Nosemonkey's EUtopia

I did put this up here to start with, but decided it was better off at The Sharpener for some reason I’ve now forgotten – so go read it there. Go on.

Please note the comments to the previous post. Us bloggers, eh? we’re useless. This is where having a sub comes in…

Update: Ha ha ha ha ha! I’ve only just noticed the typo in the title as well… Remind me not to try and write anything after a liquid lunch in future…

Effectively. And they’re right.

Commissioner for human rights Alvaro Gil-Robles has slated Blair and co’s insistence on being able to lock us all up as they deem fit (and the rest) in no uncertain terms. There is, he rightly says,

“a tendency increasingly discernible across Europe to consider human rights as excessively restricting the effective administration of justice and the protection of the public interest.”

No arguments from me.

“Against a background, by no means limited to the UK, in which human rights are frequently construed as, at best, formal commitments and, at worst, cumbersome obstructions, it is perhaps worth emphasising that human rights are not a pick-and-mix assortment of luxury entitlements but the very foundation of democratic societies.

“As such, their violation affects not just the individual concerned but society as a whole: we exclude one person from their enjoyment at the risk of excluding all of us”

Spot on.

This, of course, comes as that piss-poor bill outlawing “incitement to religious hatred” is published – a wonderful piece of legislation which will enable the rabid religious loons to persecute all those who disagree with them – if not actually in law, then with the effective moral backing of a law in terms of the self-censorship it will produce and the green light it will give to the likes of Christian Voice and their ilk to further hassle anyone who dares to criticise them or their fictional God.

But the most worrying thing is that I find myself agreeing wholeheartedly with useless Tory leadership hopeful David Davis…

This Sunday get the papers and read the book pages. On Monday, Mark Stuart’s authorised biography of the late Labour leader John Smith is published. I’ve been skimming through a review copy and there is, shall we say, a lot of somewhat pertinent material on the current state of the Labour party leadership in there. Especially Chapter 21. And 25. From what I’ve read so far this looks like a must-read, and will undoubtedly spark yet another round of debate over the whole Blair/Brown thing.

(*not really – that’s, like, just a matter of opinion, man…)

BBC bashing seems endemic among certain sections of the UK blogosphere – all (mostly) on the right – and is increasingly sneaking into parts of the right-wing press. I won’t link to or mention any of them because – much like wasps – if you smack one then hundreds start swarming all round you and it’s practically impossible to get rid of the buggers.

In fact, it’s even worse in blogland as, thanks to the joys of the likes of Technorati and various visitor counters, they can see where people have come from instantly. And there’s little I hate more than pointless arguments with random internet types – hence my generally restrained, largely non-personal tone here. (It occasionally slips, but not too often, and usually only when provoked…)

Anyway, that went off topic a tad. To the main point:

Third Avenue notes that – despite claims from certain sections of the population that the BBC is a rabidly left-wing pro-EU propaganda outfit – they’ve employed a (moderately) prominent eurosceptic to come up with an alternative to the EU constitution.

To wit, a short “I love the BBC” rant, originally posted as a comment over there:

Just because they employ ONE eurosceptic to do something related to the EU in their reporting doesn’t mean that they aren’t still Europhiles…*

* standard response #4657

Sadly, until EVERYONE at the BBC is fired and replaced by an approved list of eurosceptic, anti-PC free-marketeers, the complaints won’t stop. But then you’d just get a version of Biased BBC set up by a europhile lefty.

Personally I always found it offensive that they employed Kilroy, and always found his tone and views reprehensible. My simple solution? I didn’t watch it, and got value for money out of my license fee by listening to the umpteen radio stations, using the stupidly good website, and watching the various genuinely good programmes the corporation produces.

In short – I still can’t see what all the fuss is about. Don’t like the BBC’s news output? Fine – go and watch ITN or something. Only a tiny, tiny fraction of the license fee goes on news (and that’s rapidly diminishing anyway) – and the Beeb produces something like 200 hours of programming a day across its various TV and radio stations. You’ve got more than enough there to get your hundred quid a year’s worth.

As for the complaints that no one should be forced to pay for the BBC if they don’t watch it – I’ve not had to visit a doctor or call the police in over a year; I don’t have school-age children; I’ve never had to have an operation (NHS or otherwise). By the same logic I should get a sizable chunk of my tax money back, because the vast majority goes on stuff I never have call to use.

What do I get out of my �100 a month Council Tax? The rubbish taken away. That’s about it. For – over the course of a year – twelve times the BBC license fee. Add in Income Tax and National Insurance, God alone knows how little return I get. But that’s not the point of taxation, is it?

The anti-license fee thing – for all its high moral claims about monopolies and choice and so on (which I can see the case for, honest) – seems largely to be an objection to the very concept of state-funded anything. If so, fine – let’s take it to extremes and scrap universal funding for the BBC, NHS, comprehensive schools, university funding, road maintenance, rubbish collection, street lighting, the national parks, the armed forces etc. etc. and replace them all with pay for usage instead. It’d suit me fine. But the entire country would go to shit through under-funding within six months.

I’ve been really bad at updating my blogroll of late. If you link here, let me know – a few places I’ve spotted via Technorati etc. I’ve been meaning to add but lost, and I’m pondering one of those reciprocal link things as well. Plus I’m useless at acting on emails – they tend to get read and forgotten. Sorry about that.

To prevent this from being an utterly pointless post, have some links: first an article on foreign law and the US Constitution which is worth a look, then a TLS review of books on the EU constitution. They’ve both been around for a bit, but I’d only just spotted them.

What the hell’s going on? We’re a tiny little island and have been in economic and military decline for over a century. So why the hell is our government charging all over the world trying to sort out everyone else’s problems when they can’t even get the trains to run on time?

Blair meets Bush in America and tries to sort out the biggest charity hand-out in history. While he’s out there, voices emerge from th UK stating that we can do it even without the US – the single richest and most powerful country in the world by a long, long way.

Meanwhile Jack Straw charges off to the Middle East to sort out the Israel/Palestine thing, with a Foreign Office official revealing as he does so that – despite all the bullshit the government always spouts about not negotiating with terrorists – the UK maintains contacts with Hizbollah as well as Hamas.

Elsewhere, in Luxembourg, our Gordon’s been telling the other EU finance ministers to get their filthy hands off our rebate.

All the while, they’re all trying to stamp Britain’s vision on the EU on the continent (despite that vision being the one, most agree, that the French rejected in their referendum), with Blair’s late arrival for the crunch meeting on June 16/17th being seen by some as an indication of his (and therefore Britain’s) power in this mess.

Others, however, are unconvinced that Britain, Blair, Straw or Brown have got what it takes (well, Brown they aren’t so sure of, but still), asking “Can Britain Save Europe?” and concluding, erm… well, no – probably not. (Whether or not “Europe” needs saving at all is another matter. These little spats are healthy, and take place in any good relationship. We all just need a bit of time to kiss and make up.)

Of course, what us poor Brits should be wondering is why the hell the government is so busy pissing about in all parts of the world when they’ve only just been re-elected to their “historic third term” following an election campaign in which the only foreign issues were a general dislike of Britain’s involvement in Iraq and the prevalence of people called Sanjay and Mgobu living down our streets.

In the month since the general election, the only domestic issues which seem to have raised their heads have been teenagers being teenagers, the usual ID cards nonsense and that equally stupid bid to host the 2012 Olympic games. The latter two of which could also be seen as aimed overseas.

Now from my point of view this is great. I can laugh at our pathetic attempts to be a world power (yet still cheer when we succeed) and thanks to having little interest in domestic politics am often far happier rambling on about stuff happening abroad. But when the hell are they going to tackle the Network Rail problems, the school dinners issues, MRSA and NHS efficiency etc. etc. etc.?

Maybe I’m being a tad harsh. They have, after all, announced a public review on having monkeys as pets. But don’t get too excited – it looks like they want to ban it. The bastards. I want a monkey, damn it!

Reading through the full text of Jack Straw’s speech announcing the (temporary) suspension of Britain’s plans for a referendum on the constitutional treaty, its fairly tricky to find anything major to disagree with. And I’m no fan of Jack Straw.

Yep, his summary of what the constitution would have changed is excessively simplistic and other interpretations are easily possible, but the basic points he makes explaining why a referendum is currently a silly idea (pay attention, Ireland) are sound:

“like any other EU treaty, it requires ratification by every one of the EU’s member states – now 25 – before it can come into force… until the consequences of France and the Netherlands being unable to ratify the treaty are clarified, it would not in our judgement now be sensible to set a date for second reading [of the European Union bill setting out the proceedures for a referendum]… it is not for the UK alone to decide the future of the treaty… We reserve completely the right to bring back for consideration the bill providing for a UK referendum should circumstances change. But we see no point in doing so at this moment… these referendum results raise profound questions about the future direction of Europe.”

Simon Hoggart is on his usual good form with his parliamentary sketch:

“Mr Straw continued in his diffident way, making the greatest crisis in EU history sound like the date of the next choir practice.”

Of course, the real crisis is that without the referendum going ahead and giving Blair a convenient point to step down, we’re likely to be stuck with the bugger for at least another two years…

Well, that and the impact this period of EU introspection could have on the international scene:

“Europe’s future international relations hinge on the outcome of the debate about what to do with the rejected constitution. During the upcoming 16-17 June EU summit, a start will be made tackling the most pressing issues. Should Europe’s landscape change from a combined vast geographical area to individually portioned up countries again, this likely will overthow established international relations globally too.”

Berlin Sprouts also notes the fears of EU-hopefuls Bulgaria and Romania of the delays to future enlargement the current confusion could bring, while the likes of Turkey and Ukraine are in an even more precarious position which could cause major problems for the drives for reform on their respective domestic scenes.

The EU has been a major force for good in the former Soviet satellite states and other less developed countries to the east. The potential of eventual membership has sped through economic and social reforms which have already started to produce tangible benefits to the various populations.

While our leaders squabble, they should bear this in mind. The point of the EU is basically utilitarian, bringing the greatest benefit to the greatest number. They need to make sure that they don’t lose sight of this broader view while focussing on their individual nations’ needs.

(By the way, if anyone can come up with a better translation of this Habermas article than Babelfish can manage, I’d be grateful…)

I’m off to Hay on Wye this afternoon for work purposes. Looks like it’ll be raining. Joy. I’ll also certainly be surrounded by far too many snobby “intellectuals” and wannabe authors for my liking (and unable to tell them that I already am one – twice – without sounding like a tit, as I did just then). Either way, it means no more posts until Monday. In the meantime, have this:

All About Latvia has a bit of background on yesterday’s vote by the Latvian parliament which provides a nice bit of context.

Meanwhile, Margot Wallstrom, perhaps inadvisedly, seems to have started to echo Tony Blair – “we have listened and… we have learned something”. She’s also evidently been reading the comments section of her blog, for there are a fair few concessions/admissions to the sceptics in there: “This has been a project by the political elite” being a fairly major one. Well, she may have learned – but will the rest of them?

Meanwhile, the speculation continues – the Guardian’s summary of some (but by no means all) of the possibilities – and Britain is pushing for more delay, apparently, which is the only sensible thing to do considering precisely no one has any idea how the hell to proceed (although is this just a bargaining tactic?).

Some are calling for more prevarication and an official cancellation of the British referendum (Ireland too is pondering halting its own); others – including the eurosceptic Sun – are calling for the vote to happen regardless (but considering Sun owner Rupert Murdoch pays no tax in the EU, what the fuck business is it of his anyway?). Then the equally eurosceptic Evening Standard reveals the Sun’s poll that 75% in Britain would vote No should the referendum go ahead. It’s high, but plausible.

Others in Europe are not so sure that the treaty is dead, some even arguing that referendum votes should be ignored and ratification continue.

No, no they shouldn’t and no it shouldn’t. Not unless you want to piss everyone off even more. Listen to Margot for a while.

And more crises threaten, as worries about the euro reach an all-time high, including speculation that some countries may wish to leave the Eurozone. Here’s a handy round-up of other economic woes. Germany, meanwhile, looks ready to take one for the team and compromise over the divisive EU budget proposals. If Gerhard Schr�der wasn’t already going to be out on his arse in the next election, he certainly is now…

The EU can be a force for good whether you like it and agree with it or not. At the moment they’re confused, they’re grapsing around for support. Now is the ideal time to get in there and propose alternative models. Who knows – they may even finally twig that a “one size fits all” is not the way forward…

Someone appears not to have told the Latvian parliament that there’s no point any more… They’ve just ratified the EU constitution, despite the thing being well and truly deceased. Good to see some enthusiasm, but really – what’s the point?

Meanwhile, the BBC has a handy roundup of Dutch press responses to the somewhat catagorical rejection of the constitution, while The Guardian does the same for the UK press.

The immediate aftermath? The Euro hit an eight month low against the dollar yesterday, but an alternative take blames this on the dollar, not the referendums. More economics stuff I don’t understand here – looks like the stock markets did something or other. I think it’s good, but don’t quote me on that… I hate numbers.

To things I understand: European Democracy liveblogged the Dutch result and has some good insights, while Guy from Non Tibi Spiro had a good overview of the Dutch situation at Fistful, which may help put the result in context.

Now, of course, we have to wait and see what they come up with. Even the Commissioners seem uncertain of where next.

Interesting times. For a politics geek who doesn’t especially care who’s in charge – I’m still going to get taxed and screwed – this is great. Time to sit back, put my feet up and happily spectate – while occasionally spouting off about stuff from the depths of the internet, naturally.

The trouble is that we�ve got, to resort to clich�, a chicken/egg scenario when it comes to the EU.

The principle criticism against the EU is that it lacks democratic accountability. Which it does, and anyone who says not is a fool or a liar. All the other criticisms stem from that to one extent or another – the imposition of directives (in this country actually normally applied far more literally than necessary), the supposedly endemic corruption (which exists, but not much more so than in any other bureaucratic organisation) and, of course, the fact that the Commission has sole right to initiate legislation despite not being elected.

To tackle the democratic deficit – as the constant complaints from both sides run – you need engagement from the people. But the people are unlikely to get engaged until they feel their votes actually count for something, which at the moment they don�t, really.

This was part of what the constitution was trying to tackle (and it�s only right to talk about the thing in the past tense now). Voters are used to a state framework when it comes to elections and participation. But the EU is not a state, nor does it resemble one (if we�re honest) in anything more than a superficial sense. The flag�s there, the anthem, the civil service and the parliament, but they don�t really work as a whole, and there is precisely zero pan-European political dialogue below the level of the political elite (and the occasional blogger).

Add to that the fact that the interrelationships are so damn confusing and complex (like the guys I heard chatting on the tube the other day, both of whom seemed fairly intelligent and politically aware – they got on at Westminster – but one of whom was insisting that the Commission appoints the Council of Ministers�), it�s practically impossible to work out how the thing works. If people can�t understand or easily see how their participation matters, they aren�t going to bother getting involved.

At the moment we hear talk of �the EU says such and such�, but this could refer to almost anything – the EU Parliament, Commission, Council of Ministers, Central Bank, European Court of Justice, and sometimes even non-EU institutions like the Council of Europe or European Court of Human Rights. The constitution�s proposal of a president could have led to a more clear idea of what �the EU says� actually means. (A Commission spokesman – even Margot Wallstrom, the Communications Commissioner – does not, currently, necessarily speak for the whole EU.) Likewise an EU Foreign Minister. Nation states are defined as much as by what they are not than by what they are. Without a coherent EU foreign policy (even if – as would be necessary – only in a few areas), an understanding of what it means to be an EU citizen is well nigh impossible.

Now, although the constitution proposed greater powers for the European Parliament (and about time too), this would not in itself have been enough to create the kind of European demos which critics of the project so often cite the lack of as an example of how the thing can�t possibly work. A President and Foreign Minister could, simply by existing, have helped to shape a sense of EU identity which has been, since the project�s inception, sorely lacking outside of the political classes. They could have acted as a catalyst for the formation of some kind of EU-wide demos merely by being able to act as the voice of the EU, cutting down on the confusion which currently runs riot whenever any kind of statement appears from anyone who could – even vaguely – be mistaken for an EU spokesman.

Without a coherent understanding of what the EU is and does – which there most certainly is not at the moment (even with some otherwise politically-aware people, and I�ll include myself here, as I have been known to muddle up the Council of Europe, European Council and Council of the European Union from time to time) – greater democratisation would merely lead to more confusion.

Add to that the difficulty of the artifical binary split in attitudes towards the EU – pro or anti, with nothing in between – and greater democratisation as the EU stands at the moment would merely lead to further chaos. As can be seen by the reactions to the French �No� vote (likely to be replicated after the Netherlands reject the treaty today), with a binary split no message can really be taken. Some have claimed the French vote was a rejection of a supranational EU, others that it reflected national politics, others that it was against the �Anglo-Saxon model�. In fact it was all, none and much, much more.

But until there is a genuine, proper understanding of what it is that the EU is and does – in the same way that most people in Britain understand more or less how it is that Westminster affects their lives – it will be practically impossible to get away from this simplistic Yes/No divide and the wild claims that ensue from such splits. Democracy cannot work effectively on Yes/No at the kind of early stage at which the EU finds itself. Before the House of Commons votes on a bill there is a period of debate and discussion. In a healthy democracy, that debate extends to the population at large – as it has been with, for example, the ID cards bill. You don�t go straight to the vote unless you want people to make an uninformed choice on an insufficiently discussed issue. And if you want that, you can only expect resentment later on once people twig what�s happened.

In the EU, at the moment, the debate never spreads beyond Brussels/Strasbourg until after the fact. EU legislation is barely ever discussed in national parliaments, let alone among national populations, until it is too late for the people to have a say. The EU constitution would not have solved that fundamental problem. It could, however, have provided some kind of framework by which the actions of the EU became known about before they happened simply by the addition of recognisable twin spokesmen in the shape of the Foreign Minister and President. If, that is, they had approached these roles in the right way.

Of course, the irony of the current situation is that in seeing the constitution rejected, the EU is experiencing its first proper period of internal debate in which the people are actively involved – via letters pages, chats in the pub etc. – in its history. It could well be that this �crisis� (it is actually nothing of the sort, except for the elites who tried to impose this constitution on us) could be the best thing for the EU, simply for its ability to get the people talking about it for a change.

(Originally posted as a comment to this post at The Sharpener)

Some of these may prove useful today:

• Non Tibi Spiro – which has links to a load of blogs in Dutch as well
• Hollandaise
• Frans Groenendijk
• Vermetel
• Sered’s POV
• Zacht Ei
• Steeph

(Why does putting “Dutch” in front of anything make it sound rude? Very odd…)

Anyway, Non Tibi Spiro already has the result.

What’s it going to mean when the Netherlands vote no as well? No one knows. Anyone who pretends they do is lying.

Isn’t it exciting? More later – busy.