[TieMeUp]

Hi folks,

I just wanted to find out your thoughts about this year's Bilderberg meeting, what implications you believe it has for democracy, whether the meetings, considering the attendance of public officials, should publish its minutes and be open about its agenda, and so on.

Its great to see that the group itself has become somewhat more transparent in recent years; it has an official website and has published its list of participants for this year.

http://www.bilderbergmeetings.org/participants2012.html

From the UK, it includes Marcus Agius (Chairman of Barclays), Ken Clarke MP, Robert Dudley (Chairman of BP), Douglas Flint (Chairman of HSBC), Lord Kerr (former deputy Chairman of Royal Dutch Shell, HL crossbencher), Peter Mandelson, John Micklethwait (Editor of the Economist), Peter Voser (Chairman of Royal Dutch Shell) and Nick Boles MP.

Also many other chairmen, CEOs, billionaires, philanthropists and elected politicians, including the chairmen of most large investment and commercial banks like Deutsche Bank, Goldman Sachs etc

What do you think about it? What implications does it have for public policy and transparent, democratic governance?

Edit: I don't think that elected US officials are supposed to attend due to the restrictions of the Logan Act, which governs the conduct of US officials when they act in a way that could be construed as carrying on a foreign policy role

[TieMeUp]

I thought I'd also point out, I do think it's quite significant when you have security officials like the director of the National Security Agency and Commander of US Cyber Command, Keith Alexander, meeting with tech CEOs like the chairmen of Google and LinkedIn. Clearly policy related questions are being discussed, with important implications for the freedom of the internet and civil liberties, and I do think it's simply unacceptable for public officials to meet in this way without disclosing what they have discussed and why.

Also, for UK/EU citizens, the attendance of Pierre Vimont, the Executive Director of the European External Action Service (a kind of diplomatic and security co-ordination service) certainly has policy implications for EU citizens.

[Kolya]

(Original post by TieMeUp)
considering the attendance of many elected officials, should publish its minutes and be open about its agenda, and so on.

How many elected officials are there? Something like four or five?...

[Martyn*]

The mainstream media still deny their (Bilderberg) existence.

[TieMeUp]

(Original post by Kolya)
How many elected officials are there? Something like four or five?...

I'm wondering how, if true, that would diminish the argument that they should be required to account for what they're up to? People like Ken Clarke, Nick Boles and Pierre Vimont, are paid by us; they are our employees and servants.

If they're engaging in discussions relating to public policy, they should be accounting for it publicly. I'm not sure how the number attending affects the general principle?

And for those companies which are publicly held (like HSBC and Barclays), there is also a degree of responsibility to disclose the substance and outcome of a meeting that is as important as this.

Btw, it is far in excess of five; just from the UK, there were approximately equal numbers of politicians and business figures

[TieMeUp]

(Original post by Martyn*)
The mainstream media still deny their (Bilderberg) existence.

Do they still deny it? That's pretty mad, considering Bilderberg has an official website.

I thought their MO was to downplay any suggestion that these people are discussing public policy, and when that starts to look ridiculous, claim that it doesn't matter and their employers (the taxpayers) have no right to know what they're discussing.

Meh.

[RyanT]

(Original post by Martyn*)
The mainstream media still deny their (Bilderberg) existence.

The Guardian covered it last year.

IF the Assange hating multiculturalist neoliberals infesting that paper are not mainstream, I have no idea what is.

Bilderberg isn't an interesting group, the interesting ones are the ones we don't hear about.

[Aj12]

(Original post by Martyn*)
The mainstream media still deny their (Bilderberg) existence.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...gathering.html

Denies to such a level that the Daily Mail reports on its security.

I think you are mistaking denial for not newsworthy. There is nothing really to report on other than the fact that a meeting is going on.

[the bear]

so they did not invite Zuckerberg ?

[TieMeUp]

(Original post by Aj12)
I think you are mistaking denial for not newsworthy. There is nothing really to report on other than the fact that a meeting is going on.

Do you believe that nothing newsworthy is being discussed there, or because we're not going to find it it's not newsworthy?

[TieMeUp]

(Original post by the bear)
so they did not invite Zuckerberg ?

Well, they do have Peter Thiel, Eric Schmidt (Google) and the chairman of LindedIn, and the US CinC of Cyber Command and Director of the National Security Agency. That's pretty much a full court press as far as IT goes.

[ChapelTom]

I'm suspicious of the Bilderberg group and I'm one of those has looked into the right wing conspiracy theories. I understand that yes, media are kept away to stop off the cuff comments that are said being reported etc, all that side of it but I really still do not trust the Bilderberg group at all.

[Aj12]

(Original post by TieMeUp)
Do you believe that nothing newsworthy is being discussed there, or because we're not going to find it it's not newsworthy?

I think because we aren;t going to find out. There is so little infomation coming out of it I doubt there isanything the media could find to report on

[Brutal Honesty]

Why is Ken Clarke there? His record as Chancellor was disastrous.

[Leon Trotsky]

(Original post by Martyn*)
The mainstream media still deny their (Bilderberg) existence.

I remember Sky News sent a reporter last year.

[TieMeUp]

(Original post by Brutal Honesty)
Why is Ken Clarke there? His record as Chancellor was disastrous.

He's the arch-Europhile in the Tory Party, and has been an attendee for many years. You could probably say Mandy is his opposite number in Labour in that respect.

I remember he said that eurskeptics in Britain were simply "right-wing nationalists", and called the Greeks opposed to German control "extremist ratbags".

[TieMeUp]

(Original post by Addzter)
I remember Sky News sent a reporter last year.

Last year was actually pretty open by Bilderberg terms; the Swiss police aren't inclined to be too heavy-handed.

American police have no such qualms.

[Martyn*]

Well I've not heard anything from C4 or ITV.

[Organ]

(Original post by Aj12)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...gathering.html

Denies to such a level that the Daily Mail reports on its security.

I think you are mistaking denial for not newsworthy. There is nothing really to report on other than the fact that a meeting is going on.

Why would a meeting of some of the world's most powerful people not be newsworthy?

What do you think a meeting of top heads of financial, state, media, and other power structures are discussing?

There are leading representatives of government there (for UK this year there is Kenneth Clark, last year it was George Osborne) and top bankers, industrialist and CEOs. I don't think that there are meetings as big as this meeting anywhere else. "The ability to talk off the record" aka 'let's not allow things like democratic accountability get in the way of what we want to do'.

It is made even worse by the inclusion of our publicly elected representatives. They are supposed to represent us, the people who voted for them and pay their salary. When they lock themselves in a room for a week with wealthy vested interests and media moguls, choose not tell us what they're talking about and shroud even the existence of the meeting in secrecy it's hard to believe that the conversation is in the best interest of us. Conflict of interest; transparency; accountability... take your pick.

[Aj12]

(Original post by Organ)
Why would a meeting of some of the world's most powerful people not be newsworthy?

What do you think a meeting of top heads of financial, state, media, and other power structures are discussing?

There are leading representatives of government there (for UK this year there is Kenneth Clark, last year it was George Osborne) and top bankers, industrialist and CEOs. I don't think that there are meetings as big as this meeting anywhere else. "The ability to talk off the record" aka 'let's not allow things like democratic accountability get in the way of what we want to do'.

It is made even worse by the inclusion of our publicly elected representatives. They are supposed to represent us, the people who voted for them and pay their salary. When they lock themselves in a room for a week with wealthy vested interests and media moguls, choose not tell us what they're talking about and shroud even the existence of the meeting in secrecy it's hard to believe that the conversation is in the best interest of us. Conflict of interest; transparency; accountability... take your pick.

There's no information about what they are discussing so its not newsworthy. All you would end up with would be the BBC standing around near by saying we saw so and so walking in we have no idea what they are doing but we are going to spend the next few days standing around watching coming up with speculation over what they are doing.