Nosemonkey's EUtopia

In search of a European identity

February 23, 2008
by Nosemonkey
Comments Off on Calls for a national DNA database… rejected?

Calls for a national DNA database… rejected?

Yes, that’s right. The police have asked that every single last one of us has our DNA sampled just in case we commit a heinous crime. And the government are AGAINST it.

Hang on. Was there a coup d’etat overnight or something? Where’s the REAL government?

The Home Office said a mandatory database “would raise significant practical and ethical issues”

It’s a veritable Damascene conversion! I eagerly await the now surely inevitable announcement of the abandonment of the equally impractical and ethically suspect ID database.

Home Office minister Tony McNulty told BBC that a national database was not a “silver bullet” and that it would raise practical as well as civil liberties issues.

Yes, that’s THE Tony McNulty. Him of blind loyalty to the ID scheme fame.

“How to maintain the security of a database with 4.5m people on it is one thing,” he said.

“Doing that for 60m people is another.”

Hurrah! Does this mean they’ve seen the light?

Hint: almost certainly not.

February 22, 2008
by Nosemonkey
7 Comments

In defence of MEPs

Yes, I’ve been slagging them off a lot over the last couple of days – but there are always two sides to everything. Jon Worth makes a lot of sensible points about the current expenses scandal:

MEPs get the same pay as MPs in Westminster, have to work in 3 places in 3 countries… The MEPs’ expenses total about £100 million a year, but there are 785 MEPs, each of whom pays normally 4 staff… The total staff of the EP as a whole – MEPs, assistants, secretariat – is similar in size to a small-ish UK government department… while the UK’s Department of Work and Pensions employs more staff that all the EU institutions in total…

No facts, no figures. Neither [the Times] nor Chris Davies MEP have listed how much of this £100 million is supposed to have been used in a fraudulent manner. The Times – lazily – just assumes all of it is.

All very fair, all very valid. Go read the whole thing.

The only addition I would make is to stress that the apparent lack of transparency in MEPs’ finances is hugely damaging to both the European Parliament and to the EU as a whole. The perennial eurosceptic claims that the EU is riddled with corruption are, I hope, an exaggeration (after all, the lack of sign-off on the EU budget year after year is always due to irregularities on the part of the individual member states, not the EU itself). But without complete financial transparency and openness, there’s no way we can tell.

As the EU’s token bit of democracy, the European Parliament should be setting an example. An update to Annex I of the EP’s Rules and Regulations, specifically Article 4, would seem to be necessary:

Pending the introduction of a statute for Members of the European Parliament to replace the various national rules, Members shall be subject to the obligations imposed on them by the legislation of the Member State in which they are elected as regards the declaration of assets

These current regulations, it would seem, are not good enough. Where is the promised statute replacing the mish-mash of evidently inadequate national rules? Every MEP should be subject to a detailed register of interests. Every MEP should have to give an account of what they are using their expenses for.

We don’t need an account of every paper clip and biro bought. We do, however – especially after these latest accusations – need a proper, watertight reassurance that our representatives aren’t ripping us off. We need confidence that we are being properly represented by hard-working, committed and honest men and women, or the whole system falls down. As Mill noted,

representative institutions are of little value, and may be a mere instrument of tyranny or intrigue, when the generality of electors are not sufficiently interested in their own government to give their vote… Popular election thus practised, instead of a security against misgovernment, is but an additional wheel in its machinery

Turn-out in European elections is low enough already. Give the electorate the impression that their MEPs are corrupt, it will become even lower. And without the people, the whole project will fall down. Mill again:

Political machinery does not act of itself. As it is first made, so it has to be worked, by men, and even by ordinary men. It needs, not their simple acquiescence, but their active participation

Come on, EP/EU – get your act together. The majority of MEPs are undoubtedly hard-working and honest. Give us some way of seeing that this is the case, and give it to us sharpish.

Update: Certain Ideas of Europe brings up something I’d forgotten to mention:

most people inside the European bubble blame the scandal on the astonishing differences in the salaries currently received by MEPs, who are paid the same as their counterparts in their respective national parliaments. That will change after the 2009 elections, but for the moment that means some ex-Communist nations pay MEPs some €850 a month, while the best paid deputies, from Italy, receive more than €12,000 a month.

February 22, 2008
by Nosemonkey
2 Comments

links for 2008-02-22

February 22, 2008
by Nosemonkey
10 Comments

Erm, you remember that democracy thing?

Well, according to the European Parliament it can go jump in a lake. Because they’ve voted not to respect the result of the Irish referendum (constitutionally required, lest we forget) on the Lisbon Treaty.

What we effectively have here is an admission that referenda will not count even if countries do hold them. An admission that the EU will simply ignore any member state that has concerns with the Lisbon Treaty, now that the elites have come to an agreement.

What we have here, in other words, is an admission that the European Parliament does not believe in democracy.

NOT.
GOOD.
ENOUGH.

(See also Devil’s Kitchen, with a good point about Tory – and UKIP – hypocrisy)

All this, of course, while allegations of endemic corruption amongst MEPs are beginning to snowball. Come on, EP – you’re supposed to be the respectable, democratic bit that we can all point to and say “hey, look – the EU’s going in the right direction, at least!” Get your sodding act in gear.

February 21, 2008
by Nosemonkey
2 Comments

We are ruled by criminals

So the British government has admitted that they’ve twice been in breach of the UN Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearances over extraordinary rendition flights. And Foreign Secretary David Miliband has – bless him – said sorry for the “accidental” misinformation.

Not, of course, sorry to the people being extraordinarily rendered, whoever they might be – nor for breaking international law…

And our dear Prime Minister has also weighed in, eloquence personified (is he getting lessons from Donald Rumsfeld?)

It is unfortunate that this was not known and it was unfortunate it happened without us knowing that it had happened but it’s important to put in procedures [to ensure] this will not happen again… We share the disappointment that everybody has about what’s actually happened

But admitting a couple of flights landing in transit on the remote UK territory of Diego Garcia is somewhat different to the main accusation – that the UK itself was used as a stop-off point. What about the 73 to 200 other flights that our current beleaguered Chancellor – as Transport Secretary – and the National Air Traffic Service noted had been identified by campaigners as having potentially been used for rendition back in March 2006?

The question asked two years ago by Lib Dem MP Michael Moore (no relation), and quoted in that last linked piece, remains entirely pertinent:

A fundamental question remains unanswered. Has the UK government actually asked the United States how many individuals have been rendered through Britain? If this hasn’t been asked, then why on earth not?

Saying sorry for a couple of accidental (honest, m’lud) breaches of international law is all very well and good. But what about the other 200 potential rendition flights via the UK itself?

As I noted a year and a bit back, the UN regulations on “enforced disappearances” (aka state kidnappings), explicitly state that:

Acts constituting enforced disappearance shall be considered a continuing offence as long as the perpetrators continue to conceal the fate and the whereabouts of persons who have disappeared and these facts remain unclarified [emphasis mine]

Now that the British government has admitted that it hasn’t got a clue what’s going on, can we expect a full and thorough independent inquiry? Because not to investigate further having admitted incompetence on this issue would, surely, be to stick two fingers up at the UN by refusing to clarify the issue, and thus to deliberately stay in breach of international law.

Plus, as the EU’s investigation into extraordinary renditionnoted:

It is implausible, on the basis of the testimonies and documents received, that certain European governments were not aware of the activities linked to extraordinary rendition on their territory

Yet this appears to be precisely what David Miliband is claiming to be the case.

And so another question must be asked: if a foreign power can land an illegal cargo on British territory without the British government’s knowledge – as appears to be the excuse here – that flagrant lapse in security is in itself surely worthy of immediate, urgent investigation? Isn’t that an indication of criminal incompetence at a time of heightened threats from foreign sources? Shouldn’t heads roll?

I await the announcement of an inquiry with baited breath… (And precisely no expectation of one coming…)

Update: This. Spot on, from the really rather good Obsolete.

February 21, 2008
by Nosemonkey
6 Comments

On free speech in the European Parliament

Quick question: why is there so little condemnation from the pro-EU camp of the European Parliament’s recent actions in trying to stifle eurosceptic proponents of referenda on the Lisbon Treaty?

To redress the balance: I’m pro-EU and I’m anti-referendum – and I think this is an absolute disgrace.

The evidence of double-standards is palpable – people and MEPs protesting against things the EU machine wants to do are stifled and harassed; those who protest about other issues are allowed to continue on their way.

Yes, a bunch of eurosceptics dressed up in chicken costumes to highlight calls for referenda because they mistakenly think that the Lisbon Treaty is in some way more significant than Nice, Amsterdam, Maastricht, etc. etc. is ridiculous and stupid. Eurosceptic MEPs launching long speeches and using the regulations of the European Parliament to try and get their point across may be frustrating. But both of these are perfectly within the rules.

And, of course, most importantly it’s why they were elected. You don’t vote for a eurosceptic MEP for them to faithfully go along with everything the EU wants. You vote for them because you want them to oppose things you disagree with – even if that does include the entire EU project.

Yes, they may be irritating. Yes, many of them may be tits (Kilroy, I’m looking at you). But they are elected representatives who are doing what they were elected to do. Preventing them from doing this is not only to breach the rules of the European Parliament – it is effectively to disenfranchise their voters.

What happened to Friends of Europe Secretary-General Giles Meritt’s eminently sensible advice for the EU to start engaging with eurosceptics to help identify areas for reform? What happened to the European Commission’s supposed plan to the promise to listen that came with the “New Commission approach to dialogue and communication with European citizens”?

If the EU is ever going to get widespread and active popular support, it needs to show that it is democratic and that it listens. This is something I kept returning to in my dLiberation coverage for openDemocracy last year. It’s something that various EU bodies have said themselves countless times over the last decade or so. Yet time and time again, the EU gives the impression that it will only ever listen to those who agree with it.

Stifling dissent is not the way to win support – it’s the way to harden opposition and drive more people into your opponents’ camp. Shame on you, European Parliament.

Update: Oh, and this. If you want people to support the political system you’re trying to build up, you need openness and transparency – not secrecy and corruption – from your elected representatives.

The European Parliament is meant to be the jewel in the EU’s crown – constantly referred to as the proof that the organisation is democratic and accountable.

It needs to get its act in gear, if you ask me…

February 20, 2008
by Nosemonkey
3 Comments

On a common EU foreign policy

“Oh noes!” Say the eurosceptics. “Teh Lisbon tweety dat am weely teh constitootion am gonna make teh EU a state and stuff! Got foreign minister! Oh noes! Dat mean common foreign policy! Our sovereignty gone bye-byes! Waaah!”

I really can’t ever hope to summarise the likelihood of this particular bogeyman coming into being any time soon better than Nanne at DJ Nozem, so instead I’ll just reproduce it in full. :

EU Foreign Ministers fail to agree on the most basic issues about the status of a small breakaway Yugoslav province (population: 2 million est.) that declared its independence over the weekend.

An issue that had been on the horizon for about, oh, nine years.

How’s that common foreign policy coming along?

He he he!

I do like how many intriguing questions the Kosovo situation is helping to raise. And how many answers it’s providing to boot…

February 20, 2008
by Nosemonkey
Comments Off on links for 2008-02-20

links for 2008-02-20

February 20, 2008
by Nosemonkey
6 Comments

Better off out?

After the news that non-EU European country Iceland has been looking in to the possibility of joining the Eurozone, another example of how just because you’re not a member of the EU it’s still likely to have a major impact, courtesy of Liechtenstein.

This particular example, however, is somewhat more timely, following Kosovo’s independence. Because Liechtenstein is one of Europe’s smallest countries, with a population of just 35,000 (compared to Kosovo’s 2 million) – yet has a very healthy economy indeed. For why? Well, like any sensible mini-state (see, for example, Monaco, Andorra and semi-states the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands), it’s become a tax haven – one of the best possible ways for a tiny country to lure in vast amounts of cash. (Supposedly Liechtenstein has more registered companies than people.)

But wait – hold up Kosovo! Before you get all excited about the possibility of becoming the Liechtenstein of the Balkans, be warned…

Because tax havens occasionally end up having problems – such as the current German financial scandal. Here, Germany has gained access – through some well-placed payments to known criminals, it would seem – to Liechtenstein’s records in order to hunt down a bunch of German citizens it wants to prosecute for tax evasion.

Liechtenstein is, naturally, not best pleased that the German state has deliberately accessed its confidential commercial and financial files. It’s hard, really, not to sympathise with Crown Prince Alois when he berates Germany for acting illegally (even if he does slip into hyperbole from time to time). Their country, their rules – and their sovereignty should be respected, right?

Well, not if you’re the EU, it would seem – because the European Union is not only backing Germany’s actions, but is now joining in the anti-Liechtenstein rhetoric:

Luxembourg Prime Minister Jean-Claude Juncker said in Berlin Tuesday that Germany’s controversial tax dragnet is likely to put tax evasion on the agenda of the next meeting of the European Union finance ministers.

Juncker, head of the Eurogroup of 15 countries sharing the euro currency, called on Liechtenstein to “plug its existing tax loop holes.”

…German Finance Minister Peer Steinbrueck says Germany will now push for a pan-European solution to tax evasion…

The Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development, a policy forum for industrialized countries, weighed in to identify European tax havens Leichtenstein, Andorra and Monaco as effectively providing a basis for illegal tax evasion.

And so the pressure mounts. Are we about to see a concerted EU-backed effort to force even more sovereign states to abide by EU rules? It rather looks like it – and it’s really nothing new.

Because if you want to trade with the EU, you pretty much have to abide by the EU’s rules and regulations – something to which both Switzerland and Norway can attest, in case you’re thinking that this could only happen to smaller countries. For European countries, with external trade fairly naturally dominated by their near neighbours, doing what the EU says is pretty much the only option – unless you follow the Belarus route and suck up to Russia instead.

Is the EU using its dominance of the European market to bully its non-member neighbours into doing what it wants? Yep – of course it is. It’s acting as would any sensible economic power – it’s trying to ensure that everything runs to its own best advantage. And it will continue to do so, it it’s got any sense.

Which is precisely why the UK is far better off in.

February 19, 2008
by Nosemonkey
Comments Off on And so it begins…

And so it begins…

After the little-reported grenade attack on a UN court on Sunday afternoon, it seems that Kosovo’s Serbs aren’t going to accept independence without a fight.

Reuters: U.N. police pulled out from a Kosovo border post that was destroyed on Tuesday by Serbs who vowed never to submit to the authority of Kosovo’s Albanian government and its Western backers.

It was one of two border posts, between Kosovo and Serbia, attacked and set on fire by Kosovo Serbs earlier in the day in the Serb-dominated northwest corner of Kosovo.

Sofia Echo: Serbs also attacked a check point near Zubin Potok. The police officers hid in a tunnel while about 1000 protesters tried to tear it down…

hundreds of Serbs set fire to the temporary passport control premises in Banja.

Of course, with any luck this is just a small-scale bit of initial frustration from local ethnic Serbs and it won’t escalate any further. Fingers crossed, eh?

But considering UN troops so far don’t seem to have clear instructions about what to do (abandoning the border posts of a territory they’re meant to be protecting? What’s all that about?), how long is it going to be before Serbia – or perhaps Russia? – steps in with its own “peacekeeping” troops to “protect” Kosovo’s Serbian minority from the ethnic Albanian majority?

February 19, 2008
by Nosemonkey
Comments Off on links for 2008-02-19

links for 2008-02-19

February 19, 2008
by Nosemonkey
Comments Off on Two dictators gone in the same day

Two dictators gone in the same day

Hurrah, etc.

One supported by America throughout his time in power, one persecuted by America for half a century.

But there aren’t any double standards, oh no…

(And yes, I know Musharraf hasn’t gone, and it was only parliamentary elections – but it’s hopefully the beginning of the end at least. Assuming that losing him’s a good thing in such an unstable region, of course… Hmmm… Maybe I should rethink this one…)

February 18, 2008
by Nosemonkey
Comments Off on links for 2008-02-18

links for 2008-02-18

February 18, 2008
by Nosemonkey
5 Comments

Five years after the Iraq protests, a question

Spotted in a decent French article on Kosovo’s independence, a throwaway line that made me ponder:

L’indépendance du Kosovo se fera sous supervision internationale. Malgré ces divisions, l’Union européenne a décidé, sans l’aval de l’ONU, de déployer au Kosovo une mission de quelque 2 000 policiers et juristes pour « accompagner » les débuts de l’indépendance du Kosovo.

Or, in other words:

The independence of Kosovo will be under international supervision. Despite this, the European Union has decided, without UN approval, to deploy in Kosovo, a mission of some 2000 policemen and lawyers to “accompany” the beginnings of the independence of Kosovo. [emphasis mine]

Of course, a significant reason why the anti-war protests back in 2003 felt so justified to so many was the lack of a UN resolution supporting military action against Saddam Hussein in Iraq. There are no such protests about unilateral military action in Kosovo – nor have there really ever been during the last decade of NATO deployments there.

Is this because Kosovo is too low-profile for anyone to really care – or is there a more significant, wider-ranging reason?

Kosovo has declared independence. Many western countries – including the UK and US – are likely to declare their official recognition. Russia has explicitly stated the declaration to be illegal – and China has also made disapproving noises.

With two members of the UN Security Council opposed to Kosovo’s independence, it cannot be recognised by the UN – and so will not legally be a state, despite thinking it is. Likewise, the situation in Darfur is officially not a genocide (despite all the evidence) thanks to the UN having failed to declare it as such – partially thanks to pressure from China, keen to preserve her arms trade.

In situations such as these, is it acceptable to bypass the UN? If so, why here and not five years ago in Iraq? And, if bypassing the UN is sometimes acceptable, what useful purpose does this supposed final arbiter of international law actually serve any more? And does the lack of protests over military action in Kosovo indicate an acknowledgement of this?