eurealist.co.uk

European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso said on Wednesday as he reaffirmed that improving regulation is a core policy. “Regulating for the pleasure of regulating does not make sense,”

No it does not make sense, but that is not what is happening, what the EU regulation are about is moving power from the member state to the EU.

Along the same lines a study sponsored by the UK government suggested;
Improving the European Commission’s consultation process on new legislation would result in better rulemaking and make the European Union more accountable to its citizens.

This is a strange argument consulting is not accountability, the only way to make the EU accountable to the people is to acknowledge that the EU is not democratic and to do something about it. How about tearing down all the EU institutions and starting again, with democratic accountability at the very core of the EU.

EU security Chief Franco Frattini is seeking to kick off a Europe-wide debate on the roots of terrorism and radicalisation.

Or so he says, but apparently he also wants to use laws introduced to deal with Islamic terrorism to control the general population; he says The commission believes that there is no such thing as Islamic terrorism, nor catholic nor red terrorism. None of the religions or democratic political choices of European citizens tolerates, let alone justifies, terrorism.

Included among pure, simple ideology that is a concern for the commission is anti-globalisation following sometimes violent protests at EU summits. Individuals, particularly young people from poorer, or excluded backgrounds, may feel a strong attraction for the certainties of extreme, or anti-globalisation, ideologies, although of course it is not only individuals in these categories who are found to have turned to violent radicalisation.

This is no more than an attempt to stifle protests against the undemocratic nature of the EU and its institutions, if they remove the power of the people to affect their governments at the ballot box which they have, they only leave one option open for the voice of the people to be heard and that is to protest, literally on the streets. To now conflate pure terrorist action with protest, even violent protest, against the state is a removal of our basic right to be ruled by consent. Where would the poll tax protestor be if Frattini had his way? Where would Civil Rights protesters be if Frattini had his way? This is simply unacceptable in a democratic state, but then who says the EU is democratic Oh! Yes it is people like Franco Frattini. Who not only wants to equate protest with terrorism, but also wants to curtail the media so that EU can differentiae between what it sees as legal and illegal protest according to its own wishes.

EUPolitix
Member states are running scared from discussions on the future of Europe, European Commission chief José Manuel Barroso said on Wednesday.

Speaking ahead of an informal summit on the EU’s future, Barroso attacked national governments for failing to spark frank debate after rejection of the constitutional treaty.

“The EU council called for a period of reflection. There has not been much reflection,” said the commission president.

“There have not been many initiatives. I would ask just what debates have been launched?”

Barroso said the EU must become a “listening ear” adding that commissioners would be visiting member states to take note of what citizens had to say.

But in a call for humility, he warned EU officials against taking an arrogant or heavy handed approach.

“We haven’t always got it right,” he acknowledged.

“We must not lecture, we need to listen to the public and recognise that maybe our working methods are not always the best.”

Calling on national governments to have “courage” in emerging from the fallout of the constitutional crisis, he said institutional problems must not stop the EU from acting.

“As we emerge from crisis, we must now bring people round to the idea of the EU. We need to show them the relevance of the EU.”

Referring to massive job cuts across Europe by the American computer giants Hewlett Packard, Barroso added that the EU must learn how to deal with the shocks of globalisation.

“Hewlett Packard will not be the last,” he said.

“We must master and embrace globalisation and learn how to protect people from its continuing shocks.”

EUOBSERVER / BRUSSELS - Member states must freeze the funds of all individuals named on UN lists of suspected terrorists without judicial review, according to a verdict from the European court of first instance in Luxembourg on Wednesday (21 September).

It is the first of the so-called “terrorist cases” to be tested, and the Court in Luxembourg ruled in favour of the EU. The complaints of the plaintiff, Ahmed Yusuf Ali, were rejected.

Ahmed Yusuf Ali’s funds were blocked with immediate effect in November 2001, after his name had appeared on a list of persons suspected to be linked to terrorists.

Since 1999, the UN Security Council has adopted numerous Resolutions regarding organisations with suspected links to the Taliban, Al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden.

These resolutions demand all Member States of the UN to freeze the funds of the people named in a list established by a Sanctions Committee of the Security Council.

The list was established by the UN Security Council and was directly transferred into EU law by the bloc’s member states.

Mr Yusuf Ali, a Swedish former worker in a Barakaat International Foundation office, operated a money transfer facility used by Somalis world-wide, and was later suspected of sponsoring terrorist groups with the money.

His funds - for example his bank savings - were then frozen by Swedish authorities.

Mr Yusuf Ali has claimed that the sanctions are in breach of the Rome treaty, which states that EU law cannot lead to disciplinary actions against single individuals,

In Wednesday’s verdict the court of first instance stated that European Community law is entitled to order the freezing of personal assets to fight international terrorism, and that this issue falls outside the scope of judicial review.

Yusuf Ali’s lawyers also say that the fact that Yusuf Ali has not had a chance to prove his innocence in a court room is in breach of the European Charter of Human Rights. The court disagrees.

Critics have claimed that the sanctions are in breach of human rights, notably the right to dispose of possessions, the right to defence and the right to an effective judicial remedy.

Ahmed Yusuf Ali’s defence lawyer, Thomas Olsson, told Swedish wire agency TT after the ruling on Wednesday morning that “they [the EU] have imposed a system that denies people their legal rights. It is a pitiable verdict, and Ahmed Yusuf is a loser. But the biggest loser is the EU itself.

“It is completely unacceptable. We have not yet read the verdict or the motivation, but the result raises questions about the EU’s position as regards the rule of law”.

Ahmed Yusuf Ali will appeal the case to the European Court of Justice.

Addressing the annual conference of the Police Superintendents’ Association the Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Ian Blair said “modernisation” of the force should be carried forward by introducing “an escalator of powers” for the dispensing of instant justice.

“One idea is to have some police officers - paid more and with more powers - to impose an interim anti-social behaviour order, for instance, or suspend a driving licence,” he said.

This would have an immediate effect rather than waiting for intervention by the courts.

The intervention of the courts! What is Sir Ian Blair thinking of! In what way does he mean intervention? Interference perhaps or intrusion into something that is none of their business?

This man is a danger to society and should be dismissed imidiatly! And sent to an asylum for the terminally insane.

Then perhaps he might have time to read the Bill of Rights 1689 and to begin to understand the fundamentals of English Common Law and relect on the policy of policing by consent. We are innocent unless the police can prove us guilty in a court of law, we are not guilty until and unless they can do so.

With people like this in charge being allowed to use their positions to promote their bilious crap we are heading into the black future of a police state.