Gideon Rachman

Column by Gideon Rachman in the Financial Times


Europe ditches clarity and embraces obfuscation
By Gideon Rachman

Published: June 25 2007 17:32 | Last updated: June 25 2007 17:32

At two o’clock on Saturday morning I got chatting to an official in the bar at European Union headquarters in Brussels. Several floors above us, the leaders of the 27 EU countries were still arguing about how to change the text of the Union’s ill-fated constitution. “If you want to understand what they are doing,” mused my friend, “you should look at Nabokov’s book Pale Fire”.

It struck me that I was unlikely to find a copy of the great Russian émigré’s 15th novel lying around at that late hour, so I settled for the next best thing – an internet search. A short critical essay that I came across immediately brought to mind some striking similarities between Pale Fire and the draft agenda for revising the constitution.

“Pale Fire”, I read, was a “prime example of the literature of the exhaustion”. That certainly seemed right – given that it was now four in the morning. Vladimir Nabokov’s novel was a “labyrinth of dazzling complexity”. This too rang a bell. But the real clincher was the fact that in Pale Fire, the footnotes are longer and more important than the text itself. The book starts with a poem, which is “gradually co-opted by the commentary”.

That is, more or less, what happened in Brussels over the weekend. EU leaders began their meeting with a constitutional text. Then, over many hours, they added endless footnotes, protocols and “clarifications”, which became more important than the original text itself.

The result is almost impossible to read or understand. And that is entirely intentional. Many things happened at the summit. But perhaps the most important was that the EU finally abandoned the idea that it wants ordinary Europeans to understand what it is doing.

The abandonment of “transparency” brings the EU full circle to where it began when the idea of writing a constitution was dreamt up six years ago. Back then it was conventional wisdom that one of the Union’s biggest problems was that European citizens found it so hard to understand. Why not simplify the complex mess of interlocking treaties and incomprehensible language into a single, readable document?

Big mistake. It turned out that once Europeans were told what the EU was really doing, they were often horrified. The new, admirably transparent constitution was rejected by large majorities in referendums in France and the Netherlands in 2005.

It was as if a manufacturer of tinned meat had suddenly decided that it would be a good idea to put a large notice on the front of the tin, stating: “This product contains reconstituted cows’ udders.” How surprising and hurtful that sales should fall as a result.

What the EU decided to do at the summit was to put all the stuff about the repulsive ingredients that make up the Union back into tiny print on the side of the tin – or, in this case, into footnotes to the constitution.

A commitment to “undistorted competition”, which sounded alarmingly liberal to the French, was cut out of the main text – but then restored in a protocol attached to the main document. The charter of fundamental rights – which upset the British – was similarly removed from the treaty and put into a protocol, and then further qualified by a massive footnote.

Perhaps the best illustration of the process is the question of the “primacy of EU law”. It has been the case for many years that European law overrides national law. Back when the constitution was being written, it was decided that it would be admirably transparent if the document included the first explicit statement of EU legal primacy.

The problem was that while lawyers and EU officials regard legal primacy as merely a statement of the obvious, many ordinary Europeans still find the idea that foreigners should be able to overrule their national parliaments unpleasant. One opinion poll in Britain found only 10 per cent support for the idea.

So European leaders have decided to work round this problem, by removing the statement of European legal primacy from the main constitutional text – and burying it in a footnote. Footnote one of the document agreed over the weekend reads: “Whilst the article on primacy of Union law will not be reproduced in the TEU, the IGC will agree on the following declaration: ‘The conference recalls that in accordance with the settled case law of the EU Court of Justice, the Treaties and law adopted by the Union on the basis of the Treaties have primacy over the law of the member states.’ ” Is that clear? I do hope not.

This is part of a pattern. European leaders have gone through the constitution painstakingly replacing anything that is too clear with something more obscure. The word “constitution” itself has been ditched in favour of “reform treaty”. The word “law” is being dropped in favour of “regulation, directive and decision”. The mooted EU foreign minister is now to be called a “high representative”.

It is not just clear language that has been abandoned. Any procedures or decisions that were easy to understand – and therefore potentially distressing to the public – have been deliberately complicated.

Take the voting system for deciding EU laws (or rather, directives and decisions). This was the point that almost caused the summit to collapse, because the redistribution of power from Poland to Germany was too clear. So the leaders have come up with a series of baffling obfuscations. The new voting system will not come into force until 2014 – and then will run alongside an alternative voting system for a further three years. At any point, the Poles will also be able to invoke the Ioannina compromise. (Don’t ask.)

In producing a document that is stuffed with nonsense like this, the EU is reverting to its true nature. Like most of the novels of Nabokov, EU treaties have never been widely read; but they have nonetheless attracted a reputation for obscurity and immorality, alongside a faint whiff of perversion. EU officials found this upsetting – and the constitution was a brief, disastrous effort to put things to rights.

This weekend marked the end of the EU’s experiment with transparency and popularity. Like Nabokov, the Union will once again inspire interest only among a small band of specialists, devotees and deviants.

gideon.rachman@ft.com

Post and read comments at www.ft.com/rachman

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2007

Protocol on Services of General Interest

Presidency Conclusions, page 22

The High Contracting Parties,

Wishing to emphasise the importance of services of general interest

Have agreed upon the following interpretative provisions, which shall be annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the Union:

Article 1
The shared values of the Union in respect of services of general economic interest within the meaning of Article 16 EC Treaty include in particular:
- the essential role and the wide discretion of national, regional and local authorities in providing, commissioning and organizing services of general economic interest as closely as possible to the needs of the users;
- the diversity between various services of general economic interest and the differences in the needs and preferences of users that may result from different geographical, social or cultural situations;
- a high level of quality, safety and affordability, equal treatment and the promotion of universal access and of user rights;

Article 2
The provisions of the Treaties do not affect in any way the competence of Member States to provide, commission and organise noneconomic services of general interest.

Most Awesome Economics Research Ever

"Attack Assignments in Terror Organizations and the Productivity of Suicide Bombers"

NBER Working Paper No. W12910

Contact: EFRAIM BENMELECH, Harvard University - Department of Economics, National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER)
Email: effi_benmelech@harvard.edu
Auth-Page: http://ssrn.com/author=439564

Co-Author: CLAUDE BERREBI, The RAND Corporation - Labor and Population Studies, Princeton University - Department of Economics, RAND Corporation
Email: berrebi@rand.org
Auth-Page: http://ssrn.com/author=362324

Full Text: http://ssrn.com/abstract=963743

ABSTRACT: This paper studies the relation between human capitalof suicide bombers and outcomes of their suicide attacks. Weargue that human capital is an important factor in the productionof terrorism, and that if terrorists behave rationally we shouldobserve that more able suicide bombers are assigned to moreimportant targets. We use a unique data set detailing thebiographies of Palestinian suicide bombers, the targets theyattack, and the number of people that they kill and injure tovalidate the theoretical predictions and estimate the returns tohuman capital in suicide bombing. Our empirical analysis suggeststhat older and more educated suicide bombers are being assignedby their terror organization to more important targets. We findthat more educated and older suicide bombers are less likely tofail in their mission, and are more likely to cause increasedcasualties when they attack.

Best Monty Python Sketch Ever

Coolest thing ever

L.S.,

As it turns out, the US State department has a special site devoted to debunking anti-US Conspiracy theories. This has to be the coolest thing ever!!!

P.S. For everyone out there watching the new TV series Jericho, even a cursory application of the kind of thinking my dear colleague Marija Bockarjova will soon receive her Ph.D. for will easily show that things would be much worse still. (The show is about the aftermath of a gigantic nuclear attack on about a dozen US cities, leaving much of the country glowing in the dark.) Without capital goods, there's no way to pay for any imports, so no cars, generally nothing that runs on oil, no primary inputs except what you can dig out of the ground with your own hands, etc.

Rolling Stone's 25 best Rock Rumours Ever

Source

1. Paul McCartney is or has ever been dead.
2. Stevie Nicks’ assistant had to blow coke up Stevie’s ass due to Nicks’ destroyed nasal passages.
3. Mama Cass died after choking on a ham sandwich.
4. Angie Bowie caught her husband in bed with Mick Jagger.
5. Mark David Chapman was an assassin programmed by the CIA.
6. Members of Led Zeppelin pleased a teenage groupie using a red snapper/shark as their sex toy of choice.
7. Jim Morrison was killed by members of the Nixon administration/faked his own death/died from a heart attack brought on by masturbating in a Parisian bathtub.
8. Deborah Harry was once abducted by serial killer Ted Bundy.
9. Keith Moon drove a car into a Holiday Inn pool on his 21st birthday, knocked out a couple of teeth and got the Who banned for life from all Holiday Inns.
10. Gene Simmons had a cow tongue grafted onto his own tongue after a car accident.
11. Rod Stewart/Lil’ Kim/Jordan Knight had to get their respective stomachs pumped after ingesting a gallon of semen.
12. During a drug bust on Mick’s place Marianne Faithfull was once found with a Mars bar between her legs.
13. Marilyn Manson had his lowest set of ribs removed so he could blow himself.
14. Alice Cooper and Frank Zappa attempted to gross each other out by shitting onstage, then eating it.
15. Bob Marley was assassinated/given cancer in his toe by the CIA.
16. Phil Collins’ tune “In the Air Tonight” was written after Collins witnessed a gruesome incident in which one man let another man drown.
17. Keith Richards routinely has in the past/continues today to get full-body blood transfusions.
18. Jack and Meg White are brother and sister.
19. “Hotel California” is about a Christian church that was abandoned then taken over by Satan worshipers, the Eagles are Satan worshipers and Satan him (or her) self appears in the window on the album jacket.
20. Bob Ezrin, who produced Lou Reed’s Berlin, got the anguished children’s cries you hear on “The Kids” by telling his own children their mother was dead and recording the sounds they made.
21. Pearl Jam was named after a peyote-infused jam Eddie Vedder’s grandmother used to make.
22. Charles Manson auditioned for the Monkees.
23. Marilyn Manson played Kevin Arnold’s friend Paul Pfeiffer on the Wonder Years.
24. Robert Johnson sold his soul to the devil in exchange for his guitar-playing gifts.
25. Roy Orbison was an albino and wore dark glasses because he was blind.

Chris is going far, far, away...

L.S.,

Now it works:

Link

Me Skiing

The first three pictures were taken on the Glacier on the Zugspitze, this one was down in Ehrwald. (Taking it easy with the snow board...)

Saskia skiing

Why it may not be right to consult the people

By Peter Sain ley Berry

EUOBSERVER / COMMENT - You may be forgiven for not having noticed but the grand European Citizens Consultation exercise has entered its final phase. This idea grew out of the reflection into which all Europe was thrown following the upset of the failed constitutional referenda in France and the Netherlands.

One element was to stimulate a dialogue with ordinary people; to ascertain the views of ordinary folk as to how Europe should develop. This assumed that they both knew and had the time and inclination to say so; Both always slightly dubious assumptions.

Thus began Plan D - for Democracy, Dialogue and Debate - launched by Communications Commissioner, Margot Wallstrom. This embraced a number of initiatives, including the European Citizens Consultation project, which is being organised through various European foundations.

Last year 200 citizens, selected randomly from all corners of the continent, debated an agenda. This is now being discussed in each of the 27 member states during which similar numbers of similarly chosen random groups of citizens will expound their views. The first of these meetings, involving 200 citizens from Germany, has just taken place.

The randomly chosen Germans, said the organisers, 'expect Europe to play a leading role in environmental and energy policy and to show greater commitment to energy efficiency and renewable energies. The citizens would like to live in a Europe with common immigration and integration policies and that speaks with one voice. They also want a European family and social policy to be put on the agenda.' Well, well!

A gigantic waste of time and money
When the whole exercise is complete the organisers will attempt a synthesis to present to the European Council in June, which will, I predict, take no more notice of it than protocol demands. The grand consultation will be quietly buried and forgotten. It will prove, I suggest, to have been a gigantic waste of time and money.

The reason is simple. The consultation exercise seeks to by-pass politics, falling for the popular but naïve fallacy that among the citizenry there exists a coherent body of political thought untainted by party political machines.

'Ask The People' is a beguiling and ostensibly democratic phrase. But the problem with 'The People' is that never having to put forward any coherent programme, each thumps his own tub without caring about - indeed often objecting to - his neighbours.

'The People' don't have to consider funding, or elections or pressure groups. They don't have to take into account precedent or how change in one policy will affect a whole programme. They don't have to weigh those difficult choices between a free market and concern for the environment, or between protecting jobs at home against the needs of global trade, or balancing the need for security against the demands of human rights.

No-one surely could object to the views being put forward by these German citizens. We should all like to live in a Europe with common immigration and integration policies. But the sort of common policy you want may be a world away from the common policy I want. Yes, we all approve of a family policy on the European agenda - but what kind of family policy?

The art of the possible
The debate is not over whether Europe needs Motherhood and Apple Pie; the debate is over how to afford them and to what extent it may be necessary to sacrifice an element of Motherhood to get a larger portion of Apple Pie. Demanding Motherhood and Apple Pie is easy - it is when we turn to delivery that we start to come unstuck.

"Politics is the Art of the Possible" said Rab Butler - a renowned former British Chancellor. And it is just that. Government policy, at whatever level, is an amalgam of compromise. But compromise guided by a coherent philosophy - a business philosophy, a libertarian philosophy, an environmental philosophy, a nationalist philosophy, a European philosophy.

Everyone will profess the bland goals of Motherhood and Apple Pie, but the balance of those objectives, how they are financed and the agencies through which they are delivered will differ radically according to the party in power. Try asking a random group of citizens about tax - what it should be levied on and at what rate and you will find precious little common ground.

"If you have two cows," says Commissar Yuri to peasant Mikhail, "what must you do?"

"Why, give one to the party," answers Mikhail. "And if you have two pigs?" "Again," says Mikail, "I would keep one and give one to the party."

"And if you have two chickens?" smiles Yuri. "But Yuri," protests Mikhail, "you know I've got two chickens!"

Political parties should form programmes, not citizens
We will all vote for energy efficiency if it's someone else's efficiency. But if I have to give up my car, if I have to shiver in the winter, if my light bulbs are rationed, I see energy efficiency differently. Now we are in the sphere of practical politics - how to deliver energy efficiency, or common immigration policies or European family agendas.

It is the job of a democratic political party to formulate a coherent programme of policies balanced carefully against each other for outcome, affordability and acceptability.

Political parties also do something that 'The People' never can; that is lead. They are there not only to give people what they want but to educate voters about difficult choices and unpopular decisions.

What Europe lacks is not more ideas about what folk think they want. What Europe lacks is European political parties capable of putting together a cohesive and coherent programme covering all the responsibilities of the European Commission.

Had the time and resources now being devoted to blind alley of European Citizens Consultation been devoted instead to fostering policy and party development at the European level, then democracy might at last be taking a step forward.

This inevitably leads us back to institutional change. There is no point in European political programmes unless the parties are in a position to deliver those policies in government. That means logically the College of Commissioners should be drawn from whichever party or coalition succeeds in elections to the European Parliament. That would be real politics, real democracy - not the ersatz politics, ersatz democracy of citizens consultations.

The author is editor of EuropaWorld