Work as if you live in the early days of a

Better Nation

Archive for category Europe

Five random things we learned aujourd’hui

Jun 8

Posted by The Burd in Europe | 9 Comments

Aujourd’hui, as in the day we learned them.  Which was yesterday – or ‘hier’ if you want to be pedantic – seeing as I could only get wifi access this morning.

Anyway, enough already of all this confusing time delay blether.

What are the five random things we learned on our first day in Strasbourg?

1.  The national tree of the Czech Republic is the ‘lipa’.

Or lime tree.  We know this courtesy of the very bright and talented intern working in the EU office in Scotland who is Czech and speaks better English and French than we two.  To our shame.  And we also know this because Strasbourg has lots of  boulevards planted with these trees and they are all in blossom right now.  The scent is magnificent.

Jealous yet?  Good.

2.  The European Parliament Facebook page has over 160,000 followers.

We know this thanks to the Head of Social Media for the European Parliament  – get us huh?! – who kindly gave an hour of his time yesterday to explain how the Parliament is engaging with social media and reaching whole new audiences.  We thought 160,000 followers was pretty impressive …. but they can always use more!

3.  The Parly shop sells newspapers in six languages

We were disappointed it wasn’t more but the clinging to the established languages of the Parliament – French, German and English – continues.  The banks of interpreters and translators has to be seen to be truly appreciative of the scale of this enterprise.  Think about it.  It’s not just English into however many member state languages there are but also all those languages back into English.  Awesome.

Sad to say, you can buy the Daily Mail in Strasbourg.  And before you ask, no we didn’t.

4.  All votes are held in Strasbourg and not Brussels

(This random thing comes from Malc so if it’s wrong, it’s all his fault…)  EDIT – it WAS wrong, and it IS Malc’s fault!).

The European Parliament packs its bags and boxes and literally does transfer en masse to Strasbourg one week out of every four.  And even though it is only here a quarter of the time.  Its mental.

Listen up, MSPs and MPs.  Today’s plenaries start at 9am.  Sharp.  There is the required lunch break at 12 noon – au naturelment – but also committees, press conferences, visits, meetings, delegations etc.  Plenary session is back at 3pm and continues through until about 7pm.  When everyone breaks for receptions, bar chats, then dinner and more work chat.  It’s all pretty intense.

Did I say we were loving it?!

5.  The single communist Czech MEP was the first Czech in space.

If we had asked the lovely Czech intern the right question, we would be able to tell you his name.  And while we thought this was a random interesting thing, apparently he’s not the only kinda celeb MEP.   Rest assured, we are on the hunt for more…..

And some of you might be relieved to know that as well as learning random things, we are also finding out about interesting, important things, which we will of course, be blogging on in due course.

A bientot….

 

Tags: ,

Scotland in Europe (Part I)

Jun 7

Posted by Malc in Europe, Housekeeping, Media | 7 Comments

As we get to grips with this new phase in Scottish politics – a first majority government and the likelihood that we will see an independence referendum within the next parliamentary term – there are many, many questions regarding Scotland’s place as a component part of these islands, within the European Union and indeed within the world.

Whatever your politics, Nationalist or Unionist, internationalist or isolationist, or anything in between, it is an exciting time for political discussion, for consideration of the big constitutional questions.

Over the next couple of weeks, we’re going to be considering some of these questions, particularly with regard to Scotland’s place in the EU, either post-independence or with a beefed-up devolution settlement within the UK.

To that end, Kate and I are visiting the European Parliament as it travels to Strasbourg this week to talk with some of Scotland’s representatives there about the role that Scotland can and will play within the EU among other things.  We’re looking for questions and angles etc, so if you have anything you’d like us to ask them, drop us a comment and we’ll see if we can incorporate it into some of the interviews.

Kate adds:

I’ve been to Brussels several times on EU business but never made it to Strasbourg.  And sad to say, I’m very excited.  (Malc is too but he’s just better at being cool about it all).

We should say that we are going courtesy of the EU who are keen to engage the political blogosphere in getting to know how the European Parliament works and importantly, follow the business that goes on there.  Navigating the website is lesson number one – it’s mind-boggling!

What issues are we hoping to find out more about?

The proposed new constitution for the European Parliament – Malc’s terrain.  I’ll just look interested and murmur oui ou non at all the appropriate points.

And – don’t laugh – but I’m keen to find out more about the recently announced changes to the Common Agricultural Policy and how they will impact on Scottish farmers.  A threat or a benefit? And when everyone is concerned about food security, will changes to farm subsidies hinder or help?

We’re both also keen to work out if the Charter of Fundamental Rights might feature in all its glory in the proposed UK Bill of Rights.  And not leaving children’s issues far behind, I’ll be exploring some new Europe wide initatives on violence and sexual exploitation of children.

Both of us are hoping to catch up with some old pals – Scotland is, after all, a village and we Scots are none more at hame than when we’re abroad.  We expect drink to be taken and nosh to be eaten and debate to be robust.

Getting to know our MEPs better and what floats their boat – and getting their take on the recent Scottish election result – as well as their priorities for the remainder of their term in Europe is our top priority.

We hope to have lots of exciting/snooze inducing (delete as appropriate) policy-heavy blogs to whet your whistle when we get back.  And just as soon as we’ve worked out how to navigate the website – say in 2020 – we’ll be doing more of this malarkey.

By the time you read this, we’ll be half way there.  They might be paying our way but they expect us to work for our bed and board – the red eye beckons.

So, until we return, au revoir pour maintenant.  Here’s to our Bonne Voyage!

 

Davis and Straw versus ECHR (2011)

Feb 10

Posted by Malc in Constitution, Democracy, Europe, Westminster | 82 Comments

Westminster is getting its collective knickers in a knot today over the issue of prisoner voting rights.

On the one side we have the European Court of Human Rights which suggests (nae, demands!) that the UK comply with their view that denying prisoners a vote in UK elections – at all levels – represents a breach of their human rights.  Failure to comply will result in… well, I’m not sure, to be honest.  Apparently the prisoners can sue for compensation, though how you put a monetary value on the freedom to vote I don’t know.

Anyway, on the other side we have Tory MP David Davies leading the charge, ably supported by former Home Secretary Jack Straw, arguing that when prisoners break their contract with society by committing a crime and are subsequently incarcerated, they give up their right to vote for the duration of their stay at Her Majesty’s pleasure.  Further, they argue, that while prisoners are of course covered by the Convention on Human Rights, that only extends as far as being fed and treated with respect – it does not extend to their ability to determine the government of the day.  Finally, neither seems to think the UK Government should be held to ransom by the European Court of Human Rights, arguing that “democratically elected lawmakers” of a sovereign state should have more say over their electoral arrangements than unelected judges and law-interpreters.

The upshot of it, as far as I can gather, is that we have a motion in parliament on the issue, and that both government and opposition front benches have been instructed to abstain in the vote while backbenchers have a free vote, though the vote itself is non-binding on the government.  David Cameron and the Conservative element of the government have signalled their displeasure with the European Court’s decision, though suggest that the UK has no choice but to comply, while the Liberal Democrats are likely to be (though I haven’t seen this in print) more sympathetic to prisoners’ claims.

Wherever you stand on the issue of prisoner voting rights (and though I tend to be more of a “rehabilitation-ist” than a “punish-punish-punish” type, I agree with the PM – it makes me a little ill to think that a prisoner who has no respect for the rights of others when s/he murders/rapes/assaults/burgles another citizen should be allowed to vote) this case opens up a lot of constitutional questions which the UK and the European Union are not prepared for.

In particular, can the UK continue to defy the European Court of Human Rights?  If so, what are the sanctions for such defiance?  When the UK signed up to the European Convention on Human Rights did it cede so much sovereignty that it no longer has control over its own franchise?  What are the ramifications for UK Parliamentary democracy if it has to take direction from Europe on law and order?

Needless to say, I’m just asking the questions – I don’t have all (or indeed, any) of the answers.  Perhaps some of our legal-minded colleagues may shed some light?  Either way, I watch this process unfold and await the outcome with some interest.

The Thin Red Line

Nov 4

Posted by Jeff in Defence, Europe | 14 Comments

As comforting as the word may be to a vulnerable little citizen like myself, I’ve always found ‘Defence’ to be the wrong choice of word when it comes to military spending. A shield or a bunker is a good form of defence but bombs, guns and warships are attack equipment, surely. Either way, the slice of spending that goes towards the military and MoD is surely the most primal of our country’s budgets and, unfortunately, one of the most expensive.

Attack may well be the best form of defence but it seems at the moment that Defence is the best form of cost-cutting diplomacy. The UK entering into a defence treaty with France this week is very welcome news. ‘Cheaper together, more expensive apart’ could sum up the philosophy behind the arrangement as the economies of scale that can be achieved through two similarly sized nations pooling resources and expertise could be considerable. I don’t know whose idea it is and I don’t know how much money will be saved but one can’t fault the coalition or David Cameron on this venture.

So why stop there? Why not bring Germany in, and Italy? That’s a diverse range of WW2 players all under the one umbrella which must make the continent, and indeed the world, an even safer place than it already is.

And why not go even further, why not just have one single European Army? Think of the money that could be saved and the security that would bring. How could Slovenia wage war on Denmark if they both share the same armed forces? A blurring of combat units away from national borders and towards UN, NATO and EU distinctions would surely make for a more integrated, harmonious planet.

Of course, the Tory right who cheered Cameron’s Treaty would balk at the distinctly pro-Europe prospect of a single Armed Force, even if there was a veto on where a country’s soldiers could be sent to fight. A convergent military across Europe would no doubt count as a red line for the current Government but a thin one that could perhaps be broken through if the argument was strong enough. After all, I don’t see why a single European Army isn’t just a simple continuation of the logic that brought Cameron and Sarkozy together.

In a strictly UK context it makes perfect sense too. A Scandinavian super-state was ruled out a couple of decades ago primarily because Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Finland had inconsistent views on NATO and the EU and defensive views were generally just too disparate to reconcile. (Not to mention Norway not wanting to share its lucrative oil revenues, but we’ll leave any such analogies with the UK out of things) Nuclear weapons to one side, it has not been particularly difficult for Scots, Welsh, English and Northern Irish to see Defence in the same way so there should be a capital of British confidence there, available to be spent on building up a bigger base, pooling costs and strengthening ties with allies.

There are of course political considerations involved. The unapologetically pro-EU camp has lost (or at least avoided) the argument on the benefits of Europe to such an extent that I no longer even know who is making that vital contribution at the upper political echelons. There is not many amongst Cameron, Clegg or Miliband’s ranks who would push for defence treaties beyond this one with just the French at this stage. David Cameron would no doubt need one of his somewhat absurd ‘sovereignty referendums’ if it went any further anyway.

So who could be in favour?

Well, I do not know the Green party position on this general area, if one even exists, but I would imagine that, with their peaceable nature, the Greens would be broadly in favour.

For the SNP, I would imagine that there are key advantages for Nationalists to be behind a single European defence force. It helps to nullify the ‘stronger together, weaker apart’ argument that all of its opposition parties delight in using. If the ‘together’ part of that phrase was Europe then it doesn’t matter if the ‘apart’ part is the UK or Scotland, as far as I can see.

A Europe talking together, working together, planning together and, where necessary, fighting together? All the while saving money to spend on schools, science and health? That’s real progress in my eyes, that’s Euro-topia and that, unbeknownst to the man or not, is the direction that David Cameron is now nudging us towards.

What would it take before you protested in anger?

Oct 21

Posted by Jeff in Europe, Westminster | 11 Comments

Westminster was besieged by Green activists this week, apparently promoting the need for a Green Investment Bank and reminding George Osborne that such a bank would provide jobs. I know this happened, not just because it garnered some press, but because some friends texted me to pass on the fun they were witnessing.

To me, this helped to confirm the notion that striking or protesting in this country is something of a novelty, a tabloid-friendly story involving people dressed as Batman or ripping off Father Ted quotes for comedy slogans. It seems to be a very British response to a very natural endeavour.

In France and Greece, to name but two placard-decked countries out there, you get the real deal. The French have gone berserk at the prospect of the retirement age going above 60 (ours is moving to 66) and the Greeks are steadfastly opposed to the poor having to bail out its stricken economy (their cuts pale in comparison to Osborne’s slashing of welfare yesterday).

So are Brits lazy? Right-wing? Sanguine? Feart? Why don’t we hit the streets with the same ferocity and passion that our continental neighbours do?

A simple question – what would have to happen before you would choose to protest or strike?

For me, I’m almost ashamed to say that I don’t really know what my tipping point would be. My only protest was on the lovely day out at the Make Poverty History march in Edinburgh but I couldn’t tell you what we were aiming to achieve, let alone if the march was successful. I do remember having a very nice ice cream though.

There is much at stake of course, jobs needlessly lost, a limp response to Climate Change and welfare snatched away for ideological rather than for manifestly practical purposes. Furthermore, much of what has been proposed and implemented on has no mandate (Seamus Milne has a great article on this in today’s Guardian). One could say we cannot go on like this.

I know it’s getting colder out there, the nights are fair drawing in and ice creams won’t be served, but will there come a time that we must man, woman and child the barricades?