via Times Online

I am going to hang Saakashvili by the balls,” Mr Putin declared.

Mr Sarkozy thought he had misheard. “Hang him?” — he asked. “Why not?” Mr Putin replied. “The Americans hanged Saddam Hussein.”

Mr Sarkozy, using the familiar tu, tried to reason with him: “Yes but do you want to end up like [President] Bush?”

Mr Putin was briefly lost for words, then said: “Ah — you have scored a point there.”

Certain ideas of Europe:

Foreign visitors arriving via Eurostar at London’s St Pancras station on Thursday might have wondered just how badly Britain has been hit by the credit crunch: more than 100 people turned up at St Pancras wearing only their underpants.

Jochen Bittner’s blog “planet in progress”:

Neenee! Lassen Sie mal. Sie wurden gelobbyt!

Meiden Sie zuviel Champagner, er ruiniert Ihre Magenschleimhaut.

• MEPs who accept paid work and hospitality from businesses with a vested interest in their legislative work
• MEPs with a financial interest in industries they promote
• MEPs who are in key legislative positions – for example, chairing parliamentary committees – while at the same time being involved with powerful business lobby groups.

the reasons behind the report:

The report argues that these potential conflicts of interest demand the attention of Europe’s leaders, more so than the recent scandals involving MEP’s expenses. Too Close for Comfort? profiles 12 MEPs from the UK, Germany, France, Finland and Romania. Their activities are seen as illustrative of these potential conflicts of interest but are not deemed extraordinary.

So, who is included? Here is the list of MEPs:

• Sharon Bowles: Patent lawyer pushing patents
• John Purvis: Investing in industry
• Klaus-Heiner Lehne: Another lawyer pushing patents
• Elmar Brok: MEP and media man
• Jorgo Chatzimarkakis: Network of lobbying links
• Malcolm Harbour: MEP inside the car industry
• Giles Chichester: Close to (nuclear) power
• Pervenche Beres: Opening doors to the financial industry
• Caroline Jackson: Benefiting the waste industry
• Ioan Mircea Paşcu: Consultant to US military contractors
• Eija-Riitta Korhola: Pro-nuclear and funded by nuclear
• Martin Callanan: More MEP motoring perks

You can download the report here.

Maybe also some potential contestants for the “Worst EU Lobbying Awards” … ?

1. The main ‘Worst EU Lobbying’ Award: it is to be given to the lobbyist, company or lobby group that in 2008 has employed the most deceptive, misleading, or otherwise problematic lobbying tactics in their attempts to influence EU decision-making.
2. This year’s event also includes a special ‘Worst Conflict of Interest’ Award for the MEP, Commissioner or Commission official whose background, side-jobs or other liaisons with special interests raise the most serious concerns about their ability to act in public interest. This category has been introduced to highlight the need for the Institutions to act to clean up their own house – the past years have seen many cases of conflicts of interests and not much action by the institutions to prevent them.

Winners of last years awards include German car manufacturers BMW, Daimler and Porsche for the ‘Worst EU Lobbying’ Award and “The German Atomic Forum” was awarded the special prize for ‘Worst EU Greenwash’.

I think this is quite an important initiative that is worth supporting! Go here to nominate your “favourite” lobbyist, company, MEP, Commissioner…  Nominations close 12th September, the internet voting will start on 13th October!

It should be rather easy to find someone for the second category (I am sure a MEP will make it to the final…)! I am still thinking about an appropriate campaign/ company for the first category… if you have good ideas, just post it in the comments!

La Quadrature du Net / Squaring the Net, a European NGO initiative, released a press release that criticises a series of amendments which aim “at closing the open architecture of the Internet for more control and surveillance of users.” The proposed amendments could jeopardise the net neutrality principle and might change the nature of the internet:

European Internet users could be blocked from lawful activities by mandatory spyware, in the interests of their security. The right to use free software for internet access would therefore not be assured anymore. The neutrality of the Internet is also directly attacked, as is the principle that technical intermediaries have no obligation to prior surveillance of contents. Other amendments will de facto enable administrative authorities to obligate ISPs to work with content producers and rights-holders’ private police, including the sending of intimidating messages, with no judicial or regulatory oversight. (more…)

There is also a wiki in English, French and German with the main arguments against the amendments and some guidelines how to get active and how to contact relevant MEPs.

A good overview about the whole issue can also be found in this Briefing paper on the Telecoms Package (pdf) by Monica Horten, a PhD student at Westminster University:

Abstract:

This paper considers how imminent changes to European  telecommunications law will permit the monitoring and blocking of websites and peer-to-peer exchanges by ISPs, in  a way that is currently not legally possible. These legal  changes  will also permit ISPs to sanction users by suspending or terminating Internet access. And they are essential in order  for the French ‘riposte graduee’ or ‘3 strikes’ copyright enforcement measures to be implemented.

The changes are a series of hidden amendments related to copyright, and contained in the so-called ‘Telecoms package’. This paper argues that  these amendments  will  effectively erode  the ISP’s legal status of ‘mere conduit’, which currently  protects individual rights and liberties on the Internet. It argues that the ‘mere conduit’ status should be preserved, and  the copyright amendments rejected. The proposed copyright amendments will result in the loss of individual freedom and privacy on the Internet – in breach of fundamental principles of human rights law in Europe.  Ultimately, they  could open the door to wider political or commercial censorship, and this is the real danger of permitting them to get into law. The risk is that this will happen without proper legislative scrutiny or public debate. The European Parliament committees responsible for the Telecoms package vote on July 7th and the Parliament as a whole will vote on September 2nd. (more…)

Update 10.7.2008: EU Parliament split over electronic data protection