WHERE ENGLAND BELONGS:

August 29, 2006

Brussels is using terrorism to further its federal ambitions (Daniel Hannan, 29/08/2006, Daily Telegraph)

Oh, come off it, Hannan, I hear you say. Even you Euro-phobes must accept that there are some things that we ought to do together. I mean, if the terrorists are operating at an international level, don’t we need to take them on at an international level?

Yes, indeed – and we have been doing so for decades without any help from Brussels. Sovereign states have evolved highly developed mechanisms for police and judicial co-operation: the Hague Convention, extradition treaties, intelligence sharing, Interpol, mutual recognition of court orders, acknowledgement of sentences spent in each other’s prisons.

What is being proposed now, in effect, is that such collaboration should principally be administered by the EU. I don’t know about you, but this doesn’t make me feel any safer. It is these same Euro-apparatchiks, after all, who have brought us the Common Agricultural Policy, the destruction of North Sea fish stocks, and accounts that have not been approved in 12 consecutive years. Why should they be any better at thwarting bombers than they are at, say, thwarting fraudsters within their own bureaucracy? [...]

Five years on, it is hard to identify a single anti-terrorist success that can be attributed to Brussels. On the other hand, we have just won a mighty victory through old-fashioned police co-operation between three countries which, although on different continents, are united by language, history and law. Why should such joint operations be improved by bringing Britain’s procedures into line with Europe, rather than the Anglosphere?


ANOTHER ONE HE'LL OUTLAST:

August 8, 2006

France’s Next President? (DAVID TWERSKY, August 8, 2006, NY Sun)

One can almost see President Chirac getting off a plane, waving a piece of white paper, and describing the draft Security Council resolution aiming to halt hostilities in Lebanon as ” peace in our time.” But imagine if the current crisis in Lebanon could have occurred on the watch of a different French president, a leader wedded to neither the reflexive anti-Americanism nor the pro-Arab policies of Mr. Chirac.

Impossible? Not really. The French elect a new president next spring, and under the Fifth Republic, all foreign policy powers are vested in the presidency. As it happens, at least one serious contender is significantly more pro-Israel and pro-American than the rest of the pack. That candidate, Nicolas Sarkozy, has maintained a position on the Lebanon war completely different than the others. [...]

As opposed to the pathetic comments of Foreign Minister Douste-Blazy about Iran, Mr. Sarkozy insisted that “There are more than suspicions about the links between Hezbollah and Iran [and that] Iran is not the only country concerned.” Instead of repeated calls like that of Mr. de Villepin for an “immediate cease-fire,” Mr. Sarkozy, urged, Israel “to maintain levelheadedness and restraint.”

Finally, the July 20, 2006 Le Monde carried a report of a public meeting at which the visiting Israeli minister recounted his meeting earlier with Mr. Sarkozy. According to the report, Minister Zeev Boim said that Mr. Sarkozy asked him, “How much time does the State of Israel require to complete the work?”

Given how isolated W was supposedly leaving us by attacking Iraq without the permission of other Western states it’s pretty amusing to watch them all elect leaders who follow his political line.


BETTER SHRED THAN DEAD:

May 13, 2006

I’m ready to rip up Human Rights Act, declares Cameron (Graeme Wilson, 13/05/2006, Daily Telegraph)

David Cameron revealed yesterday that he is ready to tear up the Human Rights Act amid growing public concern that it is being exploited by foreign criminals.

If he wins the next general election, the Conservative leader will order a review of the law introduced by Labour eight years ago and rewrite the legislation if necessary.

However, if it becomes clear that it was not possible to improve the Act through amendments, Mr Cameron is prepared to abolish it.

The Tory leader’s aides conceded last night that even if the party scrapped the Act, Britain would still be bound by the European Convention of Human Rights.

An excellent start, but until he’s ready to scrap the EU treaties that infringe on British sovereignty he’s not going to be a great PM.


LIBERALIZATION GOOD, HOMOGENIZATION BAD:

March 15, 2006

SPIEGEL INTERVIEW WITH CZECH PRESIDENT VÁCLAV KLAUS: “The Past Is the Past”: Czech President Václav Klaus, 64, discusses his criticism of the European Union, the problems of exporting democracy and his country’s postwar relationship with neighboring Germany. (der Spiegel, 3/13/06)

SPIEGEL: Your fundamental criticism stands in stark contrast to the great attraction the EU has had in the last 16 years for many people, especially in Eastern Europe. Hasn’t the European Union played a decisive role in promoting democracy in Eastern Europe?

Klaus: No, the EU didn’t advance our democracy by a single millimeter.

SPIEGEL: What about Slovakia, where authoritarian Prime Minister Vladimír Meciar was voted out of office in 1998?

Klaus: But the Slovaks did that on their own. As far as I’m concerned, it would be unacceptable to push forward such a process from the outside. We created our democracy ourselves. And besides, EU membership isn’t a question of attraction. There simply is no alternative. For the countries in question, EU membership represented important political recognition. In fact, the rule of thumb in Europe is that the good ones are EU members, while the bad ones are not.

SPIEGEL: But didn’t the EU encourage processes that wouldn’t have gotten underway as quickly otherwise? Think about the development of a new legal system, for example. Current membership candidates Bulgaria and Romania are now going out of their way to satisfy EU standards by reforming their judicial systems.

Klaus: The Bulgarians and Romanians are already interested in a normal, free and democratic society. They don’t need anyone to tell them that that’s what they want. We developed our democracy for ourselves — not to make someone in Brussels happy.

SPIEGEL: You are opposed to minimum social standards in Europe and a common tax policy. Do you find a common foreign policy equally objectionable?

Klaus: I think a common foreign policy is completely unnecessary. The various European countries have widely differing priorities, goals and prejudices. It would be wrong to force them all to follow the same course. Just look at the outcome of the popular referendums in France and the Netherlands. Voters in the two countries rejected the constitution for very different reasons. And that’s ok. We can’t allow someone to show up and force us all to buy the same shirt size, even though one person has a size 39 collar and another a size 41.

SPIEGEL: You certainly have many objections to the EU. How far should integration go, in your opinion?

Klaus: The development of European integration can be divided into two phases. The first era ended with the Maastricht Treaty. It was a liberalization phase, with the main goal of European integration at the time being the removal of various barriers and borders in Europe. I was completely in favor of that. But the second phase is a homogenization or standardization phase, one that involves regulation from the top and growing control over our lives. In my view, this no longer has anything to do with freedom and democracy.


SOMEWHERE BOMBER HARRIS CRINGES:

February 15, 2006

Special report: America’s Long War: US introduces radical new strategy (Simon Tisdall, Ewen MacAskill and Richard Norton-Taylor, February 15, 2006, The Guardian)

>European governments are still digesting the contents of the US report and are expected to give full responses in the next few weeks. But initial reaction appears to be one of caution.

The Ministry of Defence said yesterday it had been consulted by the Pentagon as the review was drawn up and was pleased to see references to working with allies. As the consultation took place, Royal Marine commandos arrived at their base in southern Afghanistan yesterday at the start of a mission described in the Commons by government opponents as confused and unclear.

But British commanders expressed concern that increased attacks on suspect terrorists using drones – in which decisions are made rapidly by secret watchers based thousands of miles away – could have legal implications. They also highlighted potential infringements of sovereignty and the bypassing of political controls and of established rules of engagement.

Never mind the 21st century political correctness that would pass up a shot at the enemy just because of transnational legal fictions, if they haven’t figured out yet that our recognizing the sovereignty of others depends on their meeting our liberal democratic standards then they have their other foot in the 19th century.


…AND SMALLER…:

January 28, 2006

Catalonia Nears Autonomy From Spain: Region’s Plan for Self-Rule Seen as Alternative to Full Independence (John Ward Anderson, January 28, 2006, Washington Post)

They have their own language, their own culture, and a history of rebellion going back more than 500 years. They have had periods of semi-independence punctuated by brutal government crackdowns. They have a vibrant economy that is the envy of their country. And they’re determined to become their own nation.

It is a picture that fits any number of armed separatist movements around the world. Here, it describes a peaceful drive for more autonomy in the Spanish region of Catalonia, and it is nearing success with the backing of the country’s Socialist prime minister, Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero.

Opponents say the plan for more self-rule is a Trojan horse, paving the way for full independence, striking at the foundation of Spain’s 28-year-old democracy and threatening to break up the country.

While the transnationalists alll dreamed of world government the reality is that states are just going to keep devolving into smaller units.

MORE:
Premiers in hurry to craft fiscal deal (IAN URQUHART, 1/28/06, Toronto Star)

The phone lines are starting to burn up as premiers call each other and prime minister-designate Stephen Harper about striking a new deal that could dramatically alter Confederation by strengthening the provinces and reducing Ottawa’s role.

At issue is the nation’s “fiscal imbalance,” which sees Ottawa awash in surpluses while the provinces struggle to make ends meet. Paul Martin, the outgoing prime minister, denied the very existence of a fiscal imbalance; Harper, on the other hand, has promised to fix it.

In his election platform, Harper said he would “work with the provinces in order to achieve a long-term agreement which would address the issue of a fiscal imbalance in a permanent fashion.”


THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO RASPUTIN THIS BAD BOY:

January 12, 2006

The Hague says constitution is ‘dead’ (Mark Beunderman, 1/11/06, EUOBSERVER)

The Dutch foreign minister Bernard Bot has said the EU constitution is “dead” for the Netherlands, rejecting EU leaders’ recent pleas for a resuscitation of the charter.

After meeting his Austrian counterpart Ursula Plassnik in The Hague, Mr Bot stated on Wednesday (11 January) “we have discussed the constitution, which for the Netherlands is dead,” according to press reports.

Austria, which currently holds the EU presidency, aims at a revival of the treaty, with its leader Wolfgang Schussel declaring on Monday “the constitution is not dead. It is in the middle of a ratification process.”


JUST MAKE THE TALK MATCH THE WALK:

January 6, 2006

Managing Expectations: Will Merkel’s visit end the transatlantic rift? (Victorino Matus, 01/06/2006, Weekly Standard)

Since the fall of Saddam Hussein, there have been repeated attempts to mend the transatlantic rift–with middling success at the state level. (On the other hand, says one German counterterrorism expert, “we have always been close on the working level” in the war on terror.) But it wasn’t until November 22, when the chancellery switched hands, that analysts saw a serious opportunity for diplomatic change.

But what sort of change can we realistically expect? “The issue will be substance versus style,” said Karen Donfried last October at a German Marshall Fund symposium. Donfried, the senior director at GMF, pointed out that “Schröder did one thing and said another. Sure they were helping us out–a lot, even–but by ‘merely’ what he said, he was delegitimizing Operation Iraqi Freedom.” She continued, “If Merkel simply continues doing what is being done but says positive things and explains honestly [to the German people] why they are helping, that would be hugely significant.”

Europe just needs to go to school on Kofi Annan if it wants to heal the rift–the Secretary now does whatever we tell him to and we get along fine.


DEFEND SOVEREIGNTY, WIN VALUABLE ELECTIONS:

January 4, 2006

Barroso runs Britain, radio poll says (Andrew Rettman, 1/04/06, EU Observer)

European Commission president Jose Manuel Barroso is the UK’s most powerful man, according to a BBC radio opinion poll. [...]

The eurosceptic UK Independence Party (UKIP) pointed out that Mr Barroso is an unelected official.

“Of course it is the only chance you’ll get to vote for him or for that matter against him”, UKIP leader Roger Knapman indicated.

But ruling Labour party politicians dismissed the idea that the EU runs the UK as an “urban myth.”

The Tories will be the majority again when sentences start: “The eurosceptic UK Conservative Party…”


OKAY, NOW WE'RE CERTAIN THE TORIES WILL FIGURE IT OUT…:

December 21, 2005

Irish most happy, Brits most unhappy with EU (Teresa Küchler, 12/20/05, EUOBSERVER)

Support for the EU is declining among the union’s citizens, according to a new commission survey, while Europeans generally back the idea of an EU constitution and reject Turkish EU accession.

The “Autumn Standard Eurobarometer”, presented on Tuesday (20 December) reveals that an average of 50 percent of European citizens consider EU membership of their country “a good thing”, down from 54 percent in spring this year. [...]

Of the 25 member states, Austria and the UK appear the most eurosceptic, with just 32 percent of Austrians and 33 percent of Brits saying EU membership is a good thing for their country, followed by Latvia (36 percent), Finland (38 percent) and Sweden and Hungary (both 39 percent).