What Aspect of the Irish 'NON' Do the Brussels & Paris Philosopher Kings Not Understand?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/jun/14/editorial-check-of-the-irish/


Check of the Irish



Editorial

Washington Times

July 14, 2008

Pronunciation:
\ˈnō\
Function: adverb
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English nā, from ne not + ā always; akin to Old Norse & Old High German ne not, Latin ne-, Greek nē- — more at aye
Date: before 12th century

>1 achiefly Scottish : not b—used as a function word to express the negative of an alternative choice or possibility
>2: in no respect or degree —used in comparisons

>3: not so —used to express negation, dissent, denial, or refusal <no, I'm not going

>4—used with a following adjective to imply a meaning expressed by the opposite positive statement no uncertain terms

>5—used as a function word to emphasize a following negative or to introduce a more emphatic, explicit, or comprehensive statement no, it's gigantic

>6—used as an interjection to express surprise, doubt, or incredulity7—used in combination with a verb to form a compound adjective 8: in negation no>

[See: Merriam Webster's Online Dictionary - http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/no ]

The sky over Europe is not falling. That's the bottom line of Ireland's rejection Thursday of the Lisbon Treaty.

Of the 27 European Union member states, Ireland, the only to require a popular referendum, has usefully tested an otherwise very insulated, elite-driven expansion of EU power. It has rejected the best-laid plans of Commissioner Jose Manuel Barroso and allies. At this point, the EU should realize that its long-term prospects require it to acknowledge the legitimate objections of real, actual voters. This, of course, was the same lesson that went unheeded in 2005, when France and the Netherlands issued comparable "No" votes to the EU Constitution, killing it.

In the runup to Thursday, Mr. Barroso announced with much drama that "There is no Plan B," warning of "a very negative effect for the European Union" before an audience at the European Policy Center, as if he meant it. This, it turns out, was bluster. Now he says: "I believe the treaty is alive and we should now try to find a solution."

The intended solution, which could only be described as a "Plan B," is to press on with the Lisbon Treaty anyway, with some Ireland-only modifications.

Mr. Barroso wants Ireland to resubmit the treaty for a vote once its opt-out clauses are in order. The approach suggests a belief that a treaty that fails its only popular vote faces no questions of mandate or long-term viability. The willful obtuseness here is the real danger to the EU's prospects.

[SO MUCH FOR INDIVIDUAL HUMAN RIGHTS & POLITICAL ACCOUNTABILITY WITHIN THE EUROPEAN UNION!! EUROPEANS BEWARE!! THE BRUSSELS BUREAUCRATS WILL CRAM DOWN ANYTHING THEY WISH IF THE IRISH SUBMIT TO THIS KIND OF INTIMIDATION!!!]

Any political institution that aims for longevity must develop a healthy respect for the public will. The best ones are grounded in it. The sad truth of the EU is that its leadership has never been willing to do this. It openly disdains "the rabble." Mr. Barroso and allies try to avoid public input wherever possible, conducting end-runs around non-elite checks on their authority. They failed to learn the lessons of France and the Netherlands three years ago. This week they fail yet again.

The EU will survive, as will the integrated European economy. The real casualties this week are the credibility of those who made the direst of predictions on Wednesday but little more than 24 hours later were found pledging to carry on as if nothing had happened.

[UNFORTUNATELY, THE PHILOSOPHER KINGS OF MODERN BRUSSELS HAVE FAILED TO LEARN THE TRAGIC LESSON OF THE PHILOSOPHER KINGS OF ANCIENT ATHENS.]

[See: Eva Brann, Plato's Impossible Polity, A review of Plato's Republic: A Study, by Stanley Rosen

http://www.claremont.org/publications/crb/id.1322/article_detail.asp .]

["...So, first, who is this philosopher-king for whose benefit the Republic has a metaphysical center? Open the book to its middle by page count and there he is (or she, as Socrates explicitly says)—the central human figure of the dialogue, whose introduction will raise a huge wave of derision. Rosen rightly emphasizes a crucial aspect of these philosophers: they "depend upon the existence of Ideas"; their "most important qualification is to 'see' the Ideas." Accordingly, Rosen has not only explained very clearly in various places what a Platonic idea is—minimally, a formal structure necessary for identifying and speaking about things—but he has also set out lucidly what is problematic about it. He emphasizes that these structures are conceived as patterns or models, and Part III begins with a very illuminating discussion of the several meanings of Plato's term paradeigma. Thus, philosophers have non-sensual patterns to look to. But then the question is: how does that make them fit to be kings? Rosen thinks that Plato has shown only that philosophers are lovers of ideas but not at all how the ideas bestow the practical knowledge required for kingship. I would respond that the Socratic position is that to know the ideas of Courage, Temperance, and Justice is to be courageous, temperate, and just—surely a good beginning for the life of a ruler. The source of the being, growth, and knowableness of the ideas themselves is that notorious Good. It too is, I think, a defensible preoccupation for those who are to govern. Socrates presents it in a simile, a verbal image (eikon). The Good is like the sun in its being and power—except that it has no being, for it is "beyond being" (509 b). Rosen reasonably asks us to accept the idea of the Good as "intrinsic" to the intelligibility of human existence. But then he balks at the one metaphysical feature assigned to it, its "beyond-being."Yet the Good is not quite sufficiently delineated as perhaps "a set of properties of Platonic ideas," nor put aside as "too cryptic to be amenable to an entirely satisfactory explanation." The ancient tradition is that "The Good" was a name for "The One," the comprehending source of unity, the principle of "one-out-of-many," not itself a being but the unity of all beings. It is the very principle of our republic: "E pluribus unum." That is why the philosopher-kings must come to behold it; far from being useless, it is the knowledge of communities, whether of ideal beings in their ontological context or of human beings in their private friendships or in their civic associations. For the philosopher-kings, even if they have, by my notion, no city but only themselves to rule, are yet friends and fellow-citizens. Don't those of us who still teach the liberal arts (the very arts set out in the Republic's curriculum for philosopher-kings) hope to educate citizens in just that way, by asking them to think about what it means to be together as a community emerging from individuals?"]

Recurring Bouts of Eco-Nausea Triggered by False Facts, Celebrity Hypocrisy, Prophecies of Armageddon, Politicized NonScience & Lost Economic Freedom

http://www.newsweek.com/id/143703/output/print

I’m So Tired Of Being Green

One recent poll showed that American consumers are increasingly unlikely to spend money on energy-efficient goods and services.


By Susan H. Greenberg


NEWSWEEK


Jun 28, 2008


I'll admit it: I am a lapsed recycler. When confronted recently with an empty jar of peanut butter, rather than soak it in hot water to remove every last smear before placing it in the recycling bin, I simply tossed the jar in the trash can (and quickly covered it with greasy paper towels to avert the wrath of my eco-fanatic husband). In my mind, I made a quick and highly unscientific calculation: saving the planet from one little plastic jar wasn't worth my time or the hot water necessary to clean it.

I may be wrong about that. But the fact is, I don't know what to believe anymore. I'm sick of everyone from Al Gore to the guy who mows my grass telling me to "go green."


I'm tired of sifting through the "eco-safe" claims of products as diverse as cleansers, cars and cookies: recycled, recyclable, reusable, organic, all-natural, environmentally friendly, environmentally preferable, environmentally safe, biodegradable, compostable, ozone-friendly, zero-carbon, carbon-neutral … the list is limited only by the imaginations of the marketing geniuses who developed it.


We are drowning in so many vague, dubious or breathlessly hyped assertions that sometimes it's easier just to throw the sticky peanut-butter jar away.


"Confusion creates inner shock," says Suzanne Shelton, CEO of the Shelton Group, a U.S. marketing firm that monitors America's environmental pulse. "And when consumers are confused, they just do nothing."


I am not alone in my green fatigue. The Shelton Group's latest study, Energy Pulse 2007, revealed that between 2006 and 2007, Americans' enthusiasm for energy-efficient products and services fell across the board. [See: Energy Pulse® 2007:Where American Consumers Stand on Renewable Energy, Conservation and Energy-Efficient Products, Services and Homes, at: http://www.energypulse.org/comprehensive.php ; National Survey: Consumers Face ‘Green Fatigue’ Focused on Price as Much as ‘Greenwashing’ - Energy Pulse 2007, Shelton Group Press Release (Oct. 9, 2007) at: http://www.energypulse.org/PDFs/EP07-GreenFatigue.pdf ; ].


[“In the past few years, consumers have been bombarded by the marketing messages of companies jumping on the green-friendly bandwagon,” said Suzanne Shelton, CEO of Shelton Group, which independently sponsored the study. “People are becoming much more inquiring about the bill of green goods being sold to them – not only in terms of ‘is it as ‘green’ as what they say it is?,’ but also ‘does it matter enough to me to pay extra’?” According to Shelton, ‘energy-efficient’ is consistently equated to ‘more expensive’ in the minds of consumers. “What consumers are often fatigued about in 2007 is the price differential – or at least the perceived price differential,” Shelton said. “But saying ‘save money’ when advertising an energy-efficient product isn’t necessarily good enough. Our research shows that consumers want proof..."].


Among its findings: the number of green or energy-efficient activities consumers said they participated in—such as recycling or riding a bike to work instead of driving—dropped from an average of 3.63 in 2006 to 3.0 last year. Furthermore, the number of respondents who considered energy efficiency "important/extremely important" in deciding whether to buy a product fell from 72 to 67 percent. "We are really seeing a backlash to the whole green thing," says Shelton. "We've tested environmental messaging for some clients lately, and we get a lot of eye rolls and deep sighs. We hear things like 'I'm so tired of the green label being slapped on everything,' 'I'm so tired of being guilted into being green'."


A new field, eco-psychology, has even arisen to help people cope with their mounting "eco-anxiety"—worries not just about the planet's health but also about their own environmental inadequacies. Melissa Pickett, a self-proclaimed eco-psychologist and president of the SoulWays Center for Conscious Evolution, believes it's only a matter of time before insurance companies recognize it as a treatable psychological ailment. "I compare it to PTSD [post-traumatic stress disorder]," she says. "Years ago, there wasn't a label for it. There isn't a diagnostic label [now] for green fatigue or eco-anxiety. At some point there probably will be."


We can only hope to live so long. The growing sense of green fatigue stems in part from the feeling that no matter what we do, it will never be enough. I own a Toyota Camry hybrid, have replaced roughly a third of our light bulbs with compact fluorescent ones —though I should confess I've changed a few back to incandescent because the time delay and cold light drove me crazy—and recycle fairly religiously, hard-to-clean containers notwithstanding. Yet judging from the daily news, the earth's predicament grows only more dire: Ethiopian runner Haile Gebrselassie has pulled out of the Olympic marathon because of Beijing's toxic pollution. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency recently found that 345 of 700 American counties monitored had air quality considered unsafe to breathe. "The discussion about changing our light bulbs, about washing our laundry on a lower setting, all seem to be very petty approaches to what is being described as a great climate catastrophe," says James Panton, cofounder of the Manifesto Club, which is committed to preventing ecological disaster without limiting human potential. "Changing a light bulb isn't the way forward."


So what is? Environmental experts seem to agree that the best way to jolt consumers out of their green daze is to instigate reforms from the top down, like putting a price on carbon and including airline emissions in CO2-reduction targets. "If there were stronger infrastructural changes, then you would have a clear lead from the political and economic leadership of our society, and you won't have that kind of fatigue," says Tim Baster, executive director of the U.K.'s Climate Outreach and Information Network.


[IN OTHER WORDS, THESE BUREAUCRAT-GURUS ADVOCATE IN FAVOR OF TOP-DOWN PROSCRIPTIVE REGULATION WHICH INSTRUCTS PEOPLE CONCERNING WHAT THEY CAN & CANNOT DO. THIS OBVIOUSLY WOULD LEAVE LITTLE TO CHOICE OR CHANCE - SO MUCH FOR INDIVIDUAL FREEDOMS!!]


"It's individuals who get demoralized. There has to be collective action." It takes a village to recycle a peanut-butter jar. [LONG LIVE SOCIALISM!!]

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

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/have-you-got-green-fatigue-402971.html

Have you got green fatigue?

You recycle and buy local – but the earth's still warming and the ice cap's still melting. If you're starting to feel apathy creeping in, you're not the only one.


By Hugh Wilson


The Independent UK


20 September 2007


Recent environmental messages have made such an impact on a friend of mine that, a couple of weeks ago, he broke a four-year prohibition and walked back into Burger King. "Intensive beef production, clone town Britain, just so much blah," he said, by way of explanation. "Nobody else really seems to be doing much about it, so why should I bother?"


My friend is the embodiment of one of the great fears of the environmental lobby. Fifteen years ago, the term "compassion fatigue" indicated a general disillusionment with fund-raising concerts and famine appeals. The cause was too hopeless, governments too apathetic, and individuals too impotent. Slowly, and for similar reasons, the term "green fatigue" has started to creep into the dinner-party conversations of the composting classes.


And, if anything, with more reason. Environmental campaigners worry that individuals see their actions as largely irrelevant when set against the enormity of global climate change. While famine appeals parade a simple, striking message – send a tenner, save a child – no such easy cause and effect exists for global warming. By contrast, the solutions to climate change seem hugely complex and controversial.


"The problems we face are of a magnitude no one has seen in at least two generations," says Alex Steffen, the executive editor of WorldChanging, a website and book that promote innovative solutions for sustainable living. "The scale of the actions people are being told to take by green consumerism groups and businesses, on the other hand, are so small as to seem meaningless. I think that more and more people see this widening gulf and lose hope."


And if we're not all losing hope just yet, many of us are becoming increasingly cynical. To campaigners, that's not surprising. As Steffen suggests, businesses have turned environmentalism into a marketing strategy. A new term, "green-washing", describes companies that paint a superficial green gloss on conventional business practices. When firms such as BP and Wal-Mart parade their environmentally friendly credentials, scepticism is not only inevitable, says Steffen, it's "a necessary antidote".


At least the green lobby can count on celebrities to spread the message. Unfortunately, the message too often seems to be, "do as I say, not as I do". Celebrity is an intrinsically unsustainable condition. The reaction to the Live Earth concerts – which prompted as much debate on the carbon footprint of the A-listers who'd been chauffeured in for the occasion as the campaign they were there to endorse – showed the insidious spread of green fatigue.


It could have been worse. In the States, Sheryl Crow's "Stop Global Warming College Tour" was panned for stipulating parking for three tractor-trailers, four buses and six cars. John Travolta recently urged the British public to "do their bit" to combat global warming after flying in on his private Boeing 707, and got trounced in the press for his efforts. None of this is likely to keep the public on side in the long run – and countering climate change is likely to be a very long run indeed. [GREEN HYPOCRISY BREEDS CONSUMER SKEPTICISM & GREEN FATIGUE.]


Even the pronouncements of more committed celebrities can seem, well, a little misjudged. A new book, edited by the socialite and former model Sheherazade Goldsmith, the wife of the Ecologist editor Zac, advises concerned greens to keep geese and make their own goat's cheese. As my sceptical friend said: "The goose can stay on the balcony, but I doubt you'd call it free-range."


Of course, many celebrities and businesses now offset their carbon emissions by paying for trees to be planted in sustainable forests or investments made in green energy projects. But "magic bullet" solutions to climate change are quickly losing their sheen. Recent investigations – including a widely trailed Dispatches programme on Channel 4 – question the effectiveness of carbon offsetting and suggest that it might even be counterproductive.


Some environmentalists worry that carbon offsetting promotes the idea that if you throw a few quid at the problem you can carry on as normal. According to Michael R Solomon, the author of Consumer Behaviour: Buying, Having and Being: "Consumers are always going to gravitate toward a more parsimonious solution that requires less behavioural change. We know that new products or ideas are more likely to be adopted if they don't require us to alter our routines very much."


Unfortunately, most environmentalists agree that altering our routines quite fundamentally is the only real way to save the planet. Meanwhile, another "magic bullet" solution – and one that would also allow many of us to carry on pretty much as normal – is coming in for unexpected criticism: a recent study has suggested that any widespread uptake of biofuels in Europe could decimate Asian rainforests.


What all this adds up to, experts fear, is a recipe for disillusionment and – eventually – disengagement. Psychologically, we're primed to walk away from problems that are too complex to understand and too difficult to solve, and we'll break into a run if we think cynical marketers and self-publicising celebrities are jumping on a green bandwagon. And green campaigners who think a deluge of apocalyptic information will cut through our cynicism are probably mistaken.


"In an information-filled world, people screen heavily what new information they let in, and I suspect that the run-of-the-mill global-warming story is just not crossing the threshold," says the climate scientist Dr Susanne Moser, the co-author of Creating a Climate for Change: Communicating Climate Change and Facilitating Social Change. By run-of-the-mill, she means those all-too-familiar stories about melting ice shelves or endangered species. "Thinking about a global, complex, challenging, and potentially very dangerous and disastrous thing and not knowing what to do about it makes us go numb or into denial."


The antidote to numbness and denial is a sense of progress, of things getting better. But in the fight against climate change, progress is hard to come by. Moser uses the analogy of a diet. How long would you stay on a diet that demanded stringent effort over a prolonged period and promised only that that your weight gain might slow down a bit? Let's face it, it wouldn't make the cover of Grazia.


She also admits that "we have terribly failed our audience" by focusing on apocalyptic scenarios and complex science. Instead, one key factor in keeping people enthused in the fight against climate change will be local, collective action, she says.


"Why do people go to Alcoholics Anonymous, or to Weight Watchers? Because in a group of like-minded people they have the support, accountability, peer pressure and the shared experience of others to help make the change. They also have opportunities to come together, check on progress, and get support around setbacks. That's what we need for climate change – to recover from our fuel addiction."


Progress on a small and local scale – such as saving a beloved local shop, voting in a councillor who will push green issues, or increasing local recycling rates – and even a desire to keep up with the Joneses ("if everybody's ditching the gas-guzzler, I'll do it, too") are far more effective motivators than media-inspired guilt and vague fears of an uncertain future, she adds.


Alex Steffen also believes in the need for a local, community focus. But he says that we need to be honest about the scale of the changes that have to be made, and to counter green fatigue by imbuing the fight against climate change with an almost heroic spirit.


"I don't think we need to sugar-coat the challenges we face," he says. "We just need to ask people to rise to their real potential, and see that this is our moment for greatness. If we create a sustainable future for everyone, it will be an accomplishment as great as winning the Second World War.


"Many environmentalists assume people won't do anything more than small steps, and hope those small steps will build the political will for more substantive changes. But history has shown a thousand times that "regular" people are capable of extraordinary courage, dedication and ingenuity when asked to answer the call. It's time we put out that call, rather than another marketing pitch."


The small actions that can make a big difference


* You've heard it before, but changing to energy-efficient light bulbs really can make a difference. Lighting uses 20 per cent of the world's electricity, the equivalent of burning 600,000 tons of coal a day. Phasing out old bulbs would avoid the release of 700 million tons of carbon into the atmosphere every year.

* Shop local. If your food shopping amounts to £100 a week, that's £5,200 a year that could be going into the pocket of a local butcher, grocer and baker, rather than the supermarket till. Imagine if 100 people in your area had the same idea.

* Is recycling really worth it? Yes. Recycling one glass jar saves enough energy to light a 100-watt bulb for four hours. Glass can be reused an infinite number of times. Think of all the jars recycled in your street in a year.

* Recycling a ton of paper saves 17 trees and 7,000 gallons of water.

* Turning your thermostat down by two degrees can save 2,000 pounds of carbon every year.

Just imagine if everyone in your family and everyone in your office did it.

Is There No True Justice or Rule of Law in Brazil? If So, How Can There Ever Be Economic Freedom??

http://www.brazzil.com/articles/193-june-2008/10072-in-brazil-rule-of-law-is-for-the-birds.htmlzil.com/articles/193-june-2008/10072-in-brazil-rule-of-law-is-for-the-birds.html

In Brazil, Justice is For the Birds

By Augusto Zimmermann

Brazzil Magazine

June 17, 2008

(Translation: 'Picture of Brazil')

This article is based on a paper presented at the annual conference of the Australian Society of Legal Philosophy, June 13-15 2008.

Brazil is a nation suffering from a substantial lack of commitment to the rule of law. As a result, most of what happens in Brazil lies outside the statute books and law reports.

In that country there is indeed a very sharp contrast between, on the one hand, statutes and the written texts of the constitution, and, on the other hand, the daily life as demonstrated in the dealings between individuals and public authorities.

In an important survey conducted by DaMatta in the mid 1980s, citizens in Brazil were asked how they classify a person who obeys the law. The common answer was that such a person must be an individual of "inferior" social status. But when asked about a wealthy person who wishes to obey the law, the common answer to this situation was that this person is simply a babaca (fool). DaMatta then concluded from this empirical research that, in Brazil, "compliance with law conveys the impression of anonymity and great inferiority".

In Brazil, social status is far more important than any protection of the law, because laws are generally perceived as not being necessarily applied to everyone. Unlike a typical North American citizen who would use the law to protect him-or-herself against any situation of social adversity, a citizen in Brazil would instead appeal to his or her social status.

Respecting the law in that country implies a condition of social inferiority and disadvantage that renders one subject to it. As the late historian José Honório Rodrigues observed: "In Brazil, personal liking is above the law". And so the familiar Brazilian maxim: "Para os amigos tudo, para os indiferentes nada, e para os inimigos a lei" (For my friends, everything; for strangers, nothing; for my enemies - the law!).

Since Brazil's society stresses direct relations based on personal liking as opposed to formal relations which are based on the law, the greatest fear of Brazilians is that of eventually becoming an isolated citizen. The isolated citizen is an inferior who is reduced to the condition of being merely "under" the law.

Accordingly, people without the necessary ability to develop such relationship ties have "only" the law on which to depend, whereas a citizen with "good" friends can also obtain any "special" treatment from the state and other institutions of prestige.

A phrase that is typically applied by people who expect such "special treatment" is "Você sabe com quem está falando?" ("Do you know whom you are talking to?"). It is often used by those who wish to somehow disobey formal rules, and as such it can be applied to a vast range of situations. A common application is when a police officer is "daring" to apply a fine for parking infringement. In such a case it is the officer himself who risks being punished if he tries to enforce the law.

It is not so much that the individual declaring personal exemption from the law necessarily views it as being wrong or unfair; it is just that he or she believes the law does not apply to a person like him or her. To obey it would be beneath him or her. The premise is that he or she possesses the privilege of being "more equal" than others, and so exercises the prerogative to ignore the law with impunity and utter arrogance. This sort of behaviour, argues history professor José Murilo de Carvalho, might be provoked by the mixed nature of the Brazilian citizen which he describes in the following terms:

"Master and slave live together inside him. When occupying positions of power he exhibits the arrogance of a master, when outside power he oscillates between servility and rebelliousness. A true citizen conscious of his (legal) rights and mindful of the rights of others did not develop..."

This cultural trait may help to explain the persistence of (social) inequality whose major victims are the descendents of the former slaves.

In reality, the fact that many people in Brazil often consider themselves above the law might be a legacy of the institution of slavery infecting contemporary Brazilian society.

The hypothesis posits that slavery might have contributed to a low value being placed on compliance with law. While slavery was abolished a long time ago, in May 1888, a master-slave mentality might still permeate Brazil's social relations. According to Joseph A. Page,
"There are... societal ills that can be traced at least in part to slavery. For example, the slave owner could do as he pleased with his slaves without having to answer to anyone for the consequences of his actions. The master-slave relationship replicated the medieval relationship between Portuguese king and his subjects, and it came to define the link between the powerful and the powerless in Brazil... Indeed, a sense of being above the law became a prerogative of the nation's haves. The notion of impunity - the avoidance of personal responsibility - became deeply ingrained in Brazilianness and has proved a barrier to development."

To understand the reasons for problems blocking the rule of law from taking hold in Brazilian society, we need to investigate these patterns of social behaviour that inhibit the normal respect for legal norms and principles.

The abysmal difference in Brazil between legal provisions and reality bears a good testimony to the fact that "good laws" might be important, but what really matters is individual, straightforward conduct, which in turn is the natural result of a culture of legality entailing the willingness by all citizens, including judges and politicians, to honestly respect legal obligations.

Indeed, Brazil does not have the rule of law because Brazilians have not yet developed this kind of culture.

* Augusto Zimmermann, LLB, LLM, PhD is a Law Lecturer at Murdoch University, Western Australia.

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

Comments (2)
Subscribe to this comment's feed

Dr.Zimmermann strikes again! written by João da Silva, June 17, 2008

A splendid article and my kudos again. We do need more Brasilians like Augusto and Ricardo to write such articles, questioning the lack of commitment to law in this country, not disregarding the fact that there are several hundreds of thousands of Brasilians that share their views. Let me cite a few examples from my own experience.

But when asked about a wealthy person who wishes to obey the law, the common answer to this situation was that this person is simply a babaca (fool).

I am not wealthy at all, but just a middle class person.But I obey all the laws, including the traffic rules. When I stop my car at a pedestrian crossing to let the people cross teh street, I get harassed by other drivers some of whom call me a "babacão" and some others (especially the lady drivers) show me fingers! Lately I have seen that evern the cops dont give a damn about pedestrian crossings. Because they are "autoridades maximas" (The highest authorities) and above any blooddy law.

Since Brazil's society stresses direct relations based on personal liking as opposed to formal relations which are based on the law, the greatest fear of Brazilians is that of eventually becoming an isolated citizen. The isolated citizen is an inferior who is reduced to the condition of being merely "under" the law.

Spot on again, Dr.Zimmermann. 100% correct. He becomes not only isolated but a "pariah" (because "ele não tem jogo de cintura")!!

"Master and slave live together inside him. When occupying positions of power he exhibits the arrogance of a master, when outside power he oscillates between servility and rebelliousness.

Augusto is brutally blunt again". Even the "Zelador" of a building becomes arrogant, when occupying power.Imagine the "doutores" in the justice system. They are beyond any control!! Have experienced this too.

The abysmal difference in Brazil between legal provisions and reality, bears a good testimony to the fact that "good laws" might be important, but what really matters is individual, straightforward conduct, which in turn is the natural result of a culture of legality entailing the willingness by all citizens, including judges and politicians, to honestly respect legal obligations.

100% correct again.

Indeed, Brazil does not have the rule of law because Brazilians have not yet developed this kind of culture.

Sadly, it will take many more years to develop this culture. I enjoyed reading the article and kudos again to Zimmermann.

Spot on written by jakob, June 17, 2008

Ditto about rules and laws in Brazil... When I try to cross the street, it's amazing how EVERY motorists cuts into my path, and does NOT stop to let me pass... Sometimes, even when I'm already 2 meters into the street, they STILL do not stop ... I am amazed every time at this insensitivity, rudeness and lack of civility. As if I, a "mere" pedestrian, have absolutely no rights with respect to car drivers ... Stunning, this lack of upbringing. But hey, it's "culture"!

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.

US Constitutional Due Process Protections Do Not Exist in the European Union: You Are Guilty Until Proven Innocent! Why Then, Harmonize With EU?

[READERS SHOULD BE AWARE THAT THE 2008 U.S. PRESIDENTIAL & CONGRESSIONAL ELECTIONS WILL ACTUALLY SERVE AS A PLEBISCITE TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE U.S. SHOULD FURTHER HARMONIZE ITS CONSTITUTIONAL & STATUTORY LAWS WITH THOSE OF EUROPE AND THE REST OF THE WORLD. IF EUROPE IS A 'STRONG DEMOCRACY', RELATIVELY SPEAKING, THAT LACKS CONSTITUTIONAL DUE PROCESS OF LAW AT U.S. STANDARDS, WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS, REQUIRES PROBABLE CAUSE BEFORE THE ISSUANCE OF A WARRANT, AND A PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE UNTIL ONE IS PROVEN GUILTY, WOULD THEN, SUCH HARMONIZATION ACTUALLY BE IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF AMERICAN CITIZENS???]


http://www.mondaq.com/article.asp?articleid=56284


European Union: European Commission Raids Pharmaceutical Companies To Start Sector Inquiry


18 January 2008


Article by Jonathan Gowdy and Peter J. Edlind


On January 16, 2008, the European Commission launched a sector inquiry into the pharmaceuticals industry by carrying out a series of unannounced inspections of innovative and generic pharmaceutical companies. The targeted companies include both European and U.S. pharmaceutical companies with significant operations in Europe. The inquiry is likely to implicate important and controversial issues regarding the intersection of competition and intellectual property law, including the legality of patent litigation settlement agreements and conduct relating to the procurement and enforcement of intellectual property rights.


The sector inquiry is generally designed to provide the Commission with insight into commercial practices within the pharmaceutical industry; however, it was launched in response to the Commission’s concern that competition in the European pharmaceutical sector may not be working as it should. Specifically, the Commission noted that there has been a significant decrease in novel and generic medicines for human consumption entering the European pharmaceutical market in recent years.


The sector inquiry also follows two recent and significant enforcement actions by the Commission against firms in the pharmaceutical sector. In 2005, the Commission fined AstraZeneca €60 million for providing misleading representations to patent offices in the EU, and thereby restricting the entry of generic medicines to the market. Last year, the Commission also started proceedings against Boehringer for alleged misuse of the patent system to exclude competition in the area of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease drugs.


The Commission’s sector inquiry will focus on similar business practices; indeed the Commission’s announcement indicated it would examine whether the investigated parties’ exercise of patents and agreements between competitors, such as terms for litigation settlement agreements, are compatible with the EC Treaty’s rules on restrictive business practices. In addition, the inquiry will examine potential abuses of dominant position by market actors, including possible misuse of patent application procedures or frivolous lawsuits to prevent or deter launches of generic alternatives.


Enforcement actions in the United States on patent settlement agreements have proven controversial and even resulted in policy disagreements among the two U.S. antitrust agencies (i.e., the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission) about the proper application of the antitrust laws. In addition, antitrust claims in the U.S. based on frivolous litigation or misuse of the patenting process generally must satisfy a high standard of proof. Thus, if the Commission’s sector inquiry results in any enforcement actions, they are likely to generate significant debate.


[DEAR EUROPEAN COMMISSION, WE IN AMERICA REFER TO THE SO-CALLED 'HIGH STANDARD OF PROOF' AS CONSTITUTIONAL DUE PROCESS OF LAW]


Finally, this sector inquiry is also notable because it is the first in which the Commission commenced the inquiry with dawn raids. (The Commission has in recent years carried out sector inquiries in the telecommunications, energy and financial services sectors, but all of these were initiated by sending out questionnaires to the targeted companies.) According to the Commission, the motivation to secure information in this manner stemmed from the fact that the information sought is usually considered by companies to be highly confidential and "may also be easily withheld, concealed or destroyed."


The Commission also recently used dawn raids in a merger investigation to investigate whether parties had integrated their business operations prior to obtaining clearance under the EU’s merger control regulations. It remains to be seen whether the Commission will continue to expand the use of dawn raids in non-cartel investigations; however, firms should ensure that their employees and in-house legal department are prepared for such an event.


The first results of the pharmaceutical sector inquiry are expected to be published in an interim report by the Commission this autumn and a final report due in the spring of 2009. Any subsequent competition law enforcement actions by the Commission (or EU member state competition authorities) against individual companies would be launched outside the framework of the sector inquiry.


Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.


© Morrison & Foerster LLP. All rights reserved

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

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/4da369fa-c49e-11dc-a474-0000779fd2ac.html?nclick_check=1


Big drug companies raided in EU probe


By Andrew Jack in London and Tony Barber in Brussels


Published: January 17 2008 02:00 Last updated: January 17 2008 02:00


European regulators raided some of the world's biggest pharmaceutical companies yesterday in an inquiry into whether they conspired to keep up the price of drugs after patents expired.


Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca and Sanofi-Aventis were among those that confirmed they had been visited as part of a European Commission-led probe into delays in the launch of low-cost generic drugs. Teva, the world's biggest generics company, was also targeted.


The inquiry will focus on whether the industry has abused patent rights to delay the introduction of low-cost generic alternatives. It will assess whether companies have made spurious attempts to extend the life of intellectual property rights or cut deals with one generic rival to the exclusion of others.


[WELL, THAT CERTAINLY JUSTIFIES SUSPENSION OF DUE PROCESS, DOESN'T IT!!]


The EU is increasingly concerned about the rising cost of medicines and declining innovation.


[WHY NOT THEN, PROVIDE A LEGAL ENVIRONMENT THAT PROMOTES MARKET-BASED INNOVATION, TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER AND COMMERCIAL LICENSING AND REDUCES NEEDLESS BUREAUCRATIC REGULATORY COSTS??]


Neelie Kroes, competition commissioner, said: "If we have the feeling that something is rotten in the state, then let's take the opportunity to find out."


[MS. KROES ACTS MORE LIKE A REGULATORY DICTATOR THAN A DIRECTOR - IS THE BUREAUCRATIC POWER GETTING TO HER HEAD??]


The raids, which began on Tuesday, broke with Commission practice in that no advance notice was given. Previous sectoral inquiries were launched with questionnaires sent to companies.


"It's certainly novel and rather aggressive, even. Dawn raids presuppose that the Commission has got a whiff of something they want to investigate," said one Brussels-based lawyer specialising in competition issues.


Europeans spent €200bn (£150bn) a year on pharmaceuticals, or €400 each, Ms Kroes said.


"If innovative products are not being produced, and cheaper generic alternatives to existing products are in some cases being delayed, then we need to find out why and, if necessary, take action," she added.


[SOUNDS LIKE THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION IS ORDERING PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES TO PRODUCE INNOVATIVE HEALTH CARE PRODUCTS. SOUNDS LIKE THE 4TH REICH!!]


The Commission stressed that its visits were the starting point for a broad inquiry, rather than a response to "positive indications of wrongdoing" by the targeted companies. It said that the "unannounced inspections" were designed to gather "highly confidential . . . information [which] may also be easily withheld, concealed or destroyed".


[THIS ACTUALLY SOUNDS LIKE A 'FISHING EXPEDITION'. DOES THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION HAVE WHAT WE CALL IN THE UNITED STATES, 'PROBABLE CAUSE'???]


The inquiry is set to issue interim findings by the autumn and final results in spring 2009. It will examine whether pharmaceutical practices infringe EU treaty prohibitions on restrictive practices.


The generic drugs industry, which produces cheaper but chemically identical versions of medicines once their patents expire, has long accused innovative drug manufacturers of "ever-greening", or using spurious grounds to delay competition by extending their exclusive intellectual property rights.


[OF COURSE THEY HAVE! THEY'RE IN COMPETITION WITH THE BRAND NAME COMPANIES!! THEY WANT WHAT THOSE COMPANIES HAVE, FOR FREE!]


Pfizer, GSK, Teva, Sanofi-Aventis, AstraZeneca, Boehringer-Ingelheim and Merck of the US all confirmed that they were contacted by commission officials. Most would make no further comment. "We are co-operating with the inquiry," said AstraZeneca.

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

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/eb99c8a8-c49d-11dc-a474-0000779fd2ac.html?nclick_check=1


Pharma feels the heat as Brussels scrutinises competition


By Andrew Jack in London and Tony Barber in Brussels


Published: January 17 2008 02:00 Last updated: January 17 2008 02:00


The European Commission probe into the pharmaceutical industry, announced yesterday, illustrates how regulators are turning up the heat on a sector already suffering from falling productivity, growing competition and public discontent with the rising prices of new -medicines.


Competition lawyers say the inquiry also reflects a new appetite in Brussels for tackling intellectual property issues, driven by its success in cases such as the Microsoft prosecution, its growing experience in the drug industry and parallel moves by US regulators.


"The Commission is making sure everyone knows that it has decided to pursue a proactive, pro-competition agenda," said one Brussels-based lawyer.


[WHAT THIS LAWYER MEANT TO SAY IS THAT THE COMMISSION WANTS EVERYONE TO KNOW THAT THEY DON'T HAVE ANY CONSTITUTIONAL DUE PROCESS RIGHTS TO WHICH THE 'STATE' (EU COMMISSION) IS SUBJECT!!]


In 2005, the Commission fined AstraZeneca, the Anglo-Swedish group, €60m ($87.9m, £44.8m) in a ground-breaking case that highlighted practices likely to come under scrutiny in the latest investigation.


AstraZeneca, which is appealing the ruling, was found guilty of abuses to prevent generic rivals from competing against Losec, its anti-ulcer medicine.


It was accused of extending the duration of its intellectual property rights unfairly by providing misleading dates for its first filing with regulators in Europe.


It also de-registered older formulations of the drug in some countries, which added barriers to efforts by generic players to win regulatory approval for copies.


[THIS AMOUNTS TO A 'TAKING' OF PRIVATE PROPERTY FOR 'PUBLIC USE' WITHOUT 'JUST' COMPENSATION IN THE UNITED STATES]


Greg Perry, head of the European Generic Medicines Association, the trade body, said he welcomed the EU probe on condition that it studied issues of concern to his members.


These include "frivolous litigation", by which drug companies seeking to protect patents have succeeded in winning injunctions and authorisation for bailiffs' raids against generic rivals in lower courts across Europe to stall the launch of cheaper medicines.


He also expressed concern about "ever-greening", by which drug companies win additional patent protection on medicines by filing for minor modifications, such as reformulations to allow a pill to be taken once rather than twice a day.


Nellie Kroes, EU competition commissioner, said yesterday: "Pharmaceutical markets are not working as well as they might. Patent protection has never been stronger, but the number of patents coming to market has been declining."


[SOUNDS JUST LIKE THE STATEMENT OF A PHILOSOPHER KING BUREAUCRAT!]


The EU's probe may not prove entirely comfortable for generic companies. One practice likely to be scrutinised is when a pharmaceutical company pays a generic rival to drop a legal challenge to patents on its drugs.


[THIS IS A BACKHANDED WAY OF WARNING THE GENERIC COMPANIES THAT, IF THE EU COMMISSION CAN GET AWAY WITH DEPRIVING THE BRANDED PHARMA COMPANIES OF CONSTITUTIONAL DUE PROCESS, THEN THE GENERIC MANUFACTURERS ARE LIKELY TO BE TARGETED NEXT AND DEPRIVED OF THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS! IN OTHER WORDS, WHAT GOES AROUND, ULTIMATELY COMES AROUND]


Another tactic involves signing an exclusive deal with an "authorised" generic manufacturer, and agreeing commercial terms that limit the normal sharp erosion in price of a generic medicine from that of the patented medicine on which it is based.


Nevertheless, the relatively modest discounts that often result in Europe - far less than in the US - are not simply the result of deals between companies. They also reflect national governments' policies on drug reimbursement and protectionism.
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2008

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9832900


Charlemagne


Brussels rules OK


Sep 20th 2007


From The Economist print edition


How the European Union is becoming the world's chief regulator


A VICTORY for consumers and the free market. That was how the European Commission presented this week's ruling by European judges in favour of its multi-million euro fine on Microsoft for bullying competitors. American observers had qualms. Would a French company have been pursued with such vigour? Explain again why a squabble among American high-technology firms ends up being decided in Brussels and Luxembourg (where Euro-judges sit)? One congressman muttered about sneaky protectionism and “zealous European Commission regulators”. It certainly seemed zealous of the competition commissioner, Neelie Kroes, to say that a “significant drop” in the software giant's market share was “what we'd like to see”.


More broadly, the ruling confirms that Brussels is becoming the world's regulatory capital. The European Union's drive to set standards has many causes—and a protectionist impulse within some governments (eg, France's) may be one. But though the EU is a big market, with almost half a billion consumers, neither size, nor zeal, nor sneaky protectionism explains why it is usurping America's role as a source of global standards. A better answer lies in transatlantic philosophical differences.


The American model turns on cost-benefit analysis, with regulators weighing the effects of new rules on jobs and growth, as well as testing the significance of any risks. Companies enjoy a presumption of innocence for their products: should this prove mistaken, punishment is provided by the market (and a barrage of lawsuits).


The European model rests more on the “precautionary principle”, which underpins most environmental and health directives. This calls for pre-emptive action if scientists spot a credible hazard, even before the level of risk can be measured. Such a principle sparks many transatlantic disputes: over genetically modified organisms or climate change, for example.


In Europe corporate innocence is not assumed. Indeed, a vast slab of EU laws evaluating the safety of tens of thousands of chemicals, known as REACH, reverses the burden of proof, asking industry to demonstrate that substances are harmless. Some Eurocrats suggest that the philosophical gap reflects the American constitutional tradition that everything is allowed unless it is forbidden, against the Napoleonic tradition codifying what the state allows and banning everything else.


[THIS SOUNDS EERILY SIMILAR TO HOW THE 110TH CONGRESSIONAL MAJORITY IS TRYING TO CHANGE U.S. LAWS, AND WHAT MADAME CLINTON RECOMMENDS AS A 'SOLUTION' TO AMERICA'S PROBLEMS, & MONSIEUR OBAMA TOUTS AS THE TYPE OF 'CHANGE' NEEDED IN AMERICA!!]


Yet the more proscriptive European vision may better suit consumer and industry demands for certainty. If you manufacture globally, it is simpler to be bound by the toughest regulatory system in your supply chain. Self-regulation is also a harder sell when it comes to global trade, which involves trusting a long line of unknown participants from far-flung places (talk to parents who buy Chinese-made toys).


A gripping new book* by an American, Mark Schapiro, captures the change. When he began his research, he found firms resisting the notion that the American market would follow EU standards for items like cosmetics, insisting that their American products were already safe. But as the book neared completion, firm after firm gave in and began applying EU standards worldwide, as third countries copied European rules on things like suspected carcinogens in lipstick. Even China is leaning to the European approach, one Procter & Gamble executive tells Mr Schapiro, adding wistfully: “And that's a pretty big country.”


The book records similar American reactions to the spread of EU directives insisting that cars must be recycled, or banning toxins such as lead and mercury from electrical gadgets. Obey EU rules or watch your markets “evaporating”, a computer industry lobbyist tells Mr Schapiro. “We've been hit by a tsunami,” says a big wheel from General Motors. American multinationals that spend money adjusting to European rules may lose their taste for lighter domestic regulations that may serve only to offer a competitive advantage to rivals that do not export. Mr Schapiro is a campaigner for tougher regulation of American business. Yet you do not have to share his taste for banning chemicals to agree with his prediction that American industry will want stricter standards to create a level playing-field at home.


Winning the regulatory race


One American official says flatly that the EU is “winning” the regulatory race, adding: “And there is a sense that that is their precise intent.” He cites a speech by the trade commissioner, Peter Mandelson, claiming that the export of “our rules and standards around the world” was one source of European power. Noting that EU regulations are often written with the help of European incumbents, the official also claims that precaution can cloak “plain old-fashioned protectionism in disguise”.


Europe had no idea the rest of the world was going to copy its standards, retorts a Eurocrat sweetly. “It's a very pleasant side-effect, but we set out to create the legislation we thought that Europe needed.” At all events, America's strategy has changed. Frontal attempts to block new EU regulations are giving way to efforts to persuade Brussels to adopt a more American approach to cost-benefit analysis. That would placate students of rigour, who accuse some European governments of ignoring scientific data and pandering to consumer panic (as shown by European campaigns against “Frankenstein foods”).


But rigour can quickly look like rigidity when it involves resisting competition. There is a genuine competition to set global regulatory standards, as Europe and America have discovered. There are also rising protectionist pressures. Perhaps zealous EU regulators may be what jumpy consumers need if they are to keep faith with free trade and globalisation. Viewed in such a light, even Microsoft's champions might hope that this week's verdict will help global competition in future.

Gordon Brown Gives New Meaning To Marxist Central Planning in British Eco-Towns

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7311548.stm


15mph speed limit for eco-towns


BBC News

March 24, 2008

Vehicles driving on roads in planned eco-towns will have to stick to 15mph speed limits, it has emerged.


The restriction is among proposals designed to minimise the environmental impact of the settlements.


Government sources say the new town centres are to be car-free, and the 15mph limit will be enforced on "key roads" leading into them.

Environmental protesters have criticised the scheme for focusing too narrowly on carbon emissions.


'Revolutionary living'

More than 50 bids to create the zero-carbon developments have been entered by companies.
Housing minister Caroline Flint will set out standards expected of them later this week and the announcement of the shortlist of 10 new towns is expected in the coming weeks.


Ms Flint said: "These developments will be exemplars for the rest of the world, not just the rest of the country. It's critical that we get it right - and I make no apology for setting the bar as high as possible.


[ARE THEY KIDDING? EXEMPLARS?? FIRST PRIME MINISTER GORDON BROWN, DECIDING THAT IT IS IN THE PUBLIC'S BEST INTEREST TO EXERCISE, ERECTS STRICT REGULATORY 'GET-FIT' TOWNS. See(http://itssdeconomicfreedom.blogspot.com/2008/01/browns-get-fit-towns-kim-jong-il-would.html ). NOW, GORDON BROWN, DECIDING THAT IT IS IN THE PUBLIC'S INTEREST TO BECOME ENVIRONMENTALLY SUSTAINABLE, ERECTS STRICT REGULATORY ECO-TOWNS!! See http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7266701.stm
("The towns are expected to have low and zero-carbon technologies, good public transport and extensive parkland"].


"We have a unique opportunity to deliver a programme which will genuinely revolutionise the way people live."


[THIS IS WHAT THE MARXISTS USED TO SAY WHILE THEY WERE PUTTING THE FINAL TOUCHES ON THEIR CENTRAL PLANNING PROGRAMS!]


Ms Flint has said she wants to see towns designed around pedestrians, cyclists and public transport users.


Protests


Environmental protesters say the plans do not give adequate consideration to other ecological issues, such as the impact building would have on wildlife.


Up to five eco-towns are expected to be built by 2016, and up to 10 by 2020.


They will have populations of around 5,000 to 20,000 and be linked to larger towns and cities.


There have been nationwide protests over the plans from residents who claim the schemes will put too much pressure on local services.


Opposition has been voiced in places such as Grovewood in south Derbyshire and Stoughton in Leicestershire.


Last month around 300 campaigners marched against plans for a 6,000-home development in Long Marston, near Stratford, Warwickshire.