-----Original Message-----
From: norgesen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Mar 2, 2006 6:08 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [cia-drugs] A Rough Guide to the European Round Table of Industrialists / Big Brothers
A Rough Guide to the European Round Table of Industrialists
January 30, 2006 17:54 | by Dr Noel Currid
The European Round Table of Industrialists (ERT) has been in the forefront of encouraging further EU integration for over twenty years. However, many EU-critical campaigners appear unaware of the ERT. Intended to increase awareness, this article will merely sketch the ERT and its activities. Making no claims to originality, [1] the article briefly examines the ERT's origins; its structure; its world-view and working methods; and its "achievements".
The ERT's origins
In the early 1980s the erstwhile European Economic Community was unable to respond effectively to the economic "stagflation" which Western Europe had been suffering from for almost a decade. At the same time there had been little movement towards further integration within the EEC. However, Pehr Gyllenhammar, Volvo's Chief Executive Officer (CEO), started campaigning for an overall scheme "to spur growth, and build industry and infrastructure" in Western Europe. Working closely with Fiat's Umberto Agnelli, Philips' Wisse Dekker and the then EEC Industry Commissioner Etienne Davignon, Gyllenhammar drew together a group of leading European CEOs into the ERT with the objective of "relaunching Europe." Gyllenhammar declared "Europe really is doing nothing. It's time for the business leaders to enter this vacuum and seize the initiative," [2} while Dekker argued that "If we wait for our governments to do anything, we will be waiting for a long time. You can't get all tied up with politics. Industry has to take the initiative. There is no other way." [3] In April 1983 the ERT's inaugural meeting was held.
The ERT's structure
The ERT now has 50 members, representing companies from 18 European countries, including three non-EU states (Norway, Switzerland, and Turkey). [4] Its current chairman is Gerhard Cromme of Thyssenkrupp, with Alain Joly of Air Liquide and Jorman Ollila of Nokia as Vice-Chairs. Other companies represented on the ERT include DaimlerChrysler, Ericsson, Fiat, Nestle, Renault and Siemens. Membership is personal, rather than corporate, and strictly invitation only.
ERT members meet in twice yearly plenary sessions, which determine the ERT's work programme and priorities, budget and publications. Decisions are made by consensus. Much of the ERT's work is done by Working Groups established at Plenary Sessions. [5] The ERT's Secretary General is in charge of a small Brussels-based secretariat which co-ordinates projects, acts as a contact point, provides administrative support and publishes ERT reports. [6]
"This is not just another lobby organization" (Pehr Gyllenhammar)[7]
The ERT may sound like just another pressure group lobbying Brussels. However, it was formed with the express intention of furthering EU integration and shaping it to benefit those European-based transnational corporations with "a significant manufacturing and technological presence worldwide" represented on its board. The ERT believes that "industry is entitled to...an EU which functions like an integrated economic system with a single centre of overall decision making." [8]The ERT has consistently supported the removal of national vetoes and of other forms of "fragmentation" within the EU: "The problem is that in the individual countries the politicians have to gather votes". [9] By way of analogy, "The United States could do nothing if every decision had to be ratified by 52 [sic] states". [10] At the same time the ERT claims to be primarily interested in the economic consequences of further EU integration, and not be overly concerned with the political consequences: "Our job is to say that potential gains are much more important...It is not for us to make speeches about the political unity of Europe." [11]
The ERT is also distinctive from other lobbying groups, as it does not bother with detailed legislation: "We don't deal with national issues. We only talk about the overall questions." [12] It is also distinctive in its ability to gain access to major players in the EU, both at national and supra-national level. The ERT's website boasts that:
"At European level, the ERT has contacts with the European Council, the European Commission, the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament.
"Every six months the ERT strives to meet the government that has the EU presidency to discuss priorities.
"At national level, each member communicates ERT's views to its own national government and parliament, business colleagues and industrial federations, other opinion-formers and the press." [13]
In short, the ERT's aim is to set the agenda at the highest levels of the EU, most notably the European Commission The evidence of two decades suggests that it has been extremely successful.
The Irresistible Rise of the ERT?
By 1993 "Other lobby groups, when questioned about the influence of the ERT, respond[ed] that the ERT is no longer a lobby group, but has become part of the EU apparatus." [14] There seems a fair amount of evidence over the past two decades to support this assertion.
The Single Market: For Jacques Delors, the ERT was "one of the main driving forces behind the Single Market." [15] In late 1984 the European Commission put forward a package of proposals to remove trade barriers within the EEC, eliciting little enthusiasm from either member governments or business. However, in January 1985 Wisse Dekker published Europe 1990: An Agenda for Action, which proposed eliminating trade barriers, harmonising regulations and abolishing fiscal frontiers within the EEC by 1990. Europe 1990 was part of an ERT document Changing Scales, which was sent to EEC heads of state. Three days after Dekker presented his Europe 1990 initiative, the newly appointed Jacques Delors delivered a speech to the European Parliament closely matching Dekker's proposal. A few months later, Industry Commissioner Lord Cockfield published his White Paper, the basis of the Single European Act, which postponed the ERT's 1990 deadline for internal market completion until 1992. However, the ERT had achieved its main aim.
Trans-European Networks (TENs): From its beginning the ERT regarded the development of "A single interacting system or meganetwork with a single output - mobility" as a top priority. [16] Claiming that existing infrastructures formed a barrier to unrestricted flows of goods in the single market, the ERT argued alongside the Commission for the adoption of TENs, the largest infrastructure plan in history. TENs includes the Channel Tunnel, numerous airport expansions and 12,000 kilometres of new motorways. Through an intensive lobbying campaign, which specifically targeted national transport ministers, the ERT helped put TENs squarely on the EU's agenda, culminating in the inclusion of TENs in the Maastricht Treaty. In 1991 the ERT published Missing Networks, which advocated the introduction of "user charges?to distribute the funds for improving effective transport" i.e. toll roads and road pricing. [17]
The Maastricht Treaty: the ERT was very active during the 1990-1 Intergovernmental Negotiations for the Maastricht Treaty, meeting regularly with Commissioners and national policy makers. As early as 1985 the ERT had argued that the internal market could only be completed by introducing a single currency. The timetable for EMU implementation in the ERT's 1991 Reshaping Europe report is very similar to that contained in the Maastricht Treaty. In 1995, the ERT "wrote a formal letter to all heads of government saying 'When you meet at the Madrid Summit, will you please decide once and for all that monetary union will start on the day agreed at Maastricht and with the criteria agreed at Maastricht.' We wrote to them, we asked them to do that. And they did it. They put out an announcement in Madrid and said exactly that: 'We will do it.' " [18]
The ERT post-Maastricht: In 1993 the European Commission put forward Delors' White Paper on Growth, Competitiveness and Employment. At its media launch, Delors thanked the ERT for its support in its preparation; a week earlier he had taken part in the ERT's press launch of its similar report Beating the Crisis. Furthermore, Beating the Crisis suggested the creation of a EU-wide body based upon President Clinton's Competitiveness Council. In February 1995 the EU set up a Competitiveness Advisory Group. Under Jacques Santer relations between the ERT and European Commission continued to be warm, since "By and large, our priorities are the same." [19] The ERT was largely happy with the outcome of the 1997 Amsterdam summit, after heavy lobbying, especially by the strengthening of the Commission President's powers, which would "minimise that lack of coherence within the Commission which makes life so hard for industry." [20] At the same time, the ERT was strongly supportive of the EU's expansion into Eastern Europe: "it is as if we had discovered a new South-east Asia on our doorstep." [21]
The ERT in the new Millennium: Prospects & Problems
On June 23rd 2003, the ERT held a 20th Anniversary Reception at the Palais d'Egmont in Brussels, with Romano Prodi as guest of honour. In a speech there, ERT Chairman Gerhard Cromme declared that the ERT "is proud of having being at the forefront of advocating these reforms [single market, EMU and EU enlargement] and of what the Union has achieved. Nevertheless, much remains still to be done..." [22]
In the new Millennium the ERT has continued to press for further integration, and has called for more powers to the European Commission. In 2002 the ERT told members of the convention on the EU's future that a stronger Commission was "vital", since it was "the genuinely Europe-focused institution and the one most capable of articulating the common European interest above national and regional interests." The ERT also opposed any erosion of the Commission's powers in economic affairs through their transfer to EU member states or to a system of shared responsibility. [23] For ERT's Wim Philippa "the Commission must fully retain its current executive powers". [24] With the proposed EU Constitution ensuring that the Commission would keep the sole right to proposed new laws (Article I:26) and firmly establishing the primacy of EU laws over those of national governments, (Article I:7) [25] the ERT's wishes on the the EU's political front appear to have been granted.
However, as Gerhard Cromme has recently commented, [26] the push for EU political integration in recent years has not been matched by sufficient changes in the economic sphere for the ERT. The ERT welcomed the call at the March 2000 Lisbon European Council to make the EU the "most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world" by 2010: [27] not surprisingly, as it had been heavily involved in the meeting's preparation. In 2000, ERT member Daniel Janssen declared that implementing the Lisbon proposals would cause a "double revolution" in Europe: "reducing the power of the state and of the public sector and deregulation" and "transferring many of the nation-states' powers to a more modern and internationally minded structure at European level" i.e. the European Commission. [28]
In reality, even by 2002 "The vision of Lisbon is slipping as fast at it was decided and the commitment is no longer there."[29] Before the March 2005 EU Summit, where the "Lisbon agenda" was discussed, the ERT wrote to the European Council, calling upon the EU to back the European Commission's call for a "New start for the Lisbon strategy". [30] Furthermore, the ERT was unhappy about the "Lisbon agenda" being downplayed to increase the chances of the EU Constitution being approved in referendums. [31]
The ERT described the French and Dutch votes against the EU Constitution in the early Summer of 2005 as a "wake-up call." However, the ERT did not regard these votes as a signal that the process of EU integration should slow down:
"The results demand an immediate, constructive and determined response from the heads of government of Europe. It is time for positive leadership to engage public support, restore economic dynamism to the single European market and allow Europe to act with confidence and conviction on the world stage." [32]
That is, the ERT saw the crisis over the EU Constitution as another opportunity to push the EU further towards the goals it has been advocating since 1983.
By way of a conclusion
Hopefully, this brief tour of the ERT's activities over the years shows that is an extremely important player in moves pushing us towards a de facto United States of Europe. The ERT has been able to achieve many of its aims in alliance with the European Commission, an undemocratic, bureaucratic and unaccountable body par excellence. The ERT is no friend of the rights of Europe's peoples to democracy and self-determination. For the ERT, the bigger the EU's "democratic deficit", with the Commission plugging much of the gap, the better.
Dr. Currid is Chairman of Kilburn Democracy Movement ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
1 The article draws a great deal upon Belen Balanya et al (2003) Europe Inc : Regional & Global Restructuring & the Rise of Corporate Power (London: Pluto Press). Unless otherwise indicated, the information in this article can be found in Chapter 3 of Europe Inc: "Writing the Script: The European Round Table of Industrialists," pp.19-36.
2 George Monbiot (2000) Captive State: The Corporate Takeover of Britain (London Macmillan), pp.320-1.
3 Newsweek 28 March 1983, quoted in "European Round Table (ERT): agenda setting for the EU" Corporate Watch magazine Issue 12 (Autumn 2000).
4 A full list is available at the ERT website There are seven representatives of British companies: Paul Adams, British American Tobacco; Martin Broughton, British Airways: Tom McKillop, Astrazeneca; John Rose, Rolls-Royce: Peter Sutherland, BP; Ben Verwaayen, BT; & Paul Walsh, Diageo.
5 There are eight at the moment: Accounting Standards: Competition Policy; Competitiveness; Employment/Industrial Relations & Social Policy; Enlargement & Neighbourhood Policy; Environment; Foreign Economic Relations: & Taxation. http://www.ert.be/pd/pdb/endb00.htm
6 http://www.ert.be/pc/enc03.htm
7 Newsweek 18 April 1983, quoted in Corporate Watch, op cit.
8 Keith Richardson, former ERT Secretary-General, quoted in Balanya et al, op cit, p.20.
9 Caroline Walcot, former ERT Assistant Secretary-General, quoted in Balanya et al, op cit, p.20.
10 Keith Richardson, quoted in Balanya et al, op cit, p.62. The reference to 52 US states was in the original. Would you trust the advice of someone who got such basic political facts right?
11 Keith Richardson, quoted in Balanya et al, op cit, p.31.
12 Keith Richardson, quoted in Balanya et al, op cit, p.20.
13 http://www.ert.be/pc/enc03.htm
14 Ann Doherty & Olivier Hoedeman (1994) "Misshaping Europe- The European Round Table of Industrialists" The Ecologist, Vol.24, No.4 (July/August).
15 Balanya et al, op cit, p.22
16 Balanya et al, op cit, p.22
17 Doherty and Hoedeman, op cit.
18 As the ERT's 1991 document Reshaping Europe put it more succinctly: "Japan has one currency. The US has one currency. How can the Community live with twelve?" ibid.
19 Balanya et al, p.25.
20 Keith Richardson, quoted in Balanya et al, op cit, p.62.
21 Keith Richardson quoted in Balanya et al, op cit, p.29.
22 http://www.ert.be/pd/pdb/endb600.htm
23 Paul Betts (2002) "Business chiefs seek stronger Commission" Financial Times 26 June, p.8
24 Interview with Wim Philippa EuroActiv.com, 18 May 2003.
25 Information c/o Democracy Movement.
26 Hugh Williamson (2005) "Companies hope to loosen their chains" Financial Times, 14 March, p.12.
27 http://www.ert.be/pg/eng00.htm
28 Balanya et al, op cit, p.xx. Janssen was speaking to a Tokyo meeting of the Trilateral Commission.
29 Morris Tabaksblat, Reed Elsevier chairman, quoted in Betts, op cit, p.8.
30 <http://www.ert.be/pdf/ERT Message to Spring Council 2005- Letter to PM Juncker.pdf>
31 Williamson, op cit, p.12.
32 http://www.ert.be/ERT press release -EU Constitutional Treaty.pdf
See also
http://www.spectrezine.org/europe/corporateeurope.html
http://www.spectrezine.org/europe/Denny3.htm
http://www.spectrezine.org/europe/currid.htm
~~~
Big Brothers
February 14, 2006 11:21 | by Alfred Mendes
It is not only developing countries which are seeing their vital national assets sold off to multinationals, as Alfred Mendes shows.
It is becoming increasingly clear that foreign nations, such as Germany, France and, particularly America, are gaining control of crucial public sectors of the British economy. However, in an article of this length, only three intriguing examples will be considered:
In 2001, the Defence Evaluation & Research Agency (DERA) of the British Ministry Of Defence (MOD) was split into two: the Defence Scientific & Technical Laboratory (DSTL); and the QinetiQ Group plc, formed as a result of the Ministry of Defence's decision, in 1998, to privatise a crucial section of its research department. (This mirrored exactly what the American equivalent of DERA - the Defense Advanced Rearch Projects Agency [DARPA] had previously done). QinetiQ's owners were the notoriously prestigious American private equity firm, the Carlyle Group.(1)
Carlyle had bought a 33.8% stake from the MOD for £42.2 million. In 2005, it now holds a 31% stake worth about £340 million - having, in the year to 31st March 2005, made operating profits of £69 million from a turnover of £872 million. And, as recently reported by the BBC, the Defence Secretary, John Reid, stated "the government is to sell its majority stake in defence firm QinetiQ and float the business on the stock exchange". This sale is expected to raise £1.1 billion in February 2006. This has not pleased Prospect, the union representing the workers at QinetiQ, but it has pleased others - such as Dame Pauline Neville-Jones who, as reported in the Independent on Sunday (IOS) of15th January 2006, stands to 'make around £400,000' from the sale as a result of her acquiring a 0.04% stake in QinetiQ, and subsequently serving as non-executive Chairman of the company until she retired last summer. From 1991 to 1994 she was Head of the Defence and Overseas Secretariat in the Cabinet Office and Deputy Secretary to the Cabinet, as well as serving as Chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee from 1993 t0 1994; from 1998 to 2004, she served on the board of BBC governors; and she recently became policy adviser to David Cameron. For his part, the Chairman of QinetiQ, Sir John Chisholm, stands to gain £24 million from the sale.
It is important to note that the nature of QinetiQ's research bears all the hall-marks of 'Big Brother' The following is not a comprehensive list:
(a) The introduction of identity cards to British citizens;
(b) The development of Zephyr 3 solar-powered space satellites; and
(c) introducing the US system Praetorian (which is currently operating at airports in the US) to the UK. This is a system which "automatically tracks and stitches 3D images with CCTV video, maps, and other real-time information, and alerts operators to intruders, unusual behaviour, left objects or anything it is told to spot" (2). 'Big Brother' indeed!
To assist in gaining a proper perspective of the foregoing, it should be added that Carlyle is both a pivotal defense contractor to the Pentagon, and owner of the CIA-front company -Vinnell Corp. (of Saudi Arabian notoriety). (3)
Another example of America's intrusion on to the British scene is worthy of note at this point. As revealed by the IOS (once more) of 8th January 2006, the London Transport Commissioner, one Bob Kiley - an American - after five years service, would be stepping down at the end of this month. However, the Managing Director of the London underground, one Tim O'Toole - an American - who had been favoured to become Kiley's successor, had apparently decided not to run for the job. As a result of this, the transport finance chief, Jay Walder - another American! - would now be one of two candidates for the job. On the face of it, an extraordinary situation - made even more intriguing when it is recalled that Bob Kiley had served in the CIA from 1963 to 1970, first as Manager of Intelligence Operations, and then as Executive Assistant to the notorious Richard Helms. (4)
To quote from the same IOS report: "Controversially, Mr Kiley will remain on TFL's payroll for three years after he steps down - earning £736,000 in consultancy fees. He will also be able to remain in the £2.I million house in Belgravia that was bought for him by TfL and where he lives rent free". This is certainly controversial!
At this point, enter Germany and France on to the British scene - in the form of E.ON and Electricité de France (EDF) respectively.
As a result of the British government's privatisation of its electricity industry in 1998, E.ON subsequently took over control of Powergen, the UK's leading energy company. E.ON is a German company which, in its own words, is "the world's largest investor-owned energy services provider". Indeed, as if to back this claim, it also acquired the American LG&E Energy Corp (now known as E.ON US) in 2000. (5) Moreover, as reported in the IOS of 15th January '06 (once again!), E.ON, made three bids last year to take over Scottish Power - all rejected - but, inasmuch as Scottish Power has since replaced its CEO with one Philip Bowman, it now makes it more likely that E.ON's next expected bid will succeed. An intriguing little addendum: Bowman "has admitted he knows little about the utility sector". Just the man for the job!
London Electricity was taken over by the French EDF Group in 1998, out of which grew EDF Energy in 2003. It covers London, East of England and the South East, thus making it "the 5th largest electricity generator in the UK". Intriguingly, (to quote their own words): "As a subsidiary of EDF Group, EDF Energy is not listed on the London Stock Exchange and so we are not obliged by law to comply with Stock Exchange rules". This EDF Group is one of the key players in electricity generation world-wide, but perhaps its most intriguing company is the EDF International North America (EDF INA), which is a member of the American company NuStart Energy Development LLC., which was formed in 2004 for both "obtaining a Construction and Operating License (COL) for a new nuclear plant in the USA - and completing the design engineering for selected radar technologies". (6) This is hardly surprising, given that France is dedicated to the use of nuclear energy. And, as EDF is now operating in the UK, are we not thus justified in suspecting that there is a causal relationship between that fact and the strong 'feelers' recently put out by the British government for resuming the use of nuclear power plants in this country?
The foregoing illustrates that Britain is no longer in 'hands-on' control of much of her economy - like so many other nations - including the so-called 'developed nations'. This is understandable, in view of the fact that we are living in an increasingly globalised system of capitalism - the source of which is "big brother' America - who now considers himself the 'policeman-of-the-world'. For which we have to pay an unacceptable price - namely, the loss of democracy.
Implicit within the term 'democracy' is that the elected representatives of a fulfill their responsibilities to their electorates using a 'hands-on' method of control - such as nationalisation. This is impossible within a capitalist system with its comcomitant 'privatisation', and, as proof of this, one needs only a brief look at that epitome of so-called 'democracy', America, whose 'elections' are either bought or manipulated (using the computerised DRE system), and whose Administration is an un-elected, appointed group so closely connected to the corporate establishment that it is therefore imbued with conflicts-of-interests - better known as corruption.
William Engdahl, in his article "Is Avian Flu another Pentagon Hoax?", noted that the US Senate had, in October '05, passed an $8 billion emergency funding bill to address the growing Avian Flu panic - in the course of which debate the Health & Human Services secretary, Mike Leavitt had told the press "If it isn't the current H5N1 virus that leads to an influenza pandemic, at some point in our nation's future, another virus will". It transpires that a drug which might possibly help in dealing with the flu, named Tamiflu, had been patented in 1996 by a Californian firm, Gilead Sciences Inc. - who had subsequently given its marketing rights to the Swiss pharmaceutical firm, Roche. It further transpires that Donald Rumsfeld had sat on the board of Gilead from 1988, and subsequently served as chairman from 1997 to 2001 - when he was appointed Defense Secretary. He is reported to be one of the largest stockholders in the company today. The article adds: "President Bush has ordered the US government to buy $2 billion worth of Gilead Science's Tamiflu".(7)
One fact is undeniable today: every July the 4th the US flag has been flying in the many US military and Intelligence bases throughout nations in Europe (including Britain), and the Mid, Near, and Far East - none of it to the benefit of those host nations - Iraq and Afghanistan in particular! Moreover, this but mirrors the fact that Britain, under the banner of its Union Jack, had, in its day of Empire, colonised and enslaved, both literally and figuratively, a number of countries (one of which happened to be the birthplace of this author). On the face of it, it would therefore seem somewhat puzzling that George Brown, in his recent speech to the Fabian Society calling for the establishment of a day celebrating Britain's national identity by waving the Union Jack in a manner similar to the American July the 4th celebration, is, at the very least, untimely - inopportune. But it is merely another example of the subordinate role Britain plays vis-à-vis her ally, America - that 'special relationship'. Of one thing we may be sure: those famous Fabians, Sydney and Beatrice Webb, must be agonising in their graves!
Alfred Mendes writes frequently for Spectrezine.
(1) http://www.spectrezine.org/europe/QinetiQ.htm
(2) http://news.bbc.co.uk
(3) http://www.spectrezine.org/global/carlyle.htm
(4) http://www.spectrezine.org/war/Mendes9.htm.
(5) http://www.eon.com/
(6) http://www.edfenergy.com/
(7) global research
| United state bankruptcy court western district of texas | United state life insurance | United state patent |
| United state patent search | United states patent office | United state flag |
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
- Visit your group "cia-drugs" on the web.
- To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Complete archives at http://www.sitbot.net/
Please let us stay on topic and be civil.
OM
| United state bankruptcy court western district of texas | United state life insurance | United state patent |
| United state patent search | United states patent office | United state flag |
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
- Visit your group "cia-drugs" on the web.
- To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
