Catherine of Arrogant.
Little Catherine rode a tidal wave of ‘right-on’. From the ‘Wigan Mining and Technical College’ through a degree in Social Work, naturally, she diligently applied herself to every cause close to the heart of her left wing masters. Lesbian and Gay rights; One Parent families; soon her anorak was covered in proficiency badges and the Scout Master General, Gordon Brown, awarded her the coveted position of Akela-in-Chief to the marxist cubs stationed in the European Commission.
Gordon Brown actually had in mind hobbling Tony Blair’s global ambitions by steering him into the role of ‘High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security’ and keeping him mired in unscrambling the mess he had helped to create in Serbia and Kosovo – but 27 other countries who had a say in the matter said ‘not on your Nellie, Gordon’. They settled for little Catherine.
She managed to become the EUs effective ‘Foreign Minister’ without any knowledge or experience of foreign affairs, an unelected representative of Britain, not speaking a word of French (still the main language of the European Commission) – but she did tick the mysterious leftist algorithms of being a woman, and having a strong interest in ‘Fair trade’ coffee.
She must have been so proud as she sat on the high chair and powerful men from around the world arrived to ‘pay homage’ to her. Of course, now we know that women have no mind of their own, and are traumatically swayed by any suggestion from a man with any authority, we wouldn’t let a vulnerable creature like a woman be put in such a position; back then we still thought women’s liberation meant that women thought for themselves. Poor Catherine; soon she was being groomed by the burly figure of the man from the US.
How could she refuse his evil suggestions? ‘I want you to do something for me Catherine, it will be our little secret’ he said, as his cigar soaked breath wafted over her. She was too ashamed to speak out of his request; she knew what was expected of her. Already suffering from low self esteem, she feared being sent back to a Britain that laughed in her face. So it was that she agreed to lure Ukraine into the feather bed it believed the EU to be…
That went well, didn’t it Catherine?
For many years, the United States’ enormous internal market has more than satisfied the needs of U.S. industry. That is no longer true – by the late 90s exports accounted for a third of domestic growth. Exports to whom? Europe was an enticing partner, more palatable to the US than China or Russia. If all the Eastern European countries could be persuaded to join the European Union, then it would be a malleable market of 900 million souls.
It didn’t go according to plan.
Today a near civil war is raging in Ukraine, the media is obsessed with looking up the correct spelling of complicated words like ‘Russian thugs’ and ‘Putin’s expansionist plans’ and they don’t seem to have noticed that Putin, quietly chuckling to himself, has slipped off to China today.
Putin and President Xi are expected to sign a deal sending 70 billion cubic metres of gas to China every year for the next 30 years. They are also going to take part in a regional security forum and oversee the start of joint naval exercises off Shanghai in the East China Sea. The Russian state oil firm Rosneft will be there talking to Chinese oil refiner Sinopec that could see Russia send up to 100 million tonnes of oil to China over 10 years, along with another 30 major Russian business men and security experts, all expecting to tie up major contracts with China – the world’s most powerful emerging market.
The 1982 ‘Law of Sea’ Treaty permitted nations to claim a 200 mile exclusive economic zone around their shoreline – the British media at the time were concerned that our fish and chips might not be Cod and chips for much longer if the Spanish and Icelanders were not kept out of our shoreline; Putin had his eye on a bigger prize.
As British North Sea Oil was dwindling, the Institute of Energy for South East Europe was suggesting that the Black Sea was the next major oil source. At that time, Russia had access to around 26,000 square miles of Black sea bed – buried in the Treaty of Annexation which Russia has signed with Crimea is an agreement to ‘abide by International law’ in the matter of ocean boundaries. One little sentence which at a stroke more than doubled Russia’s 26,ooo square miles of sea bed and oil reserves to 64,000 square miles – Crimea is virtually an island.
Catherine of Arrogant has responded with a series of economic measures designed to frighten Putin; she targeted 15 Russian officials ‘connected with’ the separatist movement in Ukraine – their wives can no longer shop freely in London. Since 30% of Europe’s gas comes from Gazprom, she at least had the sense not to stop its CEO, Alexei Miller’s wife, from stocking up at Harrods.
Now the Americans have a new long term plan to hobble Russia. They are going to stop companies exporting equipment and services to ‘any state controlled’ Russian energy company. They admit that it won’t make a dent in Russia’s current lucrative energy exports – they do hope that by not letting them buy the valves, drilling and hydraulic fracturing equipment that eventually the Russian bear will growl to a halt.
The Chinese are famous for what? Oh, copying western items and making them more cheaply you say? Well I never! You don’t think they will have the wit to trade the manufacture of hydraulic fracturing equipment for a cheap energy supply do you? I understand that price is the only stumbling block on that mega energy deal the Russians have their eye on.
I suppose Catherine will be able to say that she helped create the world’s largest trading bloc after all….
We can’t even vote her out of office this Thursday – we don’t have the power – despite Chris Huhne emerging from his bunker to declare that ‘the European Parliament plays a vital role’; and then going on to deliver the finest back handed insult the good people of Eastleigh have ever endured – he says that it is vital that we don’t ‘waste a vote on UKIP stooges’ but that voters elect someone ‘with their values’. Is he really suggesting that the people of Eastleigh shared any, never mind all, of his despicable values, when they voted him into parliament?
What do we have to do to relieve Catherine of Arrogant of her current duties representing the good people of Europe in their foreign policy? Even Mandelson would have been hard pushed to make a bigger mess of it.
- P.Z.Temperton
May 19, 2014 at 9:18 am -
Actually, French ceased to be the main language of the European institutions many years ago. English is overwhelmingly their lingua franca these days. Also, there is nothing even slightly marxist about the European project.
- Den
May 19, 2014 at 10:50 am -
Then why does the EU and its minions constantly swamp us with Cultural Marxism?
- P.Z.Temperton
May 19, 2014 at 3:24 pm -
Well, I worked for the EU for 23 years and nothing that could be described as “cultural marxism” ever crossed my desk. On the contrary, “cultural diversity” was the watchword constantly drummed into us. I genuinely cannot imagine what you are talking about.
- Ho Hum
May 19, 2014 at 4:15 pm -
Is it possible that the general UK populace, in its wonderfully splendid, self satisfied, isolation from those living over the water, has failed to realise that what they perceive as Cultural Marxism, ie the imposition and enforcement upon them of a regime of homogenous ‘rightminds’, and ‘rightspeech’, and ‘rightbehaviour’, is possibly a primarily homegrown phenomenon, the real source of which is neatly concealedb y it’s being blamed on all those nasty authoritarian lefties living in the East?
- P.Z.Temperton
May 19, 2014 at 11:07 pm -
The real source of what I think you may be talking about here (if by “rightminds” and “rightspeech” you mean “political correctness” over gender issues, etc.) is in exactly the opposite direction from Europe. It stems largely from radical feminism, a pernicious world view that has nothing to do with Europe and originated in US academia. Likewise, it is US cultural imperialism (nowadays usually in the guise of “globalisation”), certainly not Europe, that is to blame for much of the commercial homogenisation that we see (e.g. McDonalds and Starbucks takes over every high street), and indeed some European states, notably France, have made a much better job that Britain has of defending its culture from the US world hegemony in these respects. The EU itself is broadly neutral on most such issues, except to the extent that it has no option but to do deals with the USA within the World Trade Organisation.
The idea that the EU is somehow an agency of the far left is really the most laughable nonsense. The far-left bloc in the European Parliament has just 34 members out of 764. The Commission members are nominated by the Member States, most of which currently have centre-right governments. The Council (which is where the main decision-making power lies in the EU) consists precisely of all the Member States at any given moment and so represents their views; no EU government at present can be said to be strongly on the left. The overall centre of gravity of the whole EU, formerly EEC, has gradually shifted over the decades from a French-led somewhat statist top-down view (Gaullist rather than socialist) in the early days, to a more free-market, essentially more Christian Democrat than anything else, stance today, and this shift simply reflects changing opinions in the wider world. The institutions are not inherently left- or right-wing; they are an empty vessel whose actions depend on who is in power in the Member States at any given moment.
- Ho Hum
May 21, 2014 at 7:43 am -
Apart from thinking that much of the RadFem heritage is based on some of the academic Marxism of the 70s and 80s – and the current younger generation within my ambit tells me it’s still a basic part of some of their course work – I wouldn’t find too much to disagree with in your overall analysis, the two primary points made being where I would have started in looking at where we have got to now
And it’s well organised. Not necessarily in too formal a fashion, but it’s pressure groups and individual stars are always dragged to the fore to expound on any controversy. And given legislative drift over the last 15 to 20 years, it must be pretty well embedded not just in the media but in places where it has a hand on the levers of power, such as Central Government policy making
- Ho Hum
- P.Z.Temperton
- Ian R Thorpe
May 20, 2014 at 8:03 pm -
I worked as a consultant in the EU for six months before extracting myself from the contract because I hadn’t actually found out what I was supposed to be doing and I was bored. Everything that crossed my desk was Marxist though words like Marxist, Communist, collectivist, proleteriat, inner party, big brother and thought police never appeared in the documents. I guess you never actually read Karl Marx and so just did not recognise the EU’s ideology of “Oligarchic Collectivism” was cribbed directly from Marx. Did you never notice that while terms like cultural diversity were bandied about freely, the constant theme was standardization and regulation.
And if you had looked at the stone plaque in the entrance lobby of Luxembourg’s Baittement Jean Monnet you might have read the founding father’s vision of a Europe in which member states cease to exist and a federal Europe is ruled by a central authority and local committees of bureaucrats.
Or perhaps you slept through your 23 years of working there. You wouldn’t be the only one by a long way. I don’t recall ever having to do more than an hours work in any one day.- Moor Larkin
May 20, 2014 at 8:57 pm -
A Britisher has been at the heart of Europe for 36 years apparently, although it sounds like he’s been working hard on locking the doors of the Augean stables, long since the horses had left the building…..
“The role of the Commission is to identify common European interests and act accordingly. And that’s what we do,” says Jonathan Faull, who’s been in the service for 36 years. As secretary general of the European Single Market, Faull has an important role in Brussels. Last year, he managed to come up with the backbone of the banking union almost by himself. He says that he and his close coworkers locked themselves into one of the Commission’s typically poorly decorated offices with a blank sheet of paper. They emerged with a mechanism that makes owners, instead of taxpayers, pay for the liquidation of ailing banks.”
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/an-inside-look-at-the-european-commission-a-969129-2.html - P.Z.Temperton
May 21, 2014 at 7:00 am -
Yes there is some standardisation and regulation, but that is in some cases to protect consumers (e.g. product safety) and in other cases to create a level playing field so that the free market can operate fairly. This is in everyone’s interest. Standards and regulations apply in the USA and other countries too. If Britain left the EU it would still have to have standards and regulations. It has nothing to do with Marxism.
Nobody has seriously proposed the abolition of the member states for about 60 years now.
Your last comment is pathetic. I worked quite hard for my salary.
Having looked at your website, I note that you are stark staring bonkers, so there is no point in debating further.- Ho Hum
May 21, 2014 at 7:54 am -
Oh, please don’t stop!
It’s always good to have some informed contrarianism shouting the odds in the comments at a place like this.
Otherwise, the impact of really good stuff can get damaged or lost should anyone else reading it takes the view that because those commenting are obviously a bunch of loons, toons and hoons, then all the main content must be piffle too (you only need to look below, and above, the line in the DM to see how reasonable that is! – especially when those BTL are united in their lunacy)
Hang on in there
- Ho Hum
- Moor Larkin
- Ho Hum
- P.Z.Temperton
- right-writes
May 19, 2014 at 7:04 pm -
That’s right PZT…
French is only used by the Berlaymont servants….
- Den
- Eric
May 19, 2014 at 9:28 am -
I went to a fascinating talk on China from an economist who lives there. Amongst the startling facts : the Chinese get more bang for their buck with weapons : USA , Britain etc have such a huge weapons manufacturing industry but it’s also frightfully expensive and the Chinese can build a nuclear bomb for something like a 20th of the price the West can. And the same goes for everything of course.
The CIA really have stuffed up with their Ukraine endeavour and seem intent upon driving China & Russia even closer.- Duncan Disorderly
May 19, 2014 at 11:34 am -
‘Chinese get more bang for their buck with weapons’
Very true. In this country, the ‘defence industry’ amounts to a make work scheme for economically depressed parts of the country. Nothing wrong with that per se, but the costs are ridiculous. Witness the current aircraft carrier project.
- Duncan Disorderly
- Let me be very clear about this
May 19, 2014 at 9:51 am -
There is one party whose raison d’être is UK independence from the EU – and that is where we need to focus our voting energy.
- Ho Hum
May 19, 2014 at 10:03 am -
I totally agree that we should vote against it
- Andy
May 19, 2014 at 1:33 pm -
You can’t vote against UKIP. You have to vote FOR another party…..
- Don Cox
May 19, 2014 at 1:53 pm -
Which is objectionable in itself. I want to vote for a representative, not for a party.
Parties are the bane of democracy.
- P.Z.Temperton
May 19, 2014 at 3:27 pm -
Indeed they are, which is why we need the Single Transferable Vote in Multi-member Constituencies. It is the system that takes power away from the party machines and gives it to the voter. Unfortunately, the parties know that, which is why we shall never get it.
- right-writes
May 19, 2014 at 7:10 pm -
Well voting for a party is all you get when you vote in the European “parliamentary” elections.
I say “parliamentary” since it is about as much a parliament as the one in the Soviet Union, or The Democratic Peoples Republic of
IslingtonNorth Korea.- P.Z.Temperton
May 19, 2014 at 11:16 pm -
Voting for a party is also all you get in most Westminster elections. The first-past-the-post system in single-member constituencies is in practice a party list system, it’s just that each list is of only one name. At least the EP elections give us a result that is proportional by party. In Ireland and Northern Ireland the voters are very lucky: their EP elections are by the Single Transferable Vote in Multi-Member Constituencies, so they get a result that is proportional to voter opinion overall, not just by party allegiance.
- right-writes
May 20, 2014 at 7:44 am -
The subtle difference though, is that the Westminster parliament votes for the executive, if you don’t like that executive you vote in a way that makes that executive a minority, and a new executive is elected.
In the EU, the executive… The EC is appointed, and then the EP can register dissent only, It is not possible for voters to remove that executive.
BTW: A lot of people have forgotten that there was a referendum at the beginning of this parliament, where David Cameron wanted to continue with FPTP, and the opposing camp wanted a version STV, as is usual with a referendum where the question and the date is set by the executive, it was fairly simple for Cameron to fool voters into retaining the status quo.
- P.Z.Temperton
May 20, 2014 at 11:15 am -
Not entirely true – the EP does have the power to sack the whole Commission, and has done so on one occasion. But you’re right, it would be better if the EP elected the members of the Commission, and some of us have campaigned for that for years. Meanwhile though, don’t forget the members of the Commission are appointed by the elected governments of the Member States, so there is an indirect element of democracy there. It often suits Member States to complain (for domestic consumption) about the Commission as though it were an external alien force (“faceless bureaucrats”, etc.), whereas in fact it is they who put it there. The set-up is not ideal and needs further transparency and democratisation, but it’s better than it was. For instance, the EP is now getting a much bigger say in who gets to be President of the Commission. Comparing it to North Korea is pretty infantile, frankly.
- P.Z.Temperton
- right-writes
- P.Z.Temperton
- P.Z.Temperton
- Don Cox
- Andy
- Ho Hum
- Duncan Disorderly
May 19, 2014 at 10:36 am -
There are perfectly sound arguments for greater integration with Europe, it’s just that no mainstream politician is willing to articulate them because they know they won’t fly with the electorate. When discredited prats like Chris Huhne pipe up in support of the EU it only makes UKIP stronger.
- Don Cox
May 19, 2014 at 1:51 pm -
There are good arguments for a United States of Europe with essentially the same comstitution as the USA.
But we don’t have that. Instead of a well thought out constitution about ten pages long, we have a monster in ten volumes.
We do not have checks and balances, nor an elected President. The EU parliament is ineffective.
- Engineer
May 19, 2014 at 2:34 pm -
Theremay be good arguments for a United States of Europe, but they’re academic ones. It won’t work in practice. The USA works because whatever their differences (and there are many) pretty well all Americans have the same basic values. The same is not true of all Europeans. Germans do not think the same way as Greeks, and Brits do not think the same way as Spaniards. There is nothing at all wrong with each different way of thinking, but they work within national boundaries and not as a cohesive political entity. Twas ever thus – a United States of Europe is a recipe for civil war.
- binao
May 19, 2014 at 6:52 pm -
Having lived and worked a little bit in the US, European mainland and elsewhere, I think this is a fair assessment of the problem for the federalists. The US is culturally alien in many ways to ourselves, despite a similar language, and to the mainland.
I’m not referring to arty-farty culture, we can be as superior as we like about that; I’m talking about self reliance, confidence, can do, will do, and ‘that already works fine, move on to something else’. Basically, just get on with it. Loved it.
A few years back I recall the electric pencil sharpener on the desk- laugh, but just what does a mechanical pencil with ‘snap easy’ 20 thou leads do better? and phones installed & running in site cabins in a day or so. When I explained about BT, my US colleague said: ‘I guess if people can’t do what we want when we want it we assume they don’t want the business.’This eu thing is all going to go horribly wrong, UK in or out.
- P.Z.Temperton
May 20, 2014 at 11:19 am -
Are you quite sure that a redneck farmer in small-town Texas has “the same basic values” as, say, a Jewish professor in New York? I’ve never been there, but it doesn’t seem very likely to me.
- Mr Wray
May 20, 2014 at 1:08 pm -
No, of course they don’t but they are a lot closer in outlook than a German is to a Greek. The USA is also a mono-culture that is flavoured by sub-cultures. The EU is a set of 28+ different cultures. There is one state language in the US (with Spanish a poor second) and how many languages in the EU? 20? 30?
The EU cannot possibly work like the US until it achieves one people, one culture, one language and one Reich. Whoops!
- Engineer
May 20, 2014 at 6:03 pm -
Mr Temperton – the USA was founded (effectively) with a single demos. Europe has never, in all it’s millenia of political history, had a common demos; history would tend to suggest that trying to enforce one within a couple of decades is doomed to failure.
- binao
May 21, 2014 at 9:23 am -
PZT- The best I can suggest is visit, and try to look beyond the tourist bits. There’s no substitute though for working with people in their country. Especially when there’s a bit of pressure on.
Back to the EU.
We can argue all we like about the issues of in or out, imagined and real upsides & downsides of the present arrangement and declared goal. Emotional stuff for each side of the argument to use to try to convince the undecided. Precious little based on certainties because there aren’t many (any?). Though I’m convinced that huge increase in immigration to Britain was nothing more than a cynical and opportunist policy by Blair and Brown to boost the economy thro’ population growth, & get a lot of new Labour voters. But what would I know?
All just feathers on the bird.
To me it’s no more than an issue of faith- we can either believe that the eu programme managers are right about their noble (and totally unique) project, or not.
Having been around a bit, I think the path we’re committed to is going to lead to a lot of trouble, and I can’t really see why anyone but an obsessed bureaucrat or political theorist would bother. And I have to confess every time I see the earnest and breathless Clegg preaching at us I feel a desperate need to smack him very hard and tell him to stop being so silly.
I don’t think I’m prejudiced; I’m just not a believer.- Moor Larkin
May 21, 2014 at 10:03 am -
If the Tories get back in, in 2015, they have promised a referendum. If folks are really as exercised about all this as the media or blogs might suggest they are, then the Tories can expect a landslide to get them back in. Some folks may feel they’re in between a rock and a hard place I guess, when that time comes….
I was reminding myself recently that Old Labour were against joining the EU originally because of the issue of the dilution of labourers wage-bargaining power and it was the Tories who got us in. Perhaps the biggest problem with the EU is that it just blocks change and becomes a monolith to real progress for the people who think they comprise it.
- Moor Larkin
- Mr Wray
- binao
- Engineer
- right-writes
May 19, 2014 at 7:11 pm -
Yes but I thought that Chris Huhne got his points across very well.
- Don Cox
- Mark in Mayenne
May 19, 2014 at 10:53 am -
Nice post
- Moor Larkin
May 19, 2014 at 11:01 am -
Not sure that UKIP is quite up to being the Henry VIII of 21st Century England or that Mandelblot is potential Thomas More material either – but hope springs eternal. Nice analogy though…
- JimS
May 19, 2014 at 12:16 pm -
Paragraph one: Is Arkala-in-Chief a special Marxist sort of wolf or should it be ‘Akela’?
- Engineer
May 19, 2014 at 2:36 pm -
So the Russkies are tying up with the Chinks over oil, eh? That’s a very good argument for accelerating the replacement of Britain’s nuclear power stations, is it not?
- Mudplugger
May 19, 2014 at 2:51 pm -
Maybe we could save time and grab all the redundant German ones at a knock-down price – interesting that they’re currently switching over to that allegedly ever-so-unfriendly coal stuff. It’s a race between the Germans and the Chinese who can build the most coal-fired power-stations per annum – bugger the CO2.
Odd that no-one here seems to mention that German conversion (committed as they claim to be to the EU fairyland Climate Change policies), especially the Greenie windmill types, particularly when we’ve got 300 years of that wonderfully-reliable, black, baseload fuel-stuck below the surface just waiting to be collected…….
Maybe that nice Mr Huhne will comment…… - Cascadian
May 19, 2014 at 7:13 pm -
Last I heard Camoron was “accelerating” a nuclear deal at Hinckley Point site C, you will pay a guaranteed rate of approximately twice the current electricity rate, the price will be inflation-linked. Electricity should be available by 2023 (it won’t, it’s a government project). Too little, too late and far too expensive.
The facts that UK needs three or four of these plants after fiddle-faddling around with green energy for a decade is ignored.
Putin may be many things, but when Euro-pols are seen to endorse green energy costs three or four times higher than natural gas energy he naturally assumes he is selling too cheaply, hence (in part) the increase of natural gas cost to Ukraine of 80% per year, and I suggest some nasty surprises for Europe after 3 June, when he expects pre-payment of Ukrainian natural gas with a threat to turn-off the supply if the payment is not made.
I despise Ashton, but she is only one in a long parade of incompetents- Milliband, Brown, Camoron, Clegg, Davey, Obama, Nuland, Kerry. Strangely only Blair seems to have a sensible position on energy, he attemptyed to promote expansion of nuclear.
- Engineer
May 20, 2014 at 6:00 pm -
Bliar’s original (1997) position on nuclear energy in the UK was to shut it down completely. It took about five years of intense lobbying by the energy supply industry and others with a proper understanding of the subject before he would change his mind, by which time a great deal of damage had been done. Bliar is no saint on the question of energy security or continuity of supply within the UK.
- Cascadian
May 20, 2014 at 6:39 pm -
Even as I typed that last sentence, somehow it did not seem correct.
Thank you for correcting me, serves me right for sourcing information from Wikipedia and ignoring my initial sense of unease.
- Cascadian
- Engineer
- Joe Public
May 20, 2014 at 1:41 pm -
And with all that gas flowing east rather than west, it’s time to get fracking.
- Mudplugger
- Jonathan Mason
May 19, 2014 at 3:57 pm -
This B’t doesn’t sound very good for BP, which owns a large chunk of Rosneft acquired during the sale of its share of TNK-BP. BP dividends pay a huge chunk of British retirement pensions.
- The Slog
May 19, 2014 at 4:56 pm -
My mother’s only advice in relation to women was “Beware of enthusiastic amateurs”.
Baroness Ashtray is the only woman of whom I’m aware who has succeeded by being an unenthusiastic ignoramus.
Such is the nature of the EU meritocracy.
Let’s have more of that Pamela Anderson, that’s what I say. - Edgar
May 19, 2014 at 6:27 pm -
Oceania and Eurasia are shaping up very nicely.
- Frankie
May 19, 2014 at 7:25 pm -
‘…Radical Muslim cleric Abu Hamza has been found guilty of supporting terrorism by an American court.’
Mwah Mwah Mwaaaaah!!
If only we had a court system with similar powers to hand down meaningful sentences to those who truly ask for them…
- DtP
May 19, 2014 at 9:17 pm -
Cheers Anna – that was ace. I hope you 2 enjoyed yer jollies – never done Glasgow, probly should xxx
- adams
May 19, 2014 at 11:51 pm -
Never forget she also shepherded the Lisbon Treaty through the House of Lords for which we are eternally ungrateful .
- I Love the BBC
May 20, 2014 at 7:07 am -
The idea that Ashton caused the Ukraine crisis is appealing but utterly false.
It surprises me that so many accept it at face value without looking just a little deeper.
Ukraine was not being offered membership of NATO.
Ukraine was not even being offered membership of the EU. All that was on offer was a trade deal, and one which was desired by the majority of the populace. This is said to have somehow given the green light for our ex KGB officer Putin to annexe Crimea and foment a civil war? Nonsense on stilts. Apportion blame where it’s due.- Moor Larkin
May 20, 2014 at 8:13 am -
“The agreement also commits both parties to cooperate and converge policy, legislation, and regulation across a broad range of areas.[how?] These include: equal rights for workers, steps towards visa-free movement of people, the exchange of information and staff in the area of justice, the modernisation of Ukraine’s energy infrastructure,[how?][why?] access to the European Investment Bank,[further explanation needed] and a variety of others.
The agreement also commits Ukraine to an agenda[which?] of economic, judicial and financial reforms[which?] and to gradual approximation of its policies and legislation to those of the European Union. Ukraine has also committed to take steps to gradually conform to technical and consumer standards upheld by the European Union.[why?] In exchange, the European Union will provide Ukraine with political and financial support,[quantify][further explanation needed] access to research and knowledge,[further explanation needed] and preferential access[which?] to EU markets. The agreement also commits both parties to promote a gradual convergence in the area of foreign and security policy,[how?] specifically the EU’s Common Security and Defence Policy[further explanation needed] and policies set forth by the European Defence Agency.[which?]”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine%E2%80%93European_Union_Association_Agreement
- Moor Larkin
{ 54 comments… read them below or add one }