Nosemonkey's EUtopia

Hmmm… Nominations now open, you say?

Hint, hint…

An interesting post speculating on the potential future expansion of the EU that I’d missed over at The Yorkshire Ranter, which follows on from the Washinton post article I quoted from the other day, and which was picked up fairly widely in the Bloggosphere. Deliberately over-the-top in its speculations, but raises some interesting possibilities nonetheless. A good read, and worth a look.

Edit: Oh. This shows just how far behind I am… Cabalamat Journal has already done a run-down on the responses all over the Bloggosphere. Lots more speculation and arguments, which should make interesting reading.

Interesting tidbit via Eurosavant – the UN special envoy to Afghanistan, Lakhdar Brahimi, an Algerian, has apparently told a Dutch newspaper that (speaking in a personal, not professional capacity), thanks to the current chaos on the ground in Iraq, there is no way elections can safely or legitimately run on 30th January.

Self-evident, eh? I mean, how can there be any democratic legitimacy when polling booths have to be surrounded by armed men and anyone going to vote is fully aware they are taking their life into their hands as suicide bombers and the like are liable to try and blow the hell out of them?

But it is his other comments which make interesting reading, as they go even further than Kofi Annan’s statement of a few month back that the Iraq war was illegal. Again, for those of us who find the situation in Iraq appalling, this all sounds self-evident. But it is important for from whom it is coming – especially after the announcement last week that the UN is planning the most sweeping changes in its history. Is this a sign of things to come?:

“Iraq is in ruins,” he declares. And: “The Americans attacked Iraq without any reason at all and installed an occupation that the Iraqis did not want. How can you speak of a liberation, if you send an army of 140,000 and devastate the cities, and the electricity and water installations.”

He’s also got a fair few things to say on US support for Israel to boot. Is this the start of a new, tougher UN? The main US complaint before the Iraq war was, after all, that the UN never bothered to get off its backside and actually DO anything. Is this tougher language an attempt to warn the world that the UN is about to start intervening more actively?

Eurosavant also points out an article over at Informed comment about the lack of preparation for elections, which notes that “In contrast to the 600 UN election workers in Afghanistan for the recent presidential elections, there are only 35 in Iraq, and security concerns are delaying the sending of more. Even the rules of the election haven’t been completely spelled out yet.”

I’ve mostly avoided posting about Iraq here thanks to a combination of it being too depressing and other people doing a far better job of it than I. But this election thing is central to the coalition claims of legitimacy and, coming as it does on the back of Ukraine’s own election crisis, I will be intrigued to see just how keen the international community will be to help the US force these things through to the entirely arbitrary timetable they have set themselves.

Professor Cole at Informed Comment also notes that “In Kuwait, Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, leader of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq, gave an interview in which he described the security situation as “not good.” …Al-Hakim said that elections had to be held Jan. 30, since otherwise the present Iraqi interim government would become illegitimate. Its term was set to run out by the end of January, 2005, at the latest. He implied that after fighting Saddam for decades, the Iraqis would not accept such a descent into arbitrary rule.”

Democracy cannot be rushed. As Ukraine has reminded us all, the various former Soviet states are still struggling to get it right after more than a decade of nominal freedom. They need to take this slowly, or risk making the Iraqis think that maybe this democracy lark isn’t all it’s cracked up to be, and that a strong leader who can get the country working again may be preferable. After all, the strong leaders of America’s allies Saudi Arabia and Pakistan seem to be doing OK…

So, the wording has been set, and unlike the 1975 Referendum is not a blatant attempt to distort the results. You’d think the anti-EU lot would be happy.

But no. EU Referendum put up a post last night about British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw’s covering speech, which covers similar points to my last post – albeit from a very different perspective:

“Everything is ‘spun’, distorted, not real, mendacious in spirit if not actually in fact.”.

As much as Dr. North (a former UKIP stooge whose evident intelligence is often submerged beneath alarmist, populist sarcasm, yet who can occasionally still come up with some compelling arguments) seems to think that such spin is solely the providence of the pro-EU camp, his own side are equally guilty. Hell, a lot of the time HE is equally guilty.

Nonetheless, some of his points are valid – assuming you can get past his accusations that Jack Straw is simply a “moron” and his assertions that “In a less civilised world, you would just shoot people like Straw”, that is. I mean, I’m no fan of Straw, it must be admitted, but that kind of silly name-calling is precisely what we should all be trying to avoid if there’s any hope of convincing that undecided majority of the population one way or the other.

It was precisely that kind of attitude and language from the Eurosceptic camp which made me start my journey towards thinking the EU is – essentially – a good thing. Peter Oborne (of The Daily Mail and Spectator fame, and who attended the same school I did) was the main culprit in my gradual conversion. I simply couldn’t bear to be associated with people who spouted the kind of silly pap he did, even while agreeing (as I still do) with many of the basic arguments they put forward. The pro-EU camp are certainly self-righteous, arrogant, seem to assume that anyone who doesn’t understand their point of view are a trifle dense for missing a self-evident point, and rarely bother to set out detailed and convincing arguments, but at least they also rarely resort infant school insults.

I don’t want to get into a slanging match with the eminent Dr North. He evidently has far more time for blogging than I do, so if he picks up on this I doubt I will be able to respond as fully as I would like. What is a shame, I feel, is simply that someone with his intelligence and obvious knowledge of the issues still resorts to playground tactics when he could easily provide a detailed deconstruction of Jack Straw’s entire speech. Not only would such a deconstruction be a useful starting point for further debate on the merits of the constitution, but if the debate is started off in intelligent terms it may stand a better chance of continuing in that vein.

Toby at Straight Banana continues his quest to disprove Euromyths. If pro-Europeans really have to go into this much detail each time, we could be in trouble. There are hundreds of these things, and some of them are truly barking.

And, unsurprisingly, the usual tactic of modern political debate is brought up in the comments – an attempt to discredit the entire, insanely detailed research of the article by picking up on one small inaccuracy. Which, as is also often the case in modern political debate, isn’t actually an inaccuracy at all…

Some good news for the pro-EU camp is that the Eurosceptics’ previously fairly united front seems to be fracturing, just as the pro-European camp has before them.

This is hardly surprising – as noted here the other day, Britain’s attitude towards and relationship with the EU simply can’t be boiled down to a black/white, Yes/No issue. It’s an insanely complex affair, with many ranges of belief and perception – from the hard-core nationalists who want out of the EU entirely on the one side through to the Ted Heaths of this world who think the EU can do no wrong on the other.

Most people, if they thought about it for a few minutes (which many, sadly, don’t), would lie somewhere in between. They would see that the EU has its benefits, but that it also has its flaws. They would see that it is very hard to prove categorically one way or the other that further integration will be to Britain’s benefit, and that it’s very hard indeed to prove that Britain would be better off out. We simply don’t know.

Much as with the 1975 referendum, most people (if given the choice) would opt for the status quo, because it’s practically impossible to work out which direction – if any – is the best. Given the choice to leave the EU, they’d say no; given the choice to join the Eurozone (with all the fears of federalism that entails) they would also say no.

Of course, the problem is that if the rest of the EU charges ahead, and we don’t follow along with them, the status quo will be impossible to maintain. Quite what will happen – and it is impossible to stress this point too hard – no one knows. Only one thing is certain – sooner or later Britain will have to make a major choice between following her EU partners or going it more or less alone into uncharted waters. Of course, the other EU member states will also be heading into the white areas of the map – but they will, at least, have safety in numbers.

But this, too, is falling into the trap. Anyone who claims to be able to predict the future is a charlatan speculating on insufficient evidence – nothing more. This is precisely why the two sides end up polarising a debate which is far more complex than simply “Yes” or “No”, and keep getting bogged down in the details.

I’m offering no solution here. I’m not sure if there is one. The details need to be examined and discussed. The myths need to be dispelled, and the problems need to be highlighted. But we need to keep the broader picture in mind at the same time or risk getting into the classic blind men/elephant scenario, with everyone having a different interpretation of what’s going on. Perhaps this has already happened – it’d certainly explain the infighting between all the various EU-focussed camps.

The provisional constitution is symbolic of the entire problem – overly complex and detailed, and very hard for most people to understand even if they can be bothered to try. To resort to cliche, the entire European debate has got to the stage where not only can none of us see the wood for the trees, but we can barely see the trees for the leaves.

Bloody hell. Someone’s been busy… This is one of the longest lists of political blogs I’ve seen, and seems to be getting updated fairly regularly. It’s even got a bit of indication as to what they’re about (in some cases at least).

May well be old news. Still, a handy resource.

(Again, proper updates later if time permits)

Yep, the results for the Deutsche Welle International Weblog Awards 2004 are out, and Europhobia just missed out on a prize. Bugger.

Thanks to everyone who voted nonetheless – there’s always next year, I suppose. Oh, and if anyone wants to nominate this for an other awards, it’s always nice to feel wanted…

Proper updates later, if I get a moment.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! I’d missed this, so hat tip to The Periscope for spotting it.

“As I started to turn round a guy tipped a bucket of farmyard muck over me and then threw the rest of it over me and the car,” Mr Kilroy-Silk said.

“I was totally covered, it was all through my clothes, and it stank to high heaven. It went all inside the car”

Heh! Couldn’t happen to a nicer fella…

(More Kilroy twattishness here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here , here and here.

Hat tip for this to Elusive, the chappie who helped me work out the site redesign.

For anyone following my desperate efforts to keep up with the latest developments in Ukraine a couple of weeks back (updates every five minutes, conflicting reports etc.), this may well be of interest.

The folks behind the increasingly superb Wikipedia have just launched Wikinews (in English and German). Basically breaking news stories updated by any old Tom, Dick or Harry who happens to amble by.

This could work very well – if public-minded folk like Victor Katolyk or Veronica Khokhlova start filling these sorts of pages out – like blogging from the scene. It could be a disaster – all it takes is one “amusing” 14-year-old to destroy everyone’s hard work.

But it is an interesting idea nonetheless – especially how the reports will freeze up after a set period of time and become a matter of record, plus the “review” process sounds sensible.

Anyway, the current version of their Ukraine report is up, and even links to a few blogs, though strangely not to Victor’s posts at The Periscope yet, or to Fistful, or even – dare I say it – here; but it does link to Le Sabot Post-Moderne, Orange Ukraine, TulipGirl and a few others to whom it should, so I guess whoever’s updating it knows what they’re on about.

Whether this new service is accurate or not is in the hands of the users. So, news junkies – over to you. This could be like a BBC News run by the people, for the people. It could utterly change how we look at the way news is reported. Or it could die a death. I honestly don’t know.

More on the Wikipedia Foundation

Sorry, this was too good not to mention. Via Anthony Wells comes the news that Oliver Stone is planning a biopic of Maggie Thatcher. Genius!

Stone apparently said “Margaret Thatcher is an amazing woman and a good subject for a film. I�m thinking about Meryl Streep to play the Iron Lady.”

Europhobia’s Steve got the ball rolling in an email with a few more casting suggestions:

Colin Farrell as Michael Foot (could be his shot at the Oscar – cf ‘ugly’ performances of Charlize Theron and Nicole Kidman)

Christ on a bike. This movie casts itself!

How about

Billy-Bob Thornton as Ronald Reagan

Owen Wilson as Michael Hestletine

Steve Buscemi as John Major

Jeffrey Jones (of Ferris Bueller’s Day Off fame) as Neil Kinnock

Any other suggestions?