Nosemonkey's EUtopia

The Electoral Commission has announced that “Having considered the proposed referendum question against our published guidelines, the commission believes that the question to be put to voters is intelligible.”

Hurrah…

Oddly they also said that “The commission is also satisfied that the question makes it immediately clear what decision the voter is being asked to make, and that the level of public awareness surrounding the European constitution and the referendum process will be sufficiently high to remove any necessity of having an introductory paragraph.”

Really? Public awareness will be sufficiently high to understand the ramifications of an overly-complex 300 page document, analyse the relative importance of the pros (of which there are some) and cons (of which there are also some), and then make a sound judgement based around a combination of their grasp of the specific document, an understanding of the current organisational and accountability structures of the European Union, the potential impact that the recent enlargement to 25 member states could have on current working methods, Britian’s political, economic and cultural relationships with her European neighbours, and the relative likelihoods of future economic growth or stagnation should the existing structures be either altered or left as they are?

I can’t say I’m convinced…

Judging from my visitor logs, the software giant Veritas has suddenly become aware of Kilroy’s Veritas, and is trying to find out more. Well, here’s the new party’s official site – complete with contact details and an option to donate your hard-earned cash to the cause.

It is worth pointing out at this juncture that “VERITAS” is a trademark of the Veritas software company.

Now I’ll admit to being no lawyer, but if the software Veritas (which was founded in 1989, rather than at 10:30 this morning) wanted to sue old Kilroy for nicking their name, their $1.75 billion annualized revenues (whatever that may mean) should be more than enough to take the permatanned git to court and crush his pathetic little party at the get-go.

Come on, real Veritas, sue this imposter Veritas now – they’re tarnishing your good name! Please? It’d be funny, and the people of Britain would be eternally grateful…

11pm update: Some people seem to be taking this whole Veritas thing a tad too seriously. First, via Manic, someone seems to think they’ve found a Veritas conspiracy. Then, it turns out that some of the other members of the lunatic fringe are getting attracted to Kilroy’s own particular brand of insanity to boot:

“the Right has been looking for the equivalent of a Haider, a Fortuyn or a Le Pen to lead it on. Now, Kilroy may not be a Haider or Le Pen, but the parellels with Fortuyn are there to see. Fortuyn was a media host who took a big risk (ultimately a fatal risk) to speak out about immigration and Islamicisation). He left the Liveable Netherlands Party to set up his own list to fight the elections… Now, if Fortuyn was the only way a party of the radical Right could obtain a decent share of the vote in the Netherlands, should we not consider that Kilroy may be the only way an anti-EU, anti-immigration, anti-PC party can come to the fore in this country?”

This is a parallel and a suggestion which has been made before. As such it worries me. Rather a lot. (Although even if the total membership of the Populist Party joins Veritas, Kilroy still won’t have enough people for a game of football, so I don’t know why…)

He’s only gone and finally done it! Yep, Europhobia’s favourite nutter Robert Kilroy-Silk has finally launched his new party – called Veritas as expected – which purports to be focussing on asylum and immigration, but not much else by the look of things.

A racist bigot basing sparse policies around his prejudices? There’s a surprise…

Apparently the party (which seems thus far only to have Kilroy as a member) will be aiming to win over everyone who has “been made to feel ashamed of their culture and being British” – everyone, that is, except those who may be British but also have Irish, Scottish, Pakistani, French, German, Russian, African, Iraqi or Arab heritage… Or any other foreign blood for that matter.

What an absolute dick.

Edit: My bad, there is another member. So, here they are – the Veritas party. Aren’t they beautiful? So virile and sexy. They’ve got my vote…

Edit 2: He’s just so damn gorgeous I couldn’t resist another picture:

Fistful‘s European Weblog Awards have been announced. This blog ended up a moderately respectable third choice in both categories in which it was nominated, losing out to Slugger O’Toole in the Best Political Weblog category and to Perfect.co.uk in the Best UK one – both of which are quality stuff, so I can’t really feel too hard done by.

Other categories with well-deserved winners (based on my own limited knowledge of the field) include Weblog Most Deserving of Wider Recognition, which went to the rather good Non tibi Spiro after a tough fight with the equally decent Histologion, which won the Best Southeastern European section as a well-deserved consolation in what was a tough race.

Siberian Light, named Best CIS blog (in one of the toughest categories of the lot, featuring as it did a range of superb blogs which I largely discovered during the Ukraine crisis: The Argus, Neeka’s Backlog, Foreign Notes and The Russian Dilettante) and the Best Blog winner The Glory of Carniola are other particular favourites.

However, many damn fine competitors who missed out on prizes also deserve mentions and are definitely worth a look – and these are just the ones I knew about before the Awards – Brit poliblogger The Yorkshire Ranter, intriguingly eclectic culture blog Giornale Nuovo, the entertainingly eurosceptic North Sea Diaries, euroblogger Manic Net preacher, the sadly now (apparently) defunct Reflections on European Democracy, the superb EuroSavant, the rather fine East Ethnia, the insightful All About Latvia, the Metafilter spin-off Viewropa, the always good Cabalamat Journal, the somewhat intelligent EU Law, and – of course – my fellow pro-EU blogger James at Lose the Delusion.

Also, thanks to these awards I’ve started reading (or at least trying to read) a number of French language blogs – in particular Publius (winner of the Best Coverage of the EU category), Ceteris Paribus and Versac – all of which look pretty damn good, as do a vast number of others on the list. Plenty of good reading all round.

Congrats to all the winners etc., thanks to everyone who voted for Europhobia, and for those who didn’t: you absolute bastards – I wanted to win, damn it!

“United States officials were surprised and heartened today at the size of turnout in South Vietnam’s presidential election despite a Vietcong terrorist campaign to disrupt the voting.” NY Times 4th September 1967. (Courtesy of Political Wire)

And so we mark the exact point where the war in Iraq becomes a war of liberation rather than that rather fusty old business about some silly WMD. Yes, it’s heartening to see a people embrace democracy, and I hope it leads to stability and prosperity for their country. Nevertheless, it cannot in retrospect justify the gross misrepresentations made by two governments to their respective people which led to the waging of this war under false pretences.

Of course, now that Bush’s administration can honestly declare its idealistic and somewhat messianic goals , will that make things any better? Maybe so and maybe not, but with this sort of positive reaction it seems unlikely there is any doubt holding back the American neo-con idealists from their foreign policy goals. Perhaps in years to come, their policy will be seen as correct, and the multilateral relativisim of the UN and the EU as comparable with appeasement. In any event, it looks increasingly likely that the next practical application of the Bush doctrine will be in Iran.

Looks like the eurosceptics are just as annoyed with their self-appointed spokespeople as those of us who are pro have been with ours.

EU Referendum’s Richard North makes the very fair point that

“The cause of Euroscepticism is not best served by this ranting as it presents us with the added difficulty of having to overcome the “loony-fringe” label before we are even able to get the message across.”

This sounds remarkably similar to my own complaint from the other day that

“Most of the pro-EU lot do no service to that side of the debate, usually painting eurosceptics with the broadest of “little Englander” and “xenophobe” brushes, sounding utterly patronising and making us all look like self-righteous arseholes”.

Neither side of the EU debate are happy. It seems as though none of those purporting to speak for either the anti or the pro camps are particularly in tune with what the people they claim to represent actually think.

Neither side is entirely happy with the constitution. But the referendum is – and has been since it was first mooted – being portrayed as a referendum on whether or not we see benefits to EU membership, not on the constitution itself. Both hardcore eurosceptics and hardcore pro-Europeans are presenting it as if the true question is “Do you want to be part of the EU?”

If we could calm it down a bit, both sides of the argument would reject the constitution – albeit for different reasons. Then a new constitution (or treaty, if you don’t like the “c”-word) could be drawn up, ideally with a provision in it for certain nations to set up a second tier of EU membership where the relationship stays much as it is (although tidied up and with further safeguards put in place), while others can go ahead with EMU and closer integration unimpeded by the less enthusiastic member states. Then we can, if necessary, hold a referendum on which group we want to belong to. I’d say that’d be ideal for all concerned.

Instead, us pro-EU lot are feeling pressured to defend the very concept of the EU – past, present and future – in the face of constant attacks from the antis. This is despite the fact that the real debate should be over the constitution, and from what I can tell, most of us pro-EU people don’t like that much more than most eurosceptics do, but see it as necessary to pass simply because it has been transmogrified into a personification of the EU itself.

I think the EU is a good thing for Britain. I reckon a new treaty to tie up all the loose ends of six decades of European integration is necessary. I don’t think the current constitution does the job as well as it could and should. But I may end up voting in favour of it anyway (I haven’t yet made up my mind) purely to register my support for Britain’s membership of the EU itself. That is not what the vote should be about, but that is what it is being turned into.

Tuesday edit: Yesterday someone posted a comment to this old post, in which I accused dear Dr North of doing precisely what he is complaining of in the quote above. The comment is, I think, worth copying here – it is very similar to my initial reasoning for abandoning my former eurosceptic ways:

Wednesday edit: In the interest of balance, another response (in the comments to this post), from the other side of the fence:

7 years ago when a young stagiere I was walking round Brussels in a red t-shirt with Europa emblazoned across the front. While verring on the sceptic side before the Iraq war the behaviour of France and Germany cemented my previous scepticism more firmly. I still think that Britain overall gains from being a member through cheap flights and EU workers based in Britain, but the more I learn about the policies and regulations coming from Brussels, the corruption, lack of accountability, stitch ups and poorly conceived polices, the more I think that generally I’ve made the right decision.

A thought, from a comment to my last post. Not to be taken too seriously, but I reckon it may be an interesting observation:

A constant argument of the anti-EU side is that the European Commission is not democratic.

But in the US, the people do not directly elect their president. Sure, they VOTE for the president, but it is the Electoral College which actually makes the final decision. Hence Al Gore getting the majority of the popular vote in 2000, yet not winning the presidency (and that wasn’t a one-off – see also Samuel Tilden getting more than Rutherford Hayes in 1876, Grover Cleveland getting more than Benjamin Harrison in 1888, and even – if you buy the tales of vote fraud – Richard Nixon getting more than John F Kennedy in 1960).

The US president is the top dog of the US executive. The rest of the executive is led by his cabinet. Yet the US cabinet is solely appointed by the president – none of them are elected officials (unlike the UK where, as the executive is part of the legislature, the majority of members of the cabinet are democratically elected MPs). The president’s choice of cabinet then has to be ratified by Congress.

How is this different to the EU system? The Commission has a strong case for being the closest the EU has to an executive. Its president is agreed by representatives of the democratically elected governments of the member states. These representatives are, arguably, equivalent to the United States’ Electoral College voters. The Commission president-elect is then ratified by the democratically-elected European Parliament.

Then, of course, the president of the Commission appoints the commissioners – just as the US prsident appoints his cabinet. Only the Commission president has no say in who his commissioners are. Instead, the individual (again, democratically-elected) governments of the member states nominate their own commissioners. The Commission president then gives them their various positions. Again, these then have to be ratified by the European Parliament.

In the US, cabinet appointees all have to be ratified by the (democratically elected) Congress, just as European Commissioners have to be ratified by the European Parliament. Yet, arguably, for the US cabinet to have the same legitimacy as the European Commission, each (democratically elected) government of each US state would have to have the right to appoint its own cabinet member. So instead of Condi, Rumsfeld and the like, we’d have a bunch of people appointed by the state governments of Wisconsin, Idaho, South Carolina and the rest all vying for the president’s attention. That would, technically, be more democratic than the current system, where the president’s mates get all the best positions whether they’ve ever held elected office or not.

So then, considering that the president of the European Commision is chosen by agreement between the democratically elected representatives of the EU states, the commissioners are appinted by the democratically elected governments of the EU states, and both the president and the commissioners are confirmed in their positions by the democratically elected European Parliament, isn’t the European Commission more democratic than the American executive, in which not even the president necessarily has to have a majority of voters behind him?

A few quick thoughts late at night (and slightly drunk), so probably not thought through… The other day, Airstrip One argued that

�It is clear that the Europhiles in Britain will clothe themselves in the flag to promote their cause. However, it is a discourse of the dead since the national interest is effectively destroyed if subordinated within a greater whole. For the first time, politicians are having to engage with the �death of Britain� and applaud our future within a superstate.�

But what exactly is the national interest? Airstrip One’s interpretation seems to equate the nation with the state. Yet the state is surely primarily the governmental machine. Nations are not defined by lines on a map or government edicts – they are primarily based around a shared identity or perception of common links.

When it really comes down to it, most people couldn’t care less about abstract notions of sovereignty – they care about whether they can get food on the table, find a stable job, buy a house, afford to start up a family and live happily free from persecution in a prosperous and well-provisioned area. For the majority of the population, the nation means little except for when the football, rugby or cricket comes on the telly. On a daily basis what matters is the local town or village, their street, their immediate home.

It is also worth noting that the interests of the people and those of the state do not necessarily coincide. It may be in the interest of the state to, for example, create an immense biometric database to enable government to keep track on the people, or to remove the right to a trial to enable it to lock its citizens up at will. That is surely not in the interest of the people, even if some of them may not be aware of this. So, which of these is the “national” interest – those of the state or the people?

The thing that really matters is surely what is in the interests of the people, not the state, for it is the people who form the nation. And the primary, most important interest of the people is surely for their lives to be as pleasant, safe, free and prosperous as possible. The state can get in the way of these aspirations; it can aid them. In Nazi Germany or – especially – Soviet Russia, which was the national interest? The desires of the totalitarian leadership to assert control over the population, or the desires of the people to live uncomplicated, fear-free lives?

But then it is also worth noting that the people are not always able to see the best means to their desired ends. Were you to have asked a German in 1943 whether it was in the national interest for their country to lose the war and end up occupied by their enemies for nearly half a century, they would almost certainly – and understandably – have answered in the negative. Now the vast majority of Germans would tell you that they are eternally grateful that the expansion of the Reich ended in defeat. The German state is far less powerful than it would have been had Hitler won the war, but the German people are far better off. (Likewise, were you to have asked many Scots in the 16th century whether it was in their national interest to link up with England as the junior partner in a “United Kingdom”, they would have told you precisely where to shove it.)

If the long-term interests of the people would be best served by joining a superstate, that is in the national interest; if the people will end up less prosperous, safe, and free as part of the EU than they would if their country were to pull out, then obviously they should have nothing to do with it.

But no one knows whether the European project will end up as a superstate (no one knows even if it will be successful). Equally no one knows whether Britain would be able to make it on her own in an increasingly competitive world now she no longer has the prop of an empire and the advantage of the most productive manufacturing sector in the world. It’s all speculation.

One thing, however, which has been proved by the experiences of a broad range of people from the Jews to the Scots to the Welsh to the Basques to the Cornish, Scousers, Geordies and Cockneys, is that a sense of collective, shared, national identity (in its broadest, traditonal sense) can easily be maintained while nominally under the jurisdiction of a far wider organisation. I can be both British and English; Europhobia’s Rhona can be both British and Scottish – what makes it so unlikely that we can maintain these identites with a broader, “European” one added on top? If Europhobia’s Matt can manage to hold dual nationality without any problems of identity, why can’t we all be both British and European?

I’ll stress that I am not advocating a superstate by any means. But if maintiaining complete sovereignty means we are less able to compete internationally, and that thus our economy begins to stagnate and our quality of life deteriorates, what value does that sovereignty hold? It is an abstract notion, held at an arbitrary level – after all, what makes the state the best place for sovereignty to lie if the majority of the population have no need to come into contact with people from any other part of that state?

What matters to the people is money and comfort. If sovereignty held at a state level is the best way to supply that, fine; but if having some powers held at an inter-state level produces a better standard of living, that is where they should be.

According to Ken at EU Realist, in response to a comment I made to his post on the report on the BBC’s EU coverage, one of the main eurosceptic complaints about the BBC is that the case for withdrawal is rarely aired. My reply ended up lengthy, but may (at a push) be of interest:

Seriously? Now I can’t give you any specifics here, but I’ve got the impression that most times the BBC holds any kind of EU based debate they generally call in people from the two furthest extremes. Most of the pro-EU lot they get in do no service to that side of the debate, usually painting eurosceptics with the broadest of “little Englander” and “xenophobe” brushes, sounding utterly patronising and making us all look like self-righteous arseholes, and the anti-EU vox pops often seem to be chosen for being hardcore pro-withdrawal voices.

The impression I’ve got of the majority of eurosceptics is that they largely object to further integration, and think that in certain areas we’ve already gone too far – not that the basic idea of a European trading and co-operation union is a bad thing. Plus I can – to an extent – see their point.

The withdrawl arguments seem utterly insane to me – other eurosceptic stances hold a lot more water and could, if the withdrawal question could be sidestepped, actually be an area where the pro and anti camps could find common ground.

As I’ve said many, many times, the majority of pro-EU folk know full well that there are major flaws with the current system (Common Agricultural Policy, Common Fisheries Policy, lack of democratic accountability etc.), and want sweeping reforms of (almost) the entire thing. There are also plenty of pro-EU people (myself included) who aren’t convinced that the UK should join the single currency for the forseeable future.

But whenever any EU-based arguments are raised (in the UK at least), they always seem to end up boiled down to the most extreme viewpoints: pro-EU = federalist, anti-EU = withdrawalist etc. It’s just not that simple, and is preventing us from having a real and constructive debate. Any government attempts to claim that a “No” vote in the constitutional referendum is a vote to withdraw will simply give fuel to the more extreme eurosceptics, and distort the debate further.

It’s not helpful for either side for the debate to be so polarised – after all, even pro-EU people (again, myself included) are fully aware that the proposed constitution is flawed. It’s just we also don’t buy the claims that it is a final settlement, so reckon that – if everyone who wants reform can finally start acting together – we can make the best of its good points and get rid of the bad. (And yes, I know that we’ve been trying to do that when it comes to the EU for 30 years, but I reckon we’ve failed because we haven’t presented a coherent and united reformist front – we’re too busy bickering among ourselves to tackle the problems head on.)

In short, the argument between the UK pro and anti camps shouldn’t be boiled down to the utterly simplistic “withdraw or become a federal superstate” dichotomy, as it has often been. It should be over the extent to which reforms of the UK’s existing relationship with the EU are necessary – both camps agree that they are, just not how much. Only a minority on either side would argue for the most extreme options available.

“Hey – whatever it takes to defend our fundamental American values!!”

Histologion has some disturbing links. But the Iraqi election’s this weekend, and then it’ll all be fine! Nothing to worry about!

Is there anything to be cheerful about? Other than that I’ll be in the pub in an hour, that is?

Forgot to blog this the other day – a great analysis of seven factors that could change the election by Anthony Wells – essential reading.

Martin Stabe quotes from what sounds like an interesting Financial times article which seems to explain American attitudes to the EU, while Bush buddy and intelligently rabid neocon maniac Richard Perle gives his considered opinions about the European project and warns: “Bush is straightforward, honest and says what he thinks. When he visits Europe in February he�ll say some reconciliatory things but he won�t change the thrust of his policies � policies with which he is completely comfortable.”

Also, the full report on the BBC’s alleged pro-EU bias is now available online. It unsurprisingly hasn’t done much to calm down those who object to their license fees…

Speaking of a waste of license fees (although I suppose they did have the decency to sack him eventually) looks like our old mate, TV’s Robert Kilroy-Silk, has put in an application to the Electoral Commission to register the Veritas Party after all.

Elsewhere History teachers aren’t too impressed with the Tories’ contradictory ideas to make the study of history compulsary.

Oh, and Manic’s latest anti-Rupert Murdoch rant is also definitely worth a look.

Sorry, that was a tad bitty, wasn’t it?

The wording’s interesting – “there is a widespread perception that the BBC suffers from certain forms of cultural and unintentional bias”.

The report into the BBC’s so-called bias will no doubt be much appreciated in some quarters, but all it’s actually saying is that some people perceive the corporation to be biased in favour of the EU. As I discovered earlier today, people’s perceptions can be severely flawed if they’ve already got set opinions and agendas.

If you’re pro-EU, you’ll probably have little to complain about beyond the lack of coverage by the BBC; if you’re anti-EU, every mention of what’s going on in Brussels that isn’t critical can be interpreted as slavish support. If you have no opinion one way or the other, you’ll probably not particularly care.

Anyway, Toby’s already done a better summing-up job than I can manage. Might return to this at some point though…

Update: EU Realist has a round-up of reactions to the report.

Now I’ll confess to not having read this through, but it strikes me as the rabid ramblings of someone with far, far too much time on their hands. It’s all somewhat reminiscent of TimeCube…

By the way, I’m still very angry and scared…

I’m not sure if I have words to express just how angry, exasperated, disgusted and terrified I am about our lovely Home Secretary Charles Clarke’s latest wheeze.

Following the government’s official pronouncement that anything they do is fine because WE SHOULD ALL CONSTANTLY BE SHITTING OURSELVES WITH FEAR, and the ongoing arguments that IF YOU’VE GOT NOTHING TO HIDE YOU’LL BE FINE, our dear government have demonstrated that, despite the party dropping Clause Four, they still haven’t forgotten all the lessons they learned from when they toed the line of the Soviets’ Comintern.

Yep, having been told by the Law Lords that the detention without trial of foreign terror suspects is illegal, Clarke has interpreted their ruling in such a way as to justify the adoption of a truly wonderfully Stalinist policy. Because, hey – what the Law Lords were obviously objecting to most of all was the discrimination, right? So if you end the discrimination it’ll all be fine!

Yes, if Clarke’s plans go ahead, then ANYONE – including British citizens – whom the government suspects of having links to terrorism can be locked up, just like that. For ever. (Or put under house arrest to ease the strain on the prisons or some other guff to keep the Guardian readers voting the right way…)

I hate giving historical quotes out of context, especially from this man, but here’s old Churchill from November 1943:

“The power of the Executive to cast a man into prison without formulating any charge known to the law, and particularly to deny him judgment by his peers for an indefinite period, is in the highest degree odious, and is the foundation of all totalitarian regimes, whether Nazi or Communist… Nothing can be more abhorrent to democracy than to imprison a person or keep him in prison because he is unpopular. This is really the test of civilisation.”

And yes, I did leave a bit of that quote out – it is this:

“It is only when extreme danger to the State can be pleaded that this power may be temporarily assumed by the Executive, and even so its working must be interpreted with the utmost vigilance by a Free Parliament. As the danger passes, persons so imprisoned, against whom there is no charge which courts and juries would accept, should be released � Extraordinary powers assumed by the Executive with the consent of Parliament in emergencies should be yielded up when and as the emergency declines.”

When exactly will the threat of terrorism decline? After we’ve finished “liberating” Iraq? After we’ve “liberated” Iran? Zimbabwe? North Korea? China? Russia? When Churchill said that stuff he was leading the country in a regular war. One that would one day – one way or another – come to a definite end. The war on terror will go on precisely for as long as those who wage and define it want it to. It could be declared over tomorrow; it could last another century. Considering how broad is the definition of terrorist, it could go on for ever.

What threat IS there, in any case? Since September 11th 2001 there has been precisely ONE terrorist attack in Britain – a failed car bomb in Birmingham on 3rd November that year, by the Real IRA. We’ve had fewer terrorist attacks in the last 40 months than any time in the last thirty years.

Of course, according to Clarke, this is falling into the trap. We’re all underestimating THE DAILY THREAT OF IMMINENT DOOM THESE EVIL TERRORISTS POSE. He said as much, in almost those words, in an interview on Channel Four News this evening – including mentioning the possibility of the London Underground being “poisoned”, explosions and the like. Because, hey – the government doesn’t want to be alarmist, right?

As Clarke also said, we, the public, need to be educated about the INTENSE DANGER WE’RE ALL IN. That way we’ll happily sign up for biometric ID, and be phoning the government to shop our suspicious neighbours, relatives and friends for their subversive, terrorist-supporting ways before you can say “oh, we’d better have a few show trials to make it look like we give a shit”.

As Clarke also told Channel Four News presenter Jon Snow, it is the media’s job to help the government spread “the truth” about the terrorists lurking around every corner, in the wardrobe, under the bed and behind the curtains (gotta love the Murdoch press). If the media carries on questioning the government, people might start to think that our wondrous leadership is doing things wrong. We can’t have that now, can we?

Oh… Hey… Would you look at that? There’s a General Election coming up! You don’t think that – just possibly – the government might want to remind us of all those people who they say want to kill us so we vote for our brilliantly strong leader, dear Mr Blair, and his big, powerful buddy George, do you?

Come, come – as that nice Mr Clarke says, you can trust the government not to abuse its position… Those silly old ideas of “checks and balances” and “the rule of law” are so outmoded and quaint…

And if you say otherwise, you’re effectively supporting the terrorists – so off you go and report to the nearest gulag police station so that they can lock you away for ever for the good of society, there’s a good chap.

Update: More reactions – to be added to as I find ’em: