US - Greater Involvement in Iraq Expected

Nouri Maliki's departure sets stage for deeper U.S. role in Iraq August 14, 2014 Obama now is expected to approve proposals to open the Pentagon spigot wider, sending new shipments of weapons and equipment as well as potentially hundreds of additional U.S. advisors to help Iraqi and Kurdish units with tactics and potentially to call in airstrikes, officials said. About 1,000 U.S. advisors and other military personnel already are in Iraq, mostly in Baghdad. Obama said Thursday that most of the 20 or so special forces who had helped assess the conditions faced by Yazidi refugees stranded on a mountain in northern Iraq would leave the country in coming days. “The situation remains dire for Iraqis subjected to [Islamic State fighters’] terror throughout the country, and this includes minorities like Yazidis and Iraqi Christians,” Obama said on Martha’s Vineyard, where he is on a family vacation. “It also includes Sunnis, Shia and Kurds.” He emphasized America’s attempts to provide humanitarian relief, but he also said the Pentagon would continue the airstrikes he authorized last week “to protect our people and facilities in Iraq.” About two dozen airstrikes so far have supported Kurdish forces near Irbil, capital of the semiautonomous Kurdish region, or helped break the militants’ siege of Mt. Sinjar, where the refugees had gathered. But several senior U.S. officials said airstrikes could be launched closer to Baghdad if the extremist fighters show signs of threatening the capital. Asked about that possibility, Rear Adm. John Kirby, the Pentagon spokesman, did not rule it out. [...] In June the militants took Mosul in three days with a few hundred fighters, as an Iraqi security force of 50,000 that fled their positions, according to U.S. officials. The group now controls oil fields and refineries and could have access to as much as $100 million in annual revenue, the officials said. The militants’ rule in areas controlled by Islamic State has been “brutal but ‎so far effective,” said a U.S. intelligence official. He said they have used beheadings and crucifixions to terrorize the population but those tactics may backfire. Nearly all the Islamic State leaders spent time in American-run jails during the Iraq war, according to U.S. intelligence officials who briefed reporters on condition they not be identified in discussing internal intelligence assessments. Some of the militants were held only a few weeks after being picked up in a raid, but others spent years in the detention centers, where they were radicalized and made connections with other militants, the officials said. Yet few drew attention at the time, and U.S. intelligence officials know little about their backgrounds. The organization’s leader and self-proclaimed caliph uses a pseudonym, Abu Bakr Baghdadi‎, and U.S. intelligence agencies don't know his real name, the officials said. Times staff writers Kathleen Hennessey in Edgartown, Mass., and Patrick J. McDonnell in Irbil contributed to this report. EXTRACT - FULL @ SOURCE http://www.latimes.com/world/middleeast/la-fg-iraq-maliki-20140814-story.html#page=2

Looks like I got it wrong. They're not just going to form a government and get on with it.

Nope.  US is going to get more involved.

How's 50,000 guys chickening out from the fight?

What exactly is the point of putting money, weapons etc into the country if people aren't going to use that support?

Bergdahl - Platoon Mates' Book - Knocked back by publishers 'censoring' in favour of Obama?

Inside the Bowe Bergdahl book proposal: Soldier's platoon mates speak out By Michael Isikoff August 13, 2014 2:46 AM Yahoo News While the U.S. Army weighs whether to bring charges against Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, who was freed earlier this year after spending nearly five years as a Taliban captive in Afghanistan, six of his former platoon mates are shopping proposals for a book and movie that would render their own harsh verdicts. A draft of their book proposal, a copy of which was obtained by Yahoo News, depicts Bergdahl as a "premeditated" deserter who "put all of our lives in danger" — and possibly aided the Taliban — when he disappeared from his observation post in eastern Afghanistan in the early morning hours of June 30, 2009. But the political furor over Bergdahl's release from Taliban captivity — the result of a U.S.-Taliban deal to swap five Guantanamo terrorism suspects in exchange for Bergdahl's freedom — is complicating the book's prospects. Agents for the soldiers say that some publishers have balked, in at least one case out of fear that the project would bolster conservative criticism of the Obama administration. "I'm not sure we can publish this book without the Right using it to their ends," Sarah Durand, a senior editor at Atria Books, a division of Simon & Schuster, wrote in an email to one of the soldiers' agents. "[T]he Conservatives are all over Bergdahl and using it against Obama," Durand wrote, "and my concern is that this book will have to become a kind of 'Swift Boat Veterans for Truth'" — a reference to the group behind a controversial book that raised questions about John Kerry's Vietnam War record in the midst of his 2004 presidential campaign. (Durand did not respond to requests for comment. "We do not comment about our editorial process," said Paul Olsewski, vice president and director of publicity at Atria.) Another complication is that Bergdahl's former platoon mates are all potential key witnesses in the Army's investigation into his 2009 disappearance. Two of the would-be authors, who were recently questioned as part of the Army probe, insisted in interviews that they aren't advancing a political agenda but want to set the record straight, as they see it, about Bergdahl's conduct and President Obama's praise for him at a Rose Garden ceremony in May. [...] EXTRACT - FULL @ SOURCE http://news.yahoo.com/inside-the-bowe-bergdahl-book-proposal--his-platoon-mates-speak-out-064607293.html

So you can have your right to freedom of speech; but we just won't publish you?

IRAQ - al-Maliki Steps Down

published: 09:54 august 15, 2014 Iraq's Maliki finally steps aside Reuters Nuri al-Maliki finally bowed to pressure within Iraq and beyond on Thursday and stepped down as prime minister, paving the way for a new coalition that world and regional powers hope can quash a Sunni Islamist insurgency that threatens Baghdad. Maliki ended eight years of often divisive, sectarian rule and endorsed fellow Shi'ite Haider al-Abadi in a televised speech during which he stood next to his successor and spoke of the grave threat from Sunni Islamic State militants who have taken over large areas of northern Iraq. "I announce before you today, to ease the movement of the political process and the formation of the new government, the withdrawal of my candidacy in favour of brother Dr Haider al-Abadi," Maliki said. Maliki's decision was likely to please Iraq's Sunni minority, which dominated Iraq under Saddam Hussein's iron rule but was sidelined by Maliki, a relative unknown when he came to power in 2006 with US backing. Maliki had resisted months of pressure to step down from Sunnis, Kurds, some fellow Shi'ites, Shi'ite regional power Iran and the United States. He had insisted on his right to form a new government based on the results of a parliamentary election in late April. His stubborn insistence stirred concerns of a violent power struggle in Baghdad. But in recent days, as his support was obviously crumbling, he told his military commanders to stay out of politics. "From the beginning I ruled out the option of using force, because I do not believe in this choice, which would without a doubt return Iraq to the ages of dictatorship, oppression and tyranny, except to confront terrorism and terrorists and those violating the will and interests of the people," Maliki said. On Wednesday, his own Dawa political party publicly threw its support behind Abadi and asked lawmakers to work with him to form a new government. And Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, offered his personal endorsement to Abadi, distancing himself from Maliki. [...] EXTRACT - FULL @ SOURCE http://www.dhakatribune.com/middle-east/2014/aug/15/iraqs-maliki-finally-steps-aside

Important news, I'd say.

But I'm not knowledgeable about the middle east, so all I get out of this is that Iraq will now presumably be able to form a government that everyone will presumably accept, leading to stability?

Anyway, looks like a step forward.

How's the bit about 'came into power ... with US backing'?

Why's US interfering in internal affairs of other countries?  Doesn't sound too democratic to me.

GERMANY - CANADA & EU TRADE AGREEMETN (CETA) - INVESTOR-STATE DISPUTE HAZARD

Why Germany Is Backing Away From a Trade Deal That Lets Corporations Sue the Government Wednesday, 13 August 2014 09:16 In a move that has many on the left cautiously celebrating, Reuters reported on July 28 that Germany might reject a new trade agreement between Canada and the European Union. The deal is called the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, or CETA. It's part of a new wave of large, aggressive trade deals that also includes the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) between the United States and the European Union, and the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) between 12 countries of the Pacific Rim. If all the deals passed, they would affect more than half of the world's economy. But the red light from Germany could signal that these agreements are not as inevitable as their advocates suggest. Germany's objections are centered specifically on the so-called "investor-state dispute settlement" provisions in CETA. These provisions—also known by the acronym ISDS—allow transnational corporations to take legal action against individual governments if they believe that the country's domestic laws violate a trade agreement. And the legal disputes happen through arbitration, which is a way to settle disputes completely outside of the involved countries' courts. We've seen this movie before. Chapter 11 of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) stipulates that three-person panels of private attorneys decide who wins in disputes between corporations and individual governments. These proceedings are closed to public observation. The fallout has been dramatic: Corporations have used the NAFTA tribunals to win big-ticket monetary settlements from the taxpayers of nations whose domestic laws interfere with corporate profits. According to a report by the consumer-rights advocacy group Public Citizen, there are 17 pending claims in which corporations are seeking a total of $38 billion through NAFTA and other deals. The compensation won through these claims hits particularly hard in Argentina—the most frequent target of these cases according to a 2014 report by the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development. In one example, Argentina was ordered to pay $185.3 million to the energy company BG Group, who sued for profits lost when the country froze gas prices in 2001. Argentina is not alone: another report by the same U.N. group shows that 66 percent of investor-state cases initiated in 2012 were brought against "developing or transition economies": SOURCE - here - credit UNCTAD [...] Some implications Germany is no stranger to similar dispute settlements. After the country decided to phase out nuclear power following the disaster at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant in 2011, the Swedish energy firm Vattenfall filed for arbitration to seek €3.5 billion ($4.6 billion) in damages, blaming the country for past and future loss of profits. Considering how that worked out, Germany's change of heart is perhaps to be expected. But some commentators see the move as proof that global organizing against the new round of trade agreements is gaining ground. Arthur Stamoulis, director of the Citizens Trade Campaign, noted that "The German government and other governments are starting to feel the heat from public opposition to [investor-state dispute settlements]." Yet not everyone is convinced by the messages coming out of Berlin. Peter Fuchs, executive director of PowerShift, a Berlin-based NGO focused on international trade and investment policy, expressed skepticism toward the idea that German opposition will sink CETA. "Unfortunately, you cannot trust this government at all when corporate interests are at stake," Fuchs said, calling the German government "a staunch proponent of neoliberal trade and investment agreements." According to Fuchs, this is a time for the public to ramp up pressure by calling on politicians to reject the trade deals. [...] EXTRACT - FULL @ SOURCE http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/25544-why-germany-is-backing-away-from-a-trade-deal-that-lets-corporations-sue-the-government

This sounds rather interesting.

Read somewhere that Japan and Australia concluded a deal without these provisions, so it's not like it's impossible to alter that clause when it looks like it could be an issue.

It looks like sovereignty issues might come into play as well.

....................................................

Check this out:

Corporate Sovereignty Tribunal Makes $50 Billion Award Against Russia

 ...

In an historic arbitral award rendered on July 18, 2014, an Arbitral Tribunal sitting in The Hague under the auspices of the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) held unanimously that the Russian Federation breached its international obligations under the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT) by destroying Yukos Oil Company and appropriating its assets. The Tribunal ordered the Russian Federation to pay damages in excess of USD 50 billion to our clients who were the majority shareholders of Yukos Oil Company.

That comes from a press release issued by the lawyers acting for the Yukos shareholders, who are also doing quite nicely:

The Tribunal also ordered the Russian Federation to reimburse to our clients USD 60 million in legal fees, which represents 75% of the fees incurred in these proceedings, and EUR 4.2 million in arbitration costs.

Even for an oil- and gas-rich country like Russia, this is obviously a massive amount of money. A detailed and insightful post by Kavaljit Singh puts it in context:

In relative terms, the compensation award is equivalent to around 11 per cent of Russia's foreign exchange reserves, 10 per cent of annual national budget and 2.5 per cent of country’s GDP. Given the magnitude of compensation, the Award could be more damaging to the Russian economy than all the economic sanctions imposed by the West against Russia for its actions in Ukraine.

He goes on to point out one of the most worrying aspects of these awards by tribunals:

What is most astonishing is that the arbitral tribunal has not provided any standard or credible rationale behind awarding $50 bn in compensation to claimants. The calculations of total damages put forward by claimants are based on assumptions and hard evidence is lacking.

EXTRACT ONLY - FULL @ SOURCE

https://www.techdirt.com/blog/?company=yukos+oil+company

NYT Butt Kisses Merkel's Slowed Economy & Embellishes Big, Bad, Russia Hysteria

Germany Puts Curbing Russia Ahead of Commerce By ALISON SMALE AUG. 13, 2014 BERLIN — Over recent months, something significant has happened in Europe: In the crisis over Ukraine, Germany has assumed leadership not just in its familiar fashion of trying to coax Russia away from belligerence and bluster, but also in standing firm and imposing sanctions on Moscow even if they hurt German business. Perhaps even more remarkable is that Germans, long anxious to preserve commercial, energy and cultural ties with their vast eastern neighbor, have gone along. Seventy percent of 1,003 adults polled last week by Infratest dimap for the public broadcaster ARD approved of stricter sanctions; just 15 percent viewed Russia as a reliable partner in a poll with a three-percentage-point margin of sampling error.  [*Eyeroll* - surveys mean jack.] In marked contrast to France’s leadership, Chancellor Angela Merkel and her government — a united “grand coalition” of center-right and center-left — have kept German businesses apprised of any shift in thinking and made it clear throughout that tougher sanctions would be imposed if Russia fell further out of line. The political upheaval over Ukraine has already affected Germany’s economy, slowing down growth and throwing into question the country’s ability to sustain its long record of robust performance even amid anemic recovery elsewhere in the European Union, economists said. The sanctions that would restrict trade between the countries are likely to cause further damage. But the shocking downing of a Malaysian passenger airliner over eastern Ukraine in July hardened many Germans’ resolve and, with Germany leading, led to even tougher European sanctions on Moscow. Now, as Russia sends a huge convoy it says is delivering aid to beleaguered eastern Ukraine, Berlin is firmly warning Moscow not to exploit the column of trucks for military use or proceed without Ukrainian agreement, and telling Ukraine to show restraint and not worsen the plight of trapped civilians. Appeals to reason have long been a hallmark of German policy. But, even if still couched in caution, there is a clear determination to show Russia that there can be no return to business as usual, even among German businesspeople who have spent years cultivating ties and profits there. The support comes from surprising quarters. Eckhard Cordes, chairman of the Committee on Eastern European Economic Relations,  ... noted that Moscow’s retaliation last week for the latest European sanctions would only sharpen the negative trends in business with Russia [So far, not the case] and that his group warned early on of the dangers of sliding into tit-for-tat sanctions. But he stopped well short of objecting to the Western measures or repeating warnings of past months about the danger of losing hundreds of thousands of jobs by shutting down the ties of 7,000 German companies doing business in Russia. Gernot Erler, a lifelong Social Democrat ... spent decades promoting the Ostpolitik of reconciliation with the East. Now, he is bitingly critical of Russia and its leader. “The policy of Vladimir Putin is destroying reserves of trust with breathtaking speed,” Mr. Erler said in an email. “Russia is not naming its goals and has suddenly become unpredictable. And being unpredictable is the greatest enemy of partnership. Restoring trust will take time.”  [Back-at-ya sanctions were entirely predictable.  LOL] Government officials, speaking privately, use the word tragic to describe what they see as President Vladimir V. Putin’s rupture of decades of careful détente. The lament is echoed by businesspeople dealing with a country that seemed eager to look West and to have forgiven the Germans for the Nazi crimes and immense bloodshed of World War II.  [What a load of melodramatic crap this is.] “The trust we built up together and mutually in the last 15 to 20 years — not just in trade, but in school and sports exchanges, I myself did a lot here — has been shaken,” said Ralf Meyer, 50, a logistics manager who has worked with Russia since 1993 and has run his own company exporting air-conditioning and other climate control systems since 2006. “Parents are afraid to send their children to Russia to play matches. Much capital has flowed out of Russia that had already been sent in for specific investments. Projects have been delayed or canceled. Banks, whether giving lines of credit or bridging finance, delay answers.” Mr. Meyer estimates that 1,900 people, mostly in Russia, depend on his company and associated contracting, fitting, repair work and transportation. Yet he does not fault the German government. Ms. Merkel, of the center-right Christian Democrats, and Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier, a Social Democrat, have managed the situation well, said Mr. Meyer, whose company is based near Hamburg. “I have faith in our government that it makes the right decisions for business,” he said, despite his disappointment “that we sometimes orient ourselves too close to what America wants,” even as the United States has “made some big mistakes in East European policy.” “These sanctions are not the right way to get into a better situation with Russia. One must sit down and listen to what Russia wants,” he said, adding that he did not think Russia would invade Eastern Ukraine. Many German businesspeople fret that ties might never be fully restored. Small and medium-size businesses — the backbone of Germany’s export-driven economy — are calling the Association of German Machine Builders to express their fear that Russian partners will turn to the Asian competition, maybe permanently ... If Germany’s economy stalls further as a result of lost business with Russia and general uncertainty in a war-torn world, then it may drag down ... a still faltering recovery across Europe. There are signs that differences over dealing with Russia may exacerbate tensions within the European Union ... France and Britain have exchanged barbs over the wisdom of selling amphibious attack boats to Moscow, as France insists it will, or catering to the finances of Russian oligarchs, as the City of London does. President François Hollande of France, under much greater political and economic pressure than Ms. Merkel, has been less vocal in encouraging business support of sanctions, whose effect and scope have been debated for months in Germany. [...]  The largest minority in Germany, estimated at 3.5 million, is Russian speaking — many, like Ms. Fischer, descendants of ethnic Germans who went to Russia centuries ago and have returned, along with Russian-born Jews and others who settled in Germany in the past 20 years. To a degree unknown in the United States or even farther west in Europe, Russia is familiar. This has perhaps stiffened Germany’s resolve now that Russia has suddenly become, as Mr. Erler noted, unpredictable. Germans dislike the unexpected and have spent months rallying a determination not to let Mr. Putin’s actions stand. [...]  Seventy years after World War II, he added, “we confront in just a few short weeks a policy that changes borders by force. That cannot become the norm, either in Europe, or the world.”  Besides, he said, “the hollowing out of the principle of territorial inviolability could, in the end, be most dangerous of all to the multination state of Russia.” http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/14/world/europe/ukraine-crisis-hardens-germany-against-russia-an-old-partner.html?_r=0

Eckhard Cortes - Wikipedia - here.  Businessman/CEO - Metro AG (looks like supermarkets, nearly 300k employees worldwide).

Cortes, along with a bunch of fat cats and celebs, is signatory to a 'Energy Policy Appeal'  2010 - wikipedia - here - which is lobbying pro German use of nuclear and coal energy.

Gernot Erler - Wikipedia - here - SPD party former politician, former German foreign minister etc.   Seem to love him in Bulgaria for some reason. 

Ralf Meyer's a businessman.  

...................................................................................

When I look at this article, what I see is 'valiant' Angela Merkel, mutter Germany, making sacrifices (the slowing of the German economy etc) ... and [cue sad music and get out the hankies] ... enter Germany's hardened resolve, after the downing of MH17.

How clever is this piece of propaganda?

Is this the final stage of propaganda that Goebbels was referring to -- where your target is so successfully vilified that whatever occurs is the target's 'fault', without question?

Sure sounds like it to me.

Then the article goes on to build up sensible, finger-wagging Germany 'showing' recalcitrant Russia there cannot be business as normal.  

Doesn't mention that the US installing puppet government, US sinking $5 billion into Ukraine (a grab for Ukraine - it's strategic position, its resources, Ukraine as a pawn (and European ENERGY MARKETS!), that Biden's son's already at the helm in Ukraine and that the spoils have probably already been divided.

Hello?  US has slapped the sanctions on Russia because US has $5 billion investment in Ukraine -- and EU followed suit, because the EU is another US and corporate puppet.  **Also, read somewhere that sanctions PUT RUSSIA OUT OF THE RUNNING IN THE BUY-UP OF UKRAINE ASSETS ETC.  Don't know if this is true, but it wouldn't surprise me in the least.

Then there's the often repeated 'warning' to Russia; now in relation to humanitarian aid.  But, hey, they'll use any opportunity - no matter how irrational - to smear Russians.  

We've had this crap from NATO/Rasmussen etc and aid has been blocked by Obama and Cameron ... until Russia said 'we're delivering' ... then aid was suddenly Poroshenko's idea - LMAO.  Suddenly, EU also stepped in with a few million Euros in what is supposed to be 'humanitarian aid'.  Is there even an authority that makes sure this actually *does* go to those it's supposed to go to?

So, Russia's this big, bad wolf -- and the big, bad wolf has been warned.

But this is painting Russia as an 'aggressor' in the ABSENCE of aggression.

It is the US and its bully EU/NATO puppets that are the aggressors.

Suddenly, *Russia's* unpridictable -- what? It was entirely predictable that Russia would react with its own sanctions; even a 5 year old would work that out.  But let's play 'Russia's unpredictable'.

Actually, what *is* unpredictable is Ukraine.  Ukraine with its US puppet government.  Should be interesting to see how that pans out for everyone.  But, never mind, let's not analyse that.  Let's analyse Russia's make-believe unpredictability.

We then have 3x German business types give their pronouncements.  Of course, they're going to back their own government.   It's a government that serves corporate interests and US interests first and foremost, so that's not something business talking heads are likely to criticise, is it?

We did have a survey in there, but so what?  Surveys mean jack.  You can spin them any way you want to and, at the end of the day, it doesn't matter what people think.  People are (a) ignorant (b) apathetic (c) passive & easily sucked in by governments, propaganda etc -- and they don't count at the end of the day, because government policy isn't geared towards pleasing people; it's all about corporate interests.

But surveys make for good propaganda about the 'public will' or some bull like that.

So far, it doesn't look as though sanctions against Russia have had an impact on Russia.  Read today that the rouble's up.  So if there's a dampening of economy, it's out west. 

The article goes on to cover some West vs East mended bridges broken melodrama:

Tragic   -   rupture of the 20 year east/west love affair.

Lament  -  wailing of businessmen who want to make money.

Afraid   -  afraid to send children to sports in Russia?  Oh, please.  It's not Nazi Germany 1939.

Capital  -  capital flowed out -- as above.

There's this build up of a picture that's not warranted -- at all.  Russia's going about her business.  Russia's not threatening anybody.  

If there's anyone they should be afraid of it's the US and NATO, because it's NATO amassing troops around Russia.  And listen to the justifications for attack on Russia (eg Rasmussen constantly making allegations about non-existent 'threat' from Russia) -- and just listen to the US politicians who use Ukraine as a political football; listen to them baying for blood-letting.  That's blood chilling reading in the US.

But nobody has anything to say about that.

Ralph Meyer at least said he doesn't think Russia will invade Ukraine and, despite backing his government, he seems inclined to thinking that government policy isn't always right etc. 

Yep.  So quit with the propaganda and hysteria making justifications for war, USA.

UK SWAMPED BY IMMIGRATION - almost 2 MILLION FOREIGN WORKERS

Number of Romanian and Bulgarian workers in Britain hits new high Office for National Statistics says migrants from Bulgaria and Romania topped 150,000 in the second quarter of this year, up by 13,000, as overall EU migration jumps by 187,000 in just three months 10:16AM BST 13 Aug 2014 The number of Romanians and Bulgarians working in Britain has hit a new high after a huge surge in eastern European immigration. Figures from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) showed workers from the two countries, which saw job market restrictions lifted at the start of the year, topped 150,000 for the first time. There was also a massive leap in immigration from other eastern European countries known as the ‘A8’, such as Poland, which joined the European Union 10 years ago. Workers from Poland, Lithuania and the rest of the A8 jumped to 861,000 at the end of June, up 58,000 in three months and up 178,000 year-on-year. Sir Andrew Green, chairman of MigrationWatch UK, which campaigns for tougher immigration laws, said: “This is the sharpest increase in A8 migration since the boom year of 2007. “The fact that it has occurred despite measures to restrict benefits underlines the need for Britain to renegotiate with the EU about the terms of free movement of workers." The total number of workers in Britain from across all EU countries was 1,836,000 in the latest figures, a leap of 187,000 or 11 per cent in just three months. [...] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/11030392/Number-of-Romanian-and-Bulgarian-workers-in-Britain-hits-new-high.html

 A8 Countries

The A8 countries are the eight countries with low per capita incomes that joined the European Union during the 2004 enlargement. The countries were:

•     Czech Republic
•     Estonia
•     Hungary
•     Latvia
•     Lithuania
•     Poland
•     Slovakia
•     Slovenia

Source:  Wikipedia - here.

Being swamped by foreign immigration is the stuff of nightmares!

One of the 'benefits' of EU membership, I guess.  But who does it benefit?  LOL

On top of that, people have to compete for limited jobs with those new arrivals.

Good luck maintaining work, work conditions and living conditions.

This open borders stuff is unbelievable.

US SOCK PUPPET APPOINTMENT EUROPEAN UNION HIGH REPRESENTATIVE

A Top Diplomat for Europe: Who Will Replace Catherine Ashton? August 14, 2014 The European Union will soon select its next “foreign minister”—the high representative for foreign affairs and security policy—but rumors suggest an opportunity may be missed. At a time of so many international crises, Europe needs a more robust voice and America needs a stronger partner. Now should be the time for a more effective European voice in foreign affairs. The usual means of jockeying for jobs in Brussels should not drive decision making. Generating a needed sense of unity and activism behind any new lead in articulating European foreign policy should be the desired objective. Controversy in the recent choice of the next president of the European Commission, the EU's executive body, ought to be avoided in the selection of the new high representative. President-elect Jean-Claude Juncker, heretofore not one of the continent’s most widely known figures, will need heft with German chancellor Angela Merkel and other top leaders, for example, to help shepherd to a successful conclusion the negotiations with America on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership. Two years ago in Warsaw in a public discussion with Polish foreign minister Radek Sikorski, former U.S. secretary of state Henry Kissinger chuckled that long ago he was credited with asking whom he should call if he wanted to call Europe. “I am not sure I actually said it, but it's a good statement.” More seriously, he added, “Even if a telephone exists and even if they answered it, the answer is not always very clear.” In replacing Baroness Catherine Ashton when she departs in October, the new high representative will jump right away into high-stakes diplomacy with U.S. secretary of state John Kerry and Russian foreign minister Sergey Lavrov. Kerry served for nearly three decades on the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and was a presidential candidate before becoming secretary last year. Lavrov, a career diplomat, served for a decade as Russia’s ambassador to the United Nations and is now in his eleventh year as minister. Kerry and Lavrov are diplomatic heavyweights. The next high representative ought to be in this class. The top diplomat should breathe life into the EU’s stalled common foreign and security policy. Geopolitical challenges are becoming more important for the Union, yet much of its diplomatic practice and machinery remains geared for calmer times and smaller ambitions. The next high representative ought to be widely respected and capable of giving the Union a more prominent place at the international table. Only some of the candidates being discussed meet these criteria. Sweden’s current foreign and former prime minister Carl Bildt would raise the EU’s diplomatic prominence as high representative. A veteran international statesmen, he helped bring peace in the Balkans. Poland’s current foreign and former defense minister Radek Sikorski also has deep international experience. He is playing a key role in helping the West deal with the Russia-Ukraine crisis.  .... The new high representative should bring prestige to EU diplomacy, and build confidence in America that the Union will pull more weight in addressing common challenges. EU leaders would diminish the Union, and themselves, by picking a high representative who operated only in the shadow of national foreign ministers. [...] Europeans sometimes lament having no say in the choice of American leaders, but having to suffer their foibles. This goes both ways. U.S. interests are much affected by EU leadership, as in confronting Russian aggression in Ukraine and negotiating with Iran on its nuclear weapons program. Close U.S.-EU cooperation is essential to stemming security and humanitarian risks in Syria and Iraq and fostering peaceful change in North Africa. [...] http://nationalinterest.org/feature/top-diplomat-europe-who-will-replace-catherine-ashton-11074

Of course close US-EU cooperation is essential to the US.  The EU is just another one of it's ITS tools for manipulation and control.

Sweden's Carl Bildt and Polands Radek Sikorski are the most obvious US puppets you could ever come across.

It would serve the US well to have one of those sock puppets appointed.

Notice more of the 'Russian aggression' bullshit.  Geez, if you repeat it often enough, Goebbels ...

...................................................

Dumb spelling blunders really piss me off!  LOL

Should proofread more carefully.  Sigh.