We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
Following the recent diplomatic spat between Italy and Germany, the EU Commission has moved to ensure that there is no repetition of such unfortunate incidents with a ‘Draft Directive on Cross-Border Insults’.
The new directive sets out a regulatory framework which will, in future, require all citizens of all EU countries to follow appropriate guidelines before publicly uttering any sort of cross-border insult.
The guidelines provide:
- Any insult which includes reference to national stereotypes can only be directed against a person or persons who is/are permanently domiciled in or citizens of the country to which the said stereotype is applicable. Insults may not be directed at persons who are merely resident in such countries.
- Insults which include reference to multiple stereoptypes such as ‘Arrogant beachtowel-hogging Schnitzel-brained Kraut metalbasher’ and ‘Pizza-munching dago wop greaseball monkey’ shall first obtain a written approval to utter the insult from the appropriate licensing body in the jurisdiction in which the insulter is a citizen or permanently domiciled.
- For the purposes of enforcement of these provisions, each member state of the Union shall establish an appropriate licensing body.
- In the case of a person wishing to utter a cross-border insult for reproduction in any print or electronic medium they must first provide a draft copy of the proposed insult to the proprietors of the said medium not less than three days before publication of the insult is due. This is to ensure that fair representations can be made by the person or organisation against whom the insult is directed.
- In the case of general insults or non-national stereotype abuse, the words used by the insulter must be words or terms that are recognised as being of an abusive or insulting nature in at least one or more Union member state. The use of Americanised insults such as ‘dickwad’, ‘dog-breath’, ‘asshat’ and ‘freakazoid’ are strictly forbidden as being inconsistent with European cultural values.
- Once a cross-border insult has been uttered (in accordance with these provisions) the person or organisaton against whom the insult was directed shall have a right of reply. In order to permit such right to be exercised the insulter shall allow a period of at least seven days before uttering any further insults.
French EU Commissioner Bertrand Maginot expressed his satisfaction with the new rules:
“We cannot simply allow insults to be traded in this uncontrolled cowboy fashion. If they are not subject to proper democratic control they could disrupt the harmony of European institutions.”
Critics of the new rules say they do not go far enough as insults that remain within national borders are still totally unregulated. However, a Commission sub-committee is expected to convene early next year to examine methods of regulating domestic insults as well.
BBC reports that the European Commission president, Romano Prodi, has been summoned by the European parliament to answer questions on a growing fraud scandal in the EU’s executive.
The EU’s administrative commissioner, Neil Kinnock, has revealed that up until 1999 there was a relatively extensive practice of setting up secret and illegal bank accounts. Millions of euros are thought to have disappeared.
Mr Kinnock told a parliamentary committee on Wednesday there was evidence this “utterly reprehensible” practice was continuing.
As a result, he has ordered an immediate inquiry into other Commission departments and is sending a fraud questionnaire to the European Commission’s most senior officials to assess the extent of the problem.
Are we surprised? No. The growing number of scandals emerging from the EU hints at deep-seated fraud and corruption. Soon it will perhaps become unnecessary to produce an argument against the EU. Just recording it’s blunders should do the trick…
The Telegraph reports the Treasury reacted angrily to a European Commission proposal for simplifying the VAT regime across the EU that would give tax breaks to the French while penalising British parents. Frits Bolkestein, the EU’s Dutch tax commissioner, admitted that the tax on children’s clothing could rise to 17.5 per cent – the British rate of VAT – but that the move was necessary to end what he said was unfair economic distortion.
The scheme unveiled yesterday is part of the continuing attempt by Brussels to force through tax harmonisation – standardising tax rates across the EU. Gordon Brown has rejected the suggestion, claiming that taxation is a matter for national parliaments.
The Commission scheme to “streamline” VAT would abolish zero-rating on children’s clothes and shoes in Britain and Ireland, ending the permanent opt-outs the countries secured when they joined the EC in the 1970s.
But following intense lobbying by Jacques Chirac, the French president, for a special exemption on restaurant bills, the Commission proposes to cut VAT rates for French diners from the present 19.6 per cent to as low as 5.5 per cent. Also, the Dutch will retain a zero rate for their cut-flower industry and the Italian media empire of Silvio Berlusconi will be spared VAT on broadcasting.
One official described the horse-trading behind the scenes as shameful.
Isn’t it interesting that a Dutch commissioner, a French director-general, and the Italian presidency all got what they wanted?
Quite.
Infoworld reports that the European Commission announced plans to combat spam yesterday, promising “concrete action” by October.
Research commissioned by the European Commission shows that by the end of this summer more than half of all the e-mails in the union will be spam. Erkki Liikanen, European Commissioner for Enterprise and the Information Society announced confidently:
Combatting spam has become a matter for us all, and has become one of the most significant issues facing the Internet today.
Yes, spam is annoying but let’s get things into perspective… In the typical bureaucrat fashion, you first build up a problem and then you solve it and bask in the glory of central control…
The EC promised that the concrete action would focus on effective enforcement based on international cooperation among different countries. It would also include technical measures for countering spam, and raising consumer awareness of the issue.
I wonder how this will be achieved. More monitoring, more data pooling and generally more interference with ISPs and private companies.
The Commission’s plans are designed to coincide with a new law on data protection that forbids unsolicited e-mailing. This directive is due to be transposed into the statute books of the 15 European Union member states in October.
Great. What we need is another directive forbidding this or that. And pray, do tell how will they enforce that…?
Under the data protection law, e-mail marketing will only be allowed with prior consent from the recipient. This “opt-in” approach does, however, permit marketing companies to target their existing customers.
Yes, a good idea, but why does it have to be regulated from the top? How gracious of the EC to permit marketing companies to target their existing customers. Arguably there is a widespread ‘conning’ of customers by many Web firms promising that they will not share private information and then selling or renting their customer lists anyway. But as this article indicates customers and markets are a much better way of handling this kind of issue than a bunch of bureaucrats in Brussels.
A quite splendid editorial in the Telegraph from George Trefgarne:
If Mr Blair signs the European constitution – which he seems determined to do – it will, as far as I can see, be the end of Britain as a serious independent power. It will also lead to the gradual redesigning of our institutional framework.
The euro beckons. Taxation and regulation would increase as we tilted towards the European social democratic model. Judging by the woes of Germany and France, economic growth would be lower and unemployment higher.
I can add little except a recommendation that the whole article be read in order to fully appreciate the monumental folly that Tony Blair seems determined to commit.
[EU for Britain has] been more like getting mixed up with the mafia. First it’s an innocent poker game, then some girls show up, then you need to borrow some money, next thing you know a beefy fellow in a string t-shirt is giving your kneecaps a non-therapeutic massage, and you’re wondering, “Hey, I just wanted to play a little poker. Where did these concrete overshoes come from?”
– T. Hartin’s comment on a Samizdata post
Reuters reports:
A future European Union constitution will include a flag, an anthem, a motto and a Europe Day, despite British reticence about such state symbols.
The 105-member Convention on the Future of Europe decided at its final session on Thursday to add a reference to the symbols of the 15-nation bloc, due to be enlarged to 25 states next May, in a draft constitution submitted to EU leaders.
The official EU anthem is the “Ode to Joy” from Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony, the flag is the dark blue banner with 12 yellow stars in a circle, and the motto is “United in Diversity”, not dissimilar from the first motto of the United States, “e pluribus unum”.
Europe Day is May 9, commemorating a historic speech by French Foreign Minister Robert Schuman, one of the EU’s founding fathers, proposing the creation of a European Coal and Steel Community. [emphasis added]
Oh no, we are not imitating anybody!
The Telegraph reports that Valery Giscard d’Estaing, the man in charge of drafting Europe’s first constitution, admitted yesterday that the much-trumpeted removal of the word “federal” from the text changed nothing and was merely a ruse to shield the British government from criticism. The former French president said the cosmetic change that did not affect the shape or character of the future EU or lessen the transfer of real power to Brussels.
I knew the word federal was ill-perceived by the British and a few others. I thought that it wasn’t worth creating a negative commotion, which could prevent them supporting something that otherwise they would have supported. So I rewrote my text, replacing intentionally the word federal with the word communautaire, which means exactly the same thing.
So much for the British government’s insistence that the EU constitution will not lead to a European superstate. Downing Street has hailed the removal of the word federal as its biggest triumph in the 18-month long drafting process. Giscard d’Estaing also moaned:
It’s a campaign by people who want to destroy Europe, which is something that’s very negative and counter-productive. But I was not convinced they were really influencing the British people.
The ‘patrician’ Frenchman is right about our desire to destroy Europe or at least the bit that insists on dragging Britain into it. Such efforts do appear to be if not counter-productive, certainly rather ineffective so far. However, if we could make him right about the influence on the British people…
In response to another European Directive, the supine government of Her Majesty, will later today impose Workers Councils upon all companies employing 150 workers, or more. In 2008, the same regulations will apply to all companies with 50 workers, or more. No doubt, now this principle has been established, it will apply to my hiring of a single plumber, in the fullness of time.
Employers will be obliged to consult these councils on any change of company ownership, or on any change in the numbers of staff employed by the company; no doubt, this workers’ control will ultimately govern every minute decision taken by any employer, as the ratchet tightens itself further. This will, obviously, usher in a period of wealth, happiness, and economic harmony, as they currently possess in the rest of the mainstream EU. Like in Germany, and in France, for instance.
It seems now, that when I hire someone, by the hour, to carry out a task for me, not only do I have to compensate them, at an agreed rate, for the disutility of their labour, but I also become in thrall to them. I have to ask them whether I can suspend their employment, offer them less cash per hour, or sell my own property. Excellent. This won’t encourage me to invest offshore, invest onshore using more capital-intensive robotics, or sack more workers until I get down to a maximum of 49 people, or whatever the next minimum is. It won’t do any of that, no. It’s all been thought through.
It also offers another splendid opportunity we cannot afford to miss. As the EU expands to the east, taking in countries such as Turkey, Cyprus, Siberia, and so on, the word European becomes increasingly redundant. We could replace the whole phrase with Union. But this single word looks a little lonely, by itself, a little doubtful. To give it some added strength, let’s uniquely identify what kind of union we have, by the addition of a description of its dominant economic philosophy. This gives us, the Workers Council Union. (You may be able to guess where this is going  )
Now, as we expand to the east, we need to make our Russian brethren (or comrades), feel a little more included. They’ve always felt a bit out on a limb, so I think we should take this opportunity to make them feel more at home. So let’s rename this new improved Union, in their honour. (This also takes us away from the evil English language of the American capitalists.)
So the Workers Council Union becomes the Rabochiy Sovyet Union. Which looks good so far. But brainstorming it even further, isn’t this now a little bit too long? And isn’t that pronunciation a little difficult, particularly for the Germanic tongue? In the words of Jeremy Clarkson, yes. I think so. So let’s shorten it, and simplify that pronunciation at the same time, killing two birds with one stone. Et voila, we have arrived at the perfect social democracy we have been trying to achieve for all these years. Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you, please, a round of applause, the new Soviet Union!
At the risk of emulating the Roman Republic’s Cato, who added Carthago delenda est! (Carthage must be destroyed) to the end of every speech he made, or letter he wrote, I think I’m developing my own personal version. The sooner we are out of the EU, the better. It really cannot come soon enough.
Silvio Berlusconi has crossed the line. It was bad enough that he is wealthy businessman and not a bureaucrat. His right-of-centre views are distasteful but containable. Even his support for America could be overlooked in the circumstances.
But, now, Berlusconi has gone too far. He has brought disharmony to Brussels and insulted a left-wing Eurocrat. That is beyond the pale. That is unforgiveable. Now he must be destroyed:
Even if he is voted out at the next election, the damage that has been done to Italian democracy will be difficult to repair. Should he remain in office, the prospects are grim indeed. It is time Europe woke up to the threat Berlusconi poses. He is not just another rightwing politician; he represents the greatest challenge to democracy anywhere in Europe.
As evidenced by this frothing-at-the-mouth, hysterical denouncement in the Guardian, the lefties have struck up the cogs, wheels and pistons of their considerable propoganda machine to churn away at full steam and not stop until Berlusconi has been drawn into the mincer and disposed of.
This is not going to be allowed to simply blow over. You cannot commit the ultimate crime of cocking a snoot at the Euro-left and expect to get away with it. Over the coming months the left will deploy the entire range of their customary demonology against Berlusconi in the same way they have deployed it against George Bush. In fact, Berlusconi is now the George Bush of Europe.
Signor Berlusconi has got a lot of money and a lot of moxy but what he needs most of all now is a set of brass balls. I hope he has got those too.
The EU will shortly announce its plans to more strictly regulate the Budget Airline industry. After decades of nationalised “flag carriers”, which in Europe priced out ordinary consumers from regular air travel, world-wide Thatcherite reforms of this important transportation industry drove prices down, and greatly increased the numbers of destinations and budget price options; this brought a stagnant European industry more into line with a vibrant US.
But those heady days seem numbered under the forthcoming EU regulations. These, of course, will be written by many in a corrupt organisation regularly claiming 1st class weekend airfare expenses, from Brussels to home, without the need to produce either receipts, or even without the need to take the flight.
Instead of the consumer placing their custom where they will, with different competitors, and companies building up individual loyalty and trust in their brands, the EU has decided, in its wisdom, to crack down its regulatory whip.
For those passengers bumped off over-booked flights, compensation levels will be doubled; some claims for compensation may even be several times the original low-budget fare. The new measures will also introduce enforced compensation for delays, whether the fault of the airline or not; indeed the industry claims 75% per cent of delays are caused by the failures of the various European air traffic control systems.
Many of the companies involved, such as Ryan Air and Easyjet, have complained bitterly about this planned interference in their market. They argue that if travellers want both low fares and compensation, they should protect themselves through the purchase their own travel insurance. But it seems the EU will have its way.
Once again consumers are to be treated as mindless cattle, with an inability to make their own travel choices, change their purchasing decisions, or risk the uncertainties that low-fare travel inevitably brings with it. What’s really sad, is that many consumers in this dirigiste continent will agree with the plan; what many of these supporters won’t realise however, until it’s too late, is that they will also pay for it.
It seems certain that fares will rise sharply, to cover the airline insurance necessary to fulfil compensation claims, and the courts will be swamped with form-waving compensation-culture vultures trying to bleed the industry dry. Marginal destinations, such as the many which have recently sprung up in France and Spain, servicing holiday-home Britons, may also be dropped altogether, as their slim potential profits will fail to cover the possible compensation costs or necessary insurance.
So, thanks Big Brother EU. Where would we be without you?
The European Union’s 15 member nations have introduced a value-added tax on digital sales to residents by non-European companies. By 3rd July, non-EU companies have to register with European tax authorities to levy, collect and remit the VAT on sales of various digital goods and services. A directive issued by the EU in May 2002, mandates companies that do not have a physical presence in an EU member nation to assess the tax at the rates charged by the countries where individual customers are located.
Computerworld reports that this imposition has forced many U.S. businesses to undertake months of legal and technical preparations. The VAT in the EU countries ranges from 15% in Luxembourg to 25% in Denmark and Sweden and as a result, some U.S. companies have had to choose between two costly alternatives: updating their e-commerce systems to track sales and initiate VAT payments at the various rates, or setting up new operations in one of the member countries so they can apply its tax rate to all digital sales throughout the EU.
Scott Pendergrast of Fictionwise, an e-books seller, said it would not have been economically feasible to invest in a European operation. Instead, he is preparing to collect the tax in different countries, although reluctantly.
I think paying it is ridiculous, and it’s unfair for a foreign government to make me a tax collector. I have enough trouble keeping track of the the U.S. tax code.
Others are questioning the ability of the EU to enforce the tax on the grounds that European courts would not have jurisdiction over them. Jon Abolins of Taxware, an e-commerce software developer, has been advising companies not to do so, because there is speculation that EU countries might not fight to protect the intellectual property rights of sellers that fail to collect the VAT.
There is so much wrong with this picture one does not know where to begin. First, of all, taxing on-line transactions is not specific to the EU, merely another thieving hand of the state. Secondly, the EU approved the VAT plan after content providers based in Europe complained that they were at a competitive disadvantage because they already have to collect the tax. A classic interference of the political into the economical, so beloved of the EU commissioners. Thirdly, in a typical EU fashion the law is ambiguous as to how companies are to determine the location of the buyer and near unenforceable by the vendors. They will spend hundreds of thousands hard earned profits on installing systems designed to assess and collect the VAT and on third-party vendors tracing the IP addresses of their customers.
And, if the EU governments feel they are not getting enough, they can send the tax authorities after the companies for not collecting the taxes for them. Welcome to the EU, the land where business is just another branch of the state.
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
