EU Referendum

Christina Datz-Winter, a German divorce judge has roused anger in the country by her strange ruling that a man may go on beating his wife if she tries to lead a Western style life, if the couple originate from Morocco.

The reason, according to Ms Datz-Winter is that the Koran sanctions such physical abuse. So much for German law being above Sharia law, for individual freedom, equality before the law and women’s rights. When it comes to Muslim women, the Koran, according to Ms Datz-Winter, must be obeyed.

To be fair, there has been a serious upsurge of anger in Germany, led, in the first place by Barbara Becker-Rojczyk, the woman’s defence lawyer. When in January the judge pronounced that there were no grounds for a speedy divorce, despite evidence of violence and threats of murder on the part of the husband, the outraged lawyer and her client demanded that the judge cease to make decisions on such matters as there was a clear clash of interests:

They felt that, because of the point of view presented by the judge, she was unable to reach an objective verdict. In the reply sent to Becker-Rojczyk, the judge expressly referred to a Koran verse -- or sura -- which indicates that a man's honor is injured when his wife behaves in an unchaste manner. "Apparently the judge deems it unchaste when my client adapts a Western lifestyle," Becker-Rojczyk said.

As the judge was still on the bench on Tuesday, Ms Becker-Rojczyk has decided to go public on the case. On Wednesday, the court in Frankfurt abruptly removed Ms Datz-Winter.

The article in International Herald Tribune has comments from various people.

"A judge in Germany has to refer to the constitutional law, which says that human rights are not to be violated," said Günter Meyer, director of the Center for Research on the Arab World at the University of Mainz. "It's not her task to interpret the Koran. It was an attempt at multicultural understanding, but in completely the wrong context."

True enough but is it not extraordinary that “multicultural understanding” seems not to involve an understanding how a woman subjected to violence might feel?

"When the Koran is put above the German Constitution, I can only say, 'Good night, Germany,'" Ronald Pofalla, general secretary of the Christian Democratic Union, said to the mass- market newspaper Bild.

Dieter Wiefelspütz, a Social Democratic member of Parliament, said in an interview that he could not recall a court ruling in years that had aroused so much indignation.

Could this case precipitate that much-needed understanding that a German national identity, one that includes an understanding of the country’s laws, constitution and numerous enlightened traditions [oh yes, there are, for those members of the forum who have never heard of, say, Goethe].

Apparently German Muslim leaders are not happy either. Statements have been made to the effect that Muslims in Germany must obey German law and to the effect that the Koran was being misunderstood. It seems, according to the article that “mainstream Muslims have long rejected wife- beating as a relic of the medieval age”.

Let us hope that is true. Who knows what else they might reject as being relics of the medieval age.

COMMENT THREAD

Labels: Germany

Alas, it reports somebody’s death but the man was 93, so may be said to have lived out his allotted span.

Today’s newspapers have long obituaries of Heinz Berggruen, the famous art collector, who, having escaped from Nazi Germany, returned in his old age and sold the bulk of his collection to the city of Berlin in 1996, despite better offers from other cities and art galleries.

Not that those other cities and art galleries have not benefited from Herr Berggruen’s phenomenal collection and outstanding generosity.

The National Gallery in London was fortunate enough to exhibit what is described in the Daily Telegraph as “the cream of his collection” for four years, 1991 to 1995. It still possesses seven Seurats as an outright gift and five Cézannes and two more Seurats on a long-term loan.

The Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York was given some 90 Klees, an astonishing gift even by the generous standards of that establishment’s benefactors.

Two Paris galleries were given works by Giacometti, Cézanne and Klee.

In the end, however, he decided that the largest part should be housed in Berlin, the Berggruen Museum being housed in a neo-classical villa opposite the Charlottenburg Palace. The museum, as the obituary rightly points out, fills a huge gap in the German national art collections, what with the Nazis’ ban on “degenerate” art and the depredations by the Soviet Army after the war.

What caught my interest, apart, of course, from Herr Berggruen’s fascinating biography, was his reaction to the view, put forward by former Israeli President Ezer Weizmann and others that no Jew should return to Germany.

Heinz Berggruen’s view was that Germany had changed or, perhaps, reverted to her previous existence. Fifty years after the collapse of the third Reich

one can no longer turn one’s back on the country of Dürer and Goethe, Beethoven and Brahms, Gottfried Benn and Max Beckmann.

Quite so. As we have pointed out before, Germany has now been a democracy for almost sixty years and has, furthermore, had a long history before the horrors of the Nazi regime. It is necessary to acknowledge this in order to defeat that appalling offspring of World War II, the European Union, whose existence feeds on a constant reiteration of exclusively German guilt.

COMMENT THREAD

Labels: Germany

We all need reminding in the midst of the present political controversy that UKIP has its uses and would be sorely missed if it disappeared (and not just for its entertainment value).

England Expects tells us that it was UKIP that fed the story to the media about the proposed common European history textbook, though it was Graham Brady, the Conservative Europe spokesman who managed to get most of the huffing and puffing in.

Actually, this is not a particularly new idea and, our readers might recall that this blog covered a similar story that emerged from Belgium a couple of years ago. There have been many attempts to create a European history textbook that would avoid all the – how can describe it – difficult passages, which just happen to be the most interesting ones as well.

While both the Sun and the Daily Telegraph blamed Germany for this idea, one imagines the French are not exactly averse to imposing a single European view of the past. But which past would that be?

There is, as the article in the Telegraph points out, a model for this hilarious idea, a Franco-German project, which would not surprise anyone.

The Franco-German Histoire Geschichte was launched last May, with a first edition covering history since the end of the Second World War. The text is taught as part of the higher curriculum in both French and German schools and has the expressed aim of overcoming old enmities.

Speaking at the launch event, Gilles de Robien, the French education minister, said: "The great lesson of this story is that nothing is set in stone – antagonisms that we believe are inscribed in marble are not eternal."

Much of the first book of Franco-German history is devoted to the creation of the EU. "Through its willingness to co-operate with the Third World, its attachment to multilateralism, its dialogue with other regions, the EU appears as a model on the international scene," says the text.

Ten historians, five from each country, contributed to the book, which is published in both German and French and retails for €25 (£17).

Of course, M de Robien is right in his statement that nothing is set in stone, not even the European Union. On the other hand, given the CAP, the CFP, protectionist trade deals and many millions of euros spent on subsidizing bloodthirsty kleptocrats in position of power, I would question the EU’s record as a good world team player.

Mind you, one cannot help laughing over the following:

But political differences between Germany and France have surfaced over the role of the United States in Europe. "For France, traditionally the US is considered a great power which is a sort of rival," said Peter Geiss, one of the book's publishers. "That's not possible in Germany. For Germany, the US after 1945 has never been a rival. The reconstruction of Germany is associated with American presence."

How to deal with Communism has been another problem. While the Communist movement was of political importance in France in the 1950s and 1960s, it was associated in Germany with dictatorship, the East German regime and Soviet expansion.

While 80 per cent of the book's content is identical in the two languages, assessments of the US and the history of the Communist German Democratic Republic differ.

Other areas where French and German historians could not agree was on French colonial history and the Christian church.

What on earth is left in the textbook to fill up that 80 per cent? Not, I presume, the two world wars, or not in any detail, the occupation of France or French collaboration, the Franco-Prussian War, the invasion of German states by revolutionary and Napoleonic France or the Thirty Years’ War at the end of which France managed to grab a decentish chunk of territory, such as Alsace and Metz.

Personally I cannot wait for the book to be published in Britain.

COMMENT THREAD

Labels: EU propaganda, European history, France, Germany

Over at England Expects you can read a disturbing account of the state of play on the EU constitution, and the role of German chancellor Angela Merkel in pursuit of a resolution to the issue.

But, whichever way you cut it, hers is a high risk strategy with only a limited chance of success and, set against that, are the risks of re-opening old wounds which emerged during the French and Dutch referendum campaigns. It is something of a mystery, therefore, as to why she should be expending so much political capital on such a hazardous venture.

Part of the reason, however, may rest with the original reasons why the EEC was set up in the first place. And, to understand this, one must go back to 1950 when the "father of Europe", Jean Monnet, launched what became known as the Pleven Plan for a European Defence Community, held together by a European Political Community. This was to be bound together by the first version of a European Constitution, which is very similar to the document on offer today.

Monnet's action at that time was calculated specifically to anticipate Chancellor Adenauer's ambition to re-arm, building afresh a new German army. With memories of the Second World War still raw, Monnet (and indeed Adenauer) knew that the French would not permit German re-armament, except within a European framework, and that was precisely what Monnet proposed.

Ironically, in 1954 the French Assembly rejected the plan, but Adenauer still got his way, having demonstrated his European credentials. But, to reassure the French and other member states, each of the successive German leaders have had to re-affirm their personal credentials – and commitment to the "project". And now it is Angela Merkel's turn.

What is not properly appreciated in all this though is that the need for Germany to re-affirm its European credentials is more urgent and more necessary than it has been since that first affirmation by Konrad Adenauer. And the reason here is that, for the first time in its post-war history, Germany is beginning to develop a truly independent and assertive foreign policy – the very thing Monnet's original process of European integration was designed to prevent.

The most visible sign of this is the number of foreign expeditions in which German armed forces have participated, starting with the former Yugoslavia but including most recently, sending warships to Lebanon to work alongside the UN, leading the EU force in the Democratic Republic of Congo, and membership of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan.

As we pointed out in an earlier post, it is in Afghanistan that the independence of Germany is coming to the fore as her participation is not through European institutions but as part of a Nato force, currently led by the United States. And her decision to send Tornado bombers to Afghanistan, equipped to carry out reconnaissance has merely reinforced that independence.

However, as it was in 1950, any independent military capability exercised by Germany is a direct challenge to France, which since 1999, has given European military integration high priority, with the development of the European Security and Defence Policy and the establishment of the European Rapid Reaction Force.

Part of that programme was the integration of the French and German military transport fleets, to form a single European airlift command, based on the Airbus A400M military transport. But this aircraft had been delayed by the troubles over the Airbus A380 "superjumbo", leaving the Luftwaffe with ancient and inadequate Transall airlifters that must be replaced. Even without that, it was turning to the Americans to lease and possibly buy C-130 Hercules transporters, putting at risk the whole idea of a European airlift command.

It is not only here that close military co-operation is beginning to unravel. At the leading edge of military technology is the development of unmanned aircraft, which the newly formed European Defence Agency declared a priority for EU defence manufacturers. And hoping to lead a common European programme is the French with the expensive and ambitious Neuron programme, in which it would have hoped for German participation.

Almost as a snub to France, though, last week, the German Ministry of Defence (MoD) awarded a €430 million contract to EADS and Northrop Grumman for a joint venture, developing the US-designed Global Hawk long-endurance UAV as a Euro Hawk unmanned variant to carry out electronic intelligence gathering, surveillance, and reconnaissance. Not only is this system US-designed but it meshes with a similar system being considered by Nato, taking Germany further away from the French camp and its ambitions for a European Army, and into the US sphere of influence.

And, as we previously recorded, in Germany, there is a school of opinion that sees this as advantageous. It also sees the war in Afghanistan is a great opportunity for Germany – an opportunity to join the Anglo-American alliance. This harks back to the dream of Bismarck, which puts Germany taking over from France and leading Europe.

Such a view is undoubtedly worrying the French who are seeing their grip over Germany beginning to weaken – more so since Jung has told the Welt am Sonntag newspaper that he has not ruled out sending German special forces to the more violent southern regions of Afghanistan, where they would be directly invoked in fighting alongside Nato (but not French) allies.

It is developments such as these that create the pressure for Merkel to re-affirm that the Germans are, after all, "good Europeans". Thus Merkel must enthusiastically pursue the constitution as it is only this now that can demonstrate that German military expansion can be contained within a pan-European framework, reassuring the French that Germany is still under control.

The looming problem for Germany though is that her foreign policy and military ambitions are not compatible with total commitment to European integration. Going along with the constitution, therefore, can only be a temporary expedient. It is putting off the day when Germany is going to have to consider whether it is going to remain bound by Europe or strike out once more on its own. That day cannot be long in coming.

COMMENT THREAD

Labels: European constitution, Germany

A major political row has broken out in Germany following the news that the Cabinet has agreed to send six reconnaissance Tornadoes to Afghanistan.

SPD parliamentary leader, and former defence minister, Peter Struck, is claiming that the Tornadoes are being despatched on a war mission, while defence minister Franz-Josef Jung is arguing that reconnaissance isn't a war mission.

Pending parliamentary approval, Deutsche Welle is recording the reaction of the German press which, it says, is also questioning the nature of the mission and whether it breaches its "reconstruction mandate" in Afghanistan.

Up front is Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, which has run several articles (accessible here) followed by a caustic commentary headed: "A Little Bit Pregnant". "Behind all the efforts to limit the Tornados' task and not let it look like a war mission is the hope of being a little bit pregnant in international politics," the paper sneered. It did not approve of "Participating in what is considered an unavoidable fight (for the closest allies) against transnational terrorism and its supporters without having to get one's own hands too dirty, or even burn them."

Moreover, it added, while the aircraft can photograph also the flowers in the garden of the secretary of defense, in Afghanistan they are to locate the enemy so that it can be fought. The terrorist with a shoulder-launched air defence missile will not be making a fine distinction between the "good" reconnaissance planes and the "bad" bombers called up by them.

Berlin's Tagesspiegel noted that the politicians were not helping to clear up the matter with their ambiguous statements, asking, "So is it a war mission or not?" the Tagesspiegel questioned. "Probably both are right somehow,” it concluded. "Jung, when he says that the Tornados won't directly intervene in the fighting with their canons. Struck, when he says that the overall mission in Afghanistan is a war mission. It just gets a bit complicated when the government means two different things with the same word."

Die Welt commented that the Tornados "would not alter the character of the existing mission," arguing that sending the aircraft was a simple decision. "The government's decision to send the jets is practically a matter of course," it wrote. "They will contribute to improving reconnaissance in the Hindu Kush for the Bundeswehr, its threatened allies and the civilian population. Even more than that: it underlines the fact that Germany isn't ambivalent to the fate of its partners."

The Leipziger Volkszeitung took up the issue of Germany's responsibility as a Nato member. "The Tornado decision is a reaction to pressure from Brussels and Washington, but it's also a necessary consequence of solidarity with the alliance," it commented, adding that it would be irresponsible to leave the country in the Hindu Kush to the mercy of the Taliban."

With the parliament still to rule, it is by no means certain that final approval will be given, and the political strains arising from the debate could further weaken chancellor Merkel, who is looking increasingly disconnected.

And there is far more to this than just the deployment of a handful of combat aircraft. Their use in an overseas theatre goes to the heart of Germany’s emerging ambitions for an independent foreign policy, as well as being a yardstick against which her post-war rehabilitation can be measured.

Readers comments in Deutsche Welle are, therefore, of special interest and I was especially taken with this one from Charles Ritzel. He writes:

The war in Afghanistan is a great opportunity for Germany. It is an opportunity to join the Anglo-American alliance. This was a dream of Bismarck and could propel Germany to the leadership of Europe. The German people should not sit on the fence.

I suspect that this is not a mainstream view, but it is a view and it must worry the French who are seeing their grip over Germany beginning to weaken – more so since Jung has told the Welt am Sonntag newspaper that he has not ruled out sending German special forces to the more violent southern regions of Afghanistan, where they would be directly invoked in fighting, alongside Nato (but not French) allies.

In some respects, these developments are far more significant than Merkel's new-found but ultimately futile enthusiasm for the EU constitution. On the other hand, they may be connected. It has always been at the core of the post-war settlement that Germany military expansion should be contained within a pan-European framework, as is discussed in my colleague's prescient piece on the German national identity.

In that context, it would certainly be consistent with Germany's recent past if it sought to balance overseas military intervention with a commitment to greater European integration, in order to reassure the French that they remained under control.

But, to borrow from FAZ's line of thinking, you can't be "a little bit pregnant" when it comes to European integration either. It looks like we are creeping towards the point where Germany is going to have to consider who it wants to father its foreign policy.

COMMENT THREAD

Labels: afghanistan, Germany

My colleague's posting about the Luftwaffe in Afghanistan and some of the subsequent discussion reminded me that my long-planned piece on the need for German national identity was still unwritten.

Matter rectified. Here it is.

Labels: European history, Germany

In response to the call for more military assets to be sent to Afghanistan, the German cabinet has agreed to send six Tornado aircraft to the region to help boost intelligence gathering ahead of an expected spring offensive by Taliban insurgents.

About 500 crew and maintenance staff will accompany the aircraft to Afghanistan where Germany already has about 3,000 troops stationed, mainly in Kabul and the relatively stable northern region, as part of the NATO-led peacekeeping mission.

However, while Tornado pilots will be authorised to provide intelligence for Nato attacks on Taliban formations, they will not be allowed to use their bombs or missiles to carry out attacks, an official said.

By this means, they will be able to demonstrate the total moral superiority over the Americans, in avoiding any form of "friendly fire" incident. Furthermore, they will not in any way be able to cause any collateral damage. And if things get desperate, I suppose they can always bail out and give the Taliban a hug.

COMMENT THREAD

Labels: afghanistan, Germany

Those of us who grew up on the TV crime series Hawaii Five-O will fondly remember the last line of almost every episode with Jack Lord as Detective Steve McGarrett turning to James McArthur as Danny Williams to say: "Book 'im Danno. Murder one."

It took me a little while to work out that "murder one" is premeditated homicide while "murder two" is unintended homicide, such as accident as a result of an attack or self-defence or, even, the result of a sudden uproar.

It seems that we are to have similar distinctions in genocide. Genocide one would be that carried out with racist or xenophobic motives. Any other, common or garden genocide, such as the wholesale murder of the peasantry in Russia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan or various parts of China (to name but a few) will count as genocide two and will, therefore carry a less serious sentence.

By sentence, I do not mean a genuine legal entity, since none of the people responsible for genocide two (except for Saddam Hussein) have been charged, let alone tried or punished. But there is a sentence of world opprobrium and, clearly, genocide carried out for political reasons does not seem to be all that important.

Well, to start with, Germany, El Presidente of the European Union, has dropped plans to outlaw the swastika throughout the European Union because of various representations by Hindu groups. Of course, the Hindu sv'astika is different from the Nazi swastika, as Christopher Booker pointed out in response to the waffle presented by that all-purpose expert, Timothy Garton Ash, but, I imagine, the Hindu groups foresaw all kinds of complications and decided to nip this one in the bud.

Incidentally, the Hindu symbol adorns many a gravestone in British war cemeteries all over the world. Would they have had to be taken down?

As for the outlawing of Holocaust denying, Germany is pushing ahead with it, hoping that all EU members come to an agreement on that at the Luxembourg meeting on April 19 – 20.

"Public incitement of violence and hatred or the denial or trivialization of genocide with racist or xenophobic motives" should be criminalized EU-wide, German officials said in Brussels on Monday. "But the plan does not include a ban on certain symbols such as swastikas."

There are times when I read pronouncements by officials and politicians and nearly give up the will to live. What kind of an idiot thinks that public incitement or violence and hatred (something that is covered by the criminal law of all member states) is the same as the denial or trivialization of any historical event, however ghastly?

First of all, define trivialization. How does this solemn prig feel about Jewish jokes throughout the ages, whose aim was to trivialize the various problems the Jews faced. There are jokes about the Nazi system, about Jews in Germany under the Nazis and even about the death camps.

One of the most moving films about the Holocaust, though it dealt with the Italian side of it, was "La Vita e Bella", in which the main character hides his little son when the other children are gassed and pretends to him that they are at a holiday camp, playing a long and elaborate game. Trivialization? Well, I barely managed to contain my tears.

What of the whole genre of labour camp jokes that grew up in the Soviet Union? Oh sorry, those camps, even when they were part of attempted genocide, were not put up with "racist and xenophobic motives" or not overtly so. They can be trivialized and even denied.

As it happens a good deal of Stalin's ferocity was directed against specific national groups and all religions were at risk. What of the Chechens, Ingushi and Tatars who were deported wholesale at the end of World War Two? What of the second big purge just before his death that was seriously anti-Semitic? Of course, he was trying to exterminate or, at least, deport wholesale, Jews because they were "rootless cosmopolitans" not because they were Jews. That, presumably, makes it genocide two rather than genocide one.

This blog fully intends to campaign for the upgrading of genocide two. The denial or trivialization of the holocaust of the Ukrainian, Russian and Kazakh peasantry must be made illegal. I am looking forward to the first trial of famine-deniers. Perhaps, it could be that of Professor Eric Hobsbawm CH.

COMMENT THREAD

Labels: EU presidency, Germany, legislation

The move to make Holocaust denying illegal across the EU seems to have acquired legs, with the Commission supporting the German proposal and the egregious Justice Commissar Franco Frattini (he, who got his job because the original Italian candidate Buttiglioni was a devout and practising Catholic) announced somewhat pompously that he "very much welcomed and fully supported" these proposals.

I shall not bother to rehearse all the arguments against the ban, which have nothing to do with the horrible aspect of the event and of the need to know about it and to study it (though there are other things in history to study as well).

It is, however, gag-making to hear this sort of commentary:

While freedom of expression is part of Europe's values and traditions, its democratic societies also allowed to fight racist speech through penal law, the commissioner added.

Those European values and traditions (that, of course, include Nazism and the Holocaust as well) seem to be infinitely flexible. What Commissar Frattini should be dealing with is the fully acknowledged growth in anti-Semitic attacks across the whole of western Europe in the last few years. Most of these member states, including Italy, routinely post police guard outside synagogues because they are afraid of attacks that come from one or two barely acknowledged directions.

Compared to that, the denial of something that happened some decades ago, a denial that is, moreover, not taken particularly seriously by any respectable historian or commentator, is hardly of paramount importance. Is this another effort on the part of all our lords and masters to go for displacement activity rather than trying to deal with existing and growing problems?

As we have already said on this blog, should such a ban be proposed for legislation in the United Kingdom, we shall start campaigning for legislation that would make the denial of Communist crimes illegal. Alas, we have not enough space in courts or prisons to accommodate all those who have been and still are indulging in this activity.

Pic courtesy of: bigfoto.com

COMMENT THREAD

Labels: commission, EU presidency, Germany, legislation

... it's just we don't really like it when it does not go the way we want it to. Or so, clearly, reasons Martin Schulz, leader of the Socialist Group in the European Parliament. He is not happy about what the EUObserver quaintly describes as the centre right being sort of in power in the European Union.

The reason for this mini-flap is that the former leader of the EPP, Hans-Gert Poettering (pictured below), has been elected as president of the European Parliament, thus becoming the third vaguely right-wing person to hold an important position in the EU. The others are Commission President Barroso, whose right-wing credentials are questionable or would be if one knew anything about his politics, and Chancellor Angela Merkel, temporary president of the European Union, rather handicapped by the grand coalition she heads back in her own country.

None of this is the slightest importance, politically speaking. Merkel is in that position only till the end of June and the Toy Parliament that Poettering presides over is not exactly a power in the land. In any case, what matters in EU politics is attitude to further integration and greater centralized regulation. In that there is not much to choose between the left and the right, the division being between the main groupings and the smaller ones.

Nevertheless, Martin Schulz is finding the situation disturbing.

Socialist leader Martin Schulz told EUobserver that while he was "not concerned" by the set-up, he added that "We're here to ensure that this will not change into a dangerous situation."

Oooh-err! Those centre-right Germans and Portuguese can make any situation dangerous.

Herr Schulz is worried by another development and that is the formation of the new right-wing (or so we think, though many of them are old-fashioned socialist corporatists) grouping in the Toy Parliament, the Identity, Tradition and Sovereignty group.

Disregarding the fact that all these people were elected in their various countries, just as Herr Schulz was and that they have not actually broken any rules in the European Parliament (they have not even pointed out the criminal past of various Commissioners, as UKIP has done), he is demanding that they be deprived of their rights.

Immediately after the announcement of the 20-member group's formation, Mr Schulz wrote to leaders of the parliament's democratic groups, urging them to deny the new group posts under the proportional d'Hondt system of appointment.

In his letter Mr Schulz says: "We must not abandon this Parliament, which symbolises the integration of Europe, to those who deny all European values."

Oh dear, those European values again.

Let us for the moment set aside such awkward historic incidents as the Inquisition, religious wars, bloodshed on a large scale, concentration camps and various others I am too tired to mention. Let us take Herr Schulz's statement at its face value. Surely those famous European values, as represented by the Toy Parliament, include the concept of democracy and freedom of speech.

In that case, much as one may dislike what the various members of the new grouping say, as long as they do not break the law (and that contingency is provided for by their immunity) and are not linked to any terrorist or criminal organization, they are entitled to the rights and privileges (of which there are many) exactly as the Socialists are.

Of course, if our suggestion were taken on board and the European Parliament were abolished with consequent large savings to all of us, none of these problems would arise.

As this is unlikely to happen in the near future, let us consider what might emerge if one started banning people from taking the positions for which they were elected because some do not like their views. Can Mr Schulz answer for all members of his grouping? Have none of them expressed support for deeply unpleasant systems and leaders like Stalin, Mao, Ho Chi-minh or Mengistu? Have none of them wept over the wrongs of terrorists who openly say that their aim is to exterminate as many of their enemies as possible?

What of Glenys Kinnock, chosen at random, who came back from a study trip in South Africa and neighbouring countries before the end of apartheid and cheerfully admitted that she had not bothered to investigate conditions in SWAPO prison camps?

What of the various East Europeans who had been in their Communist parties before "seeing the light" not to mention the various goodies, and becoming all European in their attitudes? Should they not be deprived of various rights and privileges?

It seems that European values, so dear to the heart of Herr Schulz and Chancellor Merkel, do not include freedom of speech or of historical debate. Once again, it has been put forward as an aim of the German presidency, to make Holocaust denial illegal across the European Union.

Germany has set numerous goals in its 25-page programme for the EU presidency, including everything from securing Europe's energy supplies to outlawing Holocaust denial, improving Europeans' image of the bloc and getting serious about climate change.

This is beginning to be seriously boring.

Let us be quite clear on the subject. No event in history, however horrible, can to be immune from discussion, wrong-headed arguments, lies and denials. That applies to the Holocaust as much as the far greater numbers murdered by various Communist tyrants.

It made sense to pass that law in West Germany and Austria immediately after the war. Let us not forget, however, that both those countries have been democracies for nearly six decades and there is not particular evidence of that coming to an end. Far from spreading laws passed at a particular time in history to other countries, who are in no need of this sort of cleansing, it may be time for Germany and Austria to rethink the matter for themselves. They have grown up and can treat deeply unpleasant episodes in their past as mature democracies.

Alternatively, we might have to start campaigning for the outlawing of denial of Communist atrocities. And then where will Martin Schulz and his grouping be?

COMMENT THREAD

Labels: EU parliament, EU presidency, Germany

Spare a thought for the incoming "president" of the European Union. What can she say that is of the slightest novelty or interest to anybody, including herself?

Chancellor Angela Merkel laid out her country's plans for the next six months in her speech in the European Parliament. But a curious coincidence there was a great similarity between these plans and those laid out in July by the Finnish presidency and last January by whoever was taking over then.

Merkel began her speech by stressing diversity as a core European value, saying the EU had to be vigorous in defending its freedoms.

"Tolerance," Merkel said in one of the speech's central lines, "is the soul of Europe." Among the liberties in need of protection, she cited freedom to voice opinions that upset others, freedom to believe or not to believe in religion and freedom of artistic expression.

"Europe," she said, "should never have the slightest understanding for intolerance, for violence by right-or left-wing extremists or violence carried out in the name of a religion."

"Tolerance," she added, "digs its own grave, if it does not defend itself against intolerance."

The one thing that is slightly unusual is Merkel’s stress on left-wing intolerance as well as the right-wing variety. That should go down reasonably well with the East Europeans. After all, Merkel herself is from East Germany. Then again, even a cursory reading of European history would indicate that tolerance may not actually be the continent's soul or, at least, not much of the time.

Bureaucracy will have to be reformed and decreased – an aim emphasised by incoming presidencies for decades and ignored by outgoing ones.

There is another reference for the need to work more closely with the United States, which is really stating the obvious but not, perhaps, to the average European politico. Once again the subject of a free trade area between the United States and the European Union has been raised, as being of benefit to all. Well, I am not sure about that. It would be a benefit to some European countries but not to others. And, while we are on the subject, if a free trade area across the Atlantic is a good idea, why is it not a good idea across the European Continent (or other parts of the world)?

Of course, relations are not just about trade and the European Parliament needs its pound of flesh (so to speak).

Merkel said the EU needed to cooperate more with the US on the issue of climate change in the efforts to achieve a global environmental treaty by the year 2012.

"Access to energy and protecting the climate," she said, "are two challenges affecting all of humanity in our age."

Well, again, I am not so sure. Is terrorism not a problem that affects us all just a teensy-weensy bit? Presumably, having mentioned violence in the name of religion under the subject of intolerance (so hated by all Europeans) she does not feel she has to refer to the “t” word.

Nor is it entirely clear to me how she intends to “protect the climate”. Even by the standards of the sloppy talking that “global warming” and “climate change” invokes, this is a lulu. As for access to energy, Germany had better make some decisions about her ever-growing reliance on the less than reliable Russian energy producers.

So we come to the most important part, the European constitution, which, according to Chancellor Merkel, has to be solved soon or an important opportunity will be missed.

Merkel called for the issue to be resolved before the next EU parliamentary elections in 2009, warning that failure to do so would be "a historic mistake." She also stressed the need for the EU to have a foreign minister.

"The time for deliberation is over," she said. "We have to reach new decisions."

Who is this we, paleface? In at least two countries the people had reached a decision. Which part of no does Chancellor Merkel not understand? In some other countries, such as Denmark, Ireland and Britain, the people have not yet been asked. What happens if they say no, as well? How is Chancellor Merkel going to reach her decisions, particularly on that foreign minister, whose job remains unclear as there is still no agreed EU foreign policy, despite endless discussions on the subject.

But, as my colleague pointed out some time ago, there is a certain problem with that constitution in Germany. The Karlsruhe court, asked to look at its legality, announced that it would not rule until the other member states have made their decisions because they do not want to influence the political process in them, though how is the political process in Ireland any business of the German constitutional court is not entirely clear.

It seems those new decisions might have to wait on some more deliberations.

COMMENT THREAD

Labels: European constitution, Germany

The third day into the German presidency of the European Union and it is already boring. Yet again we hear that Angela Merkel is trying to promote, not exactly a free-trade area but some freeing up of trade between the United States and the EU. We heard this last year and, before that, it was an idea promoted by the FAES think-tank, presided over by the former Spanish Prime Minister Aznar. Well, it will give Chancellor Merkel something to think about as she clearly isn’t about to introduce any of those reforms in Germany (except for putting up VAT).

In the meantime, another country has joined the euro, Slovenia, the first of the former Communist states to do so, and probably for a long time. As the New York Times points out, the others are some way off from satisfying the criteria (as are many of those who are members) and have lost interest in the subject, not being able to see the benefits:

Lithuania, one of the first of the newcomers to break with communism, hoped to adopt the euro on Monday, but it failed to meet the European Union’s inflation test by 0.06 of a percentage point this summer. Poland failed to muster the political consensus in favor of joining, and is threatening to hold a referendum on the issue in 2010. Hungary, burdened by political instability, has abandoned its previous target of entering the euro zone in 2010. Even Estonia, a Baltic tiger lauded for its economic prowess, has decided to move back its entry date from 2008 to 2010.

According to the BBC, the Slovenians are overjoyed at the thought of being in the euro and inordinately proud of being the first East European country to have made it into the club.

Others describe certain doubts. There are fears that prices will go up and some worry that the benefits of EMU will not outweigh the difficulties. One market stallholder, who has seen off four currencies in her seventy years, has even expressed the view that, as an independent country, Slovenia, should keep its own currency. Hmmm. I have news for the lady. Slovenia stopped being independent on May 1, 2005.

COMMENT THREAD

Labels: euro, Germany, Poland, Slovenia

Sometimes it is difficult to tell whether it is real, or just a false perception, reflecting your own prejudices and sensibilities. But the recent theme of this blog that the European Union is a failed, decaying political construct does seem to have some substance.

Read for instance, this extract from a recent Reuters report concerning developments in Gaza:

Gunmen fired two mortar bombs at Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas's office in Gaza on Sunday, wounding at least five members of his personal guard as tensions with the ruling Hamas movement threatened to boil over.

Foreign Minister Mahmoud al-Zahar, a senior Hamas leader, accused Abbas's forces of attempting a "military coup" in Gaza after they overran two ministries under the control of the Islamists.

Zahar demanded the security men leave the ministries or else be arrested, a move that could provoke further violence. "What is happening is a real military coup, assassinations, attempted assassinations, the occupation of headquarters and ministries," Zahar told a news conference.

Now read an extract from this report from EU Observer, headed: "Chirac suggests bell to cut off 'endless' summit talks". It begins:

Boredom with seemingly endless EU summit discussions ran high on Friday, with French president Jacques Chirac suggesting to Germany's chancellor Angela Merkel that she use a "bell" to limit leaders' speaking time during her upcoming EU presidency.

Several EU leaders on Friday complained about the gruelling so-called tours de table which sees every member of the 25 - and soon 27 member - union have a say on the final wording of the summit conclusions.

A bullish president Chirac told journalists after the meeting that he had given chancellor Merkel, who will from January chair the EU for six months, small "advice" to "limit the speaking time of everyone to three minutes." "It is impossible for the council [EU leaders' meetings] that we speak endlessly while always saying the same," he said.

In my view, there are just too many threads coming together for this blog's thesis to be ignored. When, with so much going on in the world, leaders of the EU member states find their own creation "boring", we know it can only be a matter of time before the construct crashes and burns.

For sure, the EU is a huge apparatus, staffed by thousands of rent-seekers and supported by a massive salariat which depends for its position and influence on EU action. But readers may recall that in September we wrote a piece about how even the bureaucrats were complaining about the bureaucracy. Now their bosses are also complaining.

Looking at the "action man" picture above, showing Blair leaving Baghdad yesterday for Basra, to address "his" troops, you can quite see why he wanted to get away. Let's face it, being boss of your own country is so much more fun.

COMMENT THREAD

Labels: basra, constitution, EU, Germany