Democracy in action - by Richard...eureferendum.blogspot.com

Democracy in action - by Richard...eureferendum.blogspot.com

So they say. It barely got any publicity over here, and then the crowd was reported "in the thousands" when one estimate was 1.2 million.

The Guardian did note that the size of the demonstration on Capitol Hill "took the authorities by surprise", but dismissed it as "the largest manifestation yet of the angry anti-Obama sentiment being whipped up among rightwing Republicans." 

The organisers of the march, we were told, "represent a ragbag coalition of disparate groups, joined at the hip by their hatred of Obama's perceived radicalism. They include right-wing thinktanks such as the Heartland Institute, small government campaigns like Americans for Tax Reform and Tea Party Patriots, and internet-based protest networks such as ResistNet."

So that's alright then. Right wing nutters - we can ignore what they say and carry on with what we are doing. Freedon works, say the organisers, but only if you are a "liberal", it seems. If it had been anti-Bush rally, it would have been all over the front pages here.

COMMENT THREAD

Permalink

Up his own passage - by Richard...

Lord Drayson believes science journalism is in "rude health". Yea ... right! And still the virus spreads. Says Daniel Hosseus from the German Shipowners' Association: "it is a very significant voyage ... It is the first time that commercial ships from western countries have used the Northeast Passage or the Northern Sea route as a transit from Asia to Europe or vice versa." 

It isn't, but hey! This is the MSM, so it must be right.

The drivel goes on and on, reaching even China, thus demonstrating that stupidity is a truly international phenomenon. As for the "virgin wilderness" about which this author laments, he should read this. Despite this, there is no evidence that the polar bears are glowing in the dark.

COMMENT THREAD

Permalink

More news from up north - by Helen...

I don't mean Yorkshire. I leave that county to the Boss. Further north, where the Vikings dwell to this day.

It seems that the Icelanders are determined to provetheir political masters wrong. For some reason they seem very reluctant to accept their destiny in the European Union. Could it be because they can see what happens to those who have accepted it? Surely not.

EU News from Iceland tells us that opinion about EU membership is becoming more and more negative. A new poll was produced by Capacent Gallup for the Federation of Icelandic Industries, whose leadership, naturally enough, favours membership. What is it with leaderships of trade organizations? OK, maybe I do know the answer.

However, the results are not such as to gladden the heart of the average industrial leader.

According to the poll 43.2 percent of Icelanders are unhappy with the EU application the Icelandic government delivered in July after it was being accepted narrowly by the Althing, the Icelandic parliament. 39.6 percent are happy with the application.

More than half of Icelanders, or 50.2 percent, are opposed to joining the EU while 32.7 percent favour the step. In another poll by Capacent Gallup published in August where the same question was asked 48.5 percent were against EU membership and 34.7 percent were in favour.

Finally 61.5 percent said they would vote against EU membership if a referendum was held now, 38.5 percent said they would vote in favour. Of those 38.6 percent said they would definitely vote against but only 16.1% said they would definitely vote in favour.

It looks a little as if we shall not have the Icelanders joining us in our insane attempt to destroy all the fish in the Atlantic.

Meanwhile, on the other side of the political spectrum and a little closer to home, geographically speaking, the Swedish Secretary of State for European Affairs, Maria Asenius, told EurActiv something many of us have known all along: the Lisbon Treaty is important but not that important to the EU. (Here is the link but for some reason the article appeared only on the German version of EurActiv.)

It is, however, easy enough to work out what she is saying: the EU can function quite well without that treaty (there seems to be some worry about it being ratified in the few countries left and that does not include Britain) and can, should it wish to do so, continue with its amoeba-like endless enlargement.

Open Europe's blog has a little more on the subject. One wonders how they can square these blatant pronouncements with their own notion that all will be well if the EU simply followed their ideas on reform.

COMMENT THREAD

Permalink

An amalgam of ignorant drivel - by Richard...

You would have thought that the first thing a commissioning editor might do before accepting a piece written by a contributor is check that the writer knows what he is talking about.

Such utopian ideals, however, do not apply to The Daily Telegraph. In continuing its series on the European Union, it invites Jack Thurston, co-founder of a website on Common Agricultural Policy subsidies, to argue the case for CAP reform.

The man has no idea of the history of the CAP, no knowledge of the political motivations of its founders or of its role as a tool for European integration. He thus makes the classic mistake of taking it as an agricultural policy, and basing his arguments on that false premise, making a case for "reshaping the budget". And with that, he concludes with these immortal lines:

Reshaping the budget along these lines will reaffirm Britain's commitment to a European Union that is, first and foremost, a free trade area offering choice for British shoppers and opportunities for British businesses, but is also a permanent strategic alliance that enables a group of small and medium-sized countries to meet the global challenges that are too big to be faced alone.

Of course, the European Union is not, never has been and never will be a free trade area.It is a customs union. Anyone who does not know that, or appreciate the difference, is not even past first base. They have no authority because they simply do not know that they are talking about.

Yet, that is the myth that drives much of British policy and attitudes to the EU, particularly amongst the faux eurosceptics in the Conservative party. They are committed to something that does not exist, something that has never existed except in their own imaginations, yet which sustains their beliefs that the underlying purpose of the EU is benign.

And here we have The Daily Telegraph hosting a "debate" on the EU, purporting to inform its readers – yet all it is doing is perpetuating the same old tired myths with the usual amalgam of ignorant drivel which passes for informed comment.

It is no wonder that, when "Europe" is brought up, people switch off. Swathed in ignorance, the commentators have nothing to say other than repeat the same old garbage, never getting to the heart of the matter. They bore us into submission, avoiding the real story, which would have the population in the street, demanding that we quit the evil empire.

COMMENT THREAD

Permalink

 the melting pot - by Richard...

click to listen

The  recording a conference organised by the Cato Institute on the general theme of whether the US should withdraw militarily from Afghanistan. In a number of taut, well-presented speeches, the arguments were powerfully put, giving much food for thought.

Unfortunately, Cato has not produced a transcript, but they do have a blog which adds some interesting comments. And the theme set by Cato is very much mirrored by the International Institute for Strategic Studies. It argues that the growing influence of fanatical Taleban-style groups in Afghanistan and Pakistan has thrown into doubt the value of an expanding war effort, setting out its stall for a reduced military presence.

There now seems to be emerging a clear divide between the foreign policy establishments on both sides of the Atlantic, and the military, the latter represented by US Chief of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen, who is arguing for more troops and resources.

He is clearly supported by the British military establishment, with Bob Ainsworth speaking for them, rejecting "the proposition [that] a reduced military presence will lead to less Taleban success." Actually, that is not the issue. The strategic threat – which was used to legitimise out intervention – is al Qaeda and not the Taleban. The latter is regarded as a localised problem and, as the conflict develops, increasingly difficult to separate from Pashtun nationalism.

When it comes to al Qaeda, current strategic appreciations suggest that this is no longer a significant issue in Afghanistan and, when it comes to the use of military force, it was never the case that successes against this shadowy, decentralised group have been achieved by massed military might. 

We are devoting our resources to fighting the wrong enemy, so the argument goes. Preventing Afghanistan from becoming a safe haven for those who would conduct external terrorist activity does not require a massive "nation-building" exercise in that country. 

The drag of Afghanistan, however, was very much on the mind of Ainsworth, who delivered along speech yesterday to the Centre for Defence Studies and the War Studies Department at King's College. In it, he referred to the forthcoming defence review, pointing up the need to "consider carefully how to apply military force in pursuit of national security."

Noting the obvious, that there are competing demands on the public purse, he went on to say that we will need to be better at spending the money we have, and more rigorous in prioritising what we spend it on. That much was picked up by The Daily Telegraph which also reported Ainsworth's observation that there did not seem to be much public appetite for increased defence spending.

He was, he said, looking for "a serious and wide-ranging national defence debate," inviting the Conservatives and the Liberals Democrats to take part, arguing that defence of the nation should always come before party politics. "We have to be able to reach beyond our political differences and put the interests of the country first," he said.

That is unlikely to happen though, and nor does it look as if we are going to get a serious debate. After Osborne's intervention yesterday he is now accused in The Times of "posturing" on defence cuts. Even a Tory frontbencher was driven to complain that Osborne had been "amateurish". It is very hard to disagree. With virtually every aspect of defence in the melting pot, we need more serious input than what he had to offer.

COMMENT THREAD