Opinion: Forget the Presidential Handshake, the Oil Revenues not been remitted since 2010; so what value have the Norwegian Oil Development Programmes in this mess?

ntv-01-03-2017-oil

“Oil Cash Probe: About 2.4 trillion shillings of oil revenues received since 2010 has not been remitted to Bank of Uganda” (NTV Uganda, 01.03.2017).

President Yoweri Kaguta Museveni, the National Resistance Movement and all the other civil servants that has been working and living with the knowledge of the unaccounted funds. The 2.4 trillion shillings is above $ 663m dollars. That is massive amount funds that could be used to all sorts of government programs. However, there been programs to secure the revenue and the progress, which is done in collaboration with the Norwegian government. I address these programs and wonder if they only exist on papers to make the ugly truth look decent. Since, the revelation of the funds that gone missing without a trace.

This misdirection points to another explanation for the oil curse that is gaining favour: politics. Because oil money often flows directly from Big Oil to the Big Man, as Africa’s dictators are known, governments have little need to raise revenues through taxes. Arvind Subramanian of the IMF argues that such rulers have no incentive to develop non-oil sources of wealth, and the ruled (but untaxed) consequently have little incentive to hold their rulers accountable” (The Economist, 2005).

Norwegian Funding for transparent Oil development:

Cooperation between Uganda and Norway on capacity and institutional development has a long history through several successful Programmes. Norwegian assistance under Oil for Development in Uganda started in 2006 under the programme “Strengthening the State Administration of the Upstream Petroleum Sector in Uganda”. This programme ended in June 2009 after three and a half years of successful implementation. Total funding for this Programme was NOK 21,294,650” (…) “The Programme had three Pillars – Resource Management, Environment Management and Revenue Management Pillar, in addition to a Programme Management, and was allocated a total funding of 80,000,000 NOK for its five year duration (2009 to 2014). However, during the second and third Annual Meetings for the Programme that were held on 27th January 2011 and 31st January 2012 respectively, the need to expand several activities of the Programme and the addition of new ones due to the rapid growth of the oil and gas sector in the country, was presented and approved by the Embassy. Additional funding of 67,000,000 NOK was allocated during September 2013 and the addenda to the Programme Agreement and Institutional Corporation Contract were signed” (MoEMD, P: 7-8, 2015).

Oil Press Statement 01.03. P1Oil Press Statement 01.03. P2

Supposed Revenue Administration:

The Program supported the development of a system (the petroleum tax manual) which will be used to identify and harmonize activities in the petroleum sector for taxation purposes. This activity is in three (3) parts and has been supported by the Oil Taxation Office (OTO) in Norway. Consultative meetings were held and Part II of the manual was completed in April 2014. Parts I and III have been reviewed and will be completed in next phase of the program with support from OTO” (MoEMD, P: 16, 2015).

That means that the Ugandan Government gotten by the Norwegian Government the amount of 168,294,650 NOK, which if you convert it is the total 71,879,499,032.99 UGX or 71bn shillings. If you translate it into dollars it is above $18 million dollars. That is massive sum of donations for some common good. Therefore, it is insulting that the Oil Cash Probe is showing massive amount shillings are unattained or even can verify where the oil money is.

Therefore, that the Norwegian state continues to fund the Ugandan government with the new agreement of continued oil development on the 15th May 2015. That was in a signed agreement between Hon. Matia Kasaija of Minister of Finance, Planning and Economic Development (MoFPED) and the Norwegian ambassador Thorbjørn Gaustadsæther. This was an continued effort to as the agreement stated: “The Impact of this programme will thus contribute to achieving the goal of the Uganda National Oil and Gas Policy (2008): “To use the country’s oil resources to contribute to early achievement of poverty eradication and create lasting value to society”. “The Program that the states agreed upon for the years from 2015 was 19 million NOK, in 2016 was 18 million NOK and in 2017 supposed to be 16 million NOK. In total the Norwegian Support for these three years are 53 million NOK” (Agreement between the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Government of the Republic of Uganda regarding development cooperation concerning “Strengthening the Management of the Oil and Gas Sector in Uganda – Phase II, 15th May 2015).

The Norwegian government have supported the Ugandan government over two periods with funds to secure the Oil Development for human resource, drilling technic and revenue stream. Therefore with the recent revelations shows that the works of the cooperation have been very fruitless or pointless; then even as the programs are in the works, you see the massive amount of petrodollars disappearing in thin-air. This is just to establish the amount of funds together before 2015 and after, that being the amounts of 221,294,650 NOK or 94,516,067,983.63 or 94bn Uganda Shillings. That is insulting lots of monies when the knowledge of missing 2 trillion shillings!

I start to wonder what they really did on this one and how they duped their European counterparts, as the results of the bidding is that funds dating back to 2010 is unaccounted for and not allocated in the funds their supposed to be at Bank of Uganda. This is a dozens loads of handshakes and giant robbery of the reserves.

presidential-handshake-2015

So now I am not so concerned with the “Presidential Handshake” worth 6bn shillings, which is bad enough that the NRM regime has been doling away to all civil servants and other loyal subjects after the “historic” tax settlement that we’re won in the courts. So 6 billion shillings turns into 2.4 trillion shillings, which is vast fortunes misspent by regime that clearly doesn’t care for accountability or transparency. The oil-deal between the government and the licenced in the Lake Albertine Basin!

Other than the little knowledge that was dropped in the 2014 report made by the NGO Global Witness that stated this: “Consequently it is not currently possible to track payments by international oil companies into government accounts with Tullow Oil being the only company voluntarily publishing disaggregated payments to the Ugandan Government. This creates the risk that any theoretical tax avoidance by companies or embezzlement by government officials may go unnoticed (Global Witness makes no claim of any such wrongdoing in relation to the contracts we have examined in this report). This will be increasingly important as oil production begins and more and bigger payments begin to flow into government accounts” (Global Witness, P: 35, 2014).

So this report alone states the fact that world and citizens of Uganda cannot know where the revenue ends. The state supposed petroleum revenue is not visible since 2010. The Ugandans people should be terrified and be mad of the obvious thieving. When the licenced public resources get squandered away and the black gold gets tricked away. So that President Museveni have within his powers and with his cronies made sure the fortunes made on licencing oil in the Lake Albertine basin goes to his or other associates accounts, instead of into government accounts in the Bank of Uganda.

2. Trillion shillings are not a chicken or a small fee easily to lose, it is not something that get earned over a hot minute. The citizens are kept in dark with the funds earned and taken away over years into secret accounts through sophisticated financial instruments. Certainly, Museveni and his bands of brothers who squeezed the government for decades and this is the final nail of salvaging any good reputation. The rep of the Museveni is already barely legal; still this here is just insane that the little 6 billion “handshake” to a bunch of civil servants and NRM elites revealed the madness.

So there was one guy in court who actually had the courage to reveal the greatest crime in decades. Even as the rigging of elections is thieving the country of their representation and of their true leaders, the government isn’t represented by legitimate people, but the ones there is now thieving the whole oil fund. This is not okay, this is thieving the future and the present development, as the Museveni regime and the NRM does not care about their citizens when so much revenue of the petroleum went missing. Peace.

Reference:

The Economist – ‘The curse of oil – The paradox of plenty’ (20.12.2005) link: http://www.economist.com/node/5323394

Global Witness: ‘A Good Deal Better? Uganda’s Secret Oil Contracts Explained’ (2014)

Republic of Uganda – Ministry of Energy and Mineral Development – ‘Strengthening the Management of the Oil and Gas Sector in Uganda –  Phase II – 2015-2018 –  A Development Programme in Co-operation with Norway’ (March 2015)

UN allocates $21 million to help thousands in need of humanitarian assistance in Sudan (20.02.2017)

shf-20-02-2017

New York State Law: 3 inches of snow on the Car is illegal!

3inches-snow-on-car

The new amended law of 17th January 2017 that was sponsored and co-sponsored by members of the Committee of Transportation and we’re delivered to the New York State Assembly. This law which contains all in three and set a standard that is ridiculous, but also says something about the Metropolitan life New York.

When their State Representatives needs this measure against snow:

“§ 1229 e. Clearance of snow, sleet, and hail. No person shall operate a motor vehicle on a public street or highway while there is an accumulation of snow, sleet, or hail on the roof or cargo bed surfaces thereof, whether of any occupant compartment, trailer,  or other cargo compartment in excess of three inches.

8 2. The removal of accumulated snow, sleet, or hail required by subdivision one of this section shall not apply during the falling of snow, sleet, or hail or within three hours after the cessation of the falling thereof”

The New York State officials and Representatives must be afraid of snow. When 3 inches is an issue, if you convert from inches it is estimated to be 7.62 cm. In Norway you have to have 30-40 cm on the roof of a moving car if you should get fined or called traffic-danger. So the reasonable doubt of snowfall and such is different between the State of New York and Norway. In Canada, which is also famous for much snow the rules are about 7-10 cm of snow. Therefore the New Yorkers are living very fragile lives and fearful on their roads. If not that is what their representatives belief.

That cars full of ice and snow is a danger, it’s without a doubt since the driver need as much vision and clear space to see the other vehicles and movement while driving. As a Scandinavian I know about the dangers and the feeling of driving with little window who is cleared before driving. When being a passenger in car with little cleared window you feel unsecure because of the near-enough vision of the driver while driving on the road.

So that a driver should focus on clearing his windows and warming up his car to unfreeze the windows, should be common sense, but that 3 inches is very little and even nearly any snow. Shows how the New Yorkers aren’t really used to snow or driving in snow. If not how little the representatives believe the drivers and such of New York are capable, when the Norwegian and Canadian laws are more lenient. There have to very little and nearly any snowfall before the drivers has to stop and clear the windows.

So New Yorkers with cars. Strict traffic rules are apparently your thing! Peace.

CSBAG Statement: The Budget We Want 2017/18 (20.01.2017)

csbag-20-01-2017-p1csbag-20-01-2017-p2csbag-20-01-2017-p3csbag-20-01-2017-p4csbag-20-01-2017-p5csbag-20-01-2017-p6

European Countries accept to offer tax-exemptions that benefits Europe while stifling the rest, report claims!

cyprus-tax

“Considering the strong democratic traditions in Europe, and the fact that taxation is considered an issue of great importance to national sovereignty, it seems rather odd that the EU has taken such a negative approach to the inclusion of developing countries in the setting of global tax standards” (Eurodad, P: 33, 2016)

There are in this world, lots of greedy people and states that want to earn on their own benefit and get the little extra without the second party. That is why the European States do what they can to keep as much benefit of businesses inside their own dominion, even as the businesses are earning their profits in developing countries, this is happening with sophisticated business transactions, sweetheart-deals, letter-box companies and stashing profits into tax-havens.

The ones that doesn’t this tactic, this way of earning higher profits and getting better rates on the production; the reality is that European States has worked coherent to avoid their thieving of funds as the taxation deals and openings of the multi-national companies in Europe. So with these possibilities, there comes also the reasoning that the companies do what they can to stifle the European states in their own scheme to keep them. Certainly the countries getting a point on the dollar instead of multiple points on it; they could get a fair trade out of, but when they are tricking the businesses there, the businesses will do what they can to trick out of them too. The Businesses are not in the country out of love, they are there to earn profits and doesn’t’ care how as long as they get. So long the States are having the set-up to be used, they will use them and the citizens will wonder why the sophisticated businesses pay so little why earning fortunes, while the citizens are paying fairly high tax on the dollar.

Just take a look!

pspib-luxembourg-tax-plan-p1-normal

Letter box companies:

“The setting up of letterbox companies is one of the practices used by multinational corporations to avoid paying taxes in countries where their economic activity takes place” (…) “Looking at global investment flows, it is clear that several European countries are major centres providing attractive tax regimes for letterbox companies and thus functioning as conduits for multinationals’ investments. By comparing the statistics of foreign direct investments (FDI), Dutch organisation SOMO shows that the Netherlands is by far the largest exporter of FDI in the world, ahead of much bigger economies such as the United States and China” (Eurodad, P:17, 2016).

Sweetheart deals:

“In November 2014, the LuxLeaks revelations exposed the secret world of Advance Pricing Agreements (APAs) – also known as sweetheart deals – which benefited multinational corporations, in some cases with tax rates lower than 1 per cent.89” (…) “Public insight into these kinds of deals is very rare indeed, since they are kept highly confidential. In fact, the LuxLeaks revelations were followed by legal charges against the two whistleblowers, as well as one of the key journalists, who brought the story to the public. The case is still ongoing in Luxembourg (see ‘Lack of whistleblower protection’)” (…) “Other examples of problematic APAs have been highlighted by the European Commission’s state aid cases. For example, APAs played a central role in the tax arrangements between Luxembourg and Fiat, the Netherlands and Starbucks, and Apple and Ireland. In these cases, the European Commission found the tax advantages given to the multinational corporations, through APAs, to be a violation of the EU’s State Aid rules” (Eurodad, P: 19, 2016).

Tax Treaties:

“Another key concern related to tax treaties is that they often include provisions to lower – or remove – withholding taxes on cross-boundary financial flows, and thus can lead to lower tax income in the countries signing on to such treaties, including developing countries. For example, research by ActionAid shows that a tax treaty between Uganda and the Netherlands, signed in 2004, completely takes away Uganda’s right to tax certain earnings paid to owners of Ugandan companies if the owners are resident in the Netherlands” (…) “The underlying problem in the international tax system today is that multinational companies are treated as a collection of ‘separate entities’ even though in reality they function as unified firms, with subsidiaries under the central control of the parent company. In today’s system, subsidiaries of the same company are expected to trade with each other ‘at arm’s length’, as if they did not have any connection to each other” (Eurodad, P: 21-24, 2016).

ubs-secrecy

Bank Secrecy:

“In order to deal with the tax evasion and avoidance risks related to banking secrecy, some developed countries, such as the EU Member States, have agreed to start exchanging information on financial accounts automatically amongst each other” (…) “This means that, for example, the Belgian tax authorities will, automatically and on a periodic basis, receive information on any bank accounts or assets held by Belgians in other EU Member States. The aim of this automatic information exchange is to improve the efficiency of tax collection and prevent taxpayers from hiding capital or assets abroad” (Eurodad, P: 27, 2016).

Interesting findings from European Countries:

“The Austrian government is against full public country by country reporting, and even the European Commission’s proposal for partially public country by country reporting” (Eurodad, P: 41, 2016).

“Belgium generally has a relatively high number of tax treaties with developing countries, but the average reduction in developing country tax rates through these treaties is low. However, that the average does not show is that several of Belgium’s tax treaties with developing countries are ‘very restrictive’. There are also clear indications that Belgium’s tax treaties have significant negative impacts on the developing countries that sign them. A conservative estimate puts the fiscal cost to 28 developing countries at €35 million in 2012”(Eurodad, P: 41 , 2016). “The Belgian tax treaty system is also an issue of concern. A conservative estimate suggests that 28 developing countries lost €35 million in 2012 due to tax treaties with Belgium” (Eurodad, P: 57, 2016).

“The position of the Czech government on the issue of ownership transparency is ambiguous. On the one hand, the new Czech law is very restrictive in terms of access to information in the Czech beneficial ownership register (in fact, it seems that the definition of the “legitimate interest” is so narrow that in practice it will be inaccessible for the public, no matter if they have a legitimate interest or not)” (Eurodad, P: 42, 2016).

The Danish government does not support full public country by country reporting. Instead, Denmark supports the proposal from the European Commission, which would only allow the public to get a partial picture of the activities and tax payments of multinational corporations” (Eurodad, P: 42 , 2016).

“Although the French tax treaties with developing countries on average reduce the tax rates less than most other countries covered in this report, France has eight ‘very restrictive’ tax treaties with developing countries. In total, France also has the highest number of treaties with developing countries among all countries covered by this report” (Eurodad, P: 43, 2016).

The German government has previously worked very actively against the adoption of full public country by country reporting at EU level. Germany remains very sceptical, even towards the proposal from the European Commission, which would only introduce partially public country by country reporting” (…) “Germany’s tax treaties with developing countries are a cause of concern due to the high number of very restrictive treaties. Also of concern is the fact that Germany’s total number of treaties with developing countries is significantly above average” (Eurodad, P: 44, 2016).

apple-double-irish-ec-opto

“Of all the countries covered by this report, the Irish tax treaties with developing countries introduce the highest average reductions on the tax rates of their developing country treaty partners. Among the Irish tax treaties with developing countries are three ’very restrictive’ treaties” (Eurodad, P: 44, 2016).

“Although the Italian tax treaties with developing countries on average reduce the tax rates less than most other countries covered in this report, Italy and the UK are the countries that have the highest number of ’very restrictive’ tax treaties with developing countries” (Eurodad, P: 45, 2016). “An Italian investigation is also ongoing into Credit Suisse Ag. The Switzerland-based group’s parent company is charged with systematically having helped 13,000 Italian clients to hide their assets of more than €14 billion abroad” (Eurodad, P: 73, 2016).

“According to the Financial Secrecy Index, Luxembourg has the highest level of financial secrecy of all the countries covered by this report (and ranks at number 6 at the global level). The government’s position on the issue of public registers of beneficial owners is unclear” (Eurodad, P: 46, 2016). “In spite of the LuxLeaks scandal, Luxembourg has continued to issue a very high number of advance pricing agreements (or ‘sweetheart deals’) to multinational corporations – with a 50 per cent increase during the year following the scandal. This, as well as the fact that Luxembourg generally has a significant amount of indicators of aggressive tax planning, is highly concerning. Also, on the issue of financial secrecy, Luxembourg remains a high concern – currently placed as number 6 at the list of the world’s most secretive countries” (Eurodad, P: 79, 2016).

“Netherlands currently has some extremely restrictive tax treaties with developing countries, which make it difficult for those developing countries to collect taxes. Netherlands generally also has more tax treaties with developing countries, and is more aggressive in negotiating the lowering of tax rates in developing countries, than the average among the countries covered in this report. In addition, the government does not levy withholding taxes on outgoing payments to tax havens, which would be an effective anti-abuse measure that would not require lengthy treaty renegotiations” (Eurodad, P: 46, 2016). “Leaked EU documents show that the Netherlands is attempting to undermine EU plans to tackle harmful tax practices by introducing a minimum tax rate of 10 per cent for royalties and interest payments. They reveal that the Netherlands has proposed exceptions in the plans for its patent box provision, which can reduce taxation on revenues resulting from research and development to 5 per cent. This provision, which is a key component of the Dutch tax system, would be threatened by a 10 per cent minimum rate” (Eurodad, P: 82, 2016).

bermuda-norway

“Norway has a high number of ‘very restrictive’ tax treaties with developing countries” (Eurodad, P: 47, 2016). “Norway’s tax treaty with Benin completely prevents Benin from taxing royalty payments to Norway. This is problematic since multinational corporations can use royalty payments between subsidiaries to minimize their profits and thereby avoid taxes in the countries where they have business activities” (…) “Norway does not have a patent box. It does however have a very favourable tax regime for shipping companies, albeit in line with EU countries’ legislation. Shipping income is tax-exempt and qualifying companies instead pay a small tax based on the tonnage of its vessels” (Eurodad, P: 84, 2016).

“Poland has a significant number of ‘very restrictive’ tax treaties with developing countries” (Eurodad, P: 47, 2016).

“Spain has on average been the second most aggressive negotiator when it comes to lowering developing country tax rates through tax treaties. Spain also has a relatively high number of tax treaties with developing countries, which gives even more reason for concern” (Eurodad, P: 48, 2016). “Wealthy Spanish people have doubled their money stashed in Luxembourg (more than €13 billion) – afraid of uncertainty and looking for lower tax rates” (…) “Inside Spain, the Canary Islands (located close to the African Atlantic coast) have a special economic and tax regime that make them “one of the most profitable tax regimes in Europe”, according to PwC. A tax rate of 4 per cent for companies located there is one of the several tax benefits. Special incentives also are applied in Ceuta and Melill” (Eurodad, P: 90-91, 2016).

“Sweden has four ‘very restrictive’ tax treaties with developing countries” (Eurodad, P: 49, 2016).

“Together with Italy, the UK has the highest number of ‘very restrictive’ tax treaties with developing countries. On average, the UK’s tax treaties with developing countries contain relatively high reductions in developing country tax rates. The fact that the UK at the same time has the second highest number of treaties with developing countries gives even more reason for concern” (Eurodad, P: 49, 2016).

If this isn’t eye-opening, than I don’t know, but it shows the systematic state of easy taxation to benefit big-business, the multi-national companies, so they can set-up show and get grander profits, while the states works the perks between them to settle score. The negotiations and the tax-havens gives more space for the companies to fuel money out of Europe and of the Developing Countries, which hurts all sort of government operations as the end-game is that the government doesn’t get the supposed tax-base as that flee to offshore or overseas where the taxations is lax or non-compliance with the place the business actually operates. We all should get our MPs, Senators, MEPs, Governors and all other Elected Representatives, to take action against this sophisticated thieving from the Multi-National Companies and the Representatives who opens the gates for this activity. Peace.

Reference:

EURODAD – ‘Survival of the Richest – Europe’s role in supporting an unjust global tax system 2016’ (15.11.2016).

Opinion: Silencing people for profits; Thank you Social Media Corporations for your Self-Censorship!

thank-you-for-smoking

“Senator Finistirre is still fighting for his causes:

Interviewer: What do you say to the people who claim you are destroying cinema classics?

Senator Finistirre: mmm, no. All we’re doing is using digital technology to tastefully update movies of the past… by removing cigarette” (Thank You For Smoking, 2005)

Today the madness is clear, it is vindicated as the Youtube and their affiliates have censored and taken away advertisement monies from their channels and direct videos added on their page. If they are not up to standard fitting certain advertisement companies and their agents who pick videos fitting the standards of the companies that need to sell their products. Surely the chocolate industry doesn’t want to connect to the videos addressing the Syrian violence. As much as Political inspired videos who are steering a conversation is not something to connect H&M to. Still, the conversation made by certain by these videos broadens the perspective and also adds to genuine interest for otherwise intelligent debate.

If we just want water-downed sexed out headline whores of Donald Trump, than the Colgate and Nike can use the ratings to spike their sales, but that does not extend the democracy or the discussion we might need.

The reality today is that the giant corporations are really steering the conversation with their decisions. In the recent days and also earlier this year Facebook also showed their true colours. As they have actually taken away pictures of the Vietnam War Photo as the Aftenposten in Norway have written about the Iconic Photo. This been taken down because the little girl is naked on the photo and that is disturbing for the Internet Service and the Social Media.

Facebook have before also even deleted WikiLeaks Democratic Party E-Mail leaks post on their page. Just the same has happen on Twitter as the sensitive picture of the Vietnam War for them as well. The Mark Zuckerberg really suck; to be frank Suckingberg is the proper name for now. Zuckerburg and Facebook! Facebook owns Youtube who has been addressed already for their clearance and political motivated advertisement ban on the videos.  I am sure they have deleted pictures on Instagram as they own that to, because the Gram can’t handle certain political MEME’s.

That all of these Social Media and Video Provider are their own businesses; they are free to do as they please, but still worrying as they are common networks for sharing information in the modern world. It is a reason why some become members to Facebook just to get invited to certain parties and social events as they are not sent through slow-mail and not even E-Mail. With this common knowledge the internet providers and Social Media power of Facebook and Youtube, can either be investor and advertisement friendly or like they are becoming a Censorship haven for Political Correctness and not for conversation. Because if an Iconic Photo from the Vietnam War becomes an issue and if videos with cursing and discussing not so humble topics; than the Youtube and Facebook can become the innocent little cry-baby that will not change discourse, but trade their soul to Kelloggs.

zuckerberg-kenya

Is that what Zukerberg want to do to M-Pesa as well, so it can become PC and act as tool for technical monopoly and control the internet companies? We can question that because it is interesting that the photos of old have to shade because of nudity. That is similar to the quote I started this piece with. Thank You For Smoking is social political satire, but it is happing in front of our eyes as entertainment usually mirroring the reality. That is what is happening now and the Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and other media are doing it. They just don’t know it.

They are doubled edged swords who cut themselves in the tail while suiting their suitors just like dictators pays of their media houses and their loyal elites to cling to power. The same ways does Facebook, Youtube and Twitter to fit the programme of H&M, Nestle and Unilever. That proves the capacity of indulgent media who trades their justice for a buck. Trade of their own freedoms to fit the marginalized boards and owner of multi-national corporations instead of the world citizens; than we can do two things!

First, we can buckle under and cry havoc over the misfortune of the corporate misgivings, the Zukerberg’s who wants to friends with Corporate buddies instead of us, the people. Or we can stop using their social medias and create own. That if we want it free, just as the other portefolios of the past of information has gone from being government censorship into the public. With the public and commons decisions the Media Houses and Entertainment companies had for instance accept that the people we’re taping music on cassettes instead of buying Hank Williams at the Gas Stations for long car-trips to the coast. I am sure they felt the same with the VHS where we captured and taped the magnificent stories of Lassie and Walt Disney Corporations; even if the Disney Corporation felt insulted as they didn’t earn enough cents on the dollar on The Great Mouse Detective (1986).

With this in mind, the people can as number two still use it, but sanction the companies that are behind the insulting censorships, meaning the corporations who are dropping advertisements on Facebook, Youtube and elsewhere. Because if their hit for inability to give the people ability to converse and to share their thoughts. The censorship show the access of free speech and trust between corporations and people are dwindling.

vintage-life-magazine-1968-july-12-starving-children-biafra-war-mexico-diners-e8c4f00148368d82f763446ffe23dfc1

The Media Houses have already been compromised by less budgets and less adverts as the Internet and free content on places like Social Media are stealing funding. As the tabloid click-based fuelled non-questionable content are spreading like wildfire.  Instead of the pictures like the back-in-day photo of Vietnam War who actually once upon the time changed discourse. That should say something about Political Correctness, the Advertisement friendly environment of Social Media and disillusioned Zuckerberg’s who in quests of getting dollars have forgotten a key aspect of the people. The people share their opinions, their pictures. Not all make sense to add like pornography or nude children per say. The reality is that the Vietnam War pictures showed the cruelty and massive assault on the fellow human beings. Would the same corporation have trouble with starving kids of Biafra as they wasn’t nude, but we’re describing malnutrition and adverse civil-war in Nigeria in the 1960s? A piece of me saying that wouldn’t care, would you?

This will not stop here as the giant corporations and their partly ownership of the Social Media will not stop here. Not now and not in the near future as the Ads and paid sponsorship of the corporations owning the Social Media need the fuel of money from the giant multi-national corporations and their standards. They want to be on the right side of them; so they can be feed and earn their money. Still, that does not mean we got to accept this blatant disregard for the past and for the present. There are difference between child-porn and iconic pictures. Something the Facebook should have ability to do and be able to correct. If not then they are not serious shop and having hired the right personnel to look over the content added on the page. A wise-guy like Zuckerberg should have the capacity to see that, but he is excusing himself with poor words of non-sense. Time to man up and kiss the ring. If not, than he wouldn’t know what hit. The worst that would happen would be dozen of using suspending their use and spot using the Social Media and Corporations owned by Facebook. If we did they surely would know why the sanctions against the conversation… against the truth and against freedom of speech. Something that is worthy fights and we the commoners always have fought the battle to be able to speak without fear and with censorship from our master. Now it is just digitally and not directly on paper. Otherwise it is the same ways as in the past. The elite, the rich want us to be silenced and they want to earn on us without being questioned. We the people shouldn’t accept that. Peace.

A look into the EEA Grants and the Norwegian Grants to the EU Member states; efficiency of bureaucratic procedures is needed!

EAA Norway Grants 2016

This here is the outtakes of a report that we’re released now recently showing the wished aspects of the EEA Grants who are most donations from the Norwegian state. The Norwegian State has had through the EEA and EFTA had a company called COWI too look through the donor-funding and the interviewing of the ones getting the allocated funds.

With this in mind are surely other who have been commenting on the matter as the Report dropped in June 2016, I just got it today. So is it right? This is my take on it and here are the quotes that are significant to me and the process and overlook of the use of funds.

How much money at stake:

“The allocation of funds is channelled through 150 programmes within 32 programme areas in 16 beneficiary countries. For the period 2009-14, approximately 1.8 billion EUR were set aside under the grants. During the same period, the Norway Grants supported 61 programmes in the 13 EU Member States that joined in 2004, 2007 and 20133 respectively, and the EEA Grants supported 86 programmes in those countries as well as in Greece, Spain and Portugal. The allocation of funds to the countries is based on population size and GDP per capita” (EFTA, P:17, 2016).

The Aim:

“The aim of the mid-term evaluation is to assess to what extent and in which way the EEA/Norway Grants contribute to strengthening bilateral relations between donor and beneficiary states” (EFTA, P:18, 2016).

The Norwegian OAG report in 2013:

“The OAG found that bilateral efforts were not sufficiently planned and communicated at the starting phase of the 2009-14 funding period and that e.g. the key guidance documents were finalised too late” (…) “The audit expects that bilateral relations in the 2009-14 funding period will be better safeguarded than during the previous period given the fact that the current 23 Norwegian DPPs have entered into donor programme partnerships with programme operators in the beneficiary states” (EFTA, P:34-35, 2016).

Joint Research Projects:

“Possibly due to the fact that in the research field, international funding is available for joint research projects from for example the large EU programmes Horizon, etc. This kind of funding is not available to other sectors. The benefits in terms of developing international and EU networks and learning about international initiatives in research are very clear. The EEA and Norway Grants support these processes by being an important contributor and often facilitating a first international cooperation for both parties. However, the evaluation also shows that such networks and cooperation cannot always continue after the expiration of the external funding” (EFTA, P:49, 2016).

Implementation of Norway Grants:  

“A number of countries have decided to use the same system for implementation of the EEA and Norway Grants as they use for the EU structural funds. Programme and project stakeholders find that the structural funds system is too bureaucratic and that the financial rules are too cumbersome. The national system for implementation of structural funds and related procedures may not be very relevant to a partner/bilateral relation focused programme, especially when this programme includes a donor project partner, who has a hard time complying with the checks and balances of EU Member State structural fund programmes. Programmes in the Research and Scholarship sector regret the decision not to use ERASMUS+ procedures” (EFTA, P:56, 2016).

Allocation to the projects:

“99.3% of the total funds have been allocated to the five focus countries, and 42.9% of total programme funds have been incurred to date. The share of incurred funds varies across the five countries from 35.6% in Romania to 56.4% in Estonia” (EFTA, P: 63, 2016).

Pro Momunta Slovakia

One Slovakian project – Project title: Pro Monumenta:

” The project entitled Pro Monumenta is a cooperation between Pamiatkový úrad SR (The Monuments Board of the Slovak Republic), who is the project controller and Riksantikvaren (The Norwegian Directorate for Cultural Heritage under the Ministry of Environment). The two institutions first established contact back in 2010 based on a Slovak initiative financed by the Ministry of Culture” (…) “The project was implemented from 1 January 2014 and was scheduled to terminate on 30 March 2016. The main goal of Pro Monumenta in Slovakia is to establish and equip three mobile teams with the capacity to identify and repair easy-to-mend defects at historic monuments, which have led or may lead to deterioration (including basic roof repairs, repairs to chimneys, rainwater drains, fixing of lightning conductors). Major damage identified in the project is documented in a monument technical report, which is stored electronically in a common database” (…) “In this case, the Norwegian partner mainly learns from Slovak experiences and approaches to the implementation of such activities. However, the Norwegian partner also supports the project through its human and technical expertise, such as through an expert from Nasjonele Fervardung, who is expected to arrive to Slovakia to conduct workshops for team members on monument conservation and repairs within a given area” (…) “The project is a clear example of the great contextual and bilateral potential of the programme, if properly implemented. According to the assessment by the project coordinators the project impacts are visible both in Slovakia and Norway (establishment of the formal programmes in the project area) and as Mr. Reznik summarized: “The project significantly improved bilateral co-operation between Norwegian and Slovak experts in the area – especially because it focused on an area of the common interest” (EFTA, P: 67, 2016).

How it is in Latvia and Estonia:

“One explanation for this may be found in Latvia, where some stakeholders indicated that since the bilateral objective is included in the MoU, cooperation is therefore embedded at programme level in most programmes. Since most programmes, particularly in Latvia and Estonia, also have a DPP, the programmes automatically focus on the bilateral relations. This may indicate a tendency for the bilateral aspect to become somewhat formalistic, along the lines of ‘we have a DPP therefore our programme adheres to the bilateral objective’, rather than it being a matter of content and mutual results” (…) “In Estonia, for instance, one indicator has been used in half of the programmes, namely the mandatory indicator “Number of project partnership agreements in the beneficiary public sector”. In more than 30% of the Estonian programmes, no indicator has been used, including the two other mandatory indicators “Number of project partnership agreements in beneficiary civil society” and “…in the beneficiary private sector”. These two indicators have both been used in only 10% of the programmes in 2016. Most programmes are required to make use of at least one of the three obligatory indicators, yet if adding together the top three lines of Table 5-6 for each country, it can be seen that some shares do not sum to 100%. This may be explained by the fact that there are programmes that do not require partnerships, and in some programmes it has not been possible to find relevant partners” (EFTA, P: 69-70, 2016).

Overall Conclusion:

“The overall conclusion on the efficiency of EEA and Norway Grants is that a number of dedicated tools to develop bilateral relations at programme and project level have been introduced. Most of these tools directly support the work of the programmes and projects towards developing bilateral partnership relations, shared results, knowledge and understanding and wider effects. DPPs, bilateral funds and donor project partners all support this goal. The main issue for DPPs and donor project partners is securing the availability of a sufficient number of partners to meet the demand. The main hindering factor identified across the programmes and projects is the administrative procedures (complicated, slow and time consuming) in the beneficiary countries and the fact that the systems used by the beneficiary states are very different systems. Another significant factor identified is the time frame of projects, which due to a late start-up of programmes, can have a very short implementation period” (EFTA, P: 117, 2016).

Clarify the reporting of the projects:

“It is recommended that more instruction be given on the expected contents of reporting on the bilateral objective to avoid the current wide variations in reporting practice and style and the non-informative focus on bilateral activities. It is also recommended that the programme reports include the bilateral indicators selected for the programme. It is suggested that the example of one of the focus countries (Estonia) is adopted. In Estonia, the bilateral indicators are annexed to the report, complete with a justification/explanation of why they were chosen” (EFTA, P: 121, 2016).

Recommendation for bilateral projects:

“It is recommended that focus be directed towards the predefined projects under the bilateral national funds. As mentioned above, the predefined projects provide an interesting opportunity for strategic level cooperation. It is unclear whether the callsat national level for smaller cooperation projects provide added value. Therefore, it is recommended that such calls be differentiated, either in terms of topic or timing, from the bilateral funds at programme level in order to for them to serve a real function (demand/meet a need)” (EFTA P: 121-122, 2016).

Recommendation for bilateral projects II:

It is also recommended to standardise implementation systems and rules so that every programme does not have to ‘reinvent the wheel’ (and spend a lot of time doing this). Especially DPPs working on the same programme type in several beneficiary countries could benefit from similar/aligned rules of implementation” (EFTA, P: 122, 2016).

Recommendation for bilateral projects III:

Particularly, data relevant to monitoring and assessment of the bilateral objective (results) are difficult to extract from some of the reports. Hence, the evaluator recommends that reporting requirements be standardised and clearly communicated to all relevant stakeholders (i.e. what content is required under which headings)” (EFTA, P: 122, 2016).

eea-grants-outreach-event-presentations-7-638

This here proves that actually the monies that going to the Projects are well-used, but those estimates are issued and checked in the same ways, not specifically different between the Educational or other more industrial collaboration between the Donor-Nations and the representatives.

The COWI report are clear on the levels of ability to use the funds, but have questions of finding clear partners for the projects as the allocation of funds is not an issue. That is mostly put on the spot and paid to the partner program either by the direct from Norwegian grants or by the EEA grants that are fuelled by most of the Norwegian donations. Therefore the monies to the nations and projects are arriving.

The indication of the efficiencies and the learning of the projects are different from what type of Norwegian organization is behind the collaborate effort, as much as the donor nation and the projects are proof of the development and goals of the projects that are funded this way. So they are properly examined and not like with this report they are settled with the same systems and with no consideration of the extent or the actual field they we’re prospecting. So the numbers and the proof of results are questionable. Even if the funds are used and the certain results are visible in certain cultural and historical aspects; we can still question the validity of the results be one-fits all like socks when we talking learning-projects, refurbishing old artefacts and even bilateral corporation one set subject.

The indication of that each separate project under the funding have been using lot of time to find ways of implementing the collaborative effort and finding Norwegian partners for the projects funding through the grants; also how they are supposed to work to fulfil the degrees of plans that have to be there to be able to get funding through the EEA and Norwegian Grants. Also the question under how the outsider COWI struggled with understanding and getting the capacity to see the value of some of the results in some reports from the projects as they we’re all written in different ways and different lengths. Show’s the capacity of streamlining the production of reports and the evaluation of the funding through the bilateral projects as the methods of explaining is and can be hard get the data that is needed to tell the story of the projects. Therefore the methods of reporting need to change and maybe even be in one standard, so the EEA, the bilateral partners and the donors can show their success and value for money. Something that the citizens for both the organizations getting the funds and also the donors who needs to prove that the money is not wasted abroad… something that is key reason for the report to show the progress of the grants in the first place. Peace.

Reference:

European Free Trade Association (EFTA) Financial Mechanism Office (FMO) – ‘Mid-term evaluation of the support to strengthened bilateral relations under the EEA and Norway Grants FINAL REPORT’ (June 2016) link: https://www.regjeringen.no/contentassets/17c16170595b473ab59c7edc5c0208a7/2016-evaluering-bilaterale-relasjoner.pdf

Lot’s on 1950s Bilderberg Conferences that we’re on European Integration, EEC and other issues discussed within the conferences!

1stmeet blinderberg 2

As there been a leak of documents that are addressing the Bilderberg conferences that have been silenced and been a not well-known public affair between the European Government and also the World Affairs, as they have been set invited to discuss the affairs and deal with the present takes of issues.

Like on the Bliderberg Conference of 1954 that we’re on the 29th – 31st May. When the Chairman for the Conference we’re Prince of the Netherlands Prince Bernhard and his Vice-Chairmen we’re John S. Coleman and Paul Van Zeeland. While the same Conference had rapporteurs on the subjects that we’re discussed, these men we’re from USA, Belgium, Netherlands, France and Italy, but half we’re from the United States. Of attenders there we’re from all across Europe, like from Norway came Leif Høegh; UK had a dozen attendees, but the one standout we’re Sir Harry Pilkington; From Germany Rudolf Mueller, Penagiottis Pipenelis from Greece for instance. This proves the importance of the conference as the nations didn’t send some random citizens.

They held the conference in hope for the American that the European Countries could through the NATO partnership have the military arm inside the European Defense Community, while German and French didn’t have faith in or could be part of the EDC. While the unity within unions like Steel and Coal we’re possible, as the sacrifices we’re not feasible, even if the American wished for something more than a European answer, but a Atlantic Pact, that we’re combining the European and American, not only trade, but also Defense. There we’re a general agreement between Europeans at the conference to work against the Soviet propaganda and advantages from the Communists.

One key pieces from the 1954: “The difference between America and Europe with respect to the problem of overseas territories emerged from the discussion as minor by comparison with the areas of agreement. The obvious objective to be sought is an agreed policy of the West to work towards colonial self~government as rapidly and safely as is possible. Such a solution serves the interests of the West and of the dependent peoples. It thwarts the imperialistic interests of Communism”. Second piece: “It was recognised that this conflict sprang largely from the differences in the emotional reactions to the Korean war in America and Europe – differences which it was thought had recently diminished. It was hoped that the negotiations at present taking place on the list of controlled exports would do much to eliminate them”. Third piece: European unity in some form has long been a Utopian dream, but the conference was agreed that it is now a necessity of our times. Only thus can the free nations of Europe achieve a moral and material strength capable of meeting any threat to their freedom”.

The next conference we’re on the 18th– 20th February 1955 at Barbizon Conference. The Chairman of the Conference we’re H.R.H the Prince of Netherlands. Honorary Secretary we’re J.H. Reitinger and American Secretary Joseph E. Johnson. Interesting people’s attending we’re Sir. Colin Gubbins of United Kingdom, H.J. Heinz of United States and Alberto Pirelli of Italy.

Sir John Kotelawala
Sir John Kotelawala

This was the second conference and here is the key issues and quotes from the report: “We had created the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation to oppose Stalinism all Its aspects, but today that Organisation had a very difficult task. Set on foot to meet the possibility of an attaque brusquee it now found itself facing the long struggle of the cold war, perhaps to be prolonged through many decades to come” (…) “Anti-Colonialism: “A European speaker discussed the important psychological aspect of the uncommitted peoples of Asia and Africa, and a number of Latin Americans. He had been very much struck during the last General Assembly of the United Nations by the fact that so much jealousy and resentment was pent up beneath the mostly polished exteriors of representatives of these countries. This was particularly so with the Asians and to a lesser degree there was something of the kind at work in the minds of quite a few South Americans” (…) “There were Asians who, being ardent nationalists and in many cases instrumental in forging the independence of their countries, nevertheless understood the West and all it had to offer to Asia and Africa well enough to interpret it. Names of men like General Romulo sprang to mind, or Sir John Kotelawala” (…) “There was a dangerous tendency on the part of United Nations commissions, after short visits to territories under European tutelage, to recommend periods after which independence should be given. There had been continuous attacks on the Belgian position in Ruanda-Urundi, in East Africa. In this case the Commission had recommended a course which might transform the territory directly from feudalism to “peoples’ democracy”. It must be remembered that the more the Western powers were weakened in Africa the more would their political, economic and even moral powers of resistance to communism be weakened” (…) “The United Nations had entered into the discussion by way of the problem of colonialism. But in terms of the broad relationships between the West and the East the United Nations was an instrument of the greatest importance. It had been said that international law was a generalisation of British foreign policy of the nineteenth century. Whether that was true or not, there was written into the preamble and articles 1 and 2 of the Charter a set of propositions about international order which were entirely congenial to the foreign policies of all who sat there in the room and these had been agreed by sixty governments, including the uncommitted peoples whom we were discussing” (…) “One of Europe’s greatest responsibilities today was to find new formulae for getting over nationalism and in that the speaker agreed with the views of a participant who had suggested that some sort of federation might be the solution. We must find some form, whether it was of federation or of any other juridical term which one might give it, which would be a European-invented by-pass for European-created nationalism”.

The next conference we’re in Garmish-Partenkichen conference at the date 23rd – 25th September 1955. When the same leaders as earlier in the year at the Barbizon Conference as this was a continues effort on the common work. The key things to take from this one we’re this: “The discussion on this subject revealed general support for the idea of European Integration and unification among the participation from the six countries of the European Coal and Steel Community, and a recognition of the urgency of the problem” (…) “The six countries of the Coal and Steel Community had definitely decided to establish a common market and that the experts were now working this out was felt to be a most encouraging step forward and it was hoped that other countries would subsequently join in”.

Nasser Blockade

In 2 Years the next conference happened on St. Simon Island on the 15th – 17th February 1957. Where most of the usual suspects showed up again, when even a Turkish representative Muharrem Nuri Birgi; Jean De La Garde, French and David Rockefeller, United States. The discussion of this conference led to this: “Several speakers urged that patience was essential in the present Suez crisis. Situations like that which developed in Iran in 1951 and was now being repeated in Egypt could not be dealt with in a hurry. A dictator who is impervious to external influences must be allowed to run through his cycle. For a period his personal pride and the demands of his position will render him insusceptible to advice or pressure. The point at which this cycle begins to turn is very delicate and needs careful watching, since a dictator like Nasser might well take desperate measures” (…) “According to the best available estimates, the expansion of oil sales in the years ahead would bring greatly increasing revenues, in fact within the next ten years the oil-producing countries of Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, and Bahrein should receive 5 billion dollars in oil royalties; yet it was calculated that. over this period they would not be able to spend more than a third of this amount inside their own frontiers. This would leave a surplus of about billion dollars to dispose of” (…) “It might be possible and desirable to change NATO’s present strategic!’ posture and to develop a military organization and doctrine which would free Europe from total . dependence on the threat of massive atomic retaliation. But until or unless this was done the contradictions of our present policy were damaging and dangerous. Because the peoples of NATO did not believe in the possibility of an effective shield against attack, they were reluctant to make the sacrifices required to provide for the forward advance strategy was official doctrine at present”.

The Second conference that year was in Fiuggi, we’re still the usual suspects we’re in control of it and the men behind it. Special names registered at this one we’re Henry A. Kissinger we’re a U.S. Representative and Major-General James Jr. McCormack a U.S. Representative. Key issues and quotes from the Fiuggi we’re this: “Participants from the countries directly involved, however, felt that these fears would prove to be unfounded. The Common Market would be implemented by easy stages and, if the experience of Benelux was any guide, trade With the outside world would increase together with internal trade. They were confident that the Common Market would be a step towards greater freedom in world trade as a whole. This was the purpose of the plan, although in some cases adjustments had had to be made so that particular interests would not be too drastically affected. Now that the internal pattern had been settled in the Common Market Treaty attention would concentrate increasingly on relations with third countries; the Free Trade Area would be the next step in the process of European economic integration” (…) “the main obstacle to British and Scandinavian participation in the Common Market was its function a step towards political union among the countries concerned” (…) “there was also the problem of including agriculture, which for countries like Denmark was of fundamental importance”.

130624-004-0BDAC008

At the 1958 Buxton Conference on the 13th September to 15th September 1958; which was run by the usual suspects yet again. Other representatives worth noticing from this ones we’re E.N. Van Kleefens from the European Coal and Steel Community, Jaques Rueff, European Economic Community (EEC), C.V.R. Schuyler, S.H.A.P.E., Sakari Tuomioja, UN Economic Commission for Europe and Sir. Gordon Archibald of the United Kingdom; other key quotes from this conference are these: “Nationalism could well yield positive results, as was the case in Turkey under Ataturk. It was objectionable, however, when it reached beyond its own borders hurting the interests of others. In such cases we had the right to protect ourselves, and should be firm about it” (…) “The Common Market was due to come into operation on a January 1959, and it was feared that, if no solution were in sight by then, the first appearance of discrimination would produce a schism between the Six and the rest of Europe” (…) “Further the speaker suggested that the Free Trade Area proposals were not the only alternative to the European Economic Community. The notion of association had a technical meaning, and various degrees of rights and obligations were conceivable and could be worked out between the European Economic Community and individual countries on a bilateral basis” (…) “Another major problem facing the European Economic Community was the co-ordination of monetary policies. As one of the participants pointed out, the economic integration of the Six required the co-ordination of all fields of economic policy”.

So there you have it and this is just outtakes, the Soviet problem is a key picture on every single conference, but that isn’t that important now. As the proof of the cold-war and the escalated influence U.S. policy had in Europe. That with their will of a more unified Europe; this being more valid for me, as the proof of the works behind the scenes from the Bliderberg group and their supporters from both United States and Canada; as they even wanted a federal solution to issues between the nation and their integration of monetary and trade-agreements on the continent.

Also the worrying views of Europeans wish to hold-on to their colonies and the liberation of the nations under British and French rule. While the Americans actually wanted a quicker liberation, while they had the worry of Soviet and Communist influence in the new “territories”; the leaked documents really reflect the dominance and arrogance of the Europeans at the time as their paternalistic threshold came under question. Another key we’re  the usefulness of NATO and the place of military operations as a countering for peace in Europe, as the fear of Soviet was a reason for the alliance after the Second World War.

Next time I drop on the subject, I will go through the 1960s documents of Bilderberg conferences. To see what else that came up in the next decade. Peace.

Extraordinary Plenary Session in the European Parliament on Brexit; the anxious future is to touch after the MEP discussed the outcome in the Chamber!

EuroPyro X

Gianni Pittella said: “This is no time for polemics. This is a historic event, we need clarity. Do we get clarity from the Brexit side? Difficult to see why all of a sudden there’s no clarity.” (European Parliament, 2016).

There are many of these days when one Member State have taken the vote to leave the Almighty European Union and their Organizations. This is rare occasion that shows the ramifications on the European continent. The leadership of Europe and Britain will be tested and go through fire, what we as Europeans can hope for is humility from the different partners and regulators. The Nobility of President of the European Parliament Jean-Claude Juncker shows of a man who has been punched in the stomach and tries to sustain the honor of fellow kin; while the others in Parliament we’re either ignorant, pan-Eurocentric or just wanting to speak of honoring the vote of confidence of other Eurosceptic. This is the start of the solution.

As the MEP spoke, this is how the Plenary Meeting we’re presented:

“The European Parliament held an extraordinary plenary session in Brussels on Tuesday 28 June for MEPs to discuss and vote on a resolution assessing the outcome of the UK referendum and its consequences for the European Union. European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker and Council representatives also took part” (European Parliament, 2016).

The Northern Ireland MEP Martina Anderson said:

“There was a democratic vote, we voted to remain [in Northern Ireland]. I tell you, the last thing that the people of Ireland needs is an EU border with 27 member states, stuck right in the middle of it” (…)”The EU has supported our peace process,” she said. “I ask you to continue to do that” (…) “MEPS like Diane Dodds and Marine Le Pen would say that we in the North of Ireland are bound by a UK vote. We say we are not. Like the previous MEP Mr Smith, we ask you to respect our vote. We stand by the vote of the people from the North of Ireland, just like Scotland which voted remain. We accept, we respect and we will defend the wishes of the people of the North of Ireland.” (European Parliament, 2016).

The Scottish MEP Alyn Smith said:

“While I am proudly Scottish, I am also proudly European. Please remember Scotland did not let you down and I beg you colleagues, do not let Scotland down now.” (European Parliament, 2016).

Nigel Farage 28.06.2016

The English MEP Nigel Farage Said:

“The United Kingdom will not be the last member State to leave the European Union.

“It is up to the British Government to invoke article 50. And I have to say that I do not think that we should spend too long in doing it” (…) “What I’d just be pragmatic, sensible, grown-up, realistic, and let’s get between us a sensible tariff-free deal and thereafter recognise that the United Kingdom will be your friend, that we will trade with you, we will cooperate with you, we will be your best friends in the world. But do that sensibly and allow us to go off and pursue our global ambitions and future” (…) “The only upheaval is political upheaval where we see the Prime Minister resigned and indeed the British Commissioner Lord Hill resigned. They both have done so for the right reasons. You never know, we might be getting rid of the Labour Party Leader as well. But upheavals in politics can actually be a very healthy and very good thing” (European Parliament, 2016).

The Answer from President Jean-Claude Juncker:

““You can’t leave a nation up to its nationalists. You have to respect the nations, but you don’t need to respect the nationalists, they are not patriots, they are anti-Europeans. They are not patriots at all.” (…) “The UK didn’t vote on austerity policies, they didn’t vote on the protection of external borders. The UK is not a member of the euro zone, so the euro policies does not apply to the UK. The UK is not a part of the Schengen area so the United Kingdom is a master of its own borders.” (European Parliament, 2016).

First rebuttal from Nigel Farage:

“”Isn’t it funny? When I came here 17 years ago and I said that I wanted to lead a campaign to get Britain to leave the European Union, you all laughed at me. Well, I have to say you are not laughing now, are you?” (…) “And the reason you are so upset, the reason you are so angry has been perfectly clear from all the angry exchanges this morning: you, as a political project, are in denial. You are in denial that your currency is failing, you are in denial… well, just look at the Mediterranean.” (European Parliament, 2016).

Jean Claude Parliament 28.06.2016

First Rebuttal from Jean-Claude Juncker:

“I am sad after the vote in the UK. I really would have liked that the UK would have decided to stay with us but they decided differently” (…) “I’m sad because I’m not a robot, a bureaucrat or a technocrat. I’m a human being and I regret the results of the referendum” (…) “I would like the UK to clarify its position. We cannot allow ourselves a prolong time of uncertainty period. There won’t be secret negotiations. No notification, no negotiation” (…) “We need to reassure Europeans. Our flight continues, our journey continues” (European Parliament, 2016).

The European Parliament President Martin Schulz:

“The will of the majority of citizens of the United Kingdom must be done. It has to be respected and that is why we will be looking today intensively at the issue of Article 50 and its triggering.” (European Parliament, 2016).

If these words don’t prove something, then nothing does. We can see the liability of the vote and now the fragile situation that is created between the United Kingdom and the European Union. Certainly the situation does not become better with the consideration and rhetoric used by either UKIP Nigel Farage or European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker. The words between UKIP leader and European Commission President we’re not worthy of Parliament, reasons why I didn’t address the Le Pen or other ‘Nationalist’ who wants to coin in on the current affairs instead of creating progress. I am not a man who supports the EU, but still see the value of integrity and transparency between the counter-parts of Europe and collaboration of the Union.

1916 UK Cartoon

With that in mind, the Northern Ireland and Scottish MEPs represented their constituency with honor and also respecting the vote, still wishing to be taken serious as people and voters who wanted to ‘Remain’, they proved the hard task of Nobility towards the Brexit Referendum in the whole United Kingdom and their own constituency, a reason alone why the other MEPs respected their words and character. While after this, Nigel Farage continued his flabbergasting words and acting as brute, instead of happy victor with some clarity. Farage was like a kid who finally gotten his candy he had nagged for the whole car-trip. Instead of being a Politician with humility and trying to commend the Union, as he forgets or trips on the escape button; like Farage doesn’t know that the levels for leaving the Union the rubberstamp by the fellow MEPs who are responsible to accept the agreement between UK and EU in the near future.

While Jean-Claude Juncker is a disappointment, he can be right about how he perceive the Union, but the doubt of the centralized organization of Brussels that many Europeans have a problem with, and doesn’t need to be nationalist or right-wing separatist, more about the question on being Sovereign, which is major question towards the EU. But, his attitude and quarrel with Farage, doesn’t make him look bigger, instead like a little kid losing his favorite toy. That is not the look the ‘aftermath’ of the UK referendum needs.

Gianni Pitalli 28.06.2016

What the Italian MEP Gianni Pittella said was spot on, as the Italian sees the big picture and the accurate vivid the uncertainty and needed for clarifications on the United Kingdom and the EU leaving as the Member State of the Union. The Italian are representing something refreshing and other in the debate, as the Scottish and Northern Ireland MEPs are respectable, but also wishing to be considering as special candidates for Membership in the future it seems. This is as the England and Wales population; we’re the majority voted on the whole of referendum. While the other we’re either biased for the Nationalistic or Eurocentric that the ideas of addressing it with equal sense and clarity, instead of being there to act upon the decision made by the British public with care and honor. Certainly some like EU Commission President Juncker acted wrong… he acted with the sense and talked with caution instead of childish towards Farage, there would be a better taste in my mouth as an outsider.

Lamberts Greens 28.06.2016

But let me not forget what MEP Greens Belgium Phillippe Lamberts: “No wall will be high enough and thick enough to isolate Europe from the challenges of the 21st century” (…) “Today you can only have sovereignty if you share that sovereignty” (European Parliament, 2016).

We can question the future and how this will end, if the EU negotiations towards the UK will be in the fashion of the Commission President, then the Farage should take care of his words, while the bureaucracies on both sides have to be solid and clear on their programs, as the monetary policies and the exclusions from the current programs from the EU will hit the UK with unknown consequence, as the EEA or other possible tangible ways in the Single-Market of Europe still will be on the line. The matter of the tone and progression as respectable men should be in the end the level of concern between the negotiators.

What is worrying that the level of attitude from men likes Nigel Farage, not that I am shocked as he does have the con-man, the fraudster and the snake-oil salesman smile and attitude that cannot be taken away from him. The United Kingdom must hope they send some talented and wise consular towards the European Union when they are pushing the Article 50 and triggering the 2 Year time-table to become a Non Member State. This is a reform and reformation takes time and UK need to take their time. While EU has to prove their Community and their Peace Project worthy and Juncker was not that today, I am disgusted by him and also by Farage, but Farage was more to expect then Juncker. Peace.

Reference:

European Parliament – ‘UK referendum: European Parliament debate on outcome and consequences’ (28.06.2016 – 10:00 CET) link: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/news-room/20160627STO33965/UK-referendum-MEPs-debate-outcome-and-consequences

Belgium: PM Michel calls for stability and clarity following Brexit (Youtube-Clip)

“Belgian Prime Minister Charles Michel and President of the European Commission Jean-Claude Juncker were among the European leaders who arrived in Brussels on Tuesday to discuss how the EU deals with the implications of the UK’s referendum result” (Ruptly TV, 2016).