Newer posts are loading.
You are at the newest post.
Click here to check if anything new just came in.

February 18 2013

Play fullscreen
Correa wins re-election and says banks and mass media don't rule anymore

In Ecuador President Rafael Correa is reelected with 61% of the vote, he faces 4 critical years for Ecuador, the main challenge now is to keep the country on the path of growth while shifting the model from a raw material based economy to a new, more sustainable and inclusive one.
Time: 09:10 More in News & Politics
Reposted bycheg00 cheg00

February 15 2013

Ireland - The Star Pupil Of The Euro Fiasco

In a recent talk in London Peer Steinbrück, the SPD candidate for the German Chancellorship, in an otherwise progressive talk referred to Ireland as the "star pupil" among the countries struggling ...


Reposted from02mysoup-aa 02mysoup-aa

L'Egypte inonde des tunnels conduisant à Gaza

(Reuters, via Le Nouvel Observateur) - Les forces armées égyptiennes ont inondé plusieurs tunnels de contrebande rejoignant la bande de Gaza sous contrôle palestinien, dans le but de les fermer, ont déclaré les autorités égyptiennes et palestiniennes.

Le réseau de tunnels est essentiel à la vie de Gaza, permettant l'importation d'environ 30% de tous les biens atteignant la bande de territoire enclavée et soumise à un blocus israélien depuis plus de sept ans.

Des reporters de Reuters ont vu qu'un tunnel servant à faire entrer sur le territoire du gravier et du ciment a subitement été rempli d'eau dimanche, obligeant les travailleurs à l'évacuer à la hâte.

Selon les habitants, deux autres tunnels auraient été inondés de la même manière, par de l'eau délibérément pompée par l'Egypte.

 

Plus : http://tempsreel.nouvelobs.com/monde/20130213.REU7281/l-egypte-inonde-des-tunnels-conduisant-a-gaza.html


// oAnth: une gallerie des photos commentées (via Égypte actualités) -

http://www.lemonde.fr/afrique/portfolio/2013/02/14/a-gaza-l-indispensable-economie-des-tunnels-de-contrebande_1832812_3212.html#ens_id=1559455&;



Reposted from02mysoup-aa 02mysoup-aa

February 13 2013

Destins d’exilés. Fremd bin ich den Menschen dort

En 2013, la Maison des Buddenbrooks de Lübeck consacre deux grandes expositions au thème de l’exil. L’une d’entre elles, intitulée « Traumland und Zuflucht. Heinrich Mann und Frankreich » (« Pays de rêve et refuge. Heinrich Mann et la France »), le rapport de l’écrivain Heinrich Mann à la France. Elle sera présentée du 14 juin au 3 novembre 2013, et s’inscrira dans le cadre des célébrations du 50e anniversaire du traité franco-allemand de l’Élysée.

 

Éminente figure de la littérature allemande du début du XXe siècle et frère aîné du Prix Nobel de littérature, Thomas Mann, Heinrich Mann aimait profondément la France. Artistiquement, politiquement, intellectuellement. Avant la Première Guerre mondiale, il y voyait ainsi l’antithèse démocratique du régime autoritaire de l’Allemagne impériale.

 

Heinrich Mann et la France

Lorsqu’Hitler devint chancelier, en 1933, Heinrich Mann prit immédiatement le chemin de l’exil en traversant le Rhin. Il devint l’une des figures de l’émigration allemande en France dans les années 1930. La situation perdura jusqu’en 1940. Heinrich Mann dut alors quitter la France occupée pour rejoindre sa famille et son frère Thomas, installés depuis 1938 aux États-Unis. Jamais cependant, il ne devint comme ce dernier une figure de l’émigration allemande outre-Atlantique. Son intégration fut plus difficile.

Comme Heinrich et Thomas Mann, beaucoup d’Allemands de cette époque virent leur destin basculer à l’arrivée au pouvoir des nazis. Juifs, opposants communistes ou socialistes, artistes « dégénérés » : l’exil fut leur seul refuge. France, États-Unis, mais aussi Suisse, Brésil, Grande-Bretagne, Palestine, Turquie : leurs destinations furent multiples. Mais tous, firent l’expérience existentielle de l’exil, marquée par les difficultés à s’intégrer, par la nécessité de se fondre dans une autre culture, une autre langue, de refaire sa vie…

 

Expérience existentielle

Ces destins d’exilés sont le sujet d’une autre exposition de la Maison des Buddenbrooks. Jusqu’au 26 mai, celle-ci retrace 16 destins d’artistes, de chercheurs, de juristes ou encore d’artisans contraints de quitter l’Allemagne entre 1933 et 1945. L’exposition est parrainée par l’écrivain germanophone d’origine roumaine et Prix Nobel de littérature, Hertha Müller, elle-même figure de l’exil imposé par la dictature communiste.

 

Rund eine halbe Million Menschen verloren nach der Machtübernahme der Nationalsozialisten ihre bisherige Heimat. Sie wurden verfolgt und entrechtet, weil sie Juden waren, politisch oder kulturell unliebsam oder als »Volks- und Reichsfeinde« betrachtet wurden. Anlässlich des 100jährigen Jubiläums der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek wurden von dem dort angesiedelten Exilarchiv Biografien von 16 Persönlichkeiten zu einer inszenierten Ausstellung zusammengestellt, die exklusiv im Buddenbrookhaus zu Gast ist. Vorgestellt werden nicht die prominenten Exilanten, zu denen auch Familie Mann gehörte, sondern weniger bekannte Künstler, Wissenschaftler, Juristen oder Handwerker, denen allen gemein ist, dass ihr weiterer Lebensweg durch die erzwungene Flucht aus dem deutschen Machtbereich geprägt wurde.



Reposted from02mysoup-aa 02mysoup-aa

February 11 2013

"Hungary – A Very FIDESZ Democracy" by Carl Rowlands

carl rowlandsAdmiral Horthy may be long gone, but just lately he appears to have become all the rage in modern Hungary. Newspapers sympathetic to the governing Fidesz party continually run glowing editorials about this ‘honourable’ man, along with statues and parks being awarded his name.

Despite their legacy as ‘The Alliance of Young Democrats’, some in the ageing and increasingly authoritarian Fidesz party have found a historical hero who was certainly no democrat. As the 1930s progressed, the electoral franchise was progressively choked off in Hungary, quietly ensuring a succession of increasingly nationalistic and right-wing governments. Areas where the social democrats were strongest were effectively deprived of the vote through bureaucratic manipulation and banning of trades union activity. Meanwhile, in rural areas, landlord control of the franchise was overt. The ‘good old days’ to which many Fidesz supporters refer to, were also the days when Roma were physically segregated into remote slums, invisible but for the occasional presence of the gendarmerie, who would brutally and violently ensure that the locals knew their position at the very base of society.

When a leading Fidesz organizer and friend of the Prime Minister declares in an opinion column that ‘most gypsies are animals’ it is against this historical context. Yet it’s also against the context of a Hungarian Right which has established no clear institutional ethical boundaries against racism, and which has increasingly relied upon nationalist rhetoric in the last 20 years. The ruling party in 1990′s first post-transition government, the MDF (Hungarian Democratic Forum) even included Istvan Csurka among its leaders. Csurka was an overtly anti-Semitic nationalist politician, dedicated to restoring Hungary’s pre-World War One borders. His presence at the centre of post-transition political life indicated the weakness of democratic forces, even at the height of their supposed triumph. Even as Csurka was expelled from the collapsing MDF administration, the government engineered a ceremonial reburial of Admiral Horthy’s bones in his home village of Kenderes.

The Hungarian right’s love of ceremony and pageant – in somewhat embarrassing homage to the anachronisms of the United Kingdom – extended to a huge parade marking the relocation of the Crown to Parliament in 2000 – investing Parliament with ‘holy’ authority. Such mystical references are common currency across the Hungarian right-wing, whether supporters of ‘center-right’ Fidesz or ‘far-right’ Jobbik. It’s part of the deliberately mixed messages being sent by Fidesz. One week the Prime Minister can meet for photo-opportunity with rabbis, the next week, the Fidesz Deputy President can attend a commemoration for a Hungarian Nazi writer. There is always an eye for an opening.

Horthy might be a strange hero to many people inside and outside Hungary, but it’s especially alarming to consider that the same political forces who indulge in Horthy-worship are also the people centralising control of the Hungarian state (especially schools), redrawing a constitution and creating a whole new set of apparently ad-hoc electoral laws, the ultimate effect of which would be to make it very, very hard to elect a new government. Having won a two-thirds majority, Fidesz are attempting to exploit an opportunity to remake the administration of Hungary, as well as cementing their dominance over the future electoral process.

Anyone who remembers the 2002 Election, in which Fidesz attempted to defend its position in office against the Socialists, will remember the partial and disgraceful overt manipulation of public media. Government spokesmen and supporters dominated the programming. The editors of the public broadcasting channels even started broadcasting Fidesz rallies live-to-air – risking the ire of those who were looking to consume the normal diet of soaps and cheap cop dramas. The new electoral law attempted to consolidate this control of public media by preventing commercial radio and television channels from running party political programmes or advertisements during the campaign, leaving only the state-controlled media to provide political analysis. The intention was to drive the opposition off air.

Already we can see the beginnings of the 2014 campaign, with posters plastered on buses and placards around the city, blaming the previous government for Hungary’s problems. It seems much of the funding for this is already coming from state sources. When added to a number of bogus consultations concerning the constitution and the ‘job protection’ campaigns, Fidesz are spending an absolute fortune on communications. The next logical step is to remove the official state budget for political parties, thereby ensuring such massive communications machines are funded from either secretive or ‘grey’ sources. If enacted, it ensures a system that retains the outward trappings of democracy, whilst engaging in multiple instances of manipulation at different levels. The open gerrymandering of electoral districts is, from a UK perspective, more normal, but will further reduce the prospects of change in Hungary, whilst the reallocation of seats has been entirely driven by use of the two-thirds supermajority, with no attempt to garner a consensus.

Finally, and in tune with 1930s Hungary, the new electoral laws proposed a move away from a simple system of voter lists, to a system of voluntary registration. It is here that the government have been placed most under pressure, both internally and externally. Originally, the registration process was intended to involve people presenting themselves physically in a governmental office with the necessary forms of ID. Access to these offices could therefore be made as obscure, or as irregular as necessary, and would be a daunting test of organization and finance, as all parties would need to ferry many of their voters to the offices, or at least ensure as many were registered as possible. The Constitution Court has rejected the electoral laws, indicating dissent in the ranks – but it remains the undeniable case that the party leadership, Viktor Orban himself, wanted to push these changes through.

We could argue that Fidesz, at root, is nothing more than an electoral/communications machine, and in this sense is not so different to many other European political parties nowadays. This machine has even provided an easy cultural identity for Joe Public to adopt, a system of patronage for supporters and friends, plus a flexible and easily adaptable set of policies, which vary from economic liberalism, to nationalism, to oligarchy, depending on the lay of the land.

Yet the rancid nationalism and overt racism of many Fidesz supporters stops it being a question of abstract political science, and illustrates the dilemma that Fidesz has built for itself. For such a machine would obviously not want to risk being thrown out of office –a negative democratic verdict would be too costly to the many interests at stake in such a centralized system of patronage. Yet at the same time, Fidesz retains those same people who were part of the democratic opposition in the communist era, and whose political self-image is based partially upon being democrats in opposition to undemocratic communists. Fidesz need to distance itself from the far-right in some ways, whilst also retaining its nationalist rhetoric and feeding the monster it has helped to create.

By understanding that Fidesz are increasingly being torn in both directions, we can surely begin to appreciate that while the Association of Young Democrats may have a somewhat elastic understanding of the word ‘democracy,’ internal rivalries and dubious decision-making increasingly question the viability of Orban’s all-encompassing governing project. Paradoxically, this coincides with the continued consolidation of absolute power.  This should not obfuscate – the prospects for democratic change and political engagement with social realities in Hungary appear singularly bleak, regardless of right-wing factionalism.

Reposted from02myEcon-01 02myEcon-01

Jung & Naiv – Politik für Desinteressierte | netzpolitik.org

Der Berliner Blogger Tilo Jung hat eine neue Interview-Reihe auf Youtube gestartet. In “Jung & Naiv – Politik für Desinteressierte” trifft er Experten und stellt ihnen möglichst naive Fragen zu ihrem speziellen Themengebiet. Die Sendung zeigt, dass man mit etwas Kreativität und Einsatz auch ohne teure Technik interessante Dinge anstellen kann. Die erste Sendung hat noch epische 35 Minuten, die weiteren beiden Teile kommen schon komprimiert mit jeweils zwölf Minuten aus.

Jung & Naiv – Politik für Desinteressierte – Folge 1

Folge 1 – mit den Erklär- bzw. Fragebären Falk Steiner (@flueke) und Tilo Jung (@TiloJung)

Jung & Naiv – Politik für Desinteressierte – Folge 2: Krieg und Frieden in Mali

Gespräch mit Militär- und Sicherheitsexperte Thomas Wiegold (on Twitter @thomas_wiegold; Blog www.augengeradeaus.de) und Tilo Jung (@TiloJung)

Jung & Naiv – Politik für Desinteressierte: Folge 3 – LIBOR

Gespräch mit Finanzexperte Alex Theiler (on Twitter @aahsh) und Tilo Jung (@TiloJung)

Reposted from02mysoup-aa 02mysoup-aa
Des néonazis allemands au Parlement grec

L’organisation Freies Netz Süd, dont des cadres ont visité le Parlement grec et s’y sont fait photographier avec des membres de Chryssi Avgi (Aube Dorée), est qualifiée de "néonazie" par des documents du Ministère de l’Intérieur du Land de Bavière.

 


Reposted from02mysoup-aa 02mysoup-aa

February 07 2013

Italy: minimum basic income discussed during 2013 electoral campaign | Basic Income News

General elections will be held in Italy on 24-25 February 2013. After the presentation of Mario Monti’s “Agenda for Italy”, Beppe Grillo, the colourful leader of Movimento 5 stelle (5 ...

to read more: http://binews.org/2013/02/italy-minimum-basic-income-discussed-during-2013-electoral-campaign/


Reposted from02mysoup-aa 02mysoup-aa

Wir brauchen eine gesellschaftliche und politische Diskussion über Polizeigewalt

Ein neuer Fall von Polizeigewalt rüttelt gerade die Öffentlichkeit auf. Ein Polizeibeamter bricht einer 23-jährigen Frau mit Faustschlägen ins Gesicht Nase und Augenhöhle, die Polizei versucht das als Notwehrhandlung darzustellen. Die Frau befand sich dabei wohlgemerkt auf einer Polizeidienststelle, war offenbar bereits gefesselt und von Beamten umringt. Die gefesselte Frau soll dann – in Gegenwart von sieben Polizisten – versucht haben, einem Beamten mit dem Kopf ins Gesicht zu stoßen. Um sich dagegen zu schützen, habe der Beamte der Frau dann den Faustschlag versetzt, so die Darstellung der Polizei.

Henning-Ernst Müller bringt es auf den Punkt, wenn er sagt, dass seine Phantasie nicht ausreichend ist, um sich in der geschilderten Situation eine Notwehrlage des Polizeibeamten vorzustellen. Wenn die Darstellung in der Presse nur halbwegs stimmt, dann kann dieses Verhalten nicht gerechtfertigt sein.

Der Ruf der Polizei leidet in zunehmendem Maße darunter, dass Fälle von Polizeigewalt immer öfter publik werden, was mit der Erkenntnis verbunden ist, dass es sich wohl nicht um seltene Ausnahmefälle handelt.

Wenn Polizeibeamte glauben, Kollegen die derart ausrasten, anschließend auch noch decken zu müssen, handeln sie aus einem falsch verstandenen Korpsgeist heraus und schaden damit über kurz oder lang dem Ansehen und der Glaubwürdigkeit der Polizei.

Diese Form des Korpsgeists setzt sich häufig anschließend bei den Staatsanwaltschaften und Gerichten fort, bei denen ebenfalls eine deutliche Neigung erkennbar ist, derartige Fälle auf den Kopf zu stellen, indem man die Opfer wegen eines angeblichen Widerstands gegen Vollstreckungsbeamte strafrechtlich verfolgt.

In einem ersten Schritt ist es also notwendig, dass das Phänomen Polizeigewalt nicht länger totgeschwiegen wird. Eine Polizei, die mit unsachlicher Argumentation rechtsstaatlich gebotene Maßnahmen wie eine Kennzeichnungspflicht für Polizeibeamte ablehnt, wird die erforderliche Aufarbeitung aber nicht von sich aus leisten. Was wir deshalb brauchen, ist eine politische und gesellschaftliche Diskussion des Phänomens der Polizeigewalt.

Reposted bykrekkwonkoKingBalance

February 05 2013

Is a revolution in economic thinking under way?

Our current situation is conducive to revolutionary thinking, if not yet in politics, then maybe in economics.

 

The BoE has spent £50 billion over the past six months to support bond prices. That could instead have financed a cash handout of £830 for every man, woman and child in Britain, or £3,300 for a typical family of four. In the United States, the $40 billion the Fed has promised to transfer monthly, with no time limit, to banks and bond funds, could instead finance a monthly cash payment of $500 per family – to be continued indefinitely until full employment is restored.


// oAnth: What sounds on a first glance quite marvelous, needs in my opinion to consider who is paying here to whom by which kind of interests and conditions.  The question where these huge amounts of money are coming from seems to be not even noteworthy.

The states' fiscal sovereignty is completely questioned. It's an open revolution not in economic thinking, but in the foundations of the state's authority. In so far this discussion continues the neoliberal agenda on a less hidden manner as a clear opening to the area of neofeudalism and proves an ongoing obvious power shift.

It has IMHO nothing to do with a P2P decentralized economy.


// oAnth: I would like to correct my latest entry in so far, as I have misunderstood the source of the money, which is to spend. If I understand well now, it would be a more or less indirect debt cut by spending money, created by the central bank, directly to the population, but - but as I would instantly like to add,  the incentive to the exploitation circle would nevertheless in a long run only be to tame by additional much higher top income taxes.

    

Reposted from02mysoup-aa 02mysoup-aa

February 03 2013

Prison et cinéma. Créteil le 8 février

Le rapport d’activité de décembre 2012 du Contrôleur général des lieux privatifs de liberté et plusieurs reportages ont particulièrement attiré l’attention sur les conditions matérielles dans les prisons en France aujourd’hui. Plusieurs films ont été réalisés spécifiquement sur les prisons, en particulier depuis quelques années, dont "Prisons, la honte de la république", "Nos jours absolument doivent être illuminés" de Jean-Gabriel Périot, "A l’ombre de la république" de Stéphane Mercurio… et, dans le cadre du Festival international du Film des droits de l’Homme, est projeté le 8 février 2013 à Créteil (94), au cinéma du Palais (www.lepalais.com) le film réalisé en 2012 par Catherine Rechard, "Le déménagement "  [1], suivi d’un débat avec la réalisatrice et Augustin Rosenstiehl, architecte et spécialiste de l’architecture pénitentiaire.

Reposted from02mysoup-aa 02mysoup-aa

February 02 2013

Animierte Grenzen



30-second animation of the changes in U.S. historical county boundaries,
1629 – 2000:


American Newspapers and Historical County Boundaries (1689-2000):

This visualization correlates the following data: 1) A database of newspapers published in the United States from the Library of Congress’ Chronicling America database, prepared and generously shared by the Rural West Initiative, Bill Lane Center for the American West, Stanford University. — 2) The Atlas of Historical County Boundaries provided by The Newberry Library’ Dr. William M. Scholl Center for American History and Culture.

German Language Newspapers in the US:

This animation is taken from the interactive data visualization of the Library of Congress’ “Chronicling America” directory of US newspapers. It shows all German-language newspapers in the US from 1690 to 2011:




(Gefunden bei publications.newberry.org)

Reposted from02mysoup-aa 02mysoup-aa

January 24 2013

02mydafsoup-01

David Cameron's EU speech - full text | Politics | guardian.co.uk 2013-01-23

   

This morning I want to talk about the future of Europe.

But first, let us remember the past.

Seventy years ago, Europe was being torn apart by its second catastrophic conflict in a generation. A war which saw the streets of European cities strewn with rubble. The skies of London lit by flames night after night. And millions dead across the world in the battle for peace and liberty.

As we remember their sacrifice, so we should also remember how the shift in Europe from war to sustained peace came about. It did not happen like a change in the weather. It happened because of determined work over generations. A commitment to friendship and a resolve never to revisit that dark past – a commitment epitomised by the Elysee treaty signed 50 years ago this week.

After the Berlin Wall came down I visited that city and I will never forget it.

The abandoned checkpoints. The sense of excitement about the future. The knowledge that a great continent was coming together. Healing those wounds of our history is the central story of the European Union.

What Churchill described as the twin marauders of war and tyranny have been almost entirely banished from our continent. Today, hundreds of millions dwell in freedom, from the Baltic to the Adriatic, from the Western Approaches to the Aegean.

And while we must never take this for granted, the first purpose of the European Union – to secure peace – has been achieved and we should pay tribute to all those in the EU, alongside Nato, who made that happen.

But today the main, overriding purpose of the European Union is different: not to win peace, but to secure prosperity.

The challenges come not from within this continent but outside it. From the surging economies in the east and south. Of course a growing world economy benefits us all, but we should be in no doubt that a new global race of nations is under way today.

A race for the wealth and jobs of the future.

The map of global influence is changing before our eyes. And these changes are already being felt by the entrepreneur in the Netherlands, the worker in Germany, the family in Britain.

So I want to speak to you today with urgency and frankness about the European Union and how it must change – both to deliver prosperity and to retain the support of its peoples.

But first, I want to set out the spirit in which I approach these issues.

I know that the United Kingdom is sometimes seen as an argumentative and rather strong-minded member of the family of European nations.

And it's true that our geography has shaped our psychology.

We have the character of an island nation: independent, forthright, passionate in defence of our sovereignty.

We can no more change this British sensibility than we can drain the English Channel.

And because of this sensibility, we come to the European Union with a frame of mind that is more practical than emotional.

For us, the European Union is a means to an end – prosperity, stability, the anchor of freedom and democracy both within Europe and beyond her shores – not an end in itself.

We insistently ask: how, why, to what end?

But all this doesn't make us somehow un-European.

The fact is that ours is not just an island story – it is also a continental story.

For all our connections to the rest of the world – of which we are rightly proud – we have always been a European power, and we always will be.

From Caesar's legions to the Napoleonic wars. From the Reformation, the Enlightenment and the industrial revolution to the defeat of nazism. We have helped to write European history, and Europe has helped write ours.

Over the years, Britain has made her own, unique contribution to Europe. We have provided a haven to those fleeing tyranny and persecution. And in Europe's darkest hour, we helped keep the flame of liberty alight. Across the continent, in silent cemeteries, lie the hundreds of thousands of British servicemen who gave their lives for Europe's freedom.

In more recent decades, we have played our part in tearing down the iron curtain and championing the entry into the EU of those countries that lost so many years to Communism. And contained in this history is the crucial point about Britain, our national character, our attitude to Europe.

Britain is characterised not just by its independence but, above all, by its openness.

We have always been a country that reaches out. That turns its face to the world. That leads the charge in the fight for global trade and against protectionism.

This is Britain today, as it's always been: independent, yes – but open, too.

I never want us to pull up the drawbridge and retreat from the world.

I am not a British isolationist.

I don't just want a better deal for Britain. I want a better deal for Europe too.

So I speak as British prime minister with a positive vision for the future of the European Union. A future in which Britain wants, and should want, to play a committed and active part.

Some might then ask: why raise fundamental questions about the future of Europe when Europe is already in the midst of a deep crisis?

Why raise questions about Britain's role when support in Britain is already so thin.

There are always voices saying: "Don't ask the difficult questions."

But it's essential for Europe – and for Britain – that we do because there are three major challenges confronting us today.

First, the problems in the eurozone are driving fundamental change in Europe.

Second, there is a crisis of European competitiveness, as other nations across the world soar ahead. And third, there is a gap between the EU and its citizens which has grown dramatically in recent years. And which represents a lack of democratic accountability and consent that is – yes – felt particularly acutely in Britain.

If we don't address these challenges, the danger is that Europe will fail and the British people will drift towards the exit.

I do not want that to happen. I want the European Union to be a success. And I want a relationship between Britain and the EU that keeps us in it.

That is why I am here today: to acknowledge the nature of the challenges we face. To set out how I believe the European Union should respond to them. And to explain what I want to achieve for Britain and its place within the European Union.

Let me start with the nature of the challenges we face.

First, the eurozone.

The future shape of Europe is being forged. There are some serious questions that will define the future of the European Union – and the future of every country within it.

The union is changing to help fix the currency – and that has profound implications for all of us, whether we are in the single currency or not.

Britain is not in the single currency, and we're not going to be. But we all need the eurozone to have the right governance and structures to secure a successful currency for the long term.

And those of us outside the eurozone also need certain safeguards to ensure, for example, that our access to the single market is not in any way compromised.

And it's right we begin to address these issues now.

Second, while there are some countries within the EU which are doing pretty well. Taken as a whole, Europe's share of world output is projected to fall by almost a third in the next two decades. This is the competitiveness challenge – and much of our weakness in meeting it is self-inflicted.

Complex rules restricting our labour markets are not some naturally occurring phenomenon. Just as excessive regulation is not some external plague that's been visited on our businesses.

These problems have been around too long. And the progress in dealing with them, far too slow.

As Chancellor Merkel has said, if Europe today accounts for just over 7% of the world's population, produces around 25% of global GDP and has to finance 50% of global social spending, then it's obvious that it will have to work very hard to maintain its prosperity and way of life.

Third, there is a growing frustration that the EU is seen as something that is done to people rather than acting on their behalf. And this is being intensified by the very solutions required to resolve the economic problems.

People are increasingly frustrated that decisions taken further and further away from them mean their living standards are slashed through enforced austerity or their taxes are used to bail out governments on the other side of the continent.

We are starting to see this in the demonstrations on the streets of Athens, Madrid and Rome. We are seeing it in the parliaments of Berlin, Helsinki and the Hague.

And yes, of course, we are seeing this frustration with the EU very dramatically in Britain.

Europe's leaders have a duty to hear these concerns. Indeed, we have a duty to act on them. And not just to fix the problems in the eurozone.

For just as in any emergency you should plan for the aftermath as well as dealing with the present crisis, so too in the midst of the present challenges we should plan for the future, and what the world will look like when the difficulties in the eurozone have been overcome.

The biggest danger to the European Union comes not from those who advocate change, but from those who denounce new thinking as heresy. In its long history Europe has experience of heretics who turned out to have a point.

And my point is this. More of the same will not secure a long-term future for the eurozone. More of the same will not see the European Union keeping pace with the new powerhouse economies. More of the same will not bring the European Union any closer to its citizens. More of the same will just produce more of the same: less competitiveness, less growth, fewer jobs.

And that will make our countries weaker not stronger.

That is why we need fundamental, far-reaching change.

So let me set out my vision for a new European Union, fit for the 21st century.

It is built on five principles.

The first: competitiveness. At the core of the European Union must be, as it is now, the single market. Britain is at the heart of that single market, and must remain so.

But when the single market remains incomplete in services, energy and digital – the very sectors that are the engines of a modern economy – it is only half the success it could be.

It is nonsense that people shopping online in some parts of Europe are unable to access the best deals because of where they live. I want completing the single market to be our driving mission.

I want us to be at the forefront of transformative trade deals with the US, Japan and India as part of the drive towards global free trade. And I want us to be pushing to exempt Europe's smallest entrepreneurial companies from more EU directives.

These should be the tasks that get European officials up in the morning – and keep them working late into the night. And so we urgently need to address the sclerotic, ineffective decision-making that is holding us back.

That means creating a leaner, less bureaucratic union, relentlessly focused on helping its member countries to compete.

In a global race, can we really justify the huge number of expensive peripheral European institutions?

Can we justify a commission that gets ever larger?

Can we carry on with an organisation that has a multibillion pound budget but not enough focus on controlling spending and shutting down programmes that haven't worked?

And I would ask: when the competitiveness of the single market is so important, why is there an environment council, a transport council, an education council but not a single market council?

The second principle should be flexibility.

We need a structure that can accommodate the diversity of its members – north, south, east, west, large, small, old and new. Some of whom are contemplating much closer economic and political integration. And many others, including Britain, who would never embrace that goal.

I accept, of course, that for the single market to function we need a common set of rules and a way of enforcing them. But we also need to be able to respond quickly to the latest developments and trends.

Competitiveness demands flexibility, choice and openness – or Europe will fetch up in a no-man's land between the rising economies of Asia and market-driven North America.

The EU must be able to act with the speed and flexibility of a network, not the cumbersome rigidity of a bloc.

We must not be weighed down by an insistence on a one size fits all approach which implies that all countries want the same level of integration. The fact is that they don't and we shouldn't assert that they do.

Some will claim that this offends a central tenet of the EU's founding philosophy. I say it merely reflects the reality of the European Union today. 17 members are part of the eurozone. 10 are not.

26 European countries are members of Schengen – including four outside the European Union – Switzerland, Norway, Liechtenstein and Iceland. Two EU countries – Britain and Ireland – have retained their border controls.

Some members, like Britain and France, are ready, willing and able to take action in Libya or Mali. Others are uncomfortable with the use of military force.

Let's welcome that diversity, instead of trying to snuff it out.

Let's stop all this talk of two-speed Europe, of fast lanes and slow lanes, of countries missing trains and buses, and consign the whole weary caravan of metaphors to a permanent siding.

Instead, let's start from this proposition: we are a family of democratic nations, all members of one European Union, whose essential foundation is the single market rather than the single currency. Those of us outside the euro recognise that those in it are likely to need to make some big institutional changes.

By the same token, the members of the eurozone should accept that we, and indeed all member states, will have changes that we need to safeguard our interests and strengthen democratic legitimacy. And we should be able to make these changes too.

Some say this will unravel the principle of the EU – and that you can't pick and choose on the basis of what your nation needs.

But far from unravelling the EU, this will in fact bind its members more closely because such flexible, willing co-operation is a much stronger glue than compulsion from the centre.

Let me make a further heretical proposition.

The European treaty commits the member states to "lay the foundations of an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe".

This has been consistently interpreted as applying not to the peoples but rather to the states and institutions compounded by a European court of justice that has consistently supported greater centralisation.

We understand and respect the right of others to maintain their commitment to this goal. But for Britain – and perhaps for others – it is not the objective.

And we would be much more comfortable if the treaty specifically said so, freeing those who want to go further, faster, to do so, without being held back by the others.

So to those who say we have no vision for Europe, I say we have.

We believe in a flexible union of free member states who share treaties and institutions and pursue together the ideal of co-operation. To represent and promote the values of European civilisation in the world. To advance our shared interests by using our collective power to open markets. And to build a strong economic base across the whole of Europe.

And we believe in our nations working together to protect the security and diversity of our energy supplies. To tackle climate change and global poverty. To work together against terrorism and organised crime. And to continue to welcome new countries into the EU.

This vision of flexibility and co-operation is not the same as those who want to build an ever closer political union – but it is just as valid.

My third principle is that power must be able to flow back to member states, not just away from them. This was promised by European leaders at Laeken a decade ago.

It was put in the treaty. But the promise has never really been fulfilled. We need to implement this principle properly.

So let us use this moment, as the Dutch prime minister has recently suggested, to examine thoroughly what the EU as a whole should do and should stop doing.

In Britain we have already launched our balance of competences review – to give us an informed and objective analysis of where the EU helps and where it hampers.

Let us not be misled by the fallacy that a deep and workable single market requires everything to be harmonised, to hanker after some unattainable and infinitely level playing field.

Countries are different. They make different choices. We cannot harmonise everything. For example, it is neither right nor necessary to claim that the integrity of the single market, or full membership of the European Union requires the working hours of British hospital doctors to be set in Brussels irrespective of the views of British parliamentarians and practitioners.

In the same way we need to examine whether the balance is right in so many areas where the European Union has legislated including on the environment, social affairs and crime.

Nothing should be off the table.

My fourth principle is democratic accountability: we need to have a bigger and more significant role for national parliaments.

There is not, in my view, a single European demos.

It is national parliaments, which are, and will remain, the true source of real democratic legitimacy and accountability in the EU.

It is to the Bundestag that Angela Merkel has to answer. It is through the Greek parliament that Antonis Samaras has to pass his government's austerity measures.

It is to the British parliament that I must account on the EU budget negotiations, or on the safeguarding of our place in the single market.

Those are the parliaments which instil proper respect – even fear – into national leaders.

We need to recognise that in the way the EU does business.

My fifth principle is fairness: whatever new arrangements are enacted for the eurozone, they must work fairly for those inside it and out.

That will be of particular importance to Britain. As I have said, we will not join the single currency. But there is no overwhelming economic reason why the single currency and the single market should share the same boundary, any more than the single market and Schengen.

Our participation in the single market, and our ability to help set its rules is the principal reason for our membership of the EU.

So it is a vital interest for us to protect the integrity and fairness of the single market for all its members.

And that is why Britain has been so concerned to promote and defend the single market as the eurozone crisis rewrites the rules on fiscal co-ordination and banking union.

These five principles provide what, I believe, is the right approach for the European Union.

So now let me turn to what this means for Britain.

Today, public disillusionment with the EU is at an all-time high. There are several reasons for this.

People feel that the EU is heading in a direction that they never signed up to. They resent the interference in our national life by what they see as unnecessary rules and regulation. And they wonder what the point of it all is.

Put simply, many ask "why can't we just have what we voted to join – a common market?"

They are angered by some legal judgements made in Europe that impact on life in Britain. Some of this antipathy about Europe in general really relates of course to the European court of human rights, rather than the EU. And Britain is leading European efforts to address this.

There is, indeed, much more that needs to be done on this front. But people also feel that the EU is now heading for a level of political integration that is far outside Britain's comfort zone.

They see treaty after treaty changing the balance between member states and the EU. And note they were never given a say.

They've had referendums promised – but not delivered. They see what has happened to the euro. And they note that many of our political and business leaders urged Britain to join at the time.

And they haven't noticed many expressions of contrition.

And they look at the steps the eurozone is taking and wonder what deeper integration for the eurozone will mean for a country which is not going to join the euro.

The result is that democratic consent for the EU in Britain is now wafer-thin.

Some people say that to point this out is irresponsible, creates uncertainty for business and puts a question mark over Britain's place in the European Union.

But the question mark is already there and ignoring it won't make it go away.

In fact, quite the reverse. Those who refuse to contemplate consulting the British people, would in my view make more likely our eventual exit.

Simply asking the British people to carry on accepting a European settlement over which they have had little choice is a path to ensuring that when the question is finally put – and at some stage it will have to be – it is much more likely that the British people will reject the EU.

That is why I am in favour of a referendum. I believe in confronting this issue – shaping it, leading the debate. Not simply hoping a difficult situation will go away.

Some argue that the solution is therefore to hold a straight in-out referendum now.

I understand the impatience of wanting to make that choice immediately.

But I don't believe that to make a decision at this moment is the right way forward, either for Britain or for Europe as a whole.

A vote today between the status quo and leaving would be an entirely false choice.

Now – while the EU is in flux, and when we don't know what the future holds and what sort of EU will emerge from this crisis – is not the right time to make such a momentous decision about the future of our country.

It is wrong to ask people whether to stay or go before we have had a chance to put the relationship right.

How can we sensibly answer the question "in or out" without being able to answer the most basic question: "What is it exactly that we are choosing to be in or out of?"

The European Union that emerges from the eurozone crisis is going to be a very different body. It will be transformed perhaps beyond recognition by the measures needed to save the eurozone.

We need to allow some time for that to happen – and help to shape the future of the European Union, so that when the choice comes it will be a real one.

A real choice between leaving or being part of a new settlement in which Britain shapes and respects the rules of the single market but is protected by fair safeguards, and free of the spurious regulation which damages Europe's competitiveness.

A choice between leaving or being part of a new settlement in which Britain is at the forefront of collective action on issues like foreign policy and trade and where we leave the door firmly open to new members.

A new settlement subject to the democratic legitimacy and accountability of national parliaments where member states combine in flexible co-operation, respecting national differences not always trying to eliminate them and in which we have proved that some powers can in fact be returned to member states.

In other words, a settlement which would be entirely in keeping with the mission for an updated European Union I have described today. More flexible, more adaptable, more open – fit for the challenges of the modern age.

And to those who say a new settlement can't be negotiated, I would say listen to the views of other parties in other European countries arguing for powers to flow back to European states.

And look too at what we have achieved already. Ending Britain's obligation to bail out eurozone members. Keeping Britain out of the fiscal compact. Launching a process to return some existing justice and home affairs powers. Securing protections on banking union. And reforming fisheries policy.

So we are starting to shape the reforms we need now. Some will not require treaty change.

But I agree too with what President Barroso and others have said. At some stage in the next few years the EU will need to agree on treaty change to make the changes needed for the long-term future of the euro and to entrench the diverse, competitive, democratically accountable Europe that we seek.

I believe the best way to do this will be in a new treaty so I add my voice to those who are already calling for this.

My strong preference is to enact these changes for the entire EU, not just for Britain.

But if there is no appetite for a new treaty for us all then of course Britain should be ready to address the changes we need in a negotiation with our European partners.

The next Conservative manifesto in 2015 will ask for a mandate from the British people for a Conservative government to negotiate a new settlement with our European partners in the next parliament.

It will be a relationship with the single market at its heart.

And when we have negotiated that new settlement, we will give the British people a referendum with a very simple in or out choice. To stay in the EU on these new terms, or come out altogether.

It will be an in-out referendum.

Legislation will be drafted before the next election. And if a Conservative government is elected we will introduce the enabling legislation immediately and pass it by the end of that year. And we will complete this negotiation and hold this referendum within the first half of the next parliament.

It is time for the British people to have their say. It is time to settle this European question in British politics.

I say to the British people: this will be your decision.

And when that choice comes, you will have an important choice to make about our country's destiny.

I understand the appeal of going it alone, of charting our own course. But it will be a decision we will have to take with cool heads. Proponents of both sides of the argument will need to avoid exaggerating their claims.

Of course Britain could make her own way in the world, outside the EU, if we chose to do so. So could any other member state.

But the question we will have to ask ourselves is this: is that the very best future for our country?

We will have to weigh carefully where our true national interest lies.

Alone, we would be free to take our own decisions, just as we would be freed of our solemn obligation to defend our allies if we left Nato. But we don't leave Nato because it is in our national interest to stay and benefit from its collective defence guarantee.

We have more power and influence – whether implementing sanctions against Iran or Syria, or promoting democracy in Burma – if we can act together.

If we leave the EU, we cannot of course leave Europe. It will remain for many years our biggest market, and forever our geographical neighbourhood. We are tied by a complex web of legal commitments.

Hundreds of thousands of British people now take for granted their right to work, live or retire in any other EU country.

Even if we pulled out completely, decisions made in the EU would continue to have a profound effect on our country. But we would have lost all our remaining vetoes and our voice in those decisions.

We would need to weigh up very carefully the consequences of no longer being inside the EU and its single market, as a full member.

Continued access to the single market is vital for British businesses and British jobs.

Since 2004, Britain has been the destination for one in five of all inward investments into Europe.

And being part of the single market has been key to that success.

There will be plenty of time to test all the arguments thoroughly, in favour and against the arrangement we negotiate. But let me just deal with one point we hear a lot about.

There are some who suggest we could turn ourselves into Norway or Switzerland – with access to the single market but outside the EU. But would that really be in our best interests?

I admire those countries and they are friends of ours – but they are very different from us. Norway sits on the biggest energy reserves in Europe, and has a sovereign wealth fund of over €500bn. And while Norway is part of the single market – and pays for the principle – it has no say at all in setting its rules. It just has to implement its directives.

The Swiss have to negotiate access to the single market sector by sector, accepting EU rules – over which they have no say – or else not getting full access to the single market, including in key sectors like financial services.

The fact is that if you join an organisation like the European Union, there are rules.

You will not always get what you want. But that does not mean we should leave – not if the benefits of staying and working together are greater.

We would have to think carefully too about the impact on our influence at the top table of international affairs.

There is no doubt that we are more powerful in Washington, in Beijing, in Delhi because we are a powerful player in the European Union.

That matters for British jobs and British security.

It matters to our ability to get things done in the world. It matters to the United States and other friends around the world, which is why many tell us very clearly that they want Britain to remain in the EU.

We should think very carefully before giving that position up.

If we left the European Union, it would be a one-way ticket, not a return.

So we will have time for a proper, reasoned debate.

At the end of that debate you, the British people, will decide.

And I say to our European partners, frustrated as some of them no doubt are by Britain's attitude: work with us on this.

Consider the extraordinary steps which the eurozone members are taking to keep the euro together, steps which a year ago would have seemed impossible.

It does not seem to me that the steps which would be needed to make Britain – and others – more comfortable in their relationship in the European Union are inherently so outlandish or unreasonable.

And just as I believe that Britain should want to remain in the EU so the EU should want us to stay.

For an EU without Britain, without one of Europe's strongest powers, a country which in many ways invented the single market, and which brings real heft to Europe's influence on the world stage, which plays by the rules and which is a force for liberal economic reform would be a very different kind of European Union.

And it is hard to argue that the EU would not be greatly diminished by Britain's departure.

Let me finish today by saying this.

I have no illusions about the scale of the task ahead.

I know there will be those who say the vision I have outlined will be impossible to achieve. That there is no way our partners will co-operate. That the British people have set themselves on a path to inevitable exit. And that if we aren't comfortable being in the EU after 40 years, we never will be.

But I refuse to take such a defeatist attitude – either for Britain or for Europe.

Because with courage and conviction I believe we can deliver a more flexible, adaptable and open European Union in which the interests and ambitions of all its members can be met.

With courage and conviction I believe we can achieve a new settlement in which Britain can be comfortable and all our countries can thrive.

And when the referendum comes let me say now that if we can negotiate such an arrangement, I will campaign for it with all my heart and soul.

Because I believe something very deeply. That Britain's national interest is best served in a flexible, adaptable and open European Union and that such a European Union is best with Britain in it.

Over the coming weeks, months and years, I will not rest until this debate is won. For the future of my country. For the success of the European Union. And for the prosperity of our peoples for generations to come.

January 20 2013

02mydafsoup-01

[...]

In 2009, the global eco­nomic crisis began to affect Slov­e­nia not only due to shrink­ing European exports, but also because of mis­guided policies taken dur­ing the years of eco­nomic expan­sion (most dur­ing Janez Janša’s first man­date). In 2009, the Slov­e­nian eco­nomy shrunk by 8% and the over­heated con­struc­tion sec­tor dis­in­teg­rated. The Slov­e­nian eco­nomy entered a second reces­sion in the last quarter. Pro­test­ers blame this new reces­sion not only on the auto­cratic, neo­lib­eral, cor­rupt and incom­pet­ent policies of the cur­rent gov­ern­ment, but on a recent suc­ces­sion of cor­rupt self-​serving gov­ern­ments. This is why pro­test­ers have recently deman­ded the replace­ment of the entire polit­ical elite.

The gov­ern­ment has respon­ded with arrog­ance to the raised voices of its own cit­izens. The ostens­ibly rep­res­ent­at­ive gov­ern­ment has con­sist­ently refused to enter into dia­logue with pro­test­ers and had instead dis­cred­ited and ridiculed their legit­im­ate demands. This shame­ful response has only helped the protest move­ment to grow. The gov­ern­ment has also respon­ded to the protests by clos­ing down the centre of the cap­ital city of Ljubljana, by using riot police, horses, armoured vehicles, water can­nons, anti­riot fences and heli­copters in what can only be char­ac­ter­ized as a gross over­re­ac­tion to the largely peace­ful gath­er­ings of Slov­e­nian cit­izens. The police has imprisoned large num­ber of young­sters, mis­streat­ing them, hold­ing them host­ages, black­mail­ing their parants to stop protest­ing, if they want to see their kids lib­er­ated. Prime Min­is­ter Janez Janša has described the pro­test­ers as “extrem­ist left zom­bies” and char­ac­ter­ized them as rad­ical “neo-​socialists” in an effort to bal­ance out the actual pres­ence of neo-​Nazis (pos­sibly organ­ised by the rul­ing gov­ern­ment itself in an effort to dis­credit the protests at the begin­ning of the move­ment). Again this insult­ing gov­ern­ment response has back­fired, draw­ing more and more angry cit­izens into the streets.

[...]

Slovenians Demand Radical Change | Critical Legal Thinking 2013-01-15
02mydafsoup-01
[...]

The protests were triggered by an appar­ently insig­ni­fic­ant and mar­ginal issue in local polit­ics. In Mari­bor, the second largest city of Slov­e­nia, the city mayor com­mit­ted a private com­pany to install cam­eras across the city, in order to con­trol the traffic and pen­al­ize the viol­a­tions of speed lim­its. The main prob­lem was that the pen­al­ties would be paid to the same private com­pany. This then added fuel to the already foun­ded accus­a­tions of cor­rup­tion in the city coun­cil and not­ably in the mayor’s office. The occa­sional protests cul­min­ated in what became known as the “Mari­bor upris­ing”, where, for the first time in the short his­tory of Slov­e­nian inde­pend­ency, the police used excess­ive viol­ence, water can­nons, heli­copters etc. The com­bin­a­tion of local issues and cyn­ical polit­ical reac­tions from the gov­ern­ing parties lead to the situ­ation in which a vast major­ity could recog­nize their own dis­sat­is­fac­tion and frus­tra­tion with the gov­ern­ing polit­ics, and more broadly with the prob­lem­atic polit­ical tra­di­tion in Slov­e­nia. The ini­ti­at­ives for protests spread across the coun­try and the major­ity of organ­ising was con­duc­ted through the social networks.

[...]
The People Returns: A footnote to protests in Slovenia | Critical Legal Thinking 2013-01-16

December 14 2012

02mydafsoup-01

December 09 2012

02mydafsoup-01
Thomas de Mi­se­re im Hörsaal 3 Uni Leipzig

Nikolausvorlesung - Studentenaktion

"Wozu noch dienen? Der Auftrag der Bundeswehr"
Dr. Thomas de Maizière MdB
Bundesminister der Verteidigung

6. Dezember 2012
Hörsaal 3, Universität Leipzig

Reposted bykrekk krekk

November 28 2012

Play fullscreen
Leo Panitch & Sam Gindin (2012): The Making of Global Capitalism - YouTube

Veröffentlicht am 26.11.2012 von rosaluxstiftung


Dass der globale Kapitalismus am Beginn des 20. Jahrhunderts allumfassend geworden ist, wurde von seinen Befürwortern der Überlegenheit der Märkte und des Wettbewerbs zugeschrieben. Die Globalisierung erschien ihnen als das natürliche Resultat eines unaufhaltsamen Prozesses. Doch heute, nachdem die Märkte stocken und zunehmend auf staatliche Interventionen angewiesen sind, um in Bewegung zu bleiben, ist es offensichtlich, dass Staat und Markt nicht einfach entgegengesetzte Kräfte sind. In ihrem bahnbrechenden Werk The Making of Global Capitalism. The Political Economy of American Empire verdeutlichen Sam Gindin und Leo Panitch die enge Beziehung zwischen dem modernen Kapitalismus und dem US-amerikanischen Staat. Dessen Funktion als „informelles Imperium" besteht nicht zuletzt darin, den freien Handel und freie Kapitalbewegungen weltweit durchzusetzen. Ihre eindrucksvolle historische Untersuchung zeigt, wie die USA die Restrukturierung anderer Staaten in Richtung offener Märkte vorangetrieben und das Management der immer häufigeren Finanzkrisen koordiniert haben.

Innergesellschaftliche Konflikte haben Vorrang vor internationalen Konflikten, wie Gindin und Panitch in ihrer originellen Analyse der ersten großen Weltwirtschaftskrise des 21. Jahrhunderts darlegen. Die gesellschaftlichen Bruchlinien verweisen auf die Möglichkeit neuer politischer Bewegungen, die die Nationalstaaten transformieren und über die globalen Märkte hinausweisen.

Sam Gindin war Forschungsdirektor der kanadischen Automobilarbeitergewerkschaft CAW und lehrt Politikwissenschaft an der York University in Toronto.
Leo Panitch ist Professor für Politikwissenschaft an der York University in Toronto und Herausgeber des Socialist Register (http://socialistregister.com).

Die Veranstaltung fand in englischer Sprache statt.
Kategorie:

Nachrichten & Politik
Lizenz: Creative Commons – Namensnennung (Wiederverwendung erlaubt)
Reposted fromnunatak nunatak
02mydafsoup-01

http://blog.die-linke.de - Leistungsschutzrecht für Presseverlage | Bundestag - Termin


http://blog.die-linke.de/digitalelinke/leistungsschutzrecht-fur-presseverlage-im-bundestag/


[....]

UPDATE 22.11. 12:55 Uhr

Bereits gestern Abend hatten LINKE und Grüne im Bundestag angekündigt, dagegen zu protestieren, dass die erste Lesung des Leistungsschutzrechts ohne echte Debatte im Plenum durchgewunken werden sollte. Heute morgen haben Mathias Schindler und Netzpolitk.org dazu aufgerufen, sich bei den Fraktionen im Bundestag dafür einzusetzen, dass es eine echte Debatte zum Leistungschutzrecht gibt. Mittlerweile hat auch der Parlamentarische Geschäftsführer der SPD im Bundestag, Thomas Oppermann, angekündigt, sich für eine echte Debatte einsetzen zu wollen.

Darüber hinaus haben Tabea Rößner von den Grünen und Petra Sitte von der LINKEN am Mittag angekündigt, ihr Rederecht auf jeden Fall wahrnehmen zu wollen.

Heute tagt der Ältestenrat des Bundestages um die Tagesordnung für kommende Woche offiziell zu beschließen. Dabei wird auch der Protest der Oppositionsfraktionen für eine echte Debatte zur Sprache kommen. Wir werden weiter berichten.

 

UPDATE 23.11. 11:10 Uhr

Der Ältestenrat hat gestern einstimmig beschlossen, das Leistungsschutzrecht am 29.11.2012 unter TOP 19 zu debattieren. Nach der jetzigen Aufsetzungsplanung wäre die frühestmögliche Uhrzeit 20:45. Das ist aber nur ein theoretischer Wert: Realistisch ist 22:00 Uhr, möglich ist auch 23:15.

 

UPDATE 27.11. 13:45 Uhr

Laut Tagesordnung des Bundestags von heute findet die erste Lesung am 29.11.2012 von 01.50-02.25 Uhr statt – also Freitag zu nachtschlafender Zeit …

[....]

--------------------------

oAnth: doch wohl eher Donnerstag (29.11.2012) "...zu nachtschlafender Zeit..."!?

---------------------------

via http://www.perlentaucher.de/blog/278_die_nacht_der_leistungsschutzrechte

Beitrag von Thierry Chervel, Mitglied der Redaktion von Perlentaucher.de

November 24 2012

02mydafsoup-01

[...]

The issue here is not whether Anonymous activists can be rightfully prosecuted: acts of civil disobedience, by definition, are violations of the law designed to protest or create a cost for injustices. The issue is how selectively these cyber-attack laws are enforced: massive cyber-attacks aimed at a group critical of US policy (WikiLeaks) were either perpetrated by the US government or retroactively sanctioned by it, while relatively trivial, largely symbolic attacks in defense of the group were punished with the harshest possible application of law enforcement resources and threats of criminal punishment.

That the US government largely succeeded in using extra-legal and extra-judicial means to cripple an adverse journalistic outlet is a truly consequential episode: nobody, regardless of one's views on WikiLeaks, should want any government to have that power. But the manifestly overzealous prosecutions of Anonymous activists, in stark contrast to the (at best) indifference to the attacks on WikiLeaks, makes all of that even worse.

[...]

Prosecution of Anonymous activists highlights war for Internet control | Glenn Greenwald guardian.co.uk 2012-11-23
Reposted bywikileaksdatenwolfcheg00
Older posts are this way If this message doesn't go away, click anywhere on the page to continue loading posts.
Could not load more posts
Maybe Soup is currently being updated? I'll try again automatically in a few seconds...
Just a second, loading more posts...
You've reached the end.

Don't be the product, buy the product!

Schweinderl