Rural Development Minister Sándor Fazekas met Sergei Sidorsky who is responsible for the agricultural policy of the Eurasian Economic Commission

Friday, October 11, 2013


Rural Development Minister Sándor Fazekas met Minister Sergei Sidorsky who is responsible for the agricultural policy of the Eurasian Economic Commission on Thursday in the Russian capital.

Fazekas remarked to MTI that the purpose of the meeting was to create a personal working relationship with the minister that is responsible for the agricultural policy of the Eurasian Economic Commission representing a single economic space and Customs Union created by Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan.

The two sides discussed issues such as helping Hungarian companies that meet the criteria entering in the Single Economic Area with a population of 170 million.

The Hungarian rural development minister said he received unconditional support from Minister Sergei Sidorsky regarding the issues important from the Hungarian point of view; one such issue dealing with the removal of administrative barriers as the key to encourage Hungarian companies to do business in the Eurasian Custom Union.

(MTI – hungarianambiance.com)

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

An interesting Russia Today RT discussion of Ukraine's decision to either join the Atlantacist (Anglo-American-Zionist) EU or the Russian-led EurAsian trade block. Considering the (disaster) track-record of EU expansion of former Central - Eastern European countries into the EU - a big win for the Globalist bankers and trans-national corporations, a disaster for citizens, what does Ukraine (or Croatia) expect to gain by joining the EU ? How can Ukraine compete in agriculture, for example, against heavily subsidized (Western) EU states when the Central - Eastern (new member) EU states had their agriculture industries decimated by joining the EU ? Does Ukraine need to join a trade block ?

Unfortunately, the past century of (sovereign City of London engineered) tragic European history undermined a natural North-South trade alliance of Central-Eastern European states from Baltic: Finland -> Mediterranean:(former) Yugoslavia + Turkey + Greece as a Continental European balance of East and West. What a tragedy of history !

The issue of national "debt" is really a fiction - banks "create money out of thin air" - banking is a scam - nations are only financially bankrupt due to the Bank of International Settlements (BIS) financial scam requiring nations to borrow from private banks (at compound interest) rather than (debt free) increasing the domestic money supply by the government "printing" and spending money into the domestic economy from the National Central Bank. Checkout (centralized public banking advocate Ellen Brown (ellenbrown.com) and the Public Banking Institute (publicbankinginstitute.org) or decentralized "Social Credit" economics and public banking (socialcredit.com.au).

Recent Ellen Brown interview:
prn.fm/2013/11/progressive-radio-news-hour-ellen-brown-110313/



Go for broke: Ukraine’s risky EU trade deal

rt.com/business/ukraine-eu-trade-agreement-088/

...Russia, Belarus, and Kazakhstan met in Minsk on October 24 to discuss the formation of a Eurasian Union in 2015, a political and economic alliance which will incorporate other Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) like Armenia, Tajikistan, and Kyrgyzstan.

...Membership in the EAU entails uniting economies, legal systems, and customs services - and military coordination with Russia. In order for the ambitious plan to work, Russia needs to lure strategically important nations like Ukraine into the trade circle...

Anonymous said...

EU Goes East: Political Offer for Economic Colonisation

www.strategic-culture.org/news/2013/11/08/eu-goes-east-political-offer-for-economic-colonisation.html

... The official language of the «Eastern Partnership» speaks of «shared values» and «offers to deeper integration with the EU structures by encouraging and supporting (the six member states) in their political, institutional, and economic reforms based on EU standards». Sentences like «following the principles of market economy and good governance» sound a bit more concrete. They express Brussels’ determination to use the «Eastern Partnership» as an instrument to form large parts of the post-Soviet bloc along the needs of the European Union. Economically this includes open borders for EU-exports and investments, control of imports and use of cheap work force. The economic enlargement needs to be backed and secured by political and juridical institutions favourable to the project, therefore the so-called «institution building» represents one of the key factors in the whole partnership program. The disruption of traditional political relations and economic ties with Russia turn out to be the geopolitical effect of the story. It follows the model of EU-enlargements as it took place between the Baltics and Croatia; all these countries had to give up preferable trade agreements with non-EU-partners when they entered Brussels’ Union.

The «Eastern Partnership» project is defined by four main topics: Institution building, energy security, regional development and economic integration. Institution building goes along with catchphrases like «good governance» or «rule of law». They all aim at the creation of a new administration following the corpus of EU-laws as they were fixed in the «Community acquis». This accumulated legislation of the European Union translates the four main capitalist freedoms into 80.000 pages of some 20.000 legal measurements, namely the free flow of capital, commodities, services and (partly) work force. In the case of six Eastern member states of the EaP the integration idea gives priority to the strong Western Global players over relatively week Eastern competitors. The exception of Ukraine capital in some branches might be possible, but is a relative one, if we remember the second privatization of Krivorijstal steel-works, the country’s biggest enterprise, under Timoshenko in October 2005. Some months before, Krivorijstal had been re-nationalized and thereby taken away from an Ukrainian consortium consisting of the two oligarchs Viktor Pintchuk and Rinat Akhmetov and sold to the world’s largest steel producer, the group Mittal. This example shows a concrete outcome of institution building favourable to Western interests. The argument of Timoshenko at the time, that Krivorijstal was privatized too cheaply in June 2004 under Leonid Kutchma, sounds familiar for somebody who followed privatization processes throughout the 1990s and is not specific for Krivorijstal...

Post a Comment

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

Dear Reader,


The comment section of this blog has been shut down due to the activity of a nasty agent provocateur who has been targeting this website for quite some time.


Have a nice day!