Europeans playing with Bush.

In an article in Common Dreams, Europe, Unbow Yourself, Matthew Rothschild expresses bewilderment as to why Europe is playing "nice" with Bush on his trip, and tells them they should wake up. He thinks Bush has outwitted them, and is puzzled by it.

He thinks because they've agreed to let NATO take on some of the training of Iraqi security forces that this means they've come around to the American view. He also thinks that this will make it harder for them to stand up to the US next time around, say over Iran.


I think he's severely underestimating how wily they're being. They're not really coming up with much support. France, for instance, is contributing a whopping ONE trainer to the NATO effort. (It would be hard to be less, wouldn't it?) And virtually no money at all. It's all symbolic. Just enough to keep the US from being upset, but not enough to make the slightest bit of difference. And there's no commitment for further help in the event the insurgency gets worse. Americans may want to believe that there is, but there isn't.

What I think they're doing is playing with the US. They're leading it to believe that they are on their side and that they will be with them, while continuing to go on pursuing their own agenda. For instance, they pretty much shut Bush down on the proposed lifting of sanctions on arms sales to China, something the US really wants to prevent.

But basically they seem to want the US to fail in Iraq. Or if not outright fail, at least to suffer the consequences on its own. And there seems to be a deliberate policy to avoid making any financial contributions, the idea being that slowly but surely the US is being weakened by the money its spending. But they're not going to bail the US out. On the contrary, they are going to try to take advantage of their weakness.

They're not kidding themselves. It's the Americans who are kidding themselves. The Europeans are just playing around, giving Bush plenty of rope to hang himself; and that's exactly what he's doing.

For more on the European view on Iraq, see this interview in the International Herald Tribune with Javier Solana, the EU foreign minister. Written by Judy Dempsey. He's quite pessimistic, and says Iraq is "not over."






German chancellor questions need for NATO.

In a Guardian article on Bush's visit to Europe, and his attempts to "mend fences" with the Europeans, they discussed the various ways that major European leaders were actually moving against Bush, or at least not according to his wishes. They mention Russian President Putin's announcement last week of new deals with Iran and that he will go there on a visit soon. But what really struck my eye was this mention of NATO by the German leader.


That's potentially a very big development. I've long questioned the need for NATO, and have thought that, since it's not really under the direct control of any democratically elected government, and since no one seems to know just exactly what it's there for (it certainly isn't to protect the "North Atlantic"), there's the danger that it could someday turn into a rogue force. And since it in effect forces the Europeans to support a force that primarily serves American interests, I've wondered if someday the Europeans would stop wanting to support it, and instead focus on building their own EU-wide miitary.

If they did so that would be a landmark in US-EU relations, and a major blow to American hegemony. A very major blow. And it's striking that Schroeder should mention that just before Bush visits. It indicates that the Europeans are more than ready to confront the Americans on even the most major issues, and in new and unexpected ways.

In any case, NATO certainly isn't supporting the US in Iraq.


100 personnel out of 26 countries? That's not what I'd call a major contribution. And also not one I'd expect to make any real difference.






EU to resume arms sales to China.

Via the Agonist. Bloomberg reports that the EU is indeed going to resume arms sales to China.

The US has been frantically trying to stop this, claiming that China is a dangerous tyranny with extensive violation of human rights, but people don't seem to be buying that anymore. Maybe now folks are coming to think that arming China may be the best way to counteract the influence of the US and thus _help_ human rights around the world. Things are changing rapidly.


A rather strange remark from an official of a country with over 2 million people in prison, and uncounted thousands being held in secret detention camps all over the world. I wonder how the federal government would react if thousands of American students gathered together in Washington, DC demanding democratic reforms.

This follows earlier reports that Russia and China have set up military relations, the first time ever for the People's Republic. The two countries will be having extensive joint military maneuvers later this year. I bet that Indian and European observers will be there as well.


That was from an Indian paper. I don't know why news of this isn't showing up in the Euro-American media. In any case, American pressure on Iran seems to be driving them into closer alliances with China and Russia, as well as the EU. And more and more China seems to be becoming the go-to nation for countries needing support in standing up to the US.






West German carnival pokes fun at Bush.

Hundreds of thousands of Rhinelanders gathered for the traditional "Rose Monday" parade in Koln, which marks the beginning of Carnaval, the five day period of celebration that marks the height of the Catholic carnival season, and then the beginning of Lent.

Anti-Bush sentiment seems to have played an important role this year, with Germans not willing to censor their feelings just because Bush is due to visit there later this month. Link, via Common Dreams.


I love a parade. :)

I think George is going to get quite a reception when he comes to Europe this time. Supposedly he might address the European Parliament even, a major first for a US president. But I'll bet the hatred of him there won't allow him to do so. He needed a huge army surrounding him just to make a very brief appearance in his own capital last month, and I don't think Europe has enough armed forces to guarantee his security in a public appearance there. But we shall see.






Italian prime minister to be tried on corruption charges.

The Financial Times reports that Italy's highest court has said that Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi is not exempt from being tried simply because he is Prime Minister, and that the trial against him on corruption charges may proceed.


What's amazing about this is not just that the Prime Minister of a major European country, and one who just finished a six month term as President of the EU, one of the world's highest offices, is facing charges, but that there's very little coverage of it in the world press, especially in the American media.

I think we all know that if President Putin of Russia or Prime Minister Ariel Sharon of Israel, for example, had been indicted and was going to trial it would be front page news in the US. To say the least. And British Prime Minister Tony Blair is facing very serious and ongoing inquiries into his repeated lies about Iraq's WMDs, a story which also has received virtually no attention in the American press. Michael Jackson's trial, of course, is all over the press.

But the incredible corruption of this man is simply being ignored, at least in the American media. (The Economist has for several years running a devastating series articles on this abomination.)

The NY Times for example, not only doesn't yet report this story, at least not yet, but when I went to its international section to check I actually found an article, Financial Scandal Isn't Berlusconi's, but That Hasn't Stopped His Critics, which _defends_ him from suggestions that he was involved in the collapse of Parmalat, and suggesting that his critics are just out to get him. The suicide of Britain's Dr. Death receives a major headline though. Talk about twisted priorities.

Perhaps it's not surprising that a major paper should defend someone who has so much control over the media in his own country. Mr. Berlusconi personally owns virtually all of the Italian media. To put his position in American terms, it would be the same as if President Bush personally owned the NY Times, the LA Times, the Washington Post, all three major TV networks, CNN, and the lion's share of smaller newspapers, radio and tv stations. He's a multi-billionarie and a major figure in world economic circles. A close associate of media monopolist Robert Murdoch, for instance. His former personal lawyer is now serving five years in prison on corruption charges. And on and on. That he should be serving as Prime Minister of such a large country is beyond scandalous.

The Parmalat scandal also hasn't received much coverage here. At least not yet. But it's growing. Parmalat, you may have heard is the huge Italian-based international conglomerate (they operate in something like 140 countries) which recently experienced an Enron-level collapse. And investigations are beginning to reveal that American firms such as Morgan Stanley appear to have been heavily involved in the financial machinations which allowed it to continue for a decade or more. But the NY Times appears anxious to clear Berlusconi of any responsibility. I wonder why.

Here's the Economist's article on this story, which they do cover. The article also contains numerous links to the many other articles they've run on him. They ran an extraordinary open letter to him last July, directly accusing him of some very serious crimes, backed by an astounding 8,000 pages of documents, but unfortunately it's premium content and available to subscribers only. (I did run have a post on that at the time, which contains part of it.)






Despite everything, the Euro continues to rise.

The Financial Times reports that the Euro has had an excellent week, going up a full two cents, which is a lot in the currency markets.

It continues to rise despite last weekend's quadruple whammy of (1) Saddam's capture, which presumably should have raised America's reputation, at least a little bit; (2) The Dow going over 10,000; (3) The collapse of talks on the EU constitution, which should raise questions about the Euro's future; and (4) simple year-end profit taking, where those selling the dollar (and America) short cash in.

But none of these seem to matter. The perception is that the American economy is still being very badly mismanaged, and that no real efforts to deal with the problems are being made. The appointment of a former Goldman, Sachs executive as new head of the NY Stock Exchange, for instance, says that business will continue as usual.


All of which would seem to indicate that it's not the Euro that's rising, but rather that the dollar is falling. The fact that they're talking about the pound reaching the $2 level next year is quite noteworthy. That's a major change. And, at the current rate of change, it's quite possible that the Euro will also reach the $2 level by the end of 2004.

It would also indicate that the rise in the Dow is not due to increased economic activity in the US, but simply, or at least mostly, a reevaluation of its worth in the international markets. That is, $10,000 worth of American stocks today will only get you, internationally, what $7,000 worth would have brought just two years ago.

But some would say then, well if a European can buy an American house that cost a €1,000,000 just two years ago for only €700,000 today, then that's a reason to invest here. Maybe so, and there should be some of that. But they may also say that, well I'll wait another year, and it will only cost €400,000. And the year after only €100,000. Impossible? We'll see. But that's what the current trends are indicating.

It also would seem to suggest that the world feels that election year pressures and politics within the US will make it impossible to address any of the very serious, and long-term, fundamental problems with American business. Certainly none of the presidential candidates, Democratic or Republican, are talking about Enron, WorldCom, et al, or suggesting doing anything about the problems their collapses exposed. Lip service, but that's it. But lip service and military power won't work anymore. And the markets know it.






Poland gets tough with the EU.

The Guardian discusses the implications of Poland's actions at the recent EU summit.


I guess their standing up for themselves has made them both friends and enemies in the European community. But they don't seem to be backing down. A lot of it has to do with the history of their relations with the Germans, which haven't always been good. But which is of major importance.


As I've said before, I think that German intransigence with them may very well cause them to start looking eastward, to Russia and China, and of course to America, rather than to the EU. We shall see. Events are moving quickly there.

Most of the media seems to be reporting the problem as one of determining the amounts of votes each country gets in the EU council. But it's not. Not really. It's about the EU honoring the agreement that they made with the Poles, Spanish and other small countries three weeks ago. That was the agreement under which the Poles voted to join the EU, and they feel uncomfortable with the French and Germans arbitrarily changing the terms after the fact. If they can do that today, then they'll likely try to do it again later.






Spain and Morocco plan tunnel under the Mediterranean.

Guardian article. Continuing the spread of tunnels and bridges connecting various parts of the world, Spain and Morocco announced a plan to construct a tunnel under the Mediterranean.


This development hasn't been getting much notice since it's been happening gradually. But slowly the world is being connected together. Tunnels and bridges are also being built between Scandinavia and the European mainland, the Japanese islands and many other places.

The Spanish-Moroccan link is especially important since it would link not just the two countries, but effectively all of Africa and Europe.

The implications for national sovereignty, the environment, travel and the tourist industry, public health and other areas are quite significant. It's likely that by the end of the century, if not by mid-century, people will be able to drive from anywhere in the world to anywhere else.

The people constructing these deserve a lot of respect. It is probably the most difficult and challenging of all engineering tasks. Not to mention extremely dangerous. Much more so than space for instance, which gets a lot more attention.






Ban on ads showing euro and dollar having sex.

Via Ananova is an absolutely hysterical article reporting that Russian authorities have banned an ad depicting the euro and dollar having sex. Go there to see the ad. I'm not sure which is more ridiculous, the ad itself, or the authorities banning it.


Ananova is a general purpose web magazine from the UK, with an especially interesting quirky section.






Economist's open letter to Berlusconi.

For the last two years, the Economist has been attempting to get Italian President Silvio Berlusconi to answer questions about his various business dealings, and numerous allegations of corruption and political favoritism. Today they published an extraordinary open letter to him, backed by 8,000 pages of evidence, in which they formally ask him to answer their questions.


It goes on. It's an amazing story. He's as corrupt as any politician could be, and in a position of enormous power. Kudos to the Economist for continuing to pursue this. There are numerous articles linked to the main story, along with the 8,000 pages of questions and allegations.






Why I'm writing so much about the Euro.

Part of it is that, as a history buff, it's absolutely fascinating to watch history being made before my eyes. But it's not just an intellectual exercise. And it's not an issue that just affects Britons or Europeans. It directly affects the dollar, and the entire global economy, and the price of things in Santa Barbara, California, where I live.

Besides the many nations that officially use the Euro and pound, there are many that are tied to them directly or indirectly. This includes Russia and the other non-Euro countries in Europe, nearly all of the so-called commonwealth countries, and pretty much most nations that were at one point part of the English, French and German empires. Those in Africa especially, where most countries have long tied their currencies to the franc and pound.

As I've said before, the UK's inability to make up its mind is causing a great deal of economic uncertainty in global markets.



Blair and Brown lost in their euro blunderland.

The Scotsman offers an opinion on the euro mess.


I can't say that it's a particularly informed opinion. Like most of the discussion, for and against, it's mostly people who have already decided, mostly for emotional reasons, and then look for facts and arguments that support their views. And, like virtually all of the reports I've read, it doesn't even mention any of the other Euro nations, except Germany of course.

It's curious. If my geography is correct, Brussels is closer to Edinburgh than London is, yet they write about Europe as though it's way off in the distance.



European views of Britain's euro decision.

The Guardian offers a roundup of different European opinions on the decision. Quite a mixture of views to say the least.

And one on the opinions of a variety of Britons. The one from an orchid grower is particularly insightful.


The comment about the US is interesting, and says a lot about current American economic problems. There are so many rules and regulations now, all of which have been compounded by security issues since 9/11, that it's becoming almost impossible to do business. I know that I've been forced to pretty much put my ideas about ebooks on hold because the copyright confusion is so great, and the legal implications so threatening.






UK sort of gives Euro a definite maybe no, but not for sure.

After years of thorough, exhaustive analysis of the economic, political, and other considerations, along with that of numerous related issues, both domestic and foreign, great and small, the publication of weighty tomes , academic studies, and a wide variety of minor essays, endless discussion of the various ramifications and possibilities, due respect being paid to the prognostications of the most dignified and learned scholars in the land, and naturally not omitting proper attention to the most informed and valuable opinions of Her Majesty the Queen, the Princes, Princesses and other royals, Dukes, Archbishops, Bishops, Earls, Counts and other Lords both spiritual and temporal, the Lords of the Exchequer, Chancery and Admiralty, along with those of their esteemed ministers and servants, and the councillors of the commons gathered together in Parliament, and continuing on to those of Fleet Street and the popular persuasion, not even leaving out the offerings of the street tabloids and the thoughts of even the most lowly of publicans and housewives, all in the proper and proscribed fashion, and the entire study being duly noted and preserved in the records for the study and edification of future generations, so they may come to appreciate and be dutifully grateful for the traditions being thus carefully maintained and handed down to them, said analysis probably requiring the expenditure of enough monies to buy a small European country, or at least a very large manor and its village people, the people of the United Kingdom of Great Britain, in the name of the Crown and all those who were foresighted and wise enough to be born white and rich and especially English, have come to the conclusion that this simply would not be a good time to begin harnessing the forces necessary for beginning the processes comcomitant to making a decision about adapting the Euro, at least not just yet, so for the moment we've decided to decide not to decide, if that's okay, but we may at some time in the future, or maybe not, make a decision that is, and while we're not ready to commit to it, the Euro that is, just yet, we may possibly commit to making a commitment at some future point, if things go just right you know, but we wouldn't want to take any chances, of course, so we can't really commit to that, not at this present time, of course if conditions improve and we see some advantage to our purse in it, you never know, it's not that we don't want to be friends, of course we really do like you, we do, yes we do, don't be silly, as long as you stay on your side of the water anyway, and this certainly should not be considered any reflection on your own abilities or understanding of the complexities of modern finance or global economics, perish the thought, we respect you almost as much as we like you, nor does it imply that we don't still want to be part of the Union, we definitely do, at least as long as there's no risk to us in belonging, and we don't have to accept any responsibility for its actions, but you see we can't be entirely on anybody's side because, as has been said before, nobody's entirely on our side, we're sure you understand, that's just the way it is, one must be prudent mustn't one, and plan for a rainy day, otherwise where would we all be, and don't forget that changing all the coins would be so confusing to the old folks and how can we ignore them, so we're sorry we can't make up our minds just yet, but don't worry there's no reason you all can't just go on without us, you seem to be doing fine, although if it's not too much trouble and inconvenience please don't forget to wait for us, we'd like to keep the invitation open if we can, we still want to come to the party you have planned, which sounds like a grand affair indeed, after all a thousand years in the making, and not to be missed, we just don't want to pay for it.

Sorry about that. The English always inspire me, I just can't help it, they're the funniest frigging people in the world. But if their economies are a bit chary, they remain the greatest writers in the world, and at least have gotten me writing.

Well actually, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown have made the decision. Nobody else seems to have a say. There's still no telling what the British people will do, not to mention the Welsh and Scots. Have to hand it to them though, it certainly is a piece of world-class political prevarication, a firm unequivable commitment to not making a commitment. I hope it doesn't turn out that the arguments used in those eighteen volumes of documents turn out to be cribbed off the internet from some graduate student's work, they way some of those about the Iraqi WMDs were.

What's really sad about it is that the decision seems to rest entirely on the advantages it may bring to the UK, and the wealthy classes there. What may be best for the rest of the EU, or the global economy, or anybody else just doesn't count. And that such an important decision, one with such long-term ramifications for tens of millions of people, is decided by basically two people, who are clearly intent on putting their political interest above the rights of the citizens, oh excuse me, subjects, of the UK to decide. [Technically no one in the UK is a "citizen." They're still "subjects" of the crown.]

No links to specific articles, there are tons of them, plus many op-ed pieces from all points of view. See the Guardian or the Scotsman or the Economist for the British viewpoint. But this is truly a global issue and people all over the world have opinions on it.

One comment to make though, and that is there sure are a lot of people making assumptions about the future based on nothing more than guesses. Particularly those about the level of future economic activity in the eurozone and elsewhere. No one knows what's going to happen in the global economy during the next few decades. Just the prospect of ten new nations going Euro is enough to introduce so many new variables that all previous equations have to be considered obsolete.

I think the biggest assumption, or presumption maybe, is that the strength or weakness of the Euro itself is necessarily tied to that of the eurozone or that of the EU. There's nothing carved in stone that says the Euro can't boom while the eurozone doesn't. I know that's a paradox, but such is life. Currencies are very emotional things sometimes.

And the thing that most surprises me is that no one seems to grasp that independence for Scotland and Wales, which I understand is what devolution is supposedly heading for, implies accepting the Euro. Presumably they'll be joining the EU. (Right?) One of the major purposes of independence from England (not the United Kingdom anymore after Scotland and Wales leave since it won't be united anymore) is to gain control over their economies. That has to mean independence from The City, as they call it, and therefore, indisputably, the pound.

Yet I haven't seen this mentioned anywhere. I guess the thought that after the eastern european countries join up there's going to be a wave of regionalization, with new countries like Wales, Scotland, probably both halves of Belgium, Catalonia, and so on is just too much to bear. But the Euro and devolution to regions are inextricably tied up. It's no coincidence that Scotland and Wales got their own parliaments on Jan 1, 1999, the same day the Euro was introduced. Trying to predict the future economic ramifications of it all at this point is virtually impossible.



Poles vote to join the EU.

The NY Times reports on the successful Polish referendum to join the European Union. It's a big step. Poland has the largest population of the proposed ten new members. As they note, it's amazing how much things can change within one person's lifetime.


That should give pause to anyone who thinks the US will remain substantially the same for the next few decades. It's impossible to predict what changes will occur, only that they will be major. And probably what most of us would now consider fantastical. They do in all countries, at all times. And the US now has the oldest form of government in the world, the only one which has not seen any significant modification during the twentieth century.






British continue to waffle on the Euro.

The Guardian has several articles on the latest on British attempts to decide whether they are Europeans or Americans. There's one entitled Cabinet agrees 'not yet' on euro, and one on just how little the Euro nations seem to care, Wake us up when you're finished. And one on various British opinions on the subject, Euro or not Euro. Their special section on the subject is here.

The one about European attitudes states rather conclusively just how well established the Euro already has become among the nations that have adapted it.


I think the British will eventually do it. Unless they wait too long and then are told they're no longer wanted. They should do it now while the pound is still up. Personally, I'd say they lost the battle thirty years ago when they gave up the farthings, shillings, guineas and such. If they are going to stick with the pound, they should go back to that. Then they can become a quaint historical backwater just like the Swiss. At least they'd pick up some tourist income to make up for the massive loss of EU investment.

As I noted the other day in commenting on the ECB's decision to lower interest rates, I think the British delays and uncertainty are doing significant damage to the global economy. They're hurting the dollar, the euro, and yes, the pound. If they don't make up their mind people will have no choice but to interpret them as damage and route around them. In fact, it sounds as if the Europeans are doing just that.

Here's the Scotsman's take on the subject. The Scots have a slightly different perspective on the subject. For one thing, with devolution they are on the track to full independence. That would almost certainly imply accepting the Euro. The same with Wales.






Corporate adjustments to Euro's success.

Stumbled onto an article from Reuters giving short summaries of various corporate reactions around the world to the Euro's increasing value.

While there are some problems, the Europeans all seem rather glad they have the Euro, and that all in all, they're adjusting rather well. One executive makes a pertinent observation.


And the Moscow Times reports that "The Weakening Dollar Makes Russia Stronger."






Britain told to choose between Europe and the US.

Scotsman article. In more on the EU's growing pains, former French president Giscard d©–Estaing said that it's time the UK make up its mind on where it wants to be.

One issue that he discusses, which I hadn't considered before, is whether an expanded EU will be able to retain both of its seats on the Security Council, currently held by the UK and France. Apparently, he claims that they can have it both ways: have a single union, with a single foreign policy, while continuing to pretend that they don't whenever that's convenient.



Blueprint for an EU president.

The Guardian reports that a draft proposal for a new EU constitution has been released.


There is a battle royal raging in Britain over all this, the EU in general, the form of the constitution, whether the UK will adopt the Euro, whether the British people will get to vote on it, and so on. It goes to the very heart of the nature of the United Kingdom, and even whether or not there will continue to be a United Kingdom.

There is a PDF of the proposed constitution here. And the Guardian has a special section on European integration here.






Eurozone members seek greater autonomy.

BBC news article. I had a feeling this was coming. The British look like they don't want the Euro, but want to stay in the EU. I've been wondering how the other Euro nations felt about that. I'll keep following this story, I find it fascinating how it all plays out.


I also find the writing of a constitution fascinating. Why don't they put it online and let everybody create it together?






European depopulation.

Another Guardian article tells about how the low birth rate in Europe is leading to cities becoming depopulated, and other problems.


Gee, why do they have to study this problem? Why don't they just open their borders to immigration? Put up a sign: people wanted. All problems solved: plenty of young people to provide for the pensioners, lots of energy, etc. There are plenty of people in the world who'd be delighted to live there. It's so stupid that they're "studying" the problem. Trying to avoid confronting the real problem, racism, is more like it.






More on European enlargement.

An article about enlarging the EU in the Economist perfectly illustrates the elitist attitude the European leadership is taking. Amazing arrogance. The language used displays an incredible contempt for Irish voters, and apparently for the rest of the people in Europe. Check these examples out (emphasis mine).


The "right way", "see the light" (echoes of a religious, messianic fervor here, reminiscent of American "manifest destiny") and "get the message." Why don't they just go all out and say it's "evil" to be against the EU?

The statement that "every EU member except Ireland" has ratified the treaty gives the impression that all of the other nations strongly support it and that only the Irish are against it. Actually, the statement, "Every EU member that has had the option of voting for it has rejected it," would be more accurate.

What's even more abominable is the clearly expressed intention of the elite to simply go ahead with their plans, regardless of the vote. They'll just find another way to do it, the people be damned. Call the lawyers! I guess they're the ones running things anyway.



The technical term for people who go around make incredibly expensive and complicated plans involving the lives of hundreds of millions of people without having any backup plan or strategy is "incompetent." Just the fact that they do this is a rather strong argument for NOT increasing the power of the folks in charge.

The suggestion that the Irish parliament would vote to go ahead to do it anyway after two negative votes is absolutely hysterical. Two no votes, and every politician in Ireland will jump on the bandwagon. But supposing they do. What happens if, after the politicians that did that are naturally voted out of office, the next parliament votes to repeal it

I think I detect some English superiority here: the Irish parliament is commonly referred to as the "Dail" (short for Dail Eireann, actually just the House of Representatives), which along with the Seanad Eireann (Senate) form the Oireachtas. Not the "Parliament," unless you're under the impression that England still owns and runs Ireland. But even after 80 years, the old English money at the Economist can't bring themselves to say the word.

Another example of the arrogance is their assumption that the problem is that the Irish voters just don't understand what's going on. They simplistically report that there are just two reasons the Irish may vote against it, the attitude seeming to be that those silly peasants just don't appreciate larger concerns.


Don't understand the part about how they can be part of a common union, while simultaneously not being part of that union. The Irish reluctance is quite understandable. This is a major step, it definitely involves surrendering at least some sovereignty and neutrality, and should only be done if everything is clear, and a very strong consensus has been formed to do it. Basically, the EU leaders seem to be saying that we'll just have to work things out later, make up the policies as we go.

Suggesting that the EU can have a defense force while individual nations remain neutral is obviously absurd. How does that work? Do Irish soldiers in an EU army get to pick and choose where they serve? Or is it the government that does the picking and choosing? Imagine if the people in an U.S. state voted that they didn't want anybody from their state serving in Iraq.

And pretending this won't dilute Irish influence is also silly. Of course it will. They'll go from having 1/15th of the vote to 1/25th. No question about it. They'll be less than one percent of the total population. That's really where the folks at the Economist are missing the boat. Maybe the Irish simply don't _want_ to be part of that big a union. Even if it's for their own long term benefit. Why is it that the powers-that-be can't seem to grasp this essential part of democracy: the voters don't have to give reasons for what they do, and they have the right to do anything at all, even if it's utterly stupid and ridiculous. People like to run their own lives, even if they screw them up.

Enlargement may be a good idea, but clearly they don't feel "comfortable" with it. So what's the rush? Ah, maybe the need for politicians to increase and maintain power, and for Corporate Europe to acquire more markets. The only "problem" here is that the EU went ahead and committed itself without checking with anybody first. And what's saddest is that their desire to force a larger Europe before its time could possibly derail the whole thing.



Ireland and the EU.

A lot of talk about the Irish vote on whether to expand the European Union. Most of it seems to be making this an "Irish" issue, focusing on what the EU's done for Ireland and such. But really the only reason the focus is on Ireland is because Ireland is the only country where the people are able to vote on it. I'd bet my bottom dollar that if all of the countries voted, there'd be at least one other who'd vote no.

What this issue really illuminates is just how undemocratic the EU really is at this point, and that many people have serious doubts about the direction it's taking. And of how much contempt for the voters the leadership clearly has. The Irish already voted against this. To come back and ask them to vote again, just because the leadership (read "the rich"), didn't like the results is incredibly insulting, and profoundly elitist and undemocratic. If I was Irish and voted 'Yes' the first time, I'd definitely vote 'No' for that reason alone.

They claim it's because of a low turnout, but that doesn't seem to apply in any other case. Personally, I don't feel that any vote should be valid unless at least 50% of the eligible (eligible, not registered) voters participate. But that's not the rule, and until it is they should stick to standard practice.

I've always (and still am) a strong supporter of the European Union, and in fact would welcome a strong Europe as a counterweight to America, if nothing else. But this trend is extremely disturbing. And I'm absolutely amazed that everyone in the EU doesn't get to vote on something this big, with such major long-term implications. I guess this would also apply to the people in the nations applying to join.

This lack of democracy, basically the retention of the power of the very, very old ancien regime that has been messing Europe up for centuries, affects other things as well. While I'm a strong supporter of international courts, and of international government in general, that's only if they're run by democratically elected people.

Bush objects to the International War Crimes court because he's opposed to the rule of law; I'm opposed to it because there are no established rules or processes for selecting the judges, no legislation enacted by any democratically elected legislature for them to enforce, and so on. In the US all judges are either directly elected or appointed by elected officials. That's not the way they do it in Europe, at least not in most countries. (As far as I know.) Surprisingly and unfortunately.

While I'm on the subject, I have to say I don't think the enlargement is a good idea. Not for the current members, and especially not for the new ones. I'd rather see two smaller but more focused unions. And I think the Eastern European countries are in a much stronger position than they think they are. For one thing, they're greatly underestimating the possible income from tourism and the arts, infinitely more important in the 21st economy than farming. But mostly, as an American, I can assure you that bigger does NOT necessarily guarantee better. As far as I can see it's just more expensive. If I were them I'd form my own union, use the Euro without paying for it, and play Russia and the EU off against each other.

---

End of entries.