The Command Post
Global Recon
October 27, 2004
Recent EU Developments
Germany, France back Turkish invite to membership talks
"We are both of the opinion that on December 17 it is about a decision that should give Turkey the opportunity to negotiate with the (European) Commission with the explicit aim of Turkey joining the European Union and with no other aim," Schroeder told reporters. French President Jacques Chirac added that it was his "dearest wish" that Turkey's membership talks with the EU end in its joining the bloc.

also

MEPs win battle over anti-gay commissioner
Last night Mr Barroso realised he would almost certainly lose today's vital vote of approval for his team. Instead he came to the chamber today to announce he was not submitting his team for approval and would be holding new consultations with EU leaders and MEPs.
BBC
Mr Barroso told MEPs that civil rights and anti-discrimination policy were "top priorities" for the new commission. He insisted his whole team was "worthy of trust" and told MEPs that a No vote would be "a bad moment for the whole of Europe".

and

The Eu is pressuring the US to get on board with Kyoto. This comes after Russia ratified the treaty.
The Federation Council voted 139-1 with one abstention to endorse the protocol, which aims to stem global warming by reducing greenhouse-gas emissions. The quick vote came four days after the lower house ratified the treaty.

Posted by Robert Mayer at October 27, 2004 08:15 AM | TrackBack
Comments

..((ANYTHING)).. Jacques Chirac supports..makes me suspicious..a possible face saving gesture...Kyoto..with all this talk about "GOOD" job creation in this country..fat chance.. if a company has to spend un-realistic amonts of money for quite possibly flawed standards,imho..ANYTHING TO SLOW DOWN THE AMERICAN ECONOMY..AND THESE ARE THE ALLIES KERRY WANTS TO RUN TO ...go figure...

Posted by: Rob_NC [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 27, 2004 08:56 AM

It's funny how if Bush had paid attention to Chirac we wouldn't be at war right now; your gas would cost less (think of how much extra money you've spent and will spend on gas), our soldiers would not be dieing every day, billions and billions of our tax dollars would not be going into Iraq but into our own interests, I could go on...
Anything to slow the american economy down?..They're agreeing to the treaty too you cretin! This is for the good of mankind for gods sake! Get your imbecile head out of your ass and smell the bloody daisies!

Posted by: redSun [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 27, 2004 09:04 PM

..sorry if I hit a nerve there..you trust the back stabbing sob if you like ..they could care one rats ass about the enviroment..if you really believe that you trully are living in a fantasy..

Posted by: Rob_NC [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 27, 2004 11:53 PM

If we sign it, we will do as we promise. I have little faith that France, China or Russia will stick to the treaty for one millisecond longer than it works to their own financial benefit.

Yes. It is absolutely necessary to do something about greenhouse gases, but is there any reason to believe that this complex bureaucratic process would actually work? Why was Clinton so reluctant to support it?

Posted by: jj [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 28, 2004 06:00 PM

Post a comment

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (Click here should you choose to sign out.)

As you post your comment, please mind our simple comment policy: we welcome all perspectives, but require that comments be both civil and respectful. We also ask that you avoid the extensive use of profanity, racist terms (neither of which we consider civil or respectful), and other boorish language.

We reserve the right to delete any comment, and to prohibit you from commenting on this site, if we feel you have broached this policy. As a courtesy, we will first send you an email noting a violation so you understand the boundaries. This will occur only once, however, and should we ban you from our comment forums we expect that ban to be permanent.

We also will frown upon those who suggest that we ban other individuals for voicing unpopular opinions, should those opinions be voiced in a civil and respectful manner. The point of our comment threads is to provide a forum for spirited though civil and respectful discourse … it is not to provide a forum in which everyone will agree with your point of view.

If you can live by these rules, welcome aboard. If not, then we’re sorry it didn’t work out, and thanks for visiting The Command Post.


Remember me?