At a moment which is perhaps convenient the European Commission email in response to my complaint. This occurred at 15:42 CET.
I say convenient given that it is when the vote in relation to the attempt to force a meaningful vote in relation to brexit is occuring and when it might appear, as a result of the failure of that attempt, that the UK is leaving the various european security mechanisms which are currently in place and that, on a formal basis at least, my complaint will no longer apply even if there is a very great likelihood that ti will on an informal basis.
As such it is also a statment that the European Union, as things stand, does not wish to offer protection, against the actions of the United Kingdom.
Here is my response to that complaint.
It instead goes for the easier option which is to berate member states or non-members states whoich whilst they might not be obeying EU law and might be doing something wrong, cannot really be said to be affecting other member states in the way that the United Kingdom does.
So if it is the case that Europe, as it seems, apparently does not do what should be expected of such a body and perhaps its member states, which is to protect
- Itself and its members states
- The residents in each member state
- The economic wellbeing of itself and each member states
It seems reasonable that I should should be able to choose somewhere which does. I don’t wish to sound melodramatic but it is potentially the case that there are a couple of response which would be sued to prevent me leaving, which can be broadly categorised as me being a threat of mad. Neither of these could be described a rataionl choices.
- I am rational and some sort of threat, in which case
- The member state concerned has to acknowledge this, offer protection, instead of kowtowing to the United Kingdom and the European Union has to enforce this.
- It must be seen fairly irrational to have a situation whereby a person who points out that a state is not keeping itself and its residents safe nor looking after its economic wellbeing as well as might be expected because of an external security threat (which in this instance is the United Kingdom) is themselves called a security threat. Thus in this way, the country affecting the security of a member state is protected and the person who protests is claimed to be affecting the security of the member state.
- I am irrational and unwell, in which case I am not a threat and thus they have no reason to keep me here. One cannot for reference be a “threat” with great skills and be psychotic because *in all instances* of mental ill health, all cognitive skills decline. To conclude otherwise is a statement to the effect that they are themeselves are irrational. Thus any accusation with respect to me runs along the same lines as the argument outlines in the article “Why psychiatrists sometimes diagnose psychosis when they fulfil the diagnostic criteria”.
And and its not as if it wouldn’t look slightly untowards if there were such an attempt to stop me under this pretext or others given that this is publicly available and given the fact that in the eyes of the word
Update 11/07/2018 18:20
I received a final reply which confirms the fact that the European Commission does not deal with complaints in relation to the United Kingdom and the misuse of surveillance. The reason given are again laughable and make a mockery of the European Commission.
- They claim that I said things which I never said. I stated that the United Kingdom was preventing my freedom of movement within Europe. There is no evidence to suggest that I have stated that they were preventing me from leaving.
- They don’t deal with the evidence which I have supplied and give a risible excuse that it is because it happens to have been posted on the internet.
As is normally the case with technology companies and as others have concluded, it would not be logical to expect to found or to grow a technology company in the European Union. If I had to descibe the European Union’s attitude to things like security and innovation, I would have to conclude that it is feeble, myopic and complacent and not worth the time of day.
Whilst one might disagree with Donald Trump, it is also laughable that today they feel that they can lecture a country which essentially pays for the defence of the European Union.
The fact that the European Union is not worth the time of day in terms of innvation or security would appear to have been confirmed by the United Kingdom who accessed the following article whilst I was writing the last update.
For reference, this was the status of the blog this afternoon.
And here is the status of the blog where it is indicated that the United Kingdom accessed that article on Joe and Petunia investing (or not) in the European Union.The fact that this occurred whilst I was writing the previous update, given it’s broadly similar content, would appear to indicate that someone from the intelligence services in the United Kingdom is sending an indirect message confirming what I am stating.
Is anyone in the commission really deluded enough to think that anyone who wants to found a large technology company would have anything to do with Europe under such circumstances?
Another access to the article on Joe and Petunia and investments in Europe. The European Union has absolutely no self respect whatsoever because it is quite happy for the United Kingdom to mock it in this fashion. From an investors point of view is plainly not worth the time of day.
This appears to be the conclusion reached by others who might have wanted to build a large international technology company in Europe given that Europe doesn’t have any large international tehcnology companies.