation yes, a culture most definitely, but a country.

No longer.

The strictures are devastating,

1. Absolute priority to debt service Greece has to legally commit itself to giving absolute priority to future debt service. This commitment has to be legally enshrined by the Greek Parliament. State revenues are to be used first and foremost for debt service, only any remaining revenue may be used to finance primary expenditure. This will reassure public and private creditors that the Hellenic Republic will honour its comittments after PSI and will positively influence market access. De facto elimination of the possibility of a default would make the threat of a non-disbursement of a GRC II tranche much more credible. If a future tranche is not disbursed, Greece can not threaten its lenders with a default, but will instead have to accept further cuts in primary expenditures as the only possible consequence of any non-disbursement.

You will pay off your debts to us before anything. Before teachers, nurses, police essential services, the lot. Nothing less than a Teutonic Jyrza.

To cap that this regime will be enforced by a Pasha from Brussels,

2. Transfer of national budgetary sovereignty Budget consolidation has to be put under a strict steering and control system. Given the disappointing compliance so far, Greece has to accept shifting budgetary sovereignty to the European level for a certain period of time. A budget commissioner has to be appointed by the Eurogroup with the task of ensuring budgetary control. He must have the power a) to implement a centralized reporting and surveillance system covering all major blocks of expenditure in the Greek budget, b) to veto decisions not in line with the budgetary targets set by the Troika and c) will be tasked to ensure compliance with the above mentioned rule to prioritize debt service.

Farewell then Greece. Is it not time to resurrect the shade of Kostas Georgakis or even Demetrius Ypsilantis?

Καλλιῶναι μίας ὥρας ἐλεύθερη ζωή,
παρὰ σαράντα χρόνοι, σκλαβιὰ καὶ φυλακή.

Forget Hardy, William Barnes is Dorset's greatest figure

I was delighted to read a spirited clarion call for my favourite poet in today's Guardian.

The words of this linguist and preacher sing out from Blackmore Vale. They are hard, humorous and languid.

Here is an example,

The Wife A-Lost

Since I noo mwore do zee your fe{"a}ce,
Up ste{"a}rs or down below,
I'll zit me in the lwonesome ple{"a}ce,
Where flat-bough'd beech do grow;
Below the beeches' bough, my love,
Where you did never come,
An' I don't look to meet ye now,
As I do look at hwome.

Since you noo mwore be at my zide,
In walks in zummer het,
I'll goo alwone where mist do ride,
Drough trees a-drippèn wet;
Below the ra{"i}n-wet bough, my love,
Where you did never come,
An' I don't grieve to miss ye now,
As I do grieve at hwome.

Since now bezide my dinner-bwoard
Your va{"i}ce do never sound,
I'll eat the bit I can avword,
A-vield upon the ground;
Below the darksome bough, my love,
Where you did never dine,
An' I don't grieve to miss ye now,
As I at hwome do pine.

Since I do miss your va{"i}ce an' fe{"a}ce
In pra{"y}er at eventide,
I'll pray wi' woone sad va{"i}ce vor gre{"a}ce
To goo where you do bide;
Above the tree an' bough, my love,
Where you be gone avore,
An' be a-w{"a}itèn vor me now,
To come vor evermwore.

Which has to be one of the great love poems in English.

So yes, I take up the suggestion of Paul Kingsnorth. Lets make the 22nd Feb Barnes Night.

Washing down your Lettuce Soup, Lamb saddle and of course Barnes' own Apple Cake

“He's nice an' moist;
vor when I were a-meakin o'n,
I stuck some bots ov apple in the dough”.

with lashings of the finest Ale and Cider.

And try this one for size, The Witch

Not really a ringing endorsement

Rather preposterously, Jacques Santer has got the job as head of the EU bailout fund. "He is someone with a name. He is close by and was available," or in other words 'he is unemployed and twiddling his thumbs',  is the best the EU could come up with to justify the appointment.

As UKIP's Farage pointed out,

The lunatics have finally taken over the asylum. The key to dealing with this crisis, as with any crisis in the markets is confidence. What sort of confidence can anybody have in somebody who was even the EU fired for incompetence.

The plain fact is that the name Santer is synonymous in the public mind with financial corruption. It is quite incredible that some-one of his reputation and past actions would be appointed head of an EU bailout fund.

It seems that even the Eurocrats agree with this assessment,

He was chosen because he is a "good European", a Luxembourger, who will take on the board role for the Luxembourg-based EFSF's SPIV without a salary.

"He is someone with a name. He is close by and was available," said an EFSF spokesman.

Defending the decision, Jean-Claude Juncker, who chairs the meetings of eurozone finance ministers, told reporters: "He (Santer) served both Europe and his country in the best way possible".

If Mr Junker thinks that presiding over a corrupt an incompetent Commission, leading to embarrassment and mass resignations is the 'best way possible' I am certain that watching the performance of the improbably named Special Purpose Investment Vehicle, or Spiv for short will be entertaining, if you are not one of millions who will suffer due to its depredations.

ECJ Madness strikes again

Sometimes one just has to sit open-mouthed in wonder at the judgements pouring forth from the Luxembourg European Court of Justice. I bring you the case of Maribel Dominguez. Meribel had been off work for 14 months due to an accident, and felt that though she had not been to work for that period she was due holiday pay for the time that she didn't take holiday, because she wasn't at work.

I leave it to the Solicitors Journal to explain the niceities,

The fact that the directive did not make any distinction between employees off work on sick leave and those who have in fact worked in the course of the reference period meant that, for the former, the right to paid annual leave could not be made subject to a condition that the employee has actually worked during the so-called reference period – usually a year.

Yes you got that right,

the right to paid annual leave could not be made subject to a condition that the employee has actually worked during the so-called reference period

I despair, truely I do.

A different view of the Croatian referendum

This has been sent through to me by Marjan Bošnjak of the Only CroatiaParty, it deserves a read. I haven't checked all the facts but those I do know about stand up.

Contrary to official claims, the Croatian people did not overwhelmingly support Croatia's membership of the European Union.

In fact, most Croats abstained from the EU referendum resulting in a record low participation level of only 43%, which means that even if  all those who turned out, voted in favour of EU membership, they would still constitute a minority not only of voters, but of the Croatian people.

At the first-ever referendum held in Croatia in 1991, the turnout was 83.5%, of which 94% voted in favour of independence.

Fully aware that the Croatian People do not want to give up their hard earned independence, the ruling elites changed the Croatian Constitution prior to the EU referendum to eliminate the rule which invalidated any referendum unless 50 percent participation was achieved.

Prior to the EU referendum, the Croatian people were subjected to a massive North Korea-style pro–EU propaganda campaign, which relentlessly extolled the benefits and virtues of

membership, and denigrated any attempts to say otherwise.

 

The Government spent huge amounts of public funds to pay for a massive YES campaign, whilst denying any funding to the NO case. In addition, the European Commision ran its own very expensive YES campaign. State enterprises and corporations were also enlisted. State Television aired pro-EU adverts for free or at discounted rates, Croatia Post home delivered more than 2 million government leaflets for free, and the City of Zagreb provided free EU advertising on its trams.

The official referendum campaign was restricted to a four week period at the height of winter and favoured the official YES case which had almost exclusive access to the electronic media. It also exploited seasonal distractions provided by Christmas and New Year celebrations as well as winter school holidays.

The real referendum campaign had actually started much much earlier and involved, not thousands, but tens of thousands,  pro-EU advertisements on radio and Television.

The 'Vecernji List' daily reported on 10.8.2011 that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and EU Integrations had in the two preceeding months (June and July 2011) paid the broadcasting of  more than 13 thousand radio adverts and more than 2300 TV adverts on 80 radio stations, 6 national and 15 local TV stations. This massive propaganda campaign continued and even increased in scope and intensity over the next six months leading up to the referendum.

The Austrian, German and Government-owned electronic and print media ( ie all the media in Croatia) blatantly supported the YES case and made sure that the YES campaign was the only campaign.   Hundreds of sponsored 'information programs' were aired over many months and even more 'informative' newspaper articles were printed.

The Catholic Church hierarchy, lavishly funded by the State, also openly supported the YES case and seemed unconcerned that there was no democratic public debate and no visible NO case.

In the last few weeks, the population was carpet-bombed by advertisements and appeals on TV, radio and the print media from the President, Prime Minister, Opposition Leader,   Ministers, Actors, Singers and Sportsmen to choose EU prosperity and happiness over isolation and poverty.

Just days before the referendum, Foreign minister Vesna Pusić shamelessly threatened Croatia's 1.2 million pensioners that they would lose their pensions if they voted against EU membership. The Zvijezda voting station in Zagreb, which covers several retirement homes with about 1100 pensioners, reported an 80 percent vote in favour of EU membership.

And the result of this massive propaganda campaign ? -A referendum turnout of only 43% of  all voters and a vote of 66% in favour of EU membership and 33% against.

And even this vote is somewhat suspect because Croatia has more voters than citizens. According to the latest 2011 Population Census, Croatia has a total population of only 4.29 million, yet according to the Electoral Commission it has 4,504,765 voters over 18 years of age eligible to vote.

In such blatantly undemocratic circumstances, it was impossible for the Croatian People to make an informed decision and the EU referendum therefore has no democratic legitimacy. It has all the hallmarks of a sham.

It is clear that the EU referendum in Croatia was a swindle which did not meet even the most basic democratic criteria, and whose sole purpose was to elicit an affirmative vote.

We call on the Croatian Government and the political elites to recognise the reality that the Croatian People have not freely and democratically given their consent to the loss of their independence.

We call on the Croatian Government to do the right thing, to annul this sham referendum, to organise a new, fair and democratic referendum, and to give the Croatian People the opportunity to make a free and informed decision about their future.   

Should this not happen, we ask all the democratically minded Peoples of existing EU members not to participate in this undemocratic swindle of the Croatian People. We ask them and their National Parliaments to block the ratification of Croatia's membership of the EU, until such time as the Croatian People are given the right to decide freely at a fair, democratic and legitimate referendum.

The Moneyball loses it again

This blog's favourite Labour MEP, Hairy Moneyball is at it again.

In a rambling post she manages to show both arrogance ignorance and misplaced pride. It is all about how she still holds a flame for Tony, and how she wishes that he had managed to introduce the Euro,

It was, therefore, a tragic shame that Tony Blair did not take us into the Euro. Apart from giving Britain a place in the world, it would also have sealed his legacy, a legacy which became so damaged by the Iraq war. As a strong Blair supporter, I believe he deserves to be better remembered than seems to be the case at present. This may have been the reality not just something on my wish-list if Blair had found the courage to put our country well and truly at the economic and political heart of Europe.

You are quite right Hairy, he would be hated even more, quite something to wish for for your unrequited love.

Where she really starts to go off the wall is on her description of Britain's place in the world, which she links to what she sees as a UKIP position,

Outside the Euro with David Cameron we really are not much more than Norway. I have never bought the UKIP argument that it would be good to be like Norway. Excellent country that it is, it is not really significant in the scheme of things, does not take part in major international decisions and appears to be content to sit at home avoiding power and responsibility.

As a British patriot, I do not want the Norwegian option for our country which ruled the waves only 100 years ago. I want to be where it matters. That is at the heart of the European Union with a seat at all the tables and the power due to us as one of the second largest EU member states after Germany. In order to be where we should be, Britain has to be a member of the single currency. It’s as simple as that. We ignore this at our peril.

Lets have a look at this, particularly at those comments about Norway.

The charges are

1) It is insignificant.
2) It 'Does not take part in major international decisions',
3) It 'appears to be content to sit at home avoiding power and responsibility'

 If I were Norwegian I would probably take issue with this.

1) For a country with half the population of London, smaller than London it does alright. It has an enviable  standard of living (Its GDP is second highest in the world). It has a successful fishing industry,  it is high (6 in the world) on the Transparency (Corruption Index) index, the Economists Democracy Index has it No 1. So maybe a country to look at and learn from, making it significant.

2) Norway, unlike the UK takes part in things like the WTO, we are represented by the EU. Otherwise ist is a active participant in the following international organisations,

International organization participation: ADB (nonregional member), AfDB (nonregional member), Arctic Council, Australia Group, BIS, CBSS, CE, CERN, EAPC, EBRD, EFTA, ESA, FAO, FATF, IADB, IAEA, IBRD, ICAO, ICC, ICRM, IDA, IEA, IFAD, IFC, IFRCS, IGAD (partners), IHO, ILO, IMF, IMO, IMSO, Interpol, IOC, IOM, IPU, ISO, ITSO, ITU, ITUC, MIGA, MONUSCO, NATO, NC, NEA, NIB, NSG, OECD, OPCW, OSCE, Paris Club, PCA, Schengen Convention, UN, UNCTAD, UNESCO, UNHCR, UNIDO, UNITAR, UNMISS, UNRWA, UNTSO, UNWTO, UPU, WCO, WHO, WIPO, WMO, WTO, ZC

 3) Yesterday, Norway gave 350 of its servicemen medals for their involvement in the Afghan conflict. Norway is famous for it involvement in 25 separate peacekeeping operations since 1945. It was instrumental in various conflict for bringing about resolution, Sri Lanka for example.

So Hairy's contemptuous ignorance of the position of Norway is one thing. Her confusion about Britain is of a different dimension.

I wonder if she can explain what she means by this?

one of the second largest EU member states after Germany

Eh? One of the second? Not 'four of the second', or even 'the second', but 'one of the second?'

Because I cannot wrap my head around it.

This sort of stuff is risible,

Given that the UK economy is so tied up with the Eurozone and Britain gains considerably from the EU single market, being in or out of the Euro makes little difference economically.

So the ability to set interest rates is of little import? The ability to use various monetary tools to suit the situation faced by the UK is unimportant. So in which case why should we join?

She has no liking for this country of ours, no care for it, no concern for it and certainly no belief in it. Shame really.

Wallis resigns to spend more time with her family?

Roger Helmer reported it first, and now we confirmation that the third placed candidate for the EP President, and Yorks Lib/Dem MEP Diana Wallis has resigned. Roger highlights an amusing aspect, suggesting that her excuse for leaving cannot be the hoary old 'to spend more time with her family',

So this raises the question of succession (one which I find interesting and topical).  It seems that the second candidate on the Yorkshire Lib-Dem list in 2009, behind Diana, was a chap called Stewart Arnold.  Three things you might like to know about Mr. Arnold.  The first is that he is currently on Diana’s staff.  The second, that he is (despite the surname), the husband of Lib-Dem MEP …. Diana Wallace.  And third, based on hearsay in the corridor, he’s not that highly rated by other Liberal MEPs.

Hockney and English comprehension

Two Op-Eds today have taken my eye. And they provide what my old English teacher would have described as a 'perfect pre-prepared package. Come on chaps, get your pens out, it's time for an object lesson in English comprehension. Compare and Contrast'.

I offer you Peter Oborne in the Telegraph, and Martin Kettle in the Guardian. Not a couple that would normally be seen together, but both are writing about the new Royal Academy show of the recent Yorkshire landscapes. What is interesting is that neither could be described as art critics, and neither are regularly writing about art at all.

Martin Kettle describes himself,

Martin Kettle is an associate editor of the Guardian and writes on British, European and American politics, as well as the media, law and music

And Peter Oborne,

Peter Oborne is the Daily Telegraph's chief political commentator.

The art critics have already had their say in the previous few weeks, so now it is the turn of the think pieces. What is remarkable is that both these two writers come to a similar conclusion.

The central distinction in Conservative philosophy is between two different kinds of knowledge: abstract and concrete. Britain is moving back towards a world with solid, enduring values in which, for the first time in many years, public figures can make confident judgments about truth, beauty and morality. It is a world in which David Hockney OM has an honoured place as the greatest artist of his age.

And here is the other,

At the risk of pushing this argument too crudely and too far, and conscious also of my own Yorkshire pride, it seems to me that Hockney and his art express and address the kind of people and country that he and we wish we were. There is something religious in his work. And when Hockney takes a pop at Hirst, I, for one, will cheer, because he is taking a pop at the kind of country we have become, in which attitude is more important than morality, price trumps value, and in which to shock and make a name is privileged over doing something lovely or true... The modernists, like the conceptualists today, believed that the past had nothing to teach them and that the rules all had to change. They were utterly wrong. They offered 20th‑century answers to 19th‑century questions. Hockney seems to know it is time to move on. This show offers one artist's own 21st‑century answer to a quest for something beyond ourselves that is truly timeless.

Hand in you essay at the end of class.