Not racist, not not not

Just cloth eared and pretty awful

The EU's vid where that European is beset by nasty looking foriegn types has been withdrawn.

Here is the apology

The clip was absolutely not intended to be racist and we obviously regret that it has been perceived in this way. We apologise to anyone who may have felt offended. Given these controversies, we have decided to stop the campaign immediately and to withdraw the video.

Stefano Sannino, Director General of DG Enlargement

Dammit, the Propaganda Prize has pupped!

Readers of this blog will know that alongside Hi-Viz clothing the thing I would chuck into Room 101 are the series of EU sponsored prizes. There are utterly unnecessary and frankly wrong. We have the Lux prize the EBBAs and all sorts of other bits and pieces. But in my mind the most monstrous was the Sycophancy prize. Now last thing I heard was the Parliament had got ashamed of this transparent piece of subsidised propaganda and scrapped it.


Buuit somehow it spored and seems to have sprung up over the Rue de La Loi as the 2011 EU Health Prize for Journalists.

Sadly it not about viewing the Brussels press pack as if they were at auction,

"Not sure about that Geoff Meade, bit long in the tooth"
"Have you seen the fetlocks on Ms Mott?" 

and that sort of carry on as it suggests, but about getting journalists around the EU to write articles for their respective outlets that promote the EU line.

The EU Health Prize for Journalists is awarded to stimulate high-quality journalism that raises awareness of issues related to healthcare and patients' rights. The Prize is part of the "Europe for patients" campaign, highlighting 12 health policy initiatives. All these are bound by a common goal: better healthcare for all in Europe.

Or as John Dalli puts it "to stimulate high-quality journalism,  with particular focus on the European Dimension"  So successful is it that 358 hacks from the 27 submitted almost 500 articles. Given the prizes amount to 13,000 EUR that is bloody good value for money at 26 EUR per published article.

Look, if the BMJ or some other Health publication wants to run a Journalism prize across Europe, not problem at all. But it is wrong for such an award to be sponsored by the EU, with taxpayers money.


Ruddy hell there is even a EU-Canada Young Journalist Award!!

Update,
And an Australian one

Policy-based evidence-making

First set your policy, then find the evidence. That traditional scientific method.

A great line from Ben Pile over at Climate Resistance when he was looking at the IPCC's most recent report back in May. He goes through the authors of the report and notes that they are al part of the bureacracy of Renewable/para-governmental/lobbyist community that populates the IPCC and its cohorts.

Meanwhile Steve McIntyre at Climate audit has noticed a slight problem with the report's introduction/conclusions, in that they were pre-written by Greenpeace and a Brussels based body namely EREC, the European Renewable Energy Council.

I am sure there may be a teensey little bit of public money floating around this august organisation.

Celebrate good times, Come on.

Oh yes, ten years of success need to be celebrated. And that celebration will be with your money.

The puff however does have the teeniest hint that not is all well,

Over 330 million people in 17 EU countries now share one currency – the euro. A common currency makes many things easier, such as comparing prices between countries, travelling and trade, since fees for exchanging money and exchange rate fluctuations having been eliminated. It also reinforces the need for sound economic and financial policies.

I wonder what design we can expect for the 20th anniversary?

Update

A kind friend has come up with this design, any other ideas?

The financial crisis is nothing to do with the EU

Give the EU more power. Now,  really now.



This is a propganda video release by the European Parliament today.

Note, not by a political party or group, but by the Parliament itself. By a bunch of civil servants.

That is your taxes are being spent by civil serevants to make propaganda to further the aims of the federasts. This is explicity political and by any imagination wrong.

This is the clearest example of the EU's doctrine of benficial crisis I have yet to see. It is pernicious and needs to be exposed.

We are asking how much it cost and are demanding that the praliament take it down and apologise. They won't.

Update
Within 3 hrs of uploading the video onto Youtube the Parliament Authorities had disabled comments. It now has 33 likes, 159 dislikes so far. It rather shows that they don't like it up em. Instead you are now directed to their Facebook page where the deabte about this video is contained but pretty fierce. PR #Fail for the EP I fear.

The EU punts its propaganda in Croatia

But please note they are pleased to call it 'objective information'

The Speaker of the Croatian Parliament, Luka Bebic, and the head of the European Union Delegation in Croatia, Paul Vandoren, formally installed an EU Info Stand in the Parliament building in Zagreb on Wednesday, containing promotional material about the European Union as part of a campaign to raise public awareness of the EU.

The greater, wider, broader, faster campaign continues. Econmomic crisis will not stop the growth of the European Union, until it stretches from the Atlantic to the Urals.

More propaganda, more prizes from the EU

It is a recurring theme, the great gamut of prizes handed out by the EU to further its own interests, pop prizes, architecture prizes, film prizes journalist prizes and so on. All with the stated intention of using taxpayer's money to promote a particular and partial view of the European Union ion the minds of they citizens of the 27 nation states.


And now another one has hove into view. This one, the Civis Media prize is essentially a German/EU junket involving money, a gala dinner and the honouring of various TV, radio and internet sites. What they must do to share in your largesse is to support European integration, through projects that show up the positive benefits of migration.

The website is effusive,

"The CIVIS Media Prize honours the best programmes on the theme of integration and cultural diversity in Europe."

The event will be glittering (just take a look at the film of last years event, a sort of C-list Bafta)

"The prize-giving ceremony and the TV gala of the European CIVIS Media Prize 2011 will take place on May 26, 2011, at the Federal Foreign Office in Berlin. The Federal President Christian Wulff and the President of the European Parliament, Jerzy Buzek, are the patrons."

And it has a very very defined purpose.

"The aim of the CIVIS Media Foundation is to sensitize journalists in Germany and Europe for the themes of integration and cultural diversity. The organisation contributes to intercultural understanding and to European integration through the activities of the electronic media. CIVIS promotes the innovative and professional treatment of developments in the European immigration society."

What it sets its face against is clear enough,

"One-sided reporting can easily contribute to a general feeling of uncertainty and does not serve the purpose of enlightenment."

Got that, it appears that I do not serve the purpose of enlightenment... Evil nasty person that I am.

It is supported by the European Parliament and the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights amongst others.
If the German media establishment want to have a prize like this, that is fine, and entirely up to them. But to wrap it up as an EU supported project, with EU funding and promotion (funding in kind) then is utterly out of order.

Gadaffi 'could' fund the 'In' campaign in an EU referendum

Following my post of yesterday I read this on Euroalert which highlights another aspect of the report,

Currently EU funding can cover 85% of the expenditure of a party, which must therefore find the remaining 15% itself. MEPs believe the 15% could be reduced to 10%. They also suggest raising the ceiling for donations from 12,000 euro to 25,000 euro per year per donor and bringing forward the point in time when the annual grant to the parties is paid.

In order to be able to spend Euro 1,000,000 on fighting an EU referendum in Britain, all a European Political Party will have to do is raise, Euro 100,000, the rest will be able to be given by the taxpayer. And with the donation limit raised to Euro 25,000 that means all they have to do to spend 1 million is to find 4 donors.

This thought set me off. Who is allowed to fund European Political Parties voluntarily? (Obviously the taxpayer doesn't have a choice). Well after talking to the Sectretariat of the the relevant Constitutional Affairs Committee it seems there are no real rules. Here is the regulation governing permissable donations as it currently stands.

2. A political party at European level as well as a political foundation at European level shall not accept:

(a) anonymous donations;
(b) donations from the budgets of political groups in the European Parliament;
(c) donations from any undertaking over which the public authorities may exercise directly or indirectly a dominant influence by virtue of their ownership of it, their financial participation therein, or the rules which govern it;
(d) donations exceeding EUR 12000 per year and per donor from any natural or legal person other than the undertakings referred to in point (c) and without prejudice to paragraphs 3 and 4;
(e) donations from any public authority from a third country, including from any undertaking over which the public authorities may exercise directly or indirectly a dominant influence by virtue of their ownership of it, their financial participation therein, or the rules which govern it.

So I am Muamar Gadaffi, and I think that the EU is so divided that it is better that the UK stays in rather being independent where it might start to make desions for itself. Thus when the inevitable In/Out referendum comes in the UK, I want to help the In side. I look at the funding rules for European Political Parties and come to the conclusion that this is my way to influence the outcome.

A) No anonymous donations.

OK, no problem, I can either give the money directly from my own named and numbered Swiss bank Account, or I can channel it through a third party, because there is no way theat the EU will be able to check what is going on in Libya.

(B) No donations from the budgets of political groups in the European Parliament;

Not a problem for me. After all their budgets already come from the taxpayer.

(C) No donations from any undertaking over which the public authorities may exercise directly or indirectly a dominant influence by virtue of their ownership of it, their financial participation therein, or the rules which govern it;

Again, no problem from me, as long it is direct from me, or my associate rather than from  Libyan government agency this is no obstacle.

(d) No donations exceeding EUR 12000 per year and per donor from any natural or legal person other than the undertakings referred to in point (c) and without prejudice to paragraphs 3 and 4;

Well they are changing this to EUR 25,000, and despite what my detractors might have you believe I am both a natutral and legal person, so of course would my associates be. (Paras 3 and 4 are about national political parties and national and European Political Foundations so of no relevance)

(e) No donations from any public authority from a third country, including from any undertaking over which the public authorities may exercise directly or indirectly a dominant influence by virtue of their ownership of it, their financial participation therein, or the rules which govern it.

Again, as long as I did it myself, or through an associate, rather than through one of the agencies of the state this is no problem. And if I, Muamar Gadaffi can do it, so can anyone.
I spoke to the Electoral Commission and they pointed me to this document on their website that defines what

Who can you accept a donation from?

You must only accept donations from permissible donors.

A permissible donor is:
• An individual registered on a UK electoral register, including overseas electors and those leaving bequests.
• Most UK-registered companies.
• A UK-registered trade union.
• A UK-registered building society.
• A UK-registered limited liability partnership (LLP) that carries on business in the UK.
• A UK-registered friendly society.
• A UK-based unincorporated association that carries on business or other activities in the UK.

Which certainly suggests that the EU's proposed rule changes would be in breach of UK electoral law.

Loading the dice with your cash

http://www.flickr.com/photos/magical_greece/395952913/

They are changing the rules on political funding in Brussels to ensure that your money can be spent on running campaigns in any future EU referendum,

Today a report was passed in the Constitutional Affairs Committee of the Parliament which now moves up to the plenary. The report, called the the Giannakou Report after its draftswoman Marietta Giannakou (illustrated to the right in a former incarnation as the Religious Affairs Minister of Greece) who was on the Convention which drew up the European Constitution, is titled,

A Draft Report on the application of Regulation 2004/2003 on the regulations governing political parties at European level and the rules regarding their funding

In it we see this,

30. Points out that since 2008 European political parties have been entitled to use sums received as grants for ‘financing campaigns conducted ... in the context of the elections to the European Parliament ...’ (Article 8, third paragraph, of the Funding Regulation); further points out, however, that they are prohibited from using these sums for financing ‘referenda campaigns’; considers that the reason for this is probably a concern that European parties and foundations could interfere in the domestic affairs of Member States; believes, however that, if European political parties are to play a political role at EU level, they should have the right to participate in such campaigns as long as the subject of the referendum has a direct link with issues concerning the European Union;

Thus they would be able to shovel taxpayers money to the pro-EU side, indeed that would be the express purpose of the change in the law.
 
What is more this recital was amended as it went through the Committee. Amendment 95 by one Andrew Duff, Lib Dem MEP for the Eastern Counties and federast supreme. What did the Duffer succeed in doing, well he removed this sentence,

considers that the reason for this is probably a concern that European parties and foundations could interfere in the domestic affairs of Member States

In other words he whitewashed any suggestion that the EU at one time recognised that there are some aspect of national democracy where it shouldn't interfere.

This is a direct attempt to find extra taxpayer funding for the Yes side in any forthcoming EU referendum in the UK. They are as aware of the liklihood of an In/Out referendum in the UK sooner or later and have every intention of loading the dice with taxpayer's money. As things stand the UK is affected in the sense that of the parties elected to the European Parliament and that have Political Parties at a European Level, that is the Tories, the Greens, the Labour Party and the Lib Dems are all formally partisans of an 'In'.

Think about all this. What this means is that money donated to the Lib Dem Euro political party, by someone living in France, could be used to fund a pro-European referendum campaign in the UK by washing it through the European Poltical Party. Neat eh?
 
In direct contravension of British electoral law, but so be it.

Now pop pickers : Does the EU think it is Fluff Freeman FFS?

Not content in funding film prizes and literature prizes, and journalism prizes and...

Now I learn that the nincompoops are funding a pop prize. Trendily called the EBBAs (no doubt because any credibility the EU has is Ebbing away) this is an award to celebrate "success in reaching audiences outside their own country".

In the case of the UK nomination, Mumford and Sons, fine act though they are, are hardly struggling with 700,000 fans on their facebook page. Isn't this a breach of competition law. I didn't know that Island Records was a failing corporation:

Look, I have said it before and I say it again. It is not the business for the EU (or any other state, crypto-state, exo-state or whatever) to be creating this sort of prize. No business at all.

It smacks of approved, licensed politically approved art and it is wrong.

Iceland turns down Danegeld

Part of the EU's softening up approach to Iceland in advance of its referendum of EU membership has been turned down by the Icelandic Government. Leigh Phillips in the EUObserver is reporting that the 30 million Euro being offered by Brussels was seen as tainted.

the money was supposed to be going towards projects on statistics and preparation for participation in EU agencies as well as on various workshops and study visits.

The money was also to go to an information campaign by the EU to inform the Icelandic people about what it does.

The EU hasn't given up though and is trying to find ways of spending our money on convincing teh Islandics that joining is a good thing.

Enlargement spokeswoman, Angela Filote, denied that the IPA cash amounted to pro-EU propaganda, however.

"The pre-accession funding ... is made available to all candidate and pre-candidate countries," she said. "It provides an opportunity for the Icelandic partners to make use of EU expertise to facilitate considerations and support plans and preparations for potential EU membership."

"It is eventually up to the government in agreement with the commission to decide on what they want to use IPA funding for."

It is understood that the issue within the government is "a delicate one," according to sources close to the discussion. The commission says it is committed to finding a way that Reykjavik can use the funds that is acceptable to the government.

The news comes on the eve of the current commission's first report on the overall state of European Union accession negotiations.

More propaganda spending

And yet the targets are still all wrong. It is very strange, and I will never to cease to wonder how and why they do it, but the EU is utterly incapabable of producing effective information. They spend millions of pounds a year, invest in technology new and old. Employ brilliant people, and still they produce turkey's. Indeed production lines of turkeys, so much so I am surprised that the Commission Comunication department hasn't been freed during an overnight raid by the ALF.

Here is the latest one. Hidden in plain sight in the latest propaganda review,

"Citizenship Report 2010

Doesn't it make your skin crawl when the word citizen's is used like that, they are trying to include me into their project without asking my permission. A littlel ike Blair and his "People's Princess" line about Diana. Not mine she wasn't, and in a similar way, this Europe that they talk about isn't for this particular citizen.

Anyhow the report is subtitled,

Dismantling the obstacles to EU citizens’ rights

In it are a range of guestures to defend rights so liberally granted to us by the benificent Union, rights such as a fair trial (which I understand I had beforet he ECHR became British law) but that is not what I want to focus on. In defending these rights the EU has hit upon a brilliant wheeze.

"further strengthen information on European affairs, characterised by independent, professional and high-quality reporting; in this context, the Commission will also explore options for a more sustainable financing of Euronews. The building up of a Brussels studio for Euronews will be encouraged."

For pities sake you idiots. Nobody who is not forced by dint of sitting in a airport lounge ever watches that channel. Please stop pouring our money down that stagant hole. It isn't working.

It is boring, disembodied and pointless. If you haven't worked that out then you obviously don't live on the same planet of any of those you claim to govern.

Look, no government, of any stripe should be buggering around with the media as you do. No governmental organisation should be hosting and paying for Film Prizes, or journalism prizes, or creating news agencies or TV stations. That is not your job. If you do your jobs properly, then the people will come to you, and the journalists will report your activities.

If you fail to do things that the people want they will ignore you, no matter how much of their money you spend. You do fail to do those things, which is why people want out.

This arguement that you proffer should appall any democrat,

"Independent media reporting about EU affairs is an important cornerstone of well-informed EU citizens and European public discourse," argues the Commission in the report.

"However, there is still a long way to go until there is a true European media landscape which stimulates informed debates about EU policies," adds the Commission.

Go on, try Euronews now. Even Channel 5 is better than Euronews.

(Other parts of the document hace some interesting interferences in Criminal Justice and electoral law, but that is for another post).

A picture is worth a thousand euros

Or more to the point lots of pictures are worth "tens of millions" of them. Hugh Barton-Smith has made a splendid spot on the latest part of the EU propaganda empire (and yes chaps propaganda empire / and not a jot of hyperbole in it - how would you describe the creation of tv stations, press agencies and so on in the last few years? It all looks positively Murdochain, or mabe from a European perspective Berlesconian).

Sadly what he has spotted is the capture of AFP, or at least its partial capture by the EU. At the end of September AFP won a contract with EBS,

As of October 1, the Agency will cover the movements and activities of members of the European institutions in most regions of the world. It will also establish image banks illustrating the themes of major importance to the commission, the parliament and the Council of Europe.

So that is teams of AFP snappers on hand across the world to capture everybody's best side. But hold on, AFP is a independent news agency, which prides itself on its news values.
Article 2 of its 1957 Statute is pretty clear on the subject,

"Agence France-Presse may not under any circumstances take account of influences or considerations that would compromise the accuracy or objectivity of the news; it must not under any circumstances pass under legal or de facto control of an ideological, political or economic group.

So surely paid tens of millions by the EU to create vast image banks (they will be the perfect European banks, thousands of deposits everyt week, but virtually no withdrawals) puts into question 'objectivity'. But no hold on what have we here,

AFP has decided to develop this activity as a totally separate entity from editorial; the contract is being managed by a wholly-owned subsidiary of AFP and by a specially formed unit to avoid any possible conflict with its traditional role as a news agency.

Yes AFP is a big concern, but a contract worth 10s of millions is going to have an impact, it ain't poluet feed after all. No matter how high those Chinese walls are. It is a wholly owned subsidiary, thus the profits go to the same place, the photographers will work for both the subsidiary and for AFP and so on.

So, it would be only natural if some editorial is toned down. Indeed as 5 of the 15 board members are either representatives of the French government or representatives of French State TV or Radio it would hardly be a surprise.

Another door swings shut.

Barton-Smith also spots a corker - AFP dson't seem to understand the difference between the European Council and the Council of Europe, but hey, with that amount of cash, who cares.

Lobbyist/Think tanker? EU stooge?

An interesting contretemps is developing in Brussels. The Commission is creating a register of lobbyists and under the leadership of Siim Kallas it has called for Think Tanks to register as well.
The registration would mean that the think tanks scources of funding would become transparent.

However Giles Merrit, chief panjandrum of the "Friends of Europe" is incandescent,

“None of the leading think-tanks has a problem with making public the details of their financial resources, as they in any case supply them to the Commission every year; ours will also shortly be available on our website. But they have major reservations about volunteering to classify themselves as lobbyists when they so clearly are not. Why will the Commission not consider creating a separate list for us?”.

Well, are they lobbyists?
According to Public Affairs News,

The number of think-tanks in Brussels has mushroomed over the past decade, with one study estimating the number at 1,200. Many have faced criticism from NGOs and transparency campaigners for being ‘corporate front groups’.

What is more already in the registration process there is differentiation between strict lobbyists and think tanks. One classic case in point was 'The Centre' run by Brussels old hand Paul Adamson, it rather laughing described it self as a 'Think do Tank'. And Kallas has writen to Merrit to say,

“It would surprise me somewhat if you would equally object to the qualification of Friends of Europe as an ‘interest representative’, considering the claim on your own website that paid membership of ‘Friends of Europe’ offers ‘maximum visibility’ and ‘a genuine opportunity to have a stake in the EU’s future direction’. Such indirect representation must be captured for the register to be taken seriously.”

The thing is that many think tanks are front groups all right. Mostly front Groups for the EU institutions and receive funding from the EU.


So for example we can see that Bruegel which calls itself

a European think tank working in the field of international economics

And is funded in the main by Governments but also lists (page 23)

European Investment Bank
EBRD
European Parliament’s Economic and Scientific Policy Department
European Commission - DGs ECFIN and RELEX

There again we could look at the Centre for European Policy Studies which admits to reciving over 2 million Euro from the institutions.

Then try the European Institute of Public Administration, which describes itself as,

Europe's leading centre of excellence on European integration and the new
challenges for public management

is entirely funded by the EU. Indeed we could look at old Mr Ferritts own Friends of Europe.

The European Commission contributed the largest sum of money through a mixture
of structural support and project support

There are dozens more. So whilst I agree with The Corporate Observatory in its campaign, one thing positicve that will also come out ofit is to discover quite how the majority of Brussels so called independent think tanks are essentially propaganda mouth pieces for the EU institutions.

This is all relevant because next week they will all be sitting round a table discussing the issue.
Thank you Mr Kallas.

Roll up, roll up, last chance to be bought

Quick quick, you have until tomorrow to enrol at the EU's latest workshop for young jounalists.
This is to take place over three days in October and is to focus on the admittedly interesting fact that,

the number of journalists in Brussels dropped from 1,300 to 752 in the past five years?

Well actually I have my own theory about that. You see in the past many of the journalists were basically lobbyists moonlighting as journalists. The institutions cracked down on the obvious conflicts of interest. Thus there are fewer registered journalists.

But anyhow I note that though this is to take place on EU premisis and is being advertised by the EU itself, it is being run by another organistation, something that calls itself the European Youth Press.

Based in Germany this appears to be an EU front organisation.

Some of its objectives are well, read them for yourselves,

"Cooperation between young journalists in Europe
Education of young people to democraticc, consciously acting humans
Education of multipliers and strengthening the role of youth media in Europe
Education for media competence among young people in Europe
The participation of young people

You know the sort of thing. Ofcourse a young journalist cannot in themselves become a member. This is another of those EU actors that has as a membership only other organisations which share its aims, or swim in a similar pond. So they claim to have 48,000 members - Uhuh yeah right.

They appear to get 77% of their funding from the The Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency and they also list The Council of Europe as supporters.

So we can be sure that the bright fluffy-eyed, and doe-tailed types turning up in October will get a honest account of the institutional carry on.

£5 million for a few pens!!!

Marta Andreasen has today revealed that the European Parliament has just contracted a firm to the tune of £5 million to produce what are amusingly described as 'communication objects'.

As she points out, "It appears that the word austerity doesn't translate into any of the EU's 25 official languages".

She is now going to see if there are any links between the hlders of the contract a local Belgian fim by the name of International Graphic Editions & Promotions and the Parliamentary authorities. Not they have of course, but you know, weirder confluicts of interest have arisen before.