FOLLOWING THE EUROPEAN UNION

Does this come as any great surprise? The suprise would be if the nations of Europe could agree with each other. Do I hear a crack,crack,crack?

EU Split Over Sky Marshals
A U.S. government demand that foreign airlines put armed marshals on selected flights to and from the U.S. is putting European airlines opposed to the practice under pressure and creating yet another transatlantic row.

Ireland, which currently holds the EU's rotating presidency, has said it plans to hold a summit of EU aviation officials to resolve the crisis between Europe and the U.S. over the deployment of armed air marshals on certain transatlantic flights.

Several EU member states -- including Sweden, Denmark, and Portugal -- have said they oppose the new regulations, which are part of the U.S. government's tighter security precautions aimed to prevent a terrorist attack similar to that on Sept. 11, 2001.

Although Washington has not yet specified with what frequency and on what routes it expects airlines to have sky marshals on board, some European airlines say compliance will mean economic disadvantages. Georg Fongern of the international pilots' association IFALPA described the U.S. directive as "unaffordable." He said the measures will hinder the competitveness of European airlines, which unlike American airlines, won't be able to count on government support for the implementation of the measures and the cost of the seats taken up by air marshals.


Air marshals not new in Europe

Some European airlines, however, are taking the new U.S. directive in stride. The German carrier Lufthansa, for example, has been deploying air marshals on some flights since October 2001. Shortly after the Sept.11 terrorist attacks, Germany's Federal Border Guard assembled a troop of around 100 marshals to accompany randomly selected Lufthansa flights to North American destinations. So far the marshals have never had cause to intervene.


Switzerland, although not a member of the EU, has been using air marshals for over 30 years, with specially trained undercover police and army recruits boarding random international flights.


France, which up until the 2003 pre-Christmas period had never had armed guards on flights, has said it would put air marshals on flights to the U.S. if information from American or domestic intelligence showed it was necessary.


British pilots unhappy

The U.S. demands have created controversy in its traditional ally Britain, where government officials defended the additional security measures despite opposition from British pilots, who fear the presence of armed air marshals could create more danger on transatlantic flights.



"The thought that you have got people behind you in a pressurized cabin with guns and bullets is not a happy thought," said a spokesman for the British pilot's association, BALPA. "But if the government persists, we want certain conditions laid down."



The British pilots' union is now working on gaining concessions, such as the right for pilots to be informed when air marshals are on board, and an agreement that the flight captain should retain overall command. The union also wants assurances that pilots and crew be given the choice not to fly on planes that will be manned with air marshals.



British Airways has said it will accept the presence of air marshals, but charter company Thomas Cook Airlines, which is partly owned by Lufthansa, announced that it would rather ground its flights to the U.S. than have armed marshals on board.


German pilots' good experience

German pilots with experience of flying with air marshals on board have said they've overcome their initial mistrust of the situation. "I've so far only had positive experiences," said Capt. Markus Kirscheck from the pilots' association Cockpit, adding that good training is essential for good cooperation. He said German pilots work together with the trainers of air marshals in a simulator, so that both sides understand each other's jobs.

Still, IFALPA views the U.S. directive as an attack on the sovereignty of other states, and says there are other, less expensive ways to prevent an airplane from turning into a terrorist weapon. The security improvements to cockpit doors, and increased security measures in airports for example, mean air marshals can offer limited additional security, according to IFALPA's Georg Fongern. "We have to banish danger on the ground," he said. "Once you're in the air, it's too late."

DW staff (dc)

Leftists agree to launch pan-European party

11 January 2004

Socialist and communist organizations from across Europe joined a call Sunday to launch a common European leftist party to fight for threatened social welfare systems and disarmament.

Representatives from 11 leftist organizations capped a two-day meeting in Berlin by signing a manifesto calling for the creation of a Party of the European Left, with a founding congress scheduled for April, said the head of the ex-communist Party of Democratic Socialism (PDS) in Germany, Lothar Bisky.

"We aim to create a new Europe," said the chairman of the Italian communist party PRC, Fausto Bertinotti.

"The Europe of the Party of the European Left is against war and neo-liberal policies."

Bisky admitted there were still deep divisions between the parties that hoped to join under one umbrella but said there were "no differences that cannot be bridged".

Eight parties who participated in the gathering opted not to sign on but said they would join the continuing process as "observers".

Although the new party would not be able to present candidates in the elections for the European Parliament in June, it hopes to raise the profile of member parties during the campaign with the birth of the new alliance.

Signatories of the manifesto included leftist parties and other organizations from Austria, the Czech Republic and some of its regions, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Luxembourg, Slovakia as well as Spain.

However, we still have the old new "Neues Deutschland":
Eurolinke schuf Basis für gemeinsame Partei

EU Commission protects nearly 1,000 nature sites

BRUSSELS, Jan 14 (Reuters) - The European Commission placed nearly one thousand nature sites in Europe's mountains on a special protection list on Wednesday to save endangered animal species and plants from extinction.

The EU executive Commission wants to stop the disappearance of the brown bear, yellow lady's slipper orchid and mountain hay meadows from alpine regions across Europe.

Approximately 37 percent of mountainous areas in Austria, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Spain and Sweden will be covered by stricter rules to limit environmental pollution and habitat destruction.

"Only by working together at EU level can we maximise the protection for our most valuable species and habitats," EU Environment Commissioner Margot Wallstrom said in a statement.

The seven EU member states now have to establish the nature sites in the Alps, Pyrenees, Apennines and part of the Fennoscandian mountain region in Finland and Sweden as protected zones in their national legislation.

Copyright 2004, Reuters News Service

Brussels decision to take legal action splits EU[/size]

Are the euro rules going up in smoke?

EUOBSERVER / STRASBOURG - The European Commission today decided to launch unprecedented legal action against member states over their effective suspension of the euro rules last November.

Announcing the decision to journalists during the European Parliament's session in Strasbourg, the spokesman for Economic and Monetary Affairs Commissioner Pedro Solbes said that the controversial move was made after a "long and comprehensive debate".

There was no vote on the issue, as some had expected, although the spokesman confirmed "this does not mean that there was unanimity".

The Commission will now ask the European Court of Justice to rule on a procedure taken by finance ministers last November to avoid disciplinary action being taken against France and Germany for their persistent breaking of the rules underpinning the euro. Brussels believes the procedure was "not appropriate" and has received legal advice confirming this.

The spokesman also confirmed that the Court would be asked to "fast-track" the case, which would mean the issue is resolved in 3 to 6 months rather than one or two years. But it is up to the court to decide whether to grant this.

High risk, high reward
This highly controversial issue has provoked strong - and diverging - reaction across the EU.

The Commission itself was thought to be highly divided during the debate, with commissioners from the bigger countries in favour of letting the case drop and officials from smaller states wanting to push ahead.

Brussels finds itself in an unfortunate no-win situation. If it had decided not to launch legal action, its authority would have suffered, but its decision to go ahead in the courts is likely further to damage relations between the Commission and member states.

This catch-22 dilemma was highlighted by the leader of the Liberals in the European Parliament Graham Watson, who described the move as a "high risk, high reward strategy". He nevertheless welcomed the announcement saying, "Not taking legal action would mean tacitly accepting the decision of ministers to forget their responsibilities and throw out the rule book".

The Parliament's largest political group, the European People's Party, also welcomed the action as it showed that "the Commission cannot be blackmailed".

But the leader of the Greens, Daniel Cohn-Bendit described the action as "mere folly", adding, "it won't take us anywhere".

Co-operation, not confrontation
This latter view was, not surprisingly, shared by German finance minister Hans Eichel. Alluding to the many controversial issues on the EU plate, Mr Eichel said, "considering the tasks before the European Union in the near future, it would be more helpful to have co-operation rather than confrontation".

Unexpectedly, he was backed by Austrian Finance Minister Karl-Heinz Grasser. Mr Grasser was one of the most outspoken critics of the ministers' decision to suspend the disciplinary procedure but he said, "I am not in favour of a lawsuit by the Commission ... simply because I think it is the wrong political instrument".

But the other main critic, Dutch finance minister Gerrit Zalm said on Dutch television that he was "very happy" with the decision.

The current President of the Council of finance ministers - the object of the complaint - reacted coolly. Irish finance minister Charlie McCreevey said that he "noted" the decision and that it was a "matter for the Commission".

Businesses condemn
Trades unions and business groups were unusually united in condemning the action. In a letter addressed to Commissioner Solbes before the decision was taken, the Secretary-General of the European Trades Union Confederation, John Monks said, "legal action of the kind envisaged can only make a bad situation worse".

His view was echoed by the Secretary-General of business group eurochambres, Arnaldo Abruzzini, who said, "We think a legal decision is not appropriate to combat this problem which has a vast political dimension".

Next steps
The Commission will now debate ways of modifying the rules that have caused so much trouble recently.

A report due in February will outline possible reforms which may include taking greater account of the economic cycle when measuring deficits and placing greater emphasis on public debt.

Meanwhile, the Commission will carry out its task of economic surveillance of member states.
Written by Richard Carter

UK set to join Franco-German 'motor'

London looks set to join Paris and Berlin for a 3-way motor of the EU (Photo: EU Commission)
UK Foreign Secretary Jack Straw wants Britain to link up with France and Germany in order to strengthen the 'motor' driving an enlarged EU.

In an interview with French daily Le Figaro, Mr Straw said, "Associating the UK with the Franco-German motor seems logical as Europe passes from 15 to 25 members". He also hinted that, whilst France and Germany could provide leadership for a union of 15, they would need more power to lead an enlarged EU, which the UK could provide.

London's move to form a more concrete 'big three' at the heart of the EU may concern smaller EU states and some future member states because of worries that the union will become a 'directorate' led by the UK, France and Germany.

Many in France and Germany may also question whether the UK is ready for such a leadership role given, amongst other things, its reluctance to join the euro.

Enhanced co-operation at work
But Mr Straw's statement comes after several signs that the three powerful EU states are working more closely together.

London backed Paris and Berlin over the euro rules row and broadly followed the Franco-German line during the failed negotiations on the new EU Constitution.

More concretely, the big three led a successful diplomatic mission to Iran in an effort to stop its suspected nuclear weapons programme - sidestepping the EU's diplomatic chief Javier Solana.

Mr Straw said, "The EU's foreign policy is written on a piece of paper. Our mission to Iran gave substance to it".

In another sign of growing co-operation, Messers Chirac, Schröder and Blair - the leaders of France, Germany and Britain respectively - will meet next month to discuss ways of thrashing out the Constitution and other EU matters.

Europe needs America
In an effort to draw a line under past disagreements over foreign policy - notably during the Iraq crisis, Mr Straw said that "the past is the past. What interests me now is that the situation in Iraq is improving".

However, in comments that may find less support in Paris or Berlin, he also emphasised, "Europe needs to work with the US because Europe on its own can do nothing. It's useless to pretend anything else".

He also stressed the role of member states in formulating foreign policy, saying, "It is simply not possible that Europe's foreign policy can be done only by the EU. There will always be a double action: that of the member states and that of the union ... our governments will never give up the final decision because at the root of it all is our defence".

Hmmm. Not exactly my impression - but obviously I always meet the 'wrong' persons, like pro-EURO Labour members, MP's and a Minister from the Foreign Office, who leads the Labour "pro-Europe"- committee

how many pro-Euro are there in the UK ? Any idea ? I can't find recent figures.

Saturday's marches against the law banning headscarves in schools attracted fewer people than the organisers had predicted; about 10,000 in Paris and 20,000 across the country. The marchers were all women and almost all the stewards were men.

The marches had been organised by a radical Islamic organisation, the Parti Musulman de France, which has been accused of making anti-semitic statements in the past. More moderate Muslim organisations, including a women's group that opposes the wearing of headscarves, said the marchers were unrepresentative of followers of Islam.