Mediaboss Marketing

Four months after the violence in Kasese district, which culminated in the incidents of 26-27 November 2016, the European Union regrets that the Ugandan authorities have not yet launched a comprehensive independent investigation.

The European Union firmly deplores the attacks perpetrated over the past years against state representatives including police. At the same time, the EU notes with concern the Human Rights Watch report Uganda: Ensure Independent Investigation into Kasese Killings released on 15 March, raising serious questions about disproportional use of force by the security forces, leading to more than 100 civilian casualties, including children.

The European Union notes the Governments statement that Uganda has no lack of independent investigative capacity. We therefore call on the competent authorities to immediately conduct the necessary field investigation, ensuring strong witness protection and protection of evidence. We stand ready to support such efforts.

We also note that the Government considers the ongoing Court case against the Omusinga to be the appropriate process for delivering justice. For justice to be impartial and complete, the conduct of the security forces during the raid on the Obusinga Bwa Rwenzururu palace should also be subject to scrutiny, with their full cooperation.

The European Union believes a failure to fully investigate this tragedy will perpetuate.insecurity, undermine the rule of law and deny the families their right to know the truth. As a strong partner to Uganda, we believe justice for victims on all sides is a prerequisite for peace and development.

The EU and its Member States present in Uganda: European Union Delegation Austria Belgium Denmark France Germany Ireland Italy Netherlands Sweden United Kingdom

Go here to read the rest:
The situation in Kasese District: Statement by the European Union - ReliefWeb

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

While the plans have been considered by fringe Europhile diehards for decades as a means to force European military unity, the idea of taking over the nuclear weapons already possessed by EUmember states for the common good have never been taken seriously. However, a flurry of articles in recent weeks discussing the plans and a resurgence of interest has caused concern prompting presidential candidate Marine Le Pen to speak out against the idea.

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

According to the claims, these fringe European defence theorists are speaking up for the plans in the wake of the election of President Donald J. Trump, as European leaders look for defence alternatives should they fail to maintain their NATO commitments, and therefore jeopardise their relationship with the U.S.

While Britains withdrawal from the EU would preclude the independent nuclear deterrent being co-opted by Brussels, the approximately 300 French warheads will for now remain within the political reach of the Union.

Speaking at a campaign event on Saturday, Le Pen slammed the present diminished state of French defence, and called any attempts by the EU to seize elements of member states defence apparatus totalitarian. She said:

France, throughout her history, has rarely been so disarmed. Of course, we still have but for how long? our nuclear deterrent.

I hear voices who talk in favour of a gloomy project which would lead to sharing our nuclear deterrent on a European scale. This would be madness and a crime against France, her safety, her power and her independence.

For decades now, we have denounced the totalitarian drift of the European Union. It is therefore out of the question to enable this supranational techno structure to gain access to any kind of military capacity!

This would mean an intolerable threat to the fundamental freedom of the people of Europe.

Marine Le Pen has hit out repeatedly at the EU in recent weeks,most recently saying she would work with Britain, Poland, and Hungary to dismantle the continental power bloc. The FN leader said in the future each country is free and sovereign to defend their own interests.

Follow Oliver Lane on Facebook, Twitter: or e-mail: olane[at]breitbart.com

Originally posted here:
Le Pen: 'Totalitarian' European Union Plan to Become Nuclear-Armed Power 'Madness' - Breitbart News

ALEXANDRIA, Va., March 16, 2017 /3BL Media/ The Conflict-Free Sourcing Initiative (CFSI), a coalition of leading companies dedicated to improving the security and human rights conditions in their raw materials supply chains, welcomes the European Union (EU) regulation on supply chain due diligence obligations for EU importers of tin, tantalum, tungsten and gold (3TG). The new regulation was approved today by the European Parliament and will next go before the European Council.

The EU regulation will require importers of 3TG to undertake due diligence in line with the OECD Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Supply Chains of Minerals from Conflict-Affected and High-Risk Areas (OECD Guidance). The regulation will apply directly to between 600 and 1,000 EU importers and will indirectly affect approximately 500 3TG smelters and refiners globally. The new regulation will take effect on Jan. 1, 2021.

Over the past several years the CFSI has been working with representatives from the European Commission, Council and Parliament to help companies understand the requirements and accompanying measures of the new law, as well as how current due diligence support systems can be leveraged to support compliance under the EU regulation.

To facilitate the acceptance and application of the CFSIs Conflict-Free Smelter Program (CFSP) in the EU framework, the CFSI is currently undergoing a pilot assessment for OECD alignment that is designed to inform a Delegated Act of the EU regulation. The OECD-led Alignment Assessment assesses the alignment of industry programs standards, systems, and implementation efforts with the OECD Guidance. The OECD Alignment Assessment pilot is anticipated to be completed in 2017.

The utilization of collaborative industry platforms in the EU framework will be a critical factor in harmonizing systems, maintaining company engagement, and managing costs to supply chain actors as the EU requirements go into effect, said CFSI Program Director Leah Butler. Responsible sourcing requires the efforts of all stakeholders: governments, companies, industry associations, non-governmental entities and civil society. These actors should continue their efforts to contribute toward security and stability in conflict-affected and high-risk areas globally.

On March 23 in Brussels, the CFSI will be co-hosting a workshop with the European Partnership on Responsible Minerals (EPRM) to discuss resources, tools and multi-industry and multi-sector approaches to facilitate company due diligence. The EPRM is a European-based multi-stakeholder partnership established to improve social and economic conditions for mining communities in Conflict-Affected and High-Risk Areas.

About CFSI

The CFSI is a multi-industry initiative with over 350 member companies, including associations and service providers. Our members contribute to the development and international uptake of a range of tools and resources including the Conflict-Free Smelter Program, the Conflict Minerals Reporting Template, Reasonable Country of Origin Inquiry data, and guidance documents on responsible sourcing of tin, tantalum, tungsten and gold (3TG). The CFSI runs regular workshops on responsible sourcing issues and contributes to policy development with civil society organizations and governments. For more information, visit conflictfreesourcing.org.

Media Contact:

Jarrett Bens, Director of Communications Electronic Industry Citizenship Coalition Phone:+1 571.858.5721 jbens@eiccoalition.org

The rest is here:
CFSI Welcomes European Union Conflict Minerals Regulation - Justmeans

While Angela Merkel continues to push for an EU superstate, voters in her home nation are backing away from the ideals of bureaucrats and their EU integration project.

The bloc has been hit by a wave of populist politicians, taking on the establishment, with a major resurgence of nationalism in countries once fully behind the idea of a more entwined Union.

A findings of a major study by think tank DEMOS into whether the EU will survive 2017 was launched this week, considering in depth why people all over are turning their backs on the EU dream.

Research for the publication Nothing to fear but fear itself began in 2015 when the eurozone crisis, the migrant crisis and issues in Greece threatened to tear the entire EU project apart.

Germany has taken more than one million migrants from Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and African nations, leading to a rise from right wing groups, and clashes between cultures.

Failed integration debate reached a climax on January 1, 2016, when more than 100 women in the country reported being sexually assaulted by gangs of migrants in one night.

But with blanket policies, open borders and Brussels-based decision making on the table, voters are beginning to cool in the blind support of all things EU.

GETTYEPA

GETTY

At the UK launch of the DEMOS research last night, Christine Hbner, from German think tank d|part showcased her findings - revealing the image of the EU for Germans is beginning to change.

She said: Majorities or near majorities of Germans are quite afraid of further EU integration, but with regards to very specific topics.

They are very concerned with the loss of social security, given further EU integration.

On the other hand we also have a new majority saying that theyre afraid of a loss of national identity. which is very much at the opposite of looking at a potential loss of social security.

Lots of people are now saying we have to talk about what further integration to the EU is going to look like

Christine Hbner

According to her part of the research Ms Hbner found politicians were not accepting this was a current issue.

She said: There were lots of different concerns about further EU integration.

The countryside has reported to have the lowest image of the EU.

It was quite surprising to see how the politicians have difficulty grasping this.

Lots of people are now saying we have to talk about what further integration to the EU is going to look like.

The politicians werent quite aware of of this.

One MP of the Green Party said I dont think there is any EU related fear.

CDU said they hadnt had anyone in their constituency concerned about the loss of national identity.

There was a stark contrast between what was expressed and what politicians told the think tank.

DEMOS

Although Ms Hubner added: It is not going to be the Germans bringing the EU down.

According to the report, written by Sophie Gaston, perception in Germany has plummeted faster than ever before - although it remains the country least likely to rock the EU boat.

She wrote: Germany is perhaps less Eurosceptic than other places in Europe, recurring crises in the EU have left their mark on German society and public opinion towards the EU.

The German public has recently shown signs of increasingly Eurosceptic attitudes.

On the one hand, more Germans than ever agree that membership in the EU is a good thing (71 per cent) and that overall their country has benefited from EU membership (62 per cent).

At the same time, after a first low during the Eurozone crisis in 2010/11, the EUs image in Germany is on the decline, and faster than before.

In spring 2016 only 29 per cent of Germans said the EU conjured up an overall positive image.

GETTY

The report studied party politics, social cohesion, public policy and the rhetoric and opinions of citizens of five countries.

Those countries which were used as a barometer for the rest of Europe included France, Germany, Poland, Spain, Sweden and the UK.

In Germany, the report found: Sizeable numbers of Germans participating in our survey expressed strong fears about the impact of the EU.

DEMOS discovered in every country, there is either a majority or a substantial minority in favour of reducing the EUs powers or leaving it altogether.

Germany remained the most pro-European of the six with 48 per cent wishing to keep the stars quo - or increase EU powers and just 16 er cent wanted to leave.

DEMOS

The research found although large minorities or even majorities in Britain, France, Germany and Sweden feared for the future of the EU getting worse in 2017, the Union is not beyond saviour.

It states: Attention should focus on how elites can restore trust in the fundamental institutions of our democracies, better articulate the myriad, shared benefits and strength of open societies, and encourage more diverse, challenging and free public debate on issues important to peoples social and cultural identity.

There is no doubt that we are living through a transition that feels cataclysmic in nature disruptive, challenging and potentially dangerous. But the question as to whether this is the beginning or the end of something has not yet been decided.

See original here:
Merkel's nightmare: Now GERMANS question Chancellor's dreams of European Union superstate - Express.co.uk

Peter Nedergaard

The European Union is in deep need of a restructuring. The EU is either reconstructed or the crisis continues. EU will not, however, collapse; it will probably, on the other hand, lose decision-making power and support.

The reconstruction concerns the nature of the EU: its form (flexibility), its content (de-federalisation), and its actors attitude (legitimacy).

The idea of a more flexible EU has been around for years. EU is already to some degree flexibly organized via EMU and the Schengen acquis where not all member states participate. But flexibility in this sense is temporary: that on offer is always a step on the way to full participation.

A reconstructed EU implies a more permanently flexible cooperation. This means a final end to the present one-size-fits-all model. An la carte model might even all in all imply more European integration rather than less. For example, several European countries could become more strongly linked to the EU as associate members. This could be appealing to countries such as Ukraine, Turkey, Albania, and Bosnia. They could get a closer affiliation to the EU than today in certain defined areas without full membership.

A more flexible EU is also thus a more sensitive EU. It implies that had David Cameron been given concessions in the area that clearly worried the British electorate the most full free movement of labour from other EU countries the outcome of the UK referendum would have been different. Cameron could have been offered a freeze on free movement. Such escape clauses are known from other international agreements. With more flexibility, Brexit would never had happened.

Throughout the EUs life federalism has been a powerful ideology. Its ultimate goal is a kind of United States of Europe. According to the federalist argument, only such a united Europe will have a defining role to play in world politics. In addition, this came with the wish for a more democratically rooted EU via direct elections to the European Parliament (EP) to create closer connections with the citizens.

Federalism has had a considerable impact on the EU. The integration process so far mainly consists of a series of gradual changes in EU treaties (referred to as neo-federalism). In general, the preoccupation with constructing powerful EU institutions and granting new competencies to the EU are federalist imprints. In consequence, political energy has often been directed towards the input side of the decision-making process (how to take decisions). In a reconstruction perspective, this energy should instead be on the output side (to make decisions on growth, trade and security for citizens).

Within the integration process, the EP has gradually become more powerful. With the Lisbon Treaty, approx. 75 per cent of all policy areas under EU competence has the EP as co-decision-maker. However, with turnout remaining very low and declining (from 62 per cent in 1979 to 42.5 per cent in 2014), this has not led to any more voter loyalty.

In conclusion, too much political energy in the last 30 years has been spent on discussing institution building and the distribution of power in the EU, instead of discussing policy outputs (a Europe of results).

Ideally, the Parliament should restrain itself and go back to a consultative role. But is that perhaps too much of to ask of an institution which for decades has fought for the opposite? On the other hand, MEPs might also realize the alternatives face: a permanent crisis of the EU.

If the EU political system is to work properly, it has to be legitimate. Political scientist David Beetham established that the exercise of power is legitimate: 1) if it is performed in accordance with statutory rules, 2) if there is correspondence between convictions by the political class and the citizens, and 3) if the legitimacy is explicitly expressed.

When it comes to the first criterion, the EU is characterized by having rule-of-law-like character. In other words: In theory, the European Court of Justice sanctions member countries and citizens who do not comply with the provisions of directives or regulations.

As detected by EU researcher Gerda Falkner, however, there is one problem: The willingness to comply with EU regulations varies greatly among member states (MS). In practice, according to Falkner, in many southern and eastern European MS it is the rule rather than the exception that they fail to comply with EU regulations. She claims that they are living in a world of dead letters when they fail to respond to the reminders about violations of EUs regulations.

When it comes to EU as a legislative authority, legitimacy is formally fine. In practice, it is more ambiguous.

What about the second criterion accord between the governing politicians and the citizens? Here the EUs legitimacy is generally ambiguous. As Simon Hix once showed in his seminal book, The Political System of the European Union, the Commission is always in accordance with the most integrationist MS in individual policy areas. In a legitimacy perspective, the Commission is often out of sync with (other) member states and their peoples.

When it comes to the third point, concerning the explicit nature of EU legitimacy, this is also very ambiguous. On the one hand, repeated opinion polls show that the great majority of voters will vote yes to EU membership by referendum here and now. On the other hand, when a referendum campaign starts rolling, the yes and no become are put more on an equal footing in the media than normally the case. And, as we have seen, turnout in EP elections has reached an historic low.

The EU crisis is not just about one thing. Both more flexibility and de-federalisation will have several positive effects. That will increase EUs legitimacy. However, a reconstruction of the EU on these lines will require far-sighted and courageous politicians of the same calibre as in the 1950s, when the EU was established, and in the 1980s when the EU was last in a deep crisis.

Do these politicians exist in present day European politics?

Peter Nedergaard is Professor of Political Science at the Department of Political Science, University of Copenhagen.

Read more here:
Reconstructing The European Union - Social Europe