Everyone’s focussing on the collapse of the talks about Turkish entry (Guardian, Independent, Times, Financial Times, Le Monde (in French), Le Figaro (in French), EU Observer, Deutsche Welle (German press review – in English), EurActiv) – but, let’s face it, this was pretty inevitable. Turkey is still a long way from even the lax entry conditions the EU allowed for some of the 2004 accession countries – and as long as the Cyprus situation continues (not to mention the refusal of Turkey to formally acknowledge the Armenian genocide), there is blatantly going to be little progress. It will be some years yet before Turkey will be in any position to join the union.

Still, thanks to a combination of the sheer tedium of covering the EU and the fact that the potential for Turkish entry allows lazy leader writers yet more excuses to trot out the same old editorials about the potential problems/benefits/dangers of an islamic country joining the EU (hoards of dusky-skinned Mohammedans and the collapse of western European society vs. a long-overdue acknowledgement of the importance of Ottoman, Arabic and wider Islamic cultures on the development of the European identity, take your pick), this Turkey spat means that much of the other EU news of the last couple of days is going to be ignored.

Potentially most importantly, the ongoing extraordinary rendition investigations are about to finish, and everyone’s doing their best to ignore them, as 11 EU states will come in for criticism in the final report:

“Italy, the UK, Germany, Sweden and Austria saw terrorism suspects snatched on their territory the report by Italian socialist MEP Claudio Fava will say, while the UK, Germany, Ireland, Portugal, Spain, Greece, Cyprus, Italy, Romania and Poland hosted hundreds of secret CIA flights.

“The density of the flights – suspected of being used for ‘extraordinary renditions’ or transfer of prisoners without trial or legal redress to sites such as Guantanamo Bay or Uzbekistan – was the greatest in Germany (336), the UK (170) and Ireland (147).”

So, 170 rendition flights from UK airports. Despite the government having denied knowledge of any of them? The UK is also going to be branded “uncooperative” by the report. And, it is worth noting – if unlikely that it will come to this,

“EU justice commissioner Franco Frattini has in the past clarified that any EU member states caught violating ‘fundamental human rights’ could face suspension of EU voting privileges under articles six and seven of the EU Treaty.”

Meanwhile, while the current EU members are busy obfuscating in an attempt to hide their close collaboration with the US in the war on terror (the EU? Working closely with the US? Surely not!), the problems of enlargement and what to do next continue to hang around in the background, largely unaddressed.

Even so, we have news that the current Finnish EU presidency has been conducting research to try to work out ways of reviving that damn constitution, which “could be a useful step in keeping the constitutional process alive”. They’re going to present the findings of their research at a summit in a fortnight’s time, prior to handing over the presidency to Germany, (where Chancellor Merkel looks to be facing all kinds of domestic political disputes that will most likely result in the German EU presidency achieving even less than did Blair’s).

So, a year and a half after the rejection of the constitution by French and Dutch voters, the message still hasn’t been fully received. Reform is necessary – even vital – but not THAT reform. But as long as the dithering continues, the more screwed the EU is going to get.

As it is, the failure to work out how to split the budget between 25 member states rather than 15 – something, one would have thought, that it would have been sensible to work out BEFORE enlagement – means that the EU is now having to rely on its neighbours for charitable donations. Yup, the Swiss people have just voted to contribute one billion Swiss francs (c.£440,000) to help out the 10 accession countries, who are all still waiting for the promised cash that was supposed to help them bolster their economies enough to actually be worthwhile partners (just as the likes of Britain, Spain, Portugal , Ireland and Greece have all been helped out in the past). Instead, the EU seems to be more concerned with developing its core – again something that should, surely, have been done before expansion?

The EU, it would seem, is in sore need of some fresh blood and some fresh ideas if all its political leaders can do is continue to attempt to recycle the failed d’Estaing constitution and strive after further expansion. I’m not sure if George Soros is quite the right person to look to, but we must be able to learn SOMETHING from the United States (other than how to cooperate with the CIA in whisking terror suspects off to be tortured, of course). The US, after all, is surely the federation whose success Europe should try to emulate, even if not its precise form?

The original aims of the EU’s founders have in part come to pass – after all, France and Germany are unlikely to go to war any time soon – and in part failed utterly – for there is little sign of complete political union ever happening. The current aims of the EU are, however, at best unclear.

Having expanded its territory to cover most of the continent, the union is having a major mid-life crisis in the run-up to its 50th birthday. As so many 50-year-olds seem to discover on reaching their half century, it’s sort of done what it set out to do, but just not quite as well as it would have liked.

So – is it going to buy a fast car, dye its hair, and go cruising for fresh excitement and challenges; simply accept what it is, buy a cozy cardigan and pair of slippers, and get on with the few things it can actually do well; or get so stressed out by its decades of little failures that the mid-life crisis turns into a full-scale breakdown?

Something is going to have to happen soon. Although, with Merkel’s current precarious position in Germany and the French presidential elections not happening for another few months, it is unlikely to kick off until at least the latter half of next year. In the meantime, every little scrap could be important.

He really just doesn’t get it, does he?

“A new contract between the state and the citizen setting out what individuals must do in return for quality services from hospitals, schools and the police is one of the key proposals emerging from a Downing Street initiated policy review.”

Does he even get what the “social contract” is all about? It’s one of the fundamental ideas underlying the British political system, not to mention the birth of modern concepts of liberty and liberalism. Blair’s decision to bring it up – though in a deeply, almost offensively garbled manner – shows once again that his understanding of political theory is rooted firmly in the 17th century. And not the right bit, either: this is Hobbes, not Locke.

You see, the fundamental things that Blair’s missing are that

• a) the social contract is a theoretical concept to explain the development of political subjugation and interrelationships, not a physical, legally-binding piece of paper of the kind he’d have us all sign
• b) the social contract is not imposed upon the people by the state, but upon the state by the people, outlining just what government owes its citizens in order for them to continue to owe the government allegiance

Ignoring the royalist Hobbes (the interpretation of whose theories is, in any case, fraught with ambiguities), in the past, the concept of the social contract was generally advanced from below – the people giving away some aspect of their rights to the state, usually in return for guarantees from the state of protection, order and such like. When contract theory began to advance was usually at time of crisis – during and after the English Civil War, following the deposition of James II at the Glorious Revolution, during the French Revolution and during the American War of Independence. On each occasion, the concept of the social contract was used to demonstrate that the state had betrayed its side of the bargain, not that the people owed more to the state.

Of course, a written social contract could work fine, were – say – the state to agree that if it failed to provide adequate policing, schooling etc. then the citizens affected would no longer have any obligation to pay taxes. But the Blair version of the social contract is a complex and inconsistent beast that seems merely to heap yet more obligations on to the citizen, while removing responsibilities from the state based on the actions of individual citizens. At a glance, and assuming some logical consistency and, well, common decency and reciprocity within the plan, removing obligations from the state might sound like a good thing to some – small government and all that – but this is Blair we’re talking about. Please note the ominous words in that Guardian report,

“what is expected from citizens (beyond paying taxes and obeying the law)” (emphasis mine)

This is not about reducing the size and scope of state/governmental control, but increasing it – because nowhere is mention made of us mere citizens (well, subjects, actually) gaining anything new out of this proposed contract system.

In the original concept of the social contract, the benefits were obvious – peace and security rather than anarchy and chaos. The suggestions of what these new contracts could be made to do include conditions on access to the NHS, to education and even (implicity) to the police’s protection. Blair’s cunning concept of the contract is to reduce the state’s own obligations while increasing those of the people, so that it will be the people to blame when everything comes crashing down – for not upholding their end of the deal.

To an extent, this is a logical offshoot of Blair’s constant efforts to shift the blame throughout his time in office – be it Scottish and Welsh devolution (giving the new executives just enough power to be able to blame them when they cock it up, but not enough so that Downing Street can’t claim a hand in their successes), the localisation of public spending and law-making (again, enough power to blame the councils for tax hikes, but not too much so that central government can’t claim to be the source of beneficial reforms), the whole idea of allowing hospitals and schools to determine their own spending priorities and the like.

Tony has rarely been directly responsible for the failures of the last nine years – he’s always made sure there’s a slight buffer between him and having to take responsibility for his decisions. Even to the extent of (it would seem) trying to set up his mate Lord Levy as fall guy for the loans scandal, and ensuring his other mate, Lord Goldsmith, fixed his legal advice to support the Iraq war to allow Tony to simply say “but the lawyer said it was right, blame him”.

With this new cunning plan, however, (especially with the idea of “individual contracts between parents and schools” implying microscopic levels of detail), Blair would finally divest himself of all legal responsibility towards the people. Anything goes wrong, any public service fails to get delivered – “ah, but you didn’t abide by the terms of your contract”.

Once again, it seems, Blair needs to update his political philosophy library. Rather than this silly fixation with Hobbes, he should get up to speed with Locke, Rousseau, and the American Revolutionaries. Perhaps, most importantly, he should take heed of Proudhon:

“What really is the Social Contract? An agreement of the citizen with the government? No… The social contract is an agreement of man with man; an agreement from which must result what we call society.”

Because, as Rousseau pointed out, with the social contract what is created is a collective will and a collective, mutual responsibility:

“Each of us places his person and authority under the supreme direction of the general will, and the group receives each individual as an indivisible part of the whole”

What Blair is proposing, in forcing a literal, physical contract between the state and individual citizens, is a destruction of this collective obligation between citizens. He is proposing the destruction of society itself.

Update: A Blair and Hobbes footnote

A passage from Chapter 15 of Jonathan Israel‘s superb Radical Enlightenment: Philosophy and the Making of Modernity 1650-1750 (Oxford University Press, 2001), on Hobbes’ conception of liberty – which bears some striking parallels to Blair’s apparent belief system:

“In Hobbes, liberty of the individual is reduced to that sphere which the sovereign, and laws of the State, do not seek to control: ‘the liberty of a subject, lyeth therefore only in those things, which in regulating their actions, the sovereign hath praetermitted’…

“All participation in the political process, the making of law, and forming of opinion is hence excluded. Hobbes indeed disparages the republican, or positive, concept of freedom… Such liberty he deems antithetical not only to monarchy but to political continuity and stability, accusing those addicted to such ideas of ‘favouring tumults’ and ‘licentious controlling the actions of their sovereigns’. The political liberty republicans extol he considers a ruinious illusion, a mythology manipulated by agitators and factions for their own ends, to undermine and weaken the sovereign.”

Replace “republican” with “liberal”, you’ve pretty much got Blair’s attitude…

Finally, an admission from the government, in Ruth Kelly’s speech launching Britain’s own Truth and Reconciliation Commission, the Commission on Integration and Cohesion:

“Muslims feel the reverberations from the Middle East. Wider global trends have an impact.”

So despite all the previous denials, foreign policy DOES affect British muslims’ attitudes? Glad we’ve finally got that one sorted.

There’s also a nice nod to Godron Brown’s recurring desire to define what it means to be British with questions about “who we are and what we are as a country” – and even an acknowledgement that multiculturalism may encourage “separateness” to keep the Daily Mail on board. There’s also a subtle adoption of one of the Tories’ most controversial slogans from the last General Election:

“We must not be censored by political correctness”

In other words,

“It’s not racist to talk about immigration”

The only trouble is, of course, that despite Kelly’s assurances that this new Commission “is not, and must not be, a talking shop… [but] a practical exercise”, it’s incredibly hard to think of this government having done anything genuinely practical in the last few months (at least). All we seem to have had is talk and pointless shows of state strength – be they endless assurances about the state of the NHS or high-profile (but ultimately proven to be mis-timed and mis-placed) counter-terrorism raids.

Believe me, I’d love nothing more than to be able to find something positive in politics again, but for the last few years there’s been nothing about HOPE in the rhetoric of any of the parties, merely fear. Fear of the Tories, fear of terrorists, fear of Europe, fear of economic collapse, fear of immigrants. The few times our politicians have appealed to our aspirations rather than our night terrors, their promises have proved to be either empty or ill-founded, their policies soon either abandoned or altered in the face of adversity.

Even Kelly’s speech, which seems to be trying to promise a brave new world of cross-cultural harmony, focusses more on the current negatives than the possible future promises. She asks about “who we are and what we are as a country”. I’m rather worried that the answer to both may be “distrustful wannabe-isolationists” – and that refers as much to the Don’t Attack Iraq brigade as the Little Englanders…

Yesterday: Major terrorism policy announcement by Home Secretary John Reid

Today: A ‘plot to blow up planes’ is apparently foiled, and Heathrow airport shut down.

And my first reaction? Utter disbelief and a sigh of resignation.

They’ve simply cried wolf too many times before – until I see the smoke I won’t believe them, and even then I’ll have my suspicions. Remember the tanks at Heathrow just before the Iraq war?

Update: For the record, I reckon this plot probably was real – but my first reaction was still “that’s bollocks”. Desensitising people to this extent through the constant “oooh! Be scared!” announcements is utterly counterproductive.

It does, however, mean that I can carry on with my life utterly unphased by the fact that lots of people want to blow me to shit.

More coherent thoughts: We used to be told that we will not give in to terrorism. We used to be told that we will not change our way of life in the face of this new threat. Now we are told that we MUST change our way of life.

The threat of terrorism is very, very real – you’d have to be a fool to deny it. But the clue is in the name – the point of terrorism is to cause terror.

The terrorists themselves have been remarkably inefficient at scaring the bejeezus out of us, which is their prime modus operandi. They have successfully struck in the West remarkably few times – 9/11, Madrid, 7/7. With the exception of 9/11, the death toll caused by these psychotic maniacs has been, in the grand scheme of things, insignificant, and even the property damage and disruption caused has been relatively minimal.

Instead, it has been our own governments who are terrifying the populace with their constant warnings and announcements of foiled plots; it is our own governments who are causing disruption through airport and railway closures.

Terrorism thrives on the oxygen of publicity. “Martyrs” look forward to being remembered and noticed. So why do we constantly do their PR work for them? Why do our governments keep using their publicity machines to propagate the terror that the terrorists want to cause?

Yes, we obviously need to act quickly and effectively to prevent more attacks. I don’t want our governments to sit back and do nothing to prove the point, and I’d far rather we have a few more Forest Gate raids, non-existent Ricin plots “uncovered”, and a few more people arrested for allegedly trying to buy radioactive substances that don’t even exist than see one single other person killed for the twisted beliefs of a tiny, rabid minority. But I do dispute the effectiveness and sense of the current tactics, which appear to be little more than to ensure that we all have a good scare every few months, supposedly to keep us on our toes.

One thing I do agree with Home Secretary John Reid about is that we can’t afford to get complacent. But the more often you get scared, the less impact those scares start to have, and complacency begins to set in.

Our dear national leaders are meeting today in the Belgian capital to discuss the little problem of the EU no longer having tedious little things like “a purpose”, “a direction”, or “a viable way of continuing to function for more than the immediate future”. As the BBC’s Mark Mardell rightly points out, the chance of anything genuinely constructive happening at this summit is somewhat akin to my chances being appointed editor of the Daily Mail.

Yep, it’s all yet more fall-out from that bloody constitution, which in some quarters is being treated like the beloved pet you lug down the taxidermist’s so you can stuff him full of straw in a “life-like” pose and leave him lying round the sitting room in a really rather sad act of self-denial. Meanwhile, sensible types dug a shallow hole out in the garden and shoved the poor bugger in long ago, saying a quick prayer and hoping that the local foxes don’t dig up the bones.

In other words, this summit is all about one group asking “where next?” and the others asking “where next for the constitution?” The fact that they can STILL deny that the thing was well and truly put down by the French and Dutch a year ago ensures that the latter group will well and truly stop any progress being made in allowing the EU to get on with coming up with processes to tackle the many problems it faces – despite them maintaining that they’re the most enthusiastic “Europeans” of the lot.

Here’s a tip, chaps. It you love someone who’s ill, the way to help them get better is to try and find them a cure that will work. The constitution has already been rejected. That particular medicine has failed. It’s time to try something new. Because if you leave the lurgy for too long, some parts will become so sickened that the only option left will be amputation.

But enough with these tediously overwraught analogies.

The prime reason that this summit is going to fail is because it’s being conducted between the 25 Europeans not only least capable of understanding the people of Europe, but also least capable of forming a sensible, mutually-beneficial solution to a trans-continental problem: the political heads of the 25 member states.

The major problem, of course, is that none of these 25 national leaders can risk seeming weak. Remember Blair (entirely sensibly) offering a compromise on the British rebate last year? BLAM. He’s portrayed as weak, caving in to the French, and betraying the national interest. Remember Chirac offering a compromise on anything, ever? Of course not – his eye is firmly on the French electorate and the desperate struggle to maintain power. The same is more or less true for all the other politicos in Brussels for today’s summit.

But an added problem – especially for a summit one of whose aims is to discuss how to increase “transparency” – is that these national leaders are precisely the same people who make up the Council of Ministers*, the single worst offender in terms of accountability and openness of any EU institution. The Council has repeatedly insisted on a secrecy and almost total lack of accountability that would make many dictators envious – yet it is the Council of Ministers’ members who are going to come up with solutions to the EU’s “transparency” problems? Yeah, right…

The only way – as I’ve argued before – to come up with a workable plan for the future of the EU is really rather simple. We need to find out what everyone wants from the thing. Currently the only opinions that get heard on a regular basis are the extremes – abolitionists at one end, political unionists at the other. The opinions of the people of the EU are not that simple or extreme.

But if the people are not consulted – as they weren’t in the drafting of the failed constitution – then the politicians who are consistently failing to come up with a plan will have no guidance on what might work. They’re desperately stabbing around in the dark with a rubber sword, hoping to skewer a passing solution while all the solutions are happily putting their feet up in a different room. But even if a solution was to be had, few of the other politicians could agree to it lest they appear weak, and unable to find one of their own.

And so it continues. Another pointless summit at which nothing will be decided. The decision will be deferred again. And again. Until, one day, the last-minute compromises on which the EU has been so reliant for the last few years will fail to materialise any more. The already present cracks will widen, and the whole edifice will start to collapse.

For people who profess to be trying to find the best solution to help the EU continue to grow and strengthen itself, the lot in charge are doing a great job of destroying it. For those of us who can acknowledge the EU’s many and major problems, yet want to see it do well, this whole charade is getting increasingly depressing.

* The Council of Ministers is properly known as the Council of the European Union – not to be confused with the Council of Europe (which is very different and not an EU body), but also not to be confused with the European Council, which IS an EU body and has pretty much exactly the same rules and members as the Council of the European Union, yet is subtly different for some obscure reason best known to its members – the political heads of the EU member states. It is as the European Council, not as the Council of the European Union, that the heads of the EU member states are meeting in Brussels today. Clear?

It has been a full year since the rejection of the EU constitution by France (29th May) and the Netherlands (1st June) – and still the European “political elites” (their phrase, not mine) can seemingly agree on only one thing: the failure of the constitution to connect with the people was the fault of, erm… the European political elites. They’re not wrong.

But of course, while it’s all very well to have a post-match analysis that goes on for a year, and while these constant discussions doubtless have their uses, the problem persists that as long as the EU tries to find a one size fits all solution, nothing will ever be solved through the organisation’s many committees. Nothing that actually does the job, at any rate.

There is plenty of room under the EU umbrella to incorporate both Belgian Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt (recently the author of a book somewhat anachronistically entitled “The United States of Europe”) and the more nervous likes of Britain, Denmark – even Norway and Switzerland. Hell, done right, partial membership could easily be extended to the likes of Ukraine, Turkey and even some north African and central asian states – a juicy carrot promising more goodies if they behave themselves.

It is the less stable countries on the EU’s eastern and southern periphery that are currently posing the most problems for the continent as a whole, be it through criminal gangs or immigration, so it is those states on which attention needs to be focussed. Get them on board, and a lot of the EU’s problems could be solved.

To that extent, Verhofstadt is right in arguing that “The Union must continue to grow. This is the only guarantee for lasting peace and stability in Europe”, even if he goes on to make a huge logical leap in claiming that political union is the only way forward.

Of course, what Verhofstadt fails to acknowledge is that in order to grow, the EU must have somewhere suitable to expand. Currently there is nowhere. Some of the new member states who joined two years ago had not really reached the right levels of economic performance to join the club – hell, arguably France and Italy haven’t got the right levels of economic performance to join the club…

Yet expansion was allowed in 2004 at least in part to save face – a sign that the great European project is still on track and positively craved for by those countries not yet lucky enough to be members. It was as much a message to existing member states as it was an extension of friendship and hope to the new ones. With future expansions, this would become ever more the case – unless Switzerland, Norway and Iceland can be persuaded to join, the EU is fresh out of economically and socially-sound neighbours.

And so, with expansion at its current limits and with no obvious way forward, a year after the constitution was rejected it still remains the best hope of the self-same elites who approved it. The one major problem it would have provided is the one thing thaty all political leaders can agree is needed – political leadership. With 25 member states, an EU President and Foreign Minister could have provided focus in a way that the Commission simply cannot. With the constitution’s rejection, however, that is not – for the time being – to be.

Unfortunately, as the last year has shown, with not a single major European leader capable of providing guidance to their fellows, the political elites who were responsible for the constitution may be able to churn out reams and reams of text discussing the problems, but can rarely boil down the solutions to bit-sized chunks – because they can’t come up with any solutions. Many argued prior to the constitution’s rejection that what was needed was not hundreds of pages of legal jargon, but a short, snappy statement of principles – a “We, the people…”, a “We hold these truths to be self-evident…” Currently the trans-continental committee is incapable of agreeing on even something as basic as what count as human rights.

Pinning all their hopes on a constitution that none of them were truly happy with, they still haven’t reached the obvious conclusion: it is time – if only temporarily – to reject the one size fits all model. The very existence of the Eurozone proves that it can be done – and add to that the complex Venn diagram of European relations that brings in the Schengen Agreement, Council of Europe, EFTA and the like, you have the beginnings of a model that everyone could be happy with. A core Europe of Eurozone states who can happily push forward with political and economic integration whenever they please, with various decreasing intensities of membership on the periphery.

The logic of this to me seems obvious. They’ve given the one size fits all approach a fair attempt, but it was already under pressure with 15 members all having to reach unanimous agreement, let along 25 – hence the introduction of “qualified majority voting” in a vain attempt to get SOMETHING done by forcing reluctant member states to accept the will of a majority.

But while EU-sceptics from all over the EU frequently complain that their contries are being pushed down a route they don’t want to take, rarely do they use the other, more subtle argument: the more sceptical countries are holding the EU back. This is an analogy I’m sure I’ve used before, but it remains true – as long as the EU is forced to go at the speed of the slowest child in the class, the brighter kids are not only going to get increasingly frustrated, but they’re never going to reach their full potential.

The way the British system works is that the legislature makes the laws, and the judiciary then applies them. If, as head of the executive (and therefore the person responsible for ensuring that new laws that pass through the legislature are well-written and clear in intention) you fail in your duty of providing good laws, then blaming the judiciary for applying them in the way set out in the legislation you are responsible for having drawn-up is pathetic buck-passing.

In other words, Tony, if the Human Rights Act is flawed (which it arguably is), then it is not the judges’ fault – it is yours. And after nine years of successive bad laws having been orchestrated by you and your government, one might argue that rather than reforming the judiciary it is instead time to make changes to the executive which has given the judges so many bad laws to apply. Starting at the very top.

It is certainly not an indication that new laws are necessary, when it is in fact perfectly feasible – not to mention significantly faster and cheaper – merely to amend the laws which you cocked up when passing in the first place.

With such a basic lack of understanding of the British legal system you have to wonder just how our dear Prime Minister ever managed to qualify as a lawyer.

Update: Forgot to mention – the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill remains one of the very worst of all Blair’s bad laws – even after the supposed concessions. Its broad wording and lack of any real specificity, backed up as this is by government assurances that the bill will not be used in dangerous ways when passed (without incuding any such safeguards in the wording of the bill itself) are typical of Blairite legislation. Judges, when faced with such vague legislation, have no choice but to interpret it to the letter. So despite the assurances, the judiciary would have no choice but to back any minister who decided unilaterally to abolish elections or the right to trial as, thanks to the current vague wording of the bill, this would be entirely within the law.

Piss off, chum – if you hadn’t done such a half-arsed job of drawing up a draft constitution for the EU we wouldn’t be in this mess.

Yep, the chap who headed up the Convention on the Future of Europe that produced the unweildy breezeblock of text that was categorically rejected by French and Dutch voters last year (for reasons which no one – no matter what they may claim – has any clue about thanks to the simple “yes / no” set-up) is still trying desperately to resuscitate his baby, despite it having dead and buried for a good six months (full text .pdf):

“the rejection of the constitutional treaty in France was an error which will have to be corrected”

No, mate – the constitution itself was an error which will have to be corrected.

The content of the rest of his talk, delivered at the London School of Economics on Tuesday evening, demonstrates precisely why he was exactly the wrong man for the job of creating a document designed to unite the continent behind a series of set ideals.

He mentions the six-monthly shift in presidency as a flaw in the current arrangement (which it is), but not thanks to practicalities – lack of a coherent policy agenda, inability to present one external face for dealings with the rest of the world, lack of a single spokesman to express the “EU view” on the rare occasions such a thing could be said to exist. Instead, the flaw in the current system is that it “is totally inadequate for building a strong political union of Europe” – when these days it’s arguable that a majority even in continental Europe do not want such a thing.

He then expands this assumption of what “the people of Europe” (his phrase) actually want into an insanely outdated teleology that could have been plucked straight from the mouth of one of the EU’s overly idealisitic post-war founders:

“The political Union of Europe is not a circle, periodically coming back to the same starting point. It is a trajectory, leading from a starting point to a final goal.

“This trajectory may take time, may face new obstacles, but it is a waste of time and energy to keep on reopening the initial debate.

“The ultimate goal of the political union is to give Europe the institutional framework which will enable it to carry out common policies at European level.”

We’ve already got common policies being carried out at the European level, old chum. But it is by no means certain that “the people of Europe” have any desire to increase the supranational decision-making process. Because – ignoring the differing opinions between different states – on the few occasions when they have been consulted the questions have been far to broad to draw any real conclusions from the answers.

And let’s not forget that I’m pro-EU.

He goes on to argue that

“It is no longer a matter of debating what we want to do, but of determining how to do it.”

But this is yet another nonsense. The world, as you may have noticed, has changed rather considerably since the 1950s foundation of the Union, and again since the 1980s heyday of negotiations for the current set-up. The Union itself has expanded to 25 members, a number of whom are still recovering from half a century of poverty and oppression. It’s no longer a rich boys’ club – yet the likes of Giscard d’Estaing would like to carry on as if nothing has changed.

So dear Valery’s assertion that federalism is still the thrust is as idiotic as it is inflammatory. The insistence on a “one size fits all” approach to closer union is insane when looking at the vastly differing concerns of the member states. As it is, recent weeks have seen announcements of core members banding closer together through single energy markets (a logical evolution of the initial Coal and Steel Community); we already have the Eurozone; some member states have opt-outs from the Schengen Agreement.

Much as the thick kid at school shouldn’t hold back his brighter classmates, so his cleverer fellows shouldn’t force him to move onto the next text book before he is ready. If those who share Giscard d’Estaing’s vision of a future Europe are so keen, let them charge ahead and form broad, all-encompassing common policy zones. But if they keep trying to drag the more reluctant members along with them, no one will end up happy. Let us thickies stay in the remedial class practicing our addition while you lot skip off to practice long division in the top set – but don’t tease us for not understanding what you’re doing, because the dense ones are generally more likely to beat up the smug spods. It’ll all end in tears.

Giscard d’Estaing’s vision of a future happy, united, federal Europe is, as far as I’m concerned, a rather nice one. But it’s not even remotely likely for at least another couple of hundred years, so there’s no point in forcing it.

In the meantime, it is not the French and Dutch “No” votes nor British, Danish or Austrian euroscepticism, but the self-satisfied likes of Giscard d’Estaing, with their constant rhetoric of “I’m right, everyone else is wrong, and you’re all stupid for not listening to me and doing what I say”, that is the single biggest obstacle in the way of the EU’s advancement.

You want a federal superstate? Fine, you can dream. But it’s not going to happen in your lifetime or mine, so why not accept the facts and shut the hell up? All you’re doing in the meantime is stirring up shit and making it a lot harder to sell the realistic potential benefits the EU could offer if it were able to take a time out and re-think its current “one size fits all” strategy.

Next year will see the 50th anniversary of the signing of the Treaty of Rome. In half a century much has been achieved, but no matter what Giscard d’Estaing may say, the failures and confusions of the last couple of years would tend to suggest that it is precisely the initial debate which needs to be re-opened. The only thing that seems certain is that the EU is not agreed on its future heading.

A quickie to try and clear up a confusion I’ve seen on a few blogs around the place who seem to think that Magna Carta guarantees British (well, English) people certain freedoms:

The Magna Carta “rights” thing is a complete myth. It never granted anyone other than a few barons any liberties – the attempt to argue that it did began in the 17th century with Sir Edward Coke, and was expanded upon by the Parliamentarians to justify their entirely illegal revolt against the King. Even if it did grant any rights, hardly any of it remains in force.

In fact, there are not, nor ever have been, any guaranteed rights in this country. Not until we signed up to the UN, that is. The way the English constitution works (Scotland is rather different) ensures that nothing can possibly be guaranteed within the nation state itself – only external obligations can compel our government to abide by what many consider to be basic human rights obligations. There is not, nor ever has been, anything in English law that can secure civil liberties.

(Oh, and an additional problem? Legally speaking, any attempt to introduce a codified constitution granting inviolable legal rights to the people would itself be unconstitutional, and therefore illegal and easily repealed by any later government that wished to… The only way to ensure certain rights is to sign up to strict external obligations to force the national government to abide by set rules of conduct – one of the benefits we would have got had the now dead EU constitution been ratified and put into force.)

Talk Politics on top form once again, highlighting the details of deliberately confused legislation:

“The provisions which appeared in the first draft of the Bill, when glorification was a separate offence, which limit its applicability to terrorist attacks in the last twenty years plus anything before that put explicitly on a designated list by the Home Secretary is no longer part of the Bill – taken to the letter of the law, glorification covers any terrorist or terrorist act at any time in history or just terrorism in general.“

There’s a handy list including a number of the usual suspects – Nelson Mandela, George Washington etc. – who arguably used terrorist tactics (if terrorism is defined in the broad terms the government generally seems to prefer – namely “using violence to secure political ends”), just to undeline the insanity.

It’s easy to forget, however, that two of the documents most frequently held up as the foundation of the modern British political system also arose from acts which could easily be defined as terrorist.

Magna Carta was signed on 15 June 1215 as a concession following a protracted (para-)military campaign, including surprise attacks on government buildings and the assasination of leading government figures. It has practically no legal standing these days, but many hold it up as the first document extolling the virtues of the rights of the people over the state (even though it was no such thing).

More damagingly, the Glorious Revolution of 1688 was settled after a military force invited by a group of men who held no political office came to London and surrounded the Palace of Westminster until Parliament agreed to give the crown to William of Orange. A modern equivalent would be if a group of nutjob Islamic fundamentalists took it upon themselves to invite Osama Bin Laden to surround Westminster with his barmy army, intimidating our representatives into instigating Sharia law and declaring Osama to be king.

The handy thing is, as there’s no accepted definition of terrorism, it would be entirely possible to argue (and a number of historians have) that the Glorious Revolution was a terrorist act. And please note the name. That’s right, “Glorious” – glorifying terror if ever I saw it.

The post-1688 political settlement (which is in any case founded on an illegality, as the parliament which gave William the throne had no legal right to exist, and no legal right to depose James II) is usually summed up by the Bill of Rights (which, like Magna Carta has practically no impact on anything, other than as a nice(ish) ideal), but also includes the setting in stone of the concept of no one being above the law and the sovereignty of parliament.

Strictly speaking, as William III was illegally made king following his threat of force, he had no right to give away powers rightfully belonging to the crown, and none of the monarchs who followed him had any legitimacy to grant more powers either, as all of their powers as monarch were based upon an illegal power-grab founded on what was arguably an act of terrorism.

By merely being in office, Tony Blair is glorifying and legitimising terrorism. If he really meant what he says about clamping down on terrorist glorification, the current Royal Family would be booted out and the Stuart line restored in the shape of King Francis II; parliament’s powers would be greatly curtailed to remove all those it has gained since 1688; the Cabinet would be abolished along with the office of Prime Minister as the King returns to government by Privy Council; all crown lands sold or given away in the last 300 years (a sizable chunk of the country) would be returned to King Francis; all currency issued by the Bank of England would instantly be illegal for its glorification of a false monarch and for having not been issued by a legal Royal Mint; Scotland would become an independent nation once again as the Act of Union is inistantly abolished; the Elizabethan Corn Laws would return to replace the welfare state; and the majority of the population would lose its voting rights overnight as we return to male-only voting based on property qualifications.

If these things are not enacted as soon as the current Terrorism Bill passes its final vote, the government must prosecute itself for glorifying and condoning terrorism merely by existing.