Following my recent posts on national vs European identity and regionalism and the EU (as part of a vague attempt to get an idea of the nature and importance of geographical/cultural identity), this may be of interest – Why the end is nigh for regionalism in Europe, from The Lobby. Quick excerpt:

Up until recently this was very much not the case. The Scottish National Party had just won power in their (regional) Parliament in Scotland, the Basque terrorists ETA continue to plant bombs in Spanish coastal resorts, and Belgium was in danger of being torn asunder by its perennial north-south divide. In the Balkans the newly independent states of Kosovo and Montenegro demonstrate that similar regional aspirations have led successfully to self-determination (although Kosovo is still very much a work in progress).

“This apparently contradictory trend of both centralisation towards Brussels and devolution towards the regions looked to be the way forward – until along comes the biggest financial meltdown since the 1930s. Now it’s all about strength in numbers.”

Worth a look – though it’s worth noting that now that France and Germany are out of recession (with the Eurozone’s economy declining by just 0.1% in the last quarter), it looks like all the doomsday scenarios predicted by the economic experts (the self-same experts who failed to predict the economic collapse) may not be quite so catastrophically inevitable after all. If the economy starts to revive again, I’d expect a swift return to business as usual – because there’s nothing the EU does better than the same thing it’s always done…

I’m sure there’s more to be said here about how the first port of call for Catalonia is the national machinery of Spain (the example used in the post linked above) rather than the supranational machinery of the EU.

But I’m not sure how much that would necessarily say about the strength of regional identity in Catalonia – it’s more a comment on the relatively tiny amounts of cash the EU has at its disposal. (The EU’s budget? 139bn euros; Spain’s budget? 374bn euros.)

This tiny EU budget, of course, is something set by the member states. Because it’s not in their interests to give the EU too much cash to spread around – not only might they not be able to control where it goes, but it could also (as if the EU, rather than Spain, came to Catalonia’s aid) help bolster regional nationalist movements and undermine the power of the governments of the member states.

At the risk of annoying a second nationalist movement in a week, this is why – in the present circumstances – I can’t see Scottish independence as being a viable option: the EU simply can’t afford to fill the void that would be left by the withdrawal of UK/English funds.

If you haven’t seen these already, and are based in the UK, watch today via the really rather fun BBC iPlayer:

Jonathan Meades: Magnetic North – yet another top-notch contribution from the almost always fascinating Meades, this time looking at the shared culture of northern Europe. So good I can ignore his uncanny resemblance to my dear father. (Unfortunate fellow, my dad – HIS father looked just like Gregory Peck…)

If you aren’t aware of Meades, have a gander at his rather good take on Nazi architecture as well, and I can’t recommend his superb programme on Surrealism highly enough:

Also worth a gander via iPlayer is The Art of Spain: The Mystical North – the third (?) part of this really rather fun series from Andrew Graham-Dixon, not someone I’ve previously taken to. He’s certainly convinced me that Spanish art is well worth paying attention to, however – I was always more of a French/German man myself.

More (possibly) later – busy this morning.

You see, the thing about the EU is that it’s first and foremost supposed to promote and facilitate free trade. Of course, as not every country in the world is a member of the EU, what it’s ended up being is a kind of free trade area. (Only not a perfect one, obviously, thanks to the vagaries of cross-border economics, the lack of a pan-EU single currency and such like.)

But one of the biggest, most damning criticisms of the EU is that the Single Market amounts to little more than a customs union, a zone of economic protectionism for EU member states, which is doing more than pretty much anything (well, bar the Common Agricultural Policy, perhaps) to screw the chances of developing nations to grow their own international trade and compete on the global stage.

Well, too little too late, perhaps, but in recent years the EU has been making some vague noises as if it’s going to try to rectify this situation. Most of which, it must be said, have been due to external pressure, such as the recent battle with China over EU restrictions on clothing imports, or the discussions with the US a year or so back, during which the Americans offered to drop their agricultural subsidies to US farmers if the EU would likewise drop the CAP. (Thanks to France’s reliance on the current CAP arrangements, unsurprisingly this cut no dice. But had the deal gone ahead, lefties world wide would have ended up in the amusing position of having to revise their hatred of George W Bush, because if that proposal had been accepted then it would have done more to alleviate global poverty than pretty much any agreement ever… Heads would doubtless have exploded in confusion.)

The major reason for this change of protectionist heart is that the World Trade Organisation has also ruled that the EU’s current elaborate system of deals with non-EU countries (largely the “ACP countries“) is illegal. Dubbed “preferential trade agreements”, they were largely (if unconsciously) modelled on the deals France got in at the EEC’s foundation to allow former French colonies access to European markets, but have the added benefit of artificially stabilising prices. Fine for rich European nations – cheaper food. Rather worse, however, for poor African farmers, desperately trying to find a market for their meagre goods.

So, thanks to the WTO, all these preferential trade agreements have to be replaced with “economic partnership agreements” (EPAs) by the end of this year. The idea, coming out of the Cotonou Agreement of 2000, is to gradually remove all the trade preferences and barriers that have developed between the EU and the 80-odd ACP countries over the last 30 years, to allow much more free economic development, and a much more equal trading partnership. And, to ensure that the WTO doesn’t get annoyed again, the EPAs will be available to every developing nation in the world.

With only a few exceptions, such as arms and munitions (and, I believe, sugar and rice for some reason), this will finally begin to create a much more free system of global trade, and – hopefully – begin to allow less developed countries to get a few benefits from globalisation for a change.

BUT.

Thanks to Spain (and the EU’s continued veto system, which the failed constitution was to rectify) the entire deal could be screwed, because our Iberian friends have seemingly only just realised – seven years after the Cotonou Agreement was made – that, erm, Spain grows a lot of bananas, and so do quite a few of the developing nations that the new EPAs are being set up with.

Yes, yes it does seem like Spain may have completely missed the point of “free trade” here. But they are also threatening to use their veto if they don’t get some kind of exemption for bananas (elections next year, and they don’t want to risk losing the farming vote). This will, of course, open the floodgates to every other EU member state to start demanding revisions and exemptions for their own pet products. Which will, of course, defeat the whole object of the thing.

Still, I have a solution. Scrap nation states’ vetoes. Scrap nation states. Scrap elections. Appoint me first President for Life of the European Union, and I’ll sort everything out. It’s the only way we’re ever going to get anything done, by the looks of things. The EU needs countless reforms, both major and minor, but every time it looks to be getting somewhere some uppity member state starts getting all selfish on us, usually for electoral reasons, and screwing everything up.

It can’t just be me who’s getting annoyed with this childishly petty short-termism of our dear elected representatives, can it? These new arrangements could have a massively beneficial impact on some of the poorest countries in the world, but because a few over-subsidised farmers in the Canary Islands may be unable to compete on a level playing field, Spain’s prepared to sign the death warrant for countless poor subsistence labourers throughout the third world. I mean, I’m not much of a one for all this “Live8″ and “Make Poverty History” nonsense, being far too cynical for all that, but really: what a bunch of absolute bastards.

77% for, apparently. Of course, the ignorance of the constitution amongst the Spanish voters is just as high as it is in the UK. But they also know what it’s like to live under a genuinely totalitarian system, so may welcome the potential for EU-level safeguards (even if, in practice, they may mean very little). Oh, and the fact that Spain gets quite a bit (well, a lot) of money from Brussels may help as well, I suppose…

In short, this result was entirely predictable, and doesn’t really mean much in the grander scheme of things. Nonetheless, Barcepundit has all the information you could possibly require about the vote, and EU Referendum puts the expected Eurosceptic spin on the low turnout. Of course, a 40-odd percent turnout is indeed rather weak.

What would be more interesting would be to see how many of the people who voted have actually read the thing. I’d suspect significantly less than 1%… After all, in a vaguely related thingie (via Hispa Libertas, and a link to a moderately amusing comparison of the US and EU constitutions), and as I’ve said before, the US constitution is one of the finest political documents ever written; the proposed EU constitution is a rambling, confusing behemoth.

There is not a hope in hell that all – even a majority – of the people who voted in today’s Spanish referendum actually understood what it was all about. This is why you generally speaking don’t ask the average guy in the street to negotiate international treaties. Much as I’d prefer a qualified surgeon to be the one to poke around my insides with a sharp scalpel if I had to have an operation, I’d rather major decisions about international treaties were left to experienced statesmen and diplomats. Would you really have wanted Fred and Dora Ramsbottom from Harrogate to have been Britain’s representatives at the Yalta Conference? Would you have wanted Bert Entwistle from Dudley sat alongside Woodrow Wilson at Versailles? So why are we asking for their opinions about our latest international agreement? The mind boggles…

And yes, the fact that I am worried about how important decisions regarding this country’s future are going to be taken by people with little or no knowledge of the issues involved probably does make me both an intellectual snob and a prime example of the self-righteously smug arrogance of the pro-EU lobby.

(Oh, and ta to those of you who left kind words on my previous post. I wasn’t being overly serious – but it does seem that the bloggosphere needs a reality check every now and again. We’re just a bunch of politics geeks when it comes down to it, and are probably no more influential than that guy with the megaphone who rants on about Jesus down by Oxford Circus tube… Some of us, however, sometimes seem to take things too seriously and think we’re more important than we are – that’s all I was really getting at…)

Now there’s an idea. In preparation for their referendum on the EU constitution on 20th February, the Spanish dailies El Pais, El Mundo, ABC and Razon yesterday all provided free copies of the vast document with their regular papers.

Not a bad idea, and one that might bear copying in the UK should we ever get around to holding a referendum ourselves, although quite who would fancy trawling through that turgid document of a weekend I have no idea. The very first reason for rejecting it on this anti-constitution Spanish site is that it is way too long… They’ve got a point. I can’t see readers of The Sun getting too excited about having a 300+ page legal document come free with their newspaper. Perhaps they could tart it up a bit with commentary from topless lovelies?

In other Euronews, Gerhard Schroeder is leading calls to loosen the EU’s rules over budget deficits, writing in the Financial Times (behind a subscription wall) that “The stability pact will work better if intervention by European institutions in the budgetary sovereignty of national parliaments is only permitted under very limited conditions,” and thus setting the agenda for tomorrow’s meeting of all 25 European finance ministers. However, the German central bank seems to disagree with the Chancellor, noting that “a loosening of the budget rules could herald a paradigm shift of fiscal policy in member countries and lead to developments in economic and monetary union that make conflicts between fiscal and monetary policy more probable.”

I’ll confess to having no idea what either of them are talking about, but this problem of Germany and France flaunting the rules over 3% limits on budget deficits has been going on for ages now, and continually threatens new problems. Perhaps it’s time it’s abandoned, but then, what is the EU without its economic ties? This could continue to cause problems for a while… (Edit: EU Referendum has a good summary of what Schroeder’s article could mean, along with a few more quotes.)

Meanwhile the Tories have announced their ambitious tax cut plans, promising savings of thirty-five billion quid. Of course, had we not gone to war in Iraq (a war the Tories fully supported), the country would have saved significantly more than that – something the Liberal Democrats, who also launched their pre-election campaign today, might want to point out at some stage…

What to make of Batasuna, the banned Basque nationalist party, in its new calls for an end to ETA terrorist violence against the Spanish state, on the back of calls by some of ETA’s founders for the terrorists to lay down their arms? (Note: news of a possible new ETA attack – the first for nearly a year – could yet ruin this move to peace.)

The Basques have been unhappy with their lot in their part of northern Spain / southern France for centuries, with the Euskadi Ta Askatasuna (ETA) paramilitary group launching a number of terrorist attacks in both Spain and France for the last 40-odd years. They had a certain amount of success, assassinating the Spanish Prime Minister – and potential successor to Franco – Admiral Luis Carrero Blanco in December 1973 and so arguably helping bring the fascist Franco regime to an end. But the majority have been terrorist attacks plain and simple, killing a mixture of civilians, police and soldiers often indiscriminately: in all, ETA terrorist attacks have ended the lives of 817 people.

The Basques were certainly not fans of former Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar – the Bush crony who took Spain into Iraq against the people’s wishes. He repeatedly refused to enter into any kind of dialogue, taking the old line of not giving in to terrorists and oppressing the ordinary, apolitical Basque people in the process via a mixture of suppression of free speech (banning the Basque newspaper “Euskaldunon Egunkaria”) and political expression (the banning of Batasuna), and even state-organised torture of suspected terrorists and “terrorist sympathisers”. As we all know, Aznar initially blamed the Madrid bombs of March this year on ETA, despite the lack of evidence. Aznar was chucked out at the polls by a nation fed up with its government’s lies, and the Spanish people were slandered as a result.

New Prime Minister Jos� Luis Rodr�guez Zapatero effectively came to power on a promise of peace – both in Iraq and at home. To achieve this, the ETA problem must be addressed – will he take advantage of this new call from leading Basques, or adopt the “we don’t negotiate with terrorists” line which has only served to irritate more people in the Basque region by depriving them of the right to vote for a largely respectable party, or try a move towards discussions – following the British lead of talks with Sinn Fein, the IRA‘s political overlords?

Why shouldn’t the Basques have negotiations? British negotiations with terrrorists, or “peace talks” have worked in Northern Ireland – at least in as much as there hasn’t been an attack on mainland Britain by any Irish paramilitary groups for the last three years – why can’t they work in Spain?

More to the point, where the hell is the EU involvement in both these disputes? With any negotiation of this sort, a middle-man is a major help: US involvement in the Northern Ireland peace process was very useful – if only for its symbolic power, letting the Irish nationalists know that they wouldn’t simply have a settlement imposed upon them by their British overlords. Couldn’t the EU step in to help sort out the Basque/Spanish dispute?

If the initial reason for bringing Europe together as a community was to prevent another war on the continent, surely Brussels should think about getting involved in extinguishing such smouldering conflicts as have been going on in northern Spain and Northern Ireland for all these years?

(For more on the Basque dilemma, I’d strongly recommend Julio Medem�s superb documentary �La Pelota vasca: La piel contra la piedra�, or �Basque Ball� � a brilliant, dispassionately objective look at the conflict with interviews with participants and observers from all sides.)

As we all know, after the Madrid bombs, the sitting Spanish government was voted out of office. There was a chorus of disapproval from the States, accusing the people of Spain of giving into terrorists thanks to the assumption that their sole reason for voting the way they did was the bombing. Of course, it was more due to the fact that the government had LIED over the bombing, attempting to pin it on ETA when there was no proof whatsoever.

Ring any bells? A government accusing a highly unpleasant group which they have wanted to get rid of for ages of being involved in a terrorist attack when there is no proof whatsoever? Mr Bush? Mr Blair?

So, will the American people now follow Spain, and get rid of a president who has tried to blame a terrorist attack on an innocent (if highly unpleasant) third party? Or will they follow Spain in the way that Spain was accused of having acted, namely allowing terrorists to directly affect their elections?

Will the American people be affected by Osama bin Laden’s latest tape, or do the sensible thing and ignore him?