Friday, 18 December 2015

News from Europe - 12/17/2015

Denmark wants to seize jewelry and cash from refugees



17 December, 2015

In recent months, Denmark has taken a fairly harsh stance toward refugees. In September, for example, authorities published an ad in Lebanese newspapers carrying an unmistakable message to foreigners who might think about seeking asylum: Don't come to Denmark.

Now, the country is debating another and even more extreme step: The government is considering a law that would allow authorities to confiscate jewelry from refugees entering the country. The proposal is almost certain to pass Parliament.

"It is pretty telling about the current Danish policies that [some] are not quite sure whether this is a hoax or not," said Zachary Whyte, an asylum and integration researcher at the University of Copenhagen. In this case, it's real.

"The bill presented on 10 December 2015 provides the Danish authorities with the power to search clothes and luggage of asylum seekers — and other migrants without a permit to stay in Denmark — with a view to finding assets which may cover the expenses," the Danish Ministry of Integration said in an email to The Washington Post.

The law would also impact refugees already in the country. It is included in an asylum policy bill that is expected to pass Parliament in January and would be set to take effect by next February. Police authorities would be allowed to seize valuables and cash amounts they deem expensive enough.

According to the Integration Ministry, "the new rule on seizure will only apply to assets of a considerable value." Foreigners are expected to be able to "keep assets which are necessary to maintain a modest standard of living, e.g. watches and mobile phones. Furthermore, assets which have a certain personal, sentimental value to a foreigner will not, as a main rule, be seized unless they have [considerable] value."

There were discrepancies in how the two main political parties are interpreting the proposed law. "Absurdly, the minister of justice initially explained the law on television by saying that it would apply to a hypothetical asylum seeker arriving with a suitcase full of diamonds. This prompted the Danish People’s Party to point out that items of smaller value should also be impounded," Whyte said.

He thinks there is no need for the law. "Asylum seekers generally do not arrive in Denmark with large amounts of cash and jewelry," he said.

The proposal "has been branded petty and cruel, and some opponents have asked whether the government would also be taking out asylum seekers' gold fillings," Whyte said. The idea of seizing jewelry from people who are fleeing has a particularly bitter connotation in Europe, where the Nazis confiscated large amounts of gold and other valuables from Jews and others.

The Danish Integration Ministry emphasized, however, that current rules already required refugees with sufficient financial means to pay for their stay themselves. Although the seized valuables are supposed to pay for refugee-related expenditures, the financial impact could be of less consequence. Experts say the Danish government is more interested in sending a message.

"Europe currently receives a very high number of refugees," Denmark's Integration Ministry defended the law. "Denmark does take a share. However, [too many refugees] put pressure on the Danish society and make it more difficult to ensure a successful integration of those who come to Denmark."

"Refugees who have been granted a residence permit can make full use of the free Danish school, education (including tertiary education) and health system on the same level as everyone else in Denmark," the ministry said. Denmark also provides integration procedures that run up to three years and include language as well as job training, for instance. "The aim of the Danish integration effort is to support refugees in order for them to become participating and financially independent citizens," the statement emphasized.

However, critics say that Denmark has tried hard to portray itself as a destination few refugees would want to go to. Recently, the Danish government cut social benefits for refugees by up to 50 percent. Even after neighboring Sweden recently increased restrictions because it had been overwhelmed by the refugee influx, Denmark was quick to emphasize that its policies still remained far more restrictive, researcher Whyte said. "This is in line with a general Danish asylum policy of trying to maintain and communicate a less welcoming position to refugees than its neighboring countries," Whyte explained

Disturbances flare in Calais as refugees try to break into lorries to reach UK

Drivers report people trying to break locks and slash open roofs of lorries, while diversionary tactics were apparently also used to draw police way


Disturbances flared in Calais on Thursday as people trying to make their way to the UK from France took part in orchestrated incidents, witnesses have said.

People tried to break the locks and slash open the roofs of lorries that had been forced to slow down in a bid to climb inside, while there were also reports that diversionary tactics were used to draw police officers away from the scene.

“They were attacking vehicles, breaking the locks off trucks, slashing roofs of the lorries and climbing in the back of them,” said Chris Yarsley of the Freight Transport Association, who said he was touring Eurotunnel facilities at the time.


Big Bro’s Watching: French Rail to Install Smart Anti-Terrorist Cameras


17 December, 2015

French railroads are currently testing cutting-edge visual-tracking software to detect suspicious behavior and unattended luggage.


French state-owned railway SNCF has announced a plan to integrate advanced tracking software into a 40,000 CCTV camera nationwide network, according to an online release posted Thursday. Thirty thousand such cameras would be used on board trains and another ten thousand in railway stations.
Caméra pour colis suspects, logiciel d'analyse comportementale... S Volant, secrGal :

Embedded image permalink

Embedded image permalink
4:36 AM - 18 Dec 2015
The software is capable of tracking raised voices, irregular body movements and sharp changes in body temperature, all indicators of possible heightened levels of anxiety in people that could be due to dangerous situations, SNCF secretary general Stephane Volant said online. It is not specified whether the software is of domestic or foreign design.
SNCF is also evaluating an option to install cameras that monitor baggage left unattended beyond an unspecified period, Volant said.
A mobile app to be released in the spring will inform security services of suspicious activity on SNCF premises and trains. SNCF security agents will also be allowed to perform pat-downs and baggage checks if the new laws come into effect, AFP reported.
Additional security measures are expected.

Remember Dominique Straus-Kahn?


The DSKing Of Christine Lagarde: Someone Wants To Eliminate The Head Of The IMF


17 December, 2015


It was over a year ago when we reported that a French court has put Christine Lagarde, head of the International Monetary Fund, under a formal probe for negligence in a corruption investigation involving famous financier Bernard Tapie, dating back to her days as finance minister.


Back then Lagarde said the decision was "without basis," adding she would challenge it with a higher court. The investigation is part of a complex, drawn-out probe into the alleged misuse of state funds. The case stems from a decision in the 2008 to use arbitration to settle a dispute with business tycoon Bernard Tapie. 

The arbitration panel awarded €420 million to Mr. Tapie.


"The magistrates of the court of justice of the Republic have decided to place me under formal investigation," Ms. Lagarde said in statement in August of 2014. 


"After three years of procedure, the sole surviving allegation is that through inadvertence or inattention I may have failed to intervene to block the arbitration that brought to an end the longstanding Tapie litigation," she dded.



We said that this development was hardly a shock: after two years ago the news hit that "IMF's Lagarde Flat Raided Over French 'Payout' Probe" with her ascent to the head of the IMF also riddled with numerous allegations of impropriety involving the Tapie matter. However, a year ago, such outside interventions were below the radar, and certainly never escalated to anything formal or official.


We left it by wondering who and why had been angered by her policies over the past three years, and who could be her replacement, confident her days as IMF head were over: "as for Lagarde, we are confident she and Angelo Mozillo will have enough fake tanning tips to exchange during their long and worry-free retirement."


Then, in a surprise to us, the Lagarde scandal did what it has done so well for the past 4 years: it went dormant again... until earlier today when in a surprising escalation, and one which is as financially motivated as it is political, a French court ordered the orange-skinned IMF head to finally face trial over her alleged role in the Tapie payout scandal.

Reuters reports that the case, which has roots dating back more than 20 years, will be heard by magistrates at the Cour de Justice de la Republique, which judges ministers for crimes in office, France's prosecutor general said.


Lagarde, who is accused of alleged negligence over the Tapie affair while serving as France's finance minister, said she would appeal against the decision, adding that she shared the prosecutors' view there was no basis for any charge against her.


"Ms. Lagarde would like to reaffirm that she acted in the best interest of the French state and in full compliance with the law," said a statement issued by her office.


But what is most unexpected about this outcome is that France's top prosecutor had recommended in September that investigations against Lagarde in the case be dropped.


Her lawyer, Yves Repiquet, was stunned: "A decision like this is incomprehensible."


"I sent her a text, she was really surprised and very disappointed," he said, adding that his client was currently in Washington. Well, yes: who wouldn't be surprised to learn they are not above the law.


The IMF's executive board reaffirmed its confidence in Lagarde's ability to effectively carry out her duties, IMF Communications Director Gerry Rice said in a statement.


Nonetheless, the fact that Lagarde is now going to trial despite the top prosecutor demanding that her trial be thrown out, shows that this is now a financial matter, one which very likely involves the IMF's desire to see Greek debt haircuts, something which made Lagarde and company many enemies over the summer when it was the IMF's policy recomomendations themselves which pushed the Greek anti-austerity movement over the edge and led to the ill-fated Greek referendum (everyone knows what happened then).


And while Europe may desperate want to give the impression it has moved in, it certainly has not forgotten, and now an unknown someone in the dark corridors of Brussels, or perhaps the C-suites of Wall Streets, is demaning a new and clean slate at the top of the world's sovereign debt guarantor, one who has a more "pro-Brussels/anti-debt reduction" philosophy than Lagarde.


Of course, this wouldn't be the first time that an IMF head has been "sacrificed" for the greater good: recall the impressive framing of Lagarde's predecessor Dominique Strauss-Khan, who from frontrunning French presidential candidate, suffered a political and career trainwreck overnight when he allegedly raped a maid at a NYC hotel.


As for Lagarde, we are confident that after a kangaroo court lasting at least several weeks, she herself will submit her resignation, and while the ending may not be literally taken from "Kill Bill" despite the eerie similarities...


... her career at the IMF has entered its terminal countdown



IMF chief Christine Lagarde is to stand trial in France for alleged negligence over a €404m ($438m; £294m) payment to a businessman in 2008.

She was finance minister in President Nicolas Sarkozy's government at the time of the compensation award to Bernard Tapie for the sale of a firm.


Mr Tapie supported Mr Sarkozy in the 2007 presidential election.





The US has refused to respond to French inquiries regarding terrorist funding sources, according to sources in the French Finance Ministry.


United States authorities have yet to respond to multiple requests from France on sources of funding for Daesh terrorists tied to the November 13 Paris attacks, a French Finance Ministry source told Reuters.
The US and the European Union signed an agreement called the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program in 2010, which allowed EU countries to rely on the US for information on terrorist groups' finance flows. Prior to the Paris attacks, the US turned down requests from France to reveal the financial flows funding the January 7 attacks on the Charlie Hebdo newspaper and a Jewish supermarket, saying France "did not provide enough details."
"I don't think that they will dare use this argument for the latest request concerning very specific people identified as being behind the Paris attacks," the source told Reuters.
According to the source, information regarding financing of terrorist groups has been made available to countries, which, the source told Reuters are "more Anglo-Saxon than us." Although the SWIFT international payments company's servers are mainly based in Europe, the information in the system is only available to the US, which negotiated access to the system with the EU.

"It's clearly a politically sensitive situation. But at the same time we cannot be satisfied that the information is available to some but not for European countries," another finance ministry source told Reuters.
France now seeks to access SWIFT data on a European servers, which the European Parliament blocked for EU countries, but not the US, over privacy concerns.



The Communist Party of Ukraine has been banned from operating and participating in elections following a court's decision to uphold a government lawsuit that accused the party of promoting separatism and inter-ethnic conflict.



EU Sanctions on Russia to be Extended – No Veto or Discussion Allowed



http://thesaker.is/eu-sanctions-on-russia-to-be-extended-no-veto-or-discussion-allowed/
In conversations with Russian news agency TASS EU diplomats and officials outline the undemocratic means whereby the decision to extend the sanctions will be imposed.

by Alexander Mercouris

Recently I wrote a piece for Russia Insider discussing how the EU really works.
I pointed out that the veto small states supposedly have over key EU decisions is a fiction.
Decisions are made by a small group who decide things between themselves and who because they control the EU’s bureaucracy can impose their decisions on everyone else.
An EU official – someone described as “close to the European Council” (the EU’s main policy making body) has basically confirmed as much in an interview with the Russian news agency TASS.
The subject discussed was the sectoral sanctions the EU has imposed on Russia, which are due to expire on 31st January 2016.
A political decision to extend the sanctions was made by the five big EU states – France, Germany, Italy, Britain and Spain – after consultations with the US at the G20 summit at Antaliya in Turkey.
Italy subsequently delayed announcement of this decision saying more discussion was needed.
In my piece I said Italy’s decision should not be taken seriously. The Italians were simply putting a marker down.
The source who has spoken to TASS has all but said the same thing. These are his words as TASS reports them:
“It is as simple as this: the EU Council has related the limiting measures with implementation of the Minsk accords.
It is not an issue to be discussed, it is a political objective we have now. By and large, the Minsk accords are not implemented as of today, thus sanctions are to be extended. They say, for another six months.
At present, the work continues at the level of working groups. The plans are, the EU ambassadors approve it (decision) in a written procedure, though later on the procedure was postponed (at Italy’s insistence – AM) as the work still continues.
Nobody is really in a hurry, since the sanctions expire only in late January.
No, this topic is not on the agenda (of the European Council meeting on 14th December 2015 – AM).
I do not think any discussion will take place, and the reason is very simple: the agreement is the sanctions will remain until the Minsk accords are implemented. In fact, there is nothing to discuss, which is clear to everyone.
It is tough to say now on what day, as it is not clear yet what procedure will be used. But I do not think it will happen very soon. Anyway, there is quite a time to January 31.
the very fact of the sanctions’ extension is a ready decision now.
Right, some EU countries speak for discussing the sanctions package at the level of ministers (including Italy, Luxembourg – TASS), others are ready to extend them automatically so that not to waste time discussing the Ukrainian crisis at the last meetings of this year, which will be aimed at settlement of many problems related to migration; however, as of today not a single EU country out of the list of 28 has spoken against extension of the limitation measures.”
Though these comments say no more than what I previously reported, their cynicism still takes the breath away.
The sanctions are to go on being extended until the Minsk Accords are “fully implemented”.
No explanation is given as to what “fully implemented” means or who will decide that – especially since there is to be no discussion of the question (see below).
It is the Ukrainians who are not implementing the Minsk Accords – a fact now acknowledged by everyone including the German and French governments. Nonetheless it is the sanctions on Russia that are to be extended.
Taken literally this gives Kiev a veto over when the sanctions will be lifted.
No discussion of whether or or not the sanctions are to be extended is to take place.
The only question to be decided – by whom one wonders since there is to be no discussion? – is the purely bureaucratic one of whether there will be a simple announcement that the sanctions have been extended, or whether there will be a statement to that effect following a meeting of the EU Council of Ministers – where however the subject of the sanctions will not be discussed.
The source does say that no EU member state has “spoken against extending” the sanctions.
Since there is no discussion one wonders how he knows?
TASS also reports another almost identical conversation with another European diplomat:
“Another European diplomat also confirmed to TASS the sanctions “are bound to be extended.”
He said the issues of milder or tougher sanctions “even have not been raised.”
“Nobody is going to review each of the sanctions. This work is very effort-consuming, and it is not reasonable to begin it under the conditions, where the situation in the zone of the Ukrainian conflict has not changed radically in either direction,” he said.”
Apparently even relaxing the sanctions is not going to be discussed because this is “very effort-consuming” – a bizarre comment given the pain the sanctions and Russia’s counter sanctions are causing European businesses and European agriculture.
Though information about how the EU works today is abundant, it still surprises me that there is still so little awareness of this. Even alternative media rarely touches on the question.
Instead one repeatedly comes across meaningless head counts of which countries supposedly oppose the sanctions as if that really mattered.
If the big five states agree that sanctions are to be extended, extended they will be. A decision to that effect will be published by the EU bureaucracy – which they control – as if all the EU states had agreed to it.
None of the smaller EU states can veto this decision because – since it is not going to be discussed by the European Council or by the EU Council of Ministers – they are not being provided with a proper forum where they could exercise such a veto.
If they publicly objected to the way the decision was made – or if they ever were to try to impose a veto whether through their permanent representative or at a meeting of the European Council or of the Council of Ministers – their objection and their veto would be simply ignored and would go unreported.
There would however be serious repercussions, with threats made in private that their structural funds might be cut if they continued to rock the boat by publicly defying the official line.
Only two EU states are powerful enough to ensure their vetoes are always respected. These are Germany and France. Precisely because these two states control the EU they scarcely ever need to wield a veto since it barely conceivable that the European Council or the Council of Ministers would ever take a decision they objected to.
Italy and Spain are strong enough to be listened to, but are not strong enough to veto a decision by themselves without some support from other EU states save in very exceptional circumstances which scarcely ever arise.
Britain is in an intermediate position. It has shown that it can veto decisions relating to the EU’s budget – to which it is a major contributor – but that it cannot veto anything else. The British have been unhappy about the process of EU integration the Germans and the French have been pursuing for the last twenty years (“ever closer union”) but despite possessing a veto they have been unable to prevent it.
None of the other EU states has any power of veto at all. Even when their electorates have voted against EU decisions in elections or referendums their objections have been ignored.
What invariably happens is that if the results of such elections or referendums go against what the EU authorities want, they simply overrule them (as was the case with Greece) or instruct the state that held the elections or the referendums to hold them again (as happened with Denmark and Ireland) until their people vote the “right” way.
This is how the EU works. To dispute it is to engage in denial.
It is why for all their cynicism the EU officials TASS spoke to are right: the sanctions against Russia will be extended before they expire on 31st January 2016 whatever objections some of the EU’s smaller countries may have against them.

Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)