EU-DIGEST - special edition

Members of Parliament from all political horizons have reacted with fury to a Commission proposal yesterday (28 May) to re-allow imports of poultry rinsed with chemicals, stemming mainly from the United States.MEPs, meeting in Parliament's Environment Committee, were incensed by the decision, which they say contradicts Community food production standards. "The chlorination of chicken intended for human consumption is not acceptable for the EU […] Such food production methods are at variance with the relevant Community standards, and threatening to the EU's entire set of food production standards and rules," states an EP press release. If approved, the proposal would effectively lift an 11-year ban on US poultry, which are generally treated with these processes.

The US has been pushing for the ban to be lifted for years but to no avail. However, the issue was recently pinpointed as a top priority in the new "Transatlantic Economic Council" process, which aims to remove remaining regulatory obstacles hampering trade and investment between the two economic giants.

France is leading the opposition to the plans, saying the move would frustrate efforts to reduce bacterial infection rates, such as salmonella, in Europe. Many other European governments are fiercely opposed to any form of compromise on food safety standards, which in the EU are among the highest in the world.

For the complete report and other reports related to Europe click on this link

Members of Parliament from all political horizons have reacted with fury to a Commission proposal yesterday (28 May) to re-allow imports of poultry rinsed with chemicals, stemming mainly from the United States.MEPs, meeting in Parliament's Environment Committee, were incensed by the decision, which they say contradicts Community food production standards. "The chlorination of chicken intended for human consumption is not acceptable for the EU […] Such food production methods are at variance with the relevant Community standards, and threatening to the EU's entire set of food production standards and rules," states an EP press release. If approved, the proposal would effectively lift an 11-year ban on US poultry, which are generally treated with these processes.

The US has been pushing for the ban to be lifted for years but to no avail. However, the issue was recently pinpointed as a top priority in the new "Transatlantic Economic Council" process, which aims to remove remaining regulatory obstacles hampering trade and investment between the two economic giants.

France is leading the opposition to the plans, saying the move would frustrate efforts to reduce bacterial infection rates, such as salmonella, in Europe. Many other European governments are fiercely opposed to any form of compromise on food safety standards, which in the EU are among the highest in the world.

For the complete report and other reports related to Europe click on this link

"There are no sellers without buyers". That's the first law of practical economics. Everyone knows this to be true, whether or not one has ever taken a course in Economics. Everyone except, apparently, a few Ph.D economists who seem to forget this rule when they are hired by the Heritage Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute, etc., from which they migrate, back and forth, between offices in Republican/conservative administrations and these right-wing think tanks.

For these worthies, the "first law" is replaced by the dogmas of deregulation, "trickle-down" and market fundamentalism: impoverish the masses, throw money at the rich who will then invest it, and then "the invisible hand" of the unregulated free market will bring forth a cornucopia of goods and services. Never mind that there will be few if any buyers for these consumer goodies. Henry Ford saw the fallacy of such a policy when he raised the wages of his workers. His competitors in the auto industry were aghast. "Why did you do that?," they asked. Ford is said to have replied, "If I don't pay them more, who will buy my cars?".

For the complete report and other stories related to Europe click on this link

As allied casualties mounted - more than 840 at last count - popular support for the war has waned in Europe, limiting the ability of government leaders to respond to urgent pleas for help from the United States and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, which leads the international force. Continued involvement hinges on a comprehensive plan for the country's reconstruction, which was the focus of an international conference in Paris last week. European leaders "want a new strategy that's more saleable at home," says Daniel Korski, author of "Afghanistan: Europe's Forgotten War" and a senior fellow at the London-based European Council on Foreign Relations. "It is part of an outreach to the domestic audience that there's more to this than the military component." When the war was started in late 2001 in response to the attacks of Sept. 11 against New York and Washington, the fight against Al Qaeda and its Taliban allies had broad support in both the United States and Europe, in stark contrast to the more divisive, costlier and deadlier Iraq war that began two years later. Since then, Afghanistan has increasingly been caught in a spiral of violence and corruption, fueled by a booming opium trade that has put local officials in thrall to a criminal narcotics racket.

Heroin production in Afghanistan has tripled since 2001 and now accounts for 90 percent of the world supply, according to U.S. figures. Profit from the drug trade helps fund Taliban insurgents, who have stepped up attacks. In 2003, there were three suicide bombings. In 2007, there were 130.

For the complete report and related reports to Europe click on this link

As allied casualties mounted - more than 840 at last count - popular support for the war has waned in Europe, limiting the ability of government leaders to respond to urgent pleas for help from the United States and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, which leads the international force. Continued involvement hinges on a comprehensive plan for the country's reconstruction, which was the focus of an international conference in Paris last week. European leaders "want a new strategy that's more saleable at home," says Daniel Korski, author of "Afghanistan: Europe's Forgotten War" and a senior fellow at the London-based European Council on Foreign Relations. "It is part of an outreach to the domestic audience that there's more to this than the military component." When the war was started in late 2001 in response to the attacks of Sept. 11 against New York and Washington, the fight against Al Qaeda and its Taliban allies had broad support in both the United States and Europe, in stark contrast to the more divisive, costlier and deadlier Iraq war that began two years later. Since then, Afghanistan has increasingly been caught in a spiral of violence and corruption, fueled by a booming opium trade that has put local officials in thrall to a criminal narcotics racket.

Heroin production in Afghanistan has tripled since 2001 and now accounts for 90 percent of the world supply, according to U.S. figures. Profit from the drug trade helps fund Taliban insurgents, who have stepped up attacks. In 2003, there were three suicide bombings. In 2007, there were 130.

For the complete report and related reports to Europe click on this link

Eurosceptics celebrate a triumph of the little people against the Euro juggernaut. Ireland's 'no' vote against the treaty on the European constitution is, in such minds, the brave assertion of democracy against bureaucracy. The European elite in Brussels, with its dark plans to hobble Europeans everywhere, deserves a good kicking for producing an unloved, incomprehensible set of reforms. It has got it. Ireland has stood up for Europe.

This is nonsense from top to bottom, a farrago of lies and disinformation. The European Union is a painfully constructed and fragile skein of compromises that allows 27 democratic states on our shared continent to come together and drive forward areas of common interest to further their citizens' well-being. The elite that plots this is a nonexistent phantom invented by populist demagogues. The beleaguered, unloved treaty would have improved Europe's effectiveness and tried to address its much talked about democratic weaknesses.

The reality is that Ireland's 'no' voters have trashed an EU that is precious but weak. Most 'no' voters, grabbing on to the worst fear rather than reasoned fact, have unknowingly set in train a political dynamic that, unless carefully handled, could lead not just to Ireland but Britain leaving the EU. Everybody will be the poorer.

Note EU-Digest: "if the Euro Sceptics in Britain and Ireland eventually get their way, the day might even come where Ireland and Britain will be replaced by Russia as a member of the EU. Russia in a way has far more to contribute to the EU as a whole than Ireland or Britain. If this happens it would finally get rid of two countries who have always been treating the EU with a certain amount of disdain and who look at their EU membership as "wanting to have their cake and eat it also."

For additional reports on Europe and the EU click on this link