Do they allow humans into Barosso's bubble?

I only ask because of this ,

European commission president José Manuel Barroso has hit out against "false information" about pay and conditions for EU civil servants.

The former Portuguese prime minister has hit back at media attacks on the "comfortable" lifestyles enjoyed by the small army of officials working for the commission and other EU institutions.

No of course Jose, Eurocrats don't have comfortable lifestyles at all. That is why they can feel hard done by when they only get 6 extra days leave instead of 8 to travel to Greece and back.

The European civil service is often attacked for its apparent 'privileges' when this is not the case and I am always defending this."
Saying he "cannot accept populism against the European civil service" he paid tribute to EU civil servants, describing them as a "great asset to Europe".

So tell me Mr Barroso what normal employer has little, err privileges like this one,

Any official with a child over the age of 26 who has begun studying and is continuing his or her studies past the age of 26 may apply for a tax abatement.

This abatement may be granted up to the age of 30.

Exceptionally, the tax abatement may be granted for a child over the age of 18 who is dependent on the official and lives under his or her roof.

This tax abatement will cease as soon as the child begins a gainful activity.

Of course if the child of an official is studying before the age of 26 then,

Allowance A: EUR 91.02 a month (as of 1 July 2010).
Allowance B: officials may be reimbursed for any registration fees and transport costs they incur, up to a maximum monthly amount of EUR 252.81 (as of 1 July 2010).
For children attending an establishment of higher education, the official may receive a flat-rate allowance equivalent to the maximum limit of the education allowance, i.e. EUR 252.81 per month (as of 1 July 2010).
For children attending an establishment of higher education in a country other than that in which the official is employed, the official may receive twice the maximum amount of the education allowance, i.e. EUR 505.62 per month (as of 1 July 2010).

That doesn't include the subsidised holidays to the slopes, the household allowances. Oh don't get me started.

Look, I have an interest in this as I am an official, but Mr Barosso's cloud-cuckoo land statement cannot be allowed to stand unopposed.

Put it this way, there are issues with the trade unions as I pointed out last week. He is talking to an internal newsheet (my guess is Commission en Direct) in order to tamp down on industrial unrest amongst the Eurocrats. But he obviously has no idea of what people in the real world have to live and survive. He has no knowledge and it appears from this, no care.

2011: A Bright New dawn for the EU.. Eh?

Or at least that is what Mr Barroso seems to be suggesting with his speech today in Brussels,

The start of this New Year marks, I believe, an important new phase in European integration. In this semester we will make real progress on stronger economic governance and policy coordination in the European Union.

This semester's news will be clear: it is not only the so-called "federalists" who want to see more economic governance and co-ordination; it is the markets and also our international partners that are expecting it. More economic governance and coordination is not an ideological dream. It is a pragmatic need. Those defending it are not utopians, but realists.

The Commission's proposals are on the table and we will keep driving this agenda, and we will come with further policy initiatives.

In fact work has already been producing some results. On the 1st January, the three new supervisory authorities for the financial markets have begun their work.

I just want everybody to be clear about this, the people in favour of this are, according to the former Marxist,

1) Fedralists,
2) Markets
3) International partners.

Well yes, I conceed that federasts might be keen on "stronger economic governance and policy coordination" they have always been in favour of it. But the markets? Really? They may see it as one solution to the problem, but it isn't their be all and end all in any way. Saying that the markets have a desire is weird in itself. If they desire anything it is that they desire stability, but if there was perfect stability then they would ossify, what they need is compaetition, and of course having one size fits all policies certainly does not encourage that.

The City of London for example has not been vocal in its support for Mr Barosso's exemplars, the new EU regulatory bodies of which he boasts. I would love him to be able to point to the evidence that 'the markets' have any such desire.

International partners. Eh? Such as? The UN? What the hell is he talking about here? Does China want to see this, or India, or anybody? Is he just making it up?

And even if these unamed international partners did indeed want what he suggests they want, so what! Are we to set policy to please them? Is that what it is all about? Doing what others want us to do, rather than what we want to do?

And of course there is something missing from his analysis isn't there? Popular support. You know, those inconvient things, people.

He bangs on about how he is such a democrat but neglects the one thing that matters, the support of the people he purportedly represents. So a pox on him and his claim to realism. Realism would make him realise that he has no mandate, no legitimacy no support from those who matter for any of this.

As an addition, the remainder of his speech was such a hodge podge that it is hard to criticise, but here goes anyway.

Narked he is,

Let me tell you very frankly that I am unhappy with the progress made on energy efficiency.

Let me tell you something, you condescending patronisng autocrat. I don't care if you are disappointed with the countries of Europe. Who ever thought it mattered whether you are disappointed or not? The nations and peoples of Europe are not little children for you to tut at and wag your stubby Iberian finger at. How dare you?

And they you compound this by being stupid as well. You want growth, but you want to cut energy use by 20%.

Work it out you lesser Faraday, you pygmoid genius, work it out. If you and you cabal set binding figures of a 20% cut in energy use, then you are going to get a cut in growth. It is that simple. To think otherwise is not realisim, but the utopianism you deride and deny.

Just go home, take early retirement and let the people of this continent run their own lives free from the hectoring idiocies and inanities that spew ill-formed from your lacivious lips.

We will cut (non-EU) migration.. except we cannot

It isn't much of a claim, but, due to our membership of the European Union and the Corpus Juris it is the best that our benighted government can do. But it cannot even do that.

Today after a meeting in Brussels between Barosso, van Rompuy and the President of the Ukraine is Van Rumpy's statement,

I am very pleased that we can announce today an Action Plan for Ukraine towards the establishment of a visa free regime for short stay travel.

This of course fiollows hard on the heels of the EU's decision about immigration from India, also, famously not part of the European Union.

In the end it may be the case that Cameron and his government might be able to control immigration from the Islew of Man, and maybe at a push the Channel islands, but that is about it.

In the same speech, Van R also makes it clear that those clean living officials in the Ukraine will also have access to any amount of taxpayer funded EU project finance,

We have also been able to sign a Protocol to the current Partnership and Cooperation reement permitting Ukraine access to EU programmes. In practice this will allow Ukraine to benefit from EU programmes in areas such as business and entrepreneurship, information and ommunication
technology and energy.

Because they can be trusted to use our money wisely. Common William, isn't this Foriegn Affairs? Shouldn't you be saying something, or has the Cathy got your tongue?

Showing respect indeed

A few months ago Nigel Farage was fined for upsetting Mr Van Rompuy. Jerzy Buzek said at the time,

"With freedom comes responsibility – in this case, to respect the dignity of others and of our institutions".
So how is it that the President of the Parliament was twittering during the speech of Barosso?

I would say that fiddling withh his mobile during the everso important 'State of the Union' speech of the honoured barosso was lkesse majestie at the very least

Barosso Buzzword Bingo

Now is your chance to play,
Just click here for the live feed.

My words are,

Future,
Inclusion,
Together,
Unity,
Challenge,
Institutional architecture,
Sterile,
Colleagues,
Debate,
Ambitious,

Let the game begin...

Trying to be polite

An informative and enjoyable piece by the redoubtable Ralf Grahn on the whole business of the Barrosso Sate of the Union address to take place on Tuesday in Strasbourg.

Sadly I don't seem to be able to access his comments section so I shall have to ask here. Ralf, what do you make of the idea that MEPs will be forced to turn up to the speech on penalty of losing their wages?

Implementation of the decision of the Conference of Presidents concerning the debate on the State of the Union

With a view to ensuring the highest possible attendance at the debate on the State of the Union, the Conference of Presidents decided at its meeting on Thursday 2 September 2010 to introduce specific checks on Members' presence in the Chamber using the electronic system at three different moments during the debate.

The President will inform the Bureau of this decision at its meeting in Strasbourg on Monday 6 September 2010 and ask it, as the body responsible for such matters, to fix the appropriate penalty for those Members who are not present for at least two of these three checks.

Do you support Bernd Posselt when he sent round a mail on Friday stating,

Dear Colleagues,

I think I am an active Member of our Parliament, since 16 years. Next week I will be in Strasbourg from Monday to Friday, i.e. also on Tuesday morning, and will be present at all the votes. But I intend, seriously, not to take part in the debate on Tuesday morning because of these three strange checks of our presence in the Chamber in this time.

This method and wording of the decision of the Confernce of Presidents is not in accordance with the dignity of the free Mandate and the Independence of an elected MEP. We are not schoolboys and schoolgirls.

With kind regards,

Bernd Posselt MEP

This has to the first time I have ever agreed with Mr Posselt. One gets the feeling that there will be a security guard at the back of the hall prepared to put an ounce of lead into the first MEP who stops applauding the great Imperial one.

Herman the ahem federalist

2000 years ago a bunch of Germanic tribes under Arminius famously took out three Roman Legions under Varus. The battle has gone down in history in various forms but is best known as the Battle of Teutoburg, or Varusschlacht ( rather wonderfuly the slaughter of Varus).

The EU as is its wont has decided to hijack the anniversary of the battle with an event uropean Parliament next week hosted by Hans-Gert Peottering and with special guest star Mr Barosso. They will be opening an exhibition of 2000 standards of peace, and proclaiming the Europeanness of the victory. A victory for liberty and so on.

Of course this is a rather problematical. Because to Germans the battle has intense and immense historical importance. Arminius, otherwise known as Herman is to the Germans what King Arthur is to the British, a near legend of resistance against foreign domination.

One only has to understand the power of the concept of a German leader defeating the Romans when in 1808 a play was written in its honour that was baned by Napoleon. The battle is the defining moment of Pan Germanism, the founding myth of the German nation and the historical lodestone of that nations fight for freedom over an overburdening centralised harmonised and integrated European Empire.

It is the myth that sustained the liberal nationalism that created Germany, and the EU is trying to use it to defend the EU!! I suspect that a few Germans might rather take against this collosal act of lesse majestie. Or in the words of the flyer advertising the event,

"27 PEACE SYMBOLS FOR EUROPE reminding of this date in European history are supposed to campaign for inner and outer peace.... Peace is the paramount concept of a large-scale campaign remembering an antique battle.
For peace changes things. Peace is creativity, discussion and cooperation....
27 PEACE SYMBOLS are going to take their place in Strasbourg, ambassadors of European history and joint statement of European present — symbols for peace.

You got that?

"The people who matter"

A very telling statement from Commission President Barosso reported in today's Telegraph,

"The president of the European Commission claimed last night that some senior
Labour politicians believed that Britain would be financially better off had it joined the euro. José Manuel Barroso, said that the UK was "closer than ever before'' to entering the single currency, and that "people who matter in Britain are currently thinking about it''. "The crisis has emphasised the importance of the euro, and that undoubtedly has also been the case in the United Kingdom,'' Mr Barroso told French radio"

Did he now. Well dammit the "people who matter, unless it had escaoped you attention you jumeped up Portugoose tecchno/autocrat, are the British people,. Not a bunch of eluite avatars who go by the collective name of the 'political class'.

Go on then, ask the people who really matter, that's right the Brityish people, and see what answer you get then.

Oligarchs don't just exist in Russia it seems.

Grist to the Mill

Sod it I know that this is an embargoed speech, but I am not a journalist so I don't feel I am covered. Tonight His Imperial Highness will be making the following speech to St Anthony's College Oxford.

The level of dishonesty is breathtaking even for this mendacious chap.

Let me start by quoting someone who, I'm told, refused to study at Oxford University. That someone is John Stuart Mill.

Today, Mill is of course famous – along with his father - for developing Jeremy Bentham's ideas on utilitarianism, as well as writing key liberal texts on the nature of freedom, economics, and the role of the state.

He is less well known for his observations on Europe. In Chapter 3 of On Liberty, he compares European dynamism favourably with what he described as the 'stationary' nature of Chinese society. He concludes:

"What has made the European family of nations an improving, instead of a stationary portion of mankind?

Not any superior excellence in them, which when it exists, exists as the effect, not as the cause; but their remarkable diversity of character and culture.

Individuals, classes, nations, have been extremely unlike one another…Europe is, in my judgment, wholly indebted to this plurality of paths for its progressive and many-sided development."

I can't vouch for his views on China, particularly today. But on Europe he is spot on.

Europe's unique strength is its capacity to combine unity with diversity.

Bullshit alert. Just take a look at the Mill comment. Yup there you have it, lots and lots about the vital importance of diversity. And then look at the interpretation our florid dwarfish master puts on it. "unity with diversity"' Eh, what the f...? I would have been failed by my Ethics tutor for that flagrant dishonesty. Where the hell does he come up with unity from the quoted passage? Nowhere, it doesn't exist, it cannot carry the weight of our wannabe emperors vanity. What Mill does say and I repeat is "Europe is, in my judgment, wholly indebted to this plurality of paths for its progressive and many-sided development". Yes. Quite.

I am sorry I cannot go further into this, I copy the whole speech here, make of it what you will. My blood pressure does not allow me to comment further.

EUROPE AND THE CHALLENGES OF GLOBALISATION
St Antony's College Lecture
Oxford, 11 October 2007

Chairman,
Ladies and gentlemen,

I'd like to start by thanking Timothy Garton Ash and Kalypso Nikolaïdis for inviting me to speak here today, at one of the great centres in the world for the study of international relations and European studies. And a pleasure for me to be back in Oxford, fully twenty six years since my last visit.

I'm told that Oxford is always rather suspicious of lavish tributes paid by visitors to its beauty, to the excellence of its university, and so on.

So let me start by quoting someone who, I'm told, refused to study at Oxford University. That someone is John Stuart Mill.

Today, Mill is of course famous – along with his father - for developing Jeremy Bentham's ideas on utilitarianism, as well as writing key liberal texts on the nature of freedom, economics, and the role of the state.

He is less well known for his observations on Europe. In Chapter 3 of On Liberty, he compares European dynamism favourably with what he described as the 'stationary' nature of Chinese society. He concludes:

"What has made the European family of nations an improving, instead of a stationary portion of mankind?

Not any superior excellence in them, which when it exists, exists as the effect, not as the cause; but their remarkable diversity of character and culture.

Individuals, classes, nations, have been extremely unlike one another…Europe is, in my judgment, wholly indebted to this plurality of paths for its progressive and many-sided development."

I can't vouch for his views on China, particularly today. But on Europe he is spot on.

Europe's unique strength is its capacity to combine unity with diversity.

I think it is important to stress that. Why? Because there is still a perception, particularly in the UK, that Jean Monnet's gradualist approach to European integration – effectively 'neofunctionalism', for anyone taking notes! – is inexorably leading towards a centralised superstate.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Let's look more closely at what Jean Monnet actually said. Reflecting on his ideas to pool coal and steel resources – the raw materials of war – that launched the integration process, he said: 'Europe will not be conjured up in a stroke, nor by an overall design. It will be attained by concrete achievements generating an active community of interest.'

In other words, by working together to deliver results that matter to our citizens, we build up the confidence and capacity to work together in more areas where there is clearly a common interest in achieving results. We create what is called in French a solidarité de fait. What emerges is a community of shared values.

This paints a very different picture to the caricature of the European Union as a distant elite trampling on diversity with endless diktats on harmonisation.
Member States do not transfer sovereignty, they share it. In the EU, sovereignty is not lost, it is pooled for greater effect. So for the UK, membership and influence in the EU, far from being a drain on her autonomy, is in fact a potent source of political and economic power. Monnet, indeed, was a good friend of Britain, having spent some time here during the war, and believed that the UK should be at the centre of this European "community of interest". [Ref to what JK Galbraith said about Monnet in war].

In short, then, European integration is about effective partnership. It's about respecting diversity by only doing at European level what cannot be done better at a national or regional level.

And it is proving its robustness in surprising ways.

By creating a genuine community of common interests, Jean Monnet's step-by-step approach is not just helping EU policies to evolve; it is helping the whole purpose of the EU to evolve as well. First, the internal challenges of securing peace, and establishing the single market and common currency, as well as pushing ahead with enlargement which has taken us all the way from six to 27 Member States.

Now, a whole new set of external challenges has emerged, linked to globalisation. Tackling climate change. Adapting to increasing global competition. Dealing with mass migration. Facing up to the scourge of poverty in Africa. Defending against international terrorism.

All these challenges have two things in common. First, they affect us all. Second, no nation state – even the most powerful - can hope to tackle them successfully on its own.

From being the guarantor of peace on a continent ravaged by war, the European Union has evolved into something quite unique: an effective instrument for developing solutions to the new, cross-border challenges thrown up by globalisation.

For anyone who follows these things – and I'm guessing that applies to virtually everyone in this room – this evolution has been detectable for many years now.

But it really crystallised, I think, when we relaunched the Lisbon Strategy for Growth and Jobs in the Spring of 2005. Lisbon is now focused squarely on giving Europe a dynamic economy which generates sustainable growth and high quality jobs, and which can stand up to the rigours of increased global competition.

This was followed up later that year with an informal meeting a few miles down the motorway at Hampton Court, under the UK Presidency. There, Europe's leaders called on the European Commission to take action on other key challenges of globalisation, like innovation, energy, migration and demography.

We have built on these solid foundations. Only this year, for example, Europe's initiatives have put it at the forefront of global efforts to fight climate change, helping to usher in a low-carbon economy while establishing a European policy for secure, sustainable and competitive energy.

This evolving, global Europe must be an open Europe. It must be an outward-looking Europe. And it can and must resist those whose response to globalisation is to retreat behind protectionist barricades.

And this is why the United Kingdom has such an important role to play.

This vision of an open society, engaged with the world, is one that has a long history here in the UK. And in all the areas of common interest where the EU is now active, Britain has traditionally been a leading advocate for joint action. As I said to Prime Minister Gordon Brown this morning, Europe needs the UK as much as the UK needs Europe, and we had a very useful exchange across a range of policies where we have very strong common interests.

Take climate change. The EU was the prime mover in the Kyoto Protocol negotiations. It was EU leadership which secured the final agreement on multilateral action to tackle climate change, thanks in part to intensive diplomacy which built up a coalition of the willing.

Today, the EU Emissions Trading Scheme is a vital, transnational, market-based instrument to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in a cost-effective way. We intend to reduce EU greenhouse gas emissions by 20% in 2020 compared to 1990. We are also prepared to be even more radical, cutting emissions by 30% by 2020, if other developed countries join us.

And it's not just about the challenge of cutting emissions, but transforming our whole economy to a low carbon model. This idea underpins last month's energy package and will be central to our proposals for the UN Climate Change Conference in Bali this December.

And what about Africa and the fight against poverty? That's a cause close to my own heart, as well as British hearts, and here too the European Union has led by example.

The EU is the most open market in the world for the poorest countries, and their largest trading partner. The EU also absorbs fully 85 per cent of all Africa's agriculture exports. In fact, it imports more goods from Africa than the US. And Canada. And Australia. And Japan. And New Zealand. Combined.

Collectively, the EU accounts for 55 per cent of all official development aid spent worldwide – a figure projected to rise to 63 per cent by 2010.

Necessary, certainly. But clearly not sufficient. Personally, I find it a moral outrage that with our resources, our medicines and our technology, 25,000 people are still dying every day because they do not have enough to eat or clean water to drink. I have to say that historians will wonder: how was it that we did so little when we had the capacity to do so much ?

Ladies and gentlemen,

We have a shared vision. We have a shared interest in taking joint action. We have a shared view on so much of the policy. So I find it frankly strange that the debate on this side of the Channel so often seems to suggest that the UK is fundamentally at odds with the Continent.

I don't believe this reflects the reality here in the UK.

With your long-held international outlook, I don't believe that your arms can be open to the world while your hearts and minds are closed to Europe.

Or, I should say, to the rest of Europe. Your Foreign Secretary quite rightly pointed out recently that the UK does not have a bilateral relationship with the EU, it is part of the EU.

We are all in the same boat. OK, I know it's a cliché to talk about rowing here in Oxford. But if I can't talk about rowing at St Antony's, with its talent for winning 'blades', where can I? We can achieve so much more by rowing forward together, rather than trying to row in different directions, or indeed, against the tide.

A fully committed UK is vitally important to the EU. And all the more important because the issues themselves, certainly our own response to them, are relatively new. We know that the EU has to become an effective instrument for acting in Europe's interest in a globalising world.

Here's what I think. In order to equip Europe for a globalised world we must invest in people, in growth and jobs, in energy security, in fighting climate change, in giving consumers a fairer deal, in stepping up cooperation to fight crime and terrorism.

But I am also convinced that protectionism is not the answer. Protectionism won't protect our citizens, it will impoverish them. Instead we should be urging others to follow our openness. We should insist on a level playing field. The challenge we are facing is how to protect our citizens, our firms and our values in a globalising world without being protectionist.

For all these reasons, the Commission last week presented its vision of an EU which shapes globalisation instead of simply reacting to it; of an EU capable of making its citizens active players rather than passive victims. This paper will contribute to discussions by European leaders at next week's informal summit in Lisbon.

The Reform Treaty is also a vital part of this jigsaw puzzle. We have to modernise our institutions as well, to prepare them for globalisation.

Some of my friends, including here in Britain, say that they can live with the idea of Europe, but think Europe is obsessed with institutions. The key to Europe, they say, is the market.



Well, there can be no markets without institutions. Markets need rules. It's as simple as that. And to run a market, across 27 countries, you of course need effective institutions. Those who want to reduce the EU to a market don't even understand markets. You can't run a market stall without rules.

Let's be frank – it would be impossible to run a single market in Europe without a strong Commission, without a strong Court of Justice. And you can forget free and fair competition as well.

That is why, let's be clear, we need a legal framework which allows Europe to function properly. And that's what the institutional debate was all about. We needed to ensure that a system created for six Member States is capable of functioning more effectively for a Europe of 27 Member States and more.

But I also believe that it is now time to end this debate. The Treaty does its job. We need to put it behind us and move on.

We now have to focus on finding the right policies to tackle the challenges of globalisation. And here, to transform the old slogan, we need to think globally, and act globally.

Ultimately, globalisation is affecting political governance at all levels, even the European one. Yes, the EU is the best tool its members have for developing solutions to common problems. Yes, it has the critical mass necessary to play a leadership role in the world. But even the EU faces limitations in what it can achieve by itself.

This should not surprise anyone. After all, while Europe is taking the lead in combating climate change, for example, it cannot possibly succeed on its own. How can it, when it is only responsible for 14% of global greenhouse gas emissions – a proportion set to fall in coming years?

So, increasingly, the role of the EU will be to articulate between the European community of interest and what we might call the global community of interest.

To remain master of our own destiny, we have to shape globalisation in accordance with our values. We in Europe have the capacity to do this, to propose solutions to the rest of the world based on our experiences of working together [e.g. standards, competition]. We have to engage with the world and help give real meaning, at a global level, to the rule of law, democracy, human rights and multilateralism.

This certainly does not require a wholesale transfer of power to Brussels. What it requires is that all Member States, including the UK, must play a full role, must bring all their unique talents and experiences to the table, so that Europe can maximise its influence and weight in the world.

Ladies and gentlemen,

I have tried to show what, in a changing world, the EU can do for its Member States. To show how Europe must change too, and why the UK has a vital role to play in this evolving situation.

But let me give the final word to John Stuart Mill, who already 150 years ago summarised, in a classically grumpy way, the value of Europe's unique blend of differences and similarities:

"…although at every period those [Europeans] who travelled in different paths have been intolerant of one another,

and [although] each would have thought it an excellent thing if all the rest could have been compelled to travel his road,

their attempts to thwart each other's development have rarely had any permanent success,

and each has, in time, endured to receive the good which the others have offered."

For me, what was true then is just as true today. Europe as an inspiration for others, united in its diversity!

Thank you very much.

Countries might act in own National interest: Its a disgrace I tell you

Eu Observer is reporting on an interview given by HIH Barosso to the Flemish daily de Standaard. EU Referendum picks up the story as it appears that the German's have got a little upset about the Emperor's lesse majestie,

But they missed my favourite comment from HIH,

"The danger exists that the governments will handle problems among themselves, without taking into account the European institutions," said the Portuguese politician."

Some member states do not accept that there is an European interest, which is different from a compromise between member states. I constantly explain to the British that the common market, in which they are the champions, is impossible without strong European institutions, such as the Commission, the European Parliament and the European Court [of Justice]."

What's that countries deciding stuff for themselves, shouldn't happen. Working together for their own mutual interest without daddy Europe holding their hands...Impossible.

What the silly goose doesn't seem to comprehend it that member states do understand that there is a European interest. It is just that they feel that the European interest is not in fact in their interest.

He was young, he was foolish

Here we have a short video of His Imperial Highness, Commission President, Jose Manuel Barroso.

It is 1976, in Portugal, and the rising star of the Marxist-Leninist Student’s Federation – FEML-, the youth structure of the Reorganizing Movement of the Proletarian Party – MRPP, is explaining that imposing the so called “student civic service” is “the evidence of the crises of the bourgeois education system”, and therefore, “an anti-proletarian and anti-popular measure”.



Hat tip to Miguel Sacadura Cabral Portas MEP, from his blog Sem Muros. Mr Portas also provides this 'freehand' translation,

"N.T. This is a free translation of the very confusing statement of young Barroso, that would be rather incomprehensible if we had chosen to make a literal translation.
“I believe that the proposal approved today, in this plenary, on the applicants to the first year [in university] and presented by the revolutionary students’ commission, is an entirely fair proposal. It is a proposal aiming on the right direction of the combat, made within a revolutionary structure. It demands to the governmental authorities the immediate admission of the students and stresses the lawfulness of this admission. We have to take into consideration that the issue of the “students’
civic service” had already been discussed last year [1975]. The Education and Research Ministery, lets call it as such, is supporting the “students’ civic service” act. This act is the symptom of the crisis of the bourgeois Education System! This act is entirely wrong, anti-proletarian and anti-popular! It throws students against workers and workers against students.”

Err... what to say?

Tin Pot Emperor

Who the hell does Mr Barroso think he is? Today at a press conference the Commission President had the following brain fart,

"Sometimes I like to compare the EU as a creation to the organisation of Empires. We have the dimension of Empire but there is a great difference. Empires were usually made with force with a centre imposing diktat, a will on the others. Now what we have is the first non-Imperial empire. We have 27 countries that fully decided to work together and to pool their sovereignty. I believe it is a great construction and we should be proud of it. At least, we in the Commission are proud of it."

Where to start with this? Has the man been drinking too much of his own propaganda. Fully decided. You what!
Tell that to the people of France and Holland who rejected your power grab. Come to the UK and make those comments and see the reaction you will get.

The man is delusional. And people in power who are this delusional are, frankly dangerous. There have been 48 definable empires since the beggining of history, all have ended to a greater or lesser extent in collaspse, and every one has involved massive loss of life and bloodshed. Is he stark raving mad?

Over at EU Referendum you might find a slightly more, ahem balanced piece(that is balanced in the sense that the writer has more balance, not necessarily that the piece has)

Diddums for Jose

Pity the poor powerless President of the Commission. Jose Manuel Barroso found himself remonstrating with a bunch of Dutch journalists yesterday. The new Dutch government had made it clear that they have no plans to re-introduce the Constitution, his response is priceless.

"Barroso warning
Meanwhile, European Commission president Jose Manuel Barroso expressed unease with the prospect of a second Dutch constitution referendum talking to Dutch papers ahead of a visit to The Hague later this week.

"Referendums make the process of approval of European treaties much more complicated and less predictable," he said, asking "every member state" considering a referendum to "think twice," according to Het Financieele Dagblad.

Mr Barroso in his previous job as as Portuguese prime minister in 2004 backed a referendum on the EU constitution in his own country - but since then his thinking has changed, he indicated.

"I was in favour of a referendum as a prime minister, but it does make our lives with 27 member states in the EU more difficult. If a referendum had been held on the creation of the European Community or the introduction of the euro, do you think these would have passed?" the commission chief asked according to De Volkskrant.

Mr Barroso also told the Netherlands, which until now has been largely silent on what it wants to see changed in a new EU treaty, to contribute to a solution to the deadlock produced by the French and Dutch "no" votes.

"If you have signed a treaty, you should also ratify it," he stated. "And if you can't, you should at least contribute to a solution."

Democracy can be such a pain, can't it?

They just don't get it do they?
"If a referendum had been held on the creation of the European Community or the introduction of the euro, do you think these would have passed?"

Quite, exactly. The European Union is a project of the Elite, for the Elite and by the Elite. The people do not want it and they are not going to be asked for their opinion if autocrats like Jose have their way. They should be ashamed,. but of course that bone was removed from their bodies the same time they took out their spines.