Moscow will vote against the anti-Hungarian motion by the Council of Europe

Monday, June 24, 2013

Moscow opposing the Council of Europe's (CoE) hostile motion to start monitoring proceedings against Hungary said Alexei Puskov the head of the Russian delegation in Strasbourg at the Parliamentary Assembly summer session, which begins Monday.

The head of the Russian delegation said he was convinced that this initiative was a hostile proceeding against a country that did not follow the European Union's recommendations. The Russian politician also remarked that he intends to raise issues of the blatant use of double standards in the European institutions.

Alexei Puskov also wants to discuss the issue of anti-Russian decisions made by the Council of Europe in a time when in Europe massive violation of human rights takes place that the assembly regularly ignores.

The Russian politician particularly mentioned police crackdown on peaceful French protesters when opposing same sex marriage.

Due to the French and other Western European events the Parliamentary Assembly monitoring procedure law needs to be upgraded, as the organization uses monitoring proceedings exclusively against Eastern European countries while ignores violations of human rights in the western part of Europe said the Russian politician.

Earlier, the head of the Turkish delegation assured the Hungarian side that Turkey will vote against the motion by the Council of Europe to monitor Hungary.

( – MTI –


zerojr said...

they should become a neutral country

Anonymous said...

The EU Neofeudalism and the Neocolonial Financialization Model

To fully understand the Eurozone's financial-debt crisis, we must dig through the artifice, obfuscation and propaganda to the real dynamics of Europe's "new feudalism," the Neocolonial-Financialization Model.

Forget "austerity"and political theater--the only way to truly comprehend the Eurozone is to understand the Neocolonial-Financialization Model, as that's the key dynamic of the Eurozone.
In the old model of Colonialism, the colonizing power conquered or co-opted the Power Elites of the region, and proceeded to exploit the new colony's resources and labor to enrich the "center," i.e. the home empire.

In Neocolonialism, the forces of financialization (debt and leverage controlled by State-approved banking cartels) are used to indenture the local Elites and populace to the banking center: the peripheral "colonials" borrow money to buy the finished goods sold by the "core," doubly enriching the center with 1) interest and the transactional "skim" of financializing assets such as real estate, and 2) the profits made selling goods to the debtors.

In essence, the "core" nations of the E.U. colonized the "peripheral" nations via the financializing euro, which enabled a massive expansion of debt and consumption in the periphery. The banks and exporters of the "core" countries exacted enormous profits from this expansion of debt and consumption.

Now that the financialization scheme of the euro has run its course, the periphery's neofeudal standing is starkly revealed: the assets and income of the periphery are flowing to the Core as interest on the private and sovereign debts that are owed to the Core countries' commercial and central banks.

This is the perfection of Neofeudalism. The peripheral nations of the E.U. are effectively neocolonial debtors of the Core countries' banks, and the taxpayers of the Core nations are now feudal serfs whose labor is devoted to making good on any bank loans to the periphery that go bad.

To fully understand the Neocolonial-Financialization Model, we need to establish some basic characteristics of the Eurozone system. Do to that, let's start with the Eurozone and the euro.

The European Union established a single currency and trading zone for the classical Capitalist benefits this offered: a reduction in the cost of conducting business between the member nations and a freer flow of capital and labor.

From a Neoliberal Capitalist perspective, such a union consolidated power in a Central State proxy (The E.U.) and provided large State-approved cartels and quasi-monopolies easier access to new markets.

From the point of view of the citizenry, it offered the benefit of breaking down barriers to employment in other Eurozone nations. On the face of it, it was a “win-win” structure for everyone, with the only downside being a sentimental loss of national currencies.

But there was a flaw in the structure that is now painfully apparent. The Union consolidated power over the shared currency (euro) and trade but not over the member states’ current-account (trade) deficits and budget deficits. While lip-service was paid to fiscal rectitude via caps on deficit spending, in the real world there were no meaningful controls on the creation of private or state credit or on sovereign borrowing and spending.

Thus the expansion of the united economy via the classical Capitalist advantages of freely flowing capital and labor were piggy-backed on the expansion of credit enabled by the Neoliberal Capitalist structure of the union.

The alliance of the Central State and its intrinsic desire to centrally manage the economy to benefit its fiefdoms and Elites and classical free-market Capitalism has always been uneasy. On the surface, the E.U. squared the circle, enabling stability, plentiful credit creation and easier access to new markets for all...

Post a Comment

Comments using obscene language, or comments calling for hate and violence will be deleted.