Tuesday, October 26, 2010

Reforme des retraites: carton rouge pour la gauche.

Article published in UnMondeLibre (France), 3Hs (Turkiye). In la langue de Shakespeare(shortened version) in France's largest English language paper (November issue), called funnily enough, theFrenchPaper. Finally in the University of Portsmouth students newspaper, Pugwash News.
.
English version, The French Paper.
.
In the name of “solidarité”, a vocal minority of “grèvistes” (strikers) appears to be prepared to fight to the bitter end to prevent the government doing the right thing, namely reforming the pension system. While there was plenty of solidarity in evidence in Chile with the whole nation pulling together behind its “33”, what we are witnessing on French streets is a flurry of irresponsibility and selfishness. In a well-rehearsed action plan, two million or so of my compatriots are once again taking the country hostage in their latest attempt to save a floundering model of welfare state.
.
Since the shameful fiasco of the national football team, you could be forgiven for thinking that the French love to wallow in endless strikes. But just as most fans were disgusted by the attitude of the striking players, private sector employees are unimpressed by the repeated strikes of public sector workers (1/5 of the labour force). The international media is predictably painting the French with a broad brush, a nation of demonstrators. The other side of the argument – let’s call it the “other France” - rarely features in programmes presumably because "l'autre France" rarely demonstrates. The stories of the hard-working entrepreneur-boulangers and artisans, innovating small family enterprises struggling to remain competitive despite one of the highest burden of taxation in the developed world do not have the same news appeal. But they are many untold tales of real solidarity between bosses and workers reaching compromises to try and save together their livelihood. Unions do not approve.
.
Impervious to the fate of the “other France”, members of the unions (8% of the work force) have been joined by a minority of politicized high school students steeped in the same cult of job-for-life and “acquis sociaux” (none-reviewable social rights), the sacred cows of the Left. Ironically the teenagers' prospects of finding work are being curtailed by the very system their parents are trying to keep in place. With youth unemployment at a record 23%, a sizeable number of them after graduating will be seeking employment across the Channel in the more flexible British labour market. Until then, they add oil to the fire by mindlessly, and sometimes violently, protesting against all-things liberal (and Anglo-Saxon).
.
The democratic choice of the people is inexorably vanishing in the commotion created by the latest wave of street protests. Polls can be made to say anything. The much quoted “support” to the strikers is probably more an expression of the people's belief in the right to protest as a cornerstone of democracy than anything else. Other polls have shown that a majority understand that action must be taken to avoid a Greek-like tragedy. For those who want to see, the right to strike is now blatantly being abused and used as an undemocratic tool for a few to reverse a democratic decision (pension reform law) with street coercion.
.
Amazingly, Martine Aubry, the General Secretary of the Socialist Party seems unperturbed by the abyssal social security deficit and the mounting sovereign debt. Having recently celebrated her 60th birthday, she could lead by example and retire. But the great architect of the economically disastrous 35-hour-working-week fights on and continues to enjoy the privileges bequeathed on our politico-administrative nomenclature. The fact that politicians can hold several electoral mandates – and salaries – is an absolute scandal but it is a gravy train few, be it on the Left or the Right, would like to see stop at some “austerity” station. Needless to say, they are not bound by a compulsory retirement age.
.
Are radical self-imposed austerity measures “à la Cameron” plausible? Not really. To the government's credit, reforms to change a damaging culture of welfare benefit-dependency have been introduced but it will take more than modest politically correct steps to have any real impact. As to meaningful cuts to France’s sprawling administration, dream on. Half of the members of the French Parliament are civil servants so serious reforms are more likely to be imposed by the EU - read Germany - or forced upon any government by the “evil” market and its credit rating agencies (looming downgrading).
.
Oil shortages are looming too and violence could spread to the suburbs. While the Left backs the workers of state-owned refineries' against privatization, the “other France” can only hope that the government will stand firm and show the kind of resolve Margaret Thatcher exhibited in the 1980s when the coal miners' strike threatened the British economy. The behaviour of our “équipe nationale” was a disgrace and deeply hurt the nation's pride. The irresponsibility of union leaders and their political masters is no less disgraceful. The consequences for the fragile recovery and the future could be far-reaching.

Saturday, August 14, 2010

From democratic deficit to “Avatar” Euro-democracy.

Published in Hürriyet Daily News, Un Monde Libre and EurActiv-ated.
Also published in a slightly different version in The Globe and Mail (Can.), The Providence Journal (USA) and The Australian (comme son nom l'indique).

.
The summer period is always an ideal time for administrations and legislatures to introduce unpopular measures or launch ridiculous projects. Enter “Citzalia”, a simulation game or the European Parliament’s newest communication tool. When you thought things could not get more disconnected from reality, they literally got more “virtual”. Soon citizen-avatars will be able to experience “democracy in action” in virtual reality. The democratic deficit has not been seriously addressed but the EU may be about to enter a new dimension: virtual democracy.

After the failure of its on-line TV “Europarl” (C-span à la EU), the Parliament is preparing to launch “Citzalia”, an educational "platform" described as a “3D world that captures the essence of the European Parliament”. Thus through “role play” and “social networking”, citizen-avatars will have the opportunity to walk the corridors of the Brussels’ nebulous power, and interact with MEP-avatars [1]. British journalist Christopher Booker was quick to spot the irony and drew a parallel with the situation in the UK under the present coalition. “We walk around, network, debate issues of the day, even propose legislation. But as with that computer game, it is an empty charade”[2] (Daily Telegraph, 7/08/2010).

Presumably the point - at 275,000€ - is to shed some light on the terribly important role of the EU legislature without which there would be no democracy worth talking about. With record low participation in the last parliamentary elections (2009, 43%), things are getting desperate. Frankly, the thought of citizen-avatars unleashed in the virtual corridors of power to try and figure out the “co-decision” legislative process is dizzying. Good luck to them with the arcane complexity of consultations between the Commission, the Council, the Parliament and the culture of deals behind the proverbial “closed doors”. Under the Lisbon treaty, a new consultation procedure with the 27 national legislatures (the so-called “Barroso initiative”)[3] should add to the bureaucratic fun.

Exposing the boring, poorly attended and entirely “managed” nature of debates in the hemicycle would be in the interest of transparency. Not to mention the outrageous nomadicity of the Parliament’s “democratic” business with its epic shuttling between Strasbourg and Brussels (annual cost, €200 million). But too much “realism” might confuse citizen-avatars who once back in the real world, would be entirely justified to question their MEPs - if they can find them. So the virtual experience is most certainly “idealized”. For the Euro-élite, the line between information and propaganda is not just “thin”, it is more often than not virtually invisible. The report by the Swedish think tank Timbro, “the European Union’s burden”, accuses the EU of “creating a propaganda machine” (EU Observer, 29/07/2009)[4].

The Lisbon Treaty “Citizens’ Initiative” (Article 11) should feature prominently in a compensatory sort of way. On planet Europe, the initiative purporting to enhance citizens’ participation by enabling them to propose legislation is hopelessly bogged down in red tape and controversy. It is slowly but surely being, well, bureaucratized to the point of meaninglessness. The unelected Commission is the sole arbiter in determining what constitutes a valid or “silly” proposal. The truth is that elected representatives are confined to a “rubber-stamping” job with the right to throw occasional “delaying tantrums” to earn their credentials as the guardians of EU “democracy”. The German Financial Times described the screening process as an example of “managed democracy” [5] (03/04/2010), a term one normally associates with Russia.

Forget the citizen-avatar. To really learn how it works, there should be an option for using a lobbyist-avatar. After all, interest groups are ideally suited for the European multi-layered, consensus-driven polity. Take the environmental policy sphere. It is hardly the utopian Navi community of planet Pandora. Behind the official discourse of “greening our economy” and “saving future generations” (and closed doors), lobbies are very active. But not just to save us from eco-Armageddon. The friends of Gaia have many friends in Brussels who allocate funds to them. As the International Policy Network study “the Friends of the EU”[6] (8/03/2010) highlights, green advocacy groups are subsidized to lobby for more funds and provide expertise. This self-serving cycle undermines the democratic process.

“Managed” democracy, virtual or real, is a risky business. Citizens - like avatars - can be unpredictable and uncommonly ungrateful. In Europe, the propensity of the former to rebel by giving the wrong answer (No-votes or abstentions) to the unique brand of “yes-only-democracy” is amply demonstrated. The game designers insist that there will be no censorship [7] (The Guardian, 06/08/2010). So maybe a formula for a freer Europe might actually emerge from a silly idea because in the real EU, all we get is more of the same old democratic deficit.

[1] http://blog.citzalia.eu/about-citzalia/
[2] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/7932343/We-are-given-virtual-democracy-in-exchange-for-real-power.html
[3] http://www.euractiv.com/en/future-eu/treaty-opens-eu-door-national-parliaments/article-187888
[4] http://euobserver.com/883/28505
[5] http://www.ftd.de/politik/europa/:lissabon-vertrag-gelenkte-demokratie-in-der-eu/50095937.html#utm_source=rss2&utm_medium=rss_feed&utm_campaign=/
[6] http://www.policynetwork.net/accountability/publication/friends-eu
[7] http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/aug/06/eu-parliament-role-playing-game-online

Wednesday, May 5, 2010

Rescuing Europe from its politicians

In 1993 Alan Milward posited the controversial thesis that the EU had rescued the nation state. To survive, he argued, Europe would need to integrate more. With Greece on the “brink of the abyss”, reviewing the integrationist assumptions is now an urgent necessity. Since the completion of the single market (early 1990s), the construction of the European social and economic model or “way” has been pursued by politicians and ideologues without regards to the cost. Sovereign debt now threatens the Union in an unprecedented way. Yet whether the unfolding crisis will act as a catalyst for change is the million-Euro question.
.
Deriding the Anglo-Saxon model (limited government and free market economy) has been the favourite pastime of our élite on all sides. Nowadays, no-one is gloating. Bill Emmott (Times, April 30, 2010) puts it like it is: “Europe’s economy is the sick man of the world”. This year, “Schuman Day” was a more sombre occasion. Still, reflecting on the past is crucial to understand what went wrong. Indeed, Post-WWII integration into a single market was undeniably a success story. The basic economic assumption of the European model of regional economic integration was liberal (free trade, deregulation and small government), and it delivered what the peoples of the founding nations had expected of it; prosperity and peace.
.
In 2010 alarm bells are ringing across Europe with sovereign debt threatening to unravel the success of the early decades. How did we get here? To cut a long story short, from the Maastricht Treaty (1992) onwards, the European political class could not resist the sirens of “social” Europe or to be more precise “socialist” Europe (growth of big government, the welfare state and statism). In the noughties, the establishment of the single currency with the ECB policy of “strong Euro” led politicians to succumb to the folly of growth and development through borrowing. Preaching the saviour, more protectionist welfare state has become the electoral mantra resulting in Europe being run à la socialiste, and on credit (future generations would pay the bill!).
.
Since the first signs of scepticism appeared in the publics (late 1990s) culminating in the rejection of the Constitution in 2005, the EU leadership’s response has invariably been the same; more integration. This process has now fossilized into a dogma. Pushing for more centralised decision-making powers, a more social and overtly less liberal Europe has become the prevailing political discourse. The rise of the unsustainable welfare (member) state has been unstoppable. The Greek disaster should be seen in this context. While irresponsible and corrupt politicians should be held to account, it is evident that the mess has been enabled by the Post-Maastricht “European way” as framed by socialist-minded “éminence grises” (Jacques Delors, Tony Blair or philosophers like Juergen Habermas, to name but a few). Paradoxically, the idea of big-government has been embraced by right-wing politicians too.
.
The EU “way” (which incidentally includes turning a blind eye on Greek deceptions and probably many others) has created havoc. Europe’s economy has lost its competitive edge and now faces tough competition from emerging countries. Growth is near-zero, unemployment is high and citizens disillusioned. Predictably, the European Commission’s plan for the future (2020 Strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth) calls for the creation of a more “social market”. Like the previous one, it is destined to fail. The Lisbon Treaty is likely to act as a roadmap for this utopia as well as a straight-jacket preventing any flexibility. Gone is the pragmatism of the early years.
.
French economist Guy Sorman warns that dealing with the Greek debt without addressing its fundamental cause will miss the mark. The author of “Economics Does Not Lie” opines that the rescue package can only be a palliative. In his opinion, the most pressing issue for politicians is to confront and end the current “strategy of decline”. More dogmatic integration (economic governance, regulation) would be counterproductive. However breaking out of the dominant socialist (statist) ideological mind-set which guides the élite to resort to more of the same policies, will require courage and leadership. In this regard, one can only welcome the resurgence of the British Conservative Party. At least, a healthy doze of scepticism will act like medicine for the "sick EU patient".
.
If one needed a reminder of how completely alienated from society and its realities the Euro-political class is, the recent drama of the volcanic ash-cloud provides a perfect illustration. The rigid bureaucratic and chaotic political response which led to huge economic loss, was a striking example of poor leadership compounded by a paralyzing culture of risk-aversion. As journalist Yulia Latynina aptly observed, bureaucrats had proved "more harmful than volcanoes” (Moscow Times, April 20, 2010). While the EU political élite huffed and puffed, the Russian Presidential plane bringing Dmitri Medvedev for the funerals of the Polish President landed in Krakow without a glitch . The leadership of the Union was conspicuous by its absence.
.
Right now, politicians could prove more dangerous than Greek economic woes. The painful truth for our élite is that their decisions have led Europe on a path to economic decline. It is high time to bite the bullet and change course. To start with, citizens must be engaged with more than personality cult of the founding father and “what-Europe-has-done-for-us” brochures and rhetoric. The pretence that the EU can afford the social(ist) model it is purporting to download across the continent must be dropped, or more disillusionment (and anger spilling on the streets) will be fostered.
.
Verbose sermons of solidarity and unity professed in official receptions and academic circles are aloof words spoken on the deck of the ship battered by howling winds. The markets and the increasingly Euro-sceptic electorates are no longer listening. The EU needs to go back to its wealth-creation way, and it needs it fast.

Monday, April 5, 2010

The EU Easter egg....

The chicks are: the new President of the European Council and High Representative for foreign affairs...

Friday, April 2, 2010

Eco-cultishness and the petition threatening la liberté!

In France, the "debate" on climate change has taken a turn for the worse. A petition signed by 410 scientists (mostly involved in climate research) was presented to the Minister of Education and Research, Madame Pécresse, asking for more political support for the global warming thesis as postulated by the IPCC. And even more astonishingly, requesting the government to "take action" against two climate sceptic scientists; former minister Dr. Claude Allègre and Professeur Vincent Courtillot whose views were expressed in recently published books (see below).
.
The signatories feel that these dissenting scientific opinions are discrediting the supreme seriousness of their own work. The mind boggles.
.
What kind of "action" is not clear. Science by decree? Criminalization of the denial-dissent of IPCC climate truth ? Internment in psychiatric hospitals for those "deranged" scientists? Et pourquoi pas un goulag climatique? The methods used by Trofim Lyssenko to impose his scientific truth under Stalin spring to mind.... But je m'égare - I digress. La France is not ze Soviet Union.
.
Of course not. But eco-intolerence amongst environment activists, scientists and greened politicians is becoming a real threat to freedom of speech and scholarship. After the former socialist minister Michel Rocard's comment, namely that the decision to scrap the carbon tax was a "crime against humanity" - oui, je répète un "crime contre l'humanité"! - we have now scientists requesting government's intervention against climate-sceptic thinking and research.
.
What this is about is an attempt by a group of interested climatologists defending the thesis of man-made global warming, to discredit the work of scientists who dissent. The "niet" of the latter to climate alarmism hype does not go down well with the former, namely the self-appointed priesthood of Gaia .... Behind the carefully crafted text (accessible in article in Libération ), it appears that the objective of "alarmist scientists" (two are members of the IPCC-GIEC) is to see the UN "absolute climate truth" protected by the State, and the publication of dissenting research/opinions vetted.
.
Why? Because these climatologists live from climate alarmism - massive public funds allocated to it - and in the wake of the various climate-gates, scepticism among the publics has risen hence potentially threatening their jobs and could undermine the "climate business" (See post on ze blog Objectif Liberté). Fearing that research budgets might melt away faster than polar ice-caps, our "endangered" climatologists strike back!
.
For more on this latest twist français in the culte de Gaïa, climate alarmism et autres réchauffismes liberticides, read this excellent post by Jean-Michel Bélouve author of "La Servitude Climatique" (see below) in the Cri du Contribuable.: Petition against Allègre and Courtillot: French climatologists are losing it" (Les climatologues français perdent tout sens de la mesure). The author points notably to the fact that the two French "other thinker"-scientists are not alone. Many more have not endorsed the so-called IPCC "scientific consensus"! He notably recalls the 1992 Heidelberg Appeal signed by 4,000 scientists (including 70 nobel prize winners) who inter alia voiced concern about the intrusion of ideology in science (Earth Summit in Rio).
.
Answering the accusations that his work is not peer-reviewed, Prof. Courtillot puts his record straight in Le Monde. and Le Figaro. He notes inter alia: "It is the mechanism of the IPCC I am criticical of. I maintain that even with many more scientists, such a system cannot possibly garantee to tell the 'scientific truth'.
.
Also see the "lettre ouverte" by the mathematician Benoît Rittaud ("Le mythe climatique", see below). His critique hits the nail. The implications of this démarche for state intervention - if acted upon by public authorities - against two scientists are serious; introduction of political censorship of scientific work, infringement of freedom of speech and thought.
.
Douce France, cher pays de mon enfance et des droits de l'Homme... Quid la liberté d'expression et de penser? Pauvre science! With Liberté pour l'Histoire historians have been fighting against state edicted historical truths (lois mémorielles). It now looks like minority view scientists might be forced to do the same "pour la Science".... Aux armes citoyens!
.
That climatologists would resort to this kind of "trick" is deeply troubling. Frankly, this latest épisode climatique begs the question of whether the French "rechauffiste" brigade is not actually prepared to go down the road of green authoritarianism. It is a sad day for our democracy....
.
"Pour rire it's tax free", enjoy the caricature très drôle of a French climate lesson created by Yann Goap for the blog "Pensée-unique" . In the front row, two GIEC-IPCC children-scientists (a Dr. Pachauri or le breton Hervé le Treut?) snitching on their dissenting classmate-scientists (Courtillot and Allègre). The teacher is Madame la Ministre and the leçon is - in franglais - "In réchauffisme we trust" (In warmism we trust). The language used in French is childish and would translate in something like "Mistress, they are pestering us...."
.
Ce à quoi on pourrait répondre (answer) en français de cour de maternelle: Maîkresse, yaka lire queske les bonomes verts veules pas qu'on sêt!

Loosely translated in good franglais this means: read what les druides verts do not want you to know en français.

Dr. Claude Allègre: L'imposture climatique où la fausse écologie.

Benoît Rittaud : Le mythe climatique.

Professeur Vincent Courtillot: Notre voyage au centre de la Terre.

Jean-Michel Bélouve: La servitude climatique: changement climatique business et politique.

Dr. Emmanuel Martin: Un Monde Libre

Le blog de Vincent Bénard: Objectif Liberté, dossiers et gazette du "réchauffement" climatique.

Nananèèèère (so haha see)..

Monday, March 29, 2010

Earth Hour: the tyranny of Gaïa?



Version longue:

Before 1972 (first European environmental action plan), there was darkness in Europe. The nation-state, its citizenry and industries were blighted, selfish polluters not paying due care to “Mother Earth” (Gaïa) and its creatures. And then there was light, green light that is, switched on permanently by a common environmental policy (Single European Act, 1987). Or so goes the official tale. Curiously with the Earth Hour, the friends of Gaïa were asking us to celebrate darkness again, quite literally by switching off our lights for an hour in an absurd ritualistic global communion against progress.
.
The organiser of this initiative, the World Wildlife Fund trumpeted success. In France the national electricity company EDF observed a mere 1% decrease in electricity consumption, a situation that can surely best be explained by the fact that only the modern day followers of the cult of Gaïa - the “greens” - and, their new priesthood - NGOs, experts, politicians - heeded the call. Environmentalists have been influenced by James Lovelock’s “theory of Gaïa” which claims that the earth is a single living organism. Unperturbed by the fact that many scientists view it as little more than a neo-pagan new age religion, environmentalism regards Man and modernity (notably energy production and consumption) as a “disease killing the planet”.
.
The controversial hypothesis has influenced the “deep ecology” movement and is a foundation stone of political ecology in the Western world. It has had a profound impact on governance and policy-making in Europe. As academics like to point out, the environmental policy is the perfect example of Jean Monnet’s neo-functionalist method of integration through “spill-over” in other sectors. Hence the green policy has “stealthily” grown in size and is now on its 6th Environmental Action Programme (2002-2012). Addressing climate change, nature and biodiversity, environment and health, natural resources and waste, it basically permeates all aspects of policy-making, and by implication, of our lives.
.
Apparently we should only be grateful. Questioning the scientific or moral foundation of green economic integration and cultishness is considered politically incorrect. If you do, you are treated as barking mad or ignorant. When your “scepticism” comes out of the closet, you fall into the category of the “bag guys” or deniers. The “good guys”, namely the green experts are a bit like the Navi people in Avatar. They “commune” with Mother Nature and know best. Armed with the absolute Truth, they preach the cult of Gaïa in its less extreme form through policies, laws, campaigns and by resorting to climate alarmism to impose their “noble” cause on the masses.
.
Of course, the European Union is not the utopian planet of Pandora. Behind the official discourse of “legacy to future generations”, (green) greed, power and interests play an important part. Organisations like the WWF are friends with big corporations. Greening one's conscience has a price: donations. The friends of Gaïa also have many friends in Brussels and receive public funds (EU budget) whether taxpayers approve or not. As the recent International Policy Network study “the Friends of the EU" revealed, green advocacy groups like Friends of the Earth, Birdlife or WWF (the so-called big 8 or 10) receive plenty of funds to lobby for more funds and provide environmental expertise to the Commission. The researchers concluded that “sponsoring the narrow interests of such NGOs undermined the democratic process”.
.
Politicians have embraced the green dogma with gusto. When the French government recently scrapped its carbon tax plan, the socialist politician Michel Rocard crossed a verbal Rubicon by calling this decision a “crime against humanity”. The proposed tax promoted by environmentalist leaders with no democratic mandate is in fact opposed by a majority of people (59%). The Secretary of State for ecology declared herself “distraught” by the setback, prompting some bloggers to comment that too much ecology on one’s mind could be a mental health hazard... Rest assured that the proposal will be pursued with a vengeance at supranational level in one form or another. The proverbial democratic deficit of the EU has served Gaïa well.

.
Eco-cultishness is relentless. A friend of mine (No. 34 left) is passionate about off-road motor biking and takes part in amateur races in rural Brittany. His idea of a fun time keeps the local bike shop in business. On racing weekends, the villages burst into life with competitors and support team-families. It is festive, noisy and definitely not carbon-emission free. These armour-clad, mostly middle-aged male weekend-bikers stand accused by the local “écolos” of riding the planet to eco-Armageddon. The green fundamentalists call for a ban but the slow regulation of this activity out of existence is the most likely outcome. The friends of Gaïa with friends in the EU can avail themselves of eco-directives they lobbied for and helped draft. The quasi sacred 1979 Birds Directive springs to mind. Surely there must be a few feathered creatures they could find and whose rights are infringed.
.
European NGOs, like the migrating birds they care so-much about, are not stopped by borders. Driven by a missionary spirit, they are fighting to impose “sustainable development” in the name of Gaïa everywhere possible. In Ethiopia for example, a “coalition of the irresponsible” (NGOs including WWF) is campaigning to stop the government’s project to build the Gibe III dam which would bring progress to millions. In a recent article, Nathalie Rothschild, the editor of Spiked-online, makes a compelling case against “green madness”. She notes that “the needs of the Africans are clearly not a priority for environmentalists. … They are more concerned about preserving the biodiversity of the Omo river than lifting its people out of abject poverty”. In 2010, 70pc of Ethiopians are still unable to switch on a light and the friends of Gaïa would like it to stay that way.
.
Environmental protection and nature conservation should be based on reason, not cultishness. I kept my lights on during "Earth Hour" and celebrated human achievement, progress and the pursuit of happiness in all its forms.

Friday, March 26, 2010

The French elections that changed nothing.

French people take democracy seriously when there is a stake and a sense that their ballots will make a difference. Politics is endlessly debated with passion, especially over good food. But for the second round of regional elections, half of the electorate chose - again - to linger over lunch. In the search for explanations for this mediocre turnout, pundits are invoking the usual suspects, i.e. the rise of the left and a sanction against the ruling party (UMP). No one seems to be considering that many voters might have found it more rational not to vote to elect councillors whose job it is to oversee a decentralised bureaucracy with reduced fiscal powers and plagued, like the rest of the State, with worrying levels of debt.
.
The facts are compelling. 21 of the 22 metropolitan regional councils now have left-leaning majorities (Parti Socialiste and Europe Ecologie). The overall results (including the resurgence of the far-right Front National) are clearly humiliating for the UMP but it should not be forgotten that they also mirror those of the 2004 regional ballot. Using a rugby analogy on the weekend the national team had won the six-nation-tournament, analysts were quick to point out that the Left with its electoral tsunami had not succeeded in “converting the try” in the 2007 presidential elections. The leaders of the victorious side, Martine Aubry (PS) and Daniel Cohn-Bendit (EE) are jubilant. But no-one is fooled, least of all the electorate, who know too well that in a highly centralised state like France, the real power lies at the centre, Paris.
.
Still, regions matter and the socialists love them. Since their introduction in the current form during the Mitterrand years (1984 Law on decentralisation, 1986 first direct elections), the Left has been the dominant force of this extra layer of the proverbial French administrative “mille-feuilles” (like the cake, with many layers). Regions have acquired competences in the fields of economic development, education, transport and culture. Over the years as budget expanded and local taxes increased, the Regional Council has become a nexus of considerable power and influence. In a region like Bretagne (Brittany) with a strong sense of cultural identity the President presides over a deliberative assembly of 83 councillors and a small executive. Importantly, he administers a budget of €1.1 billion (2009, population of 3.1 million) supported in this task by a large bureaucracy, namely 3500 agents spread across the four departments. The state-appointed regional governor (Préfet) nevertheless remains in law the most powerful authority.
.
France is a rich patchwork of cultures but historically regionalism has never sat comfortably with the Jacobin tradition. With the creation of the regions, critics have observed that the State has only paid lip-service to decentralisation by simply inserting another costly layer of administration, effectively co-opting local political élite into the national political class. For the economist Emmanuel Martin, the regions illustrate the root-problem of the French style decentralisation. He argues that the model has had to counter excessive centralising forces which in turn led to the establishment of a jungle of local spendthrift fiefdoms with no real fiscal or budgetary responsibilities. The mounting debt of French regions - €25 billion by 2012 - has the Fitch Ratings agency worried (1). Ultimately regions are only accountable to their pay-master, Paris, not to the citizens. From a rational choice theory perspective, it makes sense not to vote.
.
For all the democratic hullabaloo (at a cost of €136 million), many would agree that under the supremely absurd system of “cumul des mandats” which sees politicians holding several elective mandate complete with the cumulative sum of privileges and remunerations, regional elections matter more to the political class than to the citizens. As journalist Yvan Stefanovitch puts it in his thought-provoking book “La Caste des 500: Enquête sur les Princes de la République”, France is ruled by a caste of 500 professional politicians who, be it in their local fiefdoms or at national level, exercise quasi regal powers and live well at the State's expense. Every six years, the “new feudal lords" (an expression borrowed from the essayist Roland Hureaux see "Les nouveaux féodaux. Le contresens de la décentralisation") joust for the control of local administrations and a well-established system of clientelism
.
The Socialist Party Secretary General - the Soviet Union collapsed but not the socialist utopia and its paraphernalia - Martine Aubry is a prominent member of the French nomenklatura. The daughter of former socialist and federalist commissioner Jacques Delors, she sponsored inter alia the economically disastrous 35-hour-week law. On promises of safeguarding the social acquis, saving the public services and redistributing a lot of solidarity, she has made a credible political comeback. How resorting to more statist policies will help resolve the ominous deficit and debt is not clear. While disaffected voters abstained, the SP’s traditional support base (employees of the state sector, 1/5 of the labour force and workers) massively mobilised during the elections. The all-powerful unions with their well-rehearsed disruptive capacity can be trusted to launch public sector demonstrations to obtain concessions from a ruling majority weakened by an electoral "Bérézina" (defeat).
.
Ironically, although elected on a platform of liberal reforms with notably promises to downsize the state and create a favourable environment for the private sector, Nicolas Sarkozy has championed more state intervention in the economy and extravagant public spending (2009 stimulus plan: €39.1 billion. 2010 state loan: €35 billion). In the meantime, unemployment has continued to rise. The ruling party's political discourse is not socialist but by and large, its policies have maintained “l’état providence” (Nanny-state), the very model hailed by the Left. In France, be it at the regional or national level, “plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.” (2)
.

(1) Journal des Finances, 22 March 2010 http://www.jdf.com/indices/2010/03/22/02003-20100322ARTJDF00036-la-dette-des-regions-francaises-sous-surveillance-.php
(2) "The more things change, the more they stay the same"

Wednesday, March 10, 2010

Monday, February 22, 2010

Lettre ouverte: M. Putine muselle les libertés

Lettre ouverte dans Le Monde de citoyens russes.
.
Dans les capitales européennes, des dirigeants épris de liberté annoncent fièrement une nouvelle ère de coopération avec la Russie. A Berlin, on se vante d'une "relation spéciale" avec Moscou tout en progressant sur de gigantesques projets énergétiques avec le monopole gazier Gazprom. A Rome, Silvio berlusconi rentre d'un voyage à Saint-Pétersbourg, où il a fêté le 59e anniversaire de son "ami"Vladimir Poutine. Et, à Paris, les négociations avancent sur la vente de navires de classe Mistral, porte-hélicoptères ultramodernes..... More.
.
In the field of cutlure, the year of Russia in France and of France in Russia (en russe).

The "mistral" is a strong southerly thermal wind blowing in the south of France. Quite unpredictable and treacherous for sailors.

Friday, February 19, 2010

European Tea Party Movement. It's happening!

Tea bags are being dumped in European waters too. The Washington Times made a call for such a movement to start. In fact it had already started in various countries, including in the UK! I am aware of two events taking place in London and Portsmouth last November (below Portsmouth, pre-Flopenhagen ).

Tea Partiers have started to mobilise across the continent and on the net (a Facebook group and a Euro-Tea Party website). How far this will go is unclear but as the debt crisis in Greece deepens and more bad news appears every day (UK's debt could surpass Greece's. Daily Telegraph), anger is brewing... Time for a cuppa! In England everything starts with a cup of tea. What could be more British than a tea party as Daniel Hannan MEP puts it!
.
Previous post on tea partying. Let them eat cake. Or dump tea!

Monday, February 15, 2010

Atlas Shrugged Europe?

The article appears in Un Monde Libre - blog post -, African Liberty and Hürriyet Daily News.
.
With the financial crisis hitting the American real economy and government’s spending (and debt) reaching unprecedented levels, sales of “Atlas Shrugged”, the 1957 novel by Russian-born author Ayn Rand have surged (1). In welfare Europe, this hymn to individualism and laissez-faire capitalism has mostly been dismissed by the intellectual class as Anglo-Saxon “rant” or just “fantasy”. Looking at Greece’s fiscal turmoil, mounting sovereign debt, near-zero growth rates across the bloc and the risk of social unrest spreading, one has to wonder if the prophecy described in the novel has not come true.
.
Cato scholar and economist Daniel J. Mitchell argues convincingly that Greece may well have turned into the real-world version of Atlas Shrugged. The burden of the public sector on the economy is such that “the job creators and wealth generators have given up and/or moved their money out of the country”(http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2010/02/10/maybe-greece-should-go-bankrupt/).The public sector and interest groups like farmers have grown so powerful that reforms of the bloated civil service (1/4 of labour force) have never seriously been contemplated by successive governments. But it is time for reckoning for the Hellenic Republic has ironically turned into the sick man of Europe (debt of 125% of GDP). In the meantime Turkey’s economy while also experiencing hardtimes, is expected to grow by 3 to 5% this year. Furthermore its public finances have been brought under control and now meet theMaastricht criteria (2009, debt of 40% of GDP).
.
The problem for the Union is that its waiting room is full of patients. Every new election brings renewed promises of reform of big government but rhetoric rarely translates into the kind of bold action necessary to address the problem. In France which also runs a record deficit (€1,500 billion) and whose debt is estimated at 80% of GDP (and rising), reformist agendas are hampered by unions prepared tofight to the bitter end to keep their privileges. President Sarkozy’s mediatized support to Premier Papandreou and his austerity plan was truly a case of the “sick aiding the sick”. Of course no-one wants to see the Balkan state - and other patients of the PIIGS club - descend into full-blown economic collapse but rewarding it for its failings with a bail-out could be equally damaging. The European leadership is naturally cautious and jittery. And so are the markets hardly reassured by the vagueness of political statements and the lack of details on a possible rescue package (2).
.
To the relief of most politicians, the debate in the mainstream media has shifted from Greece’s blatant lies and evident responsibility in this mess to accusations of “immoral” speculation against the Euro. The market - capitalism - has once again become the “convenient”culprit. Commenting on the US, Stephen Moore opined that "The current economic strategy is right out of Atlas Shrugged. The more incompetent you are in business, the more handouts the politicians will bestow on you" (Wall Street Journal, Jan. 9, 2010). Well, the Franco-German directoire is mulling over the idea of experimenting along those lines with an “incompetent” member state. It is a dangerous precedent and raises issues of legality.
.
It is widely acknowledged that public opinions are against the idea of bearing the burden of risks. The Brussels-based think tank Open Europe asked the "inconvenient" question (June 2009) and found that “70 percent of German voters were opposed to using taxpayer funds to bailout countries in financial difficulties such as Ireland or Greece.” (3) Its recent study - A Greek bail-out: is it legally possible and what will it cost taxpayers. Feb. 2010 - warns that “a bailout would involve massive political and economic risks. To try to convince taxpayers in one country of the need for them to pay for the mistakes of a government in another country – which they cannot vote out of office – is a massively difficult task. For most people it is simply unreasonable and fundamentally undemocratic to make taxpayers liable in this way.” In other words, the sounder option would be for Greece to sort its problems by itself, even if it means defaulting.
.
Greece has been on the receiving end of a lot of solidarity (EU funds). In 2010, it apparently expects more as a “right”. For a majority of the Greek demos, the European budget is a - German - cow to be milked. But let’s be honest, they are not alone. Paraphrasing 19th Century French liberal economist Frédéric Bastiat, most people see the EU - like the state - as "a great fiction through which everyone is trying to live at the expense of everyone else". The comment made by a demonstrator in Athens sums it up. “We gave the world democracy” said the civil servant “and we expect the European Union to support us” (IHT February 11, 2010). The truth is that some taxpayers on the giving end of solidarity are starting to ask themselves a more relevant question. What has Greece done for them since 1981? For now the "tragedy" of lies and irresponsibility and its risks for the Union remain theoretical. But time is running out, and the Hellenes' legacy to Europe for the 21st Century could ultimately be one of less prosperity and a lot of bitterness.
.
For the proponents of bigger EU government, the current crisis is an“opportunity” to push for more centralised powers and more regulations. In the new presidents-top-heavy institutional architecture, the most enthusiastic is Herman Van Rompuy who would like to see the European Council as the seat of economic governance. The “EU 2020 strategy” is starting to look like a blueprint for the establishment of a centrally-planned economy. Will the Commission be its Gosplan?
.
Fed up with the mounting cost of the “ever-closer union”, many Eurocitizens may be tempted to “do a John Galt” like the hero of Atlas Shrugged. Rebelling against the imposition of more sacrifice in the name of European solidarity might be the only choice left to them.
.
(1) The Guardian, March 10, 2009
(2) Daily Telegraph, Feb.12, 2010
(3) http://www.openeurope.org.uk/media-entre/pressrelease.aspx?pressreleaseid=117

Saturday, January 16, 2010

From Brussels with more fudge of the theatrical kind

The new Europe is marching or, to be more precise, it is now “hearing”. Reference is made to the on-going hearing proceedings of commissioner-designates before the European Parliament. Having passed the written “test” (reply to some basic questions), nominees have been invited to take their "grand oral" (confirmation oral exam). Auditions can be watched on Europarl TV, the C-Span à la EU that no-one really watches - except EU watchers. Quid these proceedings? Democratic and transparent or just more fudge?
.
Eurobarometers, no-votes and low elections turn-outs have consistently indicated that the two actors (Commission and Parliament) now involved in the proceedings do not enjoy a high level of trust among the peoples. The failure of the ratification of the Constitution (2005) and its reappearance in the form of the Lisbon Treaty (a near identical document) without direct public consultation (except Ireland) further exposed a bureaucratic and political élite united in deep mistrust of the citizenry. As Professor Ian Ward put it in no uncertain terms; “the new Europe is fundamentally undemocratic” (1). Short on legitimacy and popular support, the élite needs to create its own legitimazing processes. Hence the mediatized “accountability” play now being performed between Brussels and Strasbourg with a script written by EU élite for the EU élite. A popular audience is not essential. Besides the populace has the Eurovision song contest.
.
Indeed for those with a taste for the theatrical, the "Barroso II" play has all the necessary ingredients. High flying rhetoric of values to be upheld and goodness to be bequeathed on citizens, twists in the plot and surprises. The latter came from Stefan Füle, the Czech nominee for enlargement and neighbourhood policy, with his stance in support of Turkey’s membership. In a bloc led by a Franco-German directoire, his honourable opinion on a sensitive issue will not influence policy-making a bit. Yes, in the EU size does matter. As the polity becomes more centralised, some member states are seemingly becoming “more equal”. A little drama was provided with two commissioner-designates (Lithuania and Bulgaria) flunking their audition. Tension, tit-for-tat exchanges between political groups and accusations of “witch hunt” ensued. Gripping. For the internal market portfolio Michel Barnier's solemn declaration to the MEPs that he would not take orders from Paris was so, well, moving.
.
After the politburo-esque appointments of the European Council president and foreign policy chief, few are happy in fortress EU. Behind the wall (the other Europe), the Kremlin is probably satisfied. Quizzed on the Ukraine-Russia gas crises, Baroness Ashton stated her determination to “put pressure” to ensure that the Moscow leadership saw “these issues in an economic way not a political one”. By its very nature, the “siloviki regime” (2) can only see it as both. The “securocrats” in charge have repeatedly demonstrated that they have little time for EU moralising, Sakharov prize winners (arrest of Lyudmila Alexeyeva of NGO Memorial), and that territorial integrity in its “near-abroad” (EU neighbourhood) is to be determined on its own terms. In the final analysis, a google search will yield more information on the bloc's foreign policy than the hearing. Type: “quiet diplomacy”, "soft power" or "energy dependency".
.
Most pundits have dismissed the process as largely ceremonial. It is also incredibly dull. The formula chosen for the proceedings has a lot to do with it. The “one minute for questioning” and “two for answers” format reflects the utterly “managed” nature of debates taking place in the European Parliament. A more adversarial process like the one used in the US Congress committee hearings might have given the publics a chance to experience the frisson of politics. But that is not the EU way of governance. Add to the equation, uninspiring orators (the quangocrat kind), technical subjects and interpretation, you have a recipe for boredom. Furtermore it is clear that the nominees’ grasp of issues pertaining to their portfolios cannot be seriously tested within such contraints. On the positive side, it provides EU watchers with a window to discover the candidates from nations other than theirs.
.
European citizens have not bothered to watch the carefully choreographed proceedings. Who can blame them? Some observers have dismissed the whole affair as a “stitch-up” between member states governments and the EP. Indeed nominees were carefully chosen to appease the main political groups. And so, for that matter, are the words chosen by the Commissioner-designates. Everything had to be "regulated", "greened" and "socialised". In truth, the hearings are a façade, a show for "public" consumption. No-one is trying very hard to dismiss this evidence. Yet few would admit that the real drama is taking place in the “behind-closed-doors" (wherever that is) so characteristic of the EU supranational decision and policy-making process. Thus rest assured that the consensus-building machine is now busy at work in that "public-free zone" where since the onset of European integration, a culture of “secrecy” has prevailed despite the rhetoric of "transparency”.
.
The more powerful Parliament is flexing its muscles. Will it seize this occasion to block the Commission and risk a political crisis after the Lisbon ratification saga? The final act will be played in Strasbourg. Whatever the dénouement, for the euroligarchy the full Lisbon-isation of Europe cannot come a moment too soon. Commissioners "designated" can therefore start looking forward to a mandate of hard work but also a lifestyle of privileges and high salaries (€20,000 monthly+ allowances) (3). Living in the EU bubble, they will enjoy the kind of isolation from the publics once experienced by the top echelon of the Soviet nomenklatura.
.
In times of crisis, eurocrats love to pontificate ad nauseam about the principle of solidarity (4). Let us see if the new "vanguard" can lead by example and show some towards the toiling masses by tightening their belts (dropping the controversial 3.7% pay-rise). But as the former Marxist activist and new foreign policy chief said, idealism is for the young.
.
(1) Ward Ian. A Critical Introduction to European Law, p. 19
(2) Illarionov Andrei. “The siloviki in charge”, Journal of Democracy, April 2009, Vol. 20, No 2
(3) Regulation No 422/67 EEC
(4) TEU, amended by Lisbon Treaty, consolidated version, preamble paragraph 6

Wednesday, January 6, 2010

In defense of the Turkish Ministry of Environment

Below find my letter to the editor of the Hurriyet Daily News in response to an article by Dr. Cengiz Aktar who has been consistantly criticizing the Turkish Ministry of Environment for not doing enough in Copenhagen. In the EU accession process, Turkey has just opened the environmental chapter and will need to incorporate all the "green acquis". The cost for Turkish taxpayers is estimated at €59 million. The chances of the EU letting Turkey in? Pretty slim indeed....
.
Here is my letter (more like an Op-ed given its length).
.
With reference to the “Response to the Ministry of Environment” (Dec. 31, 2009), I believe the Turkish government is absolutely right to have kept a low key and pragmatic approach in Copenhagen. The performance by the French delegation (governmental and civil society) led by our now “hyper-green” president, Nicolas Sarkozy, was less than impressive. In fact, it was embarrassing and ended in failure – in my humble view, a blessing in fact.
.
Given that prior to the summit, the “Académie des Sciences” declared that there was no “scientific consensus” on climate change, this frantic push for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, agenda to control the climate (the 2 degree objective) by reducing CO2 emissions appeared all the more disconnected with reality.
.
For those who wanted to see, there was indeed something rotten in the Kingdom of Denmark. Many high profile politicians, activists and UN climate luminaries were so engulfed in their apocalypse rhetoric that they looked more like the high priests of a cult than the cool-headed deciders we need to address environmental issues in a sensible way. The inconvenient truth for experts is that the silent majority was relieved that the hysterically vocal green minority did not get its way at the conference.
.
Of course not everything about the climate change agenda is bad. But the more important question is whether “Climate warmism” (or change-ism) is really about science. Like the “response” to the Ministry of the Environment which makes some valid points, in the final analysis, it aims to support the establishment of a new order with globalized environmental economic “dirigisme.”
.
The cult of Gaïa, this not-so-new mysticism, is just a tool for the new collectivists. The letter further illustrates that there is never a shortage of “red-green,” profoundly anti-liberal leftist French intellectuals whose “deep thoughts” can always be mustered to fight capitalism.
In an interview to the newspaper Libération (Dec. 8, 2009), philosopher Michel Serre lamented that the “Biogée” – earth and life merged into one concept – had not been invited to the summit. We can all agree for the need to discuss measures to protect the environment but should “Gaïa” – or the “Biogée thing” – also sit at the negotiations table and add to the chaos of global governance?!
.
Not surprisingly, both the French and Turkish pro-climate press – the overwhelming majority – have chosen to ignore "inconvenient" news. In a recently-released study, Russian scientists (Institute for Economic Analysis) assert that the already compromised Hadley Centre and Climate Research Unit (University of East Anglia) “cherry-picked” temperature data from the vast Russian territory (only 25% of data used).
.
The report calls for the IPCC to recalculate temperature increase. This is not “flat-earthing” or a “skeptic’s rant” but what science should be about; reason, questioning, transparency, free and open debate. Unfortunately the UN “machin” will do the “climatically correct” thing, i.e. nothing.
.
In France the book by Jean-Michel Belouve (La servitude climatique; changement climatique, business et politique) is attracting more and more attention in spite of the media. It tells the tale of what the proponents of the global warming thesis do not want the general public to know. The “dirty” side of the lofty climate ideology in other words.

Economic development and a measured approach to environmental issues is what will make Turkey a better place to live in for its citizens. Following the incantations of environmentalist gurus and green-red "warriors" as our government in France is doing is a sure recipe for less prosperity and freedom. Copenhagen has failed but it is not the end of the world. Mutlu Yıllar without eco-Armageddon!

Saturday, January 2, 2010

Bloavezh Mad!

A new year with less servitude and lots of happiness! As we say in Breizh (Bretagne), Bloavezh Mad!
.

Tokyo "Rainbow bridge" from Shinagawa