The Berlin Declaration

Quarsan, I often read quite a lot of nonsense in the media and in blogs about a few subjects I personally work with and about which I'm therefore fairly expert - and so I say to myself : if the same standards of inaccuracy and sheer sloppiness apply to what is written about subjects I know little about, then God help me if I believe any of it.

Having read your post about the Berlin Declaration, I beginning to think I should look at the rest of your posts with a large, very large dose of scepticism (I note in passing that you've aleady been taken to task for sloppiness for  your Belgian marriages post).

You take the piss out of that Declaration probably without having the slightest idea of the background, why it was felt necessary to have a declaration, the diffculties of drafting a declaration which the 27 Member States can live with, its purpose, and so on. You appear to object to it mentioning a number of lofty ideals; had it been full of nitty gritty instead, you would probably have bollocked it for being technocratic.

But enough of this. Let me issue you with a simple challenge and see if you're capable of replying in an accurate, reasoned and practical way : you say "the EU needs to be democratic"  -  spell out how you would go about achieving this.

Bat, the short answer is 'by allowing the citizens of Europe to vote on a new constitution'. The longer answer is about involving people in the EU. It's been an elite project for too long. Of course many of the problems are caused by national governments, frequently using the EU as an excuse for their own failings.

I am pro-Europe, but the institutions need to be reformed and reformed in a way that doesn't treat the citizens as, at best, an inconvenience.

Quarsan,, you should become a politician.

So the short answer to the question of how to make the EU more democratic is to allow the citizens to vote on the draft Constitution  -  is that what it boils down to?  And the longer answer is contained in your deliciously concrete and practical suggestions of "involving people" and "institutions need to be reformed".

I repeat my invitation :  how?

and, Quarsan,  to set you right on another error I've just noticed in your original post (I could swear you've added it because I didn't notice it before) :  Merkel is going to sign, not initial, the Declaration. She is signing in her capacity as President of the Council (meeting in the composition of Heads of State or Government). The Declaration will also be signed (not initalled, Quarsan) by the Presidents of the other two institutions, ie, the European Parliament and the Commission. So there is not question of the other Heads not signing because they couldn't agree to the Declaration.

And, lastly, if you were conversant with the procedure governing treaties, international agreements, international understandings etc you would know that the act of initialling documents fulfills a very specific function in certain cases and has nothing to do with "dodgy memos".

You may be "pro-Europe", but your grasp of facts (or at least the way you choose to present them) is worthy of The Sun at its best. And it gives me no pleasure to say this.

Bat Guano: transfer power for the Commission to Parliament.

Bat, here's where I got the stuff on initialing.

OK Quarsan, let's wait until Sunday evening and then we'll see who's right.

Dick Cheney, your suggestion perhaps reveals that you need to brush up on the division of powers and responsibilities within the EU.

.In the legislative sphere, the Council and the European Parliament are, broadly speaking, the "co-legislators",  with the Parliament in fact having the last word (there are a few areas where the Parliament's opinion is merely advisory and there are a few others where the EP's opinion is binding - the so-called "assent" procedure). The Commission's powers in the legislative area consist, essentially, in the monopoly of proposition (but not, however, in the areas of common foreign and security policy and justice and home affairs) and in implementing legislation once it has been decided by the Council and European Parliament.

Let us note, with respect to the monopoly of proposition, that the Commission is in fact highly responsive to calls from at least from the Council (and for that matter, the European Council) to come forward with this or that bit of legislation. It also consults widely before coming forwrad with a proposal and nowadays proposals undergo comprehensive "impact assessments" intended to evaluate their likely effect on competitiveness, the environment, employment, etc.

As far as implementing decided legislation is concerned, this is done by delegation :  legislation very often contains clauses which devolve the powers to implement certain detailed aspects to the Commission, which can act according to various formulae set out in the basic legislation. These formulae go under the collective name of "committee procedures" and have in common the fact that the Commission does not decide autonomously but in assocation with the Member States.

So, in the light of the above, where is the all-powerful Commission which you appear to be pointing to, and whose powers need to be transferred to the European Parliament?

Not too different from what happens in Westminister (and quite a few other parliamentary systems,when you think about it) : the governement of the day has the virtual monopoly on proposing legislation (yes, I've heard about private members bills, but only the first dozen or so have a cat in hell's chance of becoming law), and much legislation is implemented through devolved powers (eg, orders in Council).

OK, it has now just dawned on me that Blairwatch is run by the very people BW always slags off..

Think about it :-

• Crap reporting, ala News International and the mainstream media in general.
• Irrational attacks on UK independence parties - Democracy anyone? Stealing some of that anti-EU Tory thunder are they?
• David Cameron is never focussed on even though he is a bigger prick than Blair, and is equally 'owned' by interested parties.
• No talk of 9/11 or 7/7, the most popular subjects in the blogosphere - and what's the excuse? "loony conspiricy theorist" etc. ala, Tony Blair.  When we in fact know the only reason people are not aware of the truth is Government conspiracy.

I've decided to give Blairwatch a miss from now on as Its a sad shadow of it's former self. I hope BW will rue the day it decided to start playing 'big brother' with OUR posts and imposing an 'editorial' element. BW has turned into a part of the controlling MSM.

Yes, It is your site but it came to prominence through the expression of views and knowledge from others. Now that BW is popular you seem to think you 'own' it's point of view and can reject and belittle others.

Fortunately, the poor content alone will see your site traffic dwindle, and when Blair is gone in the summer, it's goodbye BW too.

Animal Farm comes to mind when I read stories on Blairwatch now, the Pigs have taken over this Farm.

Good Day and Good Riddance.

I'll have a go at deconvoluting that after the valium kicks in.

No talk of 9/11 or 7/7?

What is there to say on the subject? That governments uses any tactic available to exert more control on a population that it treats and views with contempt?

Some of the 9/11 conspiracy is well researched and asks some valid pertinent questions; and then it goes of on a rant about the Illuminati, Satanism, Devil-worship and then castigates anyone that has the audacity question their methodology! And accuse others of acting like sheep, ha ha ha ha....

Just look at some of the websites that accuse government of acting out of personal gain actually financially gain themselves from such an accusation; what better way of deceiving people with childish theories other than through a medium that purports to be an arbiter of truth thereby discrediting all rational debate; very clever... Only a thought!

Still, I suppose nobody likes to think they have had the wool pulled over their eyes, eh!

You left out the lizardmen.

On the contrary, we do discuss 9/11 and 7/7 - indeed we will shortly be delving into 7/7.

But what we don't do is allow a couple of highly tedious conspiracy theorists to constantly spam the site with the same old guff on every thread.

You've told us that you're not coming back so often, why don't you try actually not coming back?

A Union of European States is a bold project but in its present guise it is not working effectively and it never will unless it is downscaled and ‘fixed’ to match concrete needs and realistic goals..

You can take it to mean whatever you like, Glyfod. I would suggest, though, that my job is really none of your business, in the same way that your job or that of Quarsan, or that of any other of the contributors to this forum, is none of mine. I do hope, however, that you're not suggesting that expertise in a subject should be a disqualification for talking about it ?

And now to the "serious" bit of your post :  you are like quite a few other contributors in that you attempt to refute fact by simple opinion. It is a fact that the Commission consults and listens widely (if not, why for instance should there be so many lobbyists, both public and private, in Brussels?) and that impact assessments are now carried out (these exist as documents which are in the public domain together with the proposals in question!). And how do you attempt to refute those facts? By calling what I wrote "a joke". Perhaps what you meant to say, Glyfod, was that the Commission once didn't listen to YOU or the group you speak for? If this suspicion is unworthy, pehaps you might give us a brief factual account of why what I wrote was a joke?

And then you end your post with an illogical follow-on : "a Union of European States is a bold project". Indeed it is, Glyfod, but what's the precise connection with what precedes? And could you perhaps explain in some more detail what you would understand by "downscaling" it and what in your opinion would be examples of "cocncrete needs" and "realistic goals"?

Your post is unfortunately like quite a few others  -   long on sub-political rhetoric but rather thin on fact, background knowledge and practical suggestions. Easy work, really.

Great; a world full of dictatorial bureaucrats...

My, the future will be fun... Whoopy dooo....

"In the European Union, we are turning our common ideals into reality: for us, the individual is paramount. His dignity is inviolable. His rights are inalienable."

This is all very interesting and, in reality it is nothing but drivel to placate the masses. I had my dignity VIOLATED in a totally RIGGED employment court hearing, which involved two Governments as the employer. Even the employer decided to contradict the judgment when they were trapped on the utter stupididty of the verdict. I was denied the right to shift payments because I could walk to work some 300mtrs. I could not contest this due to the court being RIGGED as my solicitor failed to turn up, sending a replacement who said absolutely nothing, except announce his name, I later pieced together his method of betrayal which I also discovered he had done to a former colleague in another case. I was also ignored when I tried to ask a question by the judge, who would only converse with the employers representative. This verdict was denied by the MoD(UK) as employer, because they could not explain how it was possible for one of my colleagues to walk 91kms to work, then do a 12 hour shift and, finally walk home 91kms, because he did not receive shift allowances either. The MoD(UK) obviously would not discuss this matter, because they knew they had lied in court. They do not deny that their representative in court wrote the judgment, which is nothing but lies from beginning to end. I wrote to various departments in the EU on this subject and they refused to get involved, even though the case is so simple to understand. They prefere to protect the governments and, they made it clear that they have no interest in the INDIVIDUAL at all becasue there are now almost 500 million such people. To prove this is the case I even proved that a piece of legislation that was used by Adolf Hitler, the Law on Legal Advice 13th December 1935 had been used to deny me my right to legal advice. The EU allows this piece of legislation to be used to FIX court hearings even though it is obvious that a law written to protect Hitler and his regime cannot possibly be DEMOCRATIC. The media also refuses to take up this case even though all the evidence is in documentary form. If this is Democracy in the EU then why are such laws allowed to deny ordinary citizens their rights?.  

Dear Bat Guano, I will take up the offer to prove that the EU is anything but Democratic, Quarsan is absolutely correct. I have more than enough written evidence to justify this. The EU is nothing but a protection racket which pumps out Treaties, Declarations and Directives to fool the ordinary citizen into believing they have rights. As soon as you try and invoke these rights, which I have, they refuse to get involved, no matter how simple the abuse of the individual is to prove. Their excuse is that all their laws are only to cover the competence of the EU and that they cannot interfere in the affairs of Member States. As an abuse within the EU happens within the territory of at least one Member State it is, therefore, not possible to invoke any EU Legislation. This also applies to the EU Constitution, no citizen can invoke any part of it to protect their rights, because they have to go through the COMPETENT NATIONAL COURTS in the words of the EU. If your rights have been deliberately infringed by the INCOMPETENT NATIONAL COURTS they are not liable to allow you to go all the way to the EU Constitution. Being equal before the law is utter rubbish. criminals have rights, ordinary folk are deemed to be a PARIAH if they challenge the state and, therefore, their right to a fair hearing is removed if the authorities see fit. This is not a theory I am talking from experience and I have the written evidence to prove this.  

 If you would like to discuss this matter I would be only too happy   

Michael Smith  -  there are a lot of people out there who feel aggrieved because they .are unable to secure what they see as justice. Some of them are certainly obsessives, but I'm sure that others have a genuine case and that their situations are heart breaking. But - with great respect - I think you've strayed quite a way from what was the cut and thrust of these posts. I think I'll leave it at that.

Hey Michael, perhaps you should have a word with Cherie Booth; I hear she's a leading light for human rights....

Dear Bat Guano, I am saying that the Berlin Declaration is nothing but drivel from beginning to end. Could you please explain how Hitler's Law on Legal Advice 13th December 1935 is allowed to be used to RIG court hearings (note the plural), I am aware of numerous cases that were FIXED. This law does not tie in with the paramount, inviolable and inalienable rights of the INDIVIDUAL. The EU by allowing the further use of this law is basically saying that Adolf Hitler was democratic.

 I am well aware that all EU legislation has a get out clause that is concealed in waffle, such as the statement :

" We preserve in the European Union the identities and diverse traditions of its Member States." 

This means that the Member States can do as they like and the EU will turn a blind eye because it a part of their identity and diverse tradition.

As you are aware, a court cannot be deeemed to be fair if it is RIGGED. A lawyer said to me "we don't mind a bit of lying in court we can accept that," This surely proves that taking legal action is a waste of time, if the lawyers admit they know that one party is lying and it is so obvious, yet they refuse to contest the lie or appeal the verdict. Add the law quoted above and you understand why they accept the lies, if it the government is the party being economical with the truth.

Turning a blind eye to FASCISM does not do the EU any favours.   

Dear Lifesastumblingblock, Thanks for the suggestion, I have tried Matrix Chambers where Cherie Booth works.  Human and Civil Rights organisations admit I have been "Stitched up and treated appallingly" but they refuse to do anything about it. Being set up in a court where you are betrayed by a lawyer who is abiding by a FASCIST law and a judge who also uses the same law to protect the Governments' position and being denied the right to speak yourself do not apparently constitute a breach of your Human Rights. They do not even accept an admission of lying in court to be grounds either. They even think that threats from the other party to try to silence me were in order, even though it is a breach of my constitutional right to speak of undemocratic court fixing.

Thanks Lifeisastumblingblock for your advice, I did call Matrix Chambers and lots of other Human Rights lawyers, they refuse to help even when the evidence is so overpowering. Human and Civil Rights organisations sympathise with my case but refuse to help. One even admitted I had been treated appallingly and I provided convincing evidence of having been Stitched-up, they also refused to help. Human Rights legislation does not cover the rights of ordinary folk, it is only there to protect criminals.   

So Michael, what you’re saying then is that the state, or corporate state, is invoking methods of self-protectionism in the event of possible state culpability of an injustice served by the state upon the citizen; thus leaving the citizen with no method of redress upon whom an injustice has been served by the state or its corporate partners.

Therefore; an innocent citizen with a justified grievance against the state is being treated with contempt by democratically elected state officials because the citizen may have a legal case against the state, its corporate partners, or state officials. But that same state would ensure the rights of a murderer or rapist are adhered to.

This is highly disturbing information.

Looks like someone has pissed on the EU party celebrations according to this Times via Mathaba article:

[More than 40 dawn raids were carried out in four countries yesterday by police investigating alleged Mafia involvement in European Union security and building contracts worth millions of euros.

The remit of the police investigation is wide and covers possible corruption involving European civil servants, criminal organisations, breaches of professional secrecy and violations of public procurement rules.]

Pigs and troughs, pigs and troughs... eh, Tone!

Dear Lifesastumblingblock, what you have written is correct. Yes Human Rights legislation is made so much of in the media when it surrounds the rights of criminals for the very purpose of making ordinary citizens believe they have the same rights. This is not the case in circumstances where the government does not want to lose. I was as I said called a PARIAH by an army major, which means someone of low caste. He also said I had no right to take the government to court and said he was going to give me written warning for this, which never materialised. All other employees who went to court had the right to take the government to court. They were not victimised as I was, regardless if they won or not. The difference in my case was that it was going to cost a lot of money and, I would certainly have won because the contract of employment and employment law proved this. Hence my being ignored in the RIGGED court. The courts were RIGGED in other cases I have evidence of where my colleagues were relying on their solicitor to represent them fairly. They were simply led to the slaughter oblivious to their being set-up. I also discovered that bits of the contract were concelaed in other documents to make sure we could not get the whole picture. The contract was written in 1966 and the employer refused to supply a copy in English. When I managed to get hold of a copy the employer and works council did nothing but lie or refuse to discuss the matter with me. This forced me to seek legal advice, not knowing the lawyer recommended by my legal insurance had already betrayed a group of colleagues of mine.

At meetings I had with the employer, (after my legal proceedings had been destroyed by solicitors who did nothing but betray me), I was not given answers directly to my questions at the time, because the employer knew they were in the wrong, because they had abused the contract. They gave written answers to many questions most of which were nothing but lies, they even chose to contradict themselves on numerous ocassions. They openly admitted that they had breached the contract, by entering into agreements that they could not revoke, contrary to what is written in the contract, which states that such agreements are not allowed. I could not contest anything that happened because I knew I would never get legal representation, which I later discovered was due to the law I previously mentioned. Incidentally, the solicitor I tried to lodge the appeal with and, who accepted me as a client in writing, only to wreck my chances of furthering the case did not inform me that he worked in co-operation with the firm of lawyers contracted to MoD(UK). I found this out 15 months later when reading through the case of a colleague. This is the reason why the Army refused to name their lawyers when I asked the question directly in a meeting. They knew I would see the connection on the letter heading of the lawyer I tried to appeal the case with.

Because of my stance for Democracy I was continuosly victimised and threatened and then finally dismissed from my employment, I tried to invoke my rights within the Constitution to no avail, because court fixing does not breach it if it is a government body doing the breaching. They were always trying to dupe me into attending meetings sometimes at very short notice and even no notice, hoping I would attend alone. This is done to allow them to have a number of people on their side in the meeting, to make a story up to sack anyone they do not like. When I was dismissed after many years of victimisation they had 5 people in the room, I attended with one witness. They were going to use a written warning to dismiss me which had been admitted was illegal 14 months previously. This was still on my file when I had a letter from a Lt. Colonel Langford that he had given insructions for it to be removed. This written warning also was still on my personal file some 22 months after it was illegally given even though they should only remain on file for one year after issue, if legally given. I was also not aware that a Lt.Col. apparently, cannot tell a Major what to do, even when he is that major's direct superior. This is what the Works Council told me when I told them of Lt.Col. Langford's letter.

 I could go on with much more, because the evidence which I obtained over the years is so conclusive that it would take a book to cover it all.     

  As yet I have not found any media organisation who will take up the story, even though it is of paramount importance to Democracy.   

Dear Lifesastumblingblock, it would appear that I am having some problem getting comments posted. However, your summary is correct.

As yet I have not found any media organisation who will take up the story, even though it is of paramount importance to Democracy.  

What about an internet based news service Michael?

Contact me at this: kris(at)message.com address and I will send you my secure encrypted e-mail address for further contact.

Quite interesting to see how this thread has developed - or rather, not developed.

It could have provided an opportunity for a reasoned discussion on at least a couple of aspects of how the EU works, and even for people to learn from one another. Instead of that, it rapidly ran out of puff before being totally side-tracked (and killed-off) by Michael's barely comprehensible ravings.

Think I'm going to give BW a miss from now on : I've come to the conclusion that it's really just an ego trip for a small coterie, where the latest bit of anti-government and/or anti-US news gets ejaculated onto the blog  and where people, when they bother to react, just talk past one another since they're not really interested in what anyone else has said. It's a kind of group therapy for the impotent and the angry, I  guess.

Whatever we do for Europe, we should keep the citizens at the core of our actions and our plans. That there is only one Europe which can work and deliver and this is a Europe firmly based on citizens' consent. Citizens' participation and involvement are not just concepts but a reality that already exists in part and which should be developed, further deepened, using new instruments and new channels.

Citizens would like to have a greater say in European affairs. It is their right to do so and through their participation they will further enrich this extraordinary project which was launched 50 years ago.

Well, it’s nice to see the citizens consent grudgingly considered to be of some sort of limited value toward a European kollektive they may not want!

For the first time in the history of the Union, the Constitution sets out, right at the beginning, the values (that word again) on which the Union is based: respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law, and respect for human rights.

The Union is open to all European countries which respect its values (and again). Penalties would be imposed on any Member State which was found to fail to comply with these values in a serious and persistent manner.

I wonder how serious and how persistent a member state needs to be before it is admonished (ie fined taxpayers money)?

Or even which rights are protected?: Not these.

Still, the perks are good:

Among the perks are contact lenses which are subsidised by taxpayers to the tune of €300 every two years. For glasses there is a subsidy available of €216.75 every 18 months, and subsidies available for the spectacle-wearing children of MEPs at €63.46.

Thirty acupuncture treatments a year are free, 40 infra-red irradiation treatments are paid for, and up to 60 mudbaths a year - more than one a week - are also gratis.

Oh, I get it now: Human rights mean the sacred right of exploitation for financial gain... And mudbaths... No, not bloodbaths; not for them anyway!

And there was me thinking our elected leaders are the embodiment of virtue and honesty. ....

Michael's barely comprehensible ravings.

Fuck me I'm speechless...

Bat, i'm sorry that you're thinking of leaving. i was looking forward to what you were saying.

we both know that the EU needs drastic reform and we both know that the reason it isn't getting it is because of national governments, who pass the blame onto 'brussels'.

mind you brussels has been alive with the sound of sirens these last two days...

Dear Bat Guano, I am not going off the subject under discussion. The BERLIN DECLARATION clearly states: for us, the individual is paramount. His dignity is inviolable. His rights are inalienable.

I have evidence to prove that this statement is incorrect, and you seem to think that because it is DECLARED that the right of man is inalienable, and his dignity is inviolable, that there is no way that anything could happen in the EU, to question this declaration.

 I took a case against my government employer, and I was set-up in a totally RIGGED court, in which I was represented by a lawyer who said nothing, bar say his name,  I had never met this man before. He was a replacement for my solicitor. who decided to go on leave at short notice, although he had destroyed the employers' defence in a letter he sent to the court 10 days prior to the hearing. This letter was not produced in court by the stand-in solicitor.

Due to the fact this stand-in solcitor was saying nothing, I tried to ask a question which would have destroyed the employers' defence. The judge duly paused the recording device, wound it back, and taped over what I had said. She then turned towards the employers' bench, so her back was towards me, making it clear I was to have no input in the proceedings.

Does this statement so far prove that I had rights within the Berlin Declaration, or for that matter, the Treaty of Amsterdam?

As a result of this RIGGED court, which was obviously decided in favour of the employer, because the authorities were determined there was going to be no other result, a verdict was issued that no one can agree with. Not even the employer did when asked in writing, how is it possible for one of my colleagues to walk to work 91kms, carry out a 12 hr shift, and then presumably walk home the same distance. This gave the employer the right reply to this question, by saying that it does not matter where an employee lives in your trade, he does not get shift allowances. 

Could you please explain how the employer can deny the grounds they won the case on, when the verdict was legally binding on them?

Surely in anyone's terms the employer has admitted to lying in court, and would you not consider that I, therefore, had justifiable grounds to appeal. The appeal was also blocked by lawyers who were wilfully doing the governments' dirty work, when all that was required, was one simple question to reverse the decision.

 My open challenge to you, is that you walk 91kms to work, then carry out a shift of 12 hrs duration, and then walk home 91 kms, if you seem to think the verdict was fair. 

 My answer to you, is that this feat is totally impossible, especially, if you consider it had to be done up to 210 times per year.  

This proves that I was not treated as BEING EQUAL BEFORE THE LAW, because due to this court hearing, equality must mean that nothing can be said in court, except the names of the attendees. You must admit this makes going to court pretty worthless?

 So why did I bother taking my employer to court if I wanted nothing said on my behalf? A defendant has the right to remain silent but it goes beyond belief that the plaintiff should want to remain silent.

Oh to be treated with DIGNITY, to have INALIENABLE RIGHTS, and be recognised as a PERSON before the law.