Nosemonkey's EUtopia

Busy as hell, so go read Mark Mardell’s Europe diary, which features the intriguing information that he’s been filming a programme for BBC4 called “My Euro Blog” – although from his description it would appear blogging plays no part in it whatsoever…

Oh, and you may also like to have a look at MatGB taking on a few objections to the EU of Devil’s Kitchen’s. Haven’t had time to read either post fully yet, but should be an interesting debate starting up there.

Calling new(ish) political bloggers: Come, tell us you exist and stuff.

Oooh – I like this! Another critical examination of the British political blogosphere to complement my lengthy ramble yesterday. (And yet another description of me to add to the last couple of weeks’ pile of “progressive lefty” and “Tory”: I’m now “right-wing” – albeit of a decent kind, by the sounds of things – hurrah!)

Yet another example of how Blair and co are trying to screw us by abusing the mechanisms EU (via):

“On 1-2 December 2005, European Union justice and security ministers at a Council of the European Union meeting in Brussels plan to back stringent new anti-terror measures. Some of them will be based on a strategy that raises difficult questions about personal integrity, fundamental rights and freedom of speech. They will almost certainly be put on the agenda of the European Council summit in Brussels on 15-16 December… This is one of the most important points on the United Kingdom�s agenda for its presidency of the European Union…

“The measures should have been the subject of a public debate at EU level, involving many parts of society � not least Muslim communities. It has not happened: instead, although member-states have discussed the strategy and the wider action plan for four months, the documents are still kept secret in the council secretariat.”

That Open Democracy Article also links to a leaked memo giving a few clues as to what the plans are (in typically Blairite tones like “consequence management capabilities” where they mean “manpower for picking up bodies and rubble”, the old chestnut of “justification for terrorism” etc. etc.).

There’s also yet another mindless attack on modern technology from our luddite overlords (they have to be technological incompetents to think their data retention and ID card plans could ever work, surely? And the obviously don’t understand the internet, or government websites would be rather easier to navigate…):

“The ability to put ideas into action has been greatly enhanced by globalisation: ease of travel and communication and easy transfer of money mean easier access to radical ideas and training. The Internet assists this facilitation and provides a means for post-attack justification…

“We need to spot such behaviour by, for example, community policing, and effective monitoring of the Internet and travel to conflict zones. We should build our expertise by exchanging national assessments and analyses. We also need to disrupt such behaviour… We must put in place the right legal framework to prevent individuals from inciting and legitimising violence. And we will examine ways to impede terrorist recruitment using the Internet. We will pursue political dialogue and target technical assistance to help others outside the EU to do the same.”

Yes, of course the internet provides a “means” for post-attack justification. So does a pen and paper. So does the ability to speak. But what, pray tell, does “disrupt such behaviour” mean? What does “prevent individuals from inciting and legitimising violence” mean? The conflict zones stuff, fine – no problem with that. But are Blair and co again trying to get the blessing of the EU to start wading in and censoring the internet and limiting freedom of speech?

Call me cynical, but these days I hear them say “Throughout we will ensure that we do not undermine respect for fundamental rights” and I remember the Safety Elephant blathering on about how some rights are more fundamental than others (and some animals are more equal than others).

I also note that “respect for fundamental rights” is not the same as “commitment to fundamental rights”. A hunter may respect the deer he’s stalking – that doesn’t stop him from shooting the fucker in the face…

UK Blogging: cliques and changes – a new (rather lengthy) post by me at The Sharpener. Apologies in advance for any boredom that ensues…

Forgot to mention this: a good overview of ID cards in history from Chris Lightfoot, which helps give some context not only to the inanity of the current proposals, but also to the government’s methods of trying to introduce them. Worth a read.

How do you fancy getting paid to brainwash our nation’s youth? Oh, sorry… Did I say “brainwash our nation’s youth”? I meant, erm…

“run an educational project about the EU. This includes a nationwide programme of sceptical talks for sixth-formers, a sixth-form conference in March 2006 and a series of balanced fact sheets about EU policies and institutions.”

Yes… BALANCED:

“Our speakers come from across the political spectrum, and include parliamentarians from Labour, the Conservatives, the Liberal Democrats and UKIP, as well as top business people, journalists and political campaigners. All are sceptical about the Constitution for Europe or the euro; some would like to reform the EU from within; and some think that Britain would be better off outside the Union.” (emphasis mine)

Then again, this is a post with the same thinktank that is seriously trying to promote Our Island Story as a proper history book, providing copies to as many primary schools as they can. Aside from the fact that it was written a century ago and so maintains a somewhat outdated late Victorian / Imperialist paternalist attitude (not meant in any kind of politically ideological way) and a doggedly whiggish, teleological approach to history (with a vague idea that it was Britain’s – or rather, England’s – fate to forever advance to become the most powerful nation in the world), it is also simply not a work of history, as the sample chapter makes abundantly clear.

Our Island Story is little more than a heavily fictionalised version of a particular interpretation of British history which has now been rejected by pretty much every major historian going as at best overly simplistic, at worst outright wrong. To wit:

“They stood beside the bed, hardly daring to look at the two pretty children in case the sight might soften even their hard hearts, and they would be unable to do the cruel deed. Then they seized the clothes and the pillows and pressed them over the faces of the little boys. They could not scream, they could not breathe. Soon they lay still, smothered in their sleep.”

This would tend to give the impression that “the Princes in the Tower” were definitely murdered, and that this was witnessed/recorded to the extent that it was even known that they were smothered in their sleep. The truth? Nobody knows what happened to them. At all. There is no evidence that they were murdered beyond the fact that they seemed to vanish from the Tower of London after being locked up by Richard III, and most of the stories of their deaths originated in Tudor propagandists trying to justify Henry VII’s usurpation of the throne. To present their murder as historical fact is to ignore five hundred years’ worth of research.

So, if you fancy a job which involves peddling works of fiction to schoolchildren and convincing the poor kiddies that they’re fact, while ignoring anything which could contradict the particular take on reality you’ve chosen to adopt, it looks like Civitas is the place for you. (I was going to apply myself, but my conscience simply couldn’t take it – what’s happened to genuinely rational EU-scepticism these days?)

BBC News: Met chief to face Menezes probe:

” The Independent Police Complaints Commission probe will be led by senior investigator Mike Grant, and be separate from the IPCC’s existing investigation into the circumstances of the shooting.”

Of course, they won’t need to do much investigating, because they already know that it was a direct order from Sir Ian Blair that prevented the IPCC going into Stockwell station, in direct contravention of the law… Looks almost as if, much as we saw recently with Blunkett getting booted out nearly a year after Private Eye had already pointed out he was in breach of ministerial guidelines, Sir Ian has also now outlived his usefulness to the government.

Good.

(Oh, and ta to Chris for the heads up – I’m ill at the moment, hence little blogging action from me today…)

It’s not often you get an accessible yet interesting programme on the EU appearing on the telly (cf. the abysmal shite that was How Euro Are You? a few weeks back), so tonight’s Panorama, Battle for Europe, came as a rather nice surprise. Read the overview in that link then – if you want a top-notch primer to the complexities of the on-going problem of the EU budget and economic reform presented in an easy to understand way that manages to avoid being either simplistic or patronising – head to the BBC’s website and watch it online. Well worth it if only to compare Jack Straw in interview to the various other high-up European politicians doing their talking heads bit – he comes across like a nervous idiot, desperately trying to bluff his way through an exam he forgot to revise for. Great fun.

Britblog Roundup 41 – different home, usual quality.

Great Grimsby (Pffft!) MP Austin Mitchell rules. And he should blog more often. A sample, from his latest musings on Labour’s “Educashun White Paper”:

“Then, finally, Triumph. The follow-up Press Release: “Parents give schools plan the thumbs up”. MP rushes back to Westminster to give Ruth Kelly the good news. “I have no doubt that they will get their message will be heard (sic) in Westminster loud and clear”. There’s even a quote provided to prove it: “[[INSERT PARENT NAME]] a parent at the event said “The government’s plans are really ambitious. I’m pleased they want to give parents control … but I was even more pleased the [[NAME]] MP and the head bothered to take time out to listen to my views”. Democracy Works!”

Austin Mitchell: top chap – and decent photographer to boot. I raise my glass to you, sir.

As honourable as I find this sort of thing and the subsequent support, does anyone else get the feeling that something’s not right here?

Am I merely being cynical in thinking this could be a deliberate ploy to keep the “look – Tony Blair really DOES have influence with Bush” story running for a bit in the wake of his Terrorism Bill defeat? (And in any case, I’m pretty sure that Bush isn’t stupid enough to seriously suggest deliberately targetting al Jazeera – it sounds more like a Reaganesque “we start bombing in five minutes” joke.)

This is all far too much like the whole “whatever you do, don’t throw me into the briar patch” thing. Why has the government opted for such heavy handed methods when there are subtler ways of keeping the story under wraps?

They’ve been and gone and made a helpful page with links to all the featured blogs in our dear Mr Worstall‘s book. Which is rather handy.

(Oh, and I can confirm, following a few ales last night, that Messrs Worstall, Briffa, Connor and Burgess are all thoroughly nice chaps.)

Courtesy of the EU, and we’re now well on the way to bypassing the British parliament just as Blair and co planned (even if they did originally want the data to be stored for three years):

“An European Union parliament committee voted on Thursday to keep details of all EU-wide telephone calls and Internet use for six months to a year to help combat terrorism and serious crime.

“Telecoms firms typically store data for three months for billing customers, but some member states such as Britain want data to be kept for much longer…

“Details on a fixed-line call would include name and address of caller, number dialled, name and address of the receiver, the date and the start and completion times of the call.

“Details of a mobile phone call would include the subscriber’s identity number or SIM card and the location at the start of the call.”

There have, however, been a number of improvements to the original proposals, which were basically drafted by Britain and brought in via the Commission, notably

“The committee also agreed that only a judge could authorise access to telephone and Internet traffic, a condition absent in the Commission proposal.”

Though now semi-approved by the committee, this could all yet be thrown out by the European Parliament. Fingers crossed, eh?

Nonetheless, after yesterday’s UK-initiated proposals to allow police and security services across the EU full access to other countries’ databases, it would seem that even though they have only got a month to go, Blair’s boys in Brussels haven’t given up yet. The predictions of an abject failure for the UK EU Presidency may yet have been premature…

Update: An overview of Brussels reactions and, via the comments, a really rather useful run-down of the major issues at stake.