Unece
 

Formed in 1947, these are the guys who make the key decisions in many areas of competency and who pass on those decisions to the middlemen of the EU who then pass those tablets of stone down to the club members.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...ion_for_Europe

There are 56 members, not just the current 28 "little Europeans" of the EU; effectively, the EU is a sub-regional grouping when seen from the UN perspective.
The UK was a founder member. So was Russia, as was France but Germany was more of a late-comer along with Canada (correct, Canada).
Many of the ex-soviet countries joined in 1955, at the height of the cold war. Others signed up after the Berlin wall was breached.
Even Israel is a member of this European grouping (see the UN agenda 21); but they take part in the Eurovision song contest also. :innocent:

Lobbying, campaigning etc - he who pays the piper, calls the melody
 

Undoubtedly, funding of lobbying, formally, informally, secretly, semi-secretly and overtly, is the shape of things nowadays.
So, campaigns are not exempt from this; at 10 weeks out from the date of the referendum the electoral commission will announce the "official" campaign groupings - this is vastly important to them all at present because the designated, favoured, groups will receive public funds for their own particular POV.

As but one more example, here's another case of how funds are allocated to "pressure groups", some of whom are very secret about where the money comes from:-

"This is apparent in the government's review of the balance of competences concerning the environment.807 There, we see the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) expressing the view that the EU's water directives "have been instrumental in delivering improvements in river water quality". The Royal Society also attributed improvements in air quality to EU action and thought that the EU's ambitious climate change targets could provide a competitive advantage over countries which are slower to act.
Yet, nowhere in the entire review is there any indication that the RSPB has been the beneficiary of grants to the value of €14 million from the EU, to support various projects. Nor is there any indication that the international arm of the RSPB, Birdlife International, with offices in Brussels, was lead recipient of funds to the extent of €25,680,683, paid by the European Commission between 2007 and 2012. Furthermore, while the RSPB presents information about itself in the evidence submitted to the review, it makes no reference to its EU funding sources."

Note: this cash came from the European Commission.

Yep
 

I think you are right.

The EU grant is clearly and separately identified and commented on in the published RSPB Report & Accounts. Are you suggesting that there have not been improvements in air and river water quality? If not, I don't see your point.

My point was clearly stated in the heading to the posting: lobbying, campaigning etc. - all this in the context of a national referendum.
(as it happens the earlier link referring to GS and JPM shows that there are major players funding both sides of the great debate).

Few people read accounts (the last ones I consulted were for the charity Kids company when that went down the tubes).
In the government review that I referenced the funding of the RSPB in their own lobbying "role" was not clearly identified.
Many NGOs do this; in NZ, at least one major NGO has lost its' charitable status because of their activities.

How you link my post to a questioning of air and water quality when I am referring to lobbying etc is kind of weird.

Nope. Not getting it.

The EU grant to the RSPB didn't stop them heavily criticising the European budget deal in 2013. You think they should declare their EU grant status every time they speak or maybe not praise any EU activity because of their status as EU grant recipients?

Government, lobbying - simple really
 

Where did I say that?

The government review is taking evidence from those who have their own agendas.
We all do it; some are paid to say what they say.

Were the RSPB incentivised to say what they said about river water and air quality?

Council of Europe
 

Here's another player in the mix, founded in 1949 it was considered to be "not good enough" by the guy Monnet who was a driving force for establishing the Common Market/EEC/EU.

The Council of Europe, like the UNECE, is a broader organisation than the EU but not quite as widely based as the UNECE.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Europe

For some competencies the EU approach is one of subordination to the CoE.
e.g.
"The European Union is expected to accede to the European Convention on Human Rights (the Convention). There are also concerns about consistency in case law – the European Court of Justice (the EU's court in Luxembourg) is treating the Convention as part of the legal system of all EU member states in order to prevent conflict between its judgements and those of the European Court of Human Rights (the court in Strasbourg interpreting the Convention). Protocol No. 14 of the Convention is designed to allow the EU to accede to it and the EU Treaty of Lisbon contains a protocol binding the EU to join. The EU would thus be subject to its human rights law and external monitoring as its member states currently are"

We are all incentivised by ..................... you complete the sentence as you see fit.

How would you complete it in the context of your original post about the RSPB?

Once more, my subject has not been the RSPB but lobbying.
It is you who is fixated on the RSPB.

More about lobbying: your sensibilities might find this continuing quote more palatable, although it doesn't alter anything that I have contributed so far.

What is not generally realised is the extent to which NGOs and other "civil society" organisations are funded directly or indirectly by the EU. Environmental NGOs in particular benefit from a dedicated EU fund known as the LIFE+ programme. Authorised by Regulation (EC) No 614/2007, it declares that "non-governmental organisations contribute to the development and implementation of Community environmental policy and legislation. It is therefore appropriate for part of the LIFE+ budget to support the operations of a number of appropriately qualified environmental NGOs through the competitive and transparent awarding of annual operating grants".

Incidentally, Greenpeace does not receive such funding from the European Commission and it is Greenpeace that is no longer recognised as a bona fide charity by the government of NZ.

Lobbying: fact of life.

You quoted the RSPB. Where they lobbying? If so, my question stands. Do you believe the RSPB was incentivised to make your quoted comments about the river water and air quality?

In out shake it all about !!!
 

So you want "In".......fancy being treated like this ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCHu1kRT6hU

Ode to Joy
 

Matthew Hancock, speaking up for our government, is taken apart by Andrew Neil – on BBC TV recently and placed here in a blog for posterity.
(our modern day masters must love the internet).

This also shows the arguments for how necessary it was for us to join the Eurozone, back in 2003, and who among the great and the good said that at the time - some of them are hectoring us now about our referendum doh

UK Unleashed - News
See 4 March 2016 blog entry.