I am a supporter of the European Union and its intent to become, if one can use such a outdated term, a superpower or, to use a more precise term, a region of significant influence in the affairs of the world. As such, I write the following as a simple and necessary statement of fact even if the contents are perhaps uncomfortable for some to read and even if certain people might wish to focus on what has been achieved to the exclusion of those basic but important things which have not been achieved.
It has sadly long been very evident to me however that with respect to this intent to become a superpower (if there is indeed such a intent), there is a currently rather large elephant in the room (or rather a couple of elephants) which the European Union chooses to ignore whilst focusing upon matters which are arguable of lesser or peripheral importance.
The European Union has an unhealthy dependence upon or perhaps more accurately subordination to the intelligence services of the United Kingdom (and perhaps by extension America). It is particularly unhealthy because that member state is now leaving and it would not seem to me to be reasonable to have a situation whereby
- An-ex member has primary responsibility for matters in relation to intelligence within the European Union.
- The European Union (along its member states) can be described as sovereign let alone as a “superpower”.
A country or entity in the above category is simply not sovereign. Claiming that it is sovereign, is like arguing that Guatemala is sovereign even if Mexico had responsible for its security.
It is however worse that this, in this case, in that where you don’t have sovereignty, you don’t have security.
According to my experience which, without going into too much detail, is not dissimilar to that of others such as Annie Machon, David Shayler and Richard Tomlinson, the European Union and its member states cannot or will not effectively deal with the misbehaviour of a country which has the capacity to and does interfere in its own affairs as well as those of EU citizens such as myself.
The European Union in particular seems to have difficulty in recognizing a simple and basic truth; if you do not afford security to your citizens in the face of actions on the part of soon to be ex-members or indeed non-members, you cannot claim that you are able to provide freedom of movement and so on. The current situation whereby the United Kingdom can harass and spy upon individuals in other member states as well as the member states themselves could, given that the UK is itself a common market, be described as a situation whereby the country of Devon has authority to spy upon Wales.
According to an apparent wish for sovereignty and security, it can only be regarded as rational to have a situation whereby France and/or the European Union looks after French security rather than it being the responsibility of another member state as is case at the moment, Cooperation as opposed to dependency being of course a different matter.
At the moment however, there is a situation whereby the United Kingdom supposedly “looks after” the security of Europe through its intelligence agencies and makes a song and dance about this. I use inverted commas because it does seem a dubious argument at best to state that you are helping to prevent terrorism” when you
- Invade a country, after having been warned by the head of one of your own intelligence agencies that this would lead to a rise in terrorism (I say this as a former supporter of regime change and a fervent one at that btw).
- As a result of this invasion and further regime change in Syria, cause a refugee crisis amongst your “partners” in the Europe continent. (Given the lack of border surveillance, it is inevitable that there would be the odd individual intent on committing terrorist attacks who would slip in).
- Argue that you are protecting Europe by passing on information in relation to the terrorism which the head of your own services warned your actions would cause.
To me it sounds like you are selling something not very worthwhile in order to secure greater benefits down the line, rather like Munchausen’s syndrome by proxy but with an actual disease inflicted. It is in this sense, rather like asking Ronnie Biggs, as it were, to look after the crown jewels.
At the same time, in addition to being able to harass individuals seemingly at will, through facilities available in places such as Menwith hill, the United Kingdom, on behalf of the United States, commits corporate espionage for its own benefit.
Even given that the fact that there is an arrangement whereby a soon to be ex-member is still to all intents and purposes in control of security, some might argue that there are mechanisms within the European Union to resolve the problems which I have outlined and to bring forth improvements with respect to the overall European security architecture. This is also a dubious argument given that Sir Julian King who was employed by the Foreign and Commonwealth office for no less than 30 years and who will have signed the official secrets act is currently the European Commission’s Commissioner for security.
As European law does not appear to supercede measures like the Official Secrets Act and as he is a Briton subject to that act, with residual loyalty no doubt to his former employer, it is difficult to see how he can examine the matter of British intelligence and its interference in the affairs of other countries impartially. Indeed this lack of impartiality was demonstrated when he says he said he did not see the point of Europe having its own intelligence agency for the time being. It is overall rather like asking the police to inspect themselves.
So for someone like myself, it would appear that the British can apparently at present do much as they like and neither Europe nor indeed its member states will do much if anything to stand in their way. This is no doubt in part because there are sometimes arrangements between member states.
In this situation without security and without therefore freedom, one certainly cannot establish oneself or start a business say in Europe given. The United Kingdom can, should they feel so inclined, as they have been, attempt to harass EU citizens in other member states which it is claims it is protecting and who might benefit from such business.
In this respect and this pertains more to innovation as well as security, one might like to look to the following screen-shot from the Cambridge enterprise homepage and to read on.
Cambridge enterprise is for reference the commercialization center for things which the university might develop. It is based in a place called the Hauser Forum which was funded thanks to a rather large donation by, you’ve guessed it none other than Hermann Hauser.
Hermann Hauser co-founded a venture capital company known as Amadeus Capital partners. (Amadeus being a reference to an artist Austria of course) and as you can see, out of the four investments which have been reported on the Cambridge enterprise news feed, two have received investment from none other than Amadeus and/or Hermann Hauser. These are
I’m certainly not claiming that Hauser is definitely a crook or anything but it is at the very least poor management not to take account of the fact that as a result of a donation, you and/or the company you co-founded are in a favoured position to make investments and to financially benefit from them.
More importantly, it is rather worrying when, as occurred in my case, the intelligence services such as GCHQ work on your behalf and harass students in a vain attempt to steal work on your behalf and when you are apparently unaware of this having occurred. That is even though] you are aware that “Cambridge was very famous for corporate theft” and may have benefited from such actions in the past.
I suppose in terms of where the buck stops Hermann Hauser is rather the same position as Amber Rudd, even if both of them were unaware of things which occur in their respective organizations and even if I’m not sure I would agree with the ex-home secretary having being sacked.
It is however far more worrying when you are chair of the European Innovation Council in charge of setting policy and perhaps with no small influence in other respect and in addition to security arrangements whereby the British and others commit corporate espionage upon their European allies, someone who worked for the foreign and commonwealth office, Sir Julian King is the EU security commissioner.
In any case, I have difficulty seeing why he is seen as a financial genius given that:
- His largest concern he “setup”, ARM holdings was actually set up whilst it was under Italian ownership where he was employed after Acorn went bankrupt and it was setup anyway in conjunction with two American firms. It is also now foreign owned and there are no large international companies in the technological sector in Britain so it is difficult to see that he has any record in respect of financial worth which I understand is the criteria.
- His success in such matters (such as it is) could not have occurred if the British intelligence agencies who work on his behalf as well as corporate spies had not swung things for him (something which is very likely given other reports most notably the one I received over 20 years ago whilst at school as well as the reminiscences which others have of him)
- His success in such matters could not have made a substantial donation to the University in the form of the Hauser forum thanks to which, according to the latest front page of Cambridge enterprise, he and the company he co-founded are able to benefit financially.
- Points two and three do nothing to dispel the impression that being a success is for “certain people”
- On a perhaps unrelated note, it does seem to me that the British establishment of which Cambridge is very much part is, as much people imagine, rather incestuous and corrupt, a fact which by extension, as point outed by Jock Kane and proved by later cases, means it is liable to infiltration by foreign powers.
Overall, apart from the fact that Europe cannot prosper if it is not free from such control, (for it is control), it cannot be argued that it is possible to establish oneself in a situation whereby :
- The British are to all intents and purposes responsible for European security but if they so feel inclined can harass citizens in other member states in reaction to which the member state and indeed the European Union
- Are unlikely to do anything if at all.
- Will instead to point to other things which it has achieved such as the common agriculture policy or foreign aid. These things are of course important and laudable but are less important than and cannot make up for anything which might be described as the provision of security..
- The British can commit corporate espionage at will to benefit themselves and others in reaction to which Europe does nothing even though it is using the same facilities with which the British pledged to protect Europe..
- Europe will react at times with Stockholm syndrome and not only not protect a person who would wish to contribute in no small measure (but is being prevented from doing so) but will also back the United Kingdom.
- Things like the GPDR do not apply to government agencies as far as I can tell even though government agencies work at the behest of commercial companies much of the time.
Finally, some in Europe argue that they wish to be independent of the United States but at the same time not to deal with matters which pertain to the United Kingdom. With respect, this is nonsense on stilts.
The United Kingdom especially given places like Menwith Hill is with particular respect to its intelligence services, a satellite of the United States. It might be argued that this is attested to by the presence of an ex-CIA officer, known as Kang Tchou who is involved in the harassment in my case, who was present at St Catharine’s which is a center of recruitment for the intelligence services and whom the United States are protecting.