Nosemonkey's EUtopia

In search of a European identity

January 23, 2007
by Nosemonkey
4 Comments

Telling national differences

In the UK, for the last couple of weeks it’s been all but impossible to avoid discussing the brain-dead actions of a small group of social outcasts locked in a garish TV studio that’s been converted into a televised zoo. You don’t need to have watched the thing to have an opinion, and mine has largely been to rivise my previous dislike of clusterbombing unarmed civilians

In Germany, meanwhile, they’ve been getting all excited about a dog who can balance a glass of water on its head. Again, there’s no need to see it to know that that’s bloody brilliant.

But as I’m so nice, I done gone tracked it down on You Tube for your delectation. Watch this, and tell me the world wouldn’t be a better place if Channel 4 was forced to replace Big Brother with rolling footage of abnormally trained animals.

Hideous screeching harpies launching entirely unjustified attacks on their betters, or dogs with low-key party tricks? No contest, is there? Germany here I come – to take the talented mutt across the border and buy that pooch a pint.

January 21, 2007
by Nosemonkey
2 Comments

Know anything about the Balkans these days?

Me neither. There is, however, a potentially important election going on in Serbia today, which could lead to independence for Kosovo. And we all remember how contentious that’s been, right?

To get an understanding of what’s going on, check out East Ethnia’s overview, or some analysis from Transitions Online, the Financial Times and the Economist. There’s also a vast amount at Serbianna.com (there’s a bit of a clue in the name…) – including a handy roundup of other stories on the elections from around the world.

As for why anyone from outside the region should care – Reuters and the New York Times sum it up.

Monday update: Financial Times: Serbia poll sees nationalist hardliners victory

Hardline nationalists won the largest share of votes again in Serbia’s parliamentary elections on Sunday, in a result that will keep “democratic forces” on the defensive for another four years.

EurActiv has more.

January 20, 2007
by Nosemonkey
3 Comments

Home Office to be split in two?

About bloody time, considering how unweildy the department has evidently become.

The big question (other than what the hell are the precisely plans?) is, why let the news slip out at 9pm on a Saturday night? Wouldn’t this count as the sort of major reform that eveyone’s been saying is needed for ages, and that could get the government a bit of good will back – especially needed following yesterday’s “cash for peerages” arrest of one of Tony Blair’s senior aides? Why bury it at a weekend?

Still, sounds like it’ll be worth getting the Sunday Telegraph tomorrow to see what [tag]John Reid[/tag]’s got to say for himself… Is this another case of “I’m not going for the Labour leadership, no siree…”? (Especially as Gordon Brown’s out of the country, so will be unable to hit back straight away…)

Sunday update: Reid outlines his plans in the Telegraph. Well, I say “outlines his plans” – it’s more an extended apologia and self-justification, with very little in the way of concrete proposals for how to actually implement a break-up. Still, apparently Support grows for Home Office split, because good old Charlie “I know little and care less about how the British constitution functions” Falconer (aka Tony Blair’s ex-flatmate, aka the Lord Chancellor, aka the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs) is lending his considerable weight to the idea.

January 20, 2007
by Nosemonkey
Comments Off on Quality blogging

Quality blogging

With this week’s ongoing introspective spat in the UK political blogosphere Fifth Estate (of which I have got so bored I’m afraid I’m no longer paying any attention whatsoever – sorry, chaps), it’s been easy to forget the quality that’s out there. Luckily, our man McKeating – frequently the best example to use when trying to demonstrate that bloggers aren’t all tedious bores – has come up with a corker of a post on that man Blair. Go read.

January 19, 2007
by Nosemonkey
4 Comments

Constitutional confusion Redux

Despite some people making useful suggestions, elsewhere in the EU it seems all but impossible to shake of the spectre of that damned [tag]EU constitution[/tag]. Current European Union president Angela Merkel keeps on bringing the bloody thing up, repeating the same thing that has been said ever since the thing was rejected by the French and Dutch referendums back in the summer of 2005:

“The reflection pause is over. By June, we must reach a decision on what to do with the constitution”

Ignoring, of course, the fact that “we” (by which I mean the people of Europe, via the French and Dutch referendums) already have. If just one country rejected the constitution, it was to be thrown out and re-thought. That was the understanding. For the last year and a half, though, all the talk has been on how to get around this inconvenience, not on how to tackle the underlying problem: that the constitution was simply not what was needed.

However, rather than use her EU presidency to launch a fresh debate, Merkel instead has made clear that

“Broad general debate [on the constitution] is behind us”

She will, instead, launch a series of confidential talks with her counterparts amongst the political elites of the various member states to determine what they (the people generally least in touch with the real world and with public opinion) think is the problem – precisely what got us into this mess in the first place, in other words.

She has also stated fairly bluntly that she doesn’t think that more referendums are the way forward. So once again, the people will be refused a vote, and resentment will be allowed to build. Step forward French presidential hopeful [tag]Segolene Royal[/tag], who may have a few things to say about this:

“I want the French people to be consulted once again in a referendum in 2009”

Ah, how lovely. Another impass. Royal’s rival, [tag]Nicholas Sarkozy[/tag], may be on record as wanting to revive the constitution – but really it’s “a”, rather than “the” constitution that he’s after. He reckons (fairly sensibly, considering the current chaos and stagnation) that

“We should resort to a mini-treaty to achieve the most urgent institutional reforms”

So, with both of the candidates for the French presidency seemingly at odds with the German Chancellor, what hope progress?

It looks like the EU is heading once again into a period of stagnation, as those in favour of the existing constitutional treaty try to press ahead despite its rejection and multiple flaws, while those who are opposed to the present text – yet see the need for introducing some of the (in many cases, much-needed) reforms it was designed to bring in – try to put a halt to plans to revive the thing which, no matter how ill-advised in terms of the constitution’s own inability to do what it was supposed to do, will also be taken as yet another indication that Europe’s politicians couldn’t give a monkey’s for the opinions of the “citizens of Europe”. That way lies further alienation and resentment which, if not placated, could prove disastrous.

For a decent overview of the issues – and how these proposed discussions may impact on Britain (which seems to be keeping well clear of any of any constitutional negotiations, despite the potential for them to have a massive impact on the country) – check out today’s Q&A in the Independent (or, via Erkan, a slightly shorter one from the Financial Times a couple of weeks back).

Saturday update: Jerome has a roundup of UK reactions over at European Tribune. He has an interesting theory…

January 18, 2007
by Nosemonkey
3 Comments

Oh dear… *snigger*

Barely has the new far-right European Parliament group “Identity, Tradition, Sovereignty” managed to form than it is starting to fracture.

What is it about these nationalist types that makes them so prone to infighting? (As if we didn’t know…) And why does it always seem to be a former UKIP person who’s responsible? It used to be Kilroy, this time it’s Ashley Mote, an independent British MEP who was booted out of UKIP over allegations of fraud and tax evasion (he’s still trying to evade going to court by claiming immunity as an MEP and taking his case through European Courts – rather entertainingly for someone who wants Britain to pull out of the [tag]EU[/tag] because it provides us with no benefits…)

And why has Mote caused a ruckus? Well, at the press conference launching the new grouping of mismatched nationalists, patriots, xenophobes, racists, Holocaust-deniers and fascists, he accused one of his fellow members of being a bit silly and politically inexperienced for publicly denouncing “the Jewish establishment” and attempting to justify his hatred of gypsies.

Wait, someone on the far right not liking the Jews? Whatever next?

Mote, please note, did not tell off his fellow MEP for being so silly as to use the term “the Jewish establishment” as if we were still in the early 1930s. He didn’t point out that, erm, that’s at best sailing fairly close to anti-Semitism. Nope, he told him off because

“‘I think the comments… reflect the inexperience and lack of political nous of the young man concerned.'”

To translate:

“How could you be so bloody stupid? We’ve only just formed this group and have to try to con people into thinking we’re not fascists for a bit – lay off the anti-Semitism, gypsy-bashing and public hate of anyone who doesn’t conform to your prejudices for just a little bit, can’t you? I know you’re an eastern European and you guys aren’t exactly known for your brains, but really… Bloody foreigners…”

This new lot could be fun…

January 18, 2007
by Nosemonkey
1 Comment

If you’re in London tonight and at a loose end

Then hie thee to the Plantaganet gothic splendour of Southwark Cathedral (by London Bridge), for 8pm.

Last night I caught a really rather excellent performance of the Ludus Danielis, a sung play (being pitched as a sort of proto-opera) dating from around 1230 with some of the finest early music you’re likely to find. I know this runs the risk of sounding insanely pretentious, but there’s something about the play of choral latin off gothic stone pillars, and the mingling of simple melodies from instruments so old you won’t even know their names (precursors to the violin, lute and bagpipe among them) that makes for one of those rare experiences where you come out of a performance and simply can’t stop smiling.

Nonetheless, yesterday and today are the only two performances at Southwark (although I believe they may be taking it to Kings, Cambridge later in the month), and last night there was a depressing number of empty seats. Tickets range from £10 to £30, can be bought via the Barbican or on the door. I’m no music critic, so won’t even attempt to give the thing a full review, but it really was superb.

(Back to politics in a bit, no doubt…)

January 17, 2007
by Nosemonkey
5 Comments

A multi-tier Europe

Finally, someone with some influence is calling for something I’ve reckoned is a (the?) way forward for the [tag]EU[/tag] for a while (and some other loosely pro-EU types agree): a complete re-think of the [tag]European Union[/tag], reformulating it along a multiple-tier basis.

The argument comes from former French Socialist Prime Minister [tag]Laurent Fabius[/tag], who helped lead the successful campaign against the [tag]EU Constitution[/tag] in France, in today’s Les Echos: Relancer et réorienter le projet européen.

I can’t say I agree with all the details of his proposals, but as a starting point for a wider debate on a radical reform of the EU, it’s one of the best we’ve had for a while.

A loosely translated summary / selection of highlights (mostly via the power of Google, but cleaned up a bit):

“Europe needs a strong revival. For that, it is necessary to use the renegotiation of the constitutional treaty, in order to carry out a true debate on what we want to do together… We need a new Constitution ratified by referendum.

“…detailed description of policy does not have any place in a Constitution, whose role is rather to define the general framework, making it possible for these policies to evolve/move in time… Some of its provisions could be discussed again in a separate treaty.

“…At the same time, we will have to progress quickly in several key fields. Concerning economic integration, the renegotiation of the EU budget in 2008 will have to be made profitable for the stronger economies, to reopen its finances and to really direct it towards the preparation of the future: research, education, infrastructure, etc

“…Mechanisms can be used to decrease the pressure on our industries and to enable them to be modernized without threatening the growth of the developing countries [I think he means both new member states and non-European developing nations]… implementation will not be simple and it will go against the current ideology. But, in the long term, these decisions will profit everyone, because it is not in the interest of developing countries to deepen the current social and political crisis in Europe.

“…We will also have to re-examine our monetary policy so that growth and employment appear clearly among its objectives. The operation of the Eurozone will have to be improved to guarantee a regular dialogue between it and the European Central Bank, and to enable it to make its voice heard in the international organisations (the World Bank, the IMF…). We will have to advance towards a true budgetary coordination between the States that have adopted the euro, if we want the Eurozone to remain viable.

“…To make these plans possible, the moment as come to redefine the internal organization of the Union. With twenty-seven Member States, uniformity means being based on the lowest common denominator, hence the current paralysis. I think the idea of differentiated Europe is preferable, a Europe of three tiers. In the center, States more pro-European, hopeful of building a closer Union, whose core will be probably Germany and France, in co-operation with Belgium, Luxembourg, Italy, Spain or others. A second tier could bring together the other members of the Union, of which some will join the first circle in the long term. Lastly, the third tier will include/take into account the countries which are closely associated with the EU while not yet being ready to become full members, at least for the foreseeable future: Turkey, Ukraine, the Maghreb…

“With a project and a framework fixed on these lines, the Union will finally be able to see where its borders really lie – which is a major need. Because how can you promote a political entity whose definition is not and cannot be stable?”

As I’ve argued before, when it comes to the EU, one size does not fit all. Can Fabius be the person to finally kick off this debate at a senior level? Does he still have enough influence?

Let’s hope so – because I for one can’t see many other sensible, plausible alternatives if the EU is going to survive in the long-term without starting to see some member states jump ship in frustration.

January 16, 2007
by Nosemonkey
10 Comments

Democracy in the European Parliament

It is, it must be said, a great shame when the one democratic part of the [tag]European Union[/tag] starts trying to act undemocratically.

No matter what your opinion of the newly-formed group [tag]Identity, Tradition, Sovereignty[/tag] – made up of assorted far-right types including French National Front leader Jean Marie Le Pen, Il Duce’s granddaughter Alessandra Mussolini, Belgian anti-immigration party Vlaams Belang and the charmingly named Bulgarian National Union Attack – the 20 MEPs that make up the new alliance have, nonetheless, all been democratically elected.

As such, moves by the Socialist group (apparently to be joined by the conservative EPP) to prevent the new group forming – and certainly to block any of its members attaining positions of higher responsibility within the [tag]European Parliament[/tag]’s various governing bodies and committees – are surely not to be supported.

Thankfully, outgoing European Parliament president [tag]Josep Borrell[/tag] – himself a Socialist group member – has done the right thing as one of his last acts before handing over to his successor:

“the challenge was rejected by the assembly’s outgoing president, Josep Borrell, when he officially announced the new group.

“Borrell pointed out that that each of its 20 members had signed up to a political declaration that they would ‘defend Christian and family values.’

“‘That, I feel, bears witness to the political affiliation of the group,’ he told the chamber on his last day in office before stepping down at the end of his term. ‘I believe the group should be able to continue.'”

Let’s just hope that new EP president [tag]Hans-Gert Pöttering[/tag] (a member of the EPP) follows Borrell’s lead, and refuses to allow MEPs to discredit what little claim to democratic accountability the EU has.

There are other, more subtle, and better ways of undermining them than calling for them to be banned – for calling for bans merely gives them more publicity, and even has the potential to provide political martyrs, uniting their supporters ever further though feelings of persecution. As modern [tag]fascists[/tag], unlike their early 20th century forefathers, seem to have little aptitude or competency for political office (as demonstrated by the UK’s own British National Party’s local councillors’ performances), better to let them get on with making a hash of it and discrediting themselves. Then you have a far more powerful electoral weapon – demonstrating them to be incompetent. Merely attacking them, however, has been proved time and again to give them an electoral boost.

Yes, having fascists in positions of authority is unpleasant. Yes, it is understandable why, in a continent which has experienced more than its fair share of damage at the hands of fascism, people may not like to see fascists in the European Parliament.

But such is the price of [tag]democracy[/tag] – to try to ban people with such views from standing for office, and certainly to prevent them from acting having received a democratic mandate from the electorate, is to undermine the validity of democracy itself.

January 15, 2007
by Nosemonkey
3 Comments

The United Kingdom of Great Britain, Northern Ireland and…

…France?

Is it April Fools Day already?

“Formerly secret documents unearthed from the National Archives have showed Britain and France considered a ‘union’ in the 1950s.”

Not only that, but this supposedly happened – after an approach by the then French Prime Minister – only a few months before the Treaty of Rome came in to force, which was to give France more political influence than she had enjoyed in decades. Plus, they expect us to believe that when Britain rejected the idea, France came begging to be allowed to join the Commonwealth. Including adopting the Queen as head of state.

Chinny reckon

January 15, 2007
by Nosemonkey
18 Comments

UK political blogging handbags

It’s Manic vs. Guido – and full-on, this time, following last year’s spat over the Oaten affair.

Manic was, until a couple of years ago when he started to post more infrequently, one of the UK’s most popular political bloggers. And a lefty. Guido is currently (almost certainly) the UK’s most popular political blogger. And a righty.

Manic has tirelessly campaigned to get elected officials to take up blogging as a great means of engaging the public with politics. Guido has been slagged off by Cabinet Ministers for giving the internet a bad name.

You can see why they might not get on.

I’ve met both Manic and Guido twice each. Guido still owes me a pint after our last meeting (and has just dropped me from his blogroll*) and Manic’s Australian, but I won’t let either of those get in the way of objectivity. Continue Reading →

January 14, 2007
by Nosemonkey
1 Comment

Blair’s latest anti-liberty wheeze

A very, very small note in the Independent on Sunday:

“[tag]Tony Blair[/tag] will propose this week to change the law to allow government departments to share personal data, including people’s medical records and tax details… The Prime Minister is likely to argue that allowing personal files to be shared will speed up and simplify Whitehall decision-making.”

Well THAT’s alright, then. As long as it makes life easier for politicians and civil servants, who cares if any Sir Tom, Sir Dick or Sir Humphrey in Whitehall and Westminster can check the last time you had an STD test, what variant of MRSA you caught when having your ‘flu jab at the local hospital, or what types of cancers you’re most at risk from? If you’ve got nothing to hide, you’ve got nothing to fear. Etc. Obviously.

January 14, 2007
by Nosemonkey
2 Comments

Only 7% of EU budget spending correct? Hmmm…

An intriguing story in the Torygraph today claims that only 7% of the £80 billion [tag]EU budget[/tag] is spent “correctly” – as, apparently, revealed to the [tag]European Parliament[/tag]’s budgetary control committee by the [tag]European Court of Auditors[/tag].

93% of [tag]EU[/tag] funds are wasted in the wrong places or frittered away by mistake? That’s a pretty major story, right?

So why is the Telegraph the only paper to be running with it, and then with a piece of just 350 words?

And why is there no mention of any recent meeting between the European Court of Auditors and the European Parliament’s budgetary control committee on either groups websites? Indeed, the last official meeting between the two groups would appear to have been back in October (warning – .PDF), just prior to the publication of the ECA’s annual report. At that meeting, no mention of 7% was made. Nor, that I can find, is there any mention of 7% in the annual report itself (warning – 4meg .PDF).

Where has this figure come from, exactly? Where’s the evidence? Where’s the corroboration?

The only hint is the following paragraph:

“the auditors have concluded that administration, which accounts for only seven per cent of the overall budget, was the sole area of spending for which good ‘supervisory and control systems’ were in place, with few errors found.”

The Telegraph surely haven’t made this figure up, have they? But it’s not in the annual report itself, and I can find no mention even of a meeting where such a figure might have been mentioned, let alone any other reports on this potentially incredibly damaging finding.

Can anyone actually confirm this story in any way, or is it merely a load of nonsense based on recycled, misunderstood two and a half month old reports from the October launch of the report into the 2005 budget, and slipped in merely to fill space? (I won’t be mean to the journalist whose name appears on the story by naming her here and doing untold Google damage to her career, but if she’s the same as this award-winning young hack from a few years back, is it possible that the jump up from writing articles about Clacton Pier to covering the niceties of EU budgetary administration was a bit much? Says the guy whose day job for the last three years was writing lightweight articles no doubt very similar to that Clacton Pier one…)

It is, however, perhaps also worth noting at this stage that, erm… “administration” is pretty much the only thing “the EU” actually spends money on itself – so if it’s spending that well, it’s doing the best it can. The vast majority of the EU budget is actually shipped out to the individual member states, who then administer its spending – and, as with implementation of EU directives and the like – generally do so with a high level of incompetence. This is why the budget hasn’t been signed off by the ECA for the last 12 years – the member states’ incompentence in administering the budget, not that of the EU institutions themselves.

(Hence the disaster of CAP subsidy distribution to British farmers – nothing to do with Brussels, everything to do with the piss-poor Defra, who are suitably lambasted in another part of the paper by the virulently anti-EU Christopher Booker. With agricultural spending accounting for around half the EU budget, if other countries are even slightly as shoddy as Defra in handing over the cash to Farmer Palmer, no wonder the budget’s screwed.)