[pascal]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/not_in_we...ts/2988397.stm

Euro press picks over defence summit


Europe's defenders?
The results of Tuesday's defence mini-summit in Brussels received a mixed reception in European newspaper.

The leaders of France, Germany, Belgium and Luxembourg announced plans for joint military planning and their intention to set up a rapid reaction force.

The east German Maerkische Allgemeine from Potsdam concedes that any effort "to give Europeans more weight in the trans-Atlantic alliance is... legitimate and urgent".

But the paper criticises the way the four prime movers have distanced themselves from Washington, saying it has "destroyed the slight chances of any common defence efforts".

'Wrecking ball'

The Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung views with scepticism the declaration by the four leaders that they were trying to strengthen the European pillar of Nato.

"It is an open question," it says, "whether the four achieved anything in this regard, or whether they were swinging a wrecking ball."

The Suedkurier from Konstanz has little time for the meeting.

"Europe is not suffering from a shortage of declarations of intent, it is suffering from a lack of resolve. This mess found its visible expression in the Brussels mini-summit."

The Rhein-Zeitung is more positive. "Europe does not need 25 armies", its says.

'Sensible and logical'

The centre-left Frankfurter Rundschau also puts a positive gloss on the summit.

"Much of what they agreed is not new ... and it opens the door to a European army and the abolition of national armed forces."

Munich's Sueddeutsche Zeitung also sees little reason to be surprised at the results, calling them "relatively sensible and logical".

"The text is nothing more than a consistent development of what EU governments have been saying at their summits for years."

'Daring initiative'

France's Le Figaro calls the plan to set up a military planning "nucleus" near Brussels next year, "the most daring of the initiatives".

The paper says Jacques Chirac's statement that "whether you like it or not, a multipolar world is emerging naturally" is a snub to Tony Blair, who had "warned that his country and the rest of the EU would refuse to accept anything that might undermine Nato".

Le Monde emphasises a similar point, reporting that the four leaders "decided to go ahead and announce a number of decisions without waiting for their EU partners".

"Do we, the Fifteen - soon to be the Twenty-five - really want to build a European defence together?" asks the widely-read daily Ouest-France.

"The least one can say is that the building site is in a total mess," the paper goes on.

"The Europeans will have to clarify their relations with America and... Washington will have to agree to allow Europe 'the right to exist'."

The Belgian daily Le Soir questions the results of the summit.

"Among the concrete proposals put forward ... that of creating a 'military staff' independent of Nato in 2004 threatens to arouse an outcry from the most Atlanticist Europeans", it says.

La Libre Belgique, another Belgian daily, praises what it calls the "noble and ambitious" idea that Europe should end its "almost puerile military dependence on the United States".

But it adds that the four participants set "no costed targets" for their projects.

Unity or division?

The Spanish daily ABC thinks money will be the plan's downfall.

"France and Germany's inability to control their galloping public deficits turns the proposal into a mere expression of desires that will be impossible to put into practice," it says.

La Razon argues for giving the proposals a chance.

"We can but hope that the project will manage to unite the other members of the EU under the necessary flag of unity, instead of deepening a division that would only benefit the enemies of a strong Europe," the paper says.

BBC Monitoring, based in Caversham in southern England, selects and translates information from radio, television, press, news agencies and the Internet from 150 countries in more than 70 languages.

[Sxotty]

As it says, they won't want to actually pay for it, they would rather the US spent our money defending them.

[CosmoKramer]

Very good initiative. As always in EU history some member states have to show the way before it is embraced by the rest. Hopefully NATO will be long forgotten in a few decades.

[Joe DeFuria]

This is almost comical....

[Vince]

Originally Posted by CosmoKramer

Very good initiative. As always in EU history some member states have to show the way before it is embraced by the rest. Hopefully NATO will be long forgotten in a few decades.

Ahaha...

[nutball]

Oh do me a favour. This European army idea has been going around for decades now. It won't fly until the various nations within the EU reconcile their differing national interests. This may never happen.

Have we learned nothing from the past 12 months?

[Humus]

Frankly, I don't think it's a particularly good idea to try to make EU another military super power. Will probably only create trouble, and in times of clashes between the US and EU it will probably be more harmful and dangerous than otherwise.

[DeanoC]

Don't make assumptions about Europe from the past...

Europe is changing rapidly, its will double in size next year. Even that won't be the end of its growth.

Discussion began last year about internal protection of the European border without NATO article 5 use. A common foriegn and security policy is under way, the beginning of a European army have started. Money is now the Euro. A president of the European Union is a possibility.

In fact its European policy to be independent ASAP. Europe is rapadily growing to the democratic centre of the world, its democracy and freedoms are of the highest standard (second to none) in the world. Rights of privacy, freedom of movement, human rights, social conditions and even enviromental conditions are enshrined as basic human rights.

100 years ago the idea that the USA would be a super-power and the UK would be a small part of a Europe Union would have been laughed at.....

If you think the differences can't be overcome, its worth noting that most US states have a few differences as well and they seem to be o.k. these days and Europe has already had a civil war (lasted about the last 2000 years ) to convince themselves that not fighting each might be a good idea.

Lets just hope that the USA and EU don't piss each other off. In the future a split like Iraq could be the beginnings of WW3.

Don't under estimate the potential for the world to change rapidly, especially when pressure is applied.

[Sxotty]

Originally Posted by DeanoC

its democracy and freedoms are of the highest standard (second to none) in the world. Rights of privacy, freedom of movement, human rights, social conditions and even enviromental conditions are enshrined as basic human rights.

I assume you mean that the democracy is blah blah blah as you said, and that they like all that other stuff too?

Because privacy rights are better in the US, and freedom of movement in the U.S. compared to in Europe lol. It is not really even comparable, although as is well known europe is trying to become similar to the United States of Europe or something, which is fine.

It is funny to me how george orwells 1984 has taken awhile, but things are starting back towards a polarized world into huge blocks, and as in the book US-UK are still together, and the rest of europe is kind of heading away, while the UK rides the fence. It is interesting and I wonder where it will end up.

It is only a matter of time however in my opinion till people realize Europe is full of seperate countries in name only, and therefore Europe would only get one seat in the UN, and what not.


------
well maybe not but it would be funny

[Crusher]

I don't have a problem with a United States of Europe. Having grown up in the U.S.A., European countries seem tiny as it is... I think it would make more sense for them to all join together in one nation.

What I do have a problem with, is a U.S.E. where the three branches of government are France, Germany, and Belgium.

[nutball]

Originally Posted by DeanoC

If you think the differences can't be overcome, its worth noting that most US states have a few differences as well and they seem to be o.k. these days and Europe has already had a civil war (lasted about the last 2000 years ) to convince themselves that not fighting each might be a good idea.

IMO the USA is not a good indicator of whether the USE would work. The USA is a young country, it doesn't have much of a history. Forming it was writing on a blank slate.

In Europe you have a situation where animosity and mis-trust between the nations goes back a thousand years or more. You can't sweep that away in a few decades.

[Nagorak]

Originally Posted by Sxotty

As it says, they won't want to actually pay for it, they would rather the US spent our money defending them.

And the sad thing is the US is stupid enough to do it. Just like we defend Japan so they can only spend 1% of their GDP on defense. Meanwhile the US can't really stop defending these countries because we use the military as a huge job program, and we'd have nothing to do with them if we couldn't deploy them around the world.

Honestly, who are the smart ones here?

[Nagorak]

Originally Posted by Sxotty

It is funny to me how george orwells 1984 has taken awhile, but things are starting back towards a polarized world into huge blocks, and as in the book US-UK are still together, and the rest of europe is kind of heading away, while the UK rides the fence. It is interesting and I wonder where it will end up.

You have to have huge blocks form before you can end up with one world government. Also, I'd say the US and UK aren't really together, but rather the UK is just the US's bitch. I think its clear that eventually the UK will wise up and join with the rest of Europe, because besides Tony Blair, no one has really been fooled that it's really the UK that's calling the shots. Also, in terms of mentality and history the UK really has a lot more in common with Europe. But in a thousand years it's not really going to matter anyway. Then they'll probably be concerned with unifying our solar system with neighboring ones (after they break away in a war of independence in desire of more individual power, then later come back as equals...human history sure is redundant..)

Unfortunately the larger and more removed the government becomes, the less responsive it is to the people. So, in a general sense 1984 may not be so unrealistic (although that isn't to say that Orwell didn't exaggerate to make a point). For the most part, this won't affect anyone except for the affluent, because individual power is already nil in a country with millions of people in it. Also as much as we individually pride in our uniqueness, in the scheme of things its actually become pretty unimportant. Just as life originally evolved from single cells to multi-celled organisms, evolution has now moved on to form huge macro-organisms (countries, etc).

We're basically all cells now, individually expendable and unimportant. But the good thing is that collective macro-organisms are much more intelligent than individual organisms. I guess the really interesting question is whether individual rights will remain of much importance, or if they'll gradually fall by the wayside. I tend to expect the later since many of our "rights" are just matters of economic convenience. In order to facilitate the fluctuations of society's focus (as seen in the job market) workers have to be free to move around. When and if this becomes no longer necessary, I wouldn't be surprised if its curtailed.

But, then again, individual cells and even mitochondria manage to retain some of their individual function and relative independence (as much as such miniscule organisms can have), so maybe the future isn't so bleak for us after all.

[nutball]

Originally Posted by Nagorak

Also, I'd say the US and UK aren't really together, but rather the UK is just the US's bitch. I think its clear that eventually the UK will wise up and join with the rest of Europe, because besides Tony Blair, no one has really been fooled that it's really the UK that's calling the shots. Also, in terms of mentality and history the UK really has a lot more in common with Europe.

Well that's a rather provocative way of putting it, but in essence you are right that very few people in the UK think we have very much influence at all over what the US does (and IMO I think Tony Blair doesn't either). The people who do think this tend to be from the Thatcherite wing of the Tory Party.

Thing is there's a big debate been going on here for decades over who we should align ourselves with: Europe or the US. Both have benefits and drawbacks. It's not at all clear which would be most beneficial to the UK (which frankly is all we care about). It's clear to me however that our current position with a foot on each camp isn't sustainable in the long-term. We're going to have to make a decision eventually, though I wouldn't like to bet on what that decision will be.

[Barnabas]

I don't really see a new block forming in europe. In germany for example a simple government change should be sufficient for a return to the "Follow america whereever it leads" policy.

[Sxotty]

Originally Posted by Nagorak

For the most part, this won't affect anyone except for the affluent, because individual power is already nil in a country with millions of people in it. Also as much as we individually pride in our uniqueness, in the scheme of things its actually become pretty unimportant. Just as life originally evolved from single cells to multi-celled organisms, evolution has now moved on to form huge macro-organisms (countries, etc).

We're basically all cells now, individually expendable and unimportant.

That is really not true at all. While it is true that individuals have little power in the U.S. government at the local level there is still considerable power for an individual, if they want it. Human rights will never go by the wayside, b/c people would get pissed eventally and do something about it.

The only way this could ever happen would be to make distinct classes of people and educate some and give them privlidges, and no educate the others and make them janitors and what not, but we will have to wait and see.

[DeanoC]

Originally Posted by Sxotty

I assume you mean that the democracy is blah blah blah as you said, and that they like all that other stuff too?

Because privacy rights are better in the US, and freedom of movement in the U.S. compared to in Europe lol. It is not really even comparable, although as is well known europe is trying to become similar to the United States of Europe or something, which is fine.

EU rules on privacy are way ahead of the US, so I think you have your facts wrong. Its an EU right, that nobody can store data about an individual without that person's consent. Also nobody can share or sell that personal data without consent.

What does the US have? Federal data protection and self regulation for everybody else also a belief that selling personal data is o.k.

The EU data protection act is so powerful, a 'safe harbour' policy has to be operated by all US companies wishing to store any data about EU citizens.

In case you don't know, the data protection act means all records stored by anyone (not just the federal government as I believe the US law is) have to be open to the person held on record, also the transmission and storage must meet certain conditions.

If your interested in how far reaching the EU privacy law's are, even in the US. http://www.privacyknowledgebase.com/newsUse09_s.jsp

If you want to read the EU rights try http://europa.eu.int/comm/internal_m...y/guide_en.htm

[John Reynolds]

Originally Posted by CosmoKramer

Very good initiative. As always in EU history some member states have to show the way before it is embraced by the rest. Hopefully NATO will be long forgotten in a few decades.

Your gratitude is overwhelming.

[CosmoKramer]

Your gratitude is overwhelming.

Looks like severe detachment from reality but I'll be nice and let you explain yourself.

[MrsSkywalker]

What does the US have? Federal data protection and self regulation for everybody else also a belief that selling personal data is o.k.

Not sure what type of data you are talking about. Are you reffering to things like phone numbers and addresses? Or to social security numbers and medical information?

[Humus]

All those and more.

[DeanoC]

Originally Posted by MrsSkywalker

Not sure what type of data you are talking about. Are you reffering to things like phone numbers and addresses? Or to social security numbers and medical information?

Everything, all data written, stored on computer, etc

[MrsSkywalker]

Everything, all data written, stored on computer, etc

Ok, well you are incorrect then when you say it is legal to sell information. There is certain personal information that is on public record, like birth date and location, death dates, properties owned, that type of thing. This info is kept in town records, and to obtain it you must be a relative (certain exceptions apply to private detectives, etc., and sometimes you get a clerk who has no regard for the law and passes out the info all willy-nilly...a crime in my state, coincidentally...also, property ownership info is availble to anyone).

Phone numbers and addresses can also be considered public records, I suppose, b/c most people list them in the phone book. There are mailing lists which companies purchase...they have names, addresses, and phone numbers of people. These lists are usually compiled from phone books, therefore the information they use is not secret. You can request to NOT have your phone number or address listed in the phone book, and it is LAW that the phone company does not give out your information if you are unlisted in the phone book. Also, it is LAW that if you request to be taken off a mailing list, the company must honor your request. For example, if you get an unsolicited call from a telemarketer, and you tell them to take you off their list, they are breaking the law if they call you again, or sell your name in a list to another company.

Things like medical records, social security numbers, credit card numbers and that type of sensitive information are definitely protected by our laws. It is VERY illegal to sell this type of personal data to anyone.

I'm not saying that crap doesn't happen, it does. But our government in no way supports it, and prosecutes whenever possible. However, it's a pretty hard thing to prosecute...usually there is no paper trail. Nonetheless, it is illegal.

[DeanoC]

Originally Posted by MrsSkywalker

Ok, well you are incorrect then when you say it is legal to sell information. There is certain personal information that is on public record, like birth date and location, death dates, properties owned, that type of thing. This info is kept in town records, and to obtain it you must be a relative (certain exceptions apply to private detectives, etc., and sometimes you get a clerk who has no regard for the law and passes out the info all willy-nilly...a crime in my state, coincidentally...also, property ownership info is availble to anyone).

<Snip Mrs SkyWalker setting me right>

I'm not saying that crap doesn't happen, it does. But our government in no way supports it, and prosecutes whenever possible. However, it's a pretty hard thing to prosecute...usually there is no paper trail. Nonetheless, it is illegal.

O.K. Selling infomation isn't allowed (which is good ). Its quite hard to get accurate info on other countries etc, its a common saying among EU privacy people that the US allows selling of private data. My apologies for the error.

The thing as was trying to point out is that under EU law, all private data is protected.

If I go into a bank and ask to start an account, they have to explicitly ask me if its o.k. to store my name & address.

My data (everything about me) is my property and explictly under my control, except for reason of national security nobody can store or use data without my control.

To give you how strict it is, it took some serious legal wrangling to allow web-site cookies. A cookie can be used to track you, so they were almost disallowed unless explicitly granted. In the end common sense prevailed and they were allowed, as long as there is a statement somewhere on there website to obtain usage infomation etc. Even devices like Xbox have privacy concerns (the unique number), when a person signs up for Xbox Live you have to give you consent for them to store that data, and I can ask at anytime for my any infomation kept related to me.

[Humus]

Originally Posted by MrsSkywalker

Ok, well you are incorrect then when you say it is legal to sell information. There is certain personal information that is on public record, like birth date and location, death dates, properties owned, that type of thing. This info is kept in town records, and to obtain it you must be a relative (certain exceptions apply to private detectives, etc., and sometimes you get a clerk who has no regard for the law and passes out the info all willy-nilly...a crime in my state, coincidentally...also, property ownership info is availble to anyone).

Phone numbers and addresses can also be considered public records, I suppose, b/c most people list them in the phone book. There are mailing lists which companies purchase...they have names, addresses, and phone numbers of people. These lists are usually compiled from phone books, therefore the information they use is not secret. You can request to NOT have your phone number or address listed in the phone book, and it is LAW that the phone company does not give out your information if you are unlisted in the phone book. Also, it is LAW that if you request to be taken off a mailing list, the company must honor your request. For example, if you get an unsolicited call from a telemarketer, and you tell them to take you off their list, they are breaking the law if they call you again, or sell your name in a list to another company.

Things like medical records, social security numbers, credit card numbers and that type of sensitive information are definitely protected by our laws. It is VERY illegal to sell this type of personal data to anyone.

I'm not saying that crap doesn't happen, it does. But our government in no way supports it, and prosecutes whenever possible. However, it's a pretty hard thing to prosecute...usually there is no paper trail. Nonetheless, it is illegal.

In Europe you can't get onto any mailing lists without explicitely expressing your consent. Yes, your address and phone number is available in the phone-book, but if a company or agency wants to keep records on you in their system they must have your written consent to do so. Selling such records to a third party is illegal unless you have the consent from everyone in those records.