a. General. Resistance is the cornerstone of guerrilla warfare. Underground and guerrilla warfare stem from a resistance movement.
b. Definition. Resistance is defined as the act of opposition of one individual or group to another. A resistance movement is the organized element of a disaffected population which resists a government or occupying power with means varying from passive to violently active. Resistance movements begin to form when dissatisfaction occurs among strongly motivated individuals who cannot further their cause by peaceful and legal means.
c. The Nature of Resistance .
1. Resistance, rebellion or civil war begins in a nation where political, sociological, economic or religious division has occurred. Divisions of this nature are usually caused by a violation of rights or privileges, the oppression of one group by the dominant or occupying force, or the threat to the life and freedom of the populace. Resistance also may develop in a nation where the once welcomed liberators have failed to improve an intolerable social or economic situation. Resistance can also be deliberately inspired from external sources against an assumed grievance. Resistance can be active or passive. Passive resistance may be in the form of smoldering resentment which needs only leadership or a means of expression to mature to active resistance.
2. Some people join a resistance movement because of an innate desire to survive. Others may join the resistance forces because of deep ideological convictions. But all, regardless of initial motivation, are bound together to fight against a common enemy. Part of the population assists the resistance movement as fighters in the guerrilla force; some assist as part-time guerrillas or in civilian support agencies know as auxiliary units; while others are members of the underground.d. Influencing Factors .
1. Environment.
( a ) Terrain. The physical location of the resistance movement has a great influence upon its organization and tactics. Because they provide suitable areas for the security of operations, mountains, swamps, large forests or jungles nurture overt or guerrilla type resistance. Flat plains areas and large towns or cities are more apt to lead to underground resistance activities although the possibility of organizing a guerrilla force in these areas should not be overlooked.
( b ) Cultural. A peoples’ cultural environment also has its effects on resistance movements. The urge to bear arms, escape, and fight the enemy is dependent on the cultural background of the people. Men from rural or peasant environment, not subjected to tight governmental control, have more opportunity to show their hatred of the enemy occupation by overt and violent means such as guerrilla warfare. People from an industrialized and highly urbanized culture will resist with such activities as sabotage, propaganda, passive acts and espionage.
( c ) Control of population . When an occupying power is able to exercise close and stringent control over the population, the resistance movement is conducted primarily in secrecy. When the police and military forces of the occupying power are diverted or otherwise ineffectual, the resistance movement may be conducted with primarily overt guerrilla actions.
2. Motivation . Besides the geographical and cultural environment influencing guerrilla warfare, the sociological climate produces many motivating factors which have a profound effect upon the resistance movement. Strong individual motivation is essential to the formation of a resistance force. Although some individual motives are not ideal and, if openly expressed, may do harm to the guerrilla effort, the following are examples of what some of the true motives may be.
( a ) Ideology. In guerrilla units some individuals have developed strong ideological motives for taking up arms. These ideologies take root in two broad areas—politics and religion. The individual tends to subordinate his own personality to these ideologies and works constantly and solely for the “cause.” In some resistance fighters, this motive is extremely strong.
( b ) Economic. Many individuals join resistance movements to keep from starving or to keep from losing their livelihood. An organized resistance force may exert economic influence on individuals who fail to support their movement.
( c ) Personal gain . Personal gain is the motivating force of some volunteers. An individual, so motivated, may change sides if he believes he can gain more by fighting for the opposing force.
( d ) Hate. People who have lost loved ones due to enemy actions may fight against that enemy as a result of engendered hatred. Uncontrolled hatred can pose problems for the sponsor because it is difficult to curb the fanaticism of such individuals and properly direct their efforts.
( e ) Security . If the resistance movement is strong or gives the impression of being powerful, many individuals join out of a feeling of personal safety. Usually, this situation occurs only after the resistance movement is well organized and the enemy has been weakened by other actions. Others join in order to escape recruitment into the service of the enemy.
( f ) Ego. Personal motives such as power, pride, and adventure operate to some extent in all individuals. Depending upon the moral fibre of the individual, these motives may sustain him in times of great stress.
( g ) Fear . Some individuals become a part of the resistance movement through no personal desire of their own. They join the movement out of fear of reprisals against themselves or their families.
3. Chance for success . In addition to motivation and circumstances of environment, a population must feel that there is ultimately a chance for success or there can be no effective resistance movement developed. Active participation in any resistance movement is influenced by its chance for success.
4. Guidance . Resistance movements stand or fall on the caliber of the leaders and other individuals in the organization. An understanding of the environmental and individual motivating factors will assist greatly those who desire to obtain the optimum from a guerrilla organization. An analysis of these factors plays an important part in evaluating potential resistance forces.
INTELLIGENCE, DERRICK DE KERCKHOVE INAUGURERÀ IL MASTER IN INTELLIGENCE DELL’UNIVERSITÀ DELLA CALABRIA
RENDE (29.11.2017) - Sarà la lectio magistralis su
“Intelligence e Intelligenza artificiale” di Derrick De Kerckhove a
inaugurare a Rende sabato 2 dicembre 2017 alle 8.30 presso l’aula
“Caldora” la settima edizione del Master in Intelligence dell’Università
della Calabria, il primo a essere stato istituito in un ateneo
pubblico italiano nel 2007. La manifestazione verrà introdotta dai
saluti del Rettore dell’ateneo Gino Mirocle Crisci, del direttore del
Dipartimento Lingue e Scienze dell’Educazione Roberto Guarasci, del
Direttore del Corso di Laurea in Scienze dell’Educazione Giuseppe
Spadafora e dalla relazione del Direttore del Master Mario Caligiuri.
Dopo gli interventi dei componenti il comitato scientifico del Master
Alberto Ventura e Luciano Romito e del rappresentante della Scuola del
Dipartimento delle informazioni per la sicurezza in rappresentanza del
Direttore del DIS Alessandro Pansa, ci sarà la lezione inaugurale di De
Kerckhove.
Come ogni anno, ci saranno docenti di prestigio, tra i quali
Evgeny Morozov, Nicola Gratteri, Luciano Violante, Giulio Tremonti, oltre al geografo Franco Farinelli, al Direttore della CRUI
Alberto De Toni, al Direttore della LUISS Business School Paolo
Boccardelli, al Direttore dell’Istituto Italiano di Tecnologia Stefano
Cingolani, ai direttori delle Agenzie di Intelligence Vittorio Stelo e
Nicolò Pollari, al Direttore della Scuola di Formazione del DIS Paolo
Scotto di Castelbianco, ai prefetti Carlo Mosca, Marco Valentini e
Luigi Varratta, all’ambasciatore Michele Valensise, al Direttore del
Centro Studi Americani Paolo Messa, al Direttore di “Limes” Lucio
Caracciolo, al Responsabile della Sicurezza dell’ENI Alfio Rapisarda, ai
professori Antonio Baldassarre e Antonio Teti, ai generali Carlo Jean e
Fabio Mini e a tanti altri. Del Comitato Scientifico fanno parte anche
Paolo Boccardelli e Marco Valentini.
Le lezioni di svolgeranno come di
consueto nella giornata di sabato fino al 5 maggio 2018 mentre gli esami
finali sono previsti per dicembre 2018. Parte delle lezioni si potranno
seguire via streaming.
Gli iscritti di questa edizione sono aumentati
di un terzo rispetto all’anno scorso, con più di un terzo provenienti da
fuori regione. La manifestazione inaugurale verrà seguita da Radio
Radicale e si potrà seguire in diretta via streaming alla pagina Facebook
Intelligence Lab.
SECRECY NEWS
From the FAS Project on Government Secrecy
Volume 2017, Issue No. 60
August 24, 2017Secrecy News Blog: https://fas.org/blogs/secrecy/
SPECIAL OPS, COUNTER-PROPAGANDA, OVERCLASSIFICATION
The House Armed Services Committee took a retrospective look
at US special operations forces earlier this year, thirty years after
the establishment of US Special Operations Command (SOCOM).
"SOCOM has a lot of missions it is responsible for, and has had several
new ones added to it," said Rep. Elise M. Stefanik (R-NY) at a hearing
earlier this year. "Are there any of those missions that should go away
or be reassigned?"
SOCOM Commander Gen. Raymond A. Thomas was ready with the answer: "There are no missions that should go away or be reassigned."
Tokyo,
August 10 (KNS-KCNA) -- Nam Sung U, vice-chairman of the Central
Standing Committee of the General Association of Korean Residents in
Japan (Chongryon) released a statement on August 9 in support of the
statement of the DPRK government. The statement expressed full support for the statement of the DPRK
government, categorically rejecting the UN "sanctions resolution" cooked
up by the U.S.-led hostile forces as a wanton violation and frontal
challenge to the sovereignty of the DPRK.
The U.S.-led hostile forces should drop their worn-out hostile policy
toward the DPRK and stop the provocations for a nuclear war at once,
facing up the national power and dignity of socialist Korea put on the
strategic position of a nuclear power and world-class military power of
Juche, it said, adding:
The Japanese authorities crying out for scaling up pressure upon the
DPRK while standing in the van of the U.S.-led racket of sanctions and
pressure, failing to face up to the present situation where the world
political structure has fundamentally changed with the new strategic
position of the DPRK, and the south Korean authorities joining in the
campaign for slapping sanctions against the compatriots in the north
should refrain from their criminal acts against the history and the
nation at once.
The statement expressed the will to turn Chongryon into a creditable and
patriotic fortress remaining unfazed by any storm and stress and
honorably contribute to the cause of realizing the independent
reunification of the country, foiling the U.S.-led hostile forces' moves
to isolate and stifle the DPRK. -0-
Emesso da:
dott. Calogero Carlo Maranzano
Via Monfalcone, 53 - 70125 BARI
Carlo Maranzano è:
iscritto all'ordine dei dottori commercialisti ed esperti contabili della Circoscrizione del Tribunale di Bari n. 865A
iscritto al Registro dei Revisori Contabili presso il Ministero della Giustizia n. 34985
iscritto nell'Elenco dei Consulenti Tecnici del Giudice (CTU) del Tribunale di Bari n. 132/01
iscritto all'Istituto Nazionale Professionisti per la Gestione del Debito n. AA1315
Docente Esperto di Economia Aziendale per i Corsi PON promossi dalla Comunità Europera
Master in Marketing, conseguito a UCLA (University of California Los Angeles) 1971
Master in Organizzazione e Direzione Aziendale, Studio TESI Milano 1976
Presidente dell'Associazione Consumatori "La Convenienza - Bari
Revisore Contabile della Coop. Sociale di Servizi alle Famiglie e all'imprese "La Convenienza"
Socio dell'Associazione di Promozione Sociale "Il Mondo che Voglio"
Socio di IASSEM
Codice Fiscale: MRN CGR 40P03 G273D
mail PEC; postmaster@pec.laconvenienza.org
e-mail: maranzanocc@libero.it - carlomaranzano40@tiscali.it
Skype: carlomaranzano
tel. studio 080.5016848
cellulari: 3285847142 - 327626546
Corrispondenza;
Da: maranzanocc@libero.it
30 giugno 2017
Gentile dr. xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sono
veramente mortificato per l'accaduto e provvedo domani mattina a fare
il bonifico o la ricarica richiesta, oggi sono fuori Sede.
Nel frattempo La prego di inviarmi copia dell'assegno rifiutato dalla Sua banca con l'angolo troncato.
Ciò per essere certo che per cause imponderabili il pagamento non venga effettuato due volte.
Le aggiungo anche 5 euro per la raccomandata d'invio del titolo cartaceo, da inviare a:
Dr. Carlo Maranzano
Via Monfalcone, n. 53
70125 - BARI. La ringrazio per tale invio che ovviamente farà dopo aver ricevuto il regolare pagamento.
Mi
scusi ancora per il disguido, resto in attesa della mail con la
fotocopia dell'assegno, della nota di rifiuto della banca e porgo i
migliori saluti.
dott. Calogero Carlo Maranzano
Via Monfalcone, 53 - 70125 BARI
NB: L'importo non è stato ancora saldato ad oggi...
Italy is a Democratic Republic based on work. The sovereignty belongs to the people, who exercise it in the forms and within the limits of the Constitution.
REVISED on June 6, 2017:
Italy WAS a Democratic Republic, and now it is based on slavery.
The sovereignty belongs to some very special people called BANKERS.
Bank of Italy warning to all citizens of the new realm:
Creation of scriptural money by citizens
Original text in Italian: http://www.bancaditalia.it/compiti/vigilanza/avvisi-pub/creazione-moneta-scritturale/index.html The Bank of
Italy is receiving communications from some of the citizens attesting to
the autonomous creation of "scriptural euros" and the use of the
so-called "created" sums for the alleged payment of debts or to provide
allegedly provision for subsequent transactionspayment or issue of securities by the Bank of Italy itself (money order);The
intake of these initiatives, even in limited numbers, coupled with the
presence on the web of references to the economic theory of which they
are applied, makes it necessary to publish some clarifications in order
to avoid dangerous misunderstandings.
CREATION OF SCRIPTURAL MONEY BY CITIZENS - Notice to the public
The Bank of Italy is receiving some Citizens communication that attests autonomous creation of "scriptural euros" and the use of sums so "created" for the alleged payment of Debts or to provide a presumed provision for successive payment transactions or for the issue of credit by the same Banca d'Italia (money order); The
intake of these initiatives, even in limited numbers, coupled with the
presence on the web of references to the economic theory of which they
are applied, makes it necessary to publish some clarifications in order
to avoid dangerous misunderstandings. The "theory of the autonomous creation of scriptural money", drawing from the conception of Collective property of the money, comes to affirm that there is the possibility for every single citizen to Create self-contained "scriptural" money byproviding own accounting records for the amount corresponding to the sum due. Some advocates of these ideas, active on the web, provide specific modules to be used for the creation of "scriptural euros" and for the communication of the alleged payment to be addressed to creditors (banks, financial, Tax authorities, public bodies, suppliers, etc.) and, for Knowledge, to the Bank of Italy.
The Bank of Italy states above all that on the basis of the international and national legislation, the only one form of legal currency - that is, with the power oextinguishing the bonds in money - is the currency
issued by the European Central Bank (ECB) since its creation is based
on rigorous procedures that guarantee the overall confidence in currency
and the stability of its value over time.The
mechanism for creating a scriptural currency by a single citizen would
be to replicate the so-called bank or scriptural currency, which means
all the instruments managed and organized by banks and other entities
authorized to provide payment services: checks,transfers, direct debits, cards (an explanation of what is and how to create money can be consulted on the ECB's website at: https://www.ecb.europa.eu/explainers/tell-me-more/html/what_is_money.it.html).
It should be
remembered that the provision of payment services through a written
currency is a legally permitted activity exclusively for authorized
entities such as banks, electronic money institutions, and payment
institutions.These intermediaries are subject to
supervision by the Bank of Italy to ensure sound and prudent management,
overall stability and compliance with the rules (Article 5 of the
Single Banking Act, Legislative Decree 385 of 1993).According
to the Single Banking Act (Articles 131-bis and 131-ter), the abusive
issue of electronic money and the abusive provision of payment services
constitute a crime. The Single Banking Act (Article 146) also entrusts the Bank of Italy with the task of supervising the payment system as regards its regular operation, its reliability and efficiency, as well as the protection of users of payment services.
The Bank of
Italy therefore warns that the autonomous creation of scriptural
currencies has no legal basis and calls on citizens not to use such
forms of "currency" without legal value and the power to extinguish the
bonds in money. Creditors can not accept these
forms of "payment" and are authorized to activate the safeguards
provided for by the law on default (start of recovery actions,
application of penalties or default interest, etc.). It
follows that the write-off created by unauthorized persons can not even
constitute the provision for payment transactions by authorized
entities or the issue of credit certificates such as the money order of
the Bank of Italy.
Citizens are
therefore invited to carefully consider the negative consequences that
the choice to use these forms of "extinction" of their debts may have on
their economic situation. The Bank of Italy -
which closely follows the phenomenon - finally warns it that it will not
follow any communication from individuals who presume to create and use
scriptwriting currencies and which will evaluate possible legal
initiatives both in terms of potential destabilizing effects on the public economic order, as well as protecting own privileges.
To inquire and deepen On the concepts of legal and banking money and the role of the central bank, you can consult:- "What is a central bank" at the link
https://www.ecb.europa.eu/explainers/tell-me/html/what-is-a-central-bank.it.html
and "What is Money "at the linkhttps://www.ecb.europa.eu/explainers/tell-me-more/html/what_is_money.it.html.
Documents
and computer files released by hackers provide a blueprint for how the
U.S. National Security Agency likely used weaknesses in commercially
available software to gain access to the global system for transferring
money between banks, a review of the data showed.On
Friday, a group calling itself the Shadow Brokers released documents
and files indicating NSA had accessed the SWIFT money-transfer system
through service providers in the Middle East and Latin America. That
release was the latest in a series of disclosures by the group in recent
months.
Matt Suiche,
founder of cybersecurity firm Comae Technologies, wrote in a blog post
that screen shots indicated some SWIFT affiliates were using Windows
servers that were vulnerable at the time, in 2013, to the Microsoft
exploits published by the Shadow Brokers. He said he concluded that the
NSA took advantage and got in that way.
"As
soon as they bypass the firewalls, they target the machines using
Microsoft exploits," Suiche told Reuters. Exploits are small programs
for taking advantage of security flaws. Hackers use them to insert back
doors for continued access, eavesdropping or to insert other tools.
"We now have all of the tools the NSA used to compromise SWIFT (via) Cisco firewalls, Windows," Suiche said.
Reuters
was not able to independently verify the authenticity of the documents
released by the hackers. Microsoft acknowledged the vulnerabilities and
said they had been patched. Cisco Systems Inc has previously
acknowledged that its firewalls had been vulnerable.
Cisco
and the NSA did not reply to requests for comment. Belgium-based SWIFT
on Friday downplayed the risk of attacks employing the code released by
hackers and said it had no evidence that the main SWIFT network had ever
been accessed without authorization.
It
was possible that the local messaging systems of some SWIFT client
banks had been breached, SWIFT said in a statement, which did not
specifically mention the NSA.
Because
tracking sources of terrorist financing and money flows among criminal
groups is a high priority, SWIFT transfers would be a natural espionage
target for many national intelligence agencies. BREACH OF FIREWALLS A PowerPoint
presentation that was part of the most recent Shadow Brokers release
indicates the NSA used a tool codenamed BARGLEE to breach the SWIFT
service providers' security firewalls.
The
NSA's official seal appeared on one of the slides in the presentation,
although Reuters could not independently determine the authenticity of
the slides.
The slide
referred to ASA firewalls. Cisco is the only company that makes ASA
firewalls, according to a Cisco employee who spoke on condition of
anonymity. ASA stands for Adaptive Security Appliance and is a combined
firewall, antivirus, intrusion prevention and virtual private network,
or VPN.
Documents
included in the Shadow Brokers release suggest that the NSA, after
penetrating the firewall of the SWIFT service providers, used Microsoft
exploits to target the computers interacting with the SWIFT network,
Comae Technologies' Suiche said.
The
Al Quds Bank for Development and Investment, for example, was running a
Windows 2008 server that at the time was vulnerable to newly disclosed
Windows exploits, he said.
Microsoft
late on Friday said it had determined that prior patches to dozens of
software versions had fixed the flaws that apparently were exploited by
nine of the NSA programs. Four of the vulnerabilities were blocked by
comprehensive updates on March 14. That left only older, unsupported
versions of Windows operating systems and Exchange email servers at risk
to three of the newly released exploits, the company said.
Earlier
Friday, Microsoft had said the company had not been warned by the
government or other outsiders about the stolen programs.
Microsoft
declined to say how it learned of the exploits without outside help.
The company's security systems are capable of detecting attacks against
customers, and Microsoft in the past has monitored discussion about
exploits on the Internet and also hired former intelligence agency
veterans to help it devise programming to protect its software from
encroachment.
The NSA
targeted nine computer servers at a SWIFT contractor, Dubai-based
service bureau EastNets, according to the documents. The U.S.
intelligence agency then used lines of code to query the SWIFT servers
and Oracle databases handling the SWIFT transactions, according to the
documents.
EastNets on Friday denied it had been hacked.
(Reporting by Clare Baldwin and Joseph Menn; Additional reporting by
Dustin Volz; Editing by David Greising and Cynthia Osterman)
Appendix 3: Advice
by the Legal Adviser to the European Union Committee—The UK’s
obligations under the EU Budget on withdrawal from the EU without a
withdrawal agreement
1.This advice
concerns the UK’s legal obligations arising under EU Budget and related
financial instruments on its withdrawal from the EU. It takes account of
the evidence provided to the inquiry by Professor Tridimas and Dr
Sánchez-Barrueco, and Rhodri Thompson QC.
2.Two issues fall
to be determined in the light of the evidence received. The first is
whether Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) should be
interpreted in the context of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of
Treaties (the Vienna Convention). The second is the legal effect of
Article 50 TEU on the UK’s obligations under the EU budget, and related
financial instruments, after its withdrawal from the EU.
Should Article 50 TEU be determined in the light of the Vienna Convention?
The relationship between EU law and international law
3.The Vienna
Convention is part of international law, which is comprised of
international treaties for the most part, but also of customary
international law (the practice of inter-State relations), and the case
law of international courts and tribunals. The Vienna Convention is an
international treaty which in 1969 consolidated in large part customary
international legal practice on treaty-making between States.
4.By contrast,
the EU has what the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) describes as an
“autonomous legal order”, which is separate and distinct from
international law, and over which the CJEU has sole jurisdiction.225
Within that autonomous legal order is a “hierarchy of norms”, at the
pinnacle of which are the EU Treaties. From these all EU legislation
derives: every Regulation, Directive or Decision is made pursuant to an
Article in the EU Treaties. The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights has the
same status as the EU Treaties.
5.The
relationship between EU law and international law is now set out in the
EU Treaties themselves, as well as the judgments of the CJEU. In a
judgment in 1992226
the CJEU ruled that “the European Community must respect international
law in the exercise of its powers.” Since the entry into force of the
Lisbon Treaty in 2009, Article 3(5) TEU declares that the EU “shall
contribute to [ … ] the strict observance and the development of
international law.” Consistent with this, CJEU judgements on
international law and EU law, though few in number, have tended to
interpret EU law in the light of relevant international law when the
rules in each legal jurisdiction overlap.227
6.Importantly, the CJEU has in the past relied on the Vienna Convention to interpret EU law. In a judgment in 2010228 it stated that, whilst the Vienna Convention did not legally bind the EU, or all of its Member States,229 provisions of the Vienna Convention that reflected customary international law were binding on the EU:
“The Court has held that, even though the Vienna
Convention does not bind either the Community or all its Member States, a
series of provisions in that convention reflect the rules of customary
international law which, as such, are binding upon the Community
institutions and form part of the Community legal order.”230
7.In this case,
the CJEU ruled that the EU must respect the principles of customary
international law set out in Article 34 of the Vienna Convention.231
8.It follows,
therefore, that that the meaning of Article 50 TEU, should, as a matter
of EU law, be determined in the light of rules laid down in the Vienna
Convention, to the extent that those rules reflect customary
international law.
The relationship between Article 70 of the Vienna Convention and Article 50 TEU
9.Both Articles
set out the consequences of withdrawing from a treaty, the former under
international law, the latter under EU law. For the purposes of this
advice it is assumed that Article 70 of the Vienna Convention reflects
customary international law.
10.Article 70, entitled “Consequences of the termination of a treaty”, provides:
“1. Unless the treaty
otherwise provides or the parties otherwise agree, the termination of a
treaty under its provisions or in accordance with the present
Convention:
a) releases the parties from any obligation further to perform the treaty;
b) does not affect any right, obligation or legal
situation of the parties created through the execution of the treaty
prior to its termination.”
11.The general
rule of international law, codified in Article 70(1)(b), is, therefore,
that the termination of a treaty does not affect any right, obligation
or legal situation which arise as a result of participation in that
treaty. This applies as much to the remainder States participating in
the treaty as to the withdrawing State. In other words, existing rights
and obligations under the treaty must be respected until they are
fulfilled.
12.The relevant extracts of Article 50 TEU are as follows:
“1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.
“2. [ … ] In the light of the guidelines provided by
the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an
agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its
withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship
with the Union. [ … ]”
“3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State
in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal
agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to
in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the
Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.”
13.From these provisions it is clear that:
(a)a Member State can unilaterally withdraw from the EU (paragraph 1);
(b)it can do so
on the basis of an agreement “setting out the arrangements for its
withdrawal” and taking account of the future relationship (paragraph 2);
(c)but it can also do so without an agreement (“failing that”) (paragraph 3);
(d)the withdrawal
takes place either when the withdrawal agreement enters into force, or
two years after the notification to withdraw, whichever is the earlier
(paragraph 3); and
(e)the two year period can be extended by agreement between the withdrawing State and the other EU Member States (paragraph 3).
14.Unlike Article
70 of the Vienna Convention, Article 50 TEU does not preserve in terms
the rights, obligations or legal situation of the withdrawing State that
have arisen as a result of participation in the EU. Nor does it
preserve the rights, obligations or legal situation of the EU as a
result of the withdrawing State’s participation in the EU. In other
words, there is no express provision in Article 50 which states that
existing rights and obligations under the EU Treaties must be respected
until they are fulfilled, by both the withdrawing State and the EU. On
first reading, therefore, there may appear to be a conflict between
Article 70 of the Vienna Convention and Article 50 TEU.
15.On closer
inspection, however, it is clear that there is no such conflict. Article
70(1) of the Vienna Convention is introduced by the all-important
exception “unless the treaty [in question] otherwise provides”. The
Commentary on the draft of this Article, prepared by the UN’s
International Law Commission, makes clear that the intention of these
words is to ensure that the rules laid down in the treaty in question
prevail over Article 70 of the Vienna Convention:
“Clearly, any such conditions provided for in the
treaty or agreed upon by the parties must prevail, and the opening words
of paragraph 1 of the article (which are also made applicable to
paragraph 2) so provide”.232
16.The rules on
withdrawing from a treaty in Article 70(1) only apply, therefore, if the
treaty in question does not have any provisions on withdrawal.
Manifestly, this is not the case for the EU Treaties: Article 50 sets
out the provisions on withdrawal from the EU.
17.Reliance has
been placed on Article 5 of the Vienna Convention as a further reason
why the Vienna Convention is not relevant to the interpretation of
Article 50 TEU. This Article provides:
“The present Convention applies to any treaty which
is the constituent instrument of an international organization and to
any treaty adopted within an international organization without
prejudice to any relevant rules of the organization.”
18.If the
expression “relevant rules of the organisation” were to be read to
include rules laid down by the treaties establishing that organisation,
Article 5 would add further force to the conclusion that there is no
conflict between the Vienna Convention and Article 50 TEU. That said,
the wording of Article 70(1) alone is enough to lead to that conclusion.
The effect of Article 50 TEU on the UK’s rights and obligations under the EU budget after its withdrawal from the EU
19.It follows
from the above that Article 50 TEU does not need to be interpreted in
the light of the Vienna Convention, but on its terms alone.
20.The analysis
of Article 50 TEU above demonstrates that two options for withdrawal
from the EU are possible. The first is withdrawal on the basis of an
agreement. By using the phrase “setting out the arrangements for its
withdrawal”, the drafters of Article 50 TEU no doubt intended the
agreement to cover all of the issues whose resolution is necessary for
an orderly withdrawal from the EU. In Vienna Convention terms, “any
right, obligation or legal situation of the parties created through the
execution of the treaty prior to its termination”.233
Such issues would include ongoing legal and financial obligations under
the Own Resources Decision, the Multiannual Financial Framework, and
the Annual Budget. The withdrawal agreement could also include a dispute
resolution mechanism, in case of future disagreement. Once the
withdrawal agreement enters into force, Article 50(3) TEU makes clear
that the EU “Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question.”
21.The second
option is stark: if no agreement is reached within two years, the effect
is exactly the same as if a withdrawal agreement had been agreed and
entered into force: the EU “Treaties shall cease to apply to the State
in question” (Article 50(3) TEU). The second option allows, therefore,
for the most disorderly of withdrawals. The travaux préparatoires
explain that the two-year cut-off was inserted to ensure that the right
of a Member State to withdraw from the EU was unilateral, rather than
dependent on the conclusion of a withdrawal agreement. Indeed, the
drafters of Article 50 foresaw the two-year period being extended:
“The Praesidium considers that, since many hold that
the right of withdrawal exists even in the absence of an explicit
provision to that effect, withdrawal of a Member State from the Union
cannot be made conditional upon the conclusion of a withdrawal
agreement. Hence the provision that withdrawal will take effect in any
event two years after notification. However, in order to encourage a
withdrawal agreement between the Union and the State which is
withdrawing, Article I-57 [now I-60] provides for the possibility of
extending this period by common accord between the European Council and
the Member State concerned.”234
22.The expression
the “Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question” in Article
50(3) TEU is unqualified by any condition about ongoing liabilities
under EU law, no doubt because this is exactly what the withdrawal
agreement is intended to cover. The meaning of the words are clear: the
foundation of the whole edifice of EU law—the acquis communautaire—is
abruptly removed for the State in question. Given that the EU Treaties
are at the pinnacle of the hierarchy of EU norms, once they cease to
have effect, the legal base for every aspect of the UK’s membership of
the EU comes to an end. This will include all of its legal obligations
under the Own Resources Decision, the Multiannual Financial Framework,
and the Annual Budget. It will also include the supremacy of EU law over
UK law, and the jurisdiction of the CJEU over the UK.235
23.It follows
that, under EU law, Article 50 TEU allows the UK to leave the EU without
being liable for outstanding financial obligations under the EU budget,
unless a withdrawal agreement is concluded which resolves this issue.
(This advice does not address the political consequences of the UK
withdrawing from the EU without settling outstanding payments to the EU
budget and related financial instruments.)
The legal liability of the UK in the event of a withdrawal without an agreement under international law and national law
Under international law
24.EU Member
States may seek to bring a case against the UK for the payments of
outstanding debts under principles of public international law, such as
acquired rights, but international law is slow to litigate and hard to
enforce. In addition, it is questionable whether an international court
or tribunal could have jurisdiction. Article 344 TFEU prohibits EU
Member States from submitting the legal interpretation of the EU
Treaties to a court other than the CJEU:
Member States undertake not to submit a dispute
concerning the interpretation or application of the Treaties to any
method of settlement other than those provided for therein.
25.In terms of
substance, a case against the UK in an international court or tribunal
would be hindered by the fact that Article 50 does not conflict with the
relevant rule of international law on withdrawal from treaties, namely
Article 70(1)(b) of the Vienna Convention.
Under national law
26.The Supreme Court in Miller236 has made clear that once the UK withdraws from the EU, EU law will cease to be a source of domestic law:
“Upon the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the
European Union, EU law will cease to be a source of domestic law for the
future (even if the Great Repeal Bill provides that some legal rules
derived from it should remain in force or continue to apply to accrued
rights and liabilities), decisions of the Court of Justice will (again
depending on the precise terms of the Great Repeal Bill) be of no more
than persuasive authority, and there will be no further references to
that court from UK courts. Even those legal rules derived from EU law
and transposed into UK law by domestic legislation will have a different
status. They will no longer be paramount, but will be open to domestic
repeal or amendment in ways that may be inconsistent with EU law.”237
27.It remains to
be seen to what extent the Great Repeal Act repeals national legislation
implementing the UK’s obligations under the EU budget and related
financial instruments. It can be assumed, however, that the Great Repeal
Act will be amended to reflect the outcome of the negotiations,
including the UK Government’s view on whether it is legally bound to
continue paying into the EU budget. It can also be assumed that the
Great Repeal Act will repeal the European Communities Act 1972 and so
end the jurisdiction of the CJEU over the UK. The Government’s White
Paper, The United Kingdom’s exit from, and new partnership with, the European Union, makes this clear.238
28.Whatever the
content of the Great Repeal Bill, it will not allow the EU or its Member
States to sue in the UK courts for outstanding contributions under the
EU budget.
The legal liability of the EU institutions in the event of a withdrawal without an agreement
29.Any
individual, company or organisation can challenge a decision of the EU
institutions before the CJEU. Nationality of a Member State of the EU is
not a prerequisite. To bring a case they would have to show that they
are individually and directly affected by the decision in question.239
For example, UK organisations whose EU funding was stopped could bring a
case. It may be, however, that the CJEU would rely on Article 50 TEU as
allowing all EU funding programmes to be stopped in relation to UK
institutions, if it decided that that the legal obligation to do so
ended with the UK’s withdrawal.
225 See, for example, Opinion 1/76, or case C-459/03 Commission v Ireland
227
That said, when international law is in direct conflict with a
fundamental right safeguarded in the EU Treaties or EU Charter, the CJEU
has held that, in order to preserve the autonomy of EU law, the EU
Treaties prevail. See Cases C-402 and 415/05 Kadi
234 Explanatory notes on the Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe
235
It is possible under Article 273 TFEU for the CJEU to be asked to
interpret Article 50 TEU before the UK withdraws by means of “a special
agreement”, but the UK would have to give its agreement to this.
236R (On The Application of Miller and Another) (Respondents) v Secretary of State For Exiting The European Union (Appellant), [2017] UKSC 5
239
Article 263 TFEU: “Any natural or legal person may […] institute
proceedings against an act addressed to that person or which is of
direct and individual concern to them, and against a regulatory act
which is of direct concern to them and does not entail implementing
measure.”
Il clamoroso caso del cyberspionaggio è
sulla bocca di tutti. L'attività di hackeraggio che, stando alle
indagini della Procura di Roma, avrebbero condotto i fratelli Occhionero ai danni delle più importanti cariche pubbliche compresi Matteo Renzi e Mario Draghi,
è tanto vasta quanto oscura. Tutti si interrogano sui motivi di questa
gigantesca attività di raccolta dati. Quali erano le finalità degli
Occhionero? Chi sono davvero i due fratelli? C'era qualcuno dietro di
loro a manovrarli? E loro ne erano consapevoli? Domande inevitabili.Le
teorie e le ipotesi a riguardo si susseguono. Tra queste teorie, più o
meno verosimili, Affaritaliani.it ha raccolto in questi giorni diverse
testimonianze tra cui oggi quella avanzata da Gioele Magaldi, gran maestro del Grande Oriente Democratico, movimento massonico di area progressista nato
dopo la scissione dal Grande Oriente d'Italia. Rispondendo alle domande
in forma rigorosamente scritta come lui stesso ha richiesto ad Affari,
Magaldi, autore del libro “Massoni. Società a responsabilità illimitata.
La scoperta delle Ur-Lodges” (Chiarelettere), rilascia una serie di
dichiarazioni clamorose, che pubblichiamo per completezza e dovere di
cronaca, che riguardano diversi personaggi tra i quali Mario Monti, Anna Maria Tarantola, Marco Carrai
e gli stessi Renzi e Draghi ai quali, ovviamente, Affari fornirà in
qualsiasi momento la possibilità di replica alle tesi indubbiamente
reboanti di Magaldi. Gioele Magaldi, chi sono davvero gli Occhionero? Quali sono i loro contatti?
Giulio e Francesca Romana Occhionero hanno agito in piena sintonia e
reciproca consapevolezza di quello che ciascuno faceva. E sono stati
coperti e protetti, per anni, accumulando molti dati sensibili a favore
di chi li proteggeva e ispirava. Lo ripeto: i fratelli Occhionero hanno
accumulato, per conto terzi, una mole infinitamente più grande di dati
rispetto a quella sinora scoperta dagli investigatori. Giulio Occhionero
ambiva a far parte di una specifica Ur-Lodge (superloggia)
sovranazionale, operante principalmente tra Usa, Regno Unito, Malta e il
Medio Oriente. Al fratello Occhionero stava stretta l’appartenenza ad
una loggia, la “Paolo Ungari-Nicola Ricciotti Pensiero e Azione”
all’Oriente di Roma, che fa parte di una Obbedienza ordinaria e
nazionale come il Grande Oriente d’Italia di Palazzo Giustiniani, cioè
di una di quelle entità massoniche ormai in stato di declino e di
relativa marginalità rispetto a quei circuiti delle superlogge che ho
iniziato a descrivere nel libro “Massoni. Società a responsabilità
illimitata. La scoperta delle Ur-Lodges”, Chiarelettere, Milano 2014, e
che continuerò a illustrare nel secondo volume della serie di “Massoni”,
di prossima pubblicazione, intitolato “Globalizzazione e Massoneria”.
Possono davvero aver fatto tutto da soli?
Come dicevo prima, Giulio Occhionero ma anche la sorella Francesca
Romana coltivavano l’ambizione di essere ammessi a una specifica
superloggia sovranazionale. Si tratta della “White Eagle”. Hanno agito
su commissione di personaggi collegati come affiliati o come ‘compagni
di strada/aspiranti affiliati’ di questa Ur-Lodge.
Qual è il ruolo della massoneria in questa vicenda?
La massoneria sempre meno rilevante del Grande Oriente d’Italia di
Palazzo Giustiniani c’entra poco, con questa intrigata vicenda. Poco, ma
in qualche modo c’entra. Lo ‘spionaggio’ ai danni di alcuni Dignitari
del GOI era soprattutto un’esigenza personalistica di Giulio Occhionero,
qualcosa di irrilevante per i suoi mandanti in ‘super-grembiulino’.
Invece, la sorveglianza del Gran Maestro Stefano Bisi va ricondotta allo
spionaggio sul fratello Mario Draghi (mi dicono avvenuta anche su altre
utenze rispetto a quelle sin qui individuate dagli investigatori), di
cui Bisi è in qualche modo un servizievole esecutore per questioni
massoniche di natura locale. Ciò, sin dai tempi del ‘groviglio
armonioso’ legato al Monte dei Paschi di Siena, allorché Draghi, come
Governatore di Bankitalia, non vigilò adeguatamente su alcune condotte
del management della banca senese e Bisi, come massone e giornalista
(caporedattore e poi vicedirettore del Corriere di Siena) influente a
Siena, aveva le mani in pasta in diverse questioni MPS, ispirando la sua
azione di concerto con il fratello Draghi e con la sorella libera
muratrice Anna Maria Tarantola, capo della Vigilanza di Bankitalia, la
quale, in virtù della sua clamorosa ‘mancata vigilanza’ sulle questioni
più scabrose in capo a MPS, fu premiata dal massone Mario Monti con la
nomina a Presidente RAI nel 2012. La massoneria che invece c’entra
molto, con tutto questo affaire del cyber spionaggio imputato ai
fratelli Occhionero, è quella della Ur-Lodge sovranazionale
neoaristocratica “White Eagle”.
Chi potrebbe essere il committente del cyberspionaggio?
Se dal nome della superloggia sovranazionale coinvolta andiamo nel
particolare dei personaggi che hanno fatto da tramite con Giulio e
Francesca Romana Occhionero, la questione si fa clamorosa. Uno dei
personaggi che consiglio agli inquirenti di ascoltare con attenzione su
questa vicenda è il massone conservatore e reazionario Micheal Leeden,
appunto affiliato di peso alla “White Eagle”. Un altro personaggio che
varrebbe la pena sentire come ‘persona informata dei fatti’ è Marco
Carrai, wannabe supermassone (con specifica propensione proprio verso la
“White Eagle”) come il suo caro amico Matteo Renzi.
Quale potrebbe essere l'obiettivo di questa attività di spionaggio?
Qualcuno, per anni, ha raccolto e utilizzato le informazioni sensibili
che i fratelli Occhionero gli hanno passato, coprendone e proteggendone
in vario modo le attività. Cari e fraterni amici in capo a importanti
strutture di intelligence militare e civile di area euro-atlantica mi
dicono che, da qualche tempo, Giulio e Francesca Romana Occhionero erano
diventati ‘sacrificabili’ per ottenere, cinicamente, attraverso uno
scandalo fatto scoppiare ad arte sulla loro vicenda, una
ristrutturazione della cybersecurity italiana a livello nazionale. Una
ristrutturazione che, sin qui, non si era potuta realizzare e che
avrebbe potuto portare al suo vertice una persona gradita a Matteo
Renzi, ma sgradita a diversi ambienti massonico-progressisti
dell’intelligence italiana e statunitense, con cui quella italiana
tradizionalmente collabora in modo privilegiato. Ciascuno faccia le sue
debite deduzioni e, per parte mia, mi riservo di approfondire (c’è molto
da dire anche sulla simbologia massonica del nome “Eye Pyramid”) in
altre sedi e occasioni le informazioni che acquisirò nel corso del tempo
su tutta questa clamorosa vicenda. Di certo, la massoneria del Grande
Oriente Democratico (sito ufficiale: www.grandeoriente- democratico.com)
e i circuiti liberomuratori progressisti sovranazionali vigileranno
attentamente affinché nessuno strumentalizzi questo scandalo per far
conferire ad ‘amici degli amici’ incarichi tali da mettere in pericolo
proprio quella sicurezza nazionale informatica italiana che si
pretenderebbe di voler tutelare. Analoga vigilanza sarà esercitata, sul
piano politico, dal Movimento Roosevelt (www.movimentoroosevelt.com)
da me presieduto, particolarmente impegnato nella salvaguardia di quel
sistema di pesi e contrappesi nelle istituzioni (e nelle strutture di
cyber security e intelligence tout-court) che soli possono davvero
garantire la democrazia liberale sostanziale e il diritto alla privacy
per ogni cittadino.
