Babcock and Brown offers €2.36bn for control of Eircom
By Peter Smith in London Financial Times
Published: April 13 2006 22:01 | Last updated: April 13 2006 22:01

Eircom, the former Irish state telecommunications monopoly, has received an €2.36bn (£1.63bn, $2.86bn) takeover offer led by Babcock & Brown Capital, a listed investment fund managed by the Australian financial services company.

Babcock & Brown, which has built up a 28.8 per cent stake, is working with Eircom’s employee share ownership trust (Esot) that controls a further 21.8 per cent, giving the combined team 50.6 per cent.The joint offer is thought to have been pitched at €2.20 a share, worth €2.36bn, compared with Thursday’s close of €2.14. An announcement is due shortly barring a last-minute hitch.

Eircom’s enterprise value rises to €4.3bn after including the group’s €1.9bn of net debt.

Allowing for a yet-to-be-paid but already forecast dividend of 5.2 cents a share, the offer would see shareholders reap a 48 per cent return in the two years since Eircom returned to the Irish and London stock markets, when it floated at €1.55 a share.“Babcock & Brown Capital and the Esot are talking about offering €2.20 a share,” a person close to the situation said. Neither Babcock & Brown or the Esot would comment on Thursday night.

Eircom was floated in March 2004 by backers led by Providence Equity, George Soros’ private equity group, Sir Anthony O’Reilly, a former head of US food business Heinz, and Goldman Sachs. These investors are thought to have nearly tripled their equity investment in Eircom in a relatively short ownership period of barely three years.They bought the business after it had endured a troubled existence as a listed business. It floated in mid-1999 not long before telecoms valuations peaked in one of Europe’s biggest retail offerings. However, investors who bought into that float fared badly.

Babcock & Brown has been steadily increasing its stake in Eircom to its current level of just under 29 per cent. It has already pledged to invest in Eircom’s infrastructure in the event it launched a full offer.It has not acquired any shares at a price of more than €2.20.An offer at that price is worth €2.36bn and is would represent a multiple of 7 times Eircom’s annualised ebitda [earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortisation] for the 12 months ending December 2006.

But Babcock & Brown Capital had previously warned of “considerable obstacles” to a bid. The Australian group had been anxious to reassure the Irish government, the regulator and the Esot about its intentions as an owner.One concern has been the amount of additional debt Eircom might take on as a private business.Phil Nolan, Eircom chief executive, and the rest of the top management team would be expected to be incentivised to run the business under the control of Babcock & Brown and the Esot.

Swisscom was last year poised to bid for Eircom, at a price rumoured to be around €2.30 to €2.40 a share, before the Swiss government, its majority owner, blocked it from completing large foreign deals.Eircom last year launched a rights issue at €1.35 a share to fund the €420m acquisition of Meteor, Ireland’s third mobile business.

Britain gave Israel plutonium, files show

Richard Norton-Taylor
Friday March 10, 2006

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/politicspast/story/0,,1727978,00.html


Britain secretly supplied Israel with plutonium during the 1960s despite a warning from military intelligence that it could help the Israelis to develop a nuclear bomb, it was disclosed last night. The deal, made during Harold Wilson's Labour government, is revealed in classified documents released
under the Freedom of Information Act and obtained by BBC2's Newsnight programme.

The documents also show how Britain made hundreds of shipments to Israel of material which could have helped in its nuclear weapons programme, including compounds of uranium, lithium, beryllium and tritium, as well as heavy water.

Israel asked Britain in 1966 to supply 10mg of plutonium. Israel would have required almost 5kg of plutonium to build an atomic bomb, but British defence intelligence officials warned that 10mg had "significant military value" and could enable the Jewish state to carry out important experimental work to speed up its nuclear weapons programme.

Documents show that the decision to sell plutonium to Israel in 1966 was blocked by officials in both the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign Office, who said: "It is HMG's policy not to do anything which would assist Israel in the production of nuclear weapons." But the deal was forced through by a Jewish civil servant, Michael Michaels, in Tony Benn's Ministry of Technology, which was responsible for trade in nuclear material, according to Newsnight.

Peter Kelly, who was British defence intelligence's expert on the Israeli nuclear weapons programme, knew Mr Michaels. He told Newsnight he believed Mr Michaels knew that Israel was trying to build an atomic bomb, but that he had dual loyalties to Britain and Israel.

Mr Benn told the programme that civil servants in his department kept the deals secret from him and his predecessor, Frank Cousins. He had always suspected that civil servants were doing deals behind his back, but he never thought they would sell plutonium to Israel. He told Newsnight: "I'm not only surprised, I'm shocked. It never occurred to me they would authorise something so totally against the policy of the government. "Michaels lied to me, I learned by bitter experience that the nuclear industry lied to me again and again." He thought Wilson may not have known that Britain was helping Israel to get the bomb.

Last year Newsnight showed that in the late 1950s Harold Macmillan's Conservative government provided Israel with 20 tonnes of heavy water to start up its Dimona reactor. Newsnight said it learned that Jack Straw had admitted to the Liberal Democrat leader, Sir Menzies Campbell, that Britain knew the heavy water was destined for Israel, and that in 1961, Macmillan even made a failed attempt to get it back.

EU foreign ministers face aid dilemma
By Daniel Dombey in Salzburg
Published: March 10 2006 19:07 | Last updated: March 10 2006 19:07
www.FT.com Financial Times

The European Union faces a profound dilemma if it is to maintain pressure on Hamas while preventing an economic and humanitarian catastrophe in the Palestinian territories, EU foreign ministers were told on Friday

A note by the European Commission and Javier Solana, EU foreign policy chief, showed that if current funding arrangements were left in place Hamas would have access to or influence over almost half the €250m ($300m, £170m) the Commission gives the Palestinians each year.

The note, which was circulated to ministers for an informal meeting in Salzburg yesterday, highlighted the problems facing Europe as the chief international donor to the Palestinians in the wake of the Hamas election victory. The EU, together with the US and Israel, classifies the militant Islamist organisation as a terrorist group.

“On the one hand this is very difficult,” said an EU diplomat. “On the other it shows that we have a big source of leverage.”

The note showed that 48 per cent of Commission aid for the Palestinians involves contacts with the Palestinian Authority, which Hamas is set to take over in coming weeks. Such aid not only includes the Commission’s direct budgetary support for the PA, but also funding for social and economic projects.

As part of a policy agreed with the US, the United Nations and Russia, the EU has made clear that future contacts and funding will depend on whether PA leaders renounce violence, recognise Israel and stay committed to previous agreements.

James Wolfensohn, the former World Bank chief, has warned that with funding needs of about €120m a month the PA faces collapse, particularly since Israel has stopped handing over tax and customs transfers worth $50m a month.

“When Hamas takes office we will want to look at it closely and we will need to make new decisions afterwards,” Frank-Walter Steinmeier, German foreign minister, said yesterday. “We have no clear signal from Hamas that they are going to move on any of the three criteria they have been set.”

Some EU officials hope that Hamas can be tempted closer towards the political mainstream by endorsing a 2002 Arab peace initiative, under which Arab states would recognise Israel if it withdrew from all the territories it has occupied since 1967.

EU member states match the Commission funding with €250m of their own, bringing EU aid for the Palestinians to €500m a year.

A letter from Paul Lannoye,
European Union Parliamentarian, Belgium

24 May, 2004

Dear World Legislators, Parliamentarians, and World Citizens,

We have watched with alarm that the sad and tragic events of 9-11 (11 September, 2001) have resulted in two wars and a global rollback in civil liberties. Iraq had nothing to do with the 9-11 attacks, yet it has been attacked in the name of them. People in countries worldwide have suffered reduced civil liberties in the name of 9-11, and intelligence surveillance of ordinary citizens has expanded dramatically.

I submit to you that before any more wars are launched or liberties are lost in the name of the "war on terror" launched by the Bush Administration after 9-11, a full international inquiry into the events leading up to and on 9-11 be held, which includes 9-11 victims' family members from the U.S. and other nations.

The National Green Party of the United States has requested an open independent 9-11 investigation that would involve 9-11 victims' family members. This is a good start, but it must also be an international inquiry in addition that includes 9-11 family members from nations worldwide who lost loved ones in the 9-11 attacks.

We need this to occur because many, including the 9-11 Family Steering Committee (U.S.), are growing increasingly frustrated with the stunning lack of hard questions for witnesses appearing before the 9-11 Commission. Until these hard questions are asked and fully answered, we should refuse more wars, and renounce reduced liberty worldwide in the name of 9-11 and it's resultant war on terror.

A few of these questions are:

1) Who made the insider stock trades against United and American Airlines the day before the attacks? And why did the head of AB Brown Trust (an institution once headed by the current Executive Director of the CIA, Buzzy Krongard), where $5 million of those stock "winnings" were made, quietly resign on 11, Sept., 2001, and why is $2.5 million of that winning still unclaimed?

2) Why were there no fighter interceptor jets dispatched on 9-11 until it was too late on 9-11, after 4 commercial jets flew hijacked for an hour and a half, ending with the last one crashing into the worlds' most highly protected building, the Pentagon?

3) Why did the CIA Station Chief in Dubai meet with Bin Laden weeks before 9-11 at a U.S. Army Hospital? Why did the Pakistani Intelligence Chief, who was in Washington on 9-11 meeting with top Bush officials, wire lead hijacker, Mohammed Atta $100,000 weeks before the 9-11 attacks?

These are but a few questions needing answers. (Read "The New Pearl Harbor" by David Ray Griffin to further explore the disturbing unanswered questions of 9-11.)

I implore legislators, parliamentarians, and citizens worldwide to become involved in the global 9-11 Truth Movement by signing up at www.911Visibility.org and www.911Truth.org. These organizations have worked with 9-11 family members, and citizens worldwide to lobby government, media, and the 9-11 Commission to demand truth, and to hold public actions to educate the world about the apparent 9-11 cover up.

Warm regards,

Paul Lannoye, European Union Parliamentarian

EU-inspired internment camps in Mauritania ... From
german-foreign-policy.com
________________________


13 March 2006


FRANKFURT/BERLIN/NOUAKCHOTT


SUMMARY:  In the aftermath of the recent refugee disasters off the coast of
West Africa, Mauritania has consented to the establishment of internment
camps.

In an attempt to reach EU territory on the Canary islands, at least 45
people died over the past few days. The camps were established under
pressure from the German-inspired EU policy for parrying the flow of
African poverty.

To prevent further refugee movement, Mauritania has declared itself
prepared to     intensify the security controls along its national borders
as demanded by         Berlin and Brussels. Thus the hi-tech sealing off of
the EU against the        West African coastal states has now reached its
provisional geographical        limits at the West of the continent.

The German Government is simultaneously intensifying its so-called
"immigration law," which, in turn, facilitates the sealing off of its own
territory at the expense of the neighboring transit states. German policy
is aimed at creating a        practically refugee-free "insular situation"
in the center of Europe and        delegates the shielding against refugees
to those countries along the external     EU borders, explains Karl Kopp,
European spokesperson of Pro-Asyl, in a discussion with
german-foreign-policy.com.  The German Interior Ministry confirms this
development.

_______________


The Internment Camps

As the Mauritanian Government has announced, it will immediately take
measures to control EU bound travel by boat. Reference is made here to the
Canary Islands. The measures being  undertaken are the development of newer
border posts, an increase of border patrols and an intensification of
surveillance of the border.[1]   Berlin and Brussels have the corresponding
blueprints on hand. The deployment of European police troops - presumably
from Spain - is also imminent. Those arrested while attempting to leave are
to be placed, as soon as possible, in internment camps.[2] Mauritania is
reacting to  pressure from the EU, which takes as the pretext for insisting
on the  permanent fortification of the Mauritania's sea-border, the
numerous deaths of refugees at sea between continental Africa and the
Canary Islands. According to data assembled by humanitarian organizations,
over the past four months, at least 1,200 people have drowned at high sea,
while attempting to reach European territory.


Shift

The mass dying-at-large off Africa's West Coast is the direct consequence
of measures the EU has forced to be taken on the North Coast of Africa.
Last autumn, Morocco was made to intensify controls on its national
borders.[3] The migratory flow, that had led across to the Moroccan coast,
was diverted, without the EU having addressed the causes of the sustained
pressure of poverty. This caused a shift in navigation coordinates, which
now led westward, primarily across Mauritania. Already from Senegal,
Mauritania's southern neighbor, it is no longer practically possible to
reach the Canary Islands - and thus EU territory - with conventional means
of escape, mostly light boats.



Blueprints


With the arms build-up on Mauretanian borders and the construction of
camps, the EU is cooperating with a regime, that came to power, last
August, in a coup. The current Mauritanian president, who, only four  weeks
ago dispatched a special emissary to Berlin, for negotiations with the
Foreign Ministry, is considered to be the main person responsible for
torture, the presumed liquidation of members of the opposition and
massacres carried out on minorities.[4] But none of this poses an obstacle
to Berlin's cooperating in the technical construction of fortifications
along the maritime border. The preliminary work was laid out in plans made
by the former German Interior Minister, Otto Schily. These are the
blueprints for the functioning of a large number of the fortifications
along the Mediterranean and East European periphery.



See only the detention cells


Berlin supplements its foreign refugee policy with reinforcement of the
domestic impermeability. The Interior Ministry is presently working on a
revised version of the so-called "immigration law."  Persons, who would
like to benefit from the constitutionally guaranteed right of asylum in
Germany, will be subjected to further hindrances. According to these
changes, persons entering the country, may, already at  the external German
borders, be deported on the basis of the bare suspicion that the person may
seek asylum; an immediate arrest is also        possible.[5] Future
asylum-seekers will, between the moment of their attempted        entry and
their deportation "from Germany, get to see only the interior of detention
cells", explains Karl Kopp, adviser for European Affairs of the human
rights organization, Pro Asyl, in a discussion with
german-foreign-policy.com


Shunt Yard Dublin II


According to Kopp, the objective of Berlin's strategically applied policy
is to shunt the aspiring refugees to states forming the southern and
eastern borders of the EU. The so-called "Dublin II-Regulation" of the EU
stipulates, "that in the EU, that state is responsible for examining an
application for asylum, that allowed the entry of the asylum seeker onto
the territory of the Community", reports Kopp. The consequence is the
increased pressure on the - usually the        poorer - southern and
eastern EU border states, where illegal repulsion to        adjacent non-EU
states is becoming more frequent. The camps that Berlin        wants to
have established - for example in Mauritania - are "somewhat the
mollifier" for legitimizing the repulsion practices done in violation of
international law, by claiming that "reception centers" are now being
developed",  the European adviser of Pro Asyl told German foreign
policy.com. He points to the already existing misery camps in the Ukraine,
in which the arrested refugees suffer from  hunger.[6]


Getting Rid of refugees


One also gets "the impression" that the repulsions, which are inadmissible
under international law, with the asylum procedure  guidelines, adopted by
the EU Commission in December, are being "combined to form an EU
guideline". According to the EU text, it is to become possible to deport
refugees to non-European states without formalities; to states that have
not even ratified the Geneva Refugee Convention. As Koppjudges, the
guidelines, which are similar to those in force in Germany since 1993, and,
through pressure from Germany, also been made EU law,[7] can as
"compensation" be applied to the southern and eastern EU border states.
They are "saying in essence: We were very successful with our
third-state regulation. If you implement it, you can get rid of the
problem       of having to accept more refugees."


Meltdown of European refugee protection


The "meltdown of European refugee protection" (Kopp) goes back to the
attempt to create a practically refugee-free "insular situation" for
Germany inside the EU. Last week the Interior Ministry published the recent
asylum statistics, which demonstrate the full success of their project.
Altogether, according to these statistics, 3,801 persons have requested
asylum in Germany during the first two months of the year - 15.4 per cent
fewer than in the previous year and the lowest since the brief opening of
European borders in 1989/90. At the same time, 6,326 asylum demands have
been processed. 63 per cent of the requests were        rejected, 33.8 per
cent "otherwise settled" (through withdrawal of the        request or
suicide), 2.4 per cent (149 persons) were granted protection        from
deportation under terms of the Geneva Refugee Convention. In January
and February, asylum was granted to 0.8 per cent of the applicants
nationwide - first, for three years, with the possibility of a later
revokation. That is exactly 52 people, less than one person per day.[8]
About ten people per day die in their attempt to reach the EU by way of
the Canary Islands.


See also Festung Europa and Interview mit Karl Kopp.



[1] Mauritania anuncia un plan contra la inmigración clandestina hacia
Canarias; El Pais 12.03.2006
[2] Autoridades mauritanas repatriaron 70 inmigrantes a Senegal; EFE
11.03.2006
[3] see also Unknown Victims and Verschiebung
[4] see also Uneingeschränkt positiv
[5] Mehr Abschottung, mehr Haft, weniger Integration. Pro Asyl zum Entwurf
eines Gesetzes zur Umsetzung aufenthalts- und asylrechtlicher Richtlinien
der Europäischen Union;   www.proasyl.de
[6] Please read also Interview mit Karl Kopp.
[7] see also Berlin will Verschärfung des europäischen Asylrechts, Europa
den Europäern and Anwalt der Menschenrechte
[8] 1.779 Asylbewerber im Februar 2006;  Pressemitteilung des
Bundesministeriums des Inneren 08.03.2006

Received from Professor Anthony Coughlan.