Frontex Files
frontexfiles.eu
frontexfiles.eu
> The Problem - Migrants (slide two in the gallery on the landing page)
You know that this is an important topic because "ZDF (former Neo) Magazin Royal" is behind that. They are an kind of investigative satire format, unfortunately topics like these are not too funny... But very good work from their side.
Frontex was always suspected and accused for not following any EU moral and legal processes, this is just a proof and absolutely unacceptable.
One of many (MANY) grants under H2020-EU.3.7. Secure societies - Protecting freedom and security of Europe and its citizens programme with a total budget of 1.7 billion EUR[3].
Another example chosen at random[4]: Improving the Effectiveness of the Capabilities (IEC) in EU conflict prevention, 2 million EUR, beneficiaries seem to be universities and think tanks. Another one? Ok[5]: EfficieNT Risk-bAsed iNspection of freight Crossing bordErs without disrupting business, ~7 million EUR, 1.3 million of which went to -- for some reason -- the French government owned nuclear power research think tank CEA, other beneficiaries include manufacturers of things like airport metal detectors who apparently need millions of EU funds to improve their own products.
The H2020 in H2020-EU.3.7. is Horizon 2020[6], the 2014-2020 research funding framework (2014-2020 was a EU budget cycle, the current one is 2021-2027), which had an overall budget of an "estimated €80 billion of funding".
What's my point? I have no point, really, I don't know a lot about EU research funding in general or this domain in particular, but it was interesting to look this stuff up and if nothing else it's nice to see that these things are out in the open for anybody to look up, even if virtually nobody does. Given how much money is being spent here, I can't help but wonder what kind of fraction of a fraction civil society is spending checking up on all of these projects.
[1] https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/700643
[2] http://safeshore.eu/, defunct, apparently 5 million wasn't enough to buy the domain for more than 4 years; working snapshot from late 2020: http://web.archive.org/web/20201128133711/http://safeshore.e...
[3] https://cordis.europa.eu/programme/id/H2020-EU.3.7.
[4] https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/653371 from the page with all H2020-EU.3.7. programs https://cordis.europa.eu/search?q=contenttype%3D%27project%2...
[5] https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/883424
[6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framework_Programmes_for_Resea...
Furthermore, the CEA is leading the project for very good reasons and the help of companies manufacturing airport metal detectors makes perfect sense: "3) Enhanced relocatable unit for non-intrusive detection of wide number of threats including explosives, illicit drugs, chemical warfare agents, nuclear and radioactive materials (NR) and special nuclear materials (SNM) such as enriched uranium and plutonium, 4) Trans-European RPM network for passive detection of illicit nuclear and radioactive (NR) materials combining detection facilities of different types and technologies" (simply quoting your sources)
“A new regulation passed by the European Parliament in the spring of 2019 stipulates that Frontex is to have a “standing corps” of 10,000 by 2027, and it is allowed to equip border agents with handguns.
The problem is that no legal regulations permit members of an EU agency to carry firearms.”
Why are lobbyists so interested in Frontex?
“...In addition: Since 2019, Frontex has been permitted to own and acquire airplanes, drones and firearms.”
-
So the concern is that Frontex is being “too forward” in acquiring weapons it’s allowed to own, but not carry for some reason, while also being dishonest/misleading about meeting with vendors, correct?
Biometric usage, and meeting with other border agencies instead of human rights groups aside.
Is money that powerful? What else can we do than to vote carefully?
One other thing that surprised me in this article is the inclusion of "representatives of EU border control agencies to these meetings, but also international organizations such as Interpol, Europol and the OSCE, as well as representatives from countries known for their brutal border control policies" - I would definitely consider meetings with relevant state institutions from EU countries (which are partners of Frontex) and non-EU countries (which are generally doing equivalent functions as Frontex) as something entirely distinct from lobbying.
To be clear, I agree that we need to improve the situation, however ignoring that lobbying is better than what came before it isn't particularly helpful. Influence is a core component of social power structures. You can't legislate it away.
So even if there are regulations in place, as long as institutions not facing dire consequences for noncompliance, the rational thing to do as a member of such an institution is to ignore said regulations.
As long as the negative consequences of your actions are minimal at best while some form of positive consequences are very likely, why comply with regulations.
More steps need to follow and strong enforcement.
Lobbying in that metaphor is the kid in the family with the most clout convincing the parent they should spank another sibling instead
Devolving power to organisations that by their nature represent fewer than the whole population and aren't under any form of democratic control are nowhere near what we should want.
Unless you're a rich billionaire who can afford lobbyists of course.
Is this a fact? States are monopolistic armed organisations, and democratic states mean that who to point this violent threat at is determined by popular vote - the mob decides.
My claim is that this does not remove the moral evil of using violent threat to get your will.
Re: your last paragraph: lobbying exists just because of the state - if you can convince those closest to the trigger who to use force against and who to leave alone, you can succeed at your competitors cost. It is a natural reaction to lobby, like a child of a violent family may convince the parent to spank a sibling instead
It's not a fact, but it's parroted so often that people take it as one. Disagreeing with it immediately makes you a fascist. Sadly. I can't understand how voting about other people is supposed to be freedom, but somehow this question is also fascist.
> Some things shouldn't ever be voted about.
In many democracies, certain things are codified into constitutions and are hard to change, and typically not frequently, if ever, voted on. Is that what you mean?
The country where I live (Czechia) was praised for having one of the strongest constitutions ever written. Now its been destroyed by a populist government for a decade, with the destruction rate multiplied with the pandemic which this government is unable to do anything about while constantly trying to shift money into their pockets. Thanks to the pandemic they can do anything regardless of the constitution or law, but even before the pandemic we found out the constitution is worthless if there isn't anyone with the power to protect it, and that any wording (specific or broad, doesn't matter) will bend to the will of the judge.
If constitution is what you rely on you're in for a bad ride, you need ordinary people with guns ready to defend it. I will not trust a constitution to protect me or my property ever again.
Young democracies usually have a period in which both politicians and the people need to get used to a new way of doing things, and defining the new way of doing things. This can take a while, e.g. see the Napoleonic period and its aftermath. A nice feature about the French republic is the tradition of the reboot: they're at v5 of the Republic now, with fully revised constitutions and significantly changed shapes (parliamentary to presidential systems for instance), something many countries could learn from I think. A defacto dictatorial period is often one of the first phases of new democracies.
Secondly, a problem common to quite a few eastern European countries is an unclear separation of powers (trias politica) and even unclarity about the need for it among many voters. Such an instance could (and should) be able to overrule certain kinds of fundamental changes.
Some scholars describe democracies as inherent experiments, which I think is very fitting and something we need to emphasize more. Obviously trying to organize things in a cooperative, or not that cooperatively, is a ongoing affair. There is no way to guarantee anything, but the people's continued involvement. I'd hope they typically wouldn't need guns, but can use tools like constitutionals courts, and, of course the ballot box at various levels of government. Like you say, a more regionalist design can make more local autonomy possible, see Germanys states vs highly centralized French style of governing.
• Purchase/trade with a legitimate owner • Receiving as gift from a legitimate owner • Creation of discovery where there is no legitimate owner
Otherwise, we call gaining property “theft”. For example by using threats of violence to coerce others to give you what they legitimately own.
The sin of democratic governments is that they are all about gaining property in non-voluntary ways. When I vote for a candidate who promises my interest group money taken from others, I am just stealing with a proxy. That is why representative democracy is not ethical or good. Note that this does not make kings or emperors ethical either.
The right way to resolve disputes and protect property without a state would be with agreements between clients, insurance companies, and dispute resolution companies, just like how businesses in their contracts write that in case of dispute, company X will decide who is in the right.
Those who think they can plan other people’s lives, and who today aspire to work in government and centrally plan on behalf of others against their will, should instead open advice columns in newspapers. If they are so good at planning for others, they’ll be widely successful, but I have my doubts.
Case in point: Norway has 10x the amount of oil as America, and infinitely more than Switzerland, a country devoid of natural resources. Norway has a huge coastline and many ports - Switzerland is land locked. Yet you’re 4x as likely to be a millionaire, the average person makes more in CH before and after taxes. This is clearly due to Norwegians choosing high regulation, high tax, and limited personal freedom. With their head start of massive oil resources, the average Norwegian should live better than the average swiss. But incentives for central planners are inherently inefficient.
The Basic Law of Germany, approved by the Western allies in 1949, included telecommunications as a responsibility of the federal government. And so the federal government thought to create a television service to compete with those of the states. The states sued and won in the constitutional court - saying that telecommunications only referred to infrastructure and delivery, definitely not the content (think fascism and communism as to why). The resulting corpse was used by the states as a foundation for a new broadcaster formed through a state treaty.
Germany is part of the EU and thus Frontex. The individual states of Germany organised a sister organisation, ZDF, to the Federal Republic of Germany itself and it isn't.
One reason I mention all this is because we've got a broken media environment unlike Germany here in Australia with a vast amount of media concentration. And the constitutionality of the ABC is based on the constitution saying that telephones and the postal service fall under the responsibility of the federal government. The ABC isn't Australia Post or Telstra. Yet somehow we all just went along with the premise. So this is what happened here in a similar situation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghan_Files_(Australia) - a police raid, the federal government applying pressure and a chilling effect for all future publications. The top three options in Australia for a 'stop the boats' leak like this would be 1. a broadcaster under a massive _chilling_ _effect_ by the 'stop the boats' government, 2. Rupert Murdoch or 3. Nine, with Costello in charge, who was literally the deputy 'stop the boats' guy. Horrifying.
So when I see comments like
> It's really worrying that there's some concentrated effort to take Frontex down.
No, this leak comes from the constituent states of Germany being concerned by a "superior" power doing things that they haven't been authorised to do. Whether it's the Federal Republic of Germany deciding to start a public broadcaster despite the states (and Allied powers) not having agreed to that being its responsibility or whether it's the European Union starting a military (which it's not allowed to do) it's the same thing. It might be a concentrated effort, whatever - it doesn't matter - because it's a constitutional necessity. This leak here is an extremely important part of the process that all "inferior" constituent parts of something should engage in to keep the greater parts in check.
Something the constituent states of Australia should take more seriously.
Same thing as in germany, article 73 (7)
To be precise, this is not a leak, those documents were obtained via EU’s freedom of information law.
AFAICS it's not a leak, but a regular freedom of information request. And I'm not too familiar with how German media works, but if it's anything like the Dutch national broadcaster, it's not actually the states that are pursuing this, but journalists on their own accord.
Which leads to hilarious results like the Koch Brothers funding NOVA.
That said, Sinclair and the like excluded, the splintering of television networks into individual markets and restrictions on O-and-O stations are world-class exemplary parts of the US media landscape.
Also, what I meant is that put it funding somewhere out of reach of the general taxation pool. Tie it to property taxes, have a licence fee, a foundation with an endowment, a levy on something or other, individual sponsorships, that kind of thing.
Tying the funding and thus existence of your media to a healthy democracy is like giving a horse its own rope, they'll trot off into the sunset never to be seen again.
This is like a federal CBP x Coast Guard that also works with the Texas Border Patrol & Texas Coast Guard, the California Border Patrol & Florida Coast Guard, etc
[0] - Homeland Security Investigations (small, quiet, transnational), deals with e.g. cartels, movie piracy, the FBI, child porn, while Enforcement and Removal Operations (big, loud, domestic) deports. There is some tension.
In a democracy journalism is the fourth power. It is a vital part of checks and balances.
Using loaded comments to discredit journalistic reporting on governmental misdoings feels somehow as if there is an agenda hidden behind such comments.
Just to be clear, I am not saying that there doesn't need to be someone who cares about the border control, but the way Frontex is doing it is just wrong.