Defence & Security: Is it British?

As one of the big stories about today is the Defence Review I considered that it worth discussing.

In particular one item that hit the blogs back in February is the ‘suggestion’ that UK troops be used on the streets of the UK to help and supplement our overworked, beleaguered and undermanned Police & Security services.

Lets be clear. Putting Troops on the streets is what Dictatorships do. Its what Communist states do, its not what the British do. But its going to be what the British will do under the control of the EU.

This ‘policy’ is not new, in fact I wrote about this nearly a year ago, and drew a lot of fire as being a conspiracy nut for even suggesting that troops were being selected for operational use in the UK. That the role of Armed Service Personnel is being obfuscated and muddled with civilian security.

It wasn’t released by the Tories or Labour you see, and I let slip far too early, so…

Unfortunately the role of the police and security services in keeping the streets safe is not, as our politicians would like you to believe, decided by Brown or Cameron, nor even poor Clegg, despite what you read in the newspapers.

Security Policies are now an EU competency, as ably shown by David Phipps here and explains the existence of the Military Committee of the European Union (EUMC) which was set up under Council Decision 2001/79/CSFP.

These policies are thrashed out and decided by groups set up by the European Commission, made up of vested Industry interests and unelected member states representatives. The European Parliament (the only elected body in the EU) is given a bit part and then only involved at an observer level.

This group for instance, the European Security, Research & Innovation Forum (ESRIF) has now released its final report, so if you want to see the future of Britain’s security, read this, not Camerons election manifesto.

On its website , ESRIF tells us:

ESRIF was set up and supported by the EU Member States and the European Commission together. Its members represented three different interest groups (“stakeholders”):

  • Those that will use and apply the achievements of security research – knowledge, technologies and products (often large systems): European, national and regional authorities, police, fire brigades, all kinds of emergency organisations and first responders, private and public operators of critical infrastructure etc. (“demand side”);
  • Those that perform security research and turn its outcome into technologies and products: universities, research establishments, industry, including SMEs (“supply side”);
  • And representatives of the citizens, often non governmental organisations or special think tanks, that are affected by both potential security incidents as well as the efforts to ensure their security (“civil society”).

Give a nice warm cozy feeling? To be honest, it gives me the creeps. It is the building of the new East Germany, using the latest technology for the total control of its population whilst using the spectre of terrorism, crime and paedophilia all rolled into one to justify the measures it proposes.

The website also tells us:

ESRIF members represent four stakeholder groups:

  1. The security technology / solution demand side
  2. The security technology / solution supply side
    • Representatives of industry, research establishments and academia with a particular security profile;
  3. Civil society representatives
    • Think-tanks, civil liberty organisations and other relevant experts;
  4. The European representatives
    • Observers from the European Parliament (EP) from relevant EP committees;
    • European agencies and comparable organisations in the security and / or security research domain: EUROPOL, FRONTEX and EDA;
    • the European Commission , in particular its Directorates General concerned with security and/or security research issues.

All members were nominated in spring/summer 2007 either by the EU Member States and FP7 Associated Countries (stakeholder groups 1, 2 and 3) or by the European organisations listed under stakeholder group 4.

It was agreed among them that ESRIF should have between 50 and 70 members in total. (view list of members)

Now, it is that member list that grabs my attention. Made up of those companies most likely to benefit from an increase in the level of sales of any security policies, and non elected members who are most likely to gain from the powers granted to state and auxillary bodies/companies who will implement and operate any security policies. No politicians, No elected personnel other than some EU Parliament observers.

So when Cameron and Brown, or even poor Clegg spout their latest security policies, plans for the police, the fire and ambulance services, increases in funding for private security arrangements, the UK Border police and the like, be assured that it is not their policy that they are selling you, its the policy of the Federal State of Europe, known to you and me as the EU.

To make it easy for the domestic politicians to lie to you, to tell you that the EU doesnt run policy, what happens is this.

ESRIF delivered its final recommendations in autumn of 2009 and the Final Report was published in December 2009.

As stated in its mandate, ESRIF will expire at the end of 2009.

Here today, job done, gone tomorrow. Within the European Commission structure there are several hundreds of these groups, (creating policy that is then translated firstly into Commission opinion, a rubber stamp vote through the EP, then into national law and sold locally to the public by domestic politicians as their own Party policy), groups that vanish as quickly as they came about.

I now collect these documents…..

.

We know that British politicians don’t create our domestic policies despite their protestations to the contrary, a Federal EU state has done that, and it has taken the power to create policy, and everything else, without your permission.

If you want that Federal EU state to have your permission, it needs to ask, and to that end Albion Alliance is the tool to use. A referendum, yes or no, that is all we ask.

.

ps. Over the weekend I read again Mussolini’s Doctrine of Fascism in which it states: “The Fascist conception of the State is all-embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value. Thus understood, Fascism is totalitarian, and the Fascist State, a synthesis and a unit inclusive of all values, interprets, develops, and potentates the whole life of a people.”

After reading that ESRIF report, I rather think that history is very much repeating itself, but then life, and society, does run in cycles.

Oh, and if you wondering where these extra troops would come from, here is the Nov 2009 Liam Fox announcement regarding the 20,000 UK military personnel currently based in Germany.

UPDATE: 04/02/10 18:15

The European Commission has responded in its document entitled “A European Security Research and Innovation Agenda – Commission’s initial position
on ESRIF’s key findings and recommendations”

It notes:

The EU security industry with an estimated market value in 2008 ranging from 26 to 36 billion Euro is growing rapidly with a highly skilled labour force and a high R&D content.

Just like the scams and scares over Global Warming and Pandemics, using the Four Horsemen of the Infocalypse, the Security industry has moved from being a very minor part of the economy into a huge and major invader in our lives, giving control of our movements, information, communications and lifestyle to government and private bodies. Remember, Security is a business which requires a return on its investment.

The EC gives as its preliminary conclusions.

This is a preliminary reaction of the Commission to the ESRIF final report. The Commission considers the results of the work of ESRIF as being important and welcomes its strategic orientation. It takes note of its recommendations and highlights the following topics that the next Commission might wish to consider to analyse further:
• the role of the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights to undertake research concerning the relationship between security and private life and data protection;
• the need to reinforce the “ethical scrutiny” of projects reviewed under the FP7 Security Theme and make the results of on-going R&D projects in the area of security as widely accessible as possible;
• the societal dimension as an inherent expected impact of all its FP7 Security Theme’s call for proposals;
• the possibility to bring the most innovative security sectors into the Lead Market Initiative;
• how to speed up pre-commercial procurement in the security domain;
• the ways for speeding up certification, validation, and, as appropriate, standardisation work in the area of security, notably as regards the applicability and efficacy of a “European Security Label”;
• how it can best respond to foreseeable new security missions and priorities, either within the framework of the current FP7, or in preparation of the future framework programme;
• the ways to better link, at EU and Member State level, European security research and development with more operational aspects of security;
• the establishment of a permanent working structure to implement ESRIF
recommendations;
• the possibility to establish a forum to strengthen the competitiveness of the security industry active in the field of research and innovation, such as a High Level Group with the involvement of all public, private sector and civil society stakeholders.

One thing to remember! Voters are not stakeholders, Voters are not end users. Security systems in this context are used to control you, not necessarily to protect you.

Advertisements

About IanPJ

Ian Parker-Joseph, former Leader of the Libertarian Party UK, who currently heads PDPS Internet Hosting and the Personal Deed Poll Services company, has been an IT industry professional for over 20 years, providing Business Consulting, Programme and Project Management, specialising in the recovery of Projects that have failed in a process driven world. Ian’s experience is not limited to the UK, and he has successfully delivered projects in the Middle East, Africa, US, Russia, Poland, France and Germany. Working within different cultures, Ian has occupied high profile roles within multi-nationals such as Nortel and Cable & Wireless. These experiences have given Ian an excellent insight into world events, and the way that they can shape our own national future. His extensive overseas experiences have made him all too aware of how the UK interacts with its near neighbours, its place in the Commonwealth, and how our nation fits into the wider world. He is determined to rebuild many of the friendships and commercial relationships with other nations that have been sadly neglected over the years, and would like to see greater energy and food security in these countries, for the benefit of all. Ian is a vocal advocate of small government, individual freedom, low taxation and a minimum of regulation. Ian believes deeply and passionately in freedom and independence in all areas of life, and is now bringing his professional experiences to bear in the world of politics.
This entry was posted in European Union and tagged , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Defence & Security: Is it British?

  1. jameshigham says:

    It’s the plausible reasons they give for the next step which would be so amusing if it weren’t so worrying.

  2. CherryPie says:

    The idea gives me the chills but I do wonder how they propose to implement this when our troops are deployed in Afghanistan and more service personnel are promised for deployment there and they are cutting back on service personnel.

    It will be interesting to see how they work that one out.

  3. Pingback: nourishing obscurity » Going round in circles

  4. Pingback: nourishing obscurity » The EU and Sovereignty

  5. Pingback: nourishing obscurity » Specific ways the EU operates

Comments are closed.