BERLIN police said Wednesday its officers were “only human” after they were kicked off the security force for next week’s G20 summit over hardcore partying that earned them hero status from the German capital’s clubbing scene.

Around 220 officers from Berlin were unceremoniously released from duty by the Hamburg authorities hosting the July 7-8 summit after they threw a wild party that involved public sex, brawling, urinating in a group and a bathrobe-clad female officer strip-dancing with her service weapon.

“Yes, we partied,” the Berlin police force acknowledged in a statement on Facebook.

Two officers were celebrating their birthdays, and their colleagues decided to throw a party inside the fenced-off grounds of their temporary container accommodation, the police department said.

“They drank, danced, pissed and, yes, apparently also bonked, as our press officer put it so well,” the police statement said.

read more:

http://www.news.com.au/finance/work/at-work/berlin-police-say-were-only-...

Time for Europe to deal with Russia like adults -- nor like the beaten child of the USA. 

European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker has launched a bitter attack on members of the European Parliament for failing to show up.

Standing up in almost empty chamber in Strasbourg, he denounced the body as "ridiculous, totally ridiculous".

Estimating the number of MEPs present at about 30, he said it proved that the parliament was "not serious".

Parliament President Antonio Tajani reacted furiously, accusing him of a lack of respect.

"You can criticise the Parliament, but it's not the Commission's job to control the parliament, it's the Parliament that has to control the Commission," he said.

But the clash continued. Mr Juncker, who is in charge of the EU's executive body, angrily rebuked MEPs for failing to attend the session reviewing the six-month presidency of Malta, the bloc's smallest member state.

It was one of the most acrimonious public rows between top EU officials in recent years. A Parliament spokesman said later that the two men had met and Mr Juncker had expressed regret for the words he had chosen.

Read more:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-40492396

When Angela Merkel and Emmanuel Macron talk about their relationship, it's easy to get the impression that they are a pair of lovers. "There's a bit of magic in every new beginning," warbled the German chancellor during Macron's visit to Berlin. The French president, for his part, wasn't at a loss for ardor when he went before the press with Merkel at the end of the last EU summit. "When France and Germany speak with one voice, Europe makes headway," he gushed.

It's hardly surprising that Brussels no longer speaks of two people when the pair comes up in conversation. "Mercron" or "Emmangela" is how the two are now referred to in the European Union capital, names that reflect the hope that Merkel and Macron, the German chancellor and French president, will re-start the German-French EU motor and finally bring the bloc forward. And the current situation is propitious: The election of Donald Trump in the United States and the ongoing political disaster unfolding in Britain has recently reminded many Europeans of just how important the EU really is.

On Thursday in Paris, on the eve of Bastille Day, the two leaders, along with members of their cabinets, are set to introduce the first concrete initiatives, hoping to demonstrate the vigor of their partnership. The problem, though, is that as soon as the proposals become too concrete, the problems begin to become visible. Particularly when it comes to reforming the eurozone, there are hurdles aplenty.

read more:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/france-germany-partnership-to...

Speech to the French National Assembly, April 14, 1966

Even before the opening of the debate on the Government's general policy, it was clear that, to a very large extent, the National Assembly's interest would concentrate on foreign policy, that is, on the highly important decisions that have just been taken by France on the Atlantic alliance and on our country's participation in the organization known as NATO, the organization set up in the years that followed the conclusion of the Treaty of Washington in 1949 and that marked, with the Korean war, the climax of the cold war. . . That alliance was concluded, to be sure, at a time when international conditions were quite different from what they have become. In 1949, Western Europe seemed directly threatened, and undoubtedly it actually was. Two ideological blocs-two very great powers, also-confronted each other everywhere in the world, and first of all on our continent. The European countries seemed to be the immediate stake of this confrontation. Their alliance with North America was a normal defensive reflex, just as it represented for the United States the obvious means of safeguarding some of its fundamental interests.

We then experienced many crises, the last of which, in November 1958 on Berlin, ended in 1961 with the construction of the wall that completed the brutal physical separation of the two Germanies. But at that time, and for several years already, an evolution bad been evident. It had begun to change the world picture. It has continued since then, to the extent that the blocs are disintegrating, if only as a result of the Sino-Russian conflict; nuclear deterrence, which worked effectively in the Cuban crisis, now obviously plays an effective role of terror. And yet, in our view the Atlantic alliance should continue to exist, and to do so doubtless for a long time still. This is because it remains, in a still disordered world, a factor of equilibrium and consequently of peace. In man's eye, it will remain as such so long as an overall European settlement has not been reached-that is, essentially a solution to the problem of Germany-so long, in other words, as a new equilibrium has not been established in Europe, a stable one that would open the way to normal relations, that is, peaceful relations within the entire continent.

Such is the first conclusion that France has made known to her associates, by officially and publicly stating to them that she bad no intention of availing herself of the clause that permits each partner, in 1969, insofar as it is concerned, to terminate the alliance; that she intended, on the contrary, to stay in it so long as that appeared necessary, What I have just said shows that this is a question of long-term perspectives.

But what holds true for the alliance does not bold true for the Organization. That is quite another thing.

First, the one is in no way the condition for the other, even if, in current terminology, and through an ambiguity perhaps intentionally maintained, the term "NATO" covers both the alliance and the Organization, and even if some assert - perhaps, moreover, less often in recent weeks-that they are necessarily linked.

The Organization- What does that mean? Essentially it is a whole group of integrated international commands, placed unavoidably under the authority of the strongest, by far, of all the partners, which are set up in continental Europe, already functioning in peacetime, even if they - at that time have no effective responsibilities, and to which are assigned, in the event of war, the bulk of the conventional military forces- I stress conventional -stationed in the western part of the European continent, whether it concerns European forces strictly speaking or American, British and Canadian expeditionary corps.

It is obvious that an organization of this type - outside of the maintenance of those expeditionary corps-places the United States, Great Britain and Canada under no particular constraint. It is understandable that those countries accommodate themselves to it without difficulties, even if they find the corresponding expenditures heavy.

This is not at all the case for the countries on the European continent. This is the problem raised by France.

When our American and British friends and allies extol the virtues of Atlantic integration to us, it is in reality a matter of showing the advantages of a system that offers the various parties quite different situations. For it is on French soil that two of the essential NATO general headquarters are installed -the Supreme Command for Europe and the Central Europe Command, with thousands of officers, communications networks, logistics systems and constraints of all kinds that such general headquarters entail. . . .

All these installations and all this personnel benefit, by force of circumstances, from a status that is, in fact, a status of extraterritoriality. This inevitable infringement-but one that is serious by its scope-upon our sovereignty could be conceived of, at the most, in a situation of crisis, not to mention in time of war. How can it be imagined that it might become for decades, if not for generations, the normal international status for a country such as ours?

The analysis, however, does not end there. Due to the very fact of that vast implantation of general staffs, forces and resources - even, once again, if they do not actually exercise command in time of peace, and even if their main activity is then really their own maintenance - due to the very fact that this involves a system set up to take in charge in time of war, among other things and fully, the defense of France, France has the feeling that, precisely with regard to her defense, the matter is no longer really within her competence, that she has been discharged of her essential responsibilities, and that her interest is simply to attribute to others-and it is not difficult to see what I mean - the largest possible part of the effort. . . .

I am aware that it is said repeatedly that NATO has never prevented out country from pursuing its policy in the past. France, under NATO, continued the war in Indochina, undertook the Suez expedition and conducted the Algerian war. Perhaps I might have a reservation about Suez, since neither NATO nor the United States had been consulted or warned, and when the facts were known, our American partners' reaction was swift and - I might add - effective. But, on the whole, it is true that the Atlantic Organization has been no hindrance to the action of our governments. The real problem does not he there. It does not so much involve our being able to do what we like as it does our not being drawn into doing what we do Dot like. Who does not see the weight that the intermeshing, if not the integration, of general staffs and forces under the leadership of a partner infinitely more powerful than the others can bring to bear on the determination of a government, and consequently the Influence that this can have in orienting its policy in a direction quite different from the one that it would have taken spontaneously? Who does not see the hazards of such a system for France's security in the event of a major conflict in which America would be involved, without France herself being so? Is that not, moreover, what our public opinion has been vaguely feeling ever since crises have been appearing-at least temporarily-no longer in our regions, but in the distant confines of the Asian continent? . .

In reality, and barring, of course, the very special and very understandable case of Germany, Europe scarcely feels itself directly affected by the French initiatives. If Europe reacts, it is not in terms of itself, but in relation to the United States, and that is indeed the real problem.

That is the problem, for the United States occupies such an important - shall I say such a predominant-place in NATO that if one touches the Organization, one seems to take issue with the United States itself. It happens, for the same reason, that the foreign forces stationed in Europe, outside of Germany, are almost entirely American forces. Consequently we also seem to take issue with them when we say that the fate of the foreign forces is logically linked to that of the NATO installations and commands as such with regard to their presence on French soil. . . .

It is inevitable, and beneficial to all, that Europe reassume its independence with respect to America. It is inevitable that the latter conduct its policy throughout the world, and that this policy, more and more, be outside the European countries. It is inevitable that relations between East and West not remain frozen in the situation they were in fifteen years ago and that, as a result, the Russia n-American rivalry decrease, at the same time as distant prospects for a peaceful and lasting European settlement come into view. Finally, it is inevitable that, in international policy, the new factors that have appeared in the past fifteen years-that it, first the mass of newly independent countries, and second the enormous Chinese power-make their action increasingly felt and that the Atlantic alliance be transformed by this.

These are the prospects within which France's decisions on NATO should be placed. Far from being, as is claimed, naively lingering in the past; these are the prospects of the future. France is in the mainstream of world policv, she is moving in the direction of history, and that is why she is working for peace in the end.

Source:

English Translation via the French Press and Information Service, New York

This text is part of the Internet Modern History Sourcebook. The Sourcebook is a collection of public domain and copy-permitted texts for introductory level classes in modern European and World history.

---------

It is to be noted that General de Gaulle had withdrawn the French Navy from NATO command in 1963 and pulled France out of NATO's military command in 1966. In 2009, France rejoined NATO under that little failed monkey Napoleon called Sarkozy, who never understood (he possibly did but was in favour of nonetheless) that the USA had been undermining Europe since 1946. General de Gaulle knew that and told the Yanks to "go home"...:

"The time has come," Sarkozy said in a speech to France's Strategic Research Foundation, adding, "Our strategy cannot remain stuck in the past when the conditions of our security have changed radically."

The decision, widely debated even before it was formally announced, marked another significant step in Sarkozy's effort to bring France and the United States closer together after a period of estrangement and backbiting. Since taking over in May 2007, Sarkozy has repeatedly declared himself a friend of Washington and made gestures to warm the chill that had settled over French-U.S. relations under Presidents George W. Bush and Jacques Chirac, chiefly because of Chirac's opposition to the Iraqwar and Bush's with-us-or-against-us approach.

"We need a renewed trans-Atlantic partnership between an America that is open and a Europe that is being strengthened," Sarkozy's defense minister, Hervé Morin, said in an address to the same conference.

Sarkozy said he would formally notify France's allies of its return to the NATO command during celebrations to mark the North Atlantic Alliance's 60th anniversary, with President Obama in attendance, scheduled for April 3-4 in Strasbourg, France, and Kehl, just across the border in Germany. At Sarkozy's insistence, according to reports in Paris, Obama has penciled in a stop beforehand at the World War II Normandy landing beaches to dramatize the historic underpinnings of French-U.S. ties.

De Gaulle's defiant gesture, which caught Washington unaware, came at a time when U.S.-European security revolved around girding against a possible Soviet attack from the East. It meant in theory that the French military and its nuclear arsenal would no longer take orders from the American general commanding NATO forces. In addition, de Gaulle ordered out thousands of U.S. troops stationed on French soil and at NATO headquarters, then in a Paris suburb.

Sarkozy's move back to NATO actually weakened Europe and allowed the present West's Russophobia to become chronic and unhealthy. 

The translation at top is a bit wonky but is the "official" translation for text books. 

In a harshly-worded statement, Jean-Claude Juncker, president of the European Commission, lashed out at Washington saying “America first cannot mean that Europe's interests come last.”

He added the commission “concluded today that if our concerns are not taken into account sufficiently, we stand ready to act appropriately within a matter of days.”

unorthodox policies of American capitalism...

It was a story few predicted: the eurozone is growing faster than the United States. When Jean-Claude Juncker gave his annual state of the union speech on Wednesday last week, Europe’s booming economy was near the top of his list. Ten years since the crisis struck, “Europe’s economy is finally bouncing back,” the European commission president told MEPs. Detailing the economic resurgence, but also referring to the EU’snewfound unity after Britain’s vote to leave, Juncker declared: “the wind is back in Europe’s sails”.

In fact, growth in the 19-country eurozone has quietly outshone the US for the last two years. The latest annualised growth numbers show the single currency bloc growing at 2.3%, compared with 2.2% for the world’s largest economy. Eurozone unemployment has fallen to the lowest level since 2009, while factories are humming again, with production up 3.2% on last year. 

The upturn in fortunes is likely to continue, says James Nixon, chief European economist at consultancy Oxford Economics. “The euro area has done a lot of work over the last decade to get its house in order and also a lot structural reform. That has been an extraordinary, excruciatingly slow process but it is starting to bear fruit.”

The eurozone might be doing better, but the crisis has left deep scars and many wounds are far from healed. In France, the economy is expanding at an annualised rate of 1.7%, fuelled by confidence in French president Emmanuel Macron and his reform agenda, but growth continues to lag the eurozone average. Germany’s economy remains solid, but Germans are increasingly worried about inequality and low-wage jobs. Spain has bounced back from the crisis, but inequality is rising and unemployment remains painfully high at 17% - second only to Greece. Italy’s economy is doing better, but worries remain over its heavily indebted banks.

read more:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/sep/16/the-eurozone-strikes-ba...

About time. In fact, Readers of these columns would know I have long advocated throwing out the UK out of the European Union because its main aim was to play a double game designed to slow the formation of Europe on behalf of the Yanks... The Poms voted themselves out which save the EU a lot of cash...

Senior Conservatives have denounced Theresa May as “too weak” to unite her cabinet and run an effective government after she refused to sack her foreign secretary, Boris Johnson, for breaking ranks over Brexit.

Johnson infuriated Tory MPs on both sides of the European debate when he spelt out his own personal vision of a hard Brexit in a newspaper article, only days before May is expected to outline possible areas for compromise with Brussels in a speech in Florence.

Downing Street insisted that May still had full confidence in Johnson, although he had not informed her of the content of his article. Writing in the Daily Telegraph, Johnson insisted that the UK must not pay any money to the EU for access to its markets after Brexit and made no mention of a transition period after 2019 to avoid a “cliff-edge” for UK businesses.

May is now understood to back a transitional deal that could involve payments to the EU for access to its markets during a period of two to three years after Brexit, and to accept that the UK will need to follow the single market rulebook in that time.

read more:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/sep/16/may-too-weak-fire-johns...

Te EU can cast the UK adrift without feeling any pain... To the contrary, it will be relief all around...

Trump Drives Wedge Between Germany and France

Donald Trump's move to withdraw from the nuclear agreement with Iran should have pulled the European Union together, but Angela Merkel has instead chosen to appease the U.S. president. Criticism of her stance is mounting in Brussels and Berlin. By SPIEGEL Staff

It isn't often that Peter Altmaier, who is about as pro-European as they come, casts doubts on proposals coming out of Brussels. But last week, he opposed a plan by the European Commission to pay damages to European companies affected by American sanctions against Iran. "We have no legal possibility to protect or make exceptions for German companies against decisions made by the American government," the German Economics minister said. He warned against discussing "premature proposals."

But nobody in Brussels cared to listen. By the time German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas met with his counterparts from Britain and France a few days later, Federica Mogherini, the European Union's top diplomat, had prepared a paper that paved the way for the very measures Altmaier had warned against.

The result is that nine days after U.S. President Donald Trump's decision to withdraw from the nuclear deal with Iran Europe has found an initial response to Washington's affront. The European Commission has announced that it intends to protect European companies from American sanctions with the so-called "blocking statute."

It wasn't the answer that Germany -- or at least its chancellor and its economics minister -- would have given. It was the answer of Emmanuel Macron, the politician currently at Europe's helm. Behind the scenes, it was largely Macron applying the pressure, whereas Germany seemed to shy away from a confrontation with Trump.

From the very start, Berlin and Paris have been charting different courses on the future of the trans-Atlantic relationship. Should Europe appease Donald Trump or defy him? Should Europe risk a trade war with the U.S. over its Iran decision? Do the Europeans stand a chance of swaying Trump with resolute resistance or will the situation continue to escalate?

It's an age-old question of foreign policy, and also one of the most important: finding the correct response to pressure and coercion. Is appeasement the right way to go? Or will that just encourage the bullies of international politics? It has traditionally been a question most often raised when dealing with Vladimir Putin and the other strongment of the world.

Read more:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/iran-crisis-trump-drives-wedg...

This is not a new synergy. The US have always played France against Germany and vice versa in order to weaken Europe. I have said this for many years to the Europeans while going blue in the face: DO NOT TRUST THE USA. DO NOT PLAY WITH THE USA... etc. Too many articles on this site by Gus to enumerate on this subject...

Meanwhile:

Merkel arrived in the Russian Black Sea city of Sochi to meet Putin on Friday, around a year after her previous visit in 2017. Both leaders have had their mandates reconfirmed by their respective electorate since – Putin during the March election, which he won in a landslide, and Merkel after winning the September 2017 general election in Germany and, arguably more impressive, securing a coalition agreement after a daunting six months of negotiations.

Read more:

https://www.rt.com/news/427156-putin-merkel-us-sanctions/

Read from top

The citizens of the European Union, who are supposed to elect their parliament on 25 and 26 May, are getting ready to make the wrong choice. By concentrating on their immediate problems, they are hesitating between several different priorities. But on the contrary, if they were to analyse their history over a long period, they would discover the origins of their social, economic and political problems, and without any doubt, would decide differently.

After the Second World War, in 1947, ambassador George Kennan created the policy of containment [1] and President Harry Truman constituted the apparatus of national security (CIA, Joint Committee of the Chiefs of Staff, National Security Council) [2].

Washington and London then turned against Moscow, which had only recently been their ally. They were planning to create a common Anglo-Saxon nationality, and decided to include Western Europe in this group by creating the « United States of Europe », under their control.

It was important for them to stabilise the part of Western Europe that they occupied, faced with the Soviets in Eastern Europe. They enjoyed the support of the bourgeoisies, in particular those who had collaborated with the Nazi Axis, and who were now frightened by the new legitimacy of the Communist parties, the main victorious forces alongside the Soviet Union.

They based their work on the dream of a French senior civil servant, Louis Loucheur , to join the management of coal and steel necessary for the German and French armament industries in such a way as to prevent them from ever making war on one another again [3]. This idea was the ECSC (European Coal and Steel Community), the ancestor of the European Union.

In the context of the Korean War, North against South, Washington decided to rearm West Germany against East Germany. The Western European Union (WEU) was created in order for the developing United States of Europe to manage a common army under Anglo-Saxon control, but which would not attempt to transform itself into an independent force. The WEU would be responsible for foreign policy and common defence.

Relations between London and Washington became strained during the Suez crisis in 1956. The United States, who were proud to be counted among the liberators from Nazi rule, were unable to accept the way in which London managed its ex-colonial empire. They moved closer to Moscow in order to sanction the United Kingdom.

There was no longer any question of creating a common Anglo-Saxon nationality, and London’s influence in the world slid inexorably into the arms of Washington. The United Kingdom therefore decided to join with the developing United States of Europe.

Charles De Gaulle was against this. It was in fact foreseeable that the reconciliation between London and Washington would only come about by depriving the developing United States of Europe of all political power, and founding them in a transatlantic free-trade zone. Western Europe would thus be castrated and would become a vassal of Washington, set against « the Russians » [4].

Since De Gaulle was not eternal, the United Kingdom finally joined the anti-Russian United States of Europe in 1973. As predicted, it transformed the European Community into a free-exchange zone by the Single European Act (SEA), and opened the way for transatlantic negotiations.

This was the time of the « Four Freedoms » (by analogy with Roosevelt’s speech in 1941) – the free circulation of property, services, people and capital. Interior Customs regulations were progressively repealed. Imperceptibly, the Anglo-Saxons imposed their model of a multi-cultural society which had earlier been thought to be incompatible with European culture.

It was only when the USSR was dissolved in 1991 that the 1947 project was finally implemented. Washington decided to transform the organisation in Brussels into a supra-national structure and introduce the nations of the Warsaw Pact, placing this anti-Russian « European Union » under the protection of NATO, and forbidding it any political role.

It was the US Secretary of State, James Baker, and not the Europeans, who announced the opening to the East and the Treaty of Maastricht. The structure in Brussels was metamorphosed – the 15 nations of the Western post-World War block extended to 13 post-Warsaw Pact countries, the WEU was dissolved, and a senior civil servant was named to handle foreign policy and common defence, still under Anglo-Saxon control, which was locked into place by the Treaty of Maastricht. Finally, a European nationality was created.

At that point , Washington considered gaining London’s adherence to the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) [5] and creating an Anglo-Saxon nationality, as had been planned in 1947. This is the project which caused the United Kingdom to want to leave the European Union, and that Theresa May came to the USA to defend, in vain, in the troubled United States which had just elected Donald Trump.

The Brexit, if it should occur, would change nothing of the dependency of the Union, which is carved in stone by the various Treaties. Things would simply return to what had been planned in 1947, at the time of Churchill, who encouraged the creation of a United States of Europe without the United Kingdom [6].

Record

The history of the European Union shows that this organisation was never conceived in the interest of the European people, but against Russia.

This is why, in 2007, Vladimir Putin came to the European Union to give his resounding speech in Munich [7]. He reminded the Europeans that their economic and political interests, as well as their ethical demands, were with Moscow, and not with Washington. Everyone listened to him, but no-one claimed their independence.

The European Union managed for decades to guarantee economic prosperity, but failed to do so after the dissolution of the USSR. Today, it is dragging behind – since 2009, (in other words, after the world financial crisis of 2008), the United States recorded growth of +34%, India +96%, China +139%, while the European Union has decreased by -2%.

The EU has never been able to help the poor to free themselves. At best, they are able to consider allowances to prevent the needy from starving to death.

Finally, and above all, the European Union has never fought for peace, but only for its Anglo-Saxon masters. It has supported all US wars [8], including the war against Iraq, which France and Chancellor Schröder had nonetheless denounced. In cowardly fashion, it abandoned its members to their fate – its own territory is occupied in the North-East of Cyprus by the Turkish army, a member of NATO, without raising the slightest protestation.

Future

On 25 and 26 May, the anti-Russian European Union will elect its Parliament, without anyone knowing how long the British will be occupying their seats.

The people are slow to react - if, during the Cold War, it was legitimate to prefer one side rather than another, for some to choose to serve the Anglo-Saxons rather than a Georgian [9], it is absurd today to continue to obey them in order to protect against a non-existent « Russian threat ».

After three quarters of a century of subjugation, the political parties opposed to the European Treaties are hesitating to define their priorities – should they first of all claim their independence from the Anglo-Saxons or defend their culture from that of the Arabo-Turks? In truth, the second problem proceeds from the first, and not the other way round.

It is not a question of imagining a pseudo-superiority of one culture over another, nor even to talk about religion, but to recognise the impossibility of co-existing in the same society with two different forms of social organisation. To make it simple, you can not abstain from work both on Sunday and on Friday.

It is due to their dependency that the Europeans imagined a multi-cultural society. But this does not work in their own homeland. And it is only when they are independent that they will be able to save European culture.

Thierry Meyssan

Translation 

Pete Kimberley

Read more:

https://www.voltairenet.org/article206454.html

Read from top.

EU leaders have put forward their nominations for the bloc's top jobs, with a woman for the first time proposed as European Commission chief.

The surprise choice of German Defence Minister Ursula von der Leyen to replace Jean-Claude Juncker came after the main front-runners were rejected.

IMF chief Christine Lagarde has been nominated as the first woman to head the European Central Bank (ECB).

The announcement follows days of difficult negotiations.

• Who is surprise EU choice Von der Leyen?

In all, EU leaders were tasked with nominating five people for the top jobs.

Belgian liberal Prime Minister Charles Michel is nominated to replace European Council President Donald Tusk while Spain's Josep Borrell is proposed as foreign policy chief.

The fifth key role - president of the European Parliament - is to be chosen on Wednesday. Possible candidates include German centre-right MEP Manfred Weber and Bulgarian socialist Sergei Stanishev.

Most of the roles must be ratified by parliament. 

"We have agreed the whole package before the first session of the European Parliament," said Mr Tusk. 

He said Germany had abstained on Mrs Von der Leyen's nomination over coalition issues but pointed out that Chancellor Angela Merkel herself had backed her.

Read more:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-48847200

And not a POM in sight... Read from top.

A newly-elected Green MEP claims he was asked to leave the European Parliament building in Strasbourg on his first day.

Magid Magid, 30, was wearing a baseball cap and a T-shirt with swearing and an anti-fascist slogan on it when he was asked to leave.

The former Lord Mayor of Sheffield was elected as one of six MEPs for the Yorkshire and Humber region in May.

The European Parliament said no member of staff was involved in the incident.

Mr Magid said he did not know who the person was who asked him to leave, although he believed that individual to be an official.

He said the person asked if he was lost and then suggested he leave.

He added: "I make people feel uncomfortable, people don't know how to react."

In a tweet, he said: "I know I'm visibly different. I don't have the privilege to hide my identity. I'm BLACK & my name is Magid.

"I don't intend to try fit in. Get used to it!"

Read more:

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-48840428

Read from top.

Several thousand Catalans demonstrated on the morning of 2 July in front of the European Parliament in Strasbourg. Objective: to protest against the official rejection of three independentists elected at the end of May, to sit during the inaugural session.

Gathered in the morning of 2 July on the esplanade in front of the European Parliament, some 8,000 Catalan demonstrators, according to the police, waved the flag of Catalonia. They intended to protest against the official refusal to let three independentists elected at the end of May to sit during the inaugural session.

A protest was set up in front of the European parliament, the police in force and the stopped public transport was preventing people to access the symbolic tower which welcomes for the first time in its chamber the 751 MEPs elected at the end of May.

Read more:

https://francais.rt.com/international/63559-catalans-manifestent-devant-...

Read from top

Translation by Jules Letambour

And there she is. Ursula von der Leyen has taken a seat on the podium in the parliamentary group chamber of the European People's Party (EPP) in Strasbourg, a smile glued to her face. Once the cameras have left the room, she turns to the man on her left, the biggest loser in the competition for positions of power in Brussels.

"You're still young," she says, consolingly, to Manfred Weber, who was the EPP's lead candidate in the European elections held in late May. With center-right political parties having won the election, Weber had hoped to land the job of European Commission president. But the position was handed to von der Leyen instead, a woman who has never once campaigned for a European Parliament seat or other job in Brussels. "You have demonstrated greatness," she told Weber, according to meeting participants.

She then switches easily to French and speaks about her childhood in Brussels and about her father, who worked for the Commission at the time. She then moves on, discussing the years she lived together with her husband in California -- now speaking in English.

It was a badly needed marketing appearance for the German defense minister. Many parliamentarians are not amused by the sudden nomination and -- though von der Leyen's multilingual, self-confident speech presented a stark contrast to the prim and proper Bavarian Manfred Weber -- her ultimate confirmation is far from certain.

Read more:

https://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/surprise-european-commissio...

Read from top.

The European Union approves the nomination of four senior civil servants

by Thierry Meyssan

Since the European Union has become a super-national structure by the force of Treaties, how can the member-States choose the senior civil servants who are to give them orders? In fact, they are not doing so, but are settling for accepting the choice of NATO, as presented by Germany and France.

In theory, it had been decided by the United States, Germany and France, before the elections for the European Parliament, that the President of the Commission would be the German Manfred Weber. He had promised to halt construction work on the gas pipeline North Stream 2, and to limit the buying of Russian hydrocarbons by the Union for the benefit of US gas, which is much more expensive in terms of both production and transport.

In order to ensure that European voters remain comatose, an intense propaganda campaign had assured that the President of the Commission would be elected according to « democratic rule » - the winner would be the leader of the most important elected parliamentary group. There was no doubt that this would be Manfred Weber, as head of the conservatives (PPE). Of course, this rule has never been democratic, because democracy would have consisted of specifying a person who had earned the support not of a parliamentary group, but of a majority of voters. However, the Press and the candidates continued to repeat this stupidity, aware as they are that the EU is just a decoy.

But at the last moment, France went back on its promise. President Emmanuel Macron pretended that his parliamentary group (ADLE, now become Renew Europe) had managed to operate a breakthrough strong enough to warrant one of the four most coveted civil servant posts. He therefore arranged to have Manfred Weber insulted by the head of his party’s list, Nathalie Loiseau - who called him an « ectoplasm » and vetoed his nomination. Finally, Weber himself proposed a new German candidate, Ursula von der Leyen, once the nomination of Christine Lagarde at the head of the European Central Bank had been assured.

These two women will therefore be occupying the two most important posts, while the Belgian Charles Michel will preside over the Council of the Heads of State and Government – and also that of the Eurozone – and the Spanish Josep Borrell will be the senior representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. These two functions are purely formal. The Presidency of the Council consists only of distributing microphone time to the speakers and representing the Union abroad. The senior representative is the spokesperson for a policy that everyone knows to be fixed in Washington and not in Brussels.

These nominations were not chosen by the European Council, but by the German Chancellor and the French President during a brief conversation, and then accepted by the Council.

How were these four senior civil servants elected? They have to correspond to two criteria : 

- being Atlantists : 

- having something to feel guilty about, which makes it possible to blackmail them if ever they were to lose the Atlantist faith.

Being Atlantist

Being Atlantist is an evidence for any European civil servant, since the Treaty of Maastricht and those that followed stipulate that the defence of the Union is to be ensured by NATO, the anti-Russian military alliance.

At the beginning of the year, Ursula von der Leyen published a timely op ed in the New York Times to praise NATO for « defending the world order » [1].

The Atlantism of Christine Lagarde needs no further demonstration, since she began her career as a parliamentary assistant in the US Congress, and became a lobbyist for the US Defence industry against its French equivalent. It was she who convinced Poland to buy Boeing and Lockheed-Martin equipment rather than Airbus and Dassault [2].

Charles Michel is the Prime Minister of NATO’s host country, and is recommended by his father, Louis Michel, an ex-European Commissioner for international cooperation, humanitarian aid and crisis reaction. Josep Borrell, ex-member of the Gal On kibbutz (Negev desert), was at one time the President of the European Parliament, where he ardently defended the principle of European servitude to the Atlantic Alliance.

The four supplicants were invited, naturally enough, to meetings of the Bilderberg group, the NATO club. However, Josep Borrell was unable to attend last month’s meeting because he had been forbidden to do so by his Prime Minister.

« Having an uncomfortable secret »

Even if they trust their employees, the United States always prefer to have a means of pressure should they need to force them back into line. Indeed, it too often happens that some senior civil servants are not content with their astronomical salary, and get it in their heads to serve their compatriots.

A legal enquiry was under way concerning Ursula von der Leyen’s management of the Ministry of Defence. While the German army is notoriously under-equipped, the colossal over-spending in several affairs had already unleashed an enquiry by an audit company who finally agreed that the explanations provided were sufficient. But the discovery that the surveillance for this company was organised by the son of this grand aristocrat had alerted the criminal court. German « rule of law » is organised in such a way that makes it possible for the Chancellery to halt judicial enquiries into members of the government .

Christine Lagarde was found guilty of « negligence » by the French Court of Justice, but was dispensed of punishment. She had decided to bring financial litigation between a public bank and an ex-minister before an arbitration court rather than before the tribunals. The arbitration court condemned the state and found on behalf of the ex-minister, which should never have happened.

I do not know what shady affairs Charles Michel and Josep Borrell are implicated in, but there are bound to be some – the former accepted to direct a minority government, and the latter, while he was at the summit of his career, abandoned political activity for about ten years.

The salaries of each of these four senior civil servants are more than twice that of the French President. It’s not a case of remunerating them for their exceptional qualities, but of making sure that they will use them on behalf of their overlord. That is the price of their treason.

Thierry Meyssan

Translation 

Pete Kimberley

Read more:

https://www.voltairenet.org/article206949.html

This should be an editorial in Der Spiegel, Le Monde, El Pais and all the other major papers in Europe — but I guess telling it like it is, would annoy the ruling class....

Ahead of next Tuesday’s vote in the European Parliament to replace the commission’s executive, the Social Democrats said that von der Leyen, who is also the German defense minister, is an “inadequate and inappropriate candidate,” and accused her of “weak leadership” during her tenure as minister of defense.

“From the very beginning, she ... overestimated herself,” reads the letter, circulated on Friday and seen by Reuters, adding that the party (SPD) will not support her nomination next week.

Read more:

https://www.rt.com/news/464034-german-social-democrats-reject-leyen/

Who knows... She might not pander to the USA and do some European magic with Russia. This could be what they fear... Gus has no intel on this.

It's good news for Europe because Ursula von der Leyen is a genuine, dyed-in-the-wool European.

And it's good for Germany because as defense minister, von der Leyen was simply in the wrong office. Europe suits her much better. Her story could even inspire more people to identify with the EU.

It's an added bonus that von der Leyen will form one half of a Franco-German duo at the heart of the EU, with Christine Lagarde as the new head of the European Central Bank making up the other half.

Von der Leyen won Tuesday's election by a narrow margin of only nine votes. She may have drawn support from Hungarian parliamentarians loyal to that country's authoritarian leader, Viktor Orbán. Staunch pro-Europeans like the Greens or the aforementioned members of the SPD, however, denied her their votes.

Does that make von der Leyen a worse president? Or worse, a president in debt to Orbán? No. It would be intellectually lazy for those who didn't vote for von der Leyen to complain that she wasn't their choice.

What's important is what von der Leyen says -- and what she does.

Read more:

https://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/new-eu-commission-president-von-der-leyen-s-election-is-a-big-moment-for-europe-a-1277776.html

Read from top.

The next best thing will be to tell the Yanks to sod off... but this won't happen, will it?...

Late last month, Defence News reported that the US planned to block the construction of the Russia-sponsored Nord Stream 2 natural gas pipeline by passing a defence bill that would extend sanctions to penalise the project's European partners.

Klaus Ernst, the head of the German parliament’s economy and energy committee, has called for Berlin to consider countermeasures if the US slaps sanctions against the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline project.

Touching upon the Bundestag’s move last month to pass a bill regulating the Nord Stream 2-related application of amendments to the EU Gas Directive, Ernst pointed out that he would prefer that this could not be used against the project.

After the European Commission amended its Gas Directive in April, the document entered into force on 23 May. It stipulates that a third-party nation cannot own both the pipeline and gas imported into the EU market unless the conduit was built before 23 May 2019, also known as so-called unbundling.

When asked whether Nord Stream 2 can be fully or partially withdrawn from European regulation, including the unbundling rule, Ernst said that there are “two options which are possible and feasible”.

According to Ernst, possible US sanctions against Nord Stream 2 will not play a role in the regulation because “the Federal Network Agency does not do business with the US and should not take into account the sanctions that Washington is threatening to introduce”.

He said that “the federal government sees these sanctions as extraterritorial and something that runs counter to international law”.

Referring to some Eastern European countries that oppose the Nord Stream 2 project, he urged them to turn to the EU so that they can get financial support through relevant funds.

He added that “the issue of price matters when it comes to what kind of gas is in demand in Germany”.

Dwelling on the subject of alleged dependence on Russian gas, he stressed that “Russians are dependent here at least to the same extent because they want to sell the fuel to us.”

Ernst’s remarks come after US Under Secretary of State David Hale told a Senate panel on Tuesday that Washington might resort to sanctions to stop Russia’s Nord Stream 2 pipeline if its diplomatic campaign to persuade European leaders failed.

In September, the US Senate the Foreign Relations Committee passed the bill, envisioning economic action against entities and individuals involved in building the pipeline, which the committee claims threatens Europe's energy security.

Due to be finished before the end of this year, Nord Stream 2 is a joint venture between the Russian energy giant Gazprom and five European companies: France's ENGIE, Austria's OMV, the UK-Dutch Royal Dutch Shell, and Germany's Uniper and Wintershall.

The 745-mile (1,148-km)-long twin pipeline will carry up to 55 billion cubic meters (1.942 trillion cubic feet) of gas per year from Russia to Germany.

Read more:

https://sputniknews.com/business/201912041077479361-nord-stream-2-german...

Read from top.

If the attitude of the Americans was honourably linked to reducing global warming, one would think twice about the value of the "sanctions", but this is only a major two-fold hypocritical commercial ploy: first the USA has excess shale fracking gas which it exports at twice the Russian price of gas, to be delivered by LPG ships to Europe — second, the USA still want to kill off the Russian economy. Tell the Yanks to yank off...

Can Germany have and pursue its own interests? The answer from Washington seems clear: only with the blessing of the US government. The US is threatening to impose sanctions on European companies involved in completing the Nord Stream 2 pipeline.  This pipeline, which is now 96% finished, is designed to transport natural gas along the bottom of the Baltic Sea from Russia to Germany, bypassing all other countries, and from there on to other EU states.

Germany depends on exports and its industry needs energy security. That is why German businesses and the government are backing the construction of the pipeline. But Berlin is also trying to take into consideration the reservations certain countries — in particular, Poland and Ukraine  — have expressed about the project.

Read more: Observers sceptical over reports on planned US troop withdrawal from Germany

Firebrand US ambassador

The White House couldn't care less about all this, however. President Trump is determined to stop this pipeline no matter what it takes.

One of the people egging him on is Richard Grenell, the former US ambassador to Berlin. This rather undiplomatic diplomat has now at last made a significant contribution to bilateral relations: He resigned on June 1 and left Germany.

Ted Cruz, the ultra-right Republican senator from Texas, is also an outspoken opponent of the pipeline. This is a man who is called the "devil incarnate" by some of his fellow party members. Others say that if Cruz were lying seriously injured in Congress, nobody would call 911.

Cruz has for years been sponsored by the American fracking industry. That industry, in turn, would like to sell its gas in Europe. The problem is that the American gas, which is produced at great operating expense, is more expensive than the Russian gas.

But in this case, Washington —  that former staunch advocate of the free market economy — is turning away from the idea of competition. It is easier to threaten sanctions, a type of politics that Trump calls "America first." But by so doing, he risks damaging relations with one of his most loyal allies.

In public, he praises German Chancellor Angela Merkel. But the media and government representatives hint that there have been heated talks between the two. The chancellor is cut of a different cloth than the Montenegrin head of government, whom the US president could simply push aside when he stood in the way. He can't treat Merkel like that. She won't be intimidated, which seems to irk Trump a lot.

Read more: German towns face economic hit should US troops go

Withdrawal of almost a third of the contingent

Now he wants to punish her for her insubordination by withdrawing almost 10,000 US soldiers from Germany this year. Most Germans couldn't be bothered as long as the country is not exposed to any military threat from the outside. After all, the noise and environmental pollution caused by the troops has prompted criticism for years. The mayors and business representatives in the places where the troops are stationed are the only ones who are really concerned about the withdrawal.

Above all, however, the Americans are in Germany because it is in their own interest — all Iraq and Afghanistan missions are controlled from German soil — and in the interest of NATO. If Trump withdraws a sizable contingent, he will primarily harm the US and alienate the country even more from Europe.

And China will be the one to benefit. Every dispute among Western nations strengthens Beijing's hand against Washington. With behavior like this, the Americans can hardly count on EU support in the trade dispute with China — quite the contrary. Berlin takes over the presidency of the Council of the European Union in July. Merkel is still planning a meeting at some stage of all EU heads of state and government with China's President Xi Jinping, even if the original date scheduled for mid-September has been canceled because of the coronavirus pandemic.

Such a meeting held just before the US presidential elections would, of course, be a diplomatic provocation. Trump would not be invited. He could only tweet about it as an observer.

Fingers crossed for November 3

If his administration is voted out of office in November, relations between the US and Germany should quickly return to normal. Democratic challenger Joe Biden understands that Germany, too, has its own interests and is allowed to pursue them.

read more:

https://www.dw.com/en/opinion-punishment-for-disobedient-germany/a-53733...

Good luck to Germany with Joe Biden... He has no clue about much and he is going senile at a rate of knots... But the election of Joe Biden would give time for the Europeans to become more assertive... Should the Donald Dork be returned to power, the German can still push on as they wish, nonetheless with a bit more special massaging. In regard to Nord Stream 2 pipeline, Trump is trying to show "he isn't in Russia's pocket" as well, but the project will most likely be completed and the Democrats will still promote the concept that Trump is in Putin's pocket. There is far more natural gas available around the world than can be use at any given time. 

Read from top...

French President Emmanuel Macron has used colorful language to describe what would happen if EU lawmakers remained in Brussels indefinitely, arguing that concerns about Covid-19 should not stop them from meeting in Strasbourg

Macron said he was “fighting tooth and nail” to persuade the legislative body that there was no added health risk in returning to northeastern France. Lawmakers have not made their usual monthly trip to Strasbourg since the start of the coronavirus pandemic in February. The parliament’s official seat is in the French city, but plenary sessions as well as most committee meetings take place in the Belgian capital.

“If we accept that the European Parliament only meets in Brussels, we are screwed,” the French leader said while speaking in Vilnius, Lithuania on Tuesday. He said it was vital that EU lawmakers split their time between the two cities, because otherwise “in 10 years everything will be in Brussels and people will only speak among themselves in Brussels.”

The provocative comments come a day after Macron urged the parliament to return to “institutional normality.” In a letter to Parliament President David Sassoli, the French president argued that while the health situation was “difficult” in Strasbourg, it was no more perilous than the current public health situation in Brussels. 

So far it seems Macron has failed to persuade the legislative body. On Monday, the EU Parliament said it would cancel its forthcoming Strasbourg session, which was scheduled to run from October 5-8. 

Read more:

https://www.rt.com/news/502034-macron-eu-parliament-brussels-screwed/