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.

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

The "maddening" arrogance of the EU elite.

In the Japan Times (08 September) an enlightening article by Domique Moisi on how my beloved country sees itself as the centre of Europe, and how it ought to lead the way to a bright new EU future with "the return of Franco-German leadership".

"PARIS — Regardless of who wins September's parliamentary election in Germany, the time has come once again for a major Franco-German initiative. Regardless of their economic conditions or their confidence — or lack of it — in each other, France and Germany are more than ever jointly responsible for the future, if not the very survival, of the European project.... More here.

My belated letter to the editor of the Japan Times (25 September) published on 01 October in the Reader in Council section (electronic here).

Dear Editor,

I could not disagree more with Dominique Moisi's conclusion from his Sept. 8 analysis that the European Union needs the return of Franco-German leadership". Europe, in fact, needs less leadership from its intellectual and political class. It needs to pause and take into account the will of its citizens who, when given a democratic chance — Netherlands, France and Ireland — have said "no" to the Constitution/Lisbon Treaty. But only a "yes" was acceptable! Is that democracy or hypocrisy?

Has the European project sunken so low that its nomenclature needs to invoke the magic wand of a good old post-World War II European construction dynamic — and a "spectacular security initiative" with Russia — to extricate itself from the troubled waters of the 21st century?
Frankly it is doubtful that incantations for more Franco-German leadership will do much to reassure Irish voters (on Friday).

My compatriot (Moisi) believes that, without France, the EU cannot survive the current institutional crisis, not to mention the economic one; in other words, that Europe needs more dirigisme from, well, its "center" — read Paris. Furthermore, like most members of our nomenclature of politicians and intellectuals, he discards legitimate concerns from British citizens as "provincial euro-skepticism." When disagreement is eloquently articulated by Czech Republic President Vaclav Klaus, it is "stubborn ill will."

Where do we go from here when the EU leadership — and its "enlightened" intellectual elite — go down the road of thinly disguised threats of "consequences," to quote French President Nicolas Sarkozy, whenever peoples or elected politicians happen to stray from the "true path"? So much arrogance is maddening and dangerous. So, consider me one of the growing number of voices no longer prepared to stay silent.

Re-setting Europe without “bonapartisme”

Published in Hürriyet Daily News, Turkey.

.

It has to be handed to the Swedish Presidency; it’s putting up a brave fight against France’s pressure to set the law.

EU-Turkey relations are just one of those battlefields of influence. During a recent meeting between the presidents of both countries (July 3rd), President Sarkozy reiterated, presumably in case the Swedes “hadn’t got it”, that the opening of new chapters would be allowed so that “Turkey would become an associate member of Europe and not a fully-fledged one". From his outburst to the legitimate comments made by President Obama in support of Turkish EU membership, to boycotting a meeting in Stockholm with Foreign Minister Carl Bilt, or the barely disguised contempt for the “Turkish Season” now starting in France, there appears to be no let up.

Indeed it is plain for those who want to see that this is no longer about making the French government’s views “known” to other member states but rather about imposing its position on enlargement as the “only” way forward. France’s Right is now “united” by a common culture of “turcophobie” with the all-powerful administration “purged” of any pro-Turkey accession advocates. This “obsession” is now being deliberately exported on the European stage with chairmanships “bullied” into abiding to the limits set by Paris. This trend does not abode well for the future under the Lisbon treaty or barely revisited EU Constitution whose chief architect was former President Giscard d’Estaing, a proponent of the “non à la Turquie”, and guardian of the centralizing and “dirigiste” tradition.

It is worrying that this “bonapartisme” is not solely confined to enlargement. It is much in evidence in economics too. Sweden warns against the “over-zealous” regulation of hedge funds. Yet the French centralizing and regulating tradition appears to be winning this battle too against the weakened Labour government of PM Brown with the City standing to lose the most. French officials with the blessing of the “G8+?” - one loses count - have launched an all-out war on so-called tax heavens and low taxation jurisdictions, essentially seeking to end tax competition on French terms - Read higher taxes (Dan Mitchell on tax competition as a liberalising force in world economy). It’s ironic that it took the intervention of communist China at the London Summit to prevent Hong Kong from being blacklisted (ranking first in the Heritage Foundation economic freedom list, France 64th).

The economist Jacques Garello (Institut de Recherches Economiques et Fiscales) talks about the “fiscal tsunami” triggered by the “green” political wave now sweeping across Europe in the aftermaths of the elections. Europe-Ecologie led by “Danny-le-Rouge” Kohn Bendit came third (16%) just behind the socialists. 400€ billion are needed for the “croissance verte” (green growth or révolution) promised by the political class during the campaign. With public finances in the red, money will have to be found somewhere. That means more borrowing (grand emprunt national), a fossil fuel tax (taxe carbone) to be borne by enterprises, and if “zealots” have their way, a European “cap-and-trade” regulation. In other words, less economic freedom and more protectionism in the guise of “virtuous” green goals. Beware the “bonapartisme écologique”!

Decisions taken on the basis of these kinds of political antics make a mockery of the idea that the EU abides to principles of law, that it stands for universal values as opposed to the rules of a “Christians only” club, and finally that it defends free trade. Reasoned discussions and consensual decision-making on sensitive issues have being replaced by the rule of the “stronger”, more dedicated member state. The “weaker” or less interested ones simply fall in, too busy with their own priorities. Unfortunately, Sweden’s voice has no echo. The silence of other member states is deafening, and perhaps a sign of surrender. It’s high time for dissenting views to be heard, or “bonapartisme” will have its way after all, and in its 21st century political expression, will dominate Europe…

In the offing lies the final battle of the Lisbon treaty ratification (German constitutional debate, second Irish referendum on October 2, pending signature into law by the Czech President). It is widely acknowledged that given a democratic chance, Euro-voters would have rejected the construction of a French-inspired highly centralized super-state. In fact they did with 3 no-votes in referenda in France, Holland and Ireland. In the end, the Irish government has obtained its opt-out “deal” (taxation and neutrality notably) so this time round, the balance may just tilt to a yes-vote. That is not good news because Europe needs resetting. Far from being the “doomsday scenario” voters are led to believe, it is a very necessary and healthy step.

For now, finding solace in history will have to do. In October 1805, Napoleon’s military power-grabbing was ended by a British hero at the Battle of Trafalgar off the Spanish city of Cadiz. Admiral Nelson’s victory thus prevented the planned invasion of the British Isles and French rule over most of Europe. French and Spanish sailors fought valiantly but they were not on the side of freedom. In the current economic storm and battle for influence, the EU leadership under French “command” has the weather gauge (advantage) to impose its vision of Europe. Czech President Klaus may be up against a vastly superior fleet of politicians and bureaucrats but he could well turn the tide. And become the European peoples’gallant hero.

.

********************************

In the olden days, French Embassies used to invite all residing “citoyens” for the traditional celebration of the “fête nationale”. No more. Must be politicians fullfilling their promises to bring public finance under control, or an extraordinary measure in times of deep recession.... Right.

- 2009 budget for the Elysée (présidence de la République): increase of 11.45% from 2008 (more here).
- Cost of the speech in Versailles Palace of the Président before the Parlement (Sénat-Assemblée Nationale) further to the constitutional amendment: 450,000€ (more here)

Last February, Russian President Medvedev announced that in the light of the crisis, state expenditures at all levels should be reviewed, adding that this exercise “should start with oneself ". So if the Kremlin can cut costs, why not the Elysée?

.

Allez, champagne quand même! A la santé de notre Liberté chérie....

EU parliamentary elections: democracy or hypocrisy?

Publié en français sur Un Monde Libre.org

In the wake of Europe-wide parliamentary elections, the Iranian presidential poll with its massive turnout and the eagerness of the voters to cast their ballots was uplifting. Candidates had spoken passionately, and their supporters mobilized in great numbers. The contrast with the lackluster and undisputed elections campaign in the European Union (EU) could not have been more striking. In Iran, the violent post-election crackdown is evidence - if anybody needed reminding - that elections do not necessarily yield more freedom. In Europe, the process was free and fair, peaceful but the question remains if the highly centralized Union is the democratic model it professes to be.

Indeed since the first direct elections (1979), fewer European citizens have bothered to exercise their right to vote. In the 2009, the overall turnout has hit the predicted record-low: 43% in 2009 v 62% in 1979. Slovakia with 19.64% lies at the bottom of the table. In France, one of the founding states, 60% of the electorate abstained. Yet this abyssal result did not damper the festive mood of the political parties that fared better (UMP 27.8%, Europe Ecologie 16.28%). Champagne corks popped with little regard to the fact that the newly elected MEPs (72, total of 736) will represent le peuple with the thinnest of democratic legitimacy. But truth be told, EU institutions and national governments have already moved on with a sigh of relief. It’s back to politics as usual.

By and large politicians have skirted the issue of the ever-deepening democratic deficit. The reason for this is simple. The EU show must go on. Many leaders have regularly and openly stated that “democracy and the complex EU polity are not really compatible”. The ratification of the Lisbon Treaty has revealed a deep-rooted mindset of mistrust towards voters amongst the élite. Hence a growing sense that democratic consultations are only meant as a “rubberstamping exercise” whilst the “real” EU business carries on in the secretive conclaves of supra-national consensual politics. Disenchanted electorates were left with only two options to express their frustration and disagreement: abstention or a vote for the more extreme parties (right or left). Yet defining this rising tide of negative sentiment as “anti-European” is simplistic, albeit convenient for a political class intent on preserving the status quo. Results can also be interpreted as anti-EU as currently run, and pro-freedom.

EU institutions seized on these elections to promote the notion that the Lisbon Treaty will usher a new dawn: “a more democratic and transparent Europe”. But as Oxford academic Christopher Bickerton points out, attempts to remedy the lack of transparency have been tried before and failed because “the EU is not about transparency. Its function is to provide space for policymaking that substitutes political conflicts of principle for a culture of bureaucratic compromise”. (The Manifesto Club study, “No” to the Politics of fait accompli”). The EU polity has become a “public-free zone”, namely the preserve of unaccountable bureaucrats, politicians and diplomats as Daily Telegraph correspondent Bruno Waterfield puts it. Even with more powers granted to the Parliament, reversing decades of culture of insulated and undemocratic decision and lawmaking could prove mission impossible.

The European project is supposed to enhance our freedom. The essence of liberty is choice. Yet if citizens’ choices – a “no” to the Lisbon Treaty, abstention to express discontent – are dismissed, if the “eur-oligarchy” can think of nothing better to resolve the crisis of legitimacy than to scaremonger voters to push ahead their “enlightened” agenda (“vote Yes or face the consequences of extremism or recession”), then arguably there is little democracy left worth talking about. Rather, what is emerging is a new form of supra-national authoritarianism imposed by a nomemklature who, in ways not dissimilar to the Soviet one, always “knows best”.

The EU is in legitimacy crisis territory. The low participation rate (and no-votes in the referenda) should be interpreted as an electoral equivalent of the 1965 “empty chair crisis” (“Luxembourg compromise”) when French civil servants were withdrawn by Charles de Gaulle due to serious disagreement with the Commission. The responsibility lies squarely on politicians (mainstream or not) who have sadly failed to articulate a vision for the future that a majority of citizens “can believe in” and support.

For results, see here.

Divine intervention to save the Lisbon Treaty?

Who needs votes when the gods are on your side? Well, as if EU policy and decision-making mechanisms weren't already complex and confusing enough, it looks like religious leaders have joined in the EU political debate. Indeed the Lisbon Treaty introduces a "stronger consultative role for European religions in EU policy making" (statement made by the President of the EU Parliament at the inter-faith meeting he chaired in Brussels on 11 May). Co-chair European Commission President Jose Barroso added that this treaty provision would positively advance the freedom of religion or non-religion. Really?

In the Daily Telegraph, Bruno Waterfield questions this latest move by the EU leadership.

Why European institutions should be concerned with the divine when reviewing the fishing policy, discussing safety standards for toys or preparing legislation on the regulation of hedge funds is indeed difficult to fathom. Be it as it may, politics and faith are again being mixed and this time round, backed up by a legally enforceable right under the Lisbon Treaty. The introduction of religion into the EU public sphere is worrying. Historically, conflicts have been fueled on this explosive cocktail. So what is the political elite thinking? Are eurocrats and religious leaders ganging up to try and impose on us, the misguided flock, their revealed wisdoms? After more earthly fear mongering of economic and political doomsday, the message going out to the faithful (Irish in particular) is equally sinistre: "do not question (just ratify) the Lisbon Treaty. Or face eternal damnation".

Let us for a moment venture in the realm of legal fantasy. What if this yet-to-be-ratified-treaty opened a legal loophole for the introduction of a "common spiritual welfare policy" of sort? It is all too easy to imagine what would come next. Bureaucratisation with the establishment of a new Directorat Général (DG-DIVINE), the anointment of euro-priest-ocrats (naturally not answerable to the EU flock but their own gods), blessed subsidies and, of course, enlightened lobbies. Non-compliance with sacred rules would see you sentenced to hell...

On planet earth-EU now, punishment takes the form of ever-expanding EU exclusive competences. And more legislation. What this means at the end of the day, is more intrusion into the "private" sphere, i.e. less liberty for all.

To conclude on a point of public finance, the 2009 campaign has revealed that no expenses would be spared to guide from above. Quite literally. From the International Space Station, the Belgium astronaut propelled into orbit for the European Space Agency on a Russian rocket sent his "personal" - DG-COMM would like us to believe - election message to the EU flock below. Arguably the most expensive 2009 campaign spot... For free here.

Looking at the elections turnout (record low of 43%), the EU flock remained unimpressed (or just not interested) and chose not to flock to the polling stations. It is time for a rethink. Until then (...) and while analysts dissect the results of this electoral fiasco, some comic relief...

Mr. Beans' take on ze EU hell....

The unbearable top down-ness of European democracy. And the Irish Robin Hood.

To vote or not to vote in the upcoming European Parliament’s elections….

Voters’ interest is once again very low (e.g.: in France source LH2) so the EU Parliament launches a glitzy €18 million elections campaign :"European elections, it's your choice". It may be so but the real question is: does it matter if we vote?

Truth be told, “le machin européen" to paraphrase Charles de Gaulle, is running "itself” just fine without people having a real say (voters turnout in 2004 dropped to 45.47%). As ever more powers are being transferred to the EU Parliament (even more under the European Constitution/Lisbon Treaty), the issue of legitimacy is getting hotter. Or it is just hot air? Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, the former French president and architect of the constitution on which the treaty is based, said “public opinion will be led to adopt, without knowing it, the proposals that we dare not present to them directly”. Enters the Irish-voters-who-dare-say NO (53.4%) in the referendum of June 2008 (yes-vote 46.6%) ...

.

"We are not sheep"

Our political elites are no longer amused and many view this expression of sovereign will as an "inconvenience”, an "obstacle" that must be overcome. The post-ballot message from the EU top sounded like "thou shall vote YES for we know best." Essentially a rethink is out of the question even though the message from the EU bottom is quite clear: citizens are apprehensive, disillusioned and also fed up of being patronized by politicians. Given a chance, the populace rebels by exercising its democratic right to say NO. But even after the translation into the EU official languages (the other 22), the leadership “didn’t get it”. A Russian NIET might have got more attention…

To my mind, the Irish no-voters have become the Robin Hoods of the EU forest. The rebellion had the merit of bringing to light the real nature of the EU democratic process, i.e. consultation of the citizenry is only meant to yield a YES-result. Referenda or elections shouldn’t question let alone stop the momentum engineered from above. Hence begging the question of whether the ideal of a free Europe where citizens can shape their own future isn't slowly being replaced by an ideology tolerating no dissent. If there is no doubt that the Parliament has a few good men and women fighting to do the right thing - while shuttling between their country, Brussels and Strasbourg -, the sad fact that national parties tend not to pick the best (not to mention the recycling of the old like Libertas is doing for its pan-European campaign), does not abode well for the future (for more see Européennes, le PS fait le choix de la médiocrité).

While citizens - rebellious or not - are cutting on their spending to weather the global economic storm, Members of the European Parliament are discussing plans for a new multi-million euro aqua gym/sport centre (according to the Daily Telegraph €8.1m - the EU Parliament hits back and says only €4.1m). Should this rather unclear proposal turn into reality - in whatever shape or cost, it most certainly will -, the thought of healthier, more relaxed parlementarians would hardly be comforting to the struggling EU citizen-taxpayers. A referendum on the issue is unlikely but somehow it is easy to imagine our elected representatives in grand aquatic isolation pondering about the most bearable wellness "top-down" democracy can bring them. See the Times on how MEPs make millions...

Thank you Ireland for being the voice of reason, for keeping alive the hope of a freer, more accountable and democratic Europe ! And on the occasion of your National Day, Happy St. Patrick!

Civil liberties threatened in Europe. Well everywhere...

"Why then do the European states claim for themselves the right to spread civilisation and manners to different continents? Why not to Europe itself?". Joseph Roth, 1937

.

If our liberty were safe in the EU (surpranational or national levels), there would be no need for citizens to raise the alarm. Yet alarm bells are ringing throughout Europe. In view of the economic crisis, we should not forget the lessons of history (post-1930s...), i.e., not take freedom (democracy) for a European granted.
The Convention on Modern Liberty is one of those ringing bells. Bringing together people from all walks of life and political affiliations, it focused on the situation in the UK. Yet its message is truly universal. We are lead to believe that in the name of so-called "justice", "security", "truth" we should sacrifice our freedom. A little here, a little there.... but in the end, it all adds up. And what the facts are demonstrating is a trend of erosion of civil liberties throughout Europe with increased state intervention and intrusion in our lives.

Most fall for the rhetoric of fear used to justify the curtailment of individual freedoms. The answer is to keep questioning, to challenge the claims, to test the facts, to debate the issues and hopefully reverse the trend.

History tells us too that fighting for liberty makes a difference. During his exile in England young Voltaire (1694 –1778) was impressed by the British Monarchy's support to freedom of speech. Back in France he fought for civil rights at a time when the French Monarchy was absolute. His words in defense of freedom of speech continue to inspire "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it". Looking at the dangerous course taken by today's European leaders, there are reasons to be concerned. Voltaire must be turning in his grave. And we need to take action.

That said about Europe, don't expect to find guidance and/or solace with the United Nations and its human rights "Alice of Wonderland world" where freedom of opinion is increasingly viewed as a problem. In her speech Jo Glanville (Index of Censorship) argues that the UN is actually retreating from defending free expression. "The prevailing view at the UN Human Rights Council is that potentially offensive speech is so dangerous that our liberty is better served by deploying censorship rather than protecting the right of free speech"....

The Council passed a resolution condemning "defamation of religions" (non-binding Resolution 62/145, 2007) and calls on governments to take action. Freedom House (FH) reports that the U.N. General Assembly is considering an "Anti blasphemy Resolution" which would make it binding on member states to make it a crime to criticize all religions (A resolution pushed by the group of 57 Islamic nations). In the CNN interview, Paula Schriefer (FH) says that the effect of the non-binding resolution on freedom of speech is already being felt around the world (arrests of journalists). So what next? A Euro goulag, global inquisition?.... Food for free thought. For now.

Conflict in the Caucasus: EU shows lack of backbone in handling of Russia.

Post first published as a Letter to Editor in The Daily Yomiuri, Japan on 04 Nov. 2008.
.
European citizens could be forgiven if they are confused by the recent shift in European Union foreign policy towards Russia and what looks like rapprochement. This summer things seemed simpler. There was Georgia, a new democracy threatened by menacing Russian tanks with civilians caught in the firing line. The EU brokered cease-fire and its six-point-plan was acclaimed by all. For a moment it was as if the EU was going to put a show of unity and resolve against the aggressor or, in other words, to stand for freedom and democracy.

The illusion was short lived.

The resolve has gone with the global economic crisis. In Georgia, the status quo has clearly been accepted by most EU leaders and relations with Russia have resumed in earnest. After Nov. 14's Russia-EU Summit in Nice, France, one thing is clear. The French leader Nicolas Sarkozy, nicknamed "the American" ought now to be called "Sarkozy le russe"! Having put aside the Georgia issue, the energetic tandem flew to the Washington G20 summit united in the fight against the free market. Mission accomplished so to speak. President Chavez must have approved.

When Cato scholar Andrei Illarionov warns that Europeans by resuming contact with the Russian leadership have chosen a course of appeasement similar to what happened in Munich in the 1930s, he may have a point.

It strikes me as ironic that during most of the recent so-called coloured revolutions, the pro-democracy movements should fly the EU flag as a symbol of their aspiration for freedom. For freedom fighters, support will take the form of humanitarian assistance, reconstruction financial packages and elections and border monitoring teams. But security guarantees will not be forthcoming. No EU cavalry on liberty stand-by to fight the Russian bear outside the fortress. Sorry, just a lot of hyper leadership….


More on Georgia, Russia and liberty http://www.cato.org/people/andrei-illarionov