Recurring Cystitis Ural

Disinformation - The lies of the network on the Lisbon Treaty

Background
A couple of days ago a friend (thanks Chris) pointed me a video in which he strongly attacked the treaty Lisbon . The video, as I understand it, refers to an article by Marcello Pamio www.disinformazione.it appeared on the site, and was also taken up by many sites and blogs.

Well, so far nothing strange, it was not for the fact that all things contained in the video about the Treaty are falsehoods and lies.

Based on what I say? Assuming that - I say if you do not know me - I deal with EU and EU policy-level training (Ph.D., I worked for the EU Commission DG TAXUD) and personally (I am a member of the section Catalan pan-European association "JEF - Young European Federalists) , please note that everything (again, ALL) will report below is proved by facts and / or documents, and therefore easy to verify, from top to bottom. the contrary, the assertions made in the video is always free of sources and / or evidence, and therefore questionable.

Instructions
Watch the video, is divided into points. After each point, pause, and read my comment on : for reasons of convenience, in my turn, I responded point by point, in the order of the video. Also, I put here the ink to the final and official text of the Treaty of Lisbon (http://bookshop.europa.eu/eubookshop/download.action?fileName=FXAC07306ITC_002.pdf&eubphfUid=534811&catalogNbr=FX-AC-07-306-IT-C) , since you do constant reference in my comments. If not displayed, you can download it here : http://bookshop.europa.eu/eubookshop/bookmarks.action?target=EUB:NOTICE:FXAC07306:EN:HTML&request_locale=IT

Have fun!

My comments
1) Head of EU law over national law: The Treaty of Lisbon simply reports, Article 17 (Declaration concerning primacy) of Annex A to the text, which for law of the Court of Justice, the Treaties and the law adopted by the Union on the basis of the Treaties have primacy over the law of the Member States under the conditions laid down in the said case law. "
Then the prevalence is only within the limits established by the Treaties (signed by the Member States, of course), plus and it is well known since 1964 (Case 6 / 64 Costa ENEL), and reaffirmed by the Legal Service of the European Council in 2007. Nothing new then, and - above all - no general declaration of the superiority of EU law over national law.

2) Decision making, Commission, Parliament and the ECB : The decision-making power is shared between the Commission, Council and Parliament , is not and will not be managed solely by the Commission ( everything is explained in detail here). Extremely, the 27 commissioners are not never been elected, but appointed by the Member States. Compare the Commission to any government, moreover, is impossible and wrong, because the EC is not a government, but a technical body that operates in the interests of the Union: the process of formation and eventual resignation is so different.
Parliament, thanks to the Treaty of Lisbon, will have important new powers regarding the legislation and the EU budget and international agreements. In particular, the extent of co-decision procedure to ensure the European Parliament an equal footing with the Council, where representatives from Member States, the majority of EU legislation. Besides, the Treaty increases the powers of national parliaments and introduces the popular legislative initiative. Then say that 27 people decide for 450 million Europeans is an outright lie.
The history of the ECB is also absurd because , before the Bank of Italy or the Bundesbank referendum asking what to do for the cost of money? Please .... if we paid very less than predicted the current economic crisis and the scandals Parmalat, Cirio and Argentine bonds is thanks to the ECB and the Euro. Studies who writes some stupid economy.

3) Death penalty : This is the most disgusting lies and deceitful . Article 2 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights (go read it, please, I put the link) states: "Right to Life. 1. Everyone has the right to life. 2. No one can be sentenced to death or executed" . I hope that these cowards who wrote about "riots and insurrections" realizes what he has done, and that be ashamed. But unfortunately I doubt it.

4) offensive missions : Read the text of the Treaty and seek with the Adobe Reader search engine the word "mission / i" and match it to "offensive / e" and / or the like (war, war, etc.. ). Found something? course not, because there is nothing. There stretches the nose, "friends" disinformazione.it ....

5) arrest and transfer : There is no reference to the arrest or detention in the Treaty of Lisbon. Again I invite you to look up words in the video mentioned in the text of the Treaty: if you want to save time and trust me, tell you already that there is not half .
policy of police cooperation is the so-called "third pillar" of EU, and has not yet been implemented. The rules in force regarding the extradition of those arrested are of international law.

6) Euro and reciprocity: the entry into force of the Euro has been endorsed by the Maastricht Treaty, which provided that the member states to not join the EMS (European Monetary System). The United Kingdom (England, Denmark and Sweden do not ...), please have joined. was in their rights, point. Reciprocity applies, inter alia, for some time, but on the recognition of qualifications, for example, certainly not in monetary policy, where there would be reciprocity, but in case of a decision imposing unintended .

7) Treaty and the Constitution: The Lisbon Treaty follows the EU Constitution, true, but missing references "national" (flag, anthem, party, etc) and especially not the name Constitution, which - politically, institutionally and legally - makes a huge difference. Among other things I do not see where the problem is, but this is a personal opinion.

8) Will popular : Ireland voted out and said yes . France and the Netherlands had rejected a treaty, the Constitution, not to Lisbon. The fact that it has not been submitted to a referendum has caused great controversy in France (not so in the Netherlands): the discourse here is very complex and highly questionable and subjective. Personally I am opposed to the referendum on EU treaties in view of their complex political, institutional and legal, but so be it. However here to talk about "affront to the will of the people" go there ...

9 and 10) Pledge of Allegiance to the EU and demonstrations against the EU: Fine, lorsignori challenge you to find the claim in the text of the Treaty . There is absolutely nothing like this. Again, read the treaty if you have time and desire, or use the search engine within the Adobe text: look for the words loyalty oath, demonstrate, demonstration .... well, no, no even once.

Postilla on Jean Monnet : imagine that you are turning in their graves ... I'm not his official biographer, but the words attributed to him from video disinformazione.it is more than likely false. Jean Monnet, in contrast, gives things like: "Rien n'est possible sans les hommes, rien n'est durable sans les Institutions. [...] Les Institutions peuvent, elles sont bien construites you, you earn et La Sagesse transmettre des Generations successives " ( Mémoires, Jean Monnet, ed. Fayard, 1976, p. 412).
Let me note one thing: the sentence given in the video is no source that I cite the source has it. Who do you think?

11) Amendments to Treaty and privileges of United Kingdom and Denmark : To amend the Treaty is sufficient qualified majority. Unanimity was used right up to the introduction of the Lisbon Treaty (if the Czech Republic in the person of President Vaclav Klaus, to ratify the text).
Pray, who have privileges UK and DK? No, let me know, please! They made different choices at Euro and Schengen, questionable, but legitimate. And they continue to contribute to the EU budget in proportion to the weight of political, economic, population, etc.. Neither more nor less than the other Member States. What are the privileges? have good fuel?

In conclusion of the movie invite "download ... read carefully the treaty" . Here, do . So you realize that the bales tell those disinformazione.it

Conclusions and final reflections
a) disinformazione.it lives up to its name: is disinformation. tell lies, weaves and textures invented - by appealing to the general and reckless scaremongering people - anti-European sentiments feeds based on falsehoods. You can be against EU integration, for charity, but you have to do it on solid foundations, not on this crap. The video does not present facts, figures, references. In short, uninformed.
I hope what I wrote will serve to clarify things to some of my (few) readers. And I also hope that those who becere wrote these stories about the Treaty being aware, and be ashamed.

b) What a great network! But how much information you find useful and valuable! Luckily there is the network to inform, that if were not for those stupid reporters ....

a pair of bales.

The Internet is a useful and valuable, but is not the Horse's Mouth. We write authoritative figures, accredited staff and informed, but we also write so many scammers, counter, ignorant and populist. I believe that there is no need to say that they are to be avoided ...

So - and I ask in your knees! - The next time you read something on the Internet (including what he writes myself, God forbid) dubitatene, look for evidence, the documents proving the claims. A thesis to be such, must be supported with evidence, sources, arguments, not with hot air.

So, be careful, Direct antennas. But above all, turn on your brain before shake his fingertips on the keyboard.

Body Wax Paraphernalia

Barbarian Invasion: Mediaset

Maybe I found something that unite Europe and that will speak with one voice. Want to know what is it? Read on, and you know In my opinion .

Then, I state that I have read that tell about a English newspaper La Repubblica, which cites as its source: the online version of the Daily I have not found anything about it, but you can I is wrong or that it appeared only on paper, but I apologize in advance for those who had the requisite knowledge. I hope that at least you can find my comment interesting.

Well the facts: according to English financial daily El Economista (a sort of Iberian Sole24ore), citing just one article in La Repubblica, Mediaset president Fedele Confalonieri (photo) would not have rejected the hypothesis of a possible acquisition of part of the English media group Prisa . In particular, Mediaset would be interested to get your hands on Cuatro, an important television channel, and Digital + , a pay channel on the digital platform in operation for some time throughout Spain, and would be putting pressure on the telecommunications giant Telefonica to help in climbing.

What's wrong? short, it's just a normal market transaction, no? Mediaset is free to move as it sees in order to maximize the dividends of their shareholders, is not it? All true, very true, but there is, however, who happens to be connected to the group owner, Silvio Berlusconi , and its constant and ubiquitous conflict of interest.

Prisa Group, in addition to always be linked to the English Socialist Party (PSOE) since the days of Felipe Gonzales, the group is editor of El Pais . Yes, yes, you read correctly, El Pais . Just the newspaper quoted Berlusconi as one of those ' axis of evil blurt out that lies to no end to discredit him. Just the newspaper which first reported the photos of the festivities at Villa Certosa . Just the daily, along with others from around the world, is being sued by Berlusconi through the bankruptcy lawyer Ghedini, pose questions to him (sic. ..) . Just the daily - along with The Republic, The Guardian, The Times, The Independent, El Clarin, The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, etc etc - does not hide his (justified) antipathy towards the Italian prime minister and his methods ducetto with the press. In short, Silvio is going to kill another enemy.

Well, I could raise two objections :

1. Mediaset is Berlusconi! It 's a joint stock company that operates independently from political power and for-profit;
2. Mediaset acquire the Cuatro and Digital +, but not El Pais!

Then, the first objection does not answer because is crap . We know very well what Berlusconi's Mediaset and Berlusconi's Mediaset (remember what he said about the Mentana "election committee" ?). You can not separate the political Berlusconi Berlusconi by the entrepreneur! am the same person!

Regarding the latter, it is true that Mediaset would come only in the Iberian market television and English-American, but here are two other problems:

• Competition : Mediaset controls already in Spain Telecinco and satellite network The you, with all appurtenances (advertising agencies, etc. etc). With the acquisition of La Cuatro would hand over a big chunk (at least 2 / 5) of the Iberian television market, creating problems in terms of advertising .
• Conflict of Interest in El Pais : obvious, gentlemen. If Mediaset stake in Grupo Prisa in or in "off a rib" will, directly or indirectly, say in editorial decisions of the group of ALL group (TV, radio , newspapers, internet and new media). Then we assume to be the editor of El Pais: dare we criticize the foreign chief and his friends at home (and bandwidth Aznar of the Popular Party)? Mediaset could possibly impose a director and an editorial "friendly". Or - if Mediaset would not enter the capital but includes part of Grupo Prisa - we would venture to shoot zero on an ally as powerful of our publishers as well as future potential new owner? Do not change the balance in the editorial of the newspaper? And, consequently, not change the information system in Spain? remember that El Pais is the most influential newspaper in Spain and sold , and also controls the Cuatro CNN + , the leading news channel in the country with TVE24. And come on, we all know the end that made the newspapers editorial pass under the clutches of Al Tappone (copyright, Marco Travaglio): look what happened, for example, in The Journal of Montanelli, or TG1.

The problem is not just financial , but also - if not more - political and throughout the EU: Berlusconi's Mediaset could use for his (many) interests in Spain, and maybe think to similar operations elsewhere in Europe.

But Berlusconi is an Italian politician, not English! Objection rejected : Italy and Spain are not they both States and therefore subject to rules , especially in the field of competition and free market common? The conflict of interest goes international, baby ....

short, the bottom line is always the same: a publisher for another very important as Silvio Berlusconi, the politician can not do. back to square one.

So, you finally understood what that will unite Europe and will speak with one voice? Well, of course: the conflict of interests of Silvio Berlusconi.

Maximus Formula Q9550

Miss Spain Reading, are you serious?

D uring yesterday debate at the European Parliament on the freedom of information in Italy , EU Media Commissioner Viviane Reding (picture) pointed out that the European Union had limited powers in the area of the written media but that all Member States had institutions for settling any problems over fundamental rights. She called on MEPs not to try to resolve issues through the EU institutions that should be dealt with at national level . Furthermore, in her response to the MEPs, Commissioner Reading told that legislation on media pluralism would only be possible if there were internal market problems.

Limited powers? Internal market problems? Miss Reading, are you serious? Don't you remember article 7 of the Treaty on European Union? Please take a look:

Article 7 of the Treaty on European Union:

1. On a re asoned proposal by one third of the Member States, by the European Parliament or by the Commission , the Council , acting by a majority of four-fifths of its members after obtaining the assent of the European Parliament, may determine that there is a clear risk of a serious breach by a Member State of principles mentioned in Article 6(1) ( liberty, democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and the rule of law, ndr ) , and address appropriate recommendations to that State. Before making such a determination, the Council shall hear the Member State in question and, acting in accordance with the same procedure, may call on independent persons to submit within a reasonable time limit a report on the situation in the Member State in question.

The Council shall regularly verify that the grounds on which such a determination was made continue to apply."

So, if the EU Commission agrees there's a risk for the Italian democracy because of the concentration of media in the hands of the head of the government, well, there's a strong and effective instrument to be used , dear Miss Reading, and I have been very surprised that you have been reminded so by Mr. Francesco Speroni , one of the worst Northern League's MEPs, during the debate.

Furthermore, you said that " legislation on media pluralism would only be possible if there were internal market problems " . Great. Hence I have to reckon that the EU Commission, and in particular you and Competition Commissioner Neelie Kroes , believes that Mr. Berlusconi's control over sixth national TV channels, over newspapers and magazines, over the digital TV and his governement's action against Sky Italia - right now almost the only one independent media in the country - through a sudden raise of the IVA (tax on the added value) cannot be considered as violation of the European rules on competition and stability of the internal market. True, the issue affects only Italy and so should be dealt by the internal national institution responsible for the matter (Antitrust Commission), but what about the potential effects on the media markets of other Member States? Mr. Berlusconi has business and political interests in this sector all across the continent, and in particular in France and Spain: isn't there a risk for Europe? Isn't the European Commission worried about?

Miss Reading, media sector is not a market like the others. It's more complex and delicate, because it involves democracy, liberty and all the other principles article 6(1) of the Treaty on the EU establishes. Therefore, please be careful while dealing with it, and please treat the Italian case with the due diligence.