The Future Is Here Today

The Future Is Here Today
Where Business, Nature and Leisure Provide An Ideal Setting For Living

Advertise in Almere-Digest

Advertising Options
Showing posts with label Belgium. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Belgium. Show all posts

June 19, 2017

Brexit Talks Brussels: Davis and Barnier hold press conference after first day of Brexit talks - by Andrew Sparrow

Brexit Negotiations get underway
The British newspaper The Guardian reports EU negotiator Michel Barnier said it will be up to the European council, led by Donald Tusk, to decide later if sufficient progress has been made on these issues to allow talks to move on to trade.

He said, in leaving the EU, Britain will no longer have the same rights and opportunities as EU members.

But the EU can build a new partnership with the UK, and that will contribute to stability on the continent.

He says “a fair deal is possible, and far better than no deal”.

The British negotiator David Davis said the talks were “very constructive”. He says a deal is “eminently achievable”.

Note EU-Digest: Britain is about to go down on its knees before Trump to beg for post Brexit trade access to the USA,  and is in no position to stand up to him and all his nonsensical "make America great again" ideology, as France, Germany and Italy have done, when they issued a powerful joint public statement against Trump policies. Bottom line, the best thing for Britain is to get back into the EU fold and face the global storm winds as a member of the EU. After all  - United we stand -Divided we fall.     

Read more: Davis and Barnier hold press conference after first day of Brexit talks - Politics live | Politics | The Guardian

May 25, 2017

EU-Belgium-NATO: Trump meets with EU officials and scolds world leaders at NATO ceremony in Brussels

"Manneken Pis," Bruxelles most famous fountain
President Trump criticized leaders at a dedication ceremony at the new NATO headquarters in Brussels, May 25, saying they need to increase financial contributions to combat "the threat of terrorism."

"America instead of haggling over money", say most European politicians," must not forget that Europe is on the front-line of the American defense in case of an attack from the Russians. That should be worth every cent the US invests into Europe's defense."

In his speech to NATO leaders, President Trump also said  NATO must focus on terrorism and that “nations owe massive amounts of money” on defense.

Thursday’s NATO meeting was scheduled to allow Trump and leaders of NATO states to take the measure of each other. The 27 other members had hoped to relieve anxiety that arose during Trump’s campaign, when he questioned why the United States was spending its own money to defend Europe, called NATO “obsolete” and ill-equipped to deal with terrorism, and threatened to withdraw if other members failed to pay their “fair share.”

Moreover, though the White House had sent recent signals that the United States would stay in NATO’s mutual defense pact, known as Article 5, Trump made no mention of it as he stood next a monument dedicated to the only time the article had been previously invoked: during the terror attacks on September 11, 2001.

Donald Trump did vow, however, to crack down on leaks that prompted Manchester police to withhold information from the United States about the investigation into this week’s bombing.

Earlier during the day Mr. Trump met with EU President Tusk and other EU officials. 

After the meeting at the EU headquarters in Brussels ended, Tusk, who presides over the European Council said:  "I am not 100% sure that we can say today ... that we have a common position, common opinion, about Russia," but Tusk added that both parties remain critical of Russia's military incursions into neighboring Ukraine.

Tusk also said "some issues remain open" with Trump, including climate change and trade policy.

EU members have long questioned Trump's warm comments toward Putin, who has backed many anti-EU candidates in elections throughout the continent. And countries such as France, Germany, and the United Kingdom have expressed concerns about similar Russian hacking and disinformation campaigns to undermine elections in their countries.

Trump's meeting with Tusk, who presides over the European Council, and Jean-Claude Juncker, president of the European Commission, preceded talks with leaders of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

The Trump Brussels stop came in the middle of Trump's first foreign trip as president, one that began with visits to Saudi Arabia, Israel, and Rome. Trump is spending nine days away from Washington, which is still reeling from a spate of recent revelations related to Trump's links to Russia.

Trump's first foreign trip as president came a week after the Justice Department appointed a special counsel to look into possible ties between Trump campaign associates and Russians who sought to influence the 2016 presidential campaign.

The U.S. intelligence community has accused Moscow of orchestrating a high-level campaign of cyberattacks, propaganda and fake news to try and influence the 2016 election, though the president and his aides have denied any collusion.


EU-Digest

January 5, 2017

Netherlands, Luxembourg, and Belgium begin joint air policing - by Nicholas Fiorenza

 Two Belgian Lockheed Martin F-16 fighter aircraft began the joint air policing of the airspace of Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg (Benelux) on 1 January.

The Belgian fighters will be on 15-minute quick reaction alert (QRA) for the first four months of 2017, after which two Royal Netherlands Air Force (RNLAF) F-16s will take over.

The arrangement was agreed by the Benelux in March 2015. Until the end of 2016, two Belgian F-16s were on QRA for Belgium and Luxembourg and two Dutch F-16s for the Netherlands.

Belgian Defence Minister Steven Vandeput described the arrangement as "ground breaking". Similarly, his Dutch counterpart, Jeanine Hennis-Plasschaert, called it a "milestone", adding, "The pilots and fighter aircraft we thereby free up can be deployed elsewhere, for example in the UN, EU or whatever other context." The agreement will also allow more flight training, Vandeput pointed out.

Vandeput said no other countries trust each other to deal with air threats within each other's' borders. The authorities of the country over which an air threat emerges can now give instructions to the fighters on QRA, whether Belgian or Dutch. The Belgian defence minister would do so through the control and reporting centre in Glons, Belgium, while the Dutch minister for security and justice would do the same through the air operations control station in Nieuw Milligen, the Netherlands. The defence minister of Luxembourg is the responsible authority of the Grand Duchy.

The technical agreement on Benelux air policing was signed on 21 December 2016 in Rotterdam, the Netherlands, by the commander of the Belgian Air Component, Major General Frederik Vansina, his RNLAF counterpart, Lieutenant General Dennis Luyt, and Luxembourg's ambassador to the Netherlands, Pierre-Louis Lorenz.The two Belgian F-16s currently on QRA are bas

Read more: Netherlands and Belgium begin joint air policing | IHS Jane's 360

August 2, 2016

Germany: Cologne Turkish demonstration shows major flaws in EU legislation re: New EU citizens rights and obligations


German Citizens of Turkish Descent demonstrating in Cologne
Aljazeera reported recently that tens of thousands of Erdogan supporters rallied in Cologne to show their opposition to the failed coup attempt on July 15.

In the meantime Turkey has summoned a senior German diplomat, the embassy said, a day after German authorities stopped Turkey president from addressing a rally in Cologne via video-link. ministry at 1pm (10:00 GMT)," a spokeswoman for the German embassy in Ankara told the AFP news agency, adding that the ambassador, who was summoned originally, was not in town.

Hours before the demonstration, Germany's constitutional court banned an application to show live speeches from Turkey by politicians including Erdogan, amid fears that political tensions in Turkey could spill over into Germany.

The decision sparked anger in Turkey, with presidential spokesman Ibrahim Kalin calling the ban unacceptable and a "violation of the freedom of expression and the right to free assembly".

Germany is home to aboutthree million ethnic Turks, making up Turkey's largest diaspora, and tensions over the failed coup have put authorities there on edge.

The tension comes at a time when relations between Germany and Turkey are already strained over the German parliament's decision to brand as genocide the World War I-era Armenian massacre by Ottoman forces.

As to new EU citizens rights and obligations. It is high time the EU Commission and EU Parliament review some of the procedures for EU member states immigrant swearing in ceremonies related to new citizen. In this respect the EU would be well served to copy the swearing in procedures applied in the US where a new citizen swears agreement to the following: 

"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."  

This would certainly avoid ridiculous scenes like recently in Cologne,Germany, where German citizens of Turkish descent demonstrated in favor of "the leadership in their country of origin, and where the President of that country consequently got upset with the German Government that he was not allowed to participate as a speaker in the demonstration via a TV hookup. 

It can not get any crazier than this. Mr. Erdogan, given his record on freedom of speech, should be the last person to make remarks about human rights or freedom of speech - as to the German demonstrators of Turkish descent.  In case they feel more in-line with Turkish Customs, Tradition and Culture, or Mr. Erdogan's Government ideals, they are completely free to go back to live in Turkey.

EU-Digest

July 30, 2016

NATO - In depth Look At Nato Shows It Has No Role To Play In Politics

The North Atlantic Treaty was signed on 1949 in Washington DC, and ratified by its twelve member states. The treaty was clearly a response to the growing military threat that appeared by the communist ideology and military power of the Soviet Union, at the same time, the treaty was also viewed by some members as an insurance policy, provided mainly by the United States against the resurgent Germany.

This essay discusses the role of NATO; further it will examine why NATO should not be dissolved, and will discuss Libya as case study. This essay also discusses why NATO should be dissolved, and will draw upon the war on terror in Afghanistan. This essay will conclude that NATO does not have much relevance in 21th century nor it had following the Cold and the Collapsed of the Soviet Union, therefore, it's not imperative for NATO to maintain alliance.

NATO was founded on the grounds that the organisation will protect its members, but mainly from the military threat of Soviet Unions, Lord Hastings Ismay, the first Secretary General clearly defined NATO; "to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down (William: 2008, 348)." Ismay argument demonstrates that the international institution was founded mainly because of the of military threat of Soviet Union during the Cold War. NATO's former Secretary General Willy Clases stated that:

"it could build on its past, moving to establish closer ties with Central and East European states; deepen its political , economic and social ties with the United states; build a better relationship with Russia and certain Mediterranean and North African states; and work with regional and international organisation to ensure the stability of Europe its neighbours ( MaCalla:199,445)

Clases statement shows very strong aims of NATO to survive and will expand as global cop; continue its task to safeguard its member states; nevertheless, scepticism remains about its future. NATO's former Secretary General, Manfred Worner stated that "The treaty of Washington of 1949, nowhere mentions the Soviet Union" (MaCalla: 1996, 446). Worner argument reveals that military Threat of Soviet Union was not the main reason; however, NATO has wider international prospects.

At the end of the Cold War, it was perceived that the absence of a compelling external threat, NATO members would no longer see any compelling reason to maintain the alliance, and it would soon appear to be ineffective and incompetent security organisation. Waltz (William: 2008, 349) argued that the:

"alliances will tend to be less robust in a multipolar world because major powers will possess more options as their numbers increase... prudence suggests that existing alliance commitments can no longer be taken for granted ( William:2008,350)".

However, Walt argument proved to have minimal effect on the organisation. NATO flourished at least in some ways since following Cold War, and was broadly engaged in extensive combat operations, such as Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan and recently in Libya.

Adler and Barnett (William et al: 2000) argued that persistence of NATO clearly demonstrates that the international community posses great challenges of security relations than neo realism has traditionally allowed. Their statement shows that NATO has survived many security challenges over time and continued to prosper as a security management institution in 21th century, on the other hand, the emergence of non-state actors brought massive challenges for the states security, states are now fighting non- state actors, such as Al-Qaida and Taliban, NATO responded efficiently by engaging on the War on Terror in Afghanistan, training and developing Afghan National Security Forces, and ensuring partnership agreement to continue military support to the country beyond 2014, after the withdrawal of NATO soldiers from the country. Thus, NATO's interest in promoting peace and stability has not only benefited its members but also wider international community.

NATO should be dissolved clearly it achieved its purpose and outlived its usefulness. Wallander and Keohane ( William et al:2000) argued that NATO is no longer an alliance, its purpose and operations has changed over time and it has transformed in to a regional collective security arrangement or security management institution. Their argument demonstrates that NATO still have great importance in the region, nonetheless, its aims have changed and there is still security threats for its members, but there is still many global security challenges facing NATO member states, this could be the fight on terror, environmental security challenges or the remnants of the Soviet Union, Russia, thus, these challenges keep NATO active and should therefore not be dissolved. NATO as security management institution take human rights and humanitarian intervention into account, NATO efficiently responded to crisis in Libya. The NATO humanitarian intervention in Libya was legitimate, because it was authorised by UN Security Council, the main purpose of this operation was to save human lives and it was successful.

The consequences of a dissolved NATO will not help the wider international order, this is because NATO is also an enforcement arm of the UN Security Council, helped to combat Terrorism, WMD and Cyber Warfare, on the other hand, NATO members states shares democratic values, William et al (2000:358) argued that NATO persists because it's member states shared democratic norms and identities. This shows that democracy is the common language in these countries, and therefore, they can communicate very well and identify their common enemies and share military burden in order to make each ally stronger than individual part. The North Atlantic treaty organisation was set up to defend against the threat of Soviet aggression, however, today it's viewed as increasingly dysfunctional, and still searching for a new role two decades after the collapsed of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War ( Kashmeri:2010).

William (2008) argued that NATO has had little effect on counter-terrorism efforts. Williams statement points to the inability of NATO on combating terrorism. It could be argued that NATO was failed to stop Terrorists attacks on their members states, NATO was incapable to stop major terrorist attacks of 911, 7/7 London bombing or Madrid attacks, on the other hand, NATO did not achieved much of its goals on combating terrorism in Afghanistan, NATO failed to eliminate Top Taliban leader, Mullah Omer and could not stop much of the insurgency in the South of the country, as a result, NATO's member states had to pay huge cost of a lengthy War in Afghanistan, NATO lost their real aims in Afghanistan, its initial purpose of War in Afghanistan was to battle Terrorism, however, the aim spread to many other challenges, and it is now fighting for human rights, war on drug, reconstruction and building a democratic society for Afghans, NATO clearly lost its mandate in Afghanistan and its members had to pay massive amount of finance to support the war at the time where their own national economies were struggling with huge debts and deficits.

NATO believed that the organisation will transform into a World cop, by adopting a strategy of 'Out of Area' (Kashmeri: 1996), this dream is diminishing at slow pace in the mountainous Afghanistan, where many of its European members are avoiding main battle, France and Netherland has already withdrawn troops from Afghanistan, while leaving other members in uncertainty and disarray, on the other hand, US close ally Canada has also withdrawn troops from Afghanistan, making it more difficult for other NATO members to achieve significant goals, the remaining members are struggling to find resources to send a few hundred trainers to Afghanistan.

NATO does not have much relevance in 21th century nor it had following the Cold War and the collapsed of the Soviet Union, it was not imperative for NATO to maintain alliance. Mearsheimer ( 1994) stated that international institutions maintain only 'false promise' as a foundation for security. Mearsheimer's statement demonstrates that NATO is ineffective and therefore should be disbanded, security issues are best achieved through states, thus, security institutions have no place in international system. If the international community is posed with global threats, NATO would be unsuccessful, it would be more advantageous for each region including Europe to build their own security force rather than creating a global NATO force. It could also be argued that security institutions are manipulated by powers for their own national interest; hence, NATO is a great tool for US to advance its agenda. The extension of NATO force has also threatened development of democracy in Russia, most democratic activists in Russia have oppose NATO enlargement, precisely, on the grounds that it hinders the progress of democracy in Russia.

NATO is a tool of US and the majority of Americans have different social moral values compare to their European counterparts. Steele (2004) argued that Americans do not share values, but institutions with Europe. This illustrates that Europe and the US have similar institutions, like Europe they have a separation of powers between executive and legislature and an independent judiciary, but both Europe and the US have different values and this distinction is crucial. It clearly shows that they do not have common values or perceptions, and these perceptions may include security issues, and what constitutes a threat for the US may not constitutes a threat for the Europe. Steele (2004) clearly distinguish these differences, in the US more people have guns than have passports, and there is not one European nation of which is the same as US on this. However, millions of US nationals do share European values, but this only amounts to 48% and that the US is deeply polarised is incorrect.

European states are officially embedded as America's allies, and it's clear that the allies should support America and respect their leadership, thus, this makes it hard for European states to not follow American perceptions about security, if they don't they will fear of being attacked as disloyal. It's very obvious that Europeans like Americans have their own interest, sometimes they will coincides, and these interest will also differ, but it's normal (Steele:2004), it's clear that the US has some bilateral security treaties with other countries. And that could be a good deal for European states. If Austria, Finland, Ireland and Sweden could take considerable risk of staying neutral during the Cold War, thus, no need to join NATO in 21th century, in which the world is much safe than it was in bipolar order. It's clearly true that NATO will not function with the unanimity it demonstrated during the Cold War, however, the lesson has been learned from Iraq War and that the organisation has become no more than a " coalition of the reluctant"( Steele:2004), because it's strong member such as France and Germany did not joined the Iraq War.

The US as a leader and most powerful member of NATO, has always pushed the European allies to spend much on their defence infrastructure, blaming them for spending too little or spending on the wrong policies. This has been a regular feature of NATO meetings for years. Valasek argued that

"Virtually every piece of legislation in the U.S Congress involving NATO, such as bills on enlargement or missile defence, pass with at least an attempt by lawmakers to attach amendments mandating greater European contributions (Velasak:2001,20"

Velasak statement reveals that the Europeans are being pushed for something which they are not interested and it's also not in their national interests to spend much more on their defence infrastructure and pay heavily for the costs of wars, thus, NATO has become a threat to Europe. NATO's existence undermines Europe's own efforts to build their own regional security institutions which will more efficiently respond to external security threats. Some member states, particularly, the UK often looks over their shoulders for not upsetting big brother, the US. If the UK is so much cautious of not upsetting the US, thus, Central and East European States are more cautious not to upset the US, because they need the US more for their external security. On the other hand, the Common Security and Defence policy of Europe ( CSDP) does not have much power, assets or organisation, their first Task of deployment took place in 2003 in the Republic of Macedonia "EUFOR Concordia"(Chivvis:2008). The organisation seemed to be so weak that they used NATO assets, however, it was considered to be success, but their missions are considered to be very low profiled and small, hence, it makes it so ambiguous that they can respond efficiently to a real global threat.

To sum up, this essay demonstrated that NATO was founded for common defence against the hostile Soviet Union during the Cold War. NATO flourished in some ways and its humanitarian interventions in Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan and Libya provided NATO further legitimacy. Therefore, NATO's achievements as a legitimate international security institution cannot be underestimated; however, the North Atlantic Treaty was signed to confront Soviet Union military power, and achieved its purpose and outlived its usefulness, and it's time for the organisation to die a peaceful death, it's elimination will lead the path for regional security structure, which would efficiently deal with external security threats, on the other hand, NATO is a tool being used by the US, as the US is the most powerful member and assumed leader of the organisation, therefore, this advance US agenda and sometimes the US interest coincide with European interests, this is because most of Americans and Europeans do not share similar values. Iraq War was a clear example of this interest, which led NATO's main members to opt out of the War; however, US had great interest in the War and continued without their support.

This report was written by an anonymous writer at the UK Academic Writing Services

EU-Diges

June 18, 2016

Belgium - The Battle of Waterloo June 18 - 1815 - Defeat or Victory?

Battle of Waterloo - June 18 1815  Wellington
Each year on June 18 the great Battle of Waterloo is recalled in what is now Belgium. On that day in 1815, Napoleon’s French army was defeated by a multinational force commanded by the Duke of Wellington. Since then, the phrase “to meet your Waterloo” has come to mean “to be defeated by someone who is too strong for you or by a problem that is too difficult for you.”

When it comes to our spiritual lives, some people feel that ultimate failure is inevitable and it’s only a matter of time until each of us will “meet our Waterloo.” But John refuted that pessimistic view when he wrote to followers of Jesus: “Everyone born of God overcomes the world. This is the victory that has overcome the world, even our faith” (1 John 5:4).

John weaves this theme of spiritual victory throughout his first letter as he urges us not to love the things this world offers, which will soon fade away (2:15–17). Instead, we are to love and please God, “And this is what he promised us—eternal life”

While we may have ups and downs in life, and even some battles that feel like defeats, the ultimate victory is ours in Christ as we trust in His power..

Read more: Defeat or Victory? | Our Daily Bread

May 25, 2016

Belgium: putting the house back in working order

Belgium facing a somewhat uncertain future as they are trying to put the country back in working order after the terrorists attacks.

To read the complete report click here

March 24, 2016

EU Security A Complete Mess : No Organization - No "Chiefs" - No "Indians" - and extremely poor coordination

EU Security  Coordination In Poor Shape
Belgian authorities actually had accurate advance warnings that terrorists planned to launch attacks at the Brussels airport and subway — yet failed to act, according to several reports.

Despite the knowledge, the intelligence and security apparatus in Brussels — home to most of the European Union agencies — was limited and ill-prepared to handle the alert,

In other developments Wednesday, March 23, Turkey’s prime minister said his country last year arrested one of the Brussels attackers and deported him to the Netherlands, but Belgium ignored warnings that he was a militant.

“One of the Brussels attackers was detained in Gaziantep (in southern Turkey (close to the Syrian border) and then deported” to the Netherlands, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan told reporters about Ibrahim El Bakraoui.

Turkey said it warned both Belgium and the Netherlands that Ibrahim was a “foreign terrorist fighter.”

Dutch authorities later allowed him to go free because Belgian authorities could not establish any ties to terrorism, an official in the Turkish president’s office said.

Turkey formally notified Belgium of the 29-year-old Belgian national’s deportation on July 14, 2015.

The announcement came after authorities said they discovered a cache of explosives in a house and a farewell note from an airport suicide bomber — one of two brothers identified in the attacks.

The brothers were identified as Ibrahim and Khalid El Bakraoui, both of whom had extensive criminal records but had not been on watch lists as potential terror threats.

What Europe does not have is any cross-national agency with the power to carry out its own investigation and make its own arrests.

This means that cross-border policing in the European Union has big holes. It depends heavily on informal cooperation rather than formal institutions with independent authority.

Sometimes this works reasonably well. Sometimes this works particularly badly. Belgium is a notorious problem case, because its policing arrangements are heavily localized.

In the past, many Belgian policing forces have had difficulty cooperating with each other, let alone with other European forces.

Europe has to put some serious thought into setting up a "Pan European Security Network" to coordinate, trace, find, capture and if need be, eliminate security threats to its citizens. This has to happen pretty quickly.

Almere-Digest

The Bruxelles Tragedy: US failed Middle East policy indrectly responsible for Brussels terror attacks - by Claire Bernish

Brussels Landmark Statue "Manneke Pis" says it all
Before the bodies had been counted. Before the injuries had been assessed. Before any group claimed responsibility for perpetrating the attacks in the Belgian capitol Brussels, the lazy condemned the entire religion of Islam.

This blame, meted out to a religion whose tenets expressly forbid killing innocents — “it is as if he had slain mankind entirely” — lacks fundamental logic. Worse, it lacks precision.

Without precision and studied consideration of the conditions which culminated in these acts of terrorism, one Bruxelles Landmark Statueguarantee can be cemented: future attacks.

Why? Because humans have an unironic penchant for neglecting lessons from past mistakes — and an unfaltering blindfold as if their present actions exist in a vacuum. Indeed, blaming an entire religion for the actions of a few falsely claiming they follow its teachings might be precisely what the ignominious war machine of U.S. imperialism needs. In fact, modern-day terrorism exists because of the actions of a specific religion — and it isn’t Islam.

Imperialism, and its roots planted firmly in statism, inarguably create, foster, and perpetuate terrorism at an alarming rate. An active military campaign and overarching surveillance program ostensibly embarked upon to demolish terrorism — anywhere on the planet — instead manufacture terrorism at an increasingly rapid rate.

This cyclical structure isn’t difficult to comprehend, yet it somehow escapes those eager to scapegoat blame on the undeserving — because xenophobia.

For years, the United States military and its over-inflated budget have bombed the hell out of predominantly Muslim countries — doing a bang-up job of mostly missing intended targets, instead killing civilian non-combatants more than of the time by some estimates. U.S. foreign policy’s relentless hammer created the staggering refugee crisis as civilians — either having their homes destroyed by bombing or from justifiable fear it could happen — by the millions feel they have no choice but to escape.

Worse still, the U.S.’ vying for natural resources — oil, opium, rare earth metals, and more — have caused a complex juggernaut of proxy wars with sometimes contradictory aims. This wrangling to exploit countrysides in otherwise peaceful countries stands as classic imperialist dogma: they have it, the U.S. government wants it, and the military is promptly deployed to make it happen.

Largely downplayed in this cycle are countless corporations pulling the strings — directly driving hegemonic foreign policy.

Would we need to invade Afghanistan for its insanely profitable opium crops without Big Pharma? Doubtful. Would we need to partner with Saudi Arabia — not only a notorious human rights abuser, but one of the most despised countries in the Middle East — were it not for its enormous stores of oil? No way.

Would Syria be the quagmire it has become if it weren’t geostrategically integral for a proposed oil pipeline? Nope.

War has been called ‘endless’ for justifiable reasons — but it wouldn’t be so without imperialism driving its existence. Violence is its tool. But endless violence isn’t without consequences.

Terrorism holds undeniable responsibility for the attacks in Brussels, but it didn’t manifest because of Islam.

Blaming Islam is the lazy way out of holding those ultimately responsible for its rise — and secures its perpetuation. But it doesn’t mean Islam is to blame.

Note EU-Digest: as has been mentioned many times before  - the EU, in addition to numerous other urgent changes it needs to make to avoid self-destruction, must establish it's own Middle East foreign policy based on economic development and trade, and completely "divorce" itself from the many years of failed US Middle East policies.

Read also: America Should Take Responsibility for the Brussels Terror Attacks

March 22, 2016

Brussels Attack - Inadequate security - live updates: manhunt under way for airport suspect – by M.Weaver, H Siddique, R. Jalab

  • There were several terrorist attacks this morning: two explosions in Zaventem and one in Maalbeck, which many killed and wounded.
  • Two of the three men in the CCTV photo “very likely committed a suicide attack.’
  • Van Leeuw confirmed that there is an active manhunt underway for the third man seen in CCTV footage at Zaventem airport dressed in white.
  • Islamic State has claimed responsibility for the attack through its media wing, but it was still “too early to make a direct connection between the attacks in Paris [in November] and today’s attacks”, Van Leeuw said. Isis’s claim of responsibility has not yet been formally verified, he said.
  • There are several raids under way across the country, but Van Leeuw warned of the risks of reporting details of active operations.
  • Witnesses are currently being questioned, with more were being sought.
  • Several explosions were heard at the airport after the initial two blasts, but these were controlled detonations by security forces, Van Leeuw said, before warning that there may yet be more controlled detonations of suspect packages.
  • And with that, Van Leeuw declined to give any further information so as not to affect the ongoing investigations.
Note EU-Digest: It is remarkable how inadequately many European airports and train stations are protected . With a few exceptions,  there are no baggage controls or security gates/checks at most of the entrances into main airports terminals or train stations. European airports which have train stops below the airport or main train terminals usually do not have security checks for passengers and their luggage going into the main terminal. It is a disaster waiting to happen and the EU and local governments  better take immediate action to avoid even more of these horrible events.

 Read more: Brussels attacks: manhunt under way for airport suspect – live updates | World news | The Guardian

February 20, 2016

EU-TTIP: Meet the Corporations Lobbying Hardest for TTIP and the End of Democracy - by Graham Vanbergen

It is quite incredible that the unelected bureaucrats of the EU Commission are even entertaining such an idea as the deeply unpopular TTIP trade deal amid huge citizen protest whilst already facing multiple episodes of social, political and economic unrest and crisis as the demise of the European project gathers pace.
TTIP: A secret and bad deal

The EU is experiencing extensive political threats and upheaval from left and right of centre political groups angry at EU imposed austerity. Greece is being raped by its so-called partners and it is just one of several other EU states en-route to ruin.

The declining global economic picture provides all the more reason for the corporations to look for new avenues of revenue. But which businesses are pushing most for the proposed EU-US trade deal TTIP? And who is really influencing EU negotiators? And just how are the rights of European citizens represented in the biggest trade deal in history?

Just in Brussels alone, there are now over 30,000 corporate lobbyists, shadowy agitators as The Guardian puts it, who are responsible for influencing three quarters of legislation in the EU. But even they are left in the shade when it comes to the power being afforded to corporations in the TTIP negotiations.

The US Chamber of Commerce, the wealthiest of all US corporate lobbies, and DigitalEurope (whose members include all the big IT names, like Apple, Blackberry, IBM, and Microsoft) are there.
BusinessEurope, the European employers’ federation and one of the most powerful lobby groups in the EU are there.

Transatlantic Business Council, a corporate lobby group representing over 70 EU and US-based multinationals. ACEA, the car lobby (working for BMW, Ford, Renault, and others) and CEFIC, the Chemical Industry Council (lobbying for BASF, Bayer, Dow, and the like) are all there.

European Services Forum, a lobby outfit banding together large services companies and federations such as Deutsche Bank, Telefónica, and TheCityUK, representing the UK’s banking industry are there as are Europe’s largest pharmaceutical industry association (representing some of the biggest and most powerful pharma companies in the world such as GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Astra Zeneca, Novartis, Sanofi, and Roche).

FoodDrinkEurope, the biggest food industry lobby group (representing multinationals like Nestlé, Coca Cola, and Unilever) are sitting at the negotiating table as well.

However, 20% of all corporates lobbying the EU trade department are not listed on the EU’s transparency register. This amounts to 80 organisations. Industry associations such as the world’s largest biotechnology lobby BIO, US pharmaceutical lobby group PhrMA, and the American Chemical Council are lobbying in the shadows.

More than one third of all US companies and industry associations which have lobbied on TTIP (37 out of 91) are not in the EU register. Even Levi Jeans lurks in this murky group unwilling to publicly identify themselves.

The EU Commission even decided in its wisdom that its ‘transparency’ register was not mandatory or the issues being lobbied on do not require admission in any way. Hardly transparent.

The United States has achieved most of the privately held meetings behind closed doors. They represent the top ten of biggest spenders of all lobbyists. ExxonMobil, Microsoft, Dow, Google, and General Electric all spend more than €3 million per year on lobbying the EU institutions.

Big pharmaceutical organisations have stepped up their lobbying for TTIP and this is particularly worrying.

The pharmaceutical sector is pushing for a TTIP agenda with potentially severe implications for access to medicines and public health. Longer monopolies through strengthened intellectual property rules and limits on price-controlling policies in TTIP could drive up prices for medicines and costs for national health systems. Misery and death in exchange for profit.

The banking sector have lobbied hard for financial regulations that they would like to see scrapped via TTIP.

From US rules on capital reserves (which require companies to keep aside a proportion of capital available to avoid risk of collapse or bailout), to regulations on too-big-to-fail foreign banks. Big finance on both sides of the Atlantic is also lobbying for a dedicated TTIP chapter on financial regulation, which could lead to the delay, watering down, or outright block of much needed reform and control of the financial sector necessary to avoid another financial meltdown. Where is the sense in that?
 
When European Trade Commissioner Cecilia Malmström took office in November 2014 she promised a “fresh start” for the TTIP negotiations, including more civil society involvement and listening to public concerns as her “top priority”. Lets not forget that the EU Commission undertook the largest ever survey of the EU bloc on the subject in 2014 and garnered 150,000 responses, more than 100 times more than any previous consultation on trade — and admitted that the majority of respondents expressed fears that the deal’s investment clauses would undermine national sovereignty. What the Commission did not say was of that 150,000, 97% were opposed to TTIP.

In the first six months since Malmstr̦m took office, she, her Cabinet and the director general of the EU trade department had 121 one-on-one lobby meetings behind closed doors in which TTIP was discussed. No less than 83% of these declared meetings were with business lobbyists Рbut only 16.7% were held with public interest groups.

The fact that Malmström and her team seem to primarily deal with the arguments of business representatives raises serious concerns that industry lobbyists continue to dominate the agenda of the TTIP talks and crowd out citizens’ interests. It is noteworthy that in ameeting with French employer’s federation (MEDEF) on 26 March 2015, for example, the EU trade department was warned that “the 19 million European SMEs which do not export will face increased competition” from TTIP.

To fully gauge who is being listened to one only has to read that of 597 closed-door TTIP meetings in the period 2102-14, only 53 or 9% were represented by public interest groups. And nothing has improved.

A small example of corporations over people, came about in 2012 when the trade department within the EU specifically contacted the crop pesticides industry who were actively encouraged to “identify opportunities of closer cooperation.” The response was that CropLife America demanded “significant harmonisation” for pesticide residues in food. Trade unions, environmentalists, and consumer groups did not receive such special invites.

Likewise, The Association of Automotive Suppliers (CLEPA), got an email from the EU Trade department thanking “you for your readiness to work with us”, and offering a meeting, “to discuss about your proposal, ask for clarification and consider next steps”. Again, public interest groups did not receive this special treatment.

Another example of the formidable alliance between EU negotiators and the corporate sector are the two most powerful lobby groups invited to ‘co-write’ TTIP regulations by the EU trade department. Another is the enthusiasm in the financial lobby community for the EU’s approach on financial regulation in TTIP. When the EU’s position on the issue was leaked in early 2014, Richard Normington, Senior Manager of the Policy and Public Affairs team at TheCityUK – a key British financial lobby group – applauded the Commission’s proposals, because it “reflected so closely the approach of TheCityUK that a bystander would have thought it came straight out of our brochure on TTIP”.

The largest single petition in history was against Monsanto with a staggering 2.1 million signatures that has since been eclipsed by the petition StopTTIP that has garnered 3.3 million signatures. But this single petition is massively overshadowed by the millions involved in protests groups all over Europe. The goal is to arrest the corporate coups d’état of Europe currently being facilitated by people like David Cameron, Cecilia Malmström and Barack Obama.

For Britain, in the firing line of that take-over by corporations is the NHS, food and environmental safety, regulations to stop an out-of-control banking industry, privacy, security and jobs to name just a few. Most importantly, our hard fought for democracy is not just undermined – it’s for sale to the highest bidder.

It is quite incredible that the unelected bureaucrats of the EU Commission are even entertaining such an idea as the deeply unpopular TTIP trade deal amid huge citizen protest whilst already facing multiple episodes of social, political and economic unrest and crisis as the demise of the European project gathers pace.

The EU is experiencing extensive political threats and upheaval from left and right of centre political groups angry at EU imposed austerity. Greece is being raped by its so-called partners and it is just one of several other EU states en-route to ruin.

The declining global economic picture provides all the more reason for the corporations to look for new avenues of revenue. But which businesses are pushing most for the proposed EU-US trade deal TTIP? And who is really influencing EU negotiators? And just how are the rights of European citizens represented in the biggest trade deal in history?

Just in Brussels alone, there are now over 30,000 corporate lobbyists, shadowy agitators as The Guardian puts it, who are responsible for influencing three quarters of legislation in the EU. But even they are left in the shade when it comes to the power being afforded to corporations in the TTIP negotiations.

The US Chamber of Commerce, the wealthiest of all US corporate lobbies, and DigitalEurope (whose members include all the big IT names, like Apple, Blackberry, IBM, and Microsoft) are there.
BusinessEurope, the European employers’ federation and one of the most powerful lobby groups in the EU are there.

Transatlantic Business Council, a corporate lobby group representing over 70 EU and US-based multinationals. ACEA, the car lobby (working for BMW, Ford, Renault, and others) and CEFIC, the Chemical Industry Council (lobbying for BASF, Bayer, Dow, and the like) are all there.

European Services Forum, a lobby outfit banding together large services companies and federations such as Deutsche Bank, Telefónica, and TheCityUK, representing the UK’s banking industry are there as are Europe’s largest pharmaceutical industry association (representing some of the biggest and most powerful pharma companies in the world such as GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Astra Zeneca, Novartis, Sanofi, and Roche).

FoodDrinkEurope, the biggest food industry lobby group (representing multinationals like Nestlé, Coca Cola, and Unilever) are sitting at the negotiating table as well.

However, 20% of all corporates lobbying the EU trade department are not listed on the EU’s transparency register. This amounts to 80 organisations. Industry associations such as the world’s largest biotechnology lobby BIO, US pharmaceutical lobby group PhrMA, and the American Chemical Council are lobbying in the shadows. More than one third of all US companies and industry associations which have lobbied on TTIP (37 out of 91) are not in the EU register. Even Levi Jeans lurks in this murky group unwilling to publicly identify themselves.

The EU Commission even decided in its wisdom that its ‘transparency’ register was not mandatory or the issues being lobbied on do not require admission in any way. Hardly transparent.

The United States has achieved most of the privately held meetings behind closed doors. They represent the top ten of biggest spenders of all lobbyists. ExxonMobil, Microsoft, Dow, Google, and General Electric all spend more than €3 million per year on lobbying the EU institutions.

Big pharmaceutical organisations have stepped up their lobbying for TTIP and this is particularly worrying. The pharmaceutical sector is pushing for a TTIP agenda with potentially severe implications for access to medicines and public health. Longer monopolies through strengthened intellectual property rules and limits on price-controlling policies in TTIP could drive up prices for medicines and costs for national health systems. Misery and death in exchange for profit.

The banking sector have lobbied hard for financial regulations that they would like to see scrapped via TTIP. From US rules on capital reserves (which require companies to keep aside a proportion of capital available to avoid risk of collapse or bailout), to regulations on too-big-to-fail foreign banks. Big finance on both sides of the Atlantic is also lobbying for a dedicated TTIP chapter on financial regulation, which could lead to the delay, watering down, or outright block of much needed reform and control of the financial sector necessary to avoid another financial meltdown. Where is the sense in that?

When European Trade Commissioner Cecilia Malmström took office in November 2014 she promised a “fresh start” for the TTIP negotiations, including more civil society involvement and listening to public concerns as her “top priority”. Lets not forget that the EU Commission undertook the largest ever survey of the EU bloc on the subject in 2014 and garnered 150,000 responses, more than 100 times more than any previous consultation on trade — and admitted that the majority of respondents expressed fears that the deal’s investment clauses would undermine national sovereignty. What the Commission did not say was of that 150,000, 97% were opposed to TTIP.

In the first six months since Malmstr̦m took office, she, her Cabinet and the director general of the EU trade department had 121 one-on-one lobby meetings behind closed doors in which TTIP was discussed. No less than 83% of these declared meetings were with business lobbyists Рbut only 16.7% were held with public interest groups.

The fact that Malmström and her team seem to primarily deal with the arguments of business representatives raises serious concerns that industry lobbyists continue to dominate the agenda of the TTIP talks and crowd out citizens’ interests. It is noteworthy that in ameeting with French employer’s federation (MEDEF) on 26 March 2015, for example, the EU trade department was warned that “the 19 million European SMEs which do not export will face increased competition” from TTIP.

To fully gauge who is being listened to one only has to read that of 597 closed-door TTIP meetings in the period 2102-14, only 53 or 9% were represented by public interest groups. And nothing has improved.
A small example of corporations over people, came about in 2012 when the trade department within the EU specifically contacted the crop pesticides industry who were actively encouraged to “identify opportunities of closer cooperation.” The response was that CropLife America demanded “significant harmonisation” for pesticide residues in food. Trade unions, environmentalists, and consumer groups did not receive such special invites.

Likewise, The Association of Automotive Suppliers (CLEPA), got an email from the EU Trade department thanking “you for your readiness to work with us”, and offering a meeting, “to discuss about your proposal, ask for clarification and consider next steps”. Again, public interest groups did not receive this special treatment.

Another example of the formidable alliance between EU negotiators and the corporate sector are the two most powerful lobby groups invited to ‘co-write’ TTIP regulations by the EU trade department. Another is the enthusiasm in the financial lobby community for the EU’s approach on financial regulation in TTIP. When the EU’s position on the issue was leaked in early 2014, Richard Normington, Senior Manager of the Policy and Public Affairs team at TheCityUK – a key British financial lobby group – applauded the Commission’s proposals, because it “reflected so closely the approach of TheCityUK that a bystander would have thought it came straight out of our brochure on TTIP”.

The largest single petition in history was against Monsanto with a staggering 2.1 million signatures that has since been eclipsed by the petition StopTTIP that has garnered 3.3 million signatures. But this single petition is massively overshadowed by the millions involved in protests groups all over Europe. The goal is to arrest the corporate coups d’état of Europe currently being facilitated by people like David Cameron, Cecilia Malmström and Barack Obama.

For Britain, in the firing line of that take-over by corporations is the NHS, food and environmental safety, regulations to stop an out-of-control banking industry, privacy, security and jobs to name just a few. Most importantly, our hard fought for democracy is not just undermined – it’s for sale to the highest bidder.

Read more: Meet the Corporations Lobbying Hardest for TTIP and the End of Democracy : Waking Times

January 30, 2016

Belgium - Nuclear P)ower Plants: Belgium's ageing nuclear plants worry neighbours

http://phys.org/ reports : "As the two cooling towers at Belgium's Doel nuclear power belch thick white steam into a wintry sky, people over the border in the Dutch town of Nieuw-Namen are on edge.

They are part of a groundswell of concern in the Netherlands, Germany and Luxembourg over the safety of Belgium's seven ageing reactors at Doel and at Tihange, further to the south and east.

"I'm happy Holland, Germany and Luxembourg are reacting because they (officials) don't listen to you and me," butcher Filip van Vlierberge told AFP at his shop in Nieuw-Namen, where people can see the Doel plant.

Benedicte, one of his customers, nodded in agreement.

Van Vlierberge said he was particularly uneasy with the Belgian government's decision in December to extend the lives of 40-year-old reactors Doel 1 and Doel 2 until 2025 under a deal to preserve jobs and invest in the transition to cleaner energy.

"I'm concerned they are too old," he said.

Belgium's creaking nuclear plants have been causing safety concerns with its neighbours for some time now after a series of problems ranging from leaks to cracks and an unsolved sabotage incident.

Luxembourg's sustainable development minister Camille Gira is due in Belgium on Monday to raise his concerns".

Almere-Digest

December 27, 2015

Kurds - 15,000 in Dusseldorf march protesting Turkey's crackdown on Kurds

Around 15,000 people marched in Dusseldorf on Saturday to protest against Turkey's military crackdown against Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) rebels, local police said.

The marchers, demonstrating on behalf of Germany's federation of Kurdish groups, Nav-Dem, also slammed the European Union for striking a refugee "deal" with Ankara, promising three billion euros in return for holding back refugee flows.

ADVERTISING
A police spokesman said the turnout at the protest was far higher than the 7,000 people expected by the organisers.
 
After a ceasefire for more than two years, fighting resumed last summer between Turkish security forces and the PKK, dashing hopes of ending a conflict that has left more than 40,000 people dead since 1984.

Turkish security forces are currently imposing curfews in several towns in the Kurdish-dominated southeast in a bid to root out PKK rebels from urban centres.

Read more: Flash - 15,000 in Dusseldorf march protesting Turkey's crackdown on Kurds - France 24

November 10, 2015

EU Privacy Laws: Facebook given 48 hours to quit tracking Internet users in Belgium

Facebook has been given 48 hours by a Belgian court to stop tracking Internet users who don’t have profiles with the social media company, or face fines of up to 250,000 euros a day.

The order follows a case lodged by Belgium’s privacy watchdog in June which said Facebook indiscriminately tracks Internet users when they visit pages on the site or click “like” or “share”, even if they are not members, the court said.

Facebook said it would appeal against the decision.

“Today the judge… ordered the social network Facebook to stop tracking and registering Internet usage by people who surf the Internet in Belgium, in the 48 hours which follow this statement,” the court said.
“If Facebook ignores this order it must pay a fine of 250,000 euros a day to the Belgian Privacy Commission.”

Read more: Facebook given 48 hours to quit tracking Internet users in Belgium | euronews, world news

December 16, 2014

Belgium: Wage Cuts And Austerity Have Come To Belgium

Today, trade unions in Belgium are organising a general national strike. This will come on top of 3 days of regional strikes as well as a national manifestation, all of which have been massively followed up by workers over the past month. Moreover, the trade union leadership is considering to continue with such actions in the new year. For Belgium, with its tradition of social dialogue, this is rather unheard of and to see similar intense trade union action one has to go 20 years back.

Belgian workers have however every reason to be upset. The conservative government, having taken up power recently, is applying an austerity program of such depth that it reminds one of the brutal austerity policies that have been pursued in in many other European member states. Policies that have triggered the long European recession of 2011-2012. The total austerity package proposed amounts to some 11 billion euro or close to 3% of GDP.

Looking at the measures that are in the pipeline, both workers and unemployed people will face austerity from the cradle to the grave. There are cuts in childcare benefits, substantially increased childcare costs and (higher) education fees as well as swinging cuts in the educational budget and public services in general. Next year, workers will be forced to undergo a real wage cut of 2% while collective bargaining on wage increases is outlawed for the coming two years. Unemployment benefit systems are being hollowed out in many different ways and at the end of their active life, workers will have to work longer (to the age of 67) before being entitled to (reduced) pensions.

In all of these measures, the pressure is on wages while income from capital is not touched at all. On the contrary! On top of the 2% imposed cut in real wages comes a huge reduction in employer social security contributions. Business will enjoy a transfer of 4 billion euro or more than 1% of GDP.

Read more: Wage Cuts And Austerity Have Come To Belgium

October 29, 2014

Meat Products - Russia to hold talks with EU Commission on illegal imports of European meat

Russian veterinary standards officials will hold urgent talks with the European Commission on illegal supplies of European meat to Russia, the country's veterinary regulator said on Monday.

“We have asked for a meeting in Brussels considering large-scale issues connected with uncontrolled movement of meat products of unknown origin across EU territories,” Sergey Dankvert, head of the Russian veterinary and phytosanitary service Rosselkhoznadzor, told TASS.

Negotiations between Bernard Van Goethem, director of the European Commission’s Directorate-General for Health and Consumers, and Rosselkhoznadzor Deputy Head Yevgeny Nepoklonov will take place on October 28, Dankvert said.

Last week, the Russian regulator busted major supplies of European pork to Russia declared as juices, vegetables and mushrooms.

“These supplies passed customs clearance in the European Union. The content of containers is under the direct responsibility of EU veterinary services, which we see do not exercise any control and promote smuggling,” Dankvert said then, noting that container checks had halted supplies of around 360 tonnes of frozen pork from Germany, Poland, the Netherlands, Belgium and Brazil. Deliveries were declared as juices, vegetables, jams and chewing gum, he said.

Read more: TASS: Economy - Russia to hold talks with EU Commission on illegal imports of European meat

September 25, 2014

ISIS: Britain, Belgium and Netherlands to debate in Parliament joining airstrikes on Iraq

The British, Dutch and Belgian parliaments are to consider proposals to join the US-led coalition’s airstrikes on Iraq, according to reports.

Sources in the British prime minister’s office said the UK’s parliament would be recalled from its summer recess on Friday in order to vote on the issue, the BBC reported.

Iraqi Prime Minister Haider Al-Abadi is expected to issue a formal request for British assistance while at the UN on Wednesday.

In an interview with the American NBC News earlier this week, UK Prime Minister David Cameron said the fight against the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) was one “you cannot opt out of.”

“It has oil, it has money, it has territory, it has weapons and there’s no doubt in my mind it has already undertaken and is planning further plots in Europe and elsewhere,” he added.

Although Cameron has previously hinted that he does not consider the Syrian government “legitimate,” the BBC also reported that any parliamentary vote would be authorizing military action in Iraq but not Syria, because of fears about the legality of such a move and opposition from the Labour Party.

A parliamentary motion to approve military action against the Syrian government failed last year amid opposition from Labour—the official opposition—and from within Cameron’s own Conservative Party.

A US-led coalition encompassing Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Bahrain and Jordan carried out airstrikes against ISIS targets on Tuesday and Wednesday.

In Iraq, American jets have been bombing ISIS targets since August, and were recently joined by French warplanes.

In addition to France, the Australian government recently announced it was sending warplanes to the UAE in preparation for joining the US in strikes against ISIS in Iraq.

Also on Wednesday, the Dutch and Belgian governments said they would consider sending air force jets to assist in the US strikes in Iraq.

The Dutch news agency ANP announced on Wednesday that the government of the Netherlands is to consider sending a small number of combat jets to the region to join in the campaign against ISIS.

The same day, the Belgian Ministry of Defense confirmed it had received a request for assistance from the US, and would prepare a plan to send six F-16 fighters to join US efforts. The move would need approval from the Belgian parliament and is expected to be granted later this week.

Read more: Britain, Belgium and Netherlands to debate joining airstrikes on Iraq « ASHARQ AL-AWSAT

May 20, 2014

European Parliamentary Elections - Eurosceptics: Netherlands' Geert Wilders cuts up EU flag in Bruxelles - by Nikolaj Nielsen

The Mouse which roared
Scissors in hand, anti-EU nationalist Geert Wilders of the Netherlands on Tuesday (20 May) vandalised the European Union flag in front of the European Parliament in Brussels.

In a publicity stunt amid the dozen or so cafes at Place Luxembourg, overlooked by the parliament’s tall glass structures, Wilders cut out a yellow star before unfolding the Dutch flag in its place.

The nationalist, who runs the Dutch Freedom Party, is convinced he will be able to form a new group of eurosceptic MEPs following the upcoming European Parliament elections. He wants the Netherlands to leave the Union, regain its sovereignty, and shut down its borders to asylum seekers.

His other goal - to pull apart the EU from within by forming the anti-EU faction in parliament - will require at least 25 MEPs from seven EU member states.Wilders says he will be meeting with other eurosceptic politicians next week in Brussels to work out a deal.

“It is our task to try to work together to overstep our differences, to not get into fights about our leadership, to overstep ‘our shadows’ as we say in the Netherlands,” he said.

He was short on details.

Note EU-Digest: Europe gets a taste of the type of politicians which represent the Eurosceptic group running in the elections for the European Parliament.

Read more: EUobserver / Netherlands' Geert Wilders cuts up EU flag

January 9, 2014

EU: New Pact for Europe - all about the initiative


The euro-zone crisis has provided a strong new impetus for European integration, but that now risks being undermined amid increasing tension over how best to meet the many complex financial, economic, political, social and global challenges we face. Efforts to overcome the current malaise are being hampered by profound disagreements over the future course of reforms; mounting socio-economic problems and political instability in many EU countries; different interpretations of the causes and consequences of the crisis; growing Euroscepticism and an increasing reluctance among both citizens and elites to further pool sovereignty at European level. And while the EU is preoccupied with itself, Europe keeps on losing ground as the global shift continues.

The New Pact for Europe project was launched by the King Baudouin Foundation (Belgium) and is supported by a large transnational consortium. This project aims to promote a Europe-wide debate on reform proposals addressing three fundamental questions which need to be answered to develop an effective response to the multi-dimensional crisis Europeans are facing:
  • What is at stake if 'Europe' cannot tackle the various challenges we face? ('What do we need the EU for?')
  • What kind of collaboration is needed at European level to respond to the crisis? ('What needs to be done?')
  • How can the answers to these two questions be translated into action to make the EU more effective and to command broader-based public support? ('How should it be done?')
A Reflection Group and an Advisory Group provides input to, and inspiration for, the elaboration of a New Pact between policy-makers and European citizens and between Member States:
The Reflection Group includes top opinion-makers from different EU Member States, who have a genuine interest in the success of European integration, are realistic and pragmatic but at the same time able to think 'out of the box', and ready and able to communicate through the media.

The Advisory Group brings together high-ranking policy-makers, academics, NGO representatives and other stakeholders – a mixture of past and current national and European leaders from different sectors and backgrounds.

Read more: About the initiative - New Pact for Europe - Profile