Reviving an older thread for a moment, people have often asked me why would I have any reservations about the EU and the "collective" of "States" that it will become (with certainty).
I detest the idea, Europe is made up from many countries and they are different, with different cultures, practices and goals. A United States of Europe "USE" approach is IMO a recipe for disaster and will only end in tears as did the former Yugoslavia and the horrors of ethnic cleansing and the like. Such a future is bleak and fraught with real danger.
A vote on in or out of te EU by the man/woman in the street is one thing, yet the general populous has proven to be un or even ill-informed and the reasons given for their voting by individuals has proved that beyond doubt.
Many posts in this thread have touched on the hidden agenda behind the scenes and none of it is unimaginable.
My fear is that the EU with all its resources, don't give a damn about the real situation and have failed to step-in when things are not correct in their own jurisdiction. The blind-eye approach to a USE is even more scary, one would have hoped that the EU would at least look after, monitor and act when things are awry in the existing member states, but it's not the case.
At a more local level for me, at least, Romania is a country emerging from the aftermath of the 1989 revolution but all is not well. I found this recent article interesting, by David Clark who was a special adviser at the Foreign Office from 1997 to 2001 and now works as a freelance foreign policy commentator and consultant.
"The recent rise of the populist right in Hungary and Poland has raised the alarm about the future of democracy in Europe, as constitutional safeguards, media pluralism and civil society come under sustained attack.
But there is another threat hiding in plain sight: the abuse of anti-corruption laws in Romania, a country often lauded as an example of successful reform in central and eastern Europe.
The country has been praised by EU leaders for its crackdown on graft, and its national anti-corruption body has been held up as a model for others to follow. But scratch beneath the surface and all is not as it appears.
In compiling a recent report for the Henry Jackson Society thinktank we found a body of evidence to suggest that the Anti-Corruption Directorate (DNA) is abusing its power and reverting to communist-era methods to serve its own interests and pursue political vendettas.
Significantly, the critics include a number of former supporters, including Traian Băsescu, Romania’s president from 2004 to 2014, who initiated the country’s first major anti-corruption drive but has now accused the agency of violating human rights and acting outside the constitution.
Conviction rates in Romanian corruption cases are astonishingly high at 92%, and a close look at the methods used by the DNA reveals why. Almost all of the most high-profile cases involve one kind of procedural violation or another.
There are examples of guilty verdicts secured with the uncorroborated evidence of witnesses who testify in exchange for immunity. Suspects are sometimes told that if they do not cooperate then family members could also face prosecution.
Pre-trial detention is used as another form of leverage (despite the non-violent nature of the crimes in question) and edited transcripts of telephone intercepts are routinely leaked to the media to discredit defendants in advance of their trials.
We have also seen cases where judges who have ruled against the DNA subsequently found themselves under investigation, and cases where people in the highest echelons of government have accused their critics of corruption on national television.
In May 2014, the then socialist prime minister, Victor Ponta, suggested that Dan Adamescu, the owner of a critical newspaper, România Liberă, would shortly be arrested for corruption. Adamescu was detained a few days later and subsequently convicted of bribery after a legal process riddled with violations.
The case is in danger of turning the British courts into an extension of the dysfunctional legal system, after the Romanian authorities issued a European arrest warrant last year to secure the extradition of Adamescu’s son Alexander. The only evidence against the younger Adamescu appears to be that he has continued to campaign for his father.
Some of the most troubling allegations in Romania, however, concern the close relationship between the DNA and the Romanian intelligence service (SRI), the successor to the feared communist-era Securitate secret police.
The DNA relies on the SRI to intercept about 20,000 telephone calls each year and has acknowledged that the intelligence agency also plays a role in initiating investigations.
In 2015, one SRI general sparked outrage by describing the courts as a “tactical field” of operations and alluding to his agency’s role in influencing the outcome of cases. Judges and lawyers responded by demanding an inquiry into longstanding suspicions that the SRI has continued the old Securitate practice of placing undercover agents in the judiciary, but the government refused.
The case of Alina Bica, head of the agency responsible for countering organised crime and terrorism, illustrates the power of the DNA-SRI nexus.
Bica was arrested by the DNA on corruption charges in 2014 and her experience followed a familiar pattern. She spent months in pre-trial detention, her husband was arrested and efforts were made to destroy her reputation with media leaks.
Bica claimed she was detained after refusing to arrest individuals whose names were suggested by the SRI. When she cited lack of evidence, she was told: “You will not end well.”
None of these details are reflected in the European commission’s monitoring reports on Romania, which paint the country’s fight against corruption in an optimistic light.
But by turning a blind eye, the European Union risks encouraging other countries in the region to follow Romania’s example, using the “fight against corruption” as a smokescreen to weaken democratic standards.
It is an environment that provides the perfect breeding ground for the type of creeping authoritarianism we are seeing in Hungary and Poland ".
It reinforces my opinion that the "buyer beware" approach is more relevant than many may have thought. Romania is in turmoil over the DNI-SRI issue, and it goes relatively unseen (even here) and ironically with the full support of our precocious "EU" mafioso, its hidden agenda and "Secret Society" roots.