Nosemonkey's EUtopia

In search of a European identity

June 28, 2007
by Nosemonkey
1 Comment

Look! Bad pictoral satire!

It's awful, isn't it?

Because, you see, in The Wizard of Oz, they all head off to the Emerald city in the expectation that the Wizard will be the answer to all their ills, only for him to be revealed as little more than a confidence trickster with a gift for spouting platitudes.

Clever, isn’t it?

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why I’m not in comedy. I do love the expression on Jack Straw’s face though… (Straw, see? He’s the scarecrow, like wot’s full of straw! And Alan Johnson, who didn’t have the guts to run against Brown, is the cowardly lion! And Harriet Harman’s Dorothy – because she’s female! And David Miliband’s the tin man for some reason! Hurrah!)

(Sensible post later, most likely – in the mean time, no more Margaret Beckett as Foreign Secretary! Yaaaaaaay! Oh, and you may want to brush up on the latest influx of unelected backroom advisers…)

June 27, 2007
by Nosemonkey
Comments Off on A sight to gladden the heart

A sight to gladden the heart

Removal van in Downing Street
Yep – the removal men are getting to work in Downing Street.

It’s really over…

June 27, 2007
by Nosemonkey
7 Comments

On passionate Eurosceptics

The argument that the EU political elite take a patronising tone towards the electorate is an easy one to make. There has long been a tendency in Brussels to ignore or brush over the opinions of the little people, and to avoid too much democratic involvement in the EU project.

The reason for this is simple – even the most fervently pro-EU types are aware that gaining agreement between 12, 15, 25 or 27 governments of the various member states is well nigh impossible (witness the recent difficulties leading up to the watered-down new treaty). To gain a majority of votes from the electorate in every single member state would be categorically impossible. With no continent-wide party machine to mobilise the electorate and spread the message, local concerns will always get in the way in EU elections.

Part of the thinking is also – a mindset common in politics, though rarely able to be expressed in western democratic societies – that the electorate is fundamentally stupid and incapable of understanding the subtleties of policy debate.

When it comes to the EU, the big problem in shaking off this “the electorate is stupid” attitude is that when hunting around for anti-EU voices, the idiotic, over-excitable and outright rude ones are far easier to find. Witness the comments on Commissioner Margot Wallstrom‘s blog, the EU Referendum blog, or at the Guardian’s Comment is Free (on the rare occasions they discuss the EU).

For every sensible, knowledgeable and literate anti-EU type, like Daniel Hannan, Bill Jamieson and EU Referendum’s Richard North (when he’s not playing to the crowd), there appear to be a thousand stereotypically over-excited raving cliches.

By all means be passionate about your beliefs. If you genuinely think that the EU is sucking all that remains to be proud of out of this once-great nation, then anger’s probably moderately understandable.

But bear in mind that you may come across as a nutter – especially if you don’t actually bother to read the arguments of your opponents in full. This is only going to damage your cause.

What I am advocating is that you all take a bit of time to step back and take stock of the new situation – as here (though, contrary to popular belief, I am in favour of a referendum and a “no” vote, on the off-chance we can end up with something better eventually…) – and analyse the new text in detail – as here – to find more things to rationally and reasonably complain about.

In other news, everyone should read this rather handy explanation of why the new treaty, erm… isn’t actually a constitution, despite the similarities to the old constitution text, and the desperate, last-ditch efforts of the Eurosceptic press to whip up yet more of a frenzy amongst our well-meaning but over-excitable Eurosceptic friends.

June 26, 2007
by Nosemonkey
5 Comments

Oh, the irony, etc.

That dear Mr Blair (today’s his final full day in office, don’tchaknow?) has outright rejected a referendum on the new EU treaty is no surprise.

What is rather entertaining is the sheer gall of the man, arguing that a referendum campaign “would suck in the whole political energy of the country for months”.

This, of course, from the man who took two and a half years to finally announce the date for his resignation (tomorrow! Huzzah!) after the initial hints, prompting a solid 31 months of constant media speculation and petty distractions from the business of government, as both government figures and the opposition have jostled to gain the most from his departure.

Do you think he says that sort of stuff on purpose, or is he genuinely too dense to see the double-standards?

Meanwhile Blair seems to be about to be given a new job sorting out the mess in the Middle East, much like a less likeable British Jimmy Carter. That should keep him nicely out of the way (though not – what a shame – necessarily out of harm’s way) for a few years. As long as he doesn’t get his grubby, incompetent mitts on the proposed EU presidency, I honestly couldn’t care less.

Gordon Brown, meanwhile, must really love Tony right now – this new EU treaty business looks to be the nastiest problem Blair could possibly have left him with. Unless, of course, we manage to invade Iran or North Korea in the next 24 hours…

June 25, 2007
by Nosemonkey
9 Comments

On the new EU treaty, the importance of terminology, and the case for a referendum

Our dear Eurosceptic friends have long been preparing themselves to make the argument “if it looks like a constitution, sounds like a constitution, then it’s a constitution”. Now that the replacement treaty is (almost) there, it’s time to see if they have a point.

Here (WARNING: PDF) is the summary of the recent summit, containing the guidelines to which the Intergovernmental Conference (IGC) will be working when drawing up the final treaty document.

That, so far, is all we have to go on. Yes, there have been countless proposals over the last couple of years, and Angela Merkel drew up numerous versions of possible European Constitution replacements, but until these guidelines were agreed over the weekend, all that was academic. Continue Reading →

June 23, 2007
by Nosemonkey
10 Comments

Well spank me silly and call me a rooster

I wasn’t expecting that. Not in a month of dodgy backroom discussions, bad compromises, and shoddy short-term attempts at political face-saving.

Yep – they’ve actually struck a deal on a new EU treaty.

However, I’ll have to reserve judgement on the thing until I’ve had a chance to read it – and considering it was only agreed a few hours ago, I’ll need a bit of time on that one…

Some things it does seem to be keeping from the old constitution no one can really – if they think about it for half a moment – argue with:

– more power for Parliament (i.e. more democracy and accountability)
– a weaker Commission (i.e. more democracy and accountability)
– a proper president (i.e. – hopefully – more democracy and accountability)

Others kept on have less obvious immediate benefits, like the EU foreign minister (after all, what’s the point when there’s nothing like foreign policy agreement across all 27 member states, and we’re pretty much all members of NATO anyway?). But all that really sounds like is giving Javier Solana a fancier job title.

The reduction of veto powers is also going ahead – essential for any movement on pretty much any issue, especially with the likes of the current Polish government throwing their weight around – and that too is going to give the Eurosceptics plenty of room for ranting shouts of lost sovereignty and the like.

But then, let’s face it, when it comes to the EU, the Eurosceptics are always going to find something to moan about.

Anyway, first reaction: Yet another botched compromise and yet more delaying tactics (they’ve put off restructuring the voting weights until 2014 – when, they’re no doubt hoping, the current Polish government will no longer be in power to veto the new proposals.

More detailed analysis some point in the next few days, most likely.

(Oh, and sorry for the radio silence here recently – an insanely hectic week in the real world. Of which more if/when it all comes off…)

More reactions:

The Economist’s Europe Blog (reporting at 2:30am) – “a ridiculously drawn-out Brussels summit is set to end with a deal that pleases nobody. Business as usual, in short.”

England Expects – “Sarko tells us that France wins, Blair says that the UK wins, Merkel says Europe wins. It’s an odd game when everybody is a winner.”

Mark Mardell (BBC Europe Editor) – “As for those who support the European Union, the pragmatists will be relieved and the idealists mortified. The Merkels, Sarkozys, Barrosos and possibly even Browns of this world will be relieved that a union of 27 states can still, just about, reach an agreement… There will, again, be talk of an inner core pressing ahead alone. As the outgoing Belgian prime minister has pointed out, there already is one: the countries that are in the euro, don’t have border controls and co-operate on policing. They will feel a glimmer of hope that even if the steps are tiny, then at least they are going in the right direction.”

International Herald Tribune – “Failure would have damaged Europe’s aspirations to improve its stature on the world stage at a time when the union is striving to become an equal partner with Washington and play a leading role on global issues like climate change, the Middle East and an assertive Russia.”

Telegraph – “The new treaty – due to be signed by the end of this year and come into effect in 2009 – will create a new post of President of Europe and a single legal identity for the EU, allowing it to sign up to international deals. But it grants the UK an opt-out on a charter of human and social rights, retains Britain’s independent foreign policy and tax and benefit arrangements and allows the Government in Westminster to “opt in” to those parts of EU judicial and crime policy it chooses.”

Financial Times – “Although stripped of its grand title and symbols of statehood like a flag and anthem, the new treaty contains many of the constitution’s main ideas for making the enlarged EU more efficient and coherent on the world stage… But Mr Blair’s failure to stop Mr Sarkozy watering down the competition references in the treaty infuriated Gordon Brown”

Deutsche Welle – “Blair largely succeeded in sticking to the four ‘red line’ conditions he set for agreement on the new treaty — that Britain would not cede control over foreign policy, its judicial and police system, tax and social security rules, and an EU charter of fundamental rights.”

Independent – “At lunchtime, Mr Blair was happy with his deal with the French President and his spokesman said French ‘sensitivities’ could be addressed. But Mr Brown’s intervention forced him to return to the negotiating table. A legally binding protocol stressing the EU’s belief in competition was then added to the ‘mini-treaty’ after talks involving Mr Blair, M Sarkozy and José Manuel Barroso, the European Commission president.”

Guardian – “While the Blair camp argued it had defended all the key British positions against Brussels’s interference in the British legal system and legislation, the incoming Brown government is nonetheless certain to face a storm of protest from the Eurosceptic press, and the Conservative opposition demanding a referendum on Europe’s new “reform treaty” replacing the defunct 2004 constitution.”

EU Observer – “The result, full of compromises, opt-out opportunities and special texts for certain countries, is not going to give rise to a treaty that wins any beauty contests: easier-to-grasp names such as EU ‘laws’ have been dropped in order to maintain the current ‘regulations’ and ‘directives’ seen as less symbolic of statehood; the flag, anthem, motto and name ‘constitution’ fell by way of the same argument.”

New York Times – “Failure would have damaged Europe’s aspirations to improve its stature on the world stage at a time when the European Union is striving to become an equal partner with Washington and play a leading role on global issues like climate change, the Middle East and an assertive Russia. It would also have severely damaged Mrs. Merkel, who had staked Berlin’s prestige on a successful outcome now, when it holds the European Union’s rotating presidency.”

Le Monde has a breakdown of what the new treaty will contain (in French, of course)

Meanwhile, “mastermind” of the piss-poor constitutional treaty, Valery Giscard d’Estaing, is still blathering on about the popularity of his baby on his shiny new blog. I know that having a still-born child must be traumatic, but you’d think he’d be over it by now.

And finally, here’s the summary of the summit (WARNING: .PDF) – thankfully only 32 pages rather than the hundreds of the old constitution… This looks like it covers the majority of what will be the final treaty text.

In-depth analysis soon. Promise. (Probably…)

Update: EU Referendum (having recently had some nice, sensible EU posts after a militaristic few months) goes back to playing to the batty eurosceptic gallery: “a naked coup d’etat attempt”.

Heh! Funny paranoid patriots done gone all hyperbolic and silly again. I also like “the European Union – as represented by the European Council – is seeking to dictate to the member states what it shall (and shall not) include in a treaty”.

Erm… The Council of the European Union is made up of the heads of each EU member state. Wouldn’t “the heads of the EU member states are seeking to tell their own countries what they are going to include in the treaty” be slightly more accurate?

June 18, 2007
by Nosemonkey
5 Comments

On an EU referendum

So, according to a poll for the Financial Times, a decent majority of Europeans want the chance to vote on whatever treaty / constitution eventually emerges for the future of Europe.

We’ve now got everyone from the full-on eurosceptic UKIP and the loosely eurosceptic Tories through to the Young European Federalists all behind the referendum idea – all, naturally, hoping that the European public will back their own stance and therefore give them legitimacy. (Well, except the Tories, who are probably hoping that a British “no” vote under a Labour government would let them nicely off the hook…)

In an ideal world, yes, an EU-wide referendum – every country voting on the same day, every country needing to return a majority on a simple yes/no question – would be the best way to secure proper legitimacy for the next step in the EU’s evolution. God knows, there’s little enough democratic backing for the thing as it currently stands.

But the thing is, unless the people voting in the referendum really know what they’re voting about, the whole exercise will be pointless. As happened in the pro-EU camp after the French and Dutch constitutional referenda, and in the anti-EU camp after the British EEC referendum back in the 1970s, the losing side will simply claim that they would have had more support if the people only knew what they were doing.

This is born out fully by the FT poll – 69% of Brits surveyed want a referendum. 55% haven’t got the first clue what the EU constitution was actually all about.

Any long-term readers of this blog will doubtless be aware that the EU is both incredibly dull and insanely complex. I don’t pretend to understand half of the bloody thing, despite being fairly intelligent, well-educated, and having worked in politics in both Brussels and Westminster in my time. Having read the old constitution text all the way through, though I think I understood most of it the damned thing was so long I really couldn’t be certain.

While supporters of the referendum idea always shout this down with accusations that even bringing it up shows a patronising, paternalistic, anti-democratic contempt for the public’s intelligence, it’s simply true: the European public as a whole do not and probably can not understand enough about the complexities of EU reform to make an adequate judgement in a referendum.

That lack of understanding will most likely lead to a low turn-out – bar in those member states mid-way through a governmental term with voters getting restless – and a low turnout would again undermine the legitimacy of the entire process. It would also mean that the extremists at either end of the EU spectrum – the rabid withdrawalists on one side and the barking integrationists on the other – will get to settle the matter by sheer weight of numbers and organisational skill.

In the UK, of course, the Eurosceptics are far better mobilised, and have the press on their side to boot – with the Times, Telegraph, Mail, Express, Sun and News of the World all pretty much guaranteed to support a “no”, with only the little-read Guardian and Independent likely to come out in favour of a “yes”. In any referendum, following a solid two decades of populist (and frequently exaggerated if not outright inaccurate) anti-EU rhetoric seeping from press and politicians in a constant stream, the UK’s population is likely to vote “no” not because they’ve assessed the merits of the constitution / treaty, but through petty partisan/patriotic ignorance.

That, at least, is how it will be represented by supporters of the new treaty.

Personally, while disliking the concept of referenda and direct democracy intensely (for reasons too long-winded to go into now), and while being largely pro-EU, I’m actually in favour of a referendum for the very reason that the end result is bound to be another “no”, which will lead to yet more votes and yet more “no”s. Yes, the majority of member states will likely pass the thing – but not Britain, not the Czech Republic, not Poland, and quite possibly not Holland or France again either.

Another rejection via referendum would, hopefully, finally force the EU bigwigs back to the drawing board for real. It might, if we’re lucky, make them face up to the fact that what the EU needs isn’t just a partial reorganisation and a few bells and whistles, but wholesale reform and restructuring. And if the next rejection doesn’t do the job, maybe the one after that will.

Because just as the constitution was a botched compromise – designed to lessen the problems of the botched compromise that was the Treaty of Nice, which was meant to reform the botched compromise of Maastricht, and so on ad infinitum – the new “mini-treaty” is bound to be a botched compromise instead. A meaningless, bland mish-mash of what everyone wants which will leave no one entirely satisfied.

What the EU needs is not yet another treaty designed by committee that fails once again to tackle the real problems – it needs something radical.

If a referendum rejection can force them towards a radical solution – even if that solution were to be to boot those states that vote “no” out of the club so that the rest can get on with it – so much the better. Because the current situation with the EU is decidedly a case of too many cooks spoiling the broth – and all because none of the cooks have known what the recipe is for well over a decade. It gets to a stage when what you need is not a bit more seasoning, but to throw the whole lot out and start again from scratch, this time learning from your mistakes rather than constantly adding to them.

Sadly, however, learning from mistakes doesn’t seem to be an EU strong point…

June 18, 2007
by Nosemonkey
Comments Off on links for 2007-06-18

links for 2007-06-18

June 17, 2007
by Nosemonkey
Comments Off on links for 2007-06-17

links for 2007-06-17

June 16, 2007
by Nosemonkey
1 Comment

links for 2007-06-16

June 15, 2007
by Nosemonkey
1 Comment

links for 2007-06-15

June 14, 2007
by Nosemonkey
3 Comments

Putin going for a third term?

Could be interesting (if by “interesting” you mean “one of the worst things that could possibly happen to Europe, and not too hot for Russia either”):

“Mr Putin, so the theory goes, would not stand again when his second four-year term expires next March. To do so would require changing the constitution, which limits presidents to two consecutive terms, and could look undemocratic.

“Instead, say analysts, business people and journalists, Mr Putin could come back in 2012, as the constitution allows. Or the next president could stand down early because of “ill health”. Another scenario is that the constitution could be changed early in the next presidency to allow longer presidential terms (an idea already being discussed), triggering elections in which Mr Putin returns.”

Of course, quite what the problem is of changing a constitution that’s only been around a few years I can’t really see. Plus “looking undemocratic” is hardly something Putin or Russia as a whole seems to have cared much about in recent years.

This little theory of old Vlad going for another term also goes some way to explaining quite why he’s been so active in recent months. Let’s face it, most outgoing leaders do very little of any import in their last year in office – cf. the second half of the second term of pretty much any post-war US president, Tony Blair’s utter failure to achieve anything in recent months and decision to bugger off out of the country for his final few weeks in office, etc. etc. – but Putin seems to have been more visible and made more major pronouncements in the last couple of months than he has in the preceding couple of years. It’s not the behaviour of a man resigned to giving up power in less than a year’s time.

Certainly the possibility of Putin going for a third term could go some way towards explaining his recent belligerent rhetoric towards Europe and America. Being so utterly vast in territory, Russia has always needed enemies to hold itself together. With so many borders, she has always managed to find them: the various Slavic enemies of the warring Rus’ tribes, the Mongol and Islamic incursions, the gradual expansion and consolidation of Muscovy, Ivan the Terrible’s numerous wars, the conquest of Siberia and creation of the vast Russian Empire, then Revolution, Civil War and Cold War, followed by an uneasy truce with the rest of the world that’s lasted – so far – for a little over fifteen years. A fifteen year period which has seen numerous wars in Chechnya, yet remains probably the most peaceful and secure decade and a half that Russia’s seen for centuries.

Nothing creates unity better than standing up to a foreign threat – the Chechens were used quite effectively in the last few elections, but have rather run their course. With parliamentary elections only a few months away and the presidential one in less than a year, if you buy into the “Russian ruling elite” theory, some kind of major unifying force is needed – and Putin seems to have hit on conflict with the West as the key.

Meanwhile, of course, Putin’s opponents are already mobilising – Boris Berezovsky’s billions funding dissident groups, while high-profile opposition types have already begun declaring their candidacies. Will blind loyalty to the current government really be enough for whoever Putin’s successor may finally turn out to be when there are big names waiting in the wings to try and shift the country’s direction?

And in any case, if not President Putin, then who else from the “ruling elite”? No heir is apparent, no hints have been made. It may not mean a great deal in a country where Putin rose from nowhere to the presidency (via heading the security services and being Prime Minister) in a matter of months, but Yeltsin spent years hunting for a suitable successor – selecting then rejecting at least half a dozen before picking Vlad. Putin himself seems to have done nothing of the kind.

Only one thing is certain – as much as Putin may appear dodgy to outsiders, in Russia itself he remains hugely popular, with approval ratings currently around the 80% mark. His anti-Western rhetoric is increasing that popularity even further – Cold War resentments die hard, it would seem (hell, we’re all just as bad – how many Westerners still secretly think of Russia as the Soviet Union?).

If Putin wants another term, therefore, Russia will gladly give it to him. Why worry about a constitution on which the ink is barely dry when that constitution is preventing the people from electing the man they want as their leader?

So, another four or so years of Europe being held to ransom by Russian energy companies. Another four years of suspect human rights records and clampdowns on civil liberties. Another four years of persecution of political opponents and hostile members of the press. Anther four years of Cold War style macho posturing against the West. Another four years of Russia not really moving on from its less than glorious past.

But still, what the people want, the people should get, right? That’s the beauty of democracy. If democracy elects tyrants, then so be it. And it’s not as if we can do anything about it anyway – change in Russia has always come from within. Such a short time after the end of the Cold War, little wonder that they don’t yet seem to have worked out precisely what that change should be.

June 11, 2007
by Nosemonkey
2 Comments

The EU in the next five years

Since the initial expansion to 25 member states back in 2004, the future of the EU has been wildly uncertain. The constitution was supposed to sort everything out but, as we all know, that little project has failed dismally. For the last three years, the European Union has been in a state of growing stagnation, with no obvious way out thanks to the various petty spats and disagreements.

In Britain – rarely a country to seek active engagement in EU politics – Blair’s been on his way out for what seems like forever. Everyone’s known that Gordon Brown was likely to succeed even before Labour failed to find a viaible candidate to oppose him. But with the UK economy beginning to show signs of faltering and discontent with the government steadily rising, few would be keen to put too much money on Brown being returned with a working majority at the next general election, now most likely in 2009. Neither Brown nor opposition leader David Cameron, in any case, are likely to focus too much on the European Union in the next few years, as the issue is simply far too contentious – and with a tight election on the cards, neither can risk alienating the electorate by engaging too closely with Brussels. Expect no EU leadership from the UK.

In Germany, despite her best efforts during her current EU presidency, Angela Merkel has made little headway in pushing through EU reform, and is also still in the tricky position of ruling via a fragile coalition that could fracture in a moment, given the right point of contention. With Poland and – especially – Russia to worry about to the east, Germany is in any case too threatened by immediate problems to really care too much about theoretical long-term development.

In Italy, as always in that perennially unstable country, the government is still on the brink of collapse. Romano Prodi may be far and away the most EU-experienced national leader, but his domestic troubles mean that no one in the wider EU can rely on him to be in office in six months, let alone the few years it will doubtless take to push through major EU reforms.

Poland, the only new member state with a large enough EU vote to be a serious contender in shaping the future of EU reform, is currently led by a pair of twin maniacs set on purging their country of anyone they dislike – be it suspected former communists or homosexuals. With ever increasing lurches towards hard right authoritarianism, Poland has firmly positioned itself as the black sheep of the European Union – largely ignored with embarrassment, the rest of the time more or less gently being chastised by the other member states. The KaczyÅ„ski twins (one as President, one as Prime Minister) have only been in power for a year and a bit, and are likely to stick around for a while, but with a new model Polish nationalism increasingly at the heart of their politics, constructive engagement with the EU is highly unlikely to be on their agenda any time soon.

In Spain, meanwhile, the only other EU country even close to being large enough to exert any influence, Zapatero’s socialist government has increasingly been coming into conflict with the right – and now faces the threat of fresh ETA attacks, following the Basque terrorist group’s decision to drop their ceasefire last week. Having allowed the naturalisation of thousands of illegal immigrants – without consultation with the rest of the EU – Zapatero is also not flavour of the week in Brussels, and the recent elections of the right-wing and more pro-American Sarkzozy in France and Merkel in Germany have destroyed his previous European strategy of forming a bloc with those two countries. While friendly with Prodi (for as long as he’ll be around), Zapatero’s anti-US and pro-EU constitution rhetoric ensures he’s unlikely to find an ally in Gordon Brown, and the brief period where it looked like Spain may have some influence over the future of the EU seems to have come to an end.

So who does that leave? Surprise surprise – the country that ALWAYS seems to shape the future of the EU… France.

Six months ago, Sarkozy’s succession was highly doubtful. Chirac seemed opposed to him, Royal looked to be gaining popularity, and there was that whole potential scandal over the Clearstream affiar lurking in the background which could easily have ended his hopes of nomination, let alone election.

Now, however, Sarkozy seems to have the most secure political position of any leader of the major European powers. By all accounts, the French parliamentary elections are going to end up a landslide for the UMP – the first time in 30 years that an sitting French government has been returned with a majority.

On the domestic front, this gives Sarkozy carte blanche to put in place pretty much any reforms he likes – be it increasing the 35 hour working week, cutting immigration, cutting taxes, reducing the civil service, or reordering the criminal justice system.

But from the European Union perspective, this double endorsement of the Sarkozy approach likewise gives him a pretty much indisputable right to tell Brussels that what he says goes. Having rejected the EU constitution, French voters have now endorsed a president and a party which proposes a “mini treaty” approach, a president who has publicly declared the existing constitution “dead”. With Sarkozy now doubly endorsed, the stake has been driven well and truly through the constitution’s heart.

French opinion can (perhaps sadly) never be ignored when it comes to reforming the EU – a fact that Romano Prodi noted this time last year when he stated that any revision of the current plans could not possibly take place until after the French elections. Notably, since Sarkozy’s election, the formerly pro-constitution Prodi has begun to back the mini-treaty idea, and has even hinted at a multi-tier Europe. Surely even the nuttily pro-constitution Luxembourg Prime Minister Jean-Claude Juncker, who’s been performing frantic constitutional CPR for the last couple of years, can’t try and keep the thing alive now?

What this all means, therefore, is that Sarkozy is pretty much going to be able to dictate terms to Brussels. He will get his mini-treaty – at least in some shape or other. Gordon Brown is likely to back the idea, if not the detail. So is Prodi. So will – most likely – the Netherlands, Denmark and the Czech Republic, just to name a few off the top of my head.

And so we’re about to enter into another period of delaying tactics and discussions of a new direction. Despite Merkel’s hopes of sorting out the detail this summer, the mini-treaty is unlikely to be finalised until at least this time next year – most likely some time after July 2008, when France (conveniently enough) takes over the EU presidency.

That will then give Sarkozy another four years in office to sort out the longer-term fix for the EU that is increasingly desperately needed. Hell, if he gets close to the mini-treaty he wants, he may even go one step further and try his hand at broader diplomacy, and try to reignite the old special relationship between France and Russia with Putin’s successor, scheduled to take over in March 2008. So far, the signs are good, Sarkozy offering himself as mediator, and trying to position himself firmly as an unbiased party in the US / Russia missile bases dispute. Hell, he’s even been getting drunk with Putin – surely a good sign?

Possibly, just possibly, Sarkozy could be the answer to the EU’s prayers. A strong, secure leader of one of the most influential EU member states, with a cabinet that shows he’s willing to compromise and work on bipartisan terms despite his large majority, who’s regarded as both pro-US and rationally pro-EU, who looks to be cultivating friendship with Russia, and whose very first act on becoming president was to jet off to discuss the Union’s future.

I never would have thought I’d be saying this six months ago, but Sarkozy is by far our best hope for a workable European Union. Even more shockingly, I’m coming to respect this guy quite a bit.

June 7, 2007
by Nosemonkey
16 Comments

Nosemonkey does climate change

As the G8 seems to be trying to focus on cutting emissions and the like, I’m going to set out my take on climate change, point by point. I imagine it’s different to what most people would expect, what with me being (very vaguely) a centre-left liberal – and I’m genuinely intrigued to know what it is I seem to be missing that makes me go against the current consensus.

Here’s how I see it:

1) The long view

a) The climate, the world doesn’t work to mankind’s timescales. Eons mean nothing – you have to look at hundreds of thousands, sometimes millions of years to genuinely detect trends.

b) We still have polar ice caps and glaciers in many mountain ranges, therefore we are still, by definition, in an ice age.

b) Check out the global temperature history charts – we’re currently on the upturn in average temperature after a period of extreme coolness. Warming is to be expected when an ice age is coming to an end.

2) The mid-range view

a) Accurate records of earth’s temperature have only existed since the 18th century (thanks to Gabriel Fahrenheit and, to a lesser extent, Anders Celcius).

b) This was during the “Little Ice Age“, a period of increased coolness that lasted several hundred years (less than the blink of an eye in glacial terms), until the mid-19th century.

c) This means that when we’re told “it’s the hottest since records began”, you may as well say in June that “it’s the hottest since February”. Of course it’s (on average) hotter than it was during a cold spell which we’ve now come out of.

d) There was also a “Medieval Warm Period“, with some (unscientific) evidence of higher than average temperatures similar to those of the mid-20th century. Who’s to say we’re not entering another one of those.

3) The short-term view

a) Scary charts like this one make it look like the earth is warming rapidly, and that this warming started in the mid-19th century, when industrialisation was beginning to peak.

b) This ignores the long and mid-term views: this chart is more like it, but even that doesn’t give a fair indication, as the world works in cycles of tens of millions of years, not mere centuries. Correlation with the expansion of industrial emissions does not equal causation.

4) However…

a) Even if you dismiss the upturn in global temperature since the Industrial Revolution as coincidence, surely pumping loads of nasty chemicals into the atmosphere and ocean can’t be good, and it would be a very good thing for us to cut down on pollutants.

b) The cleaning up of the London fog / smog after the 1956 Clean Air Act seems to show mankind can have an effect. (Although some evidence suggests the fog was declining anyway, plus London is situated at the bottom of a rounded valley, helping to create a microclimate that trapped pollutants, so is hardly analogous with wider environments.)

c) Carbon dioxide emissions have indeed risen a lot since the Industrial Revolution, to levels higher than ever seen before (as far as we can tell). The chart could look scary – until you notice the remarkable regularity of the sudden increases in Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere approximately every 100 thousand years. The last one of which was approximately 100 thousand years ago… (We don’t, by the way, have any way of telling the Carbon Dioxide concentration in the atmosphere further back than that – and all those figures come from within the current ice age, from gas trapped in the polar ice caps. See this chart for a handy comparison of CO2 and temperature fluctuations during this ice age, from long before man had invented the coal fire…)

5) However number 2…

a) None of this means that climate change ISN’T happening, as some opponents of the global warming lobby claim. If anything, it provides additional evidence that it is.

b) It does, however, cast doubt on the claims about the CAUSES of climate change – at least as far as I’m concerned. Where’s the proof that industrialisation has really caused the current warming, when we were probably due a rise in temperatures anyway, and when – as we’re still in an ice age – the only logical way for the Earth’s temperature to go is up?

6) So what should be done?

If you take climate change to be a very long-term phenomenon, caused by regular cyclical variations in the Earth’s temperature and atmosphere caused for reasons we can barely guess at (much like the probably overdue polar switch)…

We could spend lots of time and money cutting carbon emissions and taxing cars and planes – hell, it certainly can’t hurt. Helping the energy companies to find some genuinely viaible alternative fuel sources would be nice and all.

But in reality there’s not a lot we can do bar damage limitation – at some point the current ice age is going to end no matter what we do. At that stage, the Earth’s average temperature is going to rise by as much as 10 degrees (over the course of a few centuries, most likely). That would make pretty much the entire area between the tropics uninhabitable, and destroy the majority of the world’s current breadbasket – not to mention the sea-level rises caused by the complete melting of BOTH polar ice caps.

This has happened many times before, and when it happens again, we’re screwed, many millions of people are going to die, the world we know will be utterly changed, and there’s precisely nothing we can do about it.

So hell, might as well enjoy the cheap flights while we can, eh? Especially as oil’s bound to run out fairly soon to boot (a finite supply being used up at ever-increasing rates? Doesn’t take a genius to work it out… Remember when Britain used to have coal?)

Go on then, someone show me why I’m wrong – or is it just my word against Al Gore’s?

Update: Catching up on my blog reading, this is very interesting – a series of profiles of respected scientists who deny the supposed consensus on climate change (via). This one, on the role of Carbon Dioxide, is of particular interest, as far as my own doubts are concerned, largely due to step 3’s summary of the reason for picking on man’s activity as the cause of the current apparent rise in temperatures:

No other mechanism explains the warming. Without another candidate, greenhouses gases necessarily became the cause.

And therein lies my problem – as I’ll no doubt elaborate in the comments a bit later. We simply don’t know what caused the Earth to warm up in the past, nor what caused C02 levels to rise and fall on a 100,000 year cycle. Until we know the past causes, how can we possibly predict the future consequences? – not least in a system as complex as the atmosphere, so notoriously difficult to predict that it’s well nigh impossible to accurately say what the weather will be like next week, let alone in a hundred years.

(It also reminded me of a post from a year ago, Merrick on why “carbon offsets are a fraud”, which is well worth a read, though Merrick would doubtless disagree with the main thrust of this post…)