The Legacy of Gordon Brown's, and Perhaps, Obama's Socialism??

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article7127819.ece

Labour hid ‘scorched earth’ debts worth billions

By Marie Woolf and Jonathan Oliver

UK Sunday Times

May 16, 2010

THE government last night accused Labour of pursuing a “scorched earth policy” before the general election, leaving behind billions of pounds of previously hidden spending commitments.

The newly discovered Whitehall “black holes” could force even more severe public spending cuts, or higher tax rises, ministers fear.

Vince Cable, the business secretary, said: “I fear that a lot of bad news about the public finances has been hidden and stored up for the new government. The skeletons are starting to fall out of the cupboard.”

The new cabinet has been discovering previously unknown contracts and uncosted spending commitments left by their spendthrift predecessors.

“There are some worrying early signs that numbers left by the outgoing government may not add up,” said Francis Maude, the Cabinet Office minister.

David Willetts, the universities minister, claimed that Labour had left behind “not so much an in-tray as a minefield”.

Billions of pounds in public money was committed in the run-up to the election campaign in a deliberate strategy to boost Labour’s chances at the ballot box and sabotage the next government.

One former Labour minister told The Sunday Times: “There was collusion between ministers and civil servants to get as many contracts signed off as possible before the election was called.”

One former adviser to the schools department said there was a deliberate policy of “scorched earth”. “The atmosphere was ‘pull up all the railways, burn the grain stores, leave nothing for the Tories’,” he added.

The disclosures come as George Osborne, the chancellor, prepares this week to reveal details of an initial £6 billion of cuts to help plug the hole in the £163 billion deficit. A full emergency budget next month will see some departmental budgets being slashed by up to 25% as well as tax rises, including a possible hike in Vat.

Many ministers are spending this weekend going through their red boxes trying to understand the scale of the budgetary black holes facing their departments.

This week the government is expected to call a temporary halt to recently signed IT contracts, while new public sector construction projects will be reviewed.

The “black holes” that ministers have already unearthed include:

- A series of defence contracts signed shortly before the election, including a £13 billion tanker aircraft programme whose cost has “astonished and baffled” ministers.

- £420m of school building contracts, many targeting Labour marginals, signed off by Ed Balls, the former schools secretary, weeks before the general election was called.

- The troubled £1.2 billion “e-borders” IT project for the immigration service, which, sources say, is running even later and more over-budget than Labour ministers had admitted.

- A crisis in the student loans company where extra cash may be needed to prevent a repeat of last year’s failure to process tens of thousands of claims on time.

- The multi-billion-pound cost of decommissioning old nuclear power plants, which ministers claim has not been properly accounted for in Whitehall budgets.
- A £600m computer contract for the new personal pensions account scheme rushed through by Labour this year, which will still cost at least £25m even if it is cancelled.

Maude, who has been given the task of reducing Whitehall waste, insisted that ministers were not scaremongering to paint their predecessors in a negative light. He said there was widespread concern that Labour had become particularly spendthrift in the run-up to the election campaign.

“We put the last government on notice that contracts should not be signed without specific ministerial direction,” he said. “We are now seeking to find out what has been committed in the last few months.”

He hinted that the hidden “poison pills” could force the government to look at even more dramatic spending cuts than the ones already being envisaged. “It certainly doesn’t make the task of reducing the structural deficit any easier,” Maude said.

Willetts revealed that while Lord Mandelson, whose portfolio covered business, innovation and skills, had recently announced large cuts in the universities budget, little work had been done to plan exactly where the axe might fall.

“The outgoing Labour government left not so much an in-tray as a minefield,” Willetts said. “Issues that were left behind as too difficult to tackle by the previous regime are going to have to be dealt with.”

Gerald Howarth, the new Tory minister for defence procurement, disclosed that the financial pressures on the Ministry of Defence (MoD) were even graver than he had been expecting. “The appetite for new programmes exceeded the capacity of the MoD’s stomach, particularly in the run-up to the election,” he said. “In the past few months there was a rush of new orders. What we are going to have to do is ensure the equipment programme matches the military need.”

Defence sources say the military has been using the urgent operational requirement (UOR) to borrow money from the Treasury to fund equipment for Afghanistan that the MoD could not afford to buy. “They’ve been using the UOR system like a credit card,” one source said, “and they’ve been maxing out on the card to the point where they’re around £700m over the limit. It’s all got to be paid back.”

Osborne’s cuts package to be announced early this week includes a freezing of spending on new IT projects, stopping most public sector recruitment and renegotiating deals with government suppliers.

With speculation growing that Osborne is planning to announce an increase in Vat from 17.5% to 20% next month, there are growing fears he could face a tax revolt from left-leaning Lib Dem backbenchers.

Lib Dem MP Simon Hughes said on Radio 4’s Today programme yesterday: “Our party remains an independent party. We will take views. We don’t suddenly change our policy.”

[WILL OBAMA & THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY DO THE SAME TO AMERICA???]

Finger-Pointing European Leaders Discover That Leverage, Greed & Poor Regulatory Oversight Of Euro Banks Exceeded That Of American Counterparts

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/13/business/worldbusiness/13euro.html?pagewanted=1&em

U.S. Missteps Are Evident, but Europe Is Implicated

By NELSON D. SCHWARTZ

Published: October 12, 2008

PARIS — A week ago, European leaders said they knew who was responsible for the global credit crisis.

Silvio Berlusconi, Italy’s prime minister, blamed a “capitalism of adventurers” in the United States, a group that encompassed risk-taking investment bankers and home buyers who borrowed more than they could afford. The British prime minister, Gordon Brown, pointedly noted that the crisis had “come from America.”

But now, after problems at European banks helped set off a global stock market rout and a 20 percent plunge on Wall Street last week, experts say lenders here all too willingly embraced many of the riskiest practices of their American counterparts, bulking up on risky debt and relying on short-term loans, rather than deposits, to finance their operations.

Indeed, even while European leaders continued to point fingers at the United States as they completed their own rescue efforts Sunday, analysts predicted that the eventual cost of the bailout on this side of the Atlantic could soon rival that of the $700 billion American plan.

And that pain won’t be Europe’s alone, as the turmoil here continues to reverberate through the world’s stock markets and make a global recession look more and more likely.

“The same mechanisms that led to the crisis in the United States were operating here,” said Arnoud Boot, a professor of finance and banking at the University of Amsterdam. “It’s totally misplaced for European leaders to put the blame on the Americans.”

While the deposit guarantees and capital injections deployed in Britain and Ireland and across the Continent from France and Belgium all the way to Greece might allay the immediate panic, these steps will not necessarily free up credit for European businesses already hard hit by the global economic slowdown.

In fact, an ocean of short-term debt issued by European banks is set to come due over the next two quarters, with $375 billion maturing in the fourth quarter of 2008 and another $339 billion needing to be refinanced in the first quarter of 2009.

“If the banks do not manage to roll over this debt, we may witness balance sheet contraction with major negative implications for the real economy or more bank failures,” said Vasco Moreno, who tracks European banks for Keefe, Bruyette & Woods, a research firm specializing in financial institutions.

The American subprime loan crisis may have been the trigger, Mr. Boot said, but dangers like too much leverage, too little oversight and an executive-bonus culture that encouraged risk-taking had been building for years in Europe, just as in the United States.

By some measures, in fact, European banks exposed themselves to even higher levels of debt than American banks did. And the after-effects are likely to be felt for years, potentially reducing European demand for American exports, a rare bright spot for domestic companies until recently.

European institutions do not directly face the kind of bad mortgages that brought down Wachovia and Washington Mutual, because local lending standards here never fell as far as they did in the United States. But their own heavy borrowing has made European banks vulnerable now that easy credit is a thing of the past and plunging stock prices make it harder to raise money.

“The market is really efficient in identifying the weakest players in the industry here in Europe,” said Christophe Ricetti, a banking analyst with Natixis.

A glaring example is Hypo Real Estate, Germany’s second largest commercial real estate lender, whose loans exceeded its deposit base by more than eight times.

Less than 24 hours after Mr. Berlusconi and Mr. Brown blamed the United States about a week ago for the crisis and offered assurances about Europe’s relative stability, Hypo’s near collapse forced Germany to hastily guarantee all consumer deposits and mount a $67 billion rescue effort to save the stricken bank.

Several days later, British authorities would unveil a $255 billion plan to shore up its own shaky banking system.

Other banks that overreached include the Royal Bank of Scotland and Fortis, a Dutch-Belgian lender, which last year took on huge debt to finance a $100 billion takeover of rival ABN Amro — a deal that had the bad timing to coincide with the market’s peak.

Late Sunday night, the British government appeared poised to take a majority ownership stake in the Royal Bank of Scotland, while Fortis has already been taken over and broken up by the Dutch and Belgian governments.

“The high leverage could have been sustainable if the risks were kept under better control,” Mr. Boot said, “but clearly, supervision was insufficient.”

In Ireland, loans at the biggest banks also far outpaced deposits. That led the Irish government to issue a blanket guarantee on private savings accounts on Sept. 30, a move that set off criticism by other European governments — until they found themselves forced to follow suit.

Despite having to take drastic action close to home, in recent days European leaders have continued to focus on the American role in the global economic debacle, especially the decision last month by Federal Reserve and Treasury Department officials to let Lehman Brothers collapse.

“For the equilibrium of the world financial system, this was a genuine error,” Christine Lagarde, the French finance minister, said last week.

And on Sunday, after a conference of European leaders at the Élysée Palace here aimed at easing the panic, President Nicolas Sarkozy of France returned to this theme.

“This crisis was not born in Europe,” Mr. Sarkozy said. “This crisis was born in America. It is now a global crisis.”

But according to one commonly used yardstick to measure borrowing — the ratio of assets to equity — European banks employed more than twice as much leverage as their American counterparts, Mr. Moreno, the analyst, said.

“The banks have a large amount of debt to roll over until the end of 2009,” he said.

To be sure, not all European institutions indulged in risky borrowing and lending, Richard Portes, professor of economics at London Business School, said. Despite a rapidly deflating housing bubble in Ireland, Spain and Britain, the French bank BNP Paribas, Santander of Spain and Britain’s HSBC have emerged largely unscathed, he noted.

Even as excessive debt emerges as the most pressing concern, the decision by other European institutions to wade into the market for complicated, mortgage-backed American securities and other derivatives overhangs the system.

UBS, the Swiss giant, for example, bought tens of billions of dollars in American subprime debt in a bid for higher yields, only to find out too late that it was toxic, generating huge losses at UBS over the last year.

And after Fortis was divided up earlier this month, with the Dutch government nationalizing local operations, and Belgian authorities selling most of the remainder to BNP Paribas, experts found that it owned more than 10 billion euros worth of toxic, illiquid securities.

As part of the deal worked out by Belgian authorities, those mostly American asset-backed securities have been placed in a separate “ring-fenced” entity, meant to quarantine them from more valuable holdings. As part of the deal, Belgian taxpayers got stuck with nearly a quarter of this hard-to-sell portfolio.

At Dexia, a French-Belgian lender to municipalities that was saved by a government-led $9.2 billion capital injection in September, the difficulties can also be traced to a similar mix of hazardous American securities and European mishandling of them.

In 2000, Dexia entered the fast-growing market for municipal bond insurance in the United States, acquiring Financial Security Assurance. To lift profits, the unit relied on credit default swaps and other now beaten-down derivatives, ultimately draining Dexia’s capital and forcing the recent government intervention.

“Using credit-default swaps was cheaper, but it was opaque and the board of Dexia couldn’t follow all that,” said one government official who was involved in the rescue. He spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss internal matters.

Officials from Dexia and Fortis declined to comment.

Even worse, added this official, oversight of Dexia was split between Paris and Brussels. French regulators oversaw the unit of the company that included Financial Security Assurance, while Belgian authorities were responsible for monitoring the entire company.

“Nobody understood it,” the government official said.

PROOF POSITIVE: US Blue Party Welcomes UK's Gordon Brown & EU Socialist Party Leaders Who Endorse Obama in Effort to Influence U.S. Election Outcome

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122137277597832981.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Political Diary


Who's British, Brown and Red All Over?


By ABHEEK BHATTACHARYA

September 14, 2008


Barack Obama may be losing ground to John McCain in recent domestic polls, but his popularity at No. 10 Downing Street seems secure.


Britain's opposition Tories as well as the McCain campaign quickly latched onto what appears to be naked bias by British Prime Minister Gordon Brown. In Tuesday's Parliamentary Monitor, a version of Washington's Roll Call, he penned an article lavishing praise upon Mr. Obama. "In the electrifying U.S. presidential campaign, it is the Democrats who are generating ideas to help people through more difficult times," he wrote. The Illinois junior senator is a like-minded "progressive politician who [is] grappling with the challenges" of his time. Mr. Brown's article did not mention John McCain.


William Hague, a Conservative Member of the British Parliament, called the PM's comments "out of order." The McCain campaign's response was more mocking. Spokesman Michael Goldfarb noted that while the piece bestowed the "coveted Gordon Brown endorsement" on Mr. Obama, it seemed to do so for a policy proposal -- Mr. Obama's so-called Foreclosure Prevention Fund -- that Mr. Obama himself has quietly dropped.


Mr. Brown's supporters privately blame a junior Labour Party official who was using Mr. Obama's example to gin up support for his own party's foreclosure relief proposals. His aides say Mr. Brown never read the article before signing off. In any case, the gaffe is another reminder that Mr. Obama still draws strong support from the European elites, however much the European mass media has lately shifted its fascination to the mooseslayer Sarah Palin.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1054118/Gordon-Brown-U-turns-soothe-Republican-fury-apparent-endorsement-Obama.html


Gordon Brown U-turns to soothe Republican fury over his apparent endorsement of Obama


By Benedict Brogan


MailOnline

Last updated at 7:31 AM on 11th September 2008


Gordon Brown was scrambling to mend fences with John McCain last night after he issued what looked like a ringing endorsement of Barack Obama.


The Prime Minister was said to be 'in a rage' following a bureaucratic blunder in Downing Street that produced a major breach of diplomatic protocol.


An article in Mr Brown's name appeared in a Westminster magazine with warm words of praise for Mr Obama, the Democrat candidate for the White House.


But it made no mention of Mr McCain, his Republican rival.


Mr Brown's apparent enthusiasm for Mr Obama caused an uproar in the U.S. and provoked worried calls from Mr. McCain's officials to the British embassy in Washington.


They feared that he had breached the longstanding convention that requires Prime Ministers to keep out of foreign elections by backing Mr Obama.


Senior officials in Number 10 held a series of hastily arranged phone calls with key figures in the McCain campaign in an attempt to reassure them.


Mr Brown and Mr McCain did not speak however.


Mr Brown tried to repair the damage by declaring his 'great admiration' for both senators.


But the Republican camp let its anger show by issuing a statement under the sarcastic headline 'The Coveted Gordon Brown Endorsement' - http://www.johnmccain.com/McCainReport/Read.aspx?guid=d7eb6c0b-d3c1-48b8-84cc-917f5faaa67f .


One Government source said: 'They have given us a slapping. All our good work has been undone.'


The article that appeared in the Parliamentary Monitor magazine was not written by Mr. Brown but by an official who used a draft that he thought had been approved.

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

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/uselection2008/barackobama/2713430/Gordon-Brown-triggers-row-with-John-McCain-by-backing-Barack-Obama.html

Gordon Brown triggers row with John McCain by 'backing' Barack Obama


Gordon Brown has triggered a potential row with John McCain, the Republican presidential candidate, after apparently backing Barack Obama - breaking convention not to get involved in foreign elections.


Telegraph.co.uk


By Robert Winnett, Deputy Political Editor and Tom Leonard


Last Updated: 2:34PM BST 11 Sep 2008


John McCain's campaign team have questioned the value of the endorsement given by Gordon Brown to Barack Obama when a policy cited as the key reason behind the praise has changed.


The Prime Minister heaped praise on Mr Obama and the Democrats in a magazine article, saying they were "generating the ideas to help people through more difficult times."


Dealing with economic problems is the crucial battleground in the US elections and Mr Brown's comments were interpreted as backing the Democrat candidate.


The Prime Minister's office and the British Embassy in Washington were last night involved in an embarrassing behind-the-scenes operation to try and limit the fallout from the incident. They were alerted after the highly influential Drudge Report website picked up the story, sparking a flurry of comment and analysis from election watchers in the US.


Well-placed sources claimed that Mr Brown may not have read the article written in his name by a "junior Labour official".


A source said: "It is clearly going to annoy the Republicans and is a naive mistake by a junior Labour person. The American Embassy is doing a lot of work to reassure the McCain campaign that this is not an endorsement of Obama."


In a statement, Number 10 said that the "Prime Minister is not endorsing any candidate and never would." It added: "Presidential elections are a matter for the American people. The Prime Minister looks forward to working closely with whoever is elected."


The article appeared in the Parliamentary Monitor magazine and was intended to set out Mr Brown's plans to overhaul Labour policies ahead of the party's annual conference this month.


In the article, Mr Brown drew attention to policies to help deal with the economic downturn. He said: "Around the world, it is progressive politicians who are grappling with these challenges. In the electrifying US Presidential campaign, it is the Democrats who are generating the ideas to help people through more difficult times.


"To help prevent people from losing their home, Barack Obama has proposed a Foreclosure Prevention Fund to increase emergency pre-foreclosure counselling, and help families facing repossession."


No mention is made of Mr. McCain or his proposed policies in the article.


The Conservatives last night seized on the apparent gaffe. William Hague, the shadow Foreign Secretary, said: "A responsible British Prime Minister needs to be ready to work with either Presidential candidate after the US election, and should neither take sides nor be seen to be taking sides.


"Gordon Brown needs to make clear why he appeared to be favouring the Democrats in this article and to explain whether this was his deliberate intention or a careless mistake."

The chief reaction from ordinary US voters on politics websites was one of derision, with many pointing out that the endorsement of a prime minister as troubled as Mr Brown was of dubious value.


There was also a widespread amount of annoyance – not confined to Republicans - that a foreign political leader should be seeking to influence the US election.


Readers of the influential US Politico blog were roughly split two to one between those who were critical of Mr Brown's comments and those who approved of them.


One wrote: "Brits like Obama? That's like a dog whistle to the Dumbed Down Americans to vote for Palin-McCain. Thanks Brown."


Another commented: "Cue beam of light...People of the World, he is the One for you. But we have a quirky little thing here in the colonies, American voters pick our President. Not the British Prime Minister nor the People of the World."


The colonial theme was picked up by others. "The most incompetent PM in recent English history for the first time since King George III and Lord North telling the USA who should run their country," wrote one. "Makes me feel like dumping some tea in the harbour."


British Prime Ministers have largely declined to disclose their support for American candidates.

However the Blair administration was questioned for its close relationship with the Al Gore election team in the run-up to the 2000 election while John Major's links with George Bush senior also came in for criticism. The Bush camp contacted the Conservative government in the 1992 election battle seeking details about Mr Clinton's time as a Rhodes Scholar at Oxford.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/protests-after-brown-gives-his-support-to-obama-925564.html

Protests after Brown gives his support to Obama


By Andrew Grice and Leonard Doyle in Washington




The Independent.co.uk




Thursday, 11 September 2008

Gordon Brown has sparked a transatlantic row with John McCain, the Republican candidate in the American presidential election, over an article in his name which appeared to back the Democrat Barack Obama.


The Prime Minister was embarrassed after an article appeared in his name which welcomed Senator Obama's "progressive" new ideas for helping people weather the economic storm, without mentioning Senator McCain. It provoked a protest to the British embassy in Washington by the McCain team, and could cause tensions in the Anglo-American relationship if he wins the November election.


Mr Brown's article undermined his strenuous efforts not to take sides in the presidential race. He has been careful to give both candidates equal time and treatment during his meetings with them in London and Washington this year.


The article, in Parliament's Monitor magazine, said: "In the electrifying US presidential campaign, it is the Democrats who are generating ideas to help people through difficult times." Mr Brown praised Mr Obama's proposed fund to prevent householders having their homes repossessed when they were struggling to pay their mortgage.


It emerged that Mr Brown did not draft the piece and may not have personally approved it before it was sent to the magazine. Although based on a Labour Party conference document written by him, the mistake was blamed on an unnamed Downing Street aide and more senior officials who did not spot the diplomatic gaffe.


The article made waves on blogs in America, where The Drudge Report headlined it as "Brown backs Obama". In Washington, British diplomats were licking their wounds, but did not return calls to discuss the Brown blunder.


To deepen the Prime Minister's blushes, it emerged that Mr Obama no longer supported the policy he hailed. This allowed the McCain team to ridicule Mr Brown. Michael Goldfarb, his spokesman, said Mr Brown's "coveted endorsement" was bound to highlight that Mr Obama "seems to have changed his position". He said: "Far be it from this campaign to underestimate the value of an endorsement from the British Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, but there is one slightly embarrassing detail that this endorsement is bound to highlight."


At a press conference, Mr Brown attempted to reassure Mr McCain by denying that he was intervening in the US election. He said: "The decision on the American election is a matter entirely for the American people and I have scrupulously met both Senator McCain and Senator Obama and talked to them both about the issue that affect our two countries and the future of global issues."


William Hague, the shadow Foreign Secretary, said Mr Brown should not have written the comments. He said: "A responsible British prime minister needs to be ready to work with either presidential candidate after the US election, and should neither take sides nor be seen to be taking sides."


The dangers of interfering in elections abroad were highlighted after John Major's Tory government was accused of helping George Bush Senior in the 1992 presidential race by digging for potentially damaging information about Bill Clinton. This led to frosty relations when Mr Clinton became president.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/10/gordon-brown-under-fire-for-praising-obamas-economic-proposals

Gordon Brown Under Fire for Praising Obama’s Economic Proposals

by Associated Press

Wednesday, September 10, 2008


Britain’s Gordon Brown has praised Sen. Barack Obama in a commentary published Wednesday, seemingly breaching protocols that prevent world leaders from endorsing candidates in foreign elections.


Brown hailed Obama’s proposals for a mortgage foreclosure prevention fund and said he believed the Democratic Party is the organization offering policies to help people through the current economic woes.


“In the electrifying U.S. presidential campaign, it is the Democrats who are generating the ideas to help people through more difficult times,” Brown wrote in Parliamentary Monitor magazine.


“To help prevent people from losing their home, Barack Obama has proposed a foreclosure prevention fund to increase emergency pre-foreclosure counseling, and help families facing repossession.”


Brown’s Labour Party is traditionally allied to Obama’s Democrats — but under international conventions, foreign leaders refrain from intervening in ballots overseas.


In meetings with both Obama and Republican presidential candidate John McCain, Brown has gone to great lengths to appear impartial.


During separate visits to London by the candidates, Brown refused to greet the men on the doorstep of his official residence — an honor reserved only for elected heads of government.


Brown’s Downing Street office denied Wednesday that the article amounted to an endorsement of Obama.


“The prime minister is not endorsing a candidate, and never would,” said a spokesman, on condition of anonymity in line with policy.


But Britain’s main opposition Conservative Party said Brown was guilty of a serious gaffe.

“A responsible British prime minister needs to be ready to work with either presidential candidate after the U.S. election, and should neither take sides nor be seen to be taking sides,” said Conservative lawmaker William Hague.


McCain’s spokesman Michael Goldfarb dismissed the apparent backing for Obama in a snippy Web posting titled “The Coveted Gordon Brown Endorsement.” He said that in praising Obama’s housing strategy, Brown had in fact highlighted a policy that Obama appears to have recently dropped.


“Whether this will cause Prime Minister Brown to rethink his support for Sen. Obama remains unclear,” Goldfarb wrote.

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

http://www.order-order.com/2008/09/gordon-openly-backs-obama-president.html

Gordon Openly Backs Obama President McCain Here We Come

Guido Fawkes Blog

September 10, 2008

In a breach of internationally accepted convention, Gordon has openly backed Obama in an article under his byline. The story got picked up last night by Drudge and followed up by the news wires.

The McCain campaign has been in contact with the British Embassy in Washington to "express concern". William Hague has queried the wisdom of the PM taking sides. Downing Street is desperately back-pedalling, claiming the article was written by a junior underling.


The first meeting Obama had with Gordon resulted in McCain inching ahead in the polls. This is more good news, get your money on McCain. Barring an act of god, the curse of Jonah Brown means Obama is now doomed...


UPDATE : Team McCain are trying to keep a straight face - see the campaign's piss-take "The Coveted Gordon Brown Endorsement". Loser backs loser...

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/uselection2008/barackobama/2713150/Gordon-Brown-backs-Barack-Obama-for-US-president.html

Gordon Brown backs Barack Obama for US president

By Robert Winnett, Deputy Political Editor

UK Telegraph

September 9, 2008

Gordon Brown has backed Barack Obama in the race for the US presidency, praising the senator's ideas and family-friendly policies in an article that makes no mention of John McCain.

His clear show of support for Mr Obama has sparked fierce debate among American bloggers

The move is a striking break with tradition. British Prime Ministers in the past have largely declined to disclose their favourite American candidates.


Writing in an article in the Parliamentary Monitor magazine, Mr Brown said: "In the electrifying US presidential campaign, it is the Democrats who are generating the ideas to help people through more difficult times.


"To help prevent people from losing their home, Barack Obama has proposed a Foreclosure Prevention Fund to increase emergency pre-foreclosure counselling, and help families facing repossession."


Mr Brown does not mention Mr Obama's opponent, the Republican candidate John McCain, at all in the article.


His clear show of support for Mr Obama has sparked fierce debate among American bloggers.


In the same article Mr Brown admits that he must "rise" to the challenge of being Prime Minister and pledged to "rethink" Labour policy.


In some of his most candid comments Mr Brown calls on his critics to give him time to address their concerns.


Although Cabinet colleagues have rallied behind him, many Labour MPs and trade union bosses remain deeply unhappy with Mr Brown's leadership, which has seen the party fall 20 points behind the Tories in opinion polls and lose a string of by-elections.


"Whether global or domestic, deep-seated or just fleeting, the pressures that we face in the short-term and the long-term have all changed since New Labour first came into Government," Mr Brown wrote.

"And so, the way we govern must change too. That is why in Manchester this year [at the Labour Party conference] it is time to adapt and rethink New Labour policy.''


He added: "What I ask of our country, our Government, and our party, cannot be done without leadership. So, at conference in Manchester and in the weeks that follow, I will set out how I - and our party, and our government, and our country - must rise to conquer those challenges and to ensure fairness for all.''


The Prime Minister also acknowledged that improvements in social mobility under Labour had not matched expectations and had to be stepped up.


"We need to be honest with ourselves: while poverty has been reduced and the rise in inequality halted, social mobility has not improved in Britain as we would have wanted,'' he said.


The comments were seized upon by the Conservatives who said they were an admission that the Prime Minister has run out of ideas. Mr Brown decided not to call a snap election this time last year saying that he needed more time to set out his vision for the country.


Chris Grayling, a shadow Cabinet minister, said: "Gordon Brown had 10 years to think about what he was going to do when he became Prime Minister but now he is there he has changed his mind about what to do already.


"After months of dithering, raising taxes on Britain's poorest families and losing half the nation's personal data we have just about the weakest Prime Minister in history. He is right that Britain needs a change, but it is clear that neither he nor Labour can provide it."


Meanwhile, Alistair Darling, the Chancellor, used a speech to the TUC annual congress in Brighton to attack excessive City bonuses and urged the unions not to demand inflation-busting pay increases.


He said: "It would be so damaging for us to allow inflation to become entrenched, as it did in the past. That's why, in the private and public sectors, pay rises must be consistent with our inflation target.


"Otherwise every penny in pay rises will be very quickly swallowed up by higher prices. And we all remember the job losses that followed in the past once inflation takes a grip."


He criticised "excessive" City bonuses which he said may encourage traders to take unnecessary risks - "especially when people seem to get money for failing not succeeding…that's got to change".


He also appeared to rule out a windfall tax on utility companies but pledged to increase Government borrowing to help fund tax cuts or state handouts during the economic downturn.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://waugh.standard.co.uk/2008/09/brown-backs-oba.html


Brown backs Obama


Evening Standard.co.uk


By Paul Waugh


Gordon Brown has broken with British convention and made clear that he favours Barack Obama as the next US President.


In a departure from the usual self-denying ordinance of Prime Ministers past, Brown has written an article for The Monitor magazine in which he praises Obama's plans to get the US out of the housing slump.


Referring to the anxieties facing voters across the globe during the economic slowdown, he says: "Around the world, it is progressive politicians who are grappling with these challenges....In the electrifying US Presidential campaign, it is the Democrats who are generating the ideas to help people through more difficult times. To help prevent people from losing their home, Barack Obama has proposed a Foreclosure Prevention Fund to increase emergency pre-foreclosure counselling, and help families facing repossession."


There is not a single mention of McCain or his own plans to help tackle the impact of the slowdown. As this is an article written by the PM himself, no one can claim he is being quoted out of context or misrepresented.


I'm sure that Number 10 will be hastily issuing messages soon to try to restore a sense of balance once the gaffe has been pointed out - but the words are out there now.


Unlike T Blair (who infuriated Labour MPs by failing to attack Bush), Gordon has strong and deep links to the Dems, but as soon as he became PM he had to bury all that and be extremely careful not to endorse either candidate. A natural ally of Hillary Clinton, he has been as wowed by Obama as others in the Labour Party. Yet he must know that a McCain presidency is just as likely in a tight race. It seems in this article he just couldn't help himself and let slip what he really thought. Lets see if the Dems in the US seize on his support....


FOOTNOTE


Others have pointed out just how the rest of the piece, for domestic consumption, does not have Brown claiming he will change his own policies. It seems clear that at the very least, it is a badly drafted piece which allowed the impression that he meant he wanted to "adapt and rethink" Brownism. Far from it, allies say, he's saying he wants to adapt Blairism.


11PM UPDATE. It is worth pointing out some of the history behind the convention of non-interference in US elections.


Despite the long-established Tory-Republican, Labour-Democrats affinities, few British PMs have dared to interfere in the Presidential elections. The dangers of doing so were made all too clear by Bill Clinton's team after John Major's administration tried to help George Bush senior in the 1992 campaign. Much has been written about this incident, but thankfully both men have talked about it, as well as their officials, so we now have a rough picture of what went on.


In September 92, two Tory campaign managers flew to the US to advise the Bush team on election strategy. At about the same time, the British Government conducted a search on Clinton's passport file amid Republican claims that he had sought British citizenship to avoid the Vietnam draft in 1968 (Clinton was then at University College, Oxford). Clinton's team were furious and Major has written in his autobiography [that the passport incident "added a layer of frost to dealings between London and Washington". He claims that there followed a "staffer's feud" in 1993. It is often claimed that Clinton's decision to grant Gerry Adams a US visa was a retaliation against Major, though this is unproven.


But Major was not the first to blunder his way into American elections. According to Henry Kissinger, Harold Wilson "committed the extraordinary misjudgment of betting on a Democratic victory" in 1968 - by appointing a friend of Dem candidate Hubert Humphrey as US ambassador to Washington.


Today's Tories are much smarter about not allying themselves exclusively to the McCain camp, sending shadow ministers to the Dem convention in Denver last month. There are many things about Obama that David Cameron admires, particularly his change message, though he has recently been working closely with McCain on a hawkish line on Georgia, for example.


Should McCain win in November, lets see whether Gordon's latest article adds a "layer of frost" to what many still quaintly think of as the "special relationship".

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

[This is not the first time either Britain or the European Union's Brusselscrats have tried to influence US domestic laws and policies. See, e.g.: Britain Leads EU Charge to Undermine US Climate Change Policy - Prior ITSSD Studies’ Findings Confirmed, ITSSD Website (7/17/06) at: http://www.itssd.org/Press%20Release/BritainUndermines.pdf . See also: Beware of the Flying Dutchman When Traveling to Brussels, ITSSD Website (Aug. 2006), at: http://www.itssd.org/Publications/Beware-Flying-DutchmanIII.pdf].

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

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,3622672,00.html

EU Looks to Close Ranks with US to Keep Global Influence


DW-World.de


Deutsche Welle


14.09.2008


The European Union must close ranks with the United States if the two powers are to keep their global influence during the rise of states like China, India and Russia, EU foreign policy chiefs said at informal talks.


"The new American administration will, as we all of course also, have to cope with the new emerging countries: apart from Russia, which is an old power with a new assertiveness, India, Brazil and China," EU Foreign Policy Commissioner Benita Ferrero-Waldner said Friday, Sept. 5.

"We want to be more equal partners with the US, but how can we do that? We have to raise our own game, we have to be more clear and united in the positions we are taking, we have to be more effective and forthcoming in using our policy and our instruments," she said.


At an informal meeting in the French city of Avignon, the foreign ministers of the EU's 27 member states discussed how to cooperate with the next US president on questions of global security such as climate change and energy security, French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner, who chaired the meeting, said.


EU plans cooperation with US


Kouchner hosted the meeting, as France currently holds the EU presidency


"The world is dangerous, the return of nationalism and micro-nationalism impose on (the EU and US) a common vision and common steps," he warned.


"We want to set up a sort of better process, not to be surprised, not to be completely bare-handed, and not always to be obliged to threaten someone else," he said.


Ahead of the US election, scheduled for Nov. 4, the EU is therefore set to draw up a list of the areas in which it would like to work more closely with the US, to be sent to President George W. Bush and the two candidates in the election.


"It's not to take advantage (of the change of administration), but knowing that our American friends ... also wish that the EU should be politically present in the world's problems, and take its political place, not just as a fund-raiser but a player in its matters of peace, and sometimes of war," Kouchner said.


But at the same time, he also criticized the policies of current US Vice-President Dick Cheney, who on Friday visited Ukraine on a whirlwind tour of the former Soviet Union aimed at boosting ties in the wake of August's Georgian-Russian war.


Cheney "has a certain sense of protecting people, but I'm not so sure he had a lot of success with this particular sense," he said.


Looking for answers to climate, energy


Also at the meeting, ministers discussed with the EU's top foreign-policy figure, Javier Solana, how the bloc should update its common security strategy -- a document written in December 2003.


Earlier in the day, Germany's foreign minister called for a probe into the Russian-Georgian war.


"There are questions like climate change and energy security which need an answer," Solana said, adding that he hoped to present a "short and useful" new document to EU leaders by the end of the year.


Tellingly, however, the original strategy of 2003 stresses the need for the EU to project its values around the world by working with international organizations such as the UN and WTO.


"The best protection for our security is a world of well-governed democratic states," it says, listing political and social reform and the defense of human rights as "the best means of strengthening the international order."


And the rise of Russia, China and India has alarmed EU diplomats, with the Russian-Georgian war and the collapse of WTO talks in a row between China, India and the US both seen as signs that Western domination of the international agenda can no longer be assured.


"Over the last few years, you've seen a determined effort on the part of Europe and the Americans to forge common positions on issues as diverse as Iran, Russia, and international development," British Foreign Minister David Miliband pointed out.


"There's still an opportunity to work together, not at the expense of the rising powers in China and India, but as a way of binding them into the global system and making sure that responsibility is shared by all the powers in the modern world," he said. (DPA News Agency)

[If UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown openly cohorts with the President of the Party of European Socialists, how close does he really believe an EU-US relationship could be??

VERY CLOSE, IF HIS FAVORITE CANDIDATE, BARACK EUROBAMA, WINS THE U.S. PRESIDENCY!!]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.pes.org/content/view/1383/109

The European Socialist Party Publicly Campaigns for Obama

1 September 2008


Denver – PES Was There:


The Party of European Socialists was well-represented at the US Democratic National Convention where Barack Obama was nominated Democratic Presidential candidate.


The PES was represented by Ruairi Quinn, PES Presidency member and Treasurer, and Philip Cordery, PES Secretary General. PES member parties had high level representatives including Mona Sahlin, Leader of the Swedish Social Democrats; Eamon Gilmore, Leader of the Irish Labour Party; Caroline Gennez, Leader of the Flemish Socialists SPa; Lilianne Ploumen, Chair of the Dutch Labour PvdA; Ivailo Kalfin, Foreign Minister of Bulgaria, Hubertus Heil, Secretary General of the German SPD; Eero Heinäluoma former Leader of SDP Finland; Josef Kalina, from SPÖ Austria, Ed Miliband MP from the UK Labour Party; Juan Fernando López Aguilar from Spanish Socialists PSOE, Nicolai Wammen from SD Denmark; and many others as well as Walter Veltroni, Leader of the Italian Partito Democratico.


PES participants were hosted by the Chair of the National Democratic Committee Howard Dean. They had a full agenda and took part in the International Leaders Forum (ILF) organised by National Democratic Institute, meeting with prominent policy makers and politicians, including Bill Clinton, former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House of Representatives. Many also took the opportunity to meet other progressive American organisations such as ‘Take Back America’ and the trade union AFL-CIO.


PES Secretary General Philip Cordery said “The European socialists and social-democrats support Barack Obama for President. His ‘Plan for America’ is a progressive agenda which we believe would bring many benefits to the American people and to the world.”


FOR MORE INFORMATION
Julian Scola, Communications Advisor - Media & Campaigns
Party of European Socialists, Rue du Trône, 98, B-1050 Brussels
Mobile +32 486 117 394
julian.scola@pes.org

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

21 months ago: The European Socialists speak prior to their group photo with President of the Party of European Socialists Poul Nyrup Rasmussen, left, Portuguese Prime Minister Jose Socrates and United States Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean, right, during the Party of European Socialists congress in Porto, northern Portugal, Friday, Dec. 8, 2006.(AP Photo/Stringer)

21 months ago: Howard Dean, U.S. Democratic National Committee chairman, laughs with Poul Nyrup Rasmussen, right, Party of European Socialists president, after his speech during the Party of European Socialists congress in Porto, northern Portugal, Friday, Dec. 8, 2006.(AP Photo/Paulo Duarte)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/08/31/america/France-Socialists-Obama.php

France: Socialist chief endorses Obama


The Associated Press


Published: August 31, 2008

PARIS: The head of France's opposition Socialist Party strongly endorsed U.S. Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama and said Sunday that an Obama victory would be "good news" for the United States and the world.


Francois Hollande said an Obama presidency would usher in a positive, new chapter in international relations.


"We need an Obama victory next November," Hollande told party supporters at an annual meeting in the Atlantic coastal city of La Rochelle. An Obama win "will be good news, not only for the American people, but for the whole world."


Hollande cited Obama's position on Iraq and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and his apparent willingness to reach out to international partners under a "new diplomacy," as reasons to support the candidate.


Hollande promised to work for the senator's victory, but acknowledged that the French Socialists' endorsement could end up tarnishing Obama's image in the eyes of the American electorate, given the way some voters regard socialism.


During a brief visit to France in July, Obama met with conservative President Nicolas Sarkozy but not with opposition Socialists. Sarkozy also received Republican presidential hopeful, Arizona Sen. John McCain, in Paris in March.


Relations between the United States and France became strained under Sarkozy's predecessor, fellow conservative Jacques Chirac, who led France's vociferous opposition to the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq. Relations between the two countries have steadily improved since last year's election of pro-American Sarkozy.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.pes.org/content/view/1380/72
http://www.manifesto2009.pes.org/en/debate/post/654

Barack jam for Obama


28 August 2008


PES Activists from Hungary are producing and selling apricot jam to show their support for Barack Obama.


‘Barack’ means apricot in Hungarian – spelt exactly like Obama’s first name - so PES activists made apricot jam in the eastern Hungarian town of Tallya labelled ‘Barack for Obama’ to show their support for the Democratic Presidential hopeful.


Matyas Gati, one of the organizers, said “This is a fun way of making a serious point. Barack Obama is very popular in Hungary because he is so charismatic and because he offers a real alternative to the Republicans who have made such a mess of things in America and abroad. We also wanted to show that we PES activists share the same democratic values and aspirations as Mr Obama. He embodies the principles and values we want to promote as PES activists. We support his ideas for change and the attitude of his politics.”


Funds raised from selling the jam is going to local charities tackling child poverty.


Now Zita Gurmai, President of PES Women, has been presented with the ‘Barack for Obama’ jam in Brussels which she will share with her European Parliamentary colleagues. “I know there is lots of Obama merchandising but Hungarian ‘barack’ jam must be the most original. I am very proud that it was PES activists who came up with the idea. It shows that PES activists are people with the best ideas.”


The Party of European Socialists – which brings together all Europe’s socialist, social democratic and labour parties – launched PES activists to give individual members of its member parties a chance to become more involved in European-wide politics and campaigning. Over 10,000 party members have joined PES activists and there are city groups in many countries.


Watch ‘Barack for Obama’ jam video here: http://www.kapcsolat.hu/obama


FOR MORE INFORMATION
Julian Scola, Communications Advisor - Media & Campaigns
Party of European Socialists, Rue du Trône, 98, B-1050 Brussels
Mobile +32 486 117 394
julian.scola@pes.org

------------------------------------------------- En Francais

Une confiture de 'Barack' pour Obama


Le 28 août 2008


Profitant du fait que le mot 'Barack' signifie littéralement 'abricot' en hongrois, les militants du PSE de Hongrie ont eu l'idée de produire et de vendre une confiture d'abricot sous l'étiquette ‘Barack for Obama’ (littéralement: de l'abricot pour Obama).


Cette initiative a été lancée par les militants hongrois de la ville de Tallya, à l'Est de la Hongrie, qui veulent ainsi exprimer leur soutien au candidat démocrate aux présidentielles américaines Barack Obama.


Matyas Gati, l'un des organisateurs de l'initiative, a déclaré: "C'est une façon amusante de faire passer un message sérieux. Barack Obama est très populaire en Hongrie parce qu'il est si charismatique et aussi parce qu'il représente une véritable alternative aux Républicains qui ont créé un tel gâchis aux Etats-Unis et ailleurs. Nous voulions aussi montrer que nous, les militants du PSE, partageons les mêmes valeurs démocratiques et les mêmes aspirations que M. Obama. Il incarne les principes et valeurs que nous voulons défendre en tant que militants du PSE. Nous appuyons ses idées en faveur du changement et sa manière de faire de la politique.”


Les fonds réunis à travers les ventes de confiture iront à des oeuvres de charité locales centrées sur la lutte contre la pauvreté infantile.


Zita Gurmai, présidente du PSE Femmes, a reçu son pot de confiture ‘Barack for Obama’ à Bruxelles, qu'elle partagera avec ses collègues eurodéputés. “Je sais qu'il existe beaucoup de marchandisage autour d'Obama mais la confiture de 'barack' hongroise doit être, à mon avis, le produit le plus original. Je suis très fière que ce soient les militants du PSE qui aient trouvé cette idée. Ce sont les militants qui ont les meilleures idées.”


Le Parti socialiste européen, qui réunit les partis socialistes, sociaux-démocrates et travaillistes d'Europe, a lancé l'initiative des militants du PSE afin de donner aux militants individuels des partis membres une chance de participer plus activement à la politique et aux campagnes européennes. Plus de 10.000 militants de partis membres du PSE sont devenus militants du PSE et il existe de nombreux groupes dans de nombreuses villes de plusieurs pays.


Regarder la vidéo ‘Barack for Obama’

Pour plus d'informations:
Julian Scola, responsable Communications - Médias & Campagnes
Parti socialiste européen, Rue du Trône, 98, B-1050 Bruxelles
Portable +32 486 117 394
julian.scola@pes.org

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

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=304124899839152

IBD Editorials


Finding Friends On Far, Far Left


By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY


Posted Wednesday, August 20, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Election '08:


The saying that a man is known by the company he keeps is true of political relationships. In Barack Obama's case, some of the groups that support him are an indictment of his political orientation.


Among Obama's biggest admirers, for example, is one Pepe Lozano. Unknown at the national level, Lozano is more of a small-time agitator, just as Obama was in his community organizing days in Chicago. Maybe that explains part of the attraction.


But it's more likely that Lozano, a leader in the Chicago Young Communist League and an editorial board member of the People's Weekly World, newspaper of the Communist Party USA, finds that Obama is the communist party's best hope because of the junior senator's far-left positions.


"This is a history-making process," Lozano told a Chicago gathering of about 250 in June, "and we will be missing it if we don't do all we can to elect Barack Obama president."


The next month, the People's Weekly World editorialized in favor of Obama, calling his a "transformative candidacy that would advance progressive politics for the long term."


The communist support is nothing new, however. Joel Wendland, managing editor of Political Affairs: Marxist Thought Online, another CPUSA magazine, suggested in February that Obama could be "the people's president."


Also in February, Political Affairs editor Terri Albano talked about how the "kind of upsurge" surrounding Obama "comes around just once in a lifetime. I hope for all progressives — each of us — (to) get involved. Don't stand on the sidelines. Be active. Don't let history pass you by."


While communists are endorsing Obama, the Communist Party USA isn't. But that's not because it doesn't like Obama. The CPUSA simply does not endorse candidates. Yet it issued what could be called a non-endorsement endorsement of Obama in March, saying "his campaign has the clearest message of unity and progressive change."


"This election can begin to turn the tide: It can help bring universal health care, save the environment and start the restoration of our democratic rights," the group said. "This election can strengthen democracy for all."


If Obama is smarting because he didn't get an official Communist Party USA endorsement, maybe he will be mollified by the approval of an old communist to the south. Fidel Castro in the spring wrote in the state newspaper Granma that Obama is "the most progressive candidate for the U.S. presidency."


That's an endorsement that anyone who doesn't have a socialist agenda should be ashamed of, especially given Castro's murder and intimidation of his foes and his repeated, egregious human rights violations of average Cuban citizens.


But from what we can tell, Obama has not rejected Castro's support. What we can tell, though, is that when Obama says he stands for change, he could be talking about erasing facts that he considers to be politically damaging.


Last month he scrubbed clean from his Web site evidence that he opposed the successful Iraq surge, and last winter he deleted the endorsement of the extremist Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who had become a political liability.


But despite his campaign's penchant for cyberhygiene, the community blog on his own Web site still has an entry that's rather incriminating: "This group is for self-proclaimed Marxists/Communists/Socialists for the election of Barack Obama to the presidency. . . . We support Barack Obama because he knows what is best for the people!" The fact that it can still be found on Obama's official site would indicate that the campaign has no problem with it — and that it might even appreciate the endorsement.


The current campaign is not Obama's first association with groups that promote socialism or its more stringent ideological cousin, communism.


In 1995, he sought the endorsement of the New Party for his 1996 state Senate candidacy. The party — a collection of anti-capitalist ex-communists and socialists that disbanded in 1998 after six years of trying to push the Democratic Party even further left — gladly gave Obama its support.


Obama also was endorsed in that election by the Democratic Socialists of America, the largest socialist group in the U.S. While the name might sound benign, the DSA has a poisonous agenda. Its goal is to establish "an openly socialist presence in American communities and politics" and is committed to "restructuring society."


Members "are socialists because we reject an international economic order sustained by private profit, alienated labor, race and gender discrimination, environmental destruction, and brutality and violence in defense of the status quo."


Just as it should be no surprise that a Che Guevara poster was found hanging in an Obama campaign office, it would not be a shock to see an Obama poster on a wall in the Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism's headquarters.


Mark Solomon, the group's national co-chair, wrote in a virtual endorsement in February that Obama "is an attractive, articulate and talented politician" whose "campaign has sparked a powerful surge."


But that would be expected, since this group, which branched off from the Communist Party USA in 1991, organized the October 2002 rally in which Obama criticized the U.S. invasion of Iraq — while still serving as a state senator in Illinois. The ties between Obama and the committees go back years.


Across the Atlantic, the Party of European Socialists also has given its blessing.


President Poul Nyrup Rasmussen says that "Obama is the choice for change and renewal. He gives hope to millions of Americans and Europeans for a fairer world. . . . Progressive Europeans are united in hope that Barack Obama will be the new president following the U.S. elections."


Obama supporters might excuse the candidate's support from communists, Marxists and socialists, saying he is the only alternative since these groups would never support the Republican nominee. (Which is entirely correct and indicative of the Democratic Party's continuing decline into the pit of democratic socialism.)

But the truth is, these groups usually reserve their endorsements and support for fringe candidates, not someone from a major party. That's not the case this time around. They seem to have their man.

The Irish People Have Spoken: NO EU TREATY; EU Commission & US Democratic Congress BEWARE!!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7453560.stm

Ireland rejects EU reform treaty

BBC News

June 13, 2008


Voters in the Irish Republic have rejected the European Union's Lisbon treaty in a vote by 53.4% to 46.6%.


The poll is a major blow to leaders in the 27-nation EU, which requires all its members to ratify the treaty. Only Ireland has held a public vote.


The European Commission says nations should continue to ratify the treaty, designed to streamline decision-making.


Irish PM Brian Cowen said he respected the vote but it had caused a "difficult situation" that had "no quick fix".


Leaders of the No campaign said the vote was a "great result for Ireland".

An earlier, more wide-ranging EU draft constitution failed after French and Dutch voters rejected it in 2005.


'Uncharted territory'


The Irish No campaign won by 862,415 votes to 752,451. Turnout was 53.1%.



Mr Cowen said: "The government accepts and respects the verdict of the Irish people."


He said he would work with other EU leaders to try to find an "agreed way forward" but that the bloc was in "uncharted territory".


At the end of the day, for a myriad of reasons, the people have spoken Dermot Ahern, Justice Minister "Ireland has no wish to halt the progress" of the EU, he said.


A referendum was mandatory in Ireland as the country would need to change its constitution to accommodate the treaty.


European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso said he had spoken to Mr Cowen and agreed with him that this was not a vote against the EU.


"Ireland remains committed to a strong Europe," he said.


"Ratifications should continue to take their course."


France and Germany quickly issued a joint statement expressing regret over the Irish result.


British Foreign Secretary David Miliband said the UK would press on with ratification, saying: "It's right that we continue with our own process."


[THIS IS THE TYPICAL BRUSSELS/GERMANY/FRENCH RESPONSE: WHO CARES WHAT THE PEOPLE SAY?? THEY WILL LEARN THAT WE KNOW WHAT IS BEST FOR THEM! WE SHALL EDUCATE THEM THROUGH REGULATION... See, e.g., UK Labor Party Willing to Give-Away Country's Sovereignty to EU; Does the US Democratic Party Wish to Do the Same for America??, ITSSD Journal on Pathological Communalism, at: http://itssdpathologicalcommunalism.blogspot.com/2008/04/uk-labor-party-willing-to-give-away.html ; Why Europe’s National Politicians Sign Away National Sovereignty , ITSSD Journal on Economic Freedom, at: http://itssdeconomicfreedom.blogspot.com/2008/01/why-europes-national-politicians-sign.html ; Brussels' and Gordon Brown's Contempt for the European People, ITSSD Journal on Economic Freedom, at: http://itssdeconomicfreedom.blogspot.com/2008/01/brussels-and-gordon-browns-contempt-for.html ; Forner UK Prime Minister Tony Blair Was Determined to Modify Public Behavior Through Claude Helvetius’ ‘Education Thru Legislation' Program, ITSSD Journal on Pathological Communalism, at: http://itssdpathologicalcommunalism.blogspot.com/2008/01/forner-uk-prime-minister-tony-blair-was.html ; Roger Helmer - UK Member of EU Parliament - "Straight Talking" Newsletter Dec. 2007, ITSSD Journal on Economic Freedom, at: http://itssdeconomicfreedom.blogspot.com/2008/01/roger-helmer-uk-member-of-eu-parliament.html ; 11/6/07 E-mail Correspondences Between Roger Helmer UK Member of European Parliament & Lawrence Kogan, ITSSD CEO, ITSSD Journal on Economic Freedom, at: http://itssdeconomicfreedom.blogspot.com/2008/01/11607-e-mail-correspondences-between.html .]


Spain has said a solution will be found but Czech President Vaclav Klaus said ratification could not now continue.


Mr Barroso said EU leaders would have to decide at a summit next week how to proceed. He called for the EU to continue focusing on issues of interest to people like jobs and inflation, energy security and climate change.


This is democracy in action... and Europe needs to listen to the voice of the people Declan Ganley, Libertas.

But BBC Europe editor, Mark Mardell, says this is a multiple crisis for the EU - a crisis of rule change, of legitimacy and of morale.


In the end, he says, the Lisbon treaty could be declared dead: some parts of it would be implemented without a treaty, others abandoned, others put in a new treaty when Croatia joins the EU in a couple of years time.

Declan Ganley of the anti-treaty lobby group Libertas said: "It is a great day for Irish democracy." He added: "This is democracy in action... and Europe needs to listen to the voice of the people."


The No campaign was a broad coalition ranging from Libertas to Sinn Fein, the only party in parliament to oppose the treaty.


Gerry Adams, the president of Sinn Fein, said: "People feel secure at the heart of Europe, but they want to ensure there's maximum democratic power."


Confusion


Correspondents say many voters did not understand the treaty despite a high-profile campaign led by Mr Cowen, which had the support of most of the country's main parties.


[ACTUALLY, THE VOTERS WELL UNDERSTOOD THE EU TREATY. IT WOULD DENY EUROPEANS THEIR NATURAL RIGHTS TO DUE PROCESS OF LAW & THE EU TREATY WOULD ALSO ATTENUATE THEIR PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS THROUGH MORE REGULATION & TAXATION. THE IRISH TO NOT WISH TO BE RULED BY BRUSSELS-BASED, SOCIAL WELFARE-STATE-DRIVEN 'PHILOSOPHER KINGS'.]


Jose Manuel Barroso said the EC respected the vote but had hoped for another outcome.


Mr Cowen accused the No camp of "misrepresentation", saying voters had voiced concern about "issues that clearly weren't in the treaty at all", the Irish Times reported.


The treaty, which is designed to help the EU cope with its expansion into eastern Europe, provides for a streamlining of the European Commission, the removal of the national veto in more policy areas, a new president of the European Council and a strengthened foreign affairs post.


[THE EU TREATY MANDATES SURRENDER OF NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY BY EU MEMBER STATES VIA THE REMOVAL OF THE NATIONAL VETO...]


The treaty was due to come into force on 1 January 2009.


Fourteen countries out of the 27 have completed ratification so far.


Just over three million Irish voters are registered - in a European Union of 490 million people.

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

The EU Brussels and National Government Elite Continue to Express Contempt for What the European People Want!!


http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,91211-1318932,00.html?f=rss

EU Treaty 'Not Dead' Despite Irish Vote


Sky News


June 14, 2008


European governments have pledged to continue implementing the EU reform treaty, despite its rejection by Irish voters.


More than half those who cast their ballots said 'No' to the Lisbon Treaty, which requires the support of all 27 EU members.


The Irish Prime Minister says there will be no second referendum - which could result in the treaty being scrapped altogether.


Official results of the treaty referendum showed out of some 1.6m votes cast, 53.4% people said No, while 46.6% said Yes.


The vote means the reforms will no longer come into force on January 1, 2009 as planned. "In theory this should kill the treaty dead," said Sky's political correspondent Glen Oglaza.


"The European Commission chief Jose Manuel Barroso said during the course of this campaign that there is no Plan B.


"Euro-sceptics are pointing out that this was already Plan B - the failed European Constitution was Plan A.


"They want to know how far down the alphabet we are going to go."


However, Mr Barroso argued that despite the referendum outcome, the treaty was "not dead". He said he had spoken to Ireland's Premier Brian Cowen and that "he also believed the treaty is not dead, the treaty is alive".


Mr Cowen, whose Fianna Fail party supported a Yes vote, said he was disappointed but the judgment of the Irish people must be respected.


Irish PM after result announced


"In a democracy, the will of the people - as expressed at the ballot box - is sovereign," he said.
But he added: "We must not rush to conclusions. The Union has been in this situation before and each time has found an agreed way forward."


Gerry Adams, whose Sinn Fein party urged voters to reject the reform, told Sky News: "It's a very good day for Europe and a very good day for Ireland."


The 'No' vote will cause a major headache as it was designed to streamline decision-making for the enlarged EU's 27 member states.


Ireland was the only country to hold a public vote on the Treaty because it would have had to amend its national constitution to enact it.


Foreign Secretary David Miliband said Britain would continue its process of ratifying the Lisbon treaty, despite the setback in Ireland.

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

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/2122996/EU-referendum-Ireland-votes-against-Lisbon-Treaty.html

EU referendum: Ireland votes against Lisbon Treaty


By Tom Peterkin in Dublin


UK Telegraph


June 13, 2008


Irish voters have left Brussels' plans for EU integration in tatters by rejecting the Lisbon Treaty.


Even before all the official Ireland referendum results were announced, Manuel Barroso, the President of the European Commission, conceded that the public had voted against the Treaty.


But despite the result, he still called on other member states to ratify the Treaty. "I believe the treaty is alive and we should now try to find a solution," he said in Brussels.


Dermot Ahern, Ireland's justice minister, said: “At the end of the day, for a myriad of reasons, the people have spoken.”


The result is bad news for Ireland's leader, Taoiseach Brian Cowen, who will have some tough explaining to do when he faces EU leaders at the European Council summit next week in Brussels.


Mr Ahern said he became somewhat despondent and surprised at the opposition to the treaty in the final days of canvassing.


The minister believes high numbers of women rejected the EU deal because of fears over army conscription in a new military alliance.


At the major ballot-counting center in Dublin, Finance Minister Brian Lenihan struggled to speak to reporters as anti-treaty activists jubilantly drowned him out with songs and chants of "No!"


"This is a huge rebuff to the political establishment. It shows there is massive distrust among ordinary working people," said Joe Higgins, the sole Socialist Party member in the Irish parliament.


The decision places massive doubt over the future of the pact designed to bring more European integration.


All 27 European member states have to ratify the treaty for it to go come into force next year. So far it has been approved by 18 members including Britain, but Ireland is the only country to put it to a public vote.


The leaders of the 26 other member states watched with dismay as Ireland voted “no”, a decision that will inevitably lead to much infighting and bickering across Europe.


The main Irish political parties, including Taoiseach Mr Cowen's leading government party Fianna Fail, have fought hard for a Yes vote, with Sinn Fein campaigning against the Treaty.


Despite benefiting from £32 billion in European Grants in recent years, a low turn-out (45 per cent) of the Irish electorate discarded the Treaty, designed to streamline the EU.


The outcome was triumph for a highly-effective No Campaign masterminded by the Libertas group led by the multimillionaire Declan Ganley. Libertas argued that the Treaty would undermine Ireland’s influence in Europe, would open the door to interference in taxation and enshrine EU law above Irish law.


For Brian Cowen, the newly-installed Irish Prime Minister, the result was a disaster. All the main political parties, aside from Sinn Fein, had supported the Treaty and made strenuous efforts to win the referendum.


Mr Cowen now has to face the embarrassment of explaining to his fellow European leaders why he failed to persuade his nation to adopt the Treaty.

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

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/needtoknow/2008/06/ireland_snubs_the_eu.html

Ireland Snubs the EU


By Conor O’Clery


Irish voters, making up a fraction of one per cent of the population of the European Union, have rejected a crucial EU reform treaty by a narrow margin, leaving itself isolated in Europe and the European Union in crisis.


The result stopped in its tracks an accord hammered out in Lisbon, Portugal, to enable European institutions to cope with a rapid EU growth to 27 countries with a population of 495 million people.


The outcome, announced yesterday afternoon, of the referendum held Thursday dismayed and angered governments across Europe, which saw their tortuous negotiations to make EU institutions more efficient thrown into disarray.


The Lisbon Treaty had to be ratified by every country before coming into effect and EU leaders must now find some other way for European integration to go ahead. Twenty-six countries left ratification to their national governments and only Ireland, with 3.05 million voters, staged a referendum, as required under its constitution.


British Prime Minister Gordon Brown will now face furious domestic pressure to hold a once-promised referendum rather than continue to ratify the treaty through parliament. Ireland can only hope that Britain will also reject the treaty: a small country saying no is a problem for the small country, but a big country saying no is a problem for Brussels.


The vote is a slap in the face for the French Government whose foreign minister Bernard Kouchner warned Ireland on Monday that it would be very troubling “that we would not be able to count on the Irish who counted a lot on Europe's money.” Such comments, implying that an ungrateful Ireland would be cast adrift, sounded like bullying to many Irish voters.


What has left veteran European observers scratching their heads in genuine bewilderment is that Ireland of all countries should rebuff the EU, as membership of the European club has allowed Ireland to prosper mightily and to escape from the shadow of Britain, its former ruler.


The result confounded and infuriated the Irish political establishment, which had thrown all its energies into securing a “Yes” vote. The government, the major opposition parties and the biggest labor and farming unions all campaigned for ratification.


It also confounded Ireland’s leading gambling company, Paddy Power PLC, which was so convinced of the outcome it prematurely paid out winnings to people who bet on a ‘Yes’ vote, leaving the company left with “egg on our faces” as a spokeswoman put it.


Irish prime minister Brian Cowen put his personal prestige on delivering a “Yes” vote and is also left with egg on his face. Seemingly unaware how compromised the Irish political class has been by corruption allegations and failures to cope with internal problems such as a dysfunctional health service, he and other government ministers erected posters on every Irish lamp post with their portraits, urging a “Yes” vote.


Opponents of the treaty in Europe cheered on the Irish ‘No” campaign, and British newspapers circulating in Ireland, like the Rupert Murdoch-owned Times, campaigned against ratification, leading to accusations from the “Yes” campaign that Britain's Eurosceptics were waging a proxy war in Ireland.


For the anti-EU Europeans, to paraphrase Winston Churchill, never has so much been done, by so few, for so many, as the Irish have scuppered a treaty which would likely have been rejected by the electorates of several other member countries.


One reason for the “No” vote was that the 287-page document was so full of bureaucratic language that people did not know what they were voting for. The treaty proved impenetrable even to legal experts: the chairman of the independent Irish Referendum Commission, Iarfhlaith O Neill, was embarrassingly unable to answer a technical point at a press conference last week.


[EU BUREAUCRATIC DOUBLESPEAK, LACK OF TRANSPARENCY & ACCOUNTABILITY, and A SENSE OF ELITISM.]


In an ill-tempered national debate, both sides threw around accusation of lies and distortions. A free-market organisation called Libertas formed by Irish businessman Declan Ganley argued that the country’s low corporate tax rate, crucial for international investment, would be jeopardized by the treaty.


The pro-life lobby expressed fears that a loss of sovereignty could mean the end of Ireland’s strict anti-abortion law.


The minor opposition party, Sinn Fein, stirred up concerns that Ireland would lose its cherished neutrality and become part of a militarized Europe. Some voters said they thought they were voting against conscription.


Opponents also argued that Ireland’s influence in Europe would be weakened through the loss its commissioner on the European Commission, the de facto European cabinet, for five out of every 15 years.


The government rejected all these claims, and pointed out that every EU member country would lose their commissioner for similar periods. But as Irish radio presenter Pat Kenny put it, the “No” campaign had all the best tunes.


Anticipating the outcome, the Irish Times thundered its disapproval on Saturday in an editorial headed “Are we out of our minds?” Seeking an explanation for a likely defeat it reflected on “a strange public mood out there that is anti-establishment, anti-authority and anti-politician.”


Ireland’s foreign minister Micheál Martin admitted the result showed a disconnect between EU institutions and its people. Martin, who has to face his fellow EU foreign ministers on Monday to explain what happened, admitted “There was a general sense we were giving away too much power.”


Ireland may try again as it did with a previous EU treaty when it held two referenda in 2001 and 2002 to get a “Yes” vote, but such a move would only confirm the argument that European democracy means everyone agreeing to what the bureaucrats decide.


Conor O'Clery is former chief foreign correspondent of The Irish Times, Ireland's leading national newspaper.