Andoreion

"Europe is undemocratic. The power lies with unelected, faceless bureaucrats." Democracy in the European Union operates in different ways. The most powerful decision-making body, the Council of Ministers, is responsible through its members to parliaments and electorates in every EU country. Each country decides how to make its ministers accountable. Direct elections to the European Parliament have created a body with a clear mandate from the electorate. MEPs are accountable for their work on legislation and in scrutinising the other EU institutions. The unelected European Commission is often cited as the source of a 'democratic deficit' in the EU. However, Commissioners are nominated by elected governments and pass through the scrutiny of the European Parliament. Just as importantly, the Commission's work does not take place in a vacuum. Proposals for legislation result from a long process of consultation with national governments and interest groups. The Commission's management role is exercised with the national governments in hundreds of committees meeting week by week. All its work is subject to scrutiny by the European Parliament and by an independent financial watchdog, the Court of Auditors. Of course, it goes without saying that the influence that a British voter can have in a Union of 370 million is less than that in a country of 59 million - in the same way that the voice of an individual Birmingham voter counts for more in a local authority with a population of one million than at national level. But by convention and by law, there are many safeguards to ensure that the representatives of every EU country are heard - and the EU always tries to reach a consensus, even when the rules allow decisions by majority rather than by unanimity. * In 1998 there were more than 3,000 meetings of the Council of Ministers at ministerial or official level - so in any given week there are an average of 60 formal meetings where the 15 EU governments forge policy. * Opportunities for public consultation have grown in recent years. In spite of the reduction in the number of legislative proposals, the number of green and white papers issued by the Commission rose from nine in 1992-93 to 18 in 1996-97. * The proportion of proposals for new laws coming out of the Commission on the Commission's own initiative is relatively small. It has been calculated that 20% of proposals follow a request from the Council, the Parliament or national governments; 35% are to implement international agreements; 25-30% are to update or modernise rules; and 10% are routine, such as the annual fixing of farm prices. Fewer than 10% of proposals come from the Commission's own initiative. "The EU budget rips us off - we want our money back" The idea that EU membership can be measured purely in balance-sheet terms is a long-standing sceptic belief. The fact that most EU policies - the Single Market, competition policy, common foreign and security policy, trade negotiation, justice cooperation, the euro - have little or nothing to do with the EU Budget is conveniently forgotten. In reality it is impossible to quantify the financial impact of all these policies. EU Budget revenues come from a variety of sources, including customs duties and a share of VAT revenue, as well as payments based on the wealth of each EU country. EU Budget spending is limited to areas of EU responsibility, with more than 80% devoted to agriculture and regional support. Not surprisingly, these revenues and spending programmes affect different countries in different ways, in the same way that UK taxes and UK spending have a variable impact on different parts of Britain. The effects also vary year by year. Inevitably, some EU countries find there is a greater proportion of EU revenue collected in their countries than their share of EU spending. This has recently been the case for Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Austria, Sweden and the UK. Partly because the UK is one of the less well-off countries in the EU, a special mechanism was agreed in 1984 to reduce the UK's payments to the Budget. The EU Budget increased significantly from the mid-1980s, but recent years have seen a ceiling applied to spending, and a decision to hold expenditure broadly stable for the period 2000-06. This has combined with new efforts to ensure better value for money in EU spending, which lies behind policy changes such as CAP reform and institutional changes to improve financial management. * The EU Budget takes up a small share of EU GNP compared to national public expenditure. A ceiling has been agreed on EU expenditure limiting spending to a maximum of 1.27%, though the 2000-06 Budget agreement will see a fall to 1.13% by 2006 (this figure includes post-enlargement costs). This is a small proportion of the total share of GNP taken by public spending in the EU, which averages 47% (the UK figure is under 40%). The EU Budget in 2000 totals euro 94bn (57bn). * In 1997 the share of the EU Budget financed from Britain was the third largest, and the UK received the fifth largest proportion of EU spending. The greatest differences between the share of EU revenues supplied by each Member State and the share of EU spending was : (for net contributors) Germany 15.4%, the Netherlands 3.2%, UK 3%; (for net recipients) Spain 7%, Greece 5.3%, Portugal 3.3%. * The UK abatement amounts to a two-thirds reduction in the difference between the UK's contribution to VAT-based revenue and the amount of EU spending in the UK. Over the past four years, the UK rebate has been worth between 1.4bn (euro 2bn) and 3.2bn (euro 5.7bn) a year. The Treasury has estimated that over the same period, the total UK contribution has varied between 1.6bn (euro 2.3bn) and 4.6bn (euro 6.8bn). "Brussels finances propaganda in Britain" Eurosceptics seem to define any information they do not like as propagandist. So even the most basic factual information prompts this accusation. Their real objection is to the whole concept of the European Union and its institutions. The European Commission is attacked as a way of attacking the EU as a whole. Every public authority has a responsibility to provide information to the general public about its work. The Commission is no exception. Though the primary duty to explain EU policy lies naturally with national governments, the Commission has its own responsibilities. So when national governments and the European Parliament agree the EU Budget each year, they ask the Commission to help them in the task of keeping the public informed, and set aside funds for that purpose. Propaganda must, by definition, involve forcing misrepresentations onto an unwilling public. But the Commission provides information on demand only. For example, information for use in schools is only sent to those schools which request it. The euro presents a special case in the UK. The Commission has a responsibility to uphold the EU Treaty in its entirety - including the right for the UK to make its own mind up about whether to apply to join the euro. So though the Commission has a duty to explain the benefits of EMU for the EU as a whole as laid out in the Treaty, the same duty requires it to uphold the freedom of the UK to determine its own policy on the euro. * Information work is designed to be "an effective channel of communication and dialogue between the people of the European Union and the Community institutions. [Actions] take account of specific national and regional characteristics, in close cooperation with the Member State authorities." (The EU Budget) * An information service set up by the UK Government and the European Commission received 11,000 requests for EU information from the education sector during the course of 1999. "The idea of an EU foreign policy is a joke" The EU is not a single government. On some policies, EU countries have decided to pool powers and make laws at the EU level. In other areas - like foreign policy - the EU is more about cooperation than law. The EU's voice is more influential as a bloc than as 15 countries. That is why world leaders from President Clinton to Premier Jiang Zemin to President Mbeki have set up structures to ensure regular meetings with their EU counterparts. Of course, different EU countries have different historical priorities. So Spain has particular ties with Latin America, Finland with Russia and so on. There are also different foreign policy traditions, most obviously for those Member States which are 'neutral'. But as the process has developed, confidence and coordination have gradually increased. An EU foreign policy has made a difference. Sometimes this has been down-to-earth, with the EU financing work such as mine clearance in Angola or the international police in Albania, for which no alternative funding was available. The EU has not found a magic solution to the problems in the Western Balkans. But it has helped peace and stabilisation from the Baltic to Central Africa. The extent of coordination is without precedent. Many times every day, governments across Europe are communicating, both electronically and in person, exchanging opinions, intelligence and proposals. There is now a new system in place to bring these threads together. This will allow the EU to plan its foreign policy more strategically, and to ensure that it is clearly articulated to partners worldwide. * EU countries agreed 163 policy statements in 1998, on issues ranging from the trial of the Lockerbie bomb suspects to the nuclear tests in India and Pakistan. * EU countries pay for 38.7% of UN peacekeeping operations (the USA share is 30.5%). The EU paid for 54% of international support to the Middle East Peace Process in 1993-97, and 73% to Central and Eastern Europe in 1990-97. * The Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) allows the foreign policy instruments of the 15 Member States to be used to best effect, backed up by the influence gained from the EU's economic weight and able to draw on the EU Budget for development aid and humanitarian assistance. The 15 EU countries now also regularly coordinate with the 13 applicant countries, for example in the United Nations. * A High Representative has now been appointed to coordinate CFSP (Javier Solana, the former Secretary General of NATO). "Europe wants british soldiers to fight under the European flag" Sceptics often attack any decision to pursue cooperation as a threat to national identity. Attempts to achieve common goals by working together are attacked as a threat to the nation. Security and defence cooperation is a good example. NATO has been the bedrock of European defence since the Second World War. But the security aspirations of EU countries have evolved in the years since the fall of the Berlin wall. It makes sense to try to maximise the ability of Europe to bring its security capability to bear, and this suggests new structures to complement the existing NATO systems. Already EU countries cooperate in terms of logistics, intelligence and development of new weapons systems - as well as deploying troops side by side in areas such as Kosovo. EU countries - led first by Britain and France - are now keen to take this one step further, to help make the Common Foreign and Security Policy more effective by ensuring that EU countries' military capability can work in tandem with foreign policy goals. Such a capability would be used for tasks like peace-making or peace-keeping. This would not be a threat to NATO: NATO itself endorsed this approach in the Washington summit in April 1999. British and other troops are not being dragooned into some single force to fight under the European flag. Nobody is looking to bring defence arrangements under normal EU decision-making procedures. Nor does it mean that the neutral EU countries will be forced to sign up to NATO-style agreements on collective defence. EU leaders have made clear that the goal is not collective defence. What it means is EU countries again working together in the belief that cooperation is the best way to maximise the effective pursuit of common goals. * At the Franco-British summit at St Malo in December 1998, the UK and France agreed that the EU needed "the capacity for autonomous action, backed up by credible military forces, the means to decide to use them and a readiness to do so". * NATO's 1999 Washington summit concluded: "NATO embodies the vital partnership between Europe and North America. We welcome the further impetus that has been given to the strengthening of European defence capabilities to enable the European allies to act more effectively together, thus reinforcing the transatlantic partnership." * The December 1999 Helsinki summit agreed to: "develop an autonomous capacity to take decisions and, where NATO as a whole is not engaged, to launch and conduct EU-led military operations in response to international crises. This process will avoid unnecessary duplication and does not imply the creation of a European army." * The Helsinki summit also agreed a precise goal - by 2003, the EU should be able to deploy within 60 days and sustain for at least one year military forces of up to 50-60,000.

Heh..not like it's that easy to leave the EU right now. ;) Current European legislation prohibits countries from leaving, unless all countries in the EU unanimously vote in favor of it. This is changed in the constitution btw. If I recall correctly, a nation can leave the Union if it gives a two years notice. I have a hard time understanding though, why some many of the British are opposed to a constitution they don't know the first thing about. You guys should try reading it. It pretty much fixes many of the points EuroSceptics have been wailing about for years. :) Speaking of the EU, here are some points from the glossary of EuroSceptic beliefs. Introduction In the run-up to the Single Market, the process of removing internal barriers and setting up EU-wide standards meant a leap in the amount of EU-level legislation. This process had many different impacts

Last words spoken before execution . . . Well, gentlemen, you are about to see a baked Appel. Executed in electric chair in New York. ~~ George Appel, d. 1928 You are going to hurt me, please don't hurt me, just one more moment, I beg you! Guillotined. ~~ Madame du Barry, mistress of Louis XV, d. 1793 I am going to be face to face with Jesus now. . . . I love you all very much. I will see you all when you get there. . . . I will wait for you. Executed by injection, Texas. ~~ Karla Faye Tucker Brown, d. February 3, 1998 Take a step forward, lads. It will be easier that way. Executed by firing squad. ~~ Erskine Childers, Irish patriot, d. November 24, 1922 Thank you for the change in my life you have given me, the love and closeness of my family and my beautiful daughter. Thank you for using me... Executed by injection, Texas. ~~ John Cockrum, d. September 30, 1997 You sons of bitches. Give my love to Mother. Executed in electric chair. ~~ Francis "Two Gun" Crowley, d. 1931 They butchered me back there, I was in a lot of pain. They cut me in the groin; they cut me in the leg. I was bleeding profusely. This is not an execution, it is murder. Executed by injection, Florida ~~ Bennie Demps, d. June 8, 2000 ( It took execution technicians 33 minutes to find suitable veins for the execution. The executioners had no unusual problems finding one vein, but because Florida protocol requires a second alternate intravenous drip, they continued to work to insert another needle, finally abandoning the effort after their prolonged failures.) I'm going home, babe. Executed by injection, Delaware. ~~ James Allen Red Dog, d. March 3, 1993 Remember, the death penalty is murder. Executed by injection, Texas. ~~ Robert Drew, d. August 2, 1994 Hurrah for anarchy! This is the happiest moment of my life. Last words on the gallows. ~~ George Engel (He was one of four executed after the 1886 Haymarket bombing in Chicago) I love you. Spoken to the executioner. Executed by injection, New York. ~~ Sean Flannagan, d. June 23, 1989 How about this for a headline for tomorrow's paper? French fries. Executed in electric chair in Oklahoma. ~~ James French, d. 1966 I'd like to thank my family for loving me and taking care of me. And the rest of the world can kiss my ass. Executed by injection, Texas. ~~ Johnny Frank Garrett, Sr., d. February 11, 1992 Let's do it! Executed by firing squad, Utah. ~~ Gary Gilmore, d. January 17, 1977 I'd rather be fishing. Executed in electric chair, Louisiana. ~~ Jimmy Glass, d. June 12, 1987 Good people are always so sure they're right. Executed at San Quentin. ~~ Barbara Graham, d. June 3, 1955 I did not get my Spaghetti-O's, I got spaghetti. I want the press to know this. Executed by injection, Oklahoma. ~~ Thomas J. Grasso, d. March 20, 1995 Lock and load. Let's do it. Executed by injection, Texas. ~~ G. W. Green, d. November 12, 1991 You can be a king or a street sweeper, but everyone dances with the Grim Reaper. Executed in California's gas chamber. ~~ Robert Alton Harris, d. April 21, 1992 It is the duty of every good officer to obey any orders given him by his commander-in-chief. (Actual) Shot by British as a spy. ~~ Nathan Hale, American hero, d. 1776 I only regret that I have but one life to lose for my country. (Attributed) ~~ Nathan Hale I am innocent, innocent, innocent. Make no mistake about this. I owe society nothing. I am an innocent man and something very wrong is taking place tonight. Executed by injection, Texas. ~~ Lionel Herrera d. May 12, 1993 I don't hold any grudges. This is my doing. Sorry it happened. Executed in electric chair, Indiana. ~~ Steven Judy, d. March 9, 1981 Such is Life Executed by hanging. ~~ Ned Kelly, Australian bushranger, d. 1880 I love you, mom. Executed by injection, Texas. ~~ Clarence Lackey, d. May 20, 1997 I die innocent of all the crimes laid to my charge; I Pardon those who have occasioned my death; and I pray to God that the blood you are going to shed may never be visited on France. Executed by guillotine ~~ Louis XVI of France, d. January 21, 1793 My dear Melin

Some pretty good upgrades for the demo at http://forums.relicnews.com/showthread.php?t=36670 Play as the Orks or Imperial Guard in the demo, and built terminators, landraiders, and the Squiggoth. If you don't have it yet, you can skip most of the waiting lists by downloading it at http://media.hugi.is/hahradi/demos/dow_demo_install.exe

May have been posted before, but still hillarious. http://www.rockpapersaddam.com

Mars and Venus? The issue of when, whether and how force can and should be used was at the heart of international discussions and disagreement in the run-up to the Iraq campaign and remains controversial. In its wake, the German Marshall Fund of the United States, which is headquartered in Washington DC, and the Compagnia di San Paolo, which is based in Turin, commissioned comprehensive surveys of public opinion in seven European countries and the United States on a broad range of international issues, including the use of force. The results — contained in the paper Transatlantictrends 2003 — showed that Americans and Europeans share similar views about what constitute the greatest global threats, but express sharp differences about how to respond to them. International terrorism, weapons of mass destruction in both North Korea and Iran, Islamic fundamentalism and the Arab-Israeli conflict rank as the top five concerns of both Americans and Europeans. But Americans are more likely than Europeans to support the use of military force to rid countries of weapons of mass destruction and to bypass the United Nations if vital national interests are at stake. Interestingly for the Alliance, both Americans and Europeans are more likely to support military intervention if carried out under NATO or UN Security Council auspices, with the former conveying almost as much legitimacy as the latter. Eight tables from the survey are presented below and full details can be found at http://www.transatlantictrends.org. (Source: http://www.nato.int/docu/review/2003/issue4/english/statistics.html)

Heh.. people like him had better be careful. Some animals strike back ;) Florida man charged with shooting puppies gets shot after dog pulls trigger PENSACOLA, Fla. (AP) - A man who tried to shoot seven puppies was shot himself when one of the dogs put its paw on the revolver's trigger. Jerry Allen Bradford, 37, was charged with felony animal cruelty, the Escambia County Sheriff's Office said Wednesday. He was being treated at a hospital for a gunshot wound to his wrist. Bradford said he decided to shoot the three-month-old shepherd-mix dogs in the head because he couldn't find them a home, according to the sheriff's office. On Monday, Bradford was holding two puppies - one in his arms and another in his left hand - when the dog in his hand wiggled and put its paw on the trigger of the .38-calibre revolver. The gun then discharged, the sheriff's report said. Deputies found three of the puppies in a shallow grave outside Bradford's home, said Sgt. Ted Roy. The four others appeared to be in good health and were taken by Escambia County Animal Control, which planned to make them available for adoption. (Source: CNews)

They don't. And as a result, they have quite an interesting legal system.

LONDON (Reuters) - Two criminals showed their polite side on Friday when they thanked the judge after he sent them to jail for six years each for converting hundreds of blank-firing guns into lethal weapons. As Judge David Paget sentenced Stephen Herbert, 47, and Gary Beard, 46, one of them called out with a smile: "Thank you judge, that's lovely." The other was heard to mutter: "We got away with that one." Their crimes could have attracted maximum penalties of 10 years. A factory in southeast London run by the two men converted over one gun a day into fully functioning arms during a 14 month period. The weapons were sold to criminals at 600 pounds ($1,071) a time, the court heard.

I just came across a site that has all soundtracks from LucasArts games available for download. From old games such as Dark Forces and Monkey Island to more recent ones such as Knights of the Old Republic. The site is here. Enjoy :)

Related topic (same source): Top French socialist puts conditions on supporting Constitution 10.09.2004 - 09:33 CET | By Lisbeth Kirk French Socialist support for the EU Constitution hangs in the balance today, as an influential party figure places conditions on his endorsement of the text. Former Socialist Prime Minister Laurent Fabius said last night (9 September) that deficiencies in the text need to be rectified before his endorsement at the upcoming French referendum. Speaking in a France 2 television interview Mr Fabius stopped short of calling for the text to be revised but said it was insufficient for creating a social Europe. "It is too late to amend the text which does present some advances but also a lot of insufficiencies" he said, "I want a new employment policy put in place that guards against jobs going abroad", he said. The former PM also called on the French president Jacques Chirac to ensure tax harmonisation across the 25 EU countries and protect public services. Mr Fabius in addition demanded a change of the euro rules, known as the Stability and Growth Pact, into a "Stability and Employment Pact" and he called for an increase of EU spending on education and research. Impact The Constitution was agreed only after difficult and lengthy negotiations among heads of state and governments from the 25 EU countries in June. Getting a heavyweight such as Mr Fabius on the 'no' camp could have a major impact on an internal party vote of the Socialist party on the issue to be held in November. The leader of the socialist party Francois Hollande and a number of leading party profiles are in favour of the Constitution, while the left wing of the party is opposed. Laurent Fabius became France's youngest prime minister in 1984 when president Francois Mitterrand appointed him at the age of 38. He is now one of the potential candidates of his party for the 2007 presidential elections in France. Some 40 percent of the Socialist Party's membership is estimated to be opposed to the Constitution. Ten countries have pledged to hold referendums on the European Constitution. The French President Jacques Chirac announced in July that France could vote on the Constitution in the second half of 2005. France's last European referendum on the Maastricht treaty in 1992 saw voters split by the narrowest of margins, with 51% voting for the text and 48% against.

10.09.2004 - 09:33 CET | By Marit Ruuda The UK's referendum campaign got underway yesterday, as the government published its case for the Constitution. The Referendum is likely to be at least a year away, but the campaign has started, with the UK government publishing, yesterday (9 September), a 49-page guide to the Constitution. "I have no hesitation in commending it to the country as a success and as a major step forward in creating the kind of Europe that the British people want", Mr Blair wrote in the foreword. It establishes clearly where the EU can and cannot act, and confirms the EU is a union of nation states, Mr Blair added. The Foreign Secretary Jack Straw told MPs he believed "very strongly" that British people will approve the Constitution. "We are going into this referendum campaign in order to win", Mr Straw added. The opposition Conservative party condemned the document by claiming it was another spin "designed to deceive the people of Britain". However while Mr Blair is working hard to win support for the Constitution, Chancellor Gordon Brown appeared to undermine the prime minister's position by sending a warning that the EU must sort out its problems with economic growth. "It is the weakness of European Union growth that lies at the root of imbalances [in the world economy]", the Chancellor wrote in the Financial Times. (Source: EuroObserver)

Friday's bloody end to the hostage crisis at a school in the southern Russian town in Beslan came on the heels of a suicide bomb attack in central Moscow and the blowing up, in mid-air, of two Russian passenger planes. All these attacks have been linked to the ongoing rebellion in Chechnya. If anything, the string of terrorist attacks in Russia this past week have given the lie to President Putin's proclamation that the breakaway republic has been "pacified". The taking of civilian hostages has been part and parcel of the Chechen rebels' combat strategy ever since the first Chechen War started in 1994. Both in 1995 and 1996, Chechen militants held hundreds of civilians hostage in high-profile actions in southern Russia. In return for the release of the hostages, then President Boris Yeltsin chose to grant free passage to the hostage-takers. His successor, Vladimir Putin, has opted for a different approach. After rebel leader Shamil Basayev and his men invaded Dagestan in 1999, Vladimir Putin

Gmail looks well enough, although some sites are quite critical of it. Check http://gmail-is-too-creepy.com/ for instance.

I don't think many European (short of Prodi ;)) would be interested in forming a European Superstate (I know I sure as hell wouldn't want to end up in the same country as the Italians and the French;)). What does irritate me is that national politicans take all the credit for the advantages of the EU, while at the same time blaming it for everything that is wrong with the system. It doesn't help either that most of the advantages are invisible in every day life. As a result, most people are oblivious as to the good sides of the European Union, since the only media coverage is usually negative media coverage (which I don't blame on the media). And then suddenly everyone is all shocked when Euro Sceptical party's start gaining votes. I wish people would wake up and take an active interest in society, rather then following the people that shout the loudest.