I read this...

Leaders of the three biggest [Greek] parties met at the presidential mansion for a final attempt to bridge their differences, but the talks quickly hit an impasse as they traded accusations on a deeply unpopular bailout package tied to harsh spending cuts

...and...

Polls since the election show the balance of power tipping even further towards opponents of the bailout, who were divided among several small parties but now appear to be rallying behind Tsipras, a 37-year-old ex-Communist student leader

...and was then reminded of this by H.L Menchen which I have often quoted...

Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard

Greece is often credited as being the place where formal democracy was first practised in antiquity and so it seems fitting that it is Greece where the current social democratic order of regulatory statism enters its terminal state of Maenad frenzy, perhaps proving beyond all doubt that social democracy is unreformable via democratic means.

But do not kid yourself that the tragicomic indigent collective derangement on ever more florid display is something peculiar to the Hellenic world.

On December 1 last year a bag and a coat were stolen from my rental car in the city of Portimão in Portugal. The bag contained a few items of value, one of which was my Kindle. As I recounted at the time, a few days later (on December 10) a post was made to my Facebook account from my Kindle from a Portuguese fellow named Pedro, who told me that his father had found it in the middle of a road while walking his dog. At the time I made the post I had forwarded Pedro my address, and he had stated that he would post my Kindle to me. My assumption was that the criminals had thrown the Kindle out their car window due to the fact that a Kindle is tied to a particular Amazon account and this cannot be changed from the Kindle, and was thus useless to the criminal.

Upon my making that post, a couple of Samizdata commenters suggested that I was being overly trusting and mentioned the possibility of scams involving criminals who lure victims in various ways with the prospect of returned items and then rob them further. I was sceptical of this, as I had not given Pedro any information other than my address, which a criminal could have found out from documents that were in the car anyway and which isn't exactly a secret anyway. (I am listed in the phone book, assuming phone books still exist). When one is on one's guard it is usually easy to tell the difference between someone who is trying to scam you and someone who is genuine, which is why most scams work by targeting people at those moments when they are off their guard. Pedro did not feel like a scammer, so I was confident I would get my Kindle back. He felt more like some teenager or young man who upon being given the Kindle started playing with it and while figuring out how it worked found out how to make a Facebook update and did so.

However, I waited for the Kindle to be returned. Nothing arrived. I was mildly disappointed by this, but compared to the unpleasantness of having my possessions stolen in the first place it wasn't a big deal. As it happened, I remembered that when I first contacted him Pedro had asked if I were still in Portugal. (I wasn't). Perhaps his attempting to contact me had been an attempt by criminals to get me to meet with them so that they could steal from me some more. Or something.

As of the 2nd of February this year, no Kindle. My assumption was that I wasn't getting it back, but I thought I would just give it one more try. I sent another e-mail to Pedro, just asking him whether he had sent it. I got the following reply.

HI Michael
The lady from the post office and made a "mistake" and didn´t sent it for me!! Because she donne something rong.
And i had tried to send it by registraded mail and it was taking to long??? so i have been to the post office and checked!!
I did know it since monday and i was supose to deliver it to some inglish frinds of mine that i have brougth to faro airport today and they were landing in London and i have forgothen it at home!
Monday morning i will try to send it to you!!
Sorry about that!

Now, I wasn't going to take this as a literal statement of fact any more than I would a statement that the Kindle had been eaten by his father's aforementioned dog along with his homework (a better guess was simply that he had not got around to sending it), but as there was still a reasonable chance that I might actually be getting it back, I thanked him once more. Another e-mail was forthcoming.

You can call if you whant!!
00351 967 xxx xxxx
Pedro

This was slightly peculiar, and I wasn't actually going to call him (what would I say?) but things had reached the stage of being more amusing than anything else. It didn't feel like I was in contact with criminal mastermind Professor Pedro Moriarty, but I really had no idea what was going on. On Tuesday February 7, more e-mail

Hi Michael
I have a friend that whent to London today and he will post it for you today so you will get it tomorow or the day after.

Regards Pedro

Nothing arrived on the 8th, 9th, 10th, or the 11th, so at that point I mentally shrugged and gave up on it.

However, early on the morning of Monday February 13th, I heard the encouraging thump of a package coming through my legendary mailslot. It was a padded post bag, sent recorded delivery from Brighton on the 11th. It did indeed contain my Kindle. The saga was over. I posted a status update of delight to my Facebook account.

Except, it wasn't.

The Kindle required recharging before it could be used. I plugged it in to the power and a couple of hours later turned it on. It immediately told me I required a password to use it. This was puzzling, as I had not had the Kindle password protected. (If I had, Pedro would never have been able to update my Facebook status from it). Had I been sent the wrong Kindle? Was Pedro a criminal mastermind after all who was trying to get access to the password to my Amazon account? The complexity of the whole saga so far compared to the trivial gains to be had from finding such a thing out made me think not, but one does not type one's password into anything that could conceivably be any kind of phishing operation, ever, so I did not enter anything.

I looked again. The Kindle gave a password hint of "Josehp", which had a certain Latinness about it. My Amazon account clearly was not what was being sought. Had I accidentally been sent a different Kindle? Curiouser and Curiouser.

The only thing to do at this point was to call Amazon, and ask them what to do. Calling Amazon's Kindle support from the UK normally gets me someone in Ireland, but today I went straight through to someone who sounded like she was in Atlanta, or at least the American south somewhere. I told her the story. She expressed sympathy that my Kindle had been stolen and asked me whether I had reported it to the police. I said that I had, and she asked if I had the police reference number. She then stated that they would blacklist the Kindle so that nobody could use it, at which point I realised she had only really heard "My Kindle was stolen" and had blanked out through the second half of the story. I told her to listen more carefully and told her the story again. She said that it was nice that I had it back (I agreed) but that Amazon would want to vet things carefully before telling me to use it again. She told me how to reset it to its factory settings, making me realise that in fact it is possible to change the Amazon account that a Kindle is associated with from the Kindle, and so destroying some of my earlier theories

She asked me for specific dates as to when things had happened in my story. When I did this, she informed me that the Kindle had been re-registered to a different Amazon account on December 13, three days after Pedro had promised to return it to me. She told me not to use it until I received further contact from her, as she needed to pass my information on to Amazon's Kindle security department - such things apparently exist - to confirm that there were no nasty little surprises of any kind.

So here is what I believe most likely happened. The original thieves either accidentally dropped the Kindle, or threw it out the car window as it was not what they were looking for when they stole from my bag. Possibly they knew that the Kindle could easily be blacklisted over mobile networks, or that it was easy to trace. I now know that I definitely did lock the car and entry to it was forced, so the criminals were clearly professional thieves who would be more likely to know such things than people who opportunistically noticed that a car was left unlocked. The fact that electronic gadgets - particularly those that are constantly connected to electronic communications gadgets - can be tracked accurately and often in real time is something that criminals who do not wish to be caught must be becoming aware of. (The story of how my Oyster Card was once stolen by a waiter in a restaurant and how I tracked it down is something to tell another time)

Pedro's father did indeed find the Kindle while walking his dog, and he gave it to Pedro, who played with it in the way that many young men will play with an unfamiliar electronic device if it is given to them. Pedro was initially unable to figure out how to transfer it to his Amazon account, but did figure out how to post to Facebook. Once he did this, I asked him to give it back. Before sending it to me, however, he played with it some more, and discovered that he could transfer its account and use it after all. After doing this, he "forgot" to send it to me and continued using it himself.

However, when I contacted him again nearly two months later, he felt pangs of conscience and as he knew someone who was going to the UK shortly, he got them to return it to me. Or possibly, the fact that I knew his name, his e-mail address, approximately where he lived and (later) his phone number made him worry a little about what might happen if I kept pursuing it. In any event, he still has my considerable gratitude for returning it to me.

A few hours after the original contact with Amazon, I received further contact from them, telling me that it was fine for me to resume using my Kindle and that they would still appreciate it if I sent them the reference number from the Portuguese police report. I promptly did this. Of course, they may have spent a little time wondering whether they should believe my story, too, as one can conceive of ways in which I might have been scamming Pedro, and not the other way round. Am I a suspicious customer? Before being stolen in Portugal, my Kindle had been replaced four times under warranty. What does this say about me? (Actually, it says more about Kindles and luck. None of the four had been used in any particularly egregious way, and all four failed differently). In any event, by the end if this they clearly thought it was okay for me to use my Kindle again.

So there is the story. My speculations at the end are based on the assumption that the simplest explanations are the most likely, although to be fair, the simplest possible thing happened nowhere else in the affair. And as for conclusions, human nature is sort of muddled. Sometimes we do good things and sometimes we don't. Sometimes conscience applies and sometimes it doesn't. In this instance, at least, we had a happy ending, although, clearly, not as happy an ending as if my car had been left alone in the first place.

I have played this story for laughs, a little bit, in places. Perhaps this has been churlish of me. I remain exceptionally grateful that the Kindle has been returned to me.

I have lost count of the number of opinion pieces written by finance commentators and journalists who complain that the austerity programmes of Europe are doomed to fail, because they cause perpetual economic contraction, resulting in shrinking government revenues, curtailing the ability to pay down debt - which was why the austerity programmes were embarked upon in the first place. And this will go hand-in-hand with a widespread, precipitous and neverending decline in living standards, which raises the spectre of social and/or political collapse. The alternative solution they generally propose comes from our good friend Baron Keynes. Naturally.

This is utterly wrong-headed. Naturally. I do not take much issue with the consequences of European austerity that have been identified, however austerity is not the cause of these. Austerity works just fine if governments do not implement it alongside tax increases. Which is what pretty much every austerity programme (either real or imagined) in Europe is either proposing or enacting. It's the tax increases that will cause the vicious cycle mentioned above - not the austerity, stupid. Austerity alone redirects capital from government programmes to more productive areas of the economy, resulting in growth. But austerity plus tax hikes decreases the size of one part of the economy (the public sector, and this on its own is of course a good thing), whilst putting a yoke on the private sector by preventing individuals and companies from stepping into the breach, with punitive taxes discouraging investment or making it unaffordable. Of course this is a recipe for limitless economic contraction and social misery.

Citizens of a nation that requires a genuine period of austerity must be aware that there will be pain as structural adjustments take place whilst private sector investment slowly and surely crowds out a throttled and atrophying civil service. But pain is and was always going to be inevitable when the almighty spending binge so many governments have embarked upon over the last couple of decades unavoidably draws to a close, either through substantial policy shifts or sovereign default. The former is much less painful than the latter, but more politically difficult, so it seems. And, in dealing with the current debt crisis, Keynesians have never seen a can they haven't wanted to kick down the road.

They said it would never be agreed. Then they said it would never be launched. Then they said it would fail. When it was a success, the euro-haters still insisted that the single currency was a recipe for economic chaos and political instability. The phobes are proving to be wrong again. At a time when so much of Europe's political leadership is in flux, the single currency is the steadying point in an uncertain and worrying world.

Imagine that the recent turbulence on the continent had occurred when Europe still traded in pre-euro currencies. What would have happened to the French franc when neo-fascist Jean-Marie Le Pen forced the Prime Minister to quit? The franc would have plunged. What would have happened to the Dutch guilder when an anti-immigration party with a dead leader impelled itself into government? The guilder would have plunged too. Before a German election too close to call, even the stolid old mark would be gyrating. And instability in currency markets would be fuelling even more political chaos: a vicious, downward cycle.

That this has not happened is thanks to the euro. The single currency has taken all this political upheaval in its calm stride.

- From an anonymous editorial in the Observer headed "A tolerant euro".

From 2002, in case you were wondering.

There has been a lot of commentary in parts of the English-speaking media and blogosphere about the US presidential elections, and of course this part of it has had its commentary about the candidacy of the likes of Ron Paul and Gary Johnson, for example. The coverage shows how US politics looms quite large over the UK, or at least certain parts of it.

Compare and contrast with the level of commentary one might expect to get about the mid-year polls for the presidency of that neighbour, France. In part, the difference is that the French elections do not hold out any prospect of a pro-free market, limited government candidate making much running, although I may be wrong about that. The language barrier is an obvious issue but it cannot be the only explanation for this difference in coverage. And I also note that in another country, Germany, even the so-called quality papers give pretty scant coverage of the machinations of the Christian Democrats, Social Democrats and the other parties. Considering that the future of the euro might hang on who gets to control the German parliament in Berlin, you might think a bit more interest might be a good idea.

We are told that the European Union was all about bringing the big happy European family closer together, and yet as far as parts of the English-speaking media is concerned, some of the more consequential nations in the world get less coverage than a primary race in a US farm state (Iowa). That, I think, is very telling. And it does suggest that the idea of the Anglosphere, as Brian Micklethwait suggested the other day, has legs.

"Open-source intelligence has always been crucial, but for most of the cold war it was neglected by western intelligence agencies," says Calder Walton, a research associate at Cambridge University and author of the book Empire of Secrets, to be published in 2013. "That was the archetypal intelligence war: intelligence necessarily involved information that couldn't be gained from any other source -- human agents or telephone tapping." That doesn't mean covert intelligence was more effective, though: Daniel Moynihan, a former US senator, compared CIA reports gathered from secret sources with Soviet documents recovered after the fall of the Berlin Wall and found they significantly overestimated Soviet capabilities. But he discovered that western think tanks using publicly available material, such as the RAND Corporation, were much more accurate. US diplomat George Kennan estimated in 1997 that "95 per cent of what we need to know about foreign countries could very well be obtained by the careful and competent study of perfectly legitimate sources of information open and available to us".

Excerpt from an article in Wired, the tech and futurism magazine, about a Swedish investment firm, Recorded Future, that is taking the use of social networks and other systems to new heights in its attempt to get a jump on the market. In the process, it sheds new light on how the intelligence-gathering process works.

Here's another couple of paragraphs:

The 20 employees of Recorded Future aren't foreign-policy experts. They aren't traders either, but if you'd started using Recorded Future's predictions to buy US stocks on January 1, 2009, you would have made an annual return of 56.69 per cent. (The S&P 500 had an annualised return of 17.22 per cent over the same period.) Between May 13 and August 5 this year, as markets behaved with vertiginous abandon, their strategy returned 10.4 per cent; in contrast, the S&P 500 lost 9.9 per cent of its value. They're data experts: computer scientists, statisticians and experts in linguistics. And in the data, they think, lies the future.

All Recorded Future's predictions, whatever the field, are based on publicly available information -- news articles, government sites, financial reports, tweets -- fed into the company's own algorithms. The result, it claims, is a "new tool that allows you to visualise the future" -- one that is changing how government intelligence agencies gather information and how giant hedge funds place bets. On its website, Recorded Future states: "We don't grant interviews and we don't issue press releases." But behind closed doors, the company is developing the technology that has been described be one tech blog as an "information weapon".

The businesses was founded by a chap called Christopher Ahlberg, a former member of Sweden's special forces and a serious entrepreneur. In its own way, this article is just another example of how Sweden is not quite the socialist nation that it is sometimes said to be, either by its starry-eyed admirers or detractors. There is a lot of entrepreneurial zest up there in the frozen north, it seems.

"It was Havel who helped, as much as anyone, to put across the idea that Communism was built on an illusion and that, once people began to doubt the illusion, it would collapse."

- Ed West

It says much about this great Czech that he had the signal honour of being sneered at by Noam Chomsky.

I still haven't got round to visiting the Czech Republic yet, although I have relations across the border in Germany. I must get around to dealing with this oversight soon.

Without free, self-respecting, and autonomous citizens there can be no free and independent nations. Without internal peace, that is, peace among citizens and between the citizens and the state, there can be no guarantee of external peace

- Vaclav Havel, tireless fighter against communism and sundry other human absurdities, has died. Ave atque vale.

A week and a half ago, I visited the Algarve and Atlantic Alentejo in Portugal. I left my rental car parked in Portimão for a few hours. I thought that the car was locked, but I cannot be one hundred percent certain of that. In any event, a few hours later, I returned to the car, unlocked it from a distance and got in the car. Shortly after this, I realised that a rucksack I had left in the car had been stolen. In it was my passport, a couple of lenses for my digital SLR, a pair of prescription spectacles, a (printed) copy of the latest Vernor Vinge novel, all my spare underwear, various printed travel information, and my Kindle. Things I did not lose included my wallet, my mobile phone, my camera, my favourite lens, and my iPad (all on my person), and my laptop, various cables and chargers, and all my other remaining clothes (in the boot of the car or in my hotel room).

This was highly annoying, and to have things stolen is always a personal violation, but one learns to be philosophical about things like this. If you travel as much as I do, things go wrong occasionally (as they do at home). Much worse would have been a car accident or (worst possible case) anything causing personal injury to me or anybody else. So, I made a visit to the police and the consulate, got replacement documents, and did my best to resume enjoying my trip. Nothing was lost that could not be replaced by spending some money. Annoying, but compared to the total amount of money I spend on rent, or food, or even on travel, a small inconvenience. (Getting to the stage where I can put such things behind me like this has taken some effort, and has not been quite as successful as I am pretending now.)

Places I have visited where I have had things stolen: Cannes; Prague; the Algarve. Places where people have attempted (unsuccessfully) to steal things from me: Buenos Aires; Prague (again); Belgrade.

Places I have visited without the slightest trouble: Moldova; Albania; Ukraine; Kosovo; Transnistria; Bulgaria; Romania; Laos; Vietnam; Kenya; Indonesia; China; Turkey; Mozambique; Most of these multiple times. In a couple of these places I have been overcharged by taxi drivers, but no direct theft has ever looked like happening.

What one learns from this is that tourism related crime goes where tourists go. Places that sound grim and dangerous are often quite safe (at least with respect to petty theft) when you get there. Places that are close and familiar can often be quite dangerous. Tourist resorts are much more of a problem than big cities. I was robbed on the Algarve, but I have never had the slightest problem in Lisbon or Porto. I was robbed in Cannes, but I have never had the slightest problem in Marseilles, even in neighbourhoods that physically look poor and dangerous. Take care in Malaga, but you are probably fine in Seville or Madrid.

One discovery is that rich and poor have nothing to do with it. I have been to places full of rich people in which one can barely walk out on the street without getting into trouble. I have been to extremely poor countries in the third world where one can walk down the road in the middle of the night with $2000 worth of expensive camera gear in plain sight without the slightest danger.

Of course, even when you are robbed, even in tourist resorts, good things sometimes happened. In Buenos Aires, I fell for one of the oldest tricks in the book: paint or some other liquid was thrown at me from behind. I had no idea what it came from, and someone then approached me to offer me aid. This is of course an opportunity for someone connected with whoever threw the paint to get close to you, offer you aid, and then steal your possessions when your guard is down. However much you know this and however experienced you are, it is still possible to fall for these tricks when you are tired and in unfamiliar surroundings.

In this instance, I fell for it completely. I was in one of the fancier parts of Recoleta, the most expensive district of Buenos Aires. Such a thing would never happen in Belgravia, which is perhaps why I was off my guard. However, I fell for it. I would shortly have had my bag stolen (which contained almost everything of value to me that I had with me in South America) except for the fact that a local couple saw what was going on from across the street, told the potential thieves to get lost, told me to be more careful, and went on their way. They were gone practically before I knew what was happening. I wish I had later been able to buy them a drink or otherwise thank them properly, but I had no such chance.

Last week, after I had my bag stolen in the Algarve, I got replacement documents from the consulate and came home.

Three days later, a comment apparently from me appeared on my Facebook account, consisting of "contact me please hi have your kindle pedroxxxxxxxx@hotmail.com".

My Kindle is always connected to the internet. And the Kindle is synchronised with my Facebook account. Pedro presumably worked through the menus, figured this out, and then used this synchronisation to update my Facebook status. I sent an e-mail to Pedro at the given internet address. He sent me an e-mail the next day stating that his father had been walking his dog, and had found the Kindle in the middle of a road 16km from Portimão. He had given it to his son, presumably on the basis that the son had better tech skills and/or English language skills than he had. I sent Pedro my address, and he promised to post the Kindle to me as soon as possible.

I am struck by a couple of things here. Firstly, the kindness of strangers. There are a few people who will take advantage of you and steal from you, but a great deal more who will go out of their way to help you, even when they have no interest in doing so. I don't actually believe in good karma, but one almost sometimes can. I am also struck by the fact that we are approaching the point where modern technology is almost a menace for the thief. A Kindle is locked to a particular Amazon account and is essentially useless to anyone without access to that account. It is easy to change the account from that account and so sell the Kindle legitimately, but not from the Kindle itself. (This becomes problematic if the manufacturer of the device wishes to use such a power to prevent the legitimate buyer from transferring that right to another subsequent user, but hopefully the market can deal with this.) More and more items that we own are connected to the internet, and more and more can be tracked remotely. Thieves apparently know this, which is presumably why the Kindle was thrown out a car window. (My camera lenses are lost, alas.)

There are privacy implications in this, but there are also good, keeping track of your property implications too. Individuals are often more helpful than large organisations. If you lose your phone, the mobile phone company will disable it to prevent the thief from being able to use it, but they care not at all whether the legitimate owner gets it back. Nor, generally, do the police. (A mobile phone that belongs to me was temporarily lost a year or so back. The mobile phone company immediately blacklisted it, the phone, even though I only asked them to cancel the SIM. The phone was subsequently returned to me, but I have still been unable to get them to unblock the phone despite multiple attempts. Thus I have a nice paperweight.)

However, if a kind individual finds it, they often do have the ability to return it to you. And very often they will. Three cheers for Pedro and his father.

As was flagged up by this recent SQotD, I have been reading The Last Crusaders by Barnaby Rogers, the point of this posting being that some of these Last Crusaders were also the first global explorers. This can't be a review, because I have only reached page 50 out of 481, but I will be very surprised if my good opinion of this book now is in any way challenged by the experience of reading the rest of it.

A question that had always vaguely puzzled me, in a very not-thinking-about-it-carefully way, was: why Portugal? How come Portugal, of all now rather insignificant little backwaters, was the country that lead the way in the European conquest of so much of the rest of the world, a gigantic epoch only now drawing to a close?

It is of course not at all hard to see how this should be. Portugal may now be a backwater (I'll say more about that at the end of this posting) but in the fifteenth century, from the point of view of exploring the world, it was a frontwater. All you need to do to understand how Portugal led Europe into the big wide world out there is to stop looking at the Portuguese East Indies or the various Portuguese parts of Africa or South America (which is what I had been doing), and look instead at Portugal itself, and its immediate surroundings. Once you do that, Portugal making the first big steps in the when-Europe-ruled-the-world story is not just explicable, it is close to inevitable.

Time for a date. In 1415, Portugal captured and, even more significantly, subsequently held the North African trading city of Ceuta, just across the Straights of Gibraltar from Gibraltar itself. They hoped this would drop into their laps all the trade that was done between West Africa and everywhere else through Ceuta. But not for the first or last time, grabbing the physical place turned out not to mean effortlessly controlling what had previously gone on there. Nevertheless, it was a start, by which I mean a start in the process of Europe confronting Islam not in the obvious way, but the other way. The obvious way was to bash on against Islam in the Western Mediterranean and surrounding parts, the Balkans, North Africa and what we now call the Middle East. The other way, of course, as we now all know, was to go round it.

Forget for a moment all the European nations who subsequently did this, and forget all the many places the world over that they arrived at and did business in and with. Consider only the very first steps in that process, that needed to be taken in the early fifteenth century. What did they consist of? Basically, someone European needed to sail down the coast of West Africa, establishing bases and trading relationship along the way.

If this had been easy, Portugal would probably never have lead the way. Spaniards, Genoese and Venetians, even though preoccupied with that Islam bashing in other parts of the Mediterranean world, would probably have overwhelmed those very early Portuguese efforts. But crucially, it was not easy. The Atlantic was a huge barrier, requiring huge efforts before even the possibility of profit could cut in. So far so obvious. But what is less well known nowadays (certainly not known by me until now) is that something similar applied to the West Coast of Africa.

Let Rogerson tell the story (pp. 29-31):

The Arab merchants settled on the coast of Morocco had little interest in exploring the Atlantic, which they called the 'Sea of Obscurity' and the 'Green Sea of Darkness'. For them the land route across the Sahara was more direct and safer. The progress of a series of freebooting Portuguese squadrons sailing south down the Moroccan coast during these years must have further discouraged any Arab trading ship from sailing too far from its haven. But it was not all one-sided, for the roles of prey and predator could be easily reversed. Indeed maritime records show that in this period some forty-six Portuguese ships were captured by corsairs on the Atlantic.

For their part, the Portuguese sea captains were reluctant to cross the southern threshold marked by Cape Bojador (about two-thirds of the way down modern Morocco's long Atlantic coast), and with good reason. The last known expedition, by the Vivaldi brothers of Genoa in 1291, had never returned. It was widely feared that the very strong southern current that sweeps along the shore would frustrate any return. And to this day Cape Bojador marks a climatic, cultural and emotional frontier. For once Cape Noun is passed on the way south towards Bojador, all recognisable signs of Mediterranean life - trees, cultivation, farmland, villages, houses, man and goat - are gradually bleached out of the landscape, to be replaced by the savage intensity of the empty lands of the western Sahara. The region even lacks the customary grandeur of the desert, that romantic juxtaposition of dark mountains and golden sand dunes, and is instead composed of a series of bleak gravel uplands. The shoreline is awesomely sterile, overlooked by wind-eroded cliffs, protected by reefs and with the tidal reach of the rocky shore everywhere presenting a razor-like surface. In addition the whole region is made even more dangerous and impenetrable by salty sea mists, a dense, muggy intensity of climate and erratic compass fluctuations.

However, by 1434 one of the young squires of Prince Henry's household, urged on by words of affection from his master, rather than threats, did manage to break this psychological frontier. Throughout the subsequent century of seafaring nothing halted the spread of Portuguese mariners across the oceans of the world, as Cape Bojador had. The breakthrough was the cumulative achievement of decades of unaccounted and unacknowledged work by shipwrights and observant sailors who had slowly transformed the traditional Arab-derived coastal craft of the Algarve into the lateen-rigged caravel. Together they created a craft strong enough to ride out oceanic storms but light enough to navigate estuaries and river mouths. It had the tactical ability to make use of the Atlantic winds and yet it could also be manned by a scratch crew of a dozen hands. This was the tool with which all the first great European explorers - Columbus, Magellan, Vasco da Gama - opened up the sea lanes of a new world.

I laughed out loud on learning of those unfortunate "Vivaldi brothers", who sound like characters in a Monty Python sketch. "Prince Henry" is of course Henry the Navigator. Even I had heard of him.

It all makes me think of an egg timer. The whole of Europe, without (apart from Henry the Navigator and his cronies) knowing it, awaiting its new destiny. The world beyond, waiting for Europe to crash into it and gobble it up. But, meanwhile, that tiny little stem off the coast of West Africa that had to be squeezed through.

The Spaniards were that little bit nearer to the stem of this egg timer, but the Spaniards had other battles to fight, with each other and with other Mediterranean powers. Those other Mediterranean powers were similarly busy knocking seven bells out of each other and out of any Muslims they could confront, or whom they were obliged to confront. Even the Portuguese had had ambitions to join in the more conventional sort of crusading, and only because that went so badly did they switch to truly concentrating on their southern adventures.

The Portuguese had also had to prevail in a European battle of their own, against the Spaniards, in 1385 (p. 22). How much more significant this battle, Aljubarrota (which I still struggle to spell, let alone pronounce – don't click on that if you prefer silence), now seems to me than Agincourt (which happened in the same year that the Portuguese captured Ceuta and with which, says Rogerson, Aljubarrota is frequently compared), even though I am an Englishman. England's offensive victory at Agincourt led England into a futureless French quagmire. The Portuguese defensive triumph at Aljubarrota gave Portugal the domestic stability and the leeway to set about changing the entire world.

So it was that for several generations Portugal lead the way. Only when the Portuguese had well and truly surmounted the Cape Bajador barrier did the rest of Europe follow, and by then the Portuguese were already putting their own indelible stamp on the world.

A further reminder of which came to me today in the form of an incoming email from Michael Jennings, after a phone call from him to me (concerning a rather remarkable cricket match) had informed him of my interest just now in matters Portuguese:

An interesting recent fact about Portuguese in Africa is that the number of Portuguese speakers in Africa is apparently growing rapidly. Portuguese has long been the language of the elite and much schooling in Angola and Mozambique. With the current rapid growth of literacy in Africa, helped by the fact that Portuguese language popular culture is extremely rich (thanks to the Brazilians) Portuguese is apparently finally becoming a mass spoken language in the former Portuguese colonies, even though the Portuguese left 35 years ago.

Which also chimes in rather well with Johnathan Pearce's posting earlier today about the economic progress that Africa now looks to be making.

The rest of Rogerson's book is, I assume, about how Europe and Islam bashed into each other directly, as they (we) are still doing of course. But what a fascinating preliminary sideshow these early Portuguese chapters are. And what a show it turned into.

Hmmm.. "As the relationship between alcohol and health is a complex one and drinking patterns can differ significantly between countries, our strong recommendation to you is to go to your national website where the information provided is relevant to your own national drinking context and in your own language".

I think that translates as something like "The peoples of Europe are about as likely to agree on what responsible drinking actually consists of as they are to levitate spontaneously to Venus, or to save the euro".

Do drinking contexts have to be national? (Of course not. In my experience, international drinking contexts are often the best). Can I have my own personal drinking context?

Nannying is universal, however. As is the fact that Flash websites suck.

An article about the psychiatric assessment of Norwegian mass murderer Anders Behring Breivik got me wondering about a couple things, one entertaining and the other, not so much:

"The psychiatrists warned that Mr Breivik was likely to attempt further attacks, including suicide bombings"

Suicide bombings? Plural? As it has been claimed he worked alone, I am curious how he could carry out more than one suicide bombing.

But less flippantly, I cannot help wondering if the only reason this coldly calculating man is being deemed 'insane' is that is the only way the Norwegian state never ever have to let him out, given that Norway apparently has no 'life sentence' in which 'life means life'... so the only way to put him away forever is to declare him insane and thus lock him up in a loony bin until he dies.

He may well belong in a small room for the rest of his life but using the much loved Soviet, Russian and Chinese approach of expedient psychiatric assessment to achieve it may reveal a lot about modern Norway.

The names on the list of his ministers – most of which were unknown to members of the Italian general public – showed that Monti had failed in his attempt to involve party representatives. His cabinet was made up exclusively of non-aligned specialists.

"The absence of political personalities in the government will help rather than hinder a solid base of support for the government in parliament and in the political parties because it will remove one ground for disagreement," he said.

The Guardian speaks of the absence of "party representatives" in Italy's government. The Times (behind a paywall) is more frank: Italy ditches democracy as row blazes over how to save the euro.

A new row blew up between France and Germany yesterday over how to save the euro as Mario Monti, Italy’s new Prime Minister, appointed an all technocrat Cabinet that does not include a single elected politician.

...the more likely possibility is that there will be asymmetric shocks hitting the different countries. That will mean that the only adjustment mechanism they have to meet that with is fiscal and unemployment: pressure on wages, pressure on prices. They have no way out. With a currency board, there is always the ultimate alternative that you can break the currency board. Hong Kong can dismantle its currency board tomorrow if it wants to. It doesn't want to and I don't think it will. But it could. But with the Euro, there is no escape mechanism.

Suppose things go badly and Italy is in trouble, how does Italy get out of the Euro system? It no longer has a lira after whatever it is - 2000 or 2001 - so it's a very big gamble. I wish the Euro area well; it will be in the self-interest of Australia and the United States that the Euro area be successful. But I'm very much concerned that there's a lot of uncertainty in prospect.

Professor Milton Friedman interviewed by Radio Australia, 17 July 1998

Incoming email from an acquaintance:

I just saw Robert Peston on the BBC 1 News at 10pm. He was recommending that the ECB come to the rescue of Italy and Greece on the ground that it is the only EU institution "capable of creating unlimited resources". Not unlimited money; unlimited resources! It's magic.

Somebody should Occupy the BBC.

A BIT LATER: I just googled "ecb unlimited resources". Alas, plenty of hits. Try it. Peston is only expressing a general mood. A general mood of complete insanity, but a general mood.

What will happen to the Euro? I am not asking "what should happen", but what will happen. Take this opportunity to put your predictions on the internet, and later be hailed as a true prophet or derided as a false one.

Ambrose Evans-Pritchard weighs in the Daily Telegraph with thoughts about Greece, southern Europe and the fact that so many countries, such as Italy, Portugal and Greece, cannot cope with the euro. The logic of this, the article seems to imply, is that these nations should revert to their previous national currencies.

For reasons that some regulars at this blog will recall, I think this idea of reverting to purely national currencies is simplistic, and not just because the practical logistics of switching back to pesetas, liras or drachmas will be painful (for example, there is the issue of repaying euro-denominated debt). A national fiat currency, such as the old Italian lira, is still a form of state-issued monopoly money, liable to be abused and printed in vast amounts. Evans-Pritchard talks about the need for affected nations to be able to devalue their currencies so as to boost exports. But if you devalue – ie, print more of it – your currency, then the price of imported goods soars. Greece, for instance, imports a lot of things and is not a major exporter of goods or services, apart from some agriculture and so on. Devaluation may be good for Greece’s important tourist trade, but not so great in terms of keeping a check on inflation.

Detlev Schlichter, champion of what he calls “inelastic money”, has scorned the idea that reverting to national fiat moneys represents a step forward for the debt-laden countries of southern Europe.

Here are two paragraphs:

"One frequently gets the impression from reading the mainstream media that Greece has a monetary policy problem and not a fiscal problem. This is incorrect. Yet many commentators seem to argue along the following lines: This crisis is due to the straitjacket of the single currency with its one-size-fits-all monetary policy, or at least aggravated by the constraints of this system. Greece would have more “policy options” in dealing with its troubles if it had control of its own national currency."

"Then there is, connected to this, an underlying – and not very flattering – notion that the Greeks are somewhat unfit to live and work in a ‘hard money system’, which presumably the euro is. The Greeks, this seems to be the allegation, like borrowing and spending too much. I am paraphrasing here but this is certainly the underlying tone of the narrative. The Germans and Dutch and French can live without the constant aid of conveniently cheap national money – but the Greeks can’t."

These countries’ appalling fiscal problems would not be altered one jot by the quick fix of switching one transnational form of fiat money in exchange for a national form of fiat money. What these countries need is honest money that retains its value over time. I get the impression that were Greece, for example, linked to the old Gold Standard of the pre-First World War variety (which worked relatively well for its constituent members until the war destroyed it), Mr Evans-Pritchard would be objecting to that also. But the problems of these countries cannot be resolved by nation-state fiat funny money. Mr Evans-Pritchard, for example, suggests that the "PIIGS" countries need the equivalent of a 40 per cent devaluation against, say, Germany and France. Under a gold standard and a regime of small governments and flexible labour markets, no such a drastic shift would occur. Real wages in certain uncompetitive sectors would decline, and wages in more competitive ones would rise. Take the case of Greece: under a stable monetary system, Greece's tourist industry would be able to compete splendidly so long as its costs were controlled. And this leads to the core of the issue: flexible rates of exchange between different fiat money systems appeal to those who don't want to undertake the more painstaking route of curbing government, encouraging free markets in labour, etc. Devaluation will always appeal as an easy way out.

Schlichter has more thoughts on the recent attempts by EU states to shore up the euro.

Update: Of course, I can imagine some defenders of devaluation arguing that this reduces the real incomes of people in a country, which makes that nation more competitive, hence achieving the same sort of result as a decline real wages under the conditions of a fully flexible labour market. The problem is that the former approach makes no distinction between sectors or businesses. Also, the history of post-war Europe does not suggest that devaluation is much of a cure for deep-seated economic ills. The decline in the value of sterling in 1967 did not arrest Britain's relative decline; when West Germany had a strong deutschemark in the 1970s, it was economically strong. True, the fall of sterling from the exchange rate mechanism in 1992 coincided with an improvement, but then again, the UK's fiscal position was in relatively good shape and the UK labour market did not have some of the burdens of today.

(via Small Dead Animals)

'Why Britain Should Join the Euro' - a pamphlet by Richard Layard, Willem Buiter, Christopher Huhne, Will Hutton, Peter Kenen and Adair Turner, with a foreword by Paul Volcker.

One of the authors, AdairTurner, now Lord Turner, is interviewed in today's Observer, which is where I saw the link. He has changed his mind a little since 2002, when the pamphlet was written, but not to an unseemly extent. Now Chairman of the Financial Services Authority, he is concerned about the current situation but remains confident that "sensible decisions are going to be made".

So there you are then. Cheer up!

The principal argument I used to put which the pro Euro Labour, Liberal Democrat, CBI and TUC forces found difficult to counter was the simple proposition that joining the Euro was like taking out a joint bank account with the neighbours. You were likely to ruin a good friendship with them, when you fell to arguing over the size and use of the overdraft. This unfortunately sums up the Euro crisis. Greece, Spain, Italy and Portugal want to use the common overdraft or borrowing ability to excess. The Germans do not want to help pay the interest and sustain the joint credit rating, but they are being drawn more and more into doing just that.

- John Redwood.

I like the joint bank account analogy.

It would (will?) be interesting to hear what our own Paul Marks has to say to in answer to this, from Ambrose Evans-Pritchard:

Judging by the commentary, there has been a colossal misunderstanding around the world of what has just has happened in Germany. The significance of yesterday’s vote by the Bundestag to make the EU’s €440bn rescue fund (EFSF) more flexible is not that the outcome was a "Yes".

This assent was a foregone conclusion, given the backing of the opposition Social Democrats and Greens. In any case, the vote merely ratifies the EU deal reached more than two months ago – itself too little, too late, rendered largely worthless by very fast-moving events.

The significance is entirely the opposite. The furious debate over the erosion of German fiscal sovereignty and democracy - as well as the escalating costs of the EU rescue machinery - has made it absolutely clear that the Bundestag will not prop up the ruins of monetary union for much longer.

Clearly, Evans-Pritchard had in mind commentary like this (Paul Marks yesterday):

It is the end - not just the end of any prospect that people will really face up to their problems (rather than scream for endless bailouts), but also the end for any pretence that modern government is in any real sense "democratic". It is not a sudden emotional whim of the people that has been ignored - it is the settled opinion (conviction) of the people, which has been held (in spite of intense propaganda against it) for a long period of time, that has been spat upon.

Evans-Pritchard, however, says this:

Something profound has changed. Germans have begun to sense that the preservation of their own democracy and rule of law is in conflict with demands from Europe. They must choose one or the other.

Yet Europe and the world are so used to German self-abnegation for the EU Project – so used to the teleological destiny of ever-closer Union – that they cannot seem to grasp the fact. It reminds me of 1989 and the establishment failure to understand the Soviet game was up.

So, have things changed, or have they not?

I agree about the USSR parallels in all this. But Evans-Pritchard's reportage also reminds me rather of that vote of confidence that they had in the House of Commons, which Neville Chamberlain "won" in 1940, but actually lost.

I remember once speculating, here, there or somewhere, that one of the many things that could reasonably be said to have caused Word War 2 was the failure of any sort of German Parliament to meet - circa 1939, and say, in the manner of a British Parliament: No! No more of this! That time, the idea was for Germany to conquer Europe (and much else besides) with armies. Now the plan is and has long been for Germany to buy Europe, and give it to … EUrope. But the price is again proving ruinous and the object being purchased is a crock.

This time, the means are surely still in place, as they were not in 1939, for Germany to say: No! But, did they? And if not, will they? Over to you, Paul Marks.

LATER: Detlev Schlichter agrees with Paul, using the word Götterdämmerung. Germany, he says, is finished.

He also says this:

And one final word to my English friends. No gloating please about the clever decision to stay out of the euro-mess. You have the same thing coming your way without the euro. The coalition’s consolidation course is apparently so ruthless that every month the state has to borrow MORE, not less. Even official inflation is already 5% but pressure is growing on the Bank of England to print more money. See the comical Vince Cable yesterday, or Martin Wolf, the man with the bazooka, in the FT today. Since 1971 the paper money system has been global. Its endgame will be global, too.

Indeed.

The German people (like the British people and the American people) are overwhelmingly against the bailouts. But their opinion (like the opinion of the British and American peoples) has been ignored in the past - and vast sums of money have been spent.

Today was a vote over whether or not extra hundreds of billions are to be spent - and to be spent by an European Union executive agency with arbitrary powers. At least 70% of the German people were against this - in spite of the intense propaganda of the establishment media.

Yet only 85 members of the German Parliament voted to stop it.

It is the end - not just the end of any prospect that people will really face up to their problems (rather than scream for endless bailouts), but also the end for any pretence that modern government is in any real sense "democratic". It is not a sudden emotional whim of the people that has been ignored - it is the settled opinion (conviction) of the people, which has been held (in spite of intense propaganda against it) for a long period of time, that has been spat upon.

"Vote them out".

How? Both the governing CDU and the opposition SPD voted for endless bailouts and arbitrary executive power.

The fallacy at the heart of this crisis is that every financial problem has a political solution.

- Jeff Randall He's talking about the euro's problems, but the same fallacy is at work nearly everywhere.

One of the self-criticisms I hear a lot from Austrian economics devotees is that Austrianists don't say what should now be done. They write book after book expounding what should not have been done, but most of their responses to the current mess consist of variations on the theme of: not that. Shouldn't be starting from here.

So, when I read a report like this one, I get interested. Quote:

Within the next few weeks, signatures will be collected to launch an initial referendum that would require the Swiss National Bank to repatriate all of its gold holdings to within the borders of Switzerland, prohibit it from selling any more of its gold, and require a minimum 20% of its assets be gold.

This initiative is likely to be very popular.  The Swiss remember that during World War II, the United States refused to provide access to their gold reserves. More important, since 2000, the SNB has sold 1550 tons of gold – more than a half of its total holdings – mostly at prices below $500 an ounce, and bought European government bonds that have plummeted in value by SF40 billion, compared to a total federal budget of SF60 billion.

This referendum will put the issue of gold as money on the political agenda.  The next step is to offer a follow-on initiative permitting the free-coinage of GSF.

The creation of a Gold Swiss franc and the free coinage thereof, along with the repeal of taxation by the U.S. of gold and silver coins used as legal tender, would liberate market participants to generate spontaneously a new monetary order. With government barriers removed, people all over the world will find ways to use gold-backed money to facilitate the exchange of goods and services with their counterparts anywhere in the world, and to engage in saving and investing, lending and borrowing using monies whose value would be anchored in the remarkably stable and trustworthy purchasing power of gold.

Initially, such efforts would have little economic consequence.  However, in a world of voluntary exchange, good money chases out bad money, turning Gresham’s law upside down.  That is why when the dollar’s value was stable, it was the currency of choice throughout the world.

No one can forecast how this process will evolve. However, we can anticipate that the creation of a Gold Swiss franc and the repeal of tax and legal barriers to the use of gold and silver coins as legal tender will be the antecedent to the reform of today’s paper money system – in the U.S and throughout the world.

Assuming that enough Swiss folks vote for such arrangements, will they do any good? Or does such politicking merely flag up the problem, without going any way towards solving it? No doubt the current Rulers of the World will disapprove of such contrivings and do all they can to abort them, but this kind of thing at least might give the rest of us something to vote for, i.e. against the current Rulers of the World. Mightn't it?

Something Must Be Done This Is Something Therefore We Should Do It is a powerful force in politics. Schemes like this partake of this force. At the very least, they challenge others to do better.

My thanks to Steven Baker MP for the email that alerted me to this. It's good to know that he is keeping an eye out for such things, don't you think?

"White extremists are rightly shunned by mainstream politicians. Muslim extremists are courted by the likes of Ken Livingstone. White fundamentalism and Muslim fundamentalism need each other. But white fundamentalism, unlike its Muslim counterpart, does not have a presence in legitimate institutions. The white Right should not be ignored by the security authorities – but it would be dangerous to divert our attention from the real threat."

Andrew Gilligan, journalist, reflecting on the wider implications of the horror in Norway. I would add that security authorities should also not forget such threats as from remnants of the IRA in Northern Ireland, Deep Greens, and parts of the Far Left. There is, alas, plenty of fanaticism out there.

I have a few Norwegian friends and they are, thank god, safe, but in a small country, almost everyone in that fine nation has been touched by this act of mass murder. By the way, do any Samizdata commenters know about what the laws are about firearms in that country? I am appalled at how easy it was for this man to kill so many without challenge for so long. But then this bastard had clearly planned out his attacks, knowing that it would take time for the police to get to the island.

In this, which is about some guys from Loughborough who have decided to mark cities (scroll down a bit) like they are undergraduate essays (Alpha+, Beta+, Beta-, etc.), NickM waxes lyrical about Prague:

The coolest city is Prague. Prague is just mental. I’d happily move there tomorrow but for the language which is something else. Just super-cool. On the Charles Bridge there was a rodent balancer. Some bloke in a monk’s cowl was balancing rodents on a labrador for change. And then you just walk past where Kepler lived and customer service is spot-on and it was about a quid a pint for most excellent beer right in the city centre and the food was good quality and good value. Went to a steak house run by former firemen who donned the hats when they put the heat to the meat. Bloody good steak that was. And then down by the river and a load of blokes ride past me in Edwardian garb astride penny-farthings. Prague is just ineffably cool. Just wandering around is wonderful. Just doing that brought me by chance to the church where the killers of Reinhardt Heydrich had holed-up. That was poignant. And then there is the Museum of Communism. This is not a free museum. It makes a point of being a for profit enterprise. It advertised, when I was there, with a Russian doll with fangs. It gives it’s address as, “Above McDonalds and opposite Benetton.”. It didn’t need to add, “And fuck off Lenin”. A joy to behold.

Here endeth the broadcast from the Czech tourism bureau.

But he adds a warning:

But catch it while you can and before EU membership fucks it.

Well, EU membership doesn't seem to have fucked London yet, despite decades of the EU trying everything they can think of to accomplish that. London, according to the Loughborough guys, is equal top (Apha++) with New York. NickM goes further. He reckons New York is overrated and has London top on its own, as the greatest city in the world "bar none". He doesn't say why, however.

Personally, I love London, because I live here and I just do. But I do not know where I think it ranks in the great city stakes because I seldom leave it, and hence can't compare it with other urban greatness contenders.

I have been to Prague, which I thought was pretty good. The middle is amazing, wall-to-wall listed buildings, as we would say in London. As I assume is the case in Prague too, i.e. you may not smash it down and replace it with a concrete blockhouse, just because you "own" it. Which I understand. But the uninterruptedly historic nature of the centre means that nothing new can now be built. In other words, the centre of Prague feels like a film set, and will feel more and more like one as time passes. See also: Paris.

James Bartholomew, author of the splendid "The Welfare State We're In", weighs on on the subject of Sweden, long a poster child for socialists and possibly, even a certain type of right-winger:

"Sweden is iconic, like Marilyn Monroe or Karl Marx. It is supposed to stand for something special: a kind of paradise where socialism and a big welfare state go together with being a successful, rich country."

Another paragraph:

"The main trouble is that, when Sweden was as close as it ever has been to being a socialist welfare state, it went bust. For a while it may have seemed like a great model, but the Swedish government ran out of money. Why? Because Sweden found, like Britain, that if you pay people to be unemployed, take early retirement or be sick, you get a gradually decreasing number of people who claim the relevant benefits. And if you have sky-high taxes, people don't work as hard, or they cheat, or they leave."

Read the whole thing.

"Will militant unions derail big fat Greek sell-offs on the rocky route to recovery?" sayeth the Telegraph.

Well anyone buying Greek infrastructures with private money deserves everything they will get... it would be easier and probably less stressful to just flush the money down the toilet and call it 'performance art'.

Leave Greece to circle the drain as a prime example of Mencken's observation "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard".

Greece will just be the first of many as the vast ponzi scheme that is the 'welfare state' reaches its climax set to Bouzouki music playing faster and faster...

... no, it was the highest institutions of the Netherlands who were on trial with their credibility and very legitimacy at stake.

Although I am delighted he was acquitted of all charges, frankly it is a disgrace that he was ever put on trial in the first place for simply stating his views about Islam and multiculturalism.

And the fact the BBC calls him 'far right' tells you nothing useful about Geert Wilders' views but speaks volumes about the BBC.

Another zinger of a piece by Detlev Schlichter. If you are not reading his stuff regularly, you need to deal with that oversight. He's indispensable:

One frequently gets the impression from reading the mainstream media that Greece has a monetary policy problem and not a fiscal problem. This is incorrect. Yet many commentators seem to argue along the following lines: This crisis is due to the straitjacket of the single currency with its one-size-fits-all monetary policy, or at least aggravated by the constraints of this system. Greece would have more “policy options” in dealing with its troubles if it had control of its own national currency.

Then there is, connected to this, an underlying – and not very flattering – notion that the Greeks are somewhat unfit to live and work in a ‘hard money system’, which presumably the euro is. The Greeks, this seems to be the allegation, like borrowing and spending too much. I am paraphrasing here but this is certainly the underlying tone of the narrative. The Germans and Dutch and French can live without the constant aid of conveniently cheap national money – but the Greeks can’t.

And he signs off with this:

I have no doubt that the most important economic event of the coming decade will be the demise of the global paper money system. We live in the twilight of the fiat money era. A return to apolitical, international, commodity-based media of exchange is inevitable. Why not start with Greece? The transition would be painful but there are no painless options available anyway.

I am convinced this would be a sensible strategy but I also think it is unlikely. The state and the banks benefitted from the paper money franchise, and they are now addicted to cheap credit and unwillingly to check into rehab. The establishment will continue to fight a return to sound money.

With some honourable exceptions, I find it hard to think of many even supposedly "private" banks in the world as proper, capitalist institutions in any sense. Their reliance on the crack cocaine of cheap credit has become too entrenched.

That is one suspected reason for why the Icelandic government was so eager to roll over for the Dutch and the British - they were willing to bankrupt the nation to get their snouts trotter-deep into the EU troughs. If this means I can't join the EU I regard the referendum result as a double win.

- Commenter Bjarni

Only we don't any more. According to Stacy Meichtry in the Wall Street Journal, France has resurrected the border with Italy.

So, as Johnathan's post below says, the euro is not working out so well, and now it seems that the Schengen Accord is being allowed to lapse. Remind me, what was the point of this EU thing again?

Seriously though, isn't being opposed to NATO membership rather 1985?

The European Union has paid out vast sums since 2001 to improve Sicily's infrastructure. What has Sicily to show for it? Nothing. No, less than nothing:

€700 million to improve the water supply? In 2000, the water supply was "stop-and-flow" for 33% of Sicilian households, now 38.7% have water worries. Incentives to entice off-season tourists? Cost €400 million, enough to buy up an airline. And yet the ranks of those thankless tourists haven't swelled, but petered out: from 1.2% in 2000 to 1.1% in 2007. And as to the €300 million invested in alternative energy projects great and small: it's true, there isn't a single hillock without its windmill now, but Sicilian output is stuck at 5% of total consumption, as against an average 9.1% for Southern Italy as a whole.

The quote is from a translation of an article in the Italian daily La Stampa and I found it via Jim Miller On Politics. Jim Miller himself comments:

And we should recognize that the best money of all to waste — from the point of view of a pork-barrel politician — is someone else's money. There would have been less wasted in Sicily if the money had come from Italy, rather than the whole European Union, and even less wasted if the money had come from the places where it was spent.

The European Union, corrupt as it is, is on average less corrupt than Sicily. Idealistic Sicilians possibly hoped that getting their state largesse via the EU would result in less theft and waste. A vain hope, as Mr Miller or Professor Friedman could have told them.

Geert Wilders is on trial today for telling it like it is with his film 'Fitna'.

If you are a blogger, read up on the subject and get out the support. Europe may not have Freedom of Speech with teeth in it, but perhaps you can provide that poor benighted continent with implants.

Reading this item over at National Review's Corner blog, which relates to recent attempts by Al-Quaeda types to attack targets in Western Europe - apparently foiled for now - got me thinking. One of the possible targets, judging by the comment, was the Eiffel Tower in Paris. It makes me wonder when the "blame-the-West-First" crowd are going to understand that it was always idiotic to claim that 9/11, or the Madrid atrocities, or the London bombings/etc could ever be described as the West getting some sort of "blowback" for its allegedly dastardly deeds against Muslim lands. Whenever this argument is made, the implication, explicit or not, is that the appropriate policy to adopt is the equivalent of hiding under the bed.

France, let's not forget, has more than its fair share of bad relations with some Muslim lands - Algeria in the 1950s being a case in point - but in recent years, the country's government has been at pains to distance itself from the supposedly "cowboy" policies of Bush/Blair, although possibly things might have hardened a bit under Sarkozy.

But it makes no difference. Whether you are an isolationist, multilaterialist, or neocon interventionist, the outcome is the same: the Islamists will try and kill you and your fellow citizens without discrimination. We can try and placate the crocodile, but it is ultimately a futile strategy. It is occasionally necessary to remind people of this grim fact.

Over the next two days, there are two linguistically Spanish versus Portuguese games in the World Cup: Chile plays Brazil this evening, and Spain itself plays Portugal itself tomorrow evening. Brazil and Spain are two of the favourites to win the tournament, Portugal is a good side, although perhaps without the depth of the first two, and Chile have played much more impressively than most people expected in this tournament, but are outsiders. So probably a hard fought but still one-sided game this evening, and a good game tomorrow night. Although one of course never knows.

However, disregarding the actual sport and thinking about bigger things, it seems pretty clear that the governments of the two Latin American countries are rather less profligate and rather less broke than those of the two Latin European countries.

How did we get here?

This posting is going to have to be of a more than usually interrogative sort, since I am more than usually ignorant of that whereof I blog, and which I will now copy and paste:

Certainly, on my travels, I'm going to be wary of accepting euro notes with serial numbers that are prefixed with the letters Y (coming from Greece) or M (from Portugal).

I shall also strongly steer clear of notes with the serial numbers starting G (Cyprus), S (Italy), V (Spain), T (Ireland) and F (Malta).

This might sound as if I'm being ridiculously alarmist, but you cannot be too careful.

However, other euro notes should be reasonably safe.

These include those marked Z (Belgium), U (France), l (Finland) and H (Slovenia). As for those with serial numbers beginning with X (Germany), P (the Netherlands) and N (Austria), they can all be used with total confidence.

Is this common knowledge? Am I the last person in Europe to hear about this? I shouldn't be surprised. You can tell which country printed which Euro. Well, well. Who knew? Who, even now, knows?

The above quoted text is from a Daily Mail piece by Peter Oborne (linked to by Instapundit) about the various economic disasters the world faces. One of which is the melt-down of the Euro.

My big question, aside from wondering who else does or does not know this, is: supposing lots of people do know this, or get to know it, does it not provide a mechanism by means of which mere people might hasten the collapse of the more dubious EUrozone economies, by demanding, when being paid in actual money, to be paid only in Euros printed by the undubious countries?

Perhaps the answer might go: but making such judgments would be, in EUrope, illegal. Maybe so, but that won't stop a black market making minute comparisons between differently lettered Euros, nor will it stop tourists in other parts of the world, planning their EUropean trips, demanding, once they hear such stories, to receive only the kinds of Euros that they would like. They could, for instance, refuse to accept the wrong kind of Euros, or, if given a mixture of good Euros and bad Euros, sort out the good from the bad and swap the bad ones back for pounds, or dollars, or whatever.

The wrong kinds of Euro notes, from the dubious countries, could soon be treated exactly as if they were forgeries, could they not? The big difference being that these forgeries will be easier to spot.

So, the much prophesied melt-down of the Euro can now be accelerated in a much more discriminating way than merely by people judging that the Euro as a whole will soon be disappearing down the toilet. We will all be able to decide - many may soon be forced to decide - which Euros will descend toilet-wards first. Won't we? Can't we? Now? I realise that there is more to money than mere bank notes. But if stories like those sketched above were to start circulating ...

Has Oborne got his facts right about this? And if he has, do my supplementary questions also make any sense? As I say, this is all completely new to me, so I could soon, after the first few responses, be wishing that I'd never even asked.

The usual explanation for the troubles now afflicting the EU that is doing the rounds now is that the Greeks and Spaniards have recently been behaving even more like Greeks and Spaniards than they usually do. But Helen Szamuely offers an alternative explanation for the EU's current woes. Germans, she observes, are finally reverting to being regular Germans.

Having quoted a Der Spiegel article about how German Chancellor Angela Merkel is now mysteriously unwillingly to bow to France in the manner of her predecessors since WW2, Helen says this:

This fits with the point I have made over and over again: the EU is predicated on a guilty and subservient Germany. With time going on and new generations, who cannot even recall the war, appear on the scene (and in Merkel's case there is the added point of growing up under the Communist system) guilt and subservience can no longer be relied on and the Franco-German motor, which presupposed French supremacy is now sputtering. In many ways, that is more important than the Greek or Spanish fiscal crises.

And that fits a point that I have made over and over again, which is that when it comes to predicting the future, there is one kind of thing that one can say with certainty, when all else is guesswork. Statements of this kind are always going to be true: in twenty years time, you and I and everyone else will either be twenty years older, and influencing the world in the way that people twenty years older that all of us are likely to influence the world (in my case hardly at all), or dead.

All manner of interesting suggestions about the relationship between events and later events can be derived from this kind of observation, including even events which have yet to happen, as Helen Szamuely's own earlier versions of the above presumably suggest. Such speculations are not all going to be right. But they can be very interesting and suggestive.

Historically, one of my favourite such twinning of two events is: Battle of Crecy 1346, Peasants Revolt 1381. A great many of those "peasants", including their leaders, were the veterans of earlier continental wars.

Now? Well, can it be coincidence that our current financial turmoil is happening just when, for the first time since it happened, hardly anyone is still alive and counting for anything who remembers the previous bout of such financial turbulence, that started erupting around 1929?

I commend this fascinating article to those who have not yet come across it - A Hidden History of Evil:
Why Doesn’t Anyone Care About the Unread Soviet Archives?

The archives contain "unpublished, untranslated, top-secret Kremlin documents, mostly dating from the close of the Cold War", yet their guardian "can’t get anyone to house them in a reputable library, publish them, or fund their translation." Amongst numerous other tidbits, there is some very interesting stuff about Soviet dealings with François Mitterrand, Neil Kinnock, and several past and present "European Project"/EU bigwigs.

(From the excellent Michael Totten, who's doing a fine job of holding the fort over at Instapundit)

As recounted here in a justifiably passionate editorial about the European Union's plans to beat up the City of London, we are reminded that, whatever the vote might have been in the May general election, that with qualified majority voting in the EU, states can - and do - gang up to put a particular country's economic affairs in grave difficulty.

Paris and Frankfurt have, in particular, resented the prosperity of the City. And as the recent travails of the euro show, there is precious little to be said for the supposedly wiser governnance of the euro zone. There was a certain amount of gloating after the US and UK got hit by the sub-prime mortgage meltdown (some of that gloating might have been justified) but it is quite clear that the rigidities of the euro zone remain a severe problem.

Why we are in the EU again?

The $146 billion bailout package approved this weekend for Greece is advertised as a move to "stop the worst crisis in the [euro]’s 11-year history," but it is having exactly the opposite effect.

...

So you have politicians defying the will of the voters to pour more water into a leaky bucket; transnational economic planners destroying a currency in order to save it; markets responding to those actions with predictable horror; and the few recipients of all the largesse too dumb to say "Thank you." This is apparently what EU stability looks like.

- The start and the finish (I recommend the stuff in between as well) of a piece by Tim Cavanaugh about the Greek Bailout

I'm watching the news, in particular the news that the airplanes will be allowed to fly again over Britain. Thank goodness.

Inevitably, a professorial head popped up – Professor Hayward was the name, I think – to argue that what had been revealed was that there were problems with who was in charge. Yes, it must have been the same Professor Hayward as the one quoted in this story. He described the muddle of different jurisdictions – with one Euro-quango governing this, and another that, and France and the UK actually, to quite a large extent – sniff – controlling their own airspace. I don't know what the Professor really thinks about this, but he or the TV editors made it sound like he thought there ought to be one Euro-authority in charge of everything. There should be, that is to say, a Single European Sky. Recent events, he said, highlighted the fact that there is a muddle of different jurisdictions, when it comes to whether airplanes can fly or not.

And a good thing too. Thanks to that muddle of different European jurisdictions, some planes have been flying over Europe, including one KLM plane which this afternoon flew over London. And the ban is melting away, for all the world as if Europe was still governed by a gaggle of sovereign states, each in charge of its own affairs. No planes have so far dropped out the sky. They didn't put it like that, but if a plane has fallen out of the sky, they would definitely have said. As more planes have taken to the air, the claim that flying in them is a death sentence becomes harder and harder to accept.

Had European airspace been commanded by a single despot, as will surely be argued by many others besides that Professor in the next few days and weeks, this disaster might have lingered on indefinitely, at a cost (and never let it be forgotten that economic disruption on this scale is, for quite a large number of severely stressed and severely impoverished, severely financially ruined people, a matter of life and death) which would have defied calculation.

Now Paxman is talking about pressure from "vested interests". Airlines wanting to stay in business, in other words, airlines who have become convinced that this scare has been massively overdone. Airlines who prefer to pay attention to evidence of what is actually happening in the sky, rather than trusting mere computer models. Computer models are getting a rather bad name these day, aren't they?

If, now that the ban is being lifted, planes do start crashing for mysterious reasons, or if the aircraft maintenance people start to detect the damage that they now say is non-existent in the planes that have already flown, then fine. Ground the planes again. But I'd be amazed if that happened. Airlines know better than anyone that plane crashes must be avoided at almost any cost. It is clear that they think that the risk of crashes now is negligible, for the reasons alluded to in this earlier posting here.

I hope that Simon Jenkins's phrase, health and safety Armageddon, catches on. My thanks to EU Referendum for the link to that piece, and in general for being all over this story.

But, note that North is today defending the Met Office. North implies that the problem is that muddle of jurisdictions, which has enabled the European commission to evade its responsibility for this mess and heep all the blame on the Met Office. I see what he means, of course I do. But which would you prefer? A muddle of jurisdictions, with all the inevitable buck passing and mutual recrimination, plus pressure from vested interests, and from politicians trying to get re-elected, and derision from bloggers, and by and by from the mainstream media, in short the semblance of a still-free society? Or a pristine tyranny, willing and able to be totally wrong, indefinitely, rather than admit to the embarrassment of being wrong? Widespread panic for a few days? Or, total panic for weeks or months on end, that refuses even to admit that this was what it was? I know which I prefer.

Yesterday, upon arriving at Pula airport in Croatia, I found a helpful map on one of the walls, showing the highlights of the country, and with a useful inset showing where Croatia fits in with other nearby countries.

I suppose they could have sent explorers to discover what actually exists in that uncharted wilderness to the east of Zagreb and Bosnia, but I suspect it was not worth it.

People sometimes ask me why I travel, and how I choose where I travel to. Let me give a recent example.

I have recently been making an effort to fill in gaps in my knowledge of modern European history. In particular, I have been attempting to learn about the Napoleonic Wars, and the subsequent growth of Prussia and its evolution into the German empire. The remnants of Europe's 20th century history are obvious and everywhere, but the remnants of earlier upheavals are equally there if you look for them. I have a certain penchant for looking at odd and peculiar remnants of the past, sometimes big, sometimes small. When in Poland late last year, for instance, I found myself visiting the remains of the mausoleum of Prussian General Gebhard Leberecht von Blücher, victor alongside the Duke of Wellington at the Battle of Waterloo. This was desecrated by the Red Army in the closing days of the Second World War - Russian soldiers used the general's skull for a game of football when doing so - and is not particularly easy to find these days, as Poland does not exactly advertise its presence, but it is there if you look for it.

And when reading about those same wars, I discovered an interesting fact: that there is an outstanding territorial dispute between Spain and Portugal from the same era. The river Guadiana forms the approximate border between Spain and Southern Portugal, although there are significant pieces of land that are east of the river and nonetheless part of Portugal. There used to be more. The town of Olivenza (in Spanish) / Olivença (in Portuguese) was Portuguese from the thirteenth century until the nineteenth (full details here). However, as Portugal allied itself with England in 1373 and the Spanish kingdoms were more often allied with France or other continental European powers, European wars along with local rivalries meant that the border was often fortified and there were various military skirmishes in the area over the centuries. For instance, the Ajuda Bridge across the Guadiana (which like many bridges in rural Portugal is often claimed to be Roman but which was actually built in the 16th century) connecting Olivença to the nearby Portuguese town of Elvas, was destroyed in 1709 during the War of Spanish Succession. Lack of resources, continuing instability, and the devastating earthquake of 1755 prevented it from being rebuilt before Olivença fell to the Spanish in the War of the Oranges in 1801, and was ceded to Spain in the Treaty of Badajoz that same year.

One article of that treaty stated that if either side breached any article of the treaty, the whole treaty was void. Spain and Portugal went to war again in the Peninsular War of 1807, at which point Portugal claimed that the Treaty of Badajoz had been abrogated as a consequence. Upon the final defeat of Napoleon, Britain promised to aid Portugal in achieving the return of Olivença, and a clause was inserted in the Treaty of Vienna in which it was agreed that the powers would "endeavour with the mightiest conciliatory effort to return Olivenza to Portuguese authority". After a bit of foot dragging, Spain signed the treaty.

And that is where we are today. Spain occupies Olivenza to this day, stating that agreeing to "endeavour with the mightiest conciliatory effort" is not the same as agreeing to do something, and claiming that the Treaty of Badajoz is still valid. Portugal rolls its eyes at this, and states that the Peninsular War makes the Treaty of Badajoz null and void anyway, plus Spain agreed to give Olivença back under the treaty of Vienna. The Napoleonic wars apparently continue on this small corner of the Iberian Peninsula, just as the Franco-Prussian War apparently still goes on in Liechtenstein. In practice, nobody gets too worked up about this, as modern relations between the two countries are good.

Before Christmas, I learned all this and I thought it was kind of interesting. In addition I was able to get a very cheap airfare to Faro on the Algarve and a cheap car rental when I arrived there. Plus the forecast in London was for heavy snow, and I wanted to get out of the cold for a few days. Plus I always have a lovely time when I go to Portugal - especially when I drive into the interior. There is a certain cliche of rural France (much represented in French cinema and much parodied in Stella Artois commercials) that seems largely gone when one visits rural France. One still finds it rather more in rural Portugal, and I find this rather charming.

So, the plan was set. I would fly in, have a look at the coast, and drive up the Portuguese side of the border, roughly following the Guadiana river, ultimately ending up at Olivenza. I would look for lingering signs of Portugueseness and resentment from the Napoleonic wars. If I had time, I might then head for the coast near Lisbon, look for the location used in a music video of a song by a Romanian pop princess that I had viewed in a bar in Transylvania a couple of weeks earlier, for no particular reason other than it reminded me a little of home.

The drive along the Algarve coast was quite pleasant. I had a fine cataplana in Olhão, spent some time in the beautiful Roman (and before that Phoenician) town of Tavira (where the bridge that is claimed to be Roman but was actually built by the Moors).

I spent the evening in the (post-1755) frontier town of Vila Real de Santo António, where I had one of the 365 kinds of Bacalhau a Bras and spent a little time sitting beside the Guadiana as I had a coffee and a glass or two of vinho tinto. On the way, I drove past a lot of golf courses and beachside cafes that were mostly or entirely closed for the winter. I find the deserted quality of the Spanish and Portuguese resorts at this time of year to be a touch puzzling, given that the weather is pleasant at a time when the weather in England, Germany and Scandinavia is hideous, and a few days south is a nice way to prevent oneself from committing suicide due to the winter. But so it was. The expatriates were there in the towns, and many had friends visiting them from the UK. The local economy is clearly geared up to English visitors, and there were plenty of expatriates to talk to, despite the more seasonal resorts being so empty. So I spent the evening chatting to people who were also escaping the English and Scottish weather.

The next morning it was time to head north. The weather was terrible. Rain was pouring down, but it was not too cold.

Portugal has long been the poorest country in western Europe, and it is easy and lazy to see it and describe it as relatively backwards: I probably did this myself when I earlier described it as fulfilling a certain rural cliche. I could say the same thing and just describe the country as having urbanised late. And of course I will mention the date of 1755 one more time: one still senses that the country's history is divided into before and after the earthquake, and much of the country took decades if not centuries to recover from that.

Of course, though, the Mediterranean was the heart of civilization for millennia. This area of Europe was occupied or traded with every civilization for thousands of years Everything is here: Phoenicia, Carthage, Rome, the Visigoths, the Moors, and then various Spanish and Portuguese kingdoms. The river Guadiana was important: it was navigable a fair way inland, and formed a natural border.

The obvious consequence, or at least the obvious consequence once you see it, is that the river is a route of extraordinary history and interest. I drove inland to Alcoutim, where I sat in a restaurant and ate pork with rice and potatoes, and watched the rain fall down outside, Through it I saw a castle on the hill looking across the river towards another castle on a hill on the Spanish side. I thien drove to Mertola, the furthest point up the river that could be reached in antiquity by ocean going ships. There my plans to get to Olivenza that evening went astray, for Mertola is a magnificent site. A medieval castle on the hill. A building of worship that is now a church but at various times also managed to be a synagogue and a mosque. An archaeological dig showing amazing Roman ruins, including those of a beautiful portico, no doubt a very painful spot. Some of the finest Islamic art to be found in Portugal. I couldn't help myself. Despite the horrible weather I went from site to site and museum to museum, expressing my intense enthusiasm as to the magnificence of the place to the staff in charge of the various sites.

It was a cold, rainy, winter's day. There were few people visiting this day. The news that there was an intensely enthusiastic Australian touring the various sites and museums managed to get around faster than I did, and thus I was greeted warmly and with expectation at the latter sites. One of the curators lent me an umbrella. Everyone was really nice.

After spending most of the afternoon in Mertola (and really, the place is worth far more than an afternoon) there was no chance I would make Olivenza that evening. And really, that was okay. I decided to drive a little further and find somewhere where I could stop for the night. I drove for another hour or so, and eventually got to Serpa. Like every town in this part of the world, Serpa has ancient city walls, a magnificent castle and the ruins of a spectacular aqueduct. (The aqueduct was what I chose for the Portuguese part of this trip for my end of year place dropping post). The locals were clearly very proud of these things, as they were lit up as I drove into town. By this point I was tired, and the rain showed no sign of ceasing. I needed to find somewhere to sleep, and I needed a nice meal.

Finding a comfortable and inexpensive residencial was not particularly hard. (One of the nice things about both Spain and Portugal is the huge amount of inexpensive, simple, and comfortable accommodation). I found a restaurant. The family who owned this restaurant spoke no English whatsoever, which led to much gesticulating, loud discussion and assorted other commotion when I showed up, but this in this part of the world this is simply how they convey welcome. Once I communicated the fact that I needed food, and that a little wine would possibly go well with it, I was well looked after. A large plate of pork with potatoes and rice was provided, along with a half litre of red wine that must have come from a vineyard no more than a couple of miles away.

The lack of obvious preparation for tourists emphasized a particular point. Although a huge number of foreigners visit the beaches of the Algarve, the inland of Portugal is off the international tourist trail. I find this puzzling, as this is wonderful country, and the reception one receives in it is as warm and welcoming as I have ever found anywhere.

The next day was dry and sunny. I continued driving north, through dry and harsh country. Despite its cultural and historical magnificence, the Alentejo region of Portugal is among the harshest and poorest regions of the country. Copper mining was important in this region for much of the early 20th century, which compensated for the relative decline of agriculture, but that is now gone. I drove through the small town of Pias. There was no bypass here. Odd historical circumstances mean that Portuguese roads tend to consist of narrow single carriageways or four lane motorways - there is little middle ground. The main road turned into a narrow street going through the centre of town. An old and rather grizzled looking man was gesticulating earnestly to someone much younger. Presumably he was telling him all about his plan to block the spring so as to force the land inherited by the out of town hunchback son of the woman he loved when he was young sell the land so that he and his once great but now in decline family could grown carnations on it and become great again. Or some such.

And yet, as I drove further north and reached Moura, because the Alqueva dam of the Guadiana river has been built just north of here, and the largest artificial lake in Europe now exists in the middle of Alentejo. Water does not appear to be in short supply. This traditionally dry and arid place now is in the process of becoming a venue offering water sports, and tourist facilities, large amounts of irrigation, a hydro-electric plant, and the largest ostrich farm in Portugal. I visited another fine castle and walked around another set of large city walls.

I drove on Mourão, yet another town on a hill with a beautiful castle. I thought it was time for lunch, and I visited a local restaurant, where I had a half bottle of local wine (once again, seemingly made close nearby) along with the "local specialty" from the menu. This turned out to be a pork, sausage and potato stew resembling a Cassoulet but being not quite that but something different. After this, it was only sensible and legal to take a break before resuming driving, so I took a long walk around the city walls and the castle. Look all towns in the vicinity, Mourão is at the top of a hill, a point that could be walled and defended in the many wars that took place in the region. However, the builders of the wall and castle could not have imagined that the town would one day be almost on an island. The lake of the Alqueva dam virtually surrounds it, and lengthy bridges have been constructed to maintain the existing roads.

I pushed on. Having originally intended to drive from the coast to Olivenza in one day, I was now well into the afternoon of a second. Next, though, was the magnificent historical fortress of Monseraz, on a hill overlooking the desert - a great fortress that has stood for thousands of years, being held and taken by the Romans, Moors, Portuguese, Spanish, and many of the great civilizations. This is the tallest and steepest of the fortresses I visited, and now has now lost all function as a town. It is simply a rock on which there are historic walls, restaurants, a castle, a few hotels, a tourist office, an arena used for bullfighting, and from which there is a magnificent view. Below that there is parking for many, many, cars. It is clearly visited by a huge number of people in summer. And yet, although it is at least as magnificent as (say) Les Baux, which is far more internationally famous. There is still a certain Portuguese insularity about it.

And yet, the view from Monseraz is nothing like it has been at any other time in its thousand years of history. About 180 degrees of view is water, and the other 180 degrees contains growing inhabited sprawl. The improved prosperity of Portugal, and increased economic activity in the area since the building of the dam has caused newer towns to grow.

However, I really needed to be on my way. Olivenza was still 80 km or so, and there was only a couple more hours of light. I crossed into Spain, and drove north. The disputed area of territory is reasonably large - nearly 800 square kilometres. The effective border is the river Guadiana, although Portugal does not recognise it. Olivenza is the only town of any size in this area. As I approached it, I saw a large power generating array of solar cells beside the road. I would normally have stopped to photograph them, but I was running out of light. Also, after all the other sites I had seen, my camera's battery was running out of power. I was in danger of inadequately seeing and capturing the supposed goal of my journey.

A lot of "alternative energy" schemes are nonsense. I am not actually that negative on photovoltaic cells - there will come a moment when their cost and efficiency reach a point when they can make a major contribution to power generation. Their presence here and now was silly though. No doubt some costly subsidised something that is doubly silly given all that lovely hydro-electric power on the other side of the river. However, they make great time lapse videos accompanied by Puccini, and I guess that is all that matters.

Anyway, I reached Olivenza. It was still light, but it was fading fast. I was down to taking photographs on a cellphone, although one with a reasonably good camera, as these things go. I managed to take some photographs of another fine castle and the city walls, and was able to acknowledge that the architecture did look Portuguese in places. I went up the tower of the castle, and got some pictures or two. In the castle was a municipal museum. A visit to municipal museums in places with a claim to distinction can sometimes be an interesting thing. Often, the people who run such museums miss the wood from the trees. In a place that something truly earthshattering once happened, a small corner will be devoted to the earthshattering thing, and the rest of the museum will be filled with humdrum relics from 1920, which are no different from relics from 1920 anywhere else.

Nothing really earthshattering happened here, but that was more or less it. The only reference to the fact that the town had once been Portuguese was a model of the long damaged and non-navigable Ajuda bridge, which carried a mention (in Spanish only) that it had been built when Olivenza was ruled by Portugal.

By this point, the light was gone. I needed to be back in Faro for a flight in the morning. No big problem, as there was motorway from the nearby Portuguese town of Elvas all the way to the Algarve. However, I was hungry.

And, of course, there was experience to be had in this, as anyone who has been to both countries will know that the bar and restaurant rituals of Portugal are different from those in Spain. There were a few bars and restaurants open in Olivenza, but it was only about 7pm and nightlife in Spain does not really get going until a good while after that. Still, I found a tapas bar, and ordered a small glass of vino tinto and a couple of tapas dishes.

One thing was immediately different. The wine was nothing local, but instead from Rioja - from the best wine region in Spain but a long way away - and I ate some potato croquettes just like the ones I would have in Madrid. Spain has a cosmopolitan sophistication that Portugal lacks, clearly. A game of football on the TV - Real Zaragoza playing someone or other. Portugal might claim this place and it might just about be visible in the architecture, but the Spanish had done a good job of eradicating the Portugueseness.

I had another walk around city walls, but once again the need to be on my way was hitting me. The motorway route back to Faro involved driving for 100 kilometres in the direction of Lisbon and then about 200km on another route south. This motorway went through Elvas, the nearest significant town that was unequivocally Portuguese. Just north of Olivenza, I turned towards the river, following a sign that said "Elvas".

The GPS navigation system I take with me on these trips has a full set of European maps, but the quality and modernity of the maps in question visits a little depending on the country. As I drive towards the Guadiana, the very posh public school female voice that is the default option for "British English" on such systems urged me repeatedly to "turn around". As I approached what it was telling me was the end of the road, signs beside the road were instead telling me the sorts of things that one gets on road signs when one is about to leave a country or state. "Thank you for visiting Spain. Come again soon". "Portugal 2000m ahead". "Portugal 1000m ahead". That sort of thing.

After 1000m, I crossed the Ajuda bridge. Although this bridge was destroyed in 1709, the (probably) Roman road connecting Olivenza and Elvas was not reopened until the year 2000, when a new bridge was finally constructed. A reason for this is simple. Until the enactment of the Schengen agreement in 1995, there were immigration controls between Spain and Portugal. If the Portuguese were to set up a border crossing point on the river Guadiana at a point that they considered to be well within Portuguese territory, that might be seen as an implicit acknowledgement that this was the location of the border, and Portugal was not willing to make such an acknowledgement. Thus there were no official border crossing points in the disputed area, and a bridge went 300 years without being repaired or rebuilt.

Finally, though, the Schengen agreement meant that all border controls between Spain and Portugal were abolished, and it was therefore possible to have a border crossing point without making such an acknowledgement. Thus Spain and Portugal finally agreed to build a new bridge. Normally a bridge crossing national borders would be built and paid for jointly by both countries, but Portugal insisted that the bridge should be constructed and paid for entirely by Portugal. Countries with disputes like this manage to somehow behave like small children claiming that they don't have to keep their word because they have their fingers crossed behind their backs.

This looks like the reverse of usual such arguments in which people try to avoid paying for things themselves, but in truth, this was probably just two PIIGS discussing whether it would be paid for by the Fondo de Cohesión or the Fundo de Coesão, so the Spanish conceded.

I crossed the bridge. Normally, when you enter a state or country, you see lots of signs acknowledging the fact. "Welcome to Minnesota". "The speed limit here is 110 km/h". "This county does not tolerate drink driving, domestic violence, or climate change sceptics". That kind of thing. Here, however, on the Portuguese side, there was no acknowledgement whatsoever that I had just entered Portugal. Just a road going through the dark. My GPS was telling me that it did not know where I was. I drove on. There was a sign stating that I could drive down a side road to the river and see the ruins of the historic Ajuda Bridge. I would have liked to have done so, but it was pitch dark by this point, and I had a reasonably long drive. So I drove on.

I was unequivocally back in Portugal. In a sense this was good, because I had rented the car from a local company in the Algarve. I had declined their €50 "cross border fee" to be allowed to take the car into Spain, given that this was more than the total cost of renting the car. This quite possibly meant that my insurance was not valid in Spain. Of course, I had been in Olivença, which by Portuguese law was part of Portugal, but as a de facto matter was part of Spain. If I had had an accident, I would have no doubt found myself arguing that Olivença was a de jure part of Portugal (at least by Portuguese jure) and that my insurance was thus valid. My hunch is that the car rental business or their insurance company would have just conceded the point, as I doubt that any Portuguese court would have dared to make a ruling suggesting that Olivença was part of Spain, but in practice it was best not to have had to push it. In a way though, it would have been amusing if I had been in a position where I needed to do so. Imagining a situation in which I was able to quote the treaty of Vienna and the fact of the Peninsular War as relevant when resolving a relatively routine traffic matter was enough to at least make me smile.

None of this happened, though. After 15 minutes or so I reached Elvas. At the first intersection I stopped, and photographed the sign pointing back in the direction I came. It said "Olivenca". Every other road sign in Portugal simply says "Espanha". I then quickly admired yet another castle and yet another aqueduct before hitting the motorway.

It was Saturday night. I had some vague idea of driving to Lagos, the number one party town of the Algarve, and sampling a little nightlife before heading back to Faro airport and then London in the morning, but alas I discovered I was tired. Thus, I simply drove to Faro, found a place to stay, and got some sleep. I got up in the morning, refueled the car, returned it to the car rental company at the airport, went through security. I then looked at the departure screen, which said that the 10.30 flight to London was expected to depart at 17.30. For once, I couldn't really blame Ryanair. Stansted airport was closed due to snow. None the less, f*ck. I had intended to go to a party in London that evening. If I hadn't been, I could have stayed in the Algarve for a couple more days. Or I might have made it to beaches near Lisbon where Romanian songstresses filmed their music videos. As it was, I would be back in London just in time to miss the party. F*ck.

It was a fine trip though.

A number of governments - the UK and German - have used information stolen from a Liechtenstein bank in a bid to hunt after alleged tax evaders. And now, there is a story that data has been stolen from HSBC Private Bank (Suisse), divulging data on scores of French clients. The French government, you will not be surprised to learn, gentle reader, is probably not all that shy of using stolen material. It will be interesting to see what happens to such data. Here is another news report.

As I keep saying in my defence of tax havens, bank secrecy is not really about allowing dodgy folk to squirrel away ill-gotten gains, which is the usual image presented these days. (That is not to say that such secrecy has not been abused in the past). In past ages, groups fleeing persecution - such as Jews from Nazi-controlled Europe - availed themselves of banking secrecy in order to protect what was left of that wealth. We should not be so naive as to imagine that even without a repeat of such horrors, there is not a need for client privacy to be rigorously enforced. It is monstrous that governments should use stolen material in this fashion, but then, as the founding editor of this site likes to remind us, the state is not your friend.

Timothy Garton Ash, writing in the Guardian displays the jarring sensibilities that comes inevitability from holding the sort of fuzzy authoritarian statist views that prevail these days. On the subject of the Swiss ban on new minaret construction...

That is to put the clock of religious toleration back 300 years, to a time when even protestants in Catholic France could not worship in public. Of course, planning regulations and the local townscape must be respected. Architectural tact and syncretic innovation are desirable, as brilliantly exemplified in the new buildings of the Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies or Boston's Islamic Cultural Centre. But this vote was not about urban planning.

Actually it is about 'urban planning', just not for the sort of reasons the writer approves of.

But what makes me laugh is that Ash has no problem whatsoever using the force of the state to make people build in ways he approves of. It is clearly axiomatic to him that the state gets to have planning regulations over what you can build on your own private property, even over mere aesthetic issues (i.e. he likes the fact the political trumps the social completely when it comes to your property). He just wants what people like him thinks is 'desirable' to be allowed.

Yet somehow when that political process he accepts as axiomatic produces something he does not think is 'desirable' to his Guardianista sensibilities, I doubt it occur to him that maybe it is his acceptance of people exerting force backed political power over others in pretty much every aspect of life where the problem lies.

Muslims in Switzerland wishing to build minarets on buildings dedicated to praising the words of their mass murdering Dark Ages warlord only have the problem they now face because people like Timothy Garton Ash think it is perfectly alright that the state to be allowed to 'plan' what people can do on their own property.

The result is in: the Swiss public has voted in favour of a proposition prohibiting the construction of any new minarets in their country. Note: this is not a ban on Islam or even the construction of mosques, just minarets.

Aside from all the obvious reprecussions (which are not hard to predict), it does occur to me that this raises an interesting and very thorny questions for libertarians because this is not a straightforward case of state repression. In fact, it appears that both the Swiss government and parliament were firmly opposed to the proposition which has been put to the public by referendum following a petition which was endorsed by a sufficient number of Swiss citizens. The Swiss state urged the public to reject the proposition but, having lost, is now forced, reluctantly, to change the constitution to enact the minaret ban into Swiss law. This was ground-up not top-down.

When a government says no to freedom of religious worship, it is easy to mount our high horses and ride forth bearing gleaming swords of indignation. But when a clear majority of the demos say no, well, then it gets rather harder. At least, it does for me.

It may seem late in the day, but those fine people at the Taxpayers' Alliance are putting around a petition urging support for a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, aka the European Constitution. The Czech Republic is, at present, the last country to stand in the way of what will be a dangerous acceleration in the move of the EU towards the status of being a complete state in its own right.

Here is the link for those who are interested.

As an aside, I see that the TPA has spawned a leftist website using almost exactly the same URL. The TPA, is, according to this outfit, an evil, right-wing (booo!) organisation that er, wants to do terrible things like curb the spending of the state. This lot appear to be almost as capable of tax-doublespeak as the absurdly misnamed Tax Justice Network .

This might be the start of the end for Italian PM Silvio Berlusconi, who in many ways has the honesty that many of our NuLabour pols do not, to express his sheer brazen enjoyment at the benefits of being in office. But he is a terrible man in many ways - it is not as if he has rolled back the parasitic Italian state, for example. The trouble is, whoever replaces this character will be just as bad. Maybe not as venal, but just as unlikely to shrink the state.

Although we have had one of the most savage downturns since the 1930s, an analysis of the crisis would conclude that we have still not met its full political or social effects. Indeed, the whole experience has been dampened by fiscal stimulus and an air of artificial normality. Economists still call for green shoots and implore the broken totem of consumer spending and house prices to merge, giving a new impetus to the economy. Salient voices say that the model is broken, but 'debt and spend' is only postponing the inevitable.

Riots that have broken out were concentrated on particular countries where the elected authorities were particularly mendacious or incompetent: Iceland, Latvia etc...but they have tended to peter out. Action has been displaced by apathy, indifference and a mood of anti-politics as social democracy has withered on the vine. Disagree with much of the Left's analysis, but they can smell the rot as the European elections attested:

What we are seeing in Britain and throughout Europe is the last death throes of historical social democracy that emerged from the split in the world workers movement after the Russian revolution. This does not of course mean that we shall see the early demise of the parties that originated in social democracy, but the project – in the early phase socialism via successive reforms and then pro-working class reforms within the framework of capitalism – is all but dead, and in any case nowhere the majority or the leadership of parties like the French SP or the SPD in Germany.

The social democratic Left may no longer have the institutions to mobilise disaffected voters and workers. Their most recent travails are based upon the migration of the disaffected to marginal parties more in tune with their attitudes and goals: euroscepticism in Britain, radical right in the Low countries or Austria, hard left and poujadiste in France.

What is left out of the equation is that the social, cultural and political reaction to a depression can take two years or more to surface in a slow burn radicalisation. Political crisis did not start to hit till 1931 with the sovereignty crises. Are we in the early stages of a new migration to the extremes; awaiting that tipping point?

Imagine a future where you could find yourself arrested for crimes for which you were acquitted nearly twenty years ago... where you can be found guilty and sentenced in your absence and without your knowledge... a future where when you go on holiday abroad you find yourself being arrested for you know not what - and those arresting you do not know either; they just know you are wanted in another foreign country.

This is not the future.

I have added emphasis to this BBC story about Deborah Dark in order to highlight aspects that particularly shocked me but otherwise left it unchanged.

A British grandmother is being pursued by France for a crime she was convicted of in her absence 20 years ago. Deborah Dark, 45, from London, was acquitted of a drugs offence in 1989 - but found guilty and sentenced to six years on appeal without being told.

France issued a European Arrest Warrant in 2005 but recent extradition attempts have failed in both the UK and Spain.

UK charity Fair Trials International said the warrant system was creating a "blatant injustice" against her.

Ms Dark, from Richmond in south-west London, was arrested in France in 1989 in a car containing several kilos of cannabis.

A French court believed her defence that she been set up by an abusive boyfriend and was acquitted.

But she was unaware the prosecution appealed without telling her after she returned to the UK and she was found guilty and sentenced in 1990.

A European Arrest Warrant was issued by the French authorities for Ms Dark to be returned to France to serve her jail term.

Ms Dark told the BBC of the effect that still being officially wanted in France had had on her.

She said: "It's destroyed me, and to see my daughter to go through all that pain again. I just will never forget it.

"I can't leave the country. If I leave the country I will be arrested because I'm still on the European Arrest Warrant."

In 2007 she was arrested on a package holiday at a Turkish airport but the authorities were unable to give her a reason.

On her return to the UK the British police could not find any warrants against her.

When Ms Dark travelled to visit her retired father in Spain in 2008 she was arrested and spent one month in custody.

But a Spanish court refused to extradite her on the grounds of unreasonable delay and the significant passage of time.

When she returned to the UK she was arrested by British police at Gatwick airport and released on bail pending an extradition hearing. Magistrates refused extradition in April this year.

Fair Trials International said Ms Dark was effectively being "imprisoned in the UK".

Chief executive Jago Russell said: "Deborah's case is a shocking example of the way a system intended to deliver justice has created a blatant injustice.

"The European Arrest Warrant should have been designed with a time-limit built in but it wasn't.

"The result - a person's life can be turned upside down for an event alleged to have happened 20 years ago."

There is an interesting feature article over at Reuters about how, as a result of the financial crisis and the rigid labour market laws of much of the continent, millions of young Europeans leaving school and college face a bleak future over the next few years. Even during the relatively prosperous period of the Nineties and much of the 'Noughties, youth unemployment in nations such as France was shockingly high, sometimes into double figures. Europe's failure to create a large number of private sector jobs remains one of the most damning facts about the continent's economic record over the past quarter of a century.

Following the dreadful news about the Italian earthquake, this blog about Italy contains a mass of links to charities and organisations helping with the recovery effort in the stricken area. I have some distant Italian relations who live not far away from the area although fortunately they are all okay.

The Labour blogger Tom Harris is upset that the Tory MEP, Daniel Hannan, dared - oh the impertinence! - to attack Gordon Brown the other day. The horror. A politician attacks another politician and about policies too - what is the world coming to? But as Alex Massie puts it, this is tosh, and Mr Harris, if he has any self respect, must surely know it. It also makes me wonder what Mr Harris thinks MEPs should do, or if they have any rights at all to criticise leaders of the countries whence they come?

I have often watched, in recent times, Labour ministers berate opposition politicians for "playing politics" for having the temerity to criticise some policy or other. This is a totalitarian mindset. In an adversarial system such as the Anglosphere one, rhetorical combat and debate is all part of the system and a necessary part, as well. It is probably also a sign of how the ruling UK Labour Party is now frightened that, when confronted with an example of blazing eloquence by a European MP like Mr Hannan, the best that NuLab can do is moan about the MP's "lack of patriotism".

At this blog, over the years, we have argued long and hard about the dire state of the Tory Party and the sort of people that have advanced within. I am sure that libertarian purists will be able to unearth unflattering political details about Mr Hannan. But in the current environment, his speech - now a YouTube phenomenon - is like a dash of brandy to a half-drowned man. I hope it galvanizes his colleagues to follow suit.

When it comes to drowning, the gurgling guy you see vanishing beneath the waves is Gordon Brown. Developments such as the insufficient bids for UK government bonds suggest the end is now very close.

Reuters, last month:

LONDON, Jan 26 - British Prime Minister Gordon Brown warned on Monday against a retreat into financial protectionism as the global economic downturn gathers pace.

With sterling near record lows against the yen and 23-year lows against the dollar, Brown also reiterated that his government policy was not built around currency exchange rates.

"We have not yet seen the same protectionism in trade with beggar-thy-neighbour policies of the '30s," he told reporters, referring to the Great Depression. "And I will fight hard to ensure we do not. But we also need to ensure we do not exercise a new form of financial mercantilism of retreat into domestic lending and domestic financial markets.

Reuters, this month, from Berlin:

BERLIN, Feb 22 - European leaders meeting in Berlin on Sunday have backed oversight of all financial markets and products, including hedge funds, and urged that sanctions be drawn up to punish tax havens, according to a final statement seen by Reuters.

Where was Gordon? Apparently he was there. Perhaps he has changed his mind about financial mercantilism in the meantime.

Following on from Perry's post below, I am pleased to note that there is something we can do to help Geert Wilders.

For those among you who want to actively help, go to his website and donate what you can to help defray what will likely be a ruinous legal bill. The link is here.

Geert Wilders is one of the pitifully few public figures in Europe who is willing to confront the Islamist menace. As a result, his enemies have sentenced him to death (because all they want is peace, don't you know) and his own government has decided to prosecute him.

Even if you cannot contribute financially then I urge you at least to get a message to him to let him know that he is not alone and that he has many, many friends. He needs them.

A court in the Netherlands has ordered the prosecution of Geert Wilders, leader of the Freedom Party, for daring to express his opinions. Wilders is the author of Fitna, a critical polemic against Islam.

The three judges said that they had weighed Mr Wilders's "one-sided generalisations" against his right to free speech, and ruled that he had gone beyond the normal leeway granted to politicians.

"The Amsterdam appeals court has ordered the prosecution of member of parliament Geert Wilders for inciting hatred and discrimination, based on comments by him in various media on Muslims and their beliefs," the court said in a statement.

"The court also considers appropriate criminal prosecution for insulting Muslim worshippers because of comparisons between Islam and Nazism made by Wilders," it added.

This judgement completely destroys the myth of both Dutch civil liberties and the nation's reputed tolerance for differences of opinion. It seems you can have a difference of opinion just as long as it is not inconvenient to the state for you to express it. Yet again, the Dutch state proves that when the going gets tough, the Dutch state has a backbone of rubber.

So here is Fitna for you to watch. And to the authoritarian thugs in their court in Amsterdam... up yours.

And as a little bonus...

The EU is bleating as people go cold due to Russian gas being shut off due to its disputes with the Ukraine. And the ever dependable Russian polity, moonbats to a man, blame the USA for the crisis.

The pragmatic Slovak government has made the very sensible decision to possibly restart Soviet era nuclear power plants that they were decommissioning as part of their accession to the EU, if the crisis drags on... and in doing so, they show the simple and 'carbon footprint' friendly (as if I care) solution to this and oh so many problems... nuclear power. How can a solution that dooms both the Kremlin and Middle East to long term strategic insignificance not be a Truly Many Splendored Thing?

I have just returned from a short business trip to Geneva in Switzerland and apart from the usual chatter about the disasters that have befallen the banking system - including such titans as UBS - the chatter in the cafes was about voters' recent decision to allow heroin to be given to drug addicts in medical centres. Switzerland's experiments with a more liberal approach to drug use has not been without unfortunate result: I remember that some time ago, there was a park in Zurich that got the unfortunate title, "needle park", on account of the number of folk who used to congregate there from all over to get their fix of heroin. But perhaps that is a sort of example of how, if you have "public spaces" - owned by the nation and hence owned by no-one in particular - what might be a matter of private behaviour can lead to "negative externalities". The solution, maybe, is for drug users to indulge their habits on private property with the consent of the owners of said; then the issue ceases to be one on which the polity feels a need to express a view one way or the other.

But the Swiss are nothing if not contradictory and the locals do not seem to share a very coherent conception of what the state can or should be able to tell people to do, but I do sense that there is less of a nanny state culture than in Britain. The locals tell me that there is, still, more of a culture of self-responsibility than in some other European nations. But the contradictions are odd: while approving the heroin measure, Swiss electors rejected a proposal to make marijuana legal and to be able to grow it for personal use. And yet this is a nation where smoking continues to happen in restaurants; firearms ownership is far more liberal than in the UK; ditto things like knives and swords; bank secrecy, while not quite as solid as before, remains; and the nation, to its credit, remains cussedly uninterested in joining the EU or allowing itself to be bullied by tax collectors in places such as Germany and the US.

And the chocolate tastes pretty good as well. Yummm.....

William Rees-Mogg has a nice, rather wistful account of the days of when bank managers actually knew their clients, knew their economic circumstances and were not in the business of lending money to folk with little or no credit history. Mr Rees-Mogg is a devotee of the gold standard. However, in talking about the changing nature of banks and the quality of their staff, he does not touch on an issue which struck me the other day: limited liability.

Under limited liability laws and with central bankers acting as lenders of last resort, there is an element of moral hazard. Some free marketeers like Sean Gabb - whom I mention below - think limited liability laws are a statist curse on the capitalist system, since they would not arise without active state adjustments of corporate law. I am not sure about whether limited liability would exist in a world of pure laissez faire. It might, I guess. Also, not everyone buys the idea that LL is a distortion of the market or would not exist without state action.

However, there are still some nooks and crannies of the banking world where unlimited liability still exists and works successfully. The Swiss private bank Pictet, founded in 1805 in that memorable Napoleonic battle year of Austerlitz and Trafalgar, operates a partnership system where the bank partners face unlimited liability. As a result, Pictet operates a very conservative lending and investment policy. During the fat years of the 'Noughties, Pictet may have seen some of its more aggressive competitors steal a march, but now the bank is attracting inflows from investors who appreciate the structure of the firm. At a time when Swiss banks have sometimes attracted bad headlines due to massive losses undertaken by over-confident people, the example of Pictet is an interesting contrast.

Yours truly escaped from the credit crunch, his computer keyboard and endless work hassles to get some much-needed relaxation in the Greek island of Crete last week. I can strongly recommend it, although not all aspects of life in that island are an unalloyed joy (they seem to assume that British tourists want chips with everything). I noticed that the locals have an agreeably "f**k you" approach to things like any smoking bans in restaurants, at least judging by my own observations. And I noticed that the driving standards have not improved much since I was last in Greece in 1992. A taxi driver who took me and the missus to the airport held a mobile phone in his hand, had innumerable phone calls and was busily texting his wife/mistress/whoever during a drive down a twisty lane. At one point I even suggested that this might not be a bright idea. I might as well have been talking to a martian.

Of course, such things are foolish and silly. And using a mobile phone while driving is dangerous. But maybe what has happened is not that the Greeks have got any nuttier or more reckless. It is that we Brits have, wittingly or otherwise, become even more safety conscious and worried about risk. Sometimes it takes a passage of time and a contrast with another culture to realise that.

Here is a comment at Coffee House on this posting:

Brown will pull a rabbit out of his hat. He will declare that he will hold a referendum on the UK being IN or OUT of the EU! He will promise to accept the decision and make policy changes following the result!

SUCH a policy, such a move would instantly wipe the smiles off the Tories as we will have the spectacle of Cameron/Osborne etc in the IN camp and forever losing their eurosceptic labels!

Brown knows that being out of the EU will bring in massive investment and also save the country billions.

Expect this in late Autumn.

This is from "alan" and is comment number nine, at 8.09am. As a political prophecy I think it is barking moonbattery. But as a description of economic reality, does what alan says, suicide note capitals and all ("SUCH a policy"), perhaps have merit?

I have long believed that leaving the EU would be good for Britain's economy, quite aside from such incidentals as the rule of law rather versus rule by the mere say-so of rulers, and in due course getting dragged into whatever European civil wars accompany the eventual break-up of the EU. But I have tended to assume that leaving the EU in the nearer future would inevitably involve a period of economic bad news, during which the associated dislocations - and the EU's enraged punishments - would be immediate, but during which the clear eventual benefits to Britain's economy would be somewhat slower to materialise.

However, would leaving the EU be a short-term fix for Britain's present economic woes? Would it have the immediate benefits that alan claims for it? If so, that would be a meme worth getting behind.

UPDATE: Some interesting EUro-commentary from Guido.

Any regular reader of newspapers will be familiar with the phenomenon of the newspaper article which says one thing, but with a headline above it, written by someone completely different, saying something completely different. Yesterday's Telegraph piece written by Bruno Waterfield, entitled Brussels admits defeat in EU blog wars is, I think, a good example. I read the headline and rejoiced, but then I read the article.

What Waterfield's piece actually says is not that the EU has admitted defeat in the face of blogs, but that the EU commission does not like blogs. Blogs have enabled those who think 'No' to say 'No'. Blogs are too cheap to be bought off or controlled, too easy to set up to be silenced. Blogs are bad news. Blogs have been especially bad news in Ireland, where Irish bloggers saying No lead directly to Irish voters voting No. But nowhere in Bruno Waterfield's report did I read any suggestion that the EU commission is ready to give up in its struggle with this new media menace to its power, and just to lie back and allow people to put whatever they think up on the internet. On the contrary, this 'secret' report that Waterfield quotes from sounds to me not like a surrender at all, more like a declaration of war.

The assault on liberty could be worse than it is in the United Kingdom. We are nothing like Zimbabwe, say - or Jersey.

Jersey? Yes. And I don't mean the partly imaginary lawless land of the Sopranos and Frank Sinatra. The supposedly sleepy tax-haven and holiday resort a few miles off the Normandy coast, the oldest possession of the English Crown still in hand*, has entirely astonishingly, and almost secretly, converted itself a police state in the last fortnight:

The report in the Jersey Evening Telegraph is so concise it can only be quoted in full:

The Home Affairs Minister has sent shock waves through the legal profession by authorising the indefinite detention of suspects without charge.

On 5 June, Senator Wendy Kinnard amended the criminal code that had limited pre-charge detention to 36 hours.

She did so under delegated powers enjoyed by the minister under the terms of the Police Procedures and Criminal Evidence (Jersey) Law.

However, that same law states that before such changes to codes are made, the minister is required to publish a draft of the changes and consult interested parties. She did neither of these things – a failure that has left the Island’s criminal lawyers stunned.

The new code came into force on Thursday, but no statement was released to either the media or the legal profession.

Why? What crisis of state is afflicting the Channel Islands?

Suspicious British readers may note that Jersey ministers are accustomed to do what they are told by the UK government. The facts that this peremptory administrative action shortly preceded the House of Commons debate on police detention powers, and that the resistance to HMG's policies had had some effect by pointing out there are other jurisdictions, where the gutters do not run with human blood, in which long detention without charge is unknown, may be entirely unrelated.

* Pedant's corner: the dukes of Normandy held the Channel Islands for more than a century before they took possession of the English Crown.

The always-solid Belmont Club, pondering the newly segregated Sarajevo, captures my unease with multiculturalism:

Maybe the real threat to multiculturalism are the demagogues who see identity politics as the road to power, even if that process involves the destruction of the larger polity. Under the color of multiculturalism, the ship of separatism steams majestically on.

Although I think it might be better phrased as "the real threat to tolerance".

I can't recall anyone claiming to push multiculturalism who wasn't, at the end of the day, really pushing some kind of identity politics. Inevitably, identity politics is nothing more than collectivism with a grudge. I think its no coincidence that the cities I've lived in where race relations were the most civil (Richmond, Virginia and San Angelo, Texas) had very little in the way of vocal multiculturalism/identity politics/race hustlers, while the cities that had the worst race relations (Boston and Dallas) tended to be well populated with the breed. It reminds me of the way cities with the strictest gun control have the highest crime.

In my experience, genuinely civil multi-cultural communities tend to be somewhat segregated. The key, I think, is mutual respect, not to be confused with the naive and purblind cultural relativism of the multicultural pious.

The Financial Times carries a report - if we can dignify this rather biased piece of journalism as a report - stating that European business leaders are becoming embarrassed at the size of paychecks that are being paid out to the heads of some companies. Oh dear. The story's underlying assumption that equality of outcome, as opposed to equality before the law, is a good thing, is unquestioned. Of course, if the economic pie is of fixed size, then the fact that Fat Capitalist Bastard X has a larger slice of it than Poor Oppressed Worker does become an issue of justice. But therin lies the rub.

European economies, certainly in the more mature economies of Germany, France, Italy and the Low Countries, have grown at barely more than 2 per cent per annum in recent years, with Germany among the better ones, at 2.6 per cent last year. Take a look at this grid of growth rates, with European ones often at the bottom. After an extremely painful period of restructuring inside the straitjacket of the single currency, Germany has become more prosperous, or at least its blue chip companies like BMW and Siemens have. France is still floundering: President Sarkozy has not proven much of a reformer. So it is unsurprising that Europe's economic "pie" has not expanded much. In such an environment, where you have some global companies based in Europe which are doing well, their CEOs get paid a fortune, but among the mass of the public who work for small and medium-sized firms dependent on domestic markets, the picture is far less rosy. Throw in the impact of rising commodity prices like oil and wheat, and no wonder the income gap is expanding relatively.

Of course, the FT, a faithfully centrist publcation in its political complexion, does not point out that this inequality does rather undermine the idea that the social-democrat, or "Rhine" model of "managed capitalism" is so much better than the anarchic, Anglo-Saxon sort. And remember than in France, for example, the country has a relatively steep, progressive tax code, plus a wealth tax on the super-rich. It has an absurd 35-hour work-week rule and some of the most protected labour markets in the world. And yet inequality is, according to the FT, increasing.

One of the few positive things in the article, however, is the point that some large institutional investors, like pension funds, are using their market clout as shareholders to vote against massive payouts to CEOs in firms that do not perform well. This is the sort of pressure I support. As an investor, if I hold a stake in a company run by a chump who demands a 10 per cent pay rise, for example, it is only right that I should say no. Of course, the other option is to sell that firm's shares. Sooner or later, companies run by over-paid idiots tend to lose money for their investors. As for CEOs that run strong firms and are paid big bucks, well, if their shareholders are relatively better off in terms of the returns on their investment, than the headline-grabbing paychecks of a CEO are easy to defend. After all, if being a CEO was easy, there would be more of them around, and hence, they would be less well paid on average. The question that the FT does not ask is why the supply of CEOs and other senior managers is not greater than it is.

"Everyday life is as important to understanding of what happens as are historical milestones. It might help people realise how little it takes for the society to find itself in a grasp of a toxic ideology and how gradual the decline can be, how unnoticed the erosion of freedom, dignity and moral strength."

From this blog's Adriana Lukas, in her moving and chilling account of an exhibition in Hungary, yesterday. Scroll down and read it all.

I rather like this story about one of the smallest islands in the Channel Islands group being up for sale, or at least its lease is.

I like this detail:

Herm is the first Channel Island to go on sale for years. The asking price for the 40-year lease includes a manor house, 13th century chapel, 80 acres of farmland complete with a dairy herd and what is thought to be the world’s smallest jail.

And this:

Buyers could in effect have their own tax haven, paying 20% on income and avoiding death duties and capital gains, in common with other Channel Islands residents.

The only catch is that the price tag is £15 million.

As to whether the new owner of the property would be in a position to declare self-government and become an independent state, I am not sure. It would be a nice idea, though. Here's a book on the subject.

As a Pimlico resident, I naturally would be amused to see if we could ever follow the example of a brilliant 1940s movie.

The monster who locked up relatives in his Austrian home for many years - at god knows what cost to their psychological state or physical health - is trying to defend himself by blaming it on Adolf Hitler.

Oh well, makes a change from blaming it all on video games, globalisation or George Bush, I suppose.

Via this blog, comes this awesomely silly story:

The Greek Isle of Lesbos is suing the group Homosexual and Lesbian Community of Greece to stop using the term Lesbian. Seems they are tired of having the term for people from their isle be synonymous with the followers of Sappho. “Our geographical designation has been usurped by certain ladies who have no connection whatsoever with Lesbos,” said Dimitris Lambrou, one of the plaintiffs.

Fantastic. Just imagine how one could play with this. Suppose the town council of Dorking, southern England, sues anyone who is referred to, or uses the pejorative term, "Dork".

Greece: did not that country once come up with clever chaps like Aristotle or something?

As ever, those interested in silly lawsuits should keep an eye on Overlawyered, an invaluable blog.

I previously reported on the saga of Mikko Ellilä. Here is the trial (in English) and now the state has spoken its verdict: guilty.

So it has happened: thoughtcrime is now officially a crime in Finland. Stating your opinion, moreover stating your opinions based of government statistics, is illegal. Finns may now only express a politically sanctioned range of opinions subject to supervision by official Gauleiters like Mikko Puumalainen. The fine is small but so what? The message is clear. Dissent will not be tolerated by the Finnish state. It should not matter a damn if you agree with what Mikko Ellilä says, it is outrageous that he is not being allowed to say what he thinks.

The thing I find so nauseating is these sanctimonious pathological control freaks act as those they are not repressive government thugs using force to prevent dissent. The freedom to only state popular opinions is no freedom at all because freedom of speech is the right to say what some other people do not want to hear. It is the right to express opinions that may offend because if you cannot do that, you do not have freedom of speech.

People like Finnish bureaucrat Mikko Puumalainen exist everywhere (see the Ezra Levant case in Canada) and they must be resisted by any means necessary.

Raising issues like non-intervenionist foreign policy on a site like this is a bit like poking a bear with a stick: potentially hazardous. In my recent item on WW2, the issue surfaced again of whether a viable foreign policy for a nation is the "Swiss model" (no, not that kind). I personally doubt it works for all nations, certainly not the largest ones with long, porous borders. But as I have praised tax havens recently, I am reminded of how the Swiss seem to cope very well thankyou outside a surpranational organisation like the EU or a military alliance like NATO. But is that country what economists call a "free rider" - taking advantage of the fact that other, bigger nations have done the heavy lifting in standing up to tyrants, etc?

The toxic effects of collectivism rear its ugly Hydra-like heads in Finland, where the state wants to introduce a Chinese style 'Internet Great Wall' to stop people expressing political idea the state disapproves of. It also wants to prosecute Mikko Ellilä for the thought crime of expressing a dislike of multiculturalism.

It has been reported to me that Puumalainen said in a government press release in April that “racism” on the internet should be persecuted using the same methods as in the combat against child porn.Since all internet operators in Finland are required by law to block child porn websites, Puumalainen’s statement that "the same methods that have been successful in the combat against child porn should be implemented in weeding out racism on the internet as well" means that in Puumalainen’s opinion it ought to be possible for the government to establish a firewall that blocks all websites that Puumalainen accuses of racism.

In other words, Puumalainen says "racism" is a crime like child porn, and therefore "racist" websites such as blogs that mention crime statistics should be blocked by a governmental firewall.Mikko Puumalainen not only thinks that "racism" (such as data quoted from official crime statistics published by the Ministry of Justice, or by the Interpol, or by the United Nations) should be a crime, but that citizens should not even be able to access websites that Ayatollah Puumalainen has declared to be heretic

And what 'racist act' did Mikko Ellilä commit that enraged the state?

Quotes from official crime statistics published by the Ministry of Justice undoubtedly "help maintain an anti-immigrationist political climate" because they prove that e.g. the Somalis commit more than 100 times more (over one hundred times more, as in, over 10,000% more) robberies per capita than the Finns do.

Yup, he quoted official crime statistics. Given that Finland has one of the highest rates of internet usage in the world, I hope this provokes a powerful backlash against the control freaks who run the country.

A lot of elections at the moment. Besides the US elections, we have just had the Spanish elections and in my wife's small country, Malta, the ruling Nationalist Party, a vaguely right-of-centre party that supported Malta's entry into the EU and the euro, won by an incredibly slender margin (just over a thousand votes). As I have a vested interest in Malta remaining a broadly open country, I am glad that the party won, or at least relieved that Labour, the main opposition party with a vindictively regulatory streak, did not. But my views on Malta's election are tinged with a bitter-sweet taste as the Nationalists, for all their generally pro-enterprise views, have made serious errors. The party took Malta into the EU. By staying out of the EU, Malta could have retained and expanded its status as an offshore tax haven, providing Monaco, the Swiss, Liechtenstein and Gibraltar with some useful competition as a friendly venue. Malta has quite a thriving IT and financial sector and English is widely spoken there, a priceless advantage. By keeping out of the EU, it could also have avoided becoming a conduit for tens of thousands of illegal immigrants who use the small island as an entry point for the EU. Malta, an island the size of the Isle of Wight with half a million people, is not a country that can easily absorb a large influx. But as my better half points out, Malta, a Catholic country, has long feared the shadow of its Muslim neighbour, Libya, just a hundred miles or so to the south, and sees EU membership as somehow tying it ever more closely to a non-Muslim population. The Maltese are quite a tolerant bunch but they are fiercely pro-western. The Archbishop of Canterbury would be thrown into Valetta's Grand Harbour.

One reason for the closeness of the elections is that there is a lot of anger at the governing party, even among most moderate voters, at some of the crasser building developments in the densely populated island. Even the most ardent defender of free enterprise will sometimes struggle to defend the ugly high-rise developments in part of the island that have gone up next to the attractive, honey-coloured buildings along parts of the country (in the smaller neighbouring island of Gozo, such developments have been far fewer, thankfully). Tourism is a crucial source of income for Malta; its historic buildings are part of its appeal, so long-term tourist entrepreneurs should hopefully follow their self-interest and avoid damaging the very thing that makes Malta a nice place to visit. This is an interesting subject for economists: ugly developments make money for investors in the short run and arguably, are better than no development at all, but the long run costs can be in the form of less tourism overall as would-be visitors go elsewhere for somewhere prettier.

Anyway, back on topic: this has to have been one of the closest election results I have ever read about.

Matthew Lynn, a columnist for Bloomberg, has a good and succinct take on the latest nonsense about actions by the German and British government to use information - obtained in highly dubious circumstances - to go after people who have put their money away in tiny European tax havens such as Liechstenstein. Philip Chaston of this blog has already touched on the subject. The difficulty that even any pro-freemarketeer politicians - if there are many - have in defending tax havens is defending the right of people to essentially flee from an oppressive but still-democratic regime. In chatting to people on this issue and reading the commentary, a lot of people make the assumption that wealth is collectively owned if enough voters wish it so and that therefore no-one has the right to flee from the looting intentions of such voters. In other words, non-domiciled residents who want to get away from the British taxman are not being good, democratic citizens by shirking their 'responsibilities'.

At its core, what this issue throws up, beyond the practical issues of how tax rates hurt economies, is a broader issue of the obligations, if any, that an individual has to his fellow citizens. If one believes the classical liberal idea that governments exist to serve the individual and not the other way round, that individuals have no apriori obligations to others, then the crackdown on tax-avoiders should be seen as the power grab that it is.

Another issue, of course, is this: democracy and liberty are not the same thing, a point that has been remarked at this blog many times before. For sure, democracy may - may - be the least-worst way to kick out a government and replace it with a hopefully better one, but the idea that freedom comes from letting 51% of the electorate steal from 49% of the electorate has precious little to do with liberty. The right to own property and enjoy its fruits unmolested is as important as freedom of speech or the right to self defence. Tax havens rile communitarians precisely because they are a standing reproach to the looters who use democratic mandates to justify their depredations. They act as a brake on the power of governments with a temporary majority in a democratic assembly every bit as powerful as other checks and balances such as independent courts and upper chambers. And as traditional checks and balances are eroded - as they have been in Britain recently - we need all the constraints on national and supranational power we can get. We should therefore see the efforts by EU and other nations to create a global tax cartel as being every bit as dangerous as the alleged cartel deals forged by the 19th Century "robber barons", except of course that this latter group were usually unfairly maligned. Compared to the tax-cartel zealots, Rockefeller and Co. were strict amateurs.

We know that the European Union does not respect the sovereignty of other countries. We know that governments will accept stolen goods if they think that they can get away with it. The British government is now capitalising on the proceeds of theft, a manoevre that would result in individuals going to jail. Let us hope that this is challenged, since how could one guarantee the veracity of stolen data:

Meanwhile, HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) expects to obtain £100m in unpaid tax from 100 Britons who bank in Liechtenstein. It paid £100,000 to Heinrich Kieber, a former bank employee, for clients’ names and bank account details. In the past few days it has begun sending them letters referring to their account numbers.

The European Commission, Britain and Germany are attacking any country that wishes to provide a tax haven. Along with the OECD and its list of recalcitrant countries, they wish to overturn secrecy laws and end the existence of tax havens. If you cannot stand the heat of tax competition, they reason that you should crush the territories:

THE chancellor is to step up hostilities against Britain’s super-rich by pressing for sanctions against Monaco, the Mediterranean tax haven.

Under one proposal, to be discussed by Alistair Darling with European finance ministers on Tuesday, there will be a levy on any money transferred to a Monaco account from anywhere in Europe. Precise policies will be discussed the following week at a meeting of Europe’s tax authorities in Berlin.

The threat of sanctions marks an escalation in the battle between European governments and the continent’s three remaining tax havens: Liechtenstein, Andorra and Monaco.

“So far the attention has been on Liechtenstein, but Monaco is the goldmine,” said a Whitehall official. “Germany has got the bit between its teeth now and Monaco is where they want to go next – and we’re right with them.”

They even have Hong Kong, Macau and Singapore in their sights. I foresee an archer's salute and a raspberry. Note that the usual excuses of terrorism, moneylaundering and social justice will be trotted out as an attack upon the freedom of individuals to live where they please and enjoy the pleasures of low taxation. Remove the threat and the peons at home might not want the same.

I just do not understand it. When Spain capitulated to attacks from Islamic fascists and elected a socialist government who promptly pulled its troops out of coalition operations... a policy we have been told by many that the USA and UK should follow in order to stop provoking the Islamists... that should have been the end of Spain's non-Basque terrorist problems. Presumably the nice people from the Al Qaeda Global Franchise were utterly delighted by the developments in Spain and were certain to fulsomely reward this behaviour. After all, we are often assured by writers in both the mainstream media and paleo-conservative/paleo-libertarian circles that this is what governments in the West must do if we are ever to sooth Islamic sensibilities: we leave them alone and they will leave us alone, right?

Yet strangely, far from redirecting their efforts and assets to ply their 'trade' against the more active members of the coalition, Islamic militants continue to get arrested in ever so repentant Spain.

Gosh, one might almost think that leaving them alone is not enough! Surely some misunderstanding?

In Germany recently, there was a pleasing moment of defiance in the face of the determination of the banning classes to ban smoking. Boss fires staff for not smoking is what the headline says, and this is - surprise surprise - inaccurate, assuming that the report under the headline is accurate. The boss fired the non-smokers because they were making a damn nuisance of themselves by demanding that the smokers stop smoking, and he has now announced that he will not hire any more non-smokers, in case they behave similarly. Nobody got fired merely for not smoking. Not that there would be anything wrong with that.

But this is only a very small and temporary victory for the right of employers to hire and fire at will, restrained only by whatever contracts may have been made that require otherwise.

Germany introduced non-smoking rules in pubs and restaurants on January 1, but Germans working in small offices are still allowed to smoke.

It is the little word "still" that tells the true story here. And big offices have already been sorted out. This tiresome little anomaly will soon be corrected, and Germany will proceed methodically towards making smoking illegal everywhere. Adolf Hitler (not even he was able to give legal force to his detestation of smoking) is smirking in his grave, doing no turning whatsoever.

Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, who currently covers economic issues for the Daily Telegraph, wonders whether the €uro zone, faced with a possibly ruinously high exchange rate for the single currency against the dollar and some other major currencies, will embrace the "nuclear option" of imposing exchange controls to prevent the euro rising much further. Evans-Pritchard wonders whether such thoughts are idle. I think he is right but is also right to ponder this issue. If, in order to protect the likes of Airbus and other big exporters, the EU were to halt or control inflows of capital to the euro zone, the impact on places like London, the world's largest forex market, would be devastating. Tens of thousands of jobs in the money market business would be lost. Such controls would further hammer any idea that the EU had, or ever has had, much to do with free trade. It would set back the cause of global free markets for years. Some defenders for exchange controls might try to argue that they would be less bad than higher tariffs on imports to the EU, but there are plenty of those tariffs already.

The general popularity of the euro at the moment is more because it is - temporarily - seen as a more reliable store of value than the dollar, rather than because of a new-found belief in in the economic prowess of Germany, France, Italy or Spain, for instance. With a large budget and current account deficit, the US has been letting the buck drop to make its exports more competitive overseas and as a result, the euro and the pound have risen, making it cheap for Brits to take their holidays in the States, for example. There is some sign that this exchange rate movement is working (I am actually pretty bullish about American exporters for the next year. I am actually quite upbeat about the US economy, which is always written off, with a hint of anti-American bias, by the usual commentators).

I do not think the EU will embrace exchange controls; such a move would be hugely controversial and unlikely to succeed. Prophets of doom would do well to recall that West Germany, back in the 1970s, lived quite successfully with a strong deutschemark; there is nothing axiomatic about why the EU cannot cope with a strong euro, at least not in the short run. The more fundamental problem, of course, is whether the countries making up the euro zone should have joined it in the first place, given their different characteristics. I think the euro could be a disaster for some nations, or at least a very painful experience. My wife's country, Malta, is about to join the euro next year. Thank god it does not have a big export market.

One of the best debunkers of lazy, collectivist economic thinking is the blogger Tim Worstall, who lives in the sunny climes of Portugal. His take-down of Polly Toynbee is just too good to miss. I particularly cannot help noticing the point about Sweden; the country, often held up as a model of social democratic goodness, is in fact moving in liberal directions in areas like education (vouchers), although it remains shockingly heavily taxed.

One hundred and three days after their general election, life goes on in Belgium. People go to work, they meet their friends, the beer is world class, the food is good, folks go about life as they always have. And there is still no government.

Hopefully the country will provide an inspirational example to the rest of the EU and split under the pressure caused by increasing Flemish unwillingness to pay the parasitic leftists who dominate Wallonia. Of course things might get messy but more likely it will be a velvet divorce... but the really interesting thing for me is that society and the economy continues to function just fine without any active government at all. No new laws, no cabinet meetings, and yet somehow the sky has not caved in and the world keeps turning.

There is an interesting article about the current political crisis in Belgium on Libertarian.be. Yes, yes, I know, when is Belgium not having a political crisis? But if this article is correct, this might be The Big One... and it could be the single currency, the €uro, that made it all possible.

Brussels Journal had a recent article on Vlaams Blok and contended that the political party did not receive playing field treatment. Such news no longer surprises and one can count down the days when a constrained political environment enters the UK, as politics is domesticated.

Next Sunday, the Belgians go to the polls. For various reasons the elections can hardly be called fair and democratic. Today the leadership of Vlaams Belang, Belgium’s largest party which strives for the independence of Flanders, Belgium’s Dutch-speaking northern half, met a delegation of OSCE observers to complain about various violations of the rules as outlined in the OSCE’s 2005 “Election Observation Handbook” (referred to below as EOH).

VB Senator Jurgen Ceder listed ten serious violations:

• Electronic voting without certification procedures


• Discrimination in campaign financing


• Candidates and political parties do not have access to the media on a non-discriminatory basis


• The state media are clearly biased


• Paid political advertising in daily newspapers is available to all parties, except one


• One political party cannot hold meetings in the capital


• Intimidation of candidates


• One party has been banned. Next step will be exclusion of certain candidates from the right to participate in elections


• The number of representatives is not proportional to the size of the electorate


• The elections in the Brussels-Halle-Vilvoorde constituency are unconstitutional

Who would be their first target in the UK: UKIP? BNP?

One of the downsides of being stuck in a hotel is having ones breakfast browsing depend overly on the dismal International Herald Tribune, the incestuous off-spring of the Washington Post and the New York Times.

There was an article in the IHT about the Italian state cracking down on tax evasion which cause the customary eye rolling when a free marketeer reads statements of of unquestioned absurdity such as:

If tax evasion is Italy's national sport, as many people say, then the government of Prime Minister Romano Prodi has been working to change the rules of the game since taking office last year. Prodi says he believes that cracking down on tax cheaters is essential for an upswing in Italy's lackluster economy. This month, he warned that his government could not lower taxes until "the indecent level of tax evasion" was reduced.

So taking more money away from people, essentially destroying some of their wealth, will make the economy better? And the government will not reduce the amount of personal wealth it destroys until people start cooperating more with having their wealth destroyed?

Yes, that all makes perfect sense.

On Saturday, I took this photograph of the Torre de la Vala. This tower is part of the ramparts of the Alcazaba, the (largely destroyed) citadel of the Alhambra, the palace and fortress of the former Moorish kings of Granada in Spain. At this exact place, the banners of King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella were flown on January 2, 1492, upon the surrender of King Muhammad XII of Granada (known to the Spanish as Boabdil). This marked the capture of Granada and the final expulsion of the Moors from Spain.

It all seems rather violent and provocative to me though. If perhaps the reconquistadors had negotiated and found a peaceful settlement rather than forcibly erecting their banners, then the so called "Tragedy of Andalucia" might not have occurred, and the world might be a better place with fewer grievances today. Rather than releasing occasional rants to Al-Jazeera from a cave somewhere near the Afghanistan/Pakistan border, Osama bin Laden might be a well adjusted and peaceful man running a flat pack furniture business from an office park in Abu Dhabi, and the World Trade Center in New York City might yet be standing.

Or perhaps not.

The EU is going to ban ordinary lightbulbs because we are making the wrong choices and not buying the energy efficient ones. And who's to blame for poor sales of the more efficient ones? The EU.

Swedish globalisation advocate Johan Norberg looks up a picture in a beautiful Italian church, and sees an early sign of where individualism comes from. Nice thoughts, succinctly expressed.

Mark Steyn is one of those writers on the "right" who, I suspect, are admired by the sort of folk who read this blog. He is very funny: some of his takedowns on movies and politics have got me laughing out loud. (P.J. O'Rourke remains the Emperor and tends to be less pessimistic and is more libertarian). I mostly supported Steyn's take on the case for overthrowing Saddam - although I get the impression that he has gone rather quiet due to the mess of the subsequent Coalition occupation of that tortured country. More recently, Steyn has pushed the following thesis: Europe is headed for an Islamist takeover because Those People are, to use the late Orianna Fallaci's charming expression, "breeding like rats", and that in 20 years' time, they'll be beheading criminals in Birmingham, forcing women to cover up on the Cote' D'Azur, and they'll be no more boozing in the Munich Oktoberfest. We are, as Private Frazer would say in Dad's Army, the old British sitcom, all doomed. No wonder a certain kind of American who tends to despise those "commie Europeans", is lapping it up.

Steyn bases his thesis on demography. It is both the core but also the main weakness of his book. The problem I have with all such predictions is that the variables have a nasty habit of changing. Even a small change in the birth rate can have a huge impact on the subsequent growth rate of a population set. It is a bit like the law of compound interest. Even a small increase in cost of borrowing money or the yield on a stock can, over 10 years, make a big difference to a mutual fund or the size of your mortgage. Population growth statistics and predictions are like that. Remember the doomongering population scientist Paul Ehrlich? He bet that, by around now, the world's population would have expanded so fast that we would be starving to death. As the late Julian L. Simon pointed out at the time, Ehrlich's prediction was hooey. Erhlich overlooked a rather universal trait: as people get richer and no longer have to rely on big families to support parents in their dotage, birth rates fall. It seems to happen pretty much everywhere, including in those countries with very different religious and cultural traditions.

This makes me wonder a bit about whether Steyn is over-egging the point. Demographics is clearly a vital issue, not least in explaining why European growth rates might remain sluggish in the decades ahead. But I cannot help but wonder that Steyn is making the sort of bold extrapolations on population that he would be the first to mock if it was, say, the latest prediction about global warming. Conservatives like Steyn are usually skeptics about Big Predictions, so it seems a bit odd that he has taken up the demographic prediction game with such enthusiasm.

I do not think Steyn is a racist, although in a rather overheated review of his latest book, Johann Hari comes close to making that charge, although even Hari admits that Steyn makes some important points about the follies of multiculturalism and agrees that there is a serious problem with Islamic fundamentalism. But I think Hari does make the important point of questioning whether Steyn has let his own pessimism get the better of him.

At last, somebody is speaking the truth to flower-power:

An arch-conservative cardinal chosen by the Pope to deliver this year’s Lenten meditations to the Vatican hierarchy has caused consternation by giving warning of an Antichrist who is “a pacifist, ecologist and ecumenist”.

My money is on George Monbiot. Quick, somebody check his scalp for birthmarks.

(Click on the image to better see the Moorish castle).

Well-intentioned politicians are of two kinds, those who want to help people directly and those who want to free people so that indirectly they can help themselves. The distinction may sound like a quibble, but it is not.

- paragraph one of a Telegraph piece yesterday in which Tim Congdon explains why from now on he will be voting UKIP (thank you Iain Dale)

I am writing these few words in the island of Malta, having spent the last week and a half enjoying the sights, sounds, and particularly, the culinary tastes, of this splendid island. This is now the second time that I have spent Christmas here and I strongly recommend it as a place to enjoy the turn of the year. The weather is currently warmish and sunny, with the thermometer around 17 degrees C. The locals celebrate Christmas with the unapologetic gusto of a strong Catholic country, laced with a mix of influences (Arabic, British, southern Italian). The front windows of shops and private homes often carry brilliant decorations and Nativity scenes. Most balconies - there are a lot of balconies - have plastic Father Christmases attempting to scale the side of a house. There are pleasingly few signs that planning officials tell people what sort of decorations to put up.

Malta is noisy. Maltese people love fireworks with a passion that rivals that of the Chinese. Any excuse to set them off will do. And we are talking about seriously loud, bright fireworks. The great safety panic that seems to have stifled so much enjoyment in Britain, the USA and elsewhere is still held at bay - mostly - in this island of about 500,000 souls. There have been some bad accidents in the fireworks factories but the enthusiasm for the things is undimmed. Perhaps having survived the terrible bombings during the Second World War, the Maltese are not going to be frightened by a few rockets set off in the garden.

I have visited this place more than a dozen times, got married here, drunk far too much red wine than is good for me here, watched several theatre plays here, sailed here, swam here, but more than anything else, eaten myself silly here. One of the finest dishes you can get is Lampuki Pie, which is made from this particular fish. I have just consumed a rather large part of one.

I need to go for a lie down.

I wonder why this has not set any fur flying yet?

The Dutch cabinet has backed a proposal by the country's immigration minister to ban Muslim women from wearing the burqa in public places.

The burqa, a full body covering that also obscures the face, would be banned by law in the street, and in trains, schools, buses and the law courts.

The cabinet said burqas disturb public order, citizens and safety.

Is it because the French did it first? Possibly. Though it does seem to me that the Dutch prohibition is much broader than the French one. Perhaps it is something to do with the fact that France is a more prominent and important country than Holland.

Anyway, whatever the reasons, this news from the Netherlands remains (for the moment at least) on the mere periphery of the radar. The more interesting question, as far as I am concerned, is whether this is (a) an unacceptable state repression of personal liberty and freedom of choice or (b) a necessary and welcome bulwark against the growth of radical Islam in Europe?

It is, I suspect, no accident that it is in Europe that climate change absolutism has found the most fertile soil. For it is Europe that has become the most secular society in the world, where the traditional religions have the weakest popular hold. Yet people still feel the need for the comfort and higher values that religion can provide; and it is the quasi-religion of Green alarmism and what has been termed global salvationism - of which the climate change issue is the most striking example, but by no means the only one - which has filled the vacuum, with reasoned questioning of its mantras regarded as a form of blasphemy.

- Nigel Lawson, former Chancellor of the Exchequer, quoted today by Guido Fawkes

Overconfident?

Governments are happily increasing their power everywhere by stoking fear of terrorists. Why risk undermining that by spilling over into loony implausibility?

Terrorism is the "biggest threat to all European nations," Home Secretary John Reid has said as he discusses ways to boost security with five EU ministers.
- BBC

Utter tripe. Terrorism does kill, indubitably. That embarrasses governments that pretend to be perfect protectors.

Ignoring government self-image, it might be a serious enough threat to some people in some European states, to be worth some European governments spending a lot of treasure tackling it; and it might even be serious enough to merit changing the law to cope with it. I doubt both those prescriptions, and the latter more than the former, as regular readers will know. But they could conceivably be true.

However, let us review the facts against Mr Reid's stronger assertion:

1. Terrorism is NOT a threat to any European nation. No European nation state, and no identifiable national group in Europe is in danger of loss to terrorism endangering its identity or existence.
2. Terrorism is NOT a threat to any Europen state. There are a handful of states in the world whose existence is from time to time endangered by terrorism. None of them is currently in Europe. The only very obvious example is Iraq. Colombia, Nepal, and others have come close recently, but no EU country has been in that position since the Greek civil war.
3. To individual people and certain groups more than others, terrorism may present a threat, it is true. But that is not true of all European nations. The majority of EU countries have had no terrorist incidents whatsoever in at least a decade.
4. Even in the few countries with significant terrorism in recent years (which really means France, Italy, Spain, Germany and the UK, if you extend 'recent years' to cover the last 20 or 30, which is a pretty generous estimate of the contemporary for a political phenomenon), actual casualties have been small. Hospital infection, food poisoning, non-political crime, bad driving... each presents a bigger risk to any of us. Terrorism is plainly not the biggest threat faced by people anywhere in Europe.

Witless hyperbole is the stock-in-trade of dictatorships propagandising their presumed-credulous servitors, in order to buff up their self-image. (Read any government-endorsed press story from an African or Mddle Eastern bullydom.) Dictatorships cannot bear to be embarrassed, and are embarrassed by terrorists, because they can never concede anything is outside their control. But in liberal states that sort of pretension to deity is supposed to be mocked from office. Which is Britain? Or is the question, which is Europe?

See if you tell the difference.

The EU and the US have failed to reach an agreement on airline passenger data sharing. This is a euphemism. The US is demanding information on all travellers that the European Court of Justice says violates our privacy, and the EU countries have been trying to square the circle. They have failed so far.

Let us be clear. The member states want to do it. All 25 of them, despite Germany's constitutional data protections. They would love to give the FBI your travel plans, bank account details and dietary preferences. UKgov is particularly keen, and makes sure such information is always sent ahead from UK flights to such friendly, peaceful and enlightened regimes as the People's Republic of China (it bullied the other EU states into accepting the principle of requiring carriers to retain all communications data for state inspection). What is stopping this becoming an universal convention is not European states but the independent, supra-national institutions of the Union.

Continuing on the topic of Belgian idiocy, I have been marvelling at the way the police in Brussels have been pronouncing on yet another night of rioting by Muslims in that city.

Philippe Close, the chef de cabinet of the Mayor of Brussels, Freddy Thielemans, said that the authorities would continue their efforts to defuse the situation in a peaceful manner, but he announced that the police will be less complacent in future, "since we cannot tolerate that this [Marollen] neighbourhood falls victim to a problem from outside the neighbourhood."

Why 'in a peaceful manner'? People try to set fire to a hospital and that should be solved 'peacefully'? After three days of violence and looting of private property, the police should be cracking skulls without apology and to make the important point that violence should be met with greater violence. If they cannot protect the taxpayers who pay their salaries, what use are they? Moreover what are we to make of Philippe Close's remark about the Marollen district falling victim to a problem from "outside the neighbourhood?" Does that mean it would be okay if only the rioters were local lads?

No doubt the Vlaams Belang (about whom I am deeply ambivalent) will reap the rewards from the Muslim rioting at the upcoming Belgian municipal elections, probably leading to the Belgian government banning them at some point in the near future.

The fact Belgian newspapers want it to be harder to find the content they put on the internet is weird (why bother having an on-line presence at all then?), the fact they went to court to force Google to stop driving traffic to their sites is bizarre, the fact a Belgian court found against Google is insane.

This book states what the revisionists have questioned: the fall of the Roman Empire sucked and the Dark Ages really were dark and a regression for civilisation. Looks like a must-read for fans of ancient history.

Dutch-born writer Ian Buruma writes about the issues stemming from the murder of Dutch film-maker Theo Van Gogh. On the basis of his previous writings, I would have expected his account to be a compelling one. This reviewer of his book, however, gives a fairly harsh assessment. (Via Arts & Letters Daily).

Readers of Murder in Amsterdam are likely to close the book with a heavy heart. One reason is that the problem it addresses, the emergence of militant Islam as a divisive political/religious force in the West, is not going to go away soon. Another is that, though full of learning and skilled if tepid reporting, Buruma’s book often feels muddled, ungenerous and confusing. There is plenty of scholarship on display, but no compelling point of view.

There is, however, an off-putting strain of snobbery. Buruma, an Asia specialist and the author of Inventing Japan, Anglomania and, most recently, Occidentalism: The West in the Eyes of Its Enemies, grew up in Holland but left it as a young man in the 1970s. Now a New Yorker, he clearly feels he’s gone on to bigger and better things. He rarely misses a chance to take a swipe at some aspect of Dutch life, whether it's the "dank and gray" area of the Hague he was raised in or the "arrogance" of the great national soccer teams of the 1970s and ’80s.

Van Gogh's murder followed the assassination two years earlier of Pim Fortuyn, Holland's flamboyantly gay, and very popular, anti-immigration politician who had also railed against the Islamicization of the Netherlands. Fortuyn was killed not by a Muslim, but by a white, left-wing vegan "activist", who didn't like the fact that the flashy politician wore fur collars and criticized immigrants. "The sobering truth," wrote Rod Dreher in National Review shortly after Fortuyn’s death, "is that Europe - democratic, gun-controlling Europe - is a place where questioning the immigration status quo will not only get you branded a fascist by the news media, it will get you shot dead."

Read the whole article.

There is an interesting article in Newsweek suggesting capitalism is on the march in more minds than you might think.

In France, books approved by the Education Ministry promote statist policies and voodoo economics. "Economic growth imposes a way of life that fosters stress, nervous depression, circulatory disease and even cancer," reports "20th-Century History," a popular high-school text published by Hatier. Another suggests Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan were dangerous free-market extremists whose reforms plunged their countries into chaos and despair. Such blatant disinformation sheds new light on the debate over why it is that Europeans lag so far behind Americans in rates of entrepreneurship and job creation.

[...]

a recent poll by the IPOS Institute finds the market economy's approval rating rising to 59 percent among Germans under 30, with only 32 percent saying the state needs to play a bigger role. Ten years ago, the figures were reversed. "The values shift is already underway," says Bürklin. It's about time.

Indeed it is about time. The absurdities and contradictions of the statist world view is our biggest ally and gradually more people do figure out better theories for understanding reality regardless of what they are taught.

The Europeans mess up once again. We look at them playing power politics without a powerful hand or a sense of bluff. It takes some level of incompetence to have the Chinese do to you what you tried to do to the Americans:

Today, the Chinese are attempting to do to the Galileo system the same thing that Europe tried, and failed, to do to the US. China has registered with the ITU its intent to use frequencies that are as close to Galileo’s as Galileo’s were planned to be to GPS 3. The speculation is that this is the Chinese response to the European refusal to allow China into the charmed circle of senior Galileo management.

I mustn't gloat.

Spain's socialist government is turning its back on the post-Franco 'let sleeping dogs lie' approach with regard to the Spanish civil war. It plans to prohibits any political event at the location of Franco's tomb in the 'Valley of the Fallen', outside Madrid. Yet whilst I am hardly a fan of Franco, the notion that a socialist government has any moral authority to suppress pro-Franco sentiments strikes me as absurd. There were no 'good guys' in the Spanish civil war and if the current Spanish socialists see themselves as the heirs of those who fought Franco then they see themselves as heirs to despicable would-be tyrants who were in no way admirable just because their enemy was little better. It was a war between mass murderous collectivist socialists of various dispositions against mass murderous collectivist national socialists.

In many ways the one thing Franco had to commend him was that his system of government was always unlikely to outlive him whereas a socialist system might have lasted longer... which is to say it might have lasted until the late 1980's and in which case more the mass graves being dug up now would be filled with falangists and their families as opposed to socialists and their families (not that the left was shy about slaughtering its civilian enemies during the war).

People who get misty eyed over the resistance to Franco in the Spanish civil war are fools. It did not really matter who won, Spain was going to lose regardless. A pox on both sides of that terrible war.

Recently, I heard someone describe the Australian constitution as the second best in the world. No prizes for guessing the best. Since the recent 4th of July celebrations, I have been revelling in the bracing ideological purity of the Constitution of the United States of America, and I have no doubt that it is superior to the constitutions of other nations - in the mind of a liberal, anyway. What of Australia's, however? It is hopelessly outdated and largely irrelevant - the form of state it envisions bears little likeness to modern Australia. For example, the office of Prime Minister is not mentioned at all and most of the mechanics of government exist thanks to convention rather than doctrine. It is not a bad constitution; mainly for the fact that it contains none of the Fabianesque "positive" rights (citizens have a right to a life free of poverty, etc) which tend to enable and then entrench statism. Such caveats are common in most modern constitutions, to their great detriment. If Australia's constitution is the second best in the world, it is certainly a very distant second. As regular commenter Chris Harper said in a recent Samizdata thread,

The Constitution of the United States of America, one of the great works of human thought.

Quite. In contrast, Australia's constitution is passable only due to the elements it does not contain - surely there are a number of superior (in ideology and effectiveness) national constitutions in place today. So what is the second best constitution in the world?

You would think Switzerland's should be a contender. It is a country that holds a number of liberal values as national traits. It is also admired by many of the Samizdatistas, who tend to be a rather liberal bunch (for the most part). One would not be being unreasonable if they predicted that the Swiss constitution is a relatively liberal document. However, if you did predict that, you would be wrong. I did a little research to test my above hypothesis, and was surprised with what I discovered. Far from being one of the best constitutions around (from a liberal perspective), I believe the Swiss document to be one of the worst - if not the worst. For a start, it is too easily altered. According to Wikipedia, the original Swiss constitution was altered to include

the "right of initiative", under which a certain number of voters could make a request to amend a constitutional article, or even to introduce a new article into the constitution. Thus, partial revisions of the constitution could be made any time.

Worse still, a revised version of the constitution that came into force in the 1990s

is subject to continual changes

due to

constitutional initiatives and counterproposals[.]

This is no good at all. Most liberals are deeply interested in durably enshrining the rights and freedoms of the individual; if these can be swept away on a majoritarian whim, then sooner or later it is likely they will be. Such ease of amendment dramatically weakens the document, although worse is to come. From the same Wikipedia article mentioned above:

[The] Swiss Federal Constitution has a certain peculiarity when compared to other constitutions in the world. It does not provide for any constitutional jurisdiction over any federal laws, that is, laws proclaimed by Parliament may not be struck down by the Federal Court on the grounds of unconstitutionality. This special provision in the Swiss Constitution is a manifestation of how democratic principles are held to outweigh the principles upon which the constitutional state is built.

What a terrible idea. A liberal would assert that the whole point of a constitution is to constrain majoritarian democracy - has the phrase "tyranny of the majority" been widely translated into French, German or Italian? This "peculiarity" consigns the Swiss constitution to complete irrelevance. Regarding the contents of the document - who cares? They can be ignored at any time by a majority of the Federal parliament. The constitution may currently be adhered to by Swiss federal politicians, but there is nothing enforcing their adherence. The only thing that stands between the relatively liberal arrangement the Swiss enjoy today and a Blairite soft tyranny (or worse) is the Swiss people's enduring common sense and conservatism. I have met a number of Swiss folk in my time and have found that generally they are predisposed to exhibit both traits. However, events change people. Time changes people. If the Swiss elect a Tony Blair and the political circumstances allow it, such an individual could set about dismantling the various manifestations of Swiss liberalism, completely unrestrained by the toothless constitution. I am led to believe that the Swiss constitution is relatively popular in that country. For a generally conservative people, it is hard not to remark that they paradoxically admire a document that is inherently unconservative - dangerously so.

As for the second best constitution in the world, perhaps some of the readers of this post might put forward a few contenders.

(An English translation of the Swiss constitution can be found here - also via the aforementioned Wikipedia article.)

In connection with my regular writing duties here (at one of the blogs that Alex Singleton was recently so kind about) I have been unable to avoid learning about the huge takeover battle that now surrounds Arcelor. I hazarded the guess over a month ago that Lakshmi Mittal, one of the protagonists, seemed to be doing okay, despite much opposition, and now it does indeed look as if he will win.

Cécille Philippe's latest piece for the Molinari Economic Institute may have been particularly inspired by this huge news story, although all that she alludes to is a "large wave of takeovers". Anyway, she writes lucidly about the benefits of takeovers, and of the constant disciplinary effect they have upon the managers of large enterprises, concluding thus:

Takeovers make it possible to put an end to sources of loss, to increase the wealth of shareholders and thus to preserve employment which would otherwise have been lost if the company had been brought to bankruptcy for failing to satisfy its consumers. Takeovers are thus an alternative to bankruptcy which leads in a brutal way to a total reallocation of assets to better performing companies.

An industry's prosperity cannot be decided by law, it has to be created. If one allows the owner's deeds to be exchanged freely on the financial markets, they end up in the hands of those who think they are most capable of developing them. The reason why they are better placed than the public authorities to carry out this task is that they will have to undergo the financial consequences of their actions in the event of failure. The bureaucrats while escaping the sanction of loss and profit, cannot do other than carry out industrial projects by hazard and chance.

It is thus necessary to recognise the legitimacy of takeovers and to make sure that foreigners are free to make purchase offers. It is equally important that nationals are free to compete with them. The freer the financial market is and the more the shareholders' right is respected, the more the industry's prosperity depends on industrial projects being adequate to consumers’ requirements.

Most of which will be fairly obvious to the average Samizdata reader. But France is, perhaps, a country in which such obvious propositions need to be stated with particular clarity just now. Knowing Cécille Philippe a little, I not only hope but assume that she is also doing this in French.

However, Arcelor is a very special case, and Cécille is probably right not to name that particular case in this piece, because it would complicate her argument dreadfully. With Arcelor, wider considerations, as they say, are at stake. However, having now come across this earlier piece, I am surer than ever that it is the Arcelor case that she, and her, I trust, numerous French readers, have been particularly thinking about.

The Libertarian Alliance is highlighting the disgraceful way Belgium has been trying to intimidate people who hold politically incorrect views. Put an article up that the powers-that-be do not like and they will order you to take it down or face prosecution. But then what can you expect from a country which simply bans established political parties they dislike?

Support the right to home school your children? Advocate the right to self-defence? Want to express your views about Islamic culture? Prepare to be criminalised by the Belgian state.

This takes some beating for an alarming sub-header for an article:

As Wednesday morning dawned, northern Norway was hit with an impact comparable to the atomic bomb used on Hiroshima

Blimey! At least it happened in the middle of nowhere rather than downtown Oslo.

Still, we all know it was really caused by George Bush  capitalism  McDonald's  global warming!

Funny that Paul should mention Italian elections; I watched a piece on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation's Foreign Correspondent tonight that trailed a couple of Australians (I call them Australians, because that's what they are - not Italians, despite their declarations to the contrary) who have just been elected to the Italian federal parliament under the utterly ridiculous new system that mandates a level of parliamentary representation to "Italians abroad" - that is, emigrants. One of the two men, Nino Randazzo (who's been an Australian for more than fifty years), nominally supports Romano Prodi's coalition, however he is seen as a potentially swinging voter in a tightly balanced senate and thus holds power far beyond that which his diminutive stature implies.

Notwithstanding the fact that the legitimacy of these foreign men wielding Italian political power is extraordinarily tenuous, what do these people want from the Italian state? According to one of the two, financial assistance for "cultural purposes" to benefit people who have left Italy to make better lives for themselves in other countries. One newly-elected American member of the Italian parliament declared that Italy somehow owed its émigrés something due to the remittances they voluntarily sent back to Italy many years ago.* The mind boggles. Why, oh why do these privileged foreigners think they have the right to extract funds from the already hard-pressed Italian taxpayer - a group they deserted long ago? Why on earth are Italians not apoplectic with rage over these people who are only going to make the Italian government's deficit slide further into the red with their demands of cultural grants for foreigners? And we're talking about foreigners who have already helped create rich Italian cultures in their chosen countries and as a group could effortlessly afford to fund whatever cultural boondoggles these new enemies of the Italian taxpayer have in mind. Of course, most Australian-Italians would not give a cent (Australian or Euro) for these cultural pursuits - whatever they may be. Amazingly, in this circumstance the new Italian electoral system has made it easier to arm-twist a foreign government to do one's bidding.

You have probably ascertained from my colourful use of formatting that I am a wee bit irritated by the exploits of these men. For a start, I do not like parasitic types who think they have some divine right to expropriate other people's money. Secondly, I cannot stand those who move to a country like Australia, make their lives here and by all accounts do very well for themselves in a way that they could not have if they'd have stayed in the land of their birth, only to turn around and insult the nation that provided them with so much opportunity and declare "I'm Italian". There is a simple solution to this problem. The Italians can have their new politicians back. It seems only fair; they are paying for them, after all.

*Apologies for not providing quotes; the programme in question - Foreign Correspondent on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation's television channel - tends not to post the transcript of the segment until the day after it's aired. It will be available here, and when it becomes available I will edit this post accordingly.

Ex-communists win re-election in Turin and Rome, and a Christian Democrat type (allied with the ex-communists) wins re-lection in Naples. Pity about Turin, where Rocco Buttiglione, the candidate for the 'House of Freedoms' is an interesting Catholic philosopher (but what can one expect from the city of the Red Brigades - and of that black hole for money, Fiat).

In Sicily the candidate supported by the ex-communists was defeated, although 'the left' (I know there is no agreed definition as to what 'left' and 'right' mean, but it is the term these people use to describe themselves) are claiming that "the friends" had a hand in the re-election of the foe of the ex-communists. Of course few complained when the Mafia supported Anglo American action in Sicily against the totalitarians of the time (the Italian Fascists and the German National Socialists), the Mafia may have their own (corrupt) reasons for opposing totalitarianism - but oppose it they do.

Of course the ex-communists now occupy the positions of President of Italy and of Speaker of at least one of the two houses of the Italian Parliament (the other being occupied by an allied 'leftist'). Prime Minister Prodi has indeed worked hard to entrench his unholy alliance of European Union linked big business (the small family owned business enterprises in Italy tend to oppose Mr Prodi and his 'Olive Tree') and ex-communists into positions of power. Re-imposing inheritance tax (to undermine Italian family owned enterprises and hand the economy over to the state and to the corporations) will be the next move.

However, I more interested in what happened in Milan. The lady standing there for the House of Freedoms Party, Letizia Moratti, was not accused of corruption (the weapon the 'left' used against Mr Berlusconi.) nor is she a dodgy 'National Alliance' type (if one traces the National Alliance party's history back one eventually comes to rather nasty collectivist statists - although of the 'Black' rather than the 'Red' variety). The lady was a moderate economic liberal, of exactly the sort one would think would suit a commercial city like Milan.

More than this, there was the terrible incident at the start of May when Letizia Moratti took her father to an event marking the liberation of Milan from the National Socialist Germans and their Italian 'Social Republic' (i.e. fascist) allies at the end of World War II. Although the lady was in the company of her elderly and disabled father (who had been sent to a concentration camp by the Germans), she was insulted, pushed and spat on by various 'leftists'.

"Yes Paul, but Ms. Moratti won the election".

Yes the lady won the election (in a city which has tended in recent years to vote against the 'left') - but she won it by only 51% to 47% (minor parties making up the rest of the votes). One would have thought that the pushing and insulting and spitting on a lady (especially in front of her elderly and disabled father) would be unacceptable to more than 51% of the population.

To put in bluntly, almost half the population of Milan have shown themselves to be lower than shit.

The Daily Telegraph reckons that global warming might advance the chances of England, or at least select bits of it, one day rivalling the wine producing prowess of France. Maybe. It has been rather hard to become convinced of the global warming thesis in what has been, by any standards, an exceptionally wet month of May. There is no doubt that a run of hot summers has got people thinking about the implications for agriculture. In my native Suffolk, there are a few quite famous wine producing farms, such as this one. The wine tends to be a bit too sharp for my taste, rather like the stuff produced in the Rhine area. (My favourite wine from the north European area is the very distinctive white wine from Alsace). Personally, I think the best booze in East Anglia is the cider, although it is very strong.

England produced quite a lot of wine in centuries past, when average temperatures were quite possibly hotter than now. The Romans produced a fair amount of the stuff (and no doubt their passion for baths and washing was partly driven by the desire to sweat away the subsequent hangovers). So maybe England could become a great wine producer again. Even so, it will have to go some way before it can rival the Lafites, Latours of Montrachets of France. Anyway, it is my 40th birthday today, so I may just have to find an excuse to do some tasting.

Well, I guess one has to admire the guts of these fellows:

A group of 100 shopkeepers in Palermo, the nerve centre of the Sicilian Mafia, have staged an unprecedented rebellion against the Cosa Nostra by refusing to pay protection money. Until now, almost every business in the Sicilian capital has quietly paid off the Mafia or faced retribution. But since Bernardo Provenzano, the 73-year-old "boss of all the bosses", was arrested two weeks ago after decades in hiding, the island's anti-Mafia movement has gathered momentum.

This may end badly, I fear.

There are few topics in the world that get people heated up more then immigration, and in both Australia and the United States, societies that have been built by mass immigration, the topic is in the news.

In the United States, the question is based more on what to do about the millions of illegal immigrants that have consistently been keen to seek opportunity in that great country, and have taken the dubious path of avoiding the proper legal channels to do so. In ordinary times this would not have been such an issue. However, since 2001 the United States has become naturally very sensitive about who enters its borders. I am actually surprised that it has taken this long to surface.

The United States immigration question is particularly interesting. You might think that a society that has built itself on mass immigration would be in favour of more immigration, but this is not the case, and generally never has been the case. In general immigration is tolerated, rather then actively embraced by the general populace, but when times get tough, the political mood can turn quite quickly on newcomers. This was as true in the recession of 1819 as it is today.

This is because the costs of immigration are felt and paid for by individuals, but the benefits of immigration are diffuse and spread right across society. It is a shame that many defenders of the right of the free movement of people refuse to admit that there are costs to immigration. The worker who finds his wages undercut or loses his job entirely, or the victim of violence or the householder who finds his property values eroded is naturally going to feel distressed and angry at what he or she sees as the ‘cause’ of his or her loss. People find themselves surrounded by people of different appearance, religion, and cultural conditions, and worry about how the newcomers will assimilate.

These natural concerns of individuals become political fodder for political ratbags and racist hate mongers who wish to exploit individual discontents to promote their own grab bag of political statism and worse. In Europe this has become a particular problem because of the disconnect between mainstream politicians and ordinary voters caused by the ‘democratic deficit’.

Nevertheless the society that receives immigrants is usually much better off for having them. Immigrants are usually the best and the brightest of their societies, and the most driven. Having uprooted their lives to make a fresh start, they are open to new ways of doing things, and are thus an engine of innovation. In this era of ‘baby drought’ they boost the population and the dynamism of their new societies, and increase the purchasing power of their economies. However, because these effects are spread widely, few people identify their prosperity with immigrants.

In Europe, the situation is rather different, mostly because generous welfare provisions that are provided from the start tend to reduce the benefits and increase the costs to a host society of immigration. This situation used to apply in Australia, but a change in the law that made new migrants wait two years before being eligible for welfare has not only changed this dynamic, but taken a lot of the political heat out of the issue.

So it takes political leadership of high calibre to stand up for immigration despite the obvious merits of the cause. The freedom of the individual to choose the place of his or her residence is a precious one worth defending, but the sad fact is that in this day and age, standing up for freedom is not a cause that political leaders in the West are that happy to embrace.

Commenters in my last post have asked me exactly what I was talking about when I stated that I found many "Danish cheeses that would be illegal in Europe" in a Chinese supermarket. Although it is actually possible to figure out what I was talking about from a careful study of the top photograph and perusal of Samizdata's fine archives I shall, none the less, explain myself. In truth, I was being slightly misleading.

The European Union has in recent years adopted laws (based on earlier French laws) adopted "Protected Designation of Origin" and "Protected Geographical Origin" laws concerning the names of foodstuffs, which state essentially that if a food product is supposedly characteristic of a certain place of origin, then the particular name of that foodstuff can only be used on products made in that place, and usually also made in a particular way (subject to vast books of regulations) in that particular place. Sometimes that product name is the name of the place (eg Edam cheese must come from Edam in the Netherlands), and sometimes it is not("Camembert" cheese must come from Normandy). Nobody seriously objects to laws that make the origins of products clear, and make it illegal to genuinely attempt to deceive about where a product came from, but these laws are notable for their overreach. In many cases, the attempt has been made to regain control over names which became generic decades or centuries ago, and it has also become illegal to use these names desciptively in any sense. (You cannot say "This cheese resembles camembert" or even "This cheese does not resemble camemert" on the label). Ultimately this has ended all about being protectionist with respect to small numbers of producers.

Having adopted these laws inside the EU, the European Union's agriculture directorate (sometimes also known as "The French") has attempted in trade negotiations to have similar laws enacted internationally, using the argument that "We are good citizens within the EU and respect these laws and the rights of producers (blah blah blah), and therefore they should be respected internationally too. Their attempts to have such laws adopted within the WTO have largely involved their being told to get stuffed, principally by the Americans, but they have had some success in bilateral negotiations with smaller countries (eg Australia) that want to trade with the EU in agricultural products.

However, there has been a split between northern and southern Europe on this. A large number of these PDOs and PGOs have been adopted in southern Europe (particularly France and Italy) but there has been much more reluctance to adopt them in northern Europe, where farmers and producers have been reluctant to accept the large amount of regulations that has come with them. For instance, the producers of stilton cheese considerd participating, but ultimately decided that protecting the word "stilton" would reduce the flexibility of their businesses sufficiently that it was not worth doing so, although they did actually (and somewhat idiotically) adopt "Blue Stilton" and "White Stilton" as protected phrases. In the "screwups" department, the producers of Newcastle Brown Ale did apply to have the name protected, and then discovered that it was technically illegal to use the name "Newcastle Brown Ale" for beer brewed in their new brewery across the river in Gateshead.

None the less, northern European countries have (with a bit of grumbling) gone along with these laws, and products on supermarket shelves have been relabeled.

But, as I discovered in China last week, they only do what they have to.

For the export market and setting a good example for the rest of the world so that other people will stop using the names of our cheeses, the Danes clearly don't care at all.

(Actually, I am not sure the word "brie" is protected, but "mozzarella" and "camembert" definitely are. And "havarti" is not protected either, but since it was a Danish cheese in the first place, I suspect that was up to them). There is clearly no attempt to pretend that these are French or Italian cheeses though. The number of instances of the word "Danish" (and the number of Danish flags on the shelf) makes it clear that the opposite is the case. The fact that the cheeses are Danish is being played up, not down.

So, in some sense I lied slightly. It isn't so much the cheeses that are banned in Europe, but the combination of the cheeses and the names that are banned in Europe. While those Danish cheeses can technically be sold in Europe, those combinations of cheese and packaging cannot. In practice though, one does not see those kinds of Danish cheeses on British supermarket shelves. The difficulties in explaining what they actually are under the protected names law is such that it makes them hard to export to Britain and then sell, and we end up buying French and Italian cheeses instead. Which is, of course, the point.

For genuine instances of banned cheeses, one must generally cross the Atlantic. The FDA in the United States bans the sale of all cheeses made with unpasteurised milk, on the basis that these are slightly more likely to carry certain diseases than are cheeses made with pasteurised milk. As it happens, cheese afficionados think that using pasteurised milk ruins the taste of some of the very best cheeses. (i think they are right). And is in reality eating unpasteurised cheese is probably less risky than crossing the road, American cheese fans want to eat these cheeses. Which is why there is an illegal cheese smuggling business (and a black market in illegal cheeses) between Europe (mostly France) and the United States. I kid you not.

Back to the Danish cheeses, I was curious as to what the French supermarket chain Carrefour would do with them, both from the point of view of Carrefour's recent indiscretions concerning Danish products, and the European origin laws, given that Carrefour is French. My suspicion is that they would have simply sold them to people who wanted to buy them, but alas I didn't find out. Although Carrefour apparently has several stores in Shanghai, I didn't manage to find one. I tried, but I accidentally got on the wrong bus. After the bus I did get on unexpectedly got on a motorway, I found myself ultimately eating barbecued meat on skewers with Mongolians in some rather remote corner of Shanghai. But that is another story.

Brian has a new podcast available in which he talks with Antoine Clarke about elections around the world, the libertarian case for democracy and some juicy tidbits. Apparently. Meanwhile, I talk with Neil O’Brien of Open Europe on whether the European social model really is social and whether science should be funded by the EU.

Jacques Chirac is, in typically sophisticated French fashion, subtly inferring that French culture reigns supreme amongst the illuminati of high civilisation:

When M Seillière, who is an English-educated steel baron, started a presentation to all 25 EU leaders, President Chirac interrupted to ask why he was speaking in English. M Seillière explained: "I'm going to speak in English because that is the language of business".

Without saying another word, President Chirac, who lived in the US as a student and speaks fluent English, walked out, followed by his Foreign, Finance and Europe ministers, leaving the 24 other European leaders stunned. They returned only after M Seilière had finished speaking.

I suppose it is always a positive when the children leave the room. Then the grown-ups can talk.

(Hat tip RWDB - J.F. Beck)

The Basque separatist terrorist organisation Eta has announced a permenent ceasefire. If this is genuine and this holds, and Eta genuinely does stop killing people, then this is obviously good thing. One minor issue though.

The ceasefire will come into effect on Friday, the statement said.

Why the delay, precisely? Are they planning on blowing some people up tomorrow for old times' sake? Do they have some semtex that they haven't used that they don't want to waste? Enquiring minds do want to know.

Last week, Umair Haque (bubblegeneration) predicted that Europe would prove to be the next innovation leader--not because of any forthcoming shift toward a culture of entrepreneurialism, but because the day is coming when content will be key, and Eurpoeans simply remain more, ah, cultured than Americans. This pronouncement that drew numerous responses (including my own) that ranged all the way from 'Huh?' to 'Excuse me?' Innovators in Silicon Valley like Chris Yeh took particular exception.

Since then, Haque has taken the debate on the relative values of financial vs. social capital further, yea, invoking the spectre of Wal-Mart:

Let me use an example to illustrate. The cost of Wal-Mart killing your local mom and pop bakery isn't just terrible food, no more friendly chats, and unemployment. In fact, Wal-Mart offsets your loss in quality with scale economies, creating value.

Actually, the real economic loss is more subtle, and much more pernicious: we lose entire sets of people deeply committed to what they do, which is where real creativity ultimately flows from. We lose people with skin in the game, and replace them with workerbots. The guys at your local bakery were makers of tiny cultures, not just producers of goods. Which do you think will be more valuable in a world of Chinese/Indian/etc hypercompetition - scale economies, or creativity driven by passion and commitment?

The debate on Bubblegeneration is a significant (in that it's particularly cogent) articulation of the Euro-centric argument for a managed economy - the twist being that the stated protectionist goal is the preservation of 'culture' not jobs per se.

But looking closely, Haque's argument contains the seeds of its own undoing: in the world of hypercompetition he speaks of, it's true that creativity driven by passion and commitment will dominate - which is exactly what entrepreneurs like Chris Heh and his rather cultured friends in Silicon Valley embody. The truth is that while the world may have fewer (and probably better) mom and pop bakeries moving forward, that level of creative energy is being re-invested in other more dynamic areas of human endeavor and achievement - i.e., the mom and pop software shop.

There are moves afoot to ban the burqa in the Netherlands on the basis that they are oppressive to women and in the words of Geert Wilders, a Dutch member of parliament...

an insult to everyone who believes in equal rights

Which is quite curious logic because if he believes in equal rights, does that not include the right to wear what you damn well please without it having to be politically approved by the state? Will other forms of clothing be banned in order to make this an 'equal right'? Moreover it sets a horrific president: does that mean 'offensive' clothing can be banned, such as, say, a mini-skirt that some Muslims with sexual hang-ups find offensive?

This proposal is a dreadful idea with only one thing to recommend it, and that with proviso is does not actually pass into law. The notion of making Muslim fundamentalists (and I would argue that anyone wearing a burqa is a fundamentalist) feel that they are not accepted and that even toleration of them is hanging in the balance is not such a bad message to send. Yet this is nevertheless an appalling notion for the state to decide what people can wear. A vastly better idea would be to just scale back the welfare state which brough many of these people to Europe and most importantly return the abridged property rights and freedom of association and dis-association to individuals to deal with who they please and freely (but peaceably) express themselves without fear of prosecution for 'discrimination'.

That way, if enough individuals decide that not make people who wear burqas welcome into their places of business, the problem of state supported non-assimilation would quickly disappear. If people really do not care, then that too is the 'voice of the people'. Either way, the state has no business enforcing dress codes. Provide some real social motivation to assimilate and adopt western norms of behaviour. If some un-assimilated Muslims find that notion offensive and choose to leave for some nation which is more accepting of dark ages mores. Either way the problem is reduced.

What European unity really means to most people.

At the same time Jyllands-Posten in Denmark is valiantly establishing that freedom of expression is a core western value and that the right to say what you will does indeed include the right to say what some people may find offensive... a court in Austria has in effect sided with Islamic extremists by sentencing 'historian' and fantasist David Irving to three years in jail for upsetting Jewish sensibilities by making preposterous claims about the Nazi Holocaust.

Am I the only one who sees the sickening irony of protecting Jewish feelings ending up giving aid and comfort of Islamic bigots who want to prevent the publishing of anything they find offensive? I can just hear them now: "Oh, so upsetting the Jews gets you thrown in jail but anyone can upset the Muslims..."

Dr Romain, rabbi of Maidenhead Synagogue, said: "I welcome yet another public rebuff for David Irving's pseudo-historical views, although personally I prefer to treat him with disdain than with imprisonment."

And that, Rabbi, is the sign of a mature and freedom loving disposition. What a pity that more Muslim clerics do not take such a view when their sensibilities are offended and their community starts howling for the state to ban offensive remarks as Austria has done in the case of David Irving. Had Jyllands-Posten been an Austrian rather than Danish newspaper, it would be hard to make the argument that there was clearly a legal right to offensive (and therefore free) expression.

And before people in the USA get too smug, this is not just a European issue. Let me ask you this: do you support making burning the US flag illegal? If so, then clearly you agree with the Muslims that free speech does not include the right to offend people.

Time to clean house: all insulting behaviour (short of actual incitement to violence), blasphemy and 'holocaust denial' laws are an intolerable abridgement of freedom of expression and must be abolished, now!

Update: Stephen Pollard and Oliver Kamm have broadly similar views.

Look, I have got a cold coming on. I do not really want to post about this. But, for the record (and because this is Samizdata, dammit! We may not be able to stop the passing of liberty but we of all people should toll the bell) David Irving should not be jailed. Historical opinions, however deluded and malevolent, should not be criminalised.

It seems that despite their pathetic limp wristedness in some parts of the world, Carrefour's solidarity with the Islamic and Egyptian community does not stretch very far, as they are happily selling Denmark's splendid cheese here in Warsaw.

This still does not make me like them very much (although they are generally a well run business). It does lead to a question, which is what happens when a boycott and a buycott collide? Given that they stock it, is it okay for me to buy Danish cheese from Carrefour. Obviously it is better for me to go and buy the Danish cheese from a different shop down the road, but what if I can not?

Such is the dilemma I face as I head for the airport and the flight back to London from Poland.

Properties that twenty years ago were inhabited by collectivised Bulgarian peasants can now be purchased by anyone, thanks to the magic of the Internet.

Ideal for, erm, renovators!

A Danish blogger and columnist, Henrik F�hns, alerted me to a post on his blog, Mondofunza about a letter to 'Muslim citizens'...

A letter from Another Denmark

Dear Muslim citizens in Denmark and the World

I wish to state the existence of another Denmark: A Denmark that wants to live in peace with the Muslim world. There is another Denmark, which hopes for and believes in respect and tolerance between religions and different groups of people.

As a Dane I have no responsibility for what a single and privately owned Danish newspaper chooses to publish. Even so, I strongly condemn the actions of Jyllands-Posten that have offended muslims around the world, and I understand the need for an apology from the newspaper.

We all have a responsibility for treating each other, our religious faiths, and
convictions with dignity and respect. By publishing the caricatures of Muhammad, the newspaper Jyllands-Posten failed their obligation to exercise with care and consideration the right of freedom of speech.

I condemn all kinds of discrimination, prejudice and racism, whether it is directed against Muslims, Jews, Christians or other groups in a society. Therefore, I reject the hostile and prejudicial way of speaking that has marked several Danish,political parties and media within recent years.

I want to make a request to all parts involved, that opinions and protests may be conducted in a respectful and peaceful manner. Attacks on and threats against individuals and assets only make the situation worse for all of us.

I believe in a world, where religions, ethnic groups and various political and cultural opinions can coexist in an atmosphere of dialogue, tolerance and mutual respect.

I wish to state the existence of Another Denmark that conceives itself as a part of such a heterogenous world and humanity. In the sincere hope of international tolerance and respect.

Despite some agonising, Henrik's response is unequivocal:

I have not signed the letter and do not intend to do so. I too want to live in peace with the muslim world, but I want to live by terms set by a modern democratic society. Not by rules set by autocratic, fundamentalistic, religious regimes. The outrage about the Danish cartoons have other roots than the cartoons themselves. The cartoons and Denmark have just become scapegoats for social and political disorder in the Middle East...

... I have nothing against christianity, islam or other religions. But when they start to preach and act against basic human rights - count me out.

Note: Also, Happy Birthday, Henrik!

The Danish media has taken note of the Buy Danish campaigns that have sprung up spontaneously over the least week or so in response to the boycott from Islamic countries. Danes seem to be quite willing to stoutly resist the pressure to limit free speech but it is important they realise that millions of people worldwide are urging them to stand firm and so although buying Danish goods or putting a supportive graphic on your site may be a token, it is by no means pointless. Below is a translation of an article in Børsen.

Buy Danish campaigns in large markets like the USA and Germany might give Danish companies enough increased turnover to cover the losses from the Arabian boycotts.

Companies like Arla, Lego, and Carlsberg believe in increased sales when they check their books next time, and Dominique Bouchet, professor in marketing and sociology at the University of Southern Denmark also expects a plus.

"It just might give a good effect. Normally there is a greater effect the other way around, when you signal disgust and irritation through a boycott. But the present situation is completely unusual, and many dislikes the Muslim boycott and the extremists reactions to the drawings. It is expressed through the buying of Danish goods", says Dominique Bouchet.

He emphasises that there has never been comparable situations, so it is difficult to predict how large the effect will become.

Denmark is, as most people are aware, caught in the middle of a Middle Eastern sandwich, where the hateful reactions to the Prophet drawings have become so extreme that the crisis is going straight on to front pages in media around the world.

This releases a counter expression via buy Danish campaigns, where the customers are encouraged to buy Danish goods to support Denmark in the conflict. A simple search on Google gives more than 100.000 "buy Danish" pages."

With thanks to Kristina for the translation.

And so as Palestinian gunmen surround the EU mission in Palestine...

Tonight at Samizdata.net HQ, dinner will include...

A trivial thing for sure but it is the thought that counts. The UK newspapers may be too craven to republish them but we always have the internet... and here are the offending cartoons again.

In order to show some solidarity with Denmark, who are facing remarkable pressure over the Jyllands-Posten 'Satanic Cartoons' incident, I for one will be stocking up with Danish products at every opportunity. I find it offensive that they are being threatened by Islamist thugs and pissant Muslim governments for daring to be a tolerant western nation.

So, what recipes can liberty lovers think up that use Lurpak butter, Danish bacon (lots of yummy Danish bacon), Havarti cheese, Carlsberg & Tuborg beer and smoked herring?

And as every campaign needs a 'face'...

The bizarre desire of Islamists to prolong the Jyllands-Posten 'Satanic Cartoon' saga has now escalated the whole issue and caused French newspaper France Soir to join the fight for freedom of expression and also republish the offending cartoons.

To quote what a commenter called Max wrote in an earlier article here on Samizdata whilst arguing with an outraged Muslim commenter:

The truth is that what Jyllands-Posten did was intended to prove that secular western values in Denmark have not been eroded by alien Islamic values. It worked and they won and by not letting it drop, muslims around the world are well on the way to turning a tactical success by an obscure danish newspaper into a glorious triumph for enlightenment values.

It was an act of will by which these Danes defended their values against yours. That you cannot even see you have fallen into a trap that bites harder the more you fight against it is a measure of the irrationality of your position.

Aux armes, mes amis!

Mark Thatcher was involved in a failed but very commendable private sector attempt to oust an African tyrant, no doubt motivated by personal gain (an entirely reasonable motivation) and as a result, Prince Albert has decided that Mr. Thatcher is not a suitable person to have his residence in Monaco. Somehow this is part of a new 'ethical' approach to running the Principality.

So let me get this straight... trying (but failing) to overthrow some petty ruler who treats his country as a personal possession make you un-ethical? So does that mean being supportive of the government of Equatorial Guinea would make a person... ethical?

One might almost think that Prince Albert just does not like the idea of people overthrowing any ruler of a pissant country. I wonder why that might be?

The Italian government, desperate for any additional source of revenue as it beggars the surrounding economy with its imposts, has slapped a fresh tax on the country's porn industry. It will be intruiging to know just how much this tax raises or whether, as may probably happen in Italy, the tax drives the industry under the bed, so to speak.

Personally, I have more regard for people who earn an honest living making racy videos than tax collectors.

The European Union wishes to legalise the retention of data from telecoms operators and ISPs for the period of one year. We are told that the retention of data will allow governments to conduct counter-terrorist campaigns more successfully and prevent other serious crimes. The retained data could be used in these investigations.

The Creative and Media Business Alliance have lobbied the European Parliament to extend the provisions of the proposed Directive. Data would be used for investigations into copyright infringement and, if other new laws come to pass, infringements of intellectual property.

But the Creative and Media Business Alliance (CMBA), a group of media companies including EMI, SonyBMG and TimeWarner, has lobbied the EU to allow this data to be used to investigate all crimes, not just serious offences such as terrorism.

Opponents have claimed that if this demand was granted, then � combined with the upcoming IPRED2 legislation which could create Europe-wide criminal offences for intellectual property infringement � the entertainment industry would be able to pursue prosecutions against suspected copyright-infringers through the criminal court entirely at the cost of the taxpayer.

Whilst intellectual property is always a tricky and contested subject, the music media is treading that famous path of fighting disruptive technology by lobbying for a secure monopoly. Only Europe is stupid enough to let them.

Just browsing in my local newsagents brought me face to face with the burning cars that coloured the covers of Time, Newsweek, and other current affairs magazines. A quick flick through left me cold except for one quote (unfortunately unsourced) that made sense.

An Italian analyst argued that riots were far less likely to occur in Italy as the country was too corrupt and everyone was working in the black economy. Whereas the French state prevented immigrants from making any money at all and destroyed their aspirations, Italian graft was far more amenable to the hard graft of immigrants.

Switzerland is a bastion of efficiency and rationality surrounded by the boiling maelstrom of stupidity that is Europe... and yet even they are falling foul of idiotic political correctness and absurd defensive 'sensitivity'.

Swiss Santa Clauses have been banned from sitting children on their laps because of the risk that they might be accused of paedophilia [...] Large groups of St Nicholases parade through the streets that day before visiting children. They traditionally sit them on their laps before asking if they have been well-behaved. "We want to counteract any possible accusations of paedophilia involving our members," the Society of St Nicholas said in a statement. "We regret having to do this, but the public has become very sensitive about child abuse."

Hardly the end of the world but it is not a good sign that even the dependibly sensible Swiss have this crap to deal with.

Flemming Rose, an editor from Denmark's largest newspaper, Jyllands-Posten, reacted to news that Danish cartoonists were too afraid of Muslim militants to illustrate a new children's biography of the Prophet Muhammad, by doing exactly that, putting Denmark's policies of tolerance to the test by commissioning a series of illustrations of Muhammad.

In response thousands of Muslims in Denmark marched in protest demanding the newspaper be "punished", though interestingly an Iranian woman, Nasim Rahnama, has organised counter-protests in support of the editor, managing to secure one hundred and fifty signatures affirming freedom of expression.

As I have mentioned before, when I see more people like the commendable Nasim Rahnama taking a stand then I may conclude that things are improving and perhaps modern Islam is not a blight on any tolerant society it comes into contact with. But as it stands, clearly it is the ignorant bigots who can put the largest mobs on the streets and that is why the actions of editor Flemming Rose need to be strongly applauded. It is hard to overstate the importance of confronting intolerant Islam on a cultural as well as a political level.

So when Muslim scholars attack the newspaper for its cartoons:

Lawyer and author Shirin Ebadi, who received the Nobel peace prize in 2003 for her fight for human rights and democracy in Iran, told daily newspaper Jyllands-Posten that its decision to call for and print twelve caricatures of the Muslim prophet might have been a well-intentioned attempt to prompt a dialogue on democracy between Muslims and non-Muslims in Denmark. The effect, however, had been the opposite, and in fact risked harming democracy's cause in Islamic countries. 'I would like to stress that I do not personally have any problems with cartoons like these,' said Ebadi, who is a devout Muslim. 'The problem is the way the subject is approached. It splits more than it unites.'

But that is exactly the point: it is intended to 'split' rather than 'unite' and the importance of unity is vastly overrated. No one who values tolerant pluralistic western values should be seeking some sort of compromise with bigotry. There should be no attempt to 'unite' with the people who marched in Denmark demanding the government 'punish' Jyllands-Posten, in fact they must be confronted.

And please, the scholar is making a category error because it has nothing to do with 'democracy'. Even if a democratic majority do not want to see cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad appear in the newspapers, it is still wrong to try and use the force of law to prevent it. Dislike the idea? Fine, do not buy the damn newspaper. The issue here is liberty and democracy is far from a synonym for that.

I was about to make this a Samizdata quote of the day, but Scott got there first:

One way in which consensus opinion changes is when scattered individuals become aware that many others share their opinions.

That is our own Natalie Solent reflecting on some comments at the BBC.

Of which this was one, from Chadi Bou Habib of Beirut:

I lived in France for 8 years and I have never understood why the "youths" deal with "social problems" only through riots. Until one day, I was admitted in a meeting of a so-called "cultural association" subsidized by the local council. A Muslim "brother" talked for about an hour on the difference between "us" and "them", to conclude that whatever we do to "them" is of god's will, a kind of Jihad. Well, the French authorities should start inquiring on the kind of "culture" they are subsidizing.

Meanwhile, Mark Steyn has this to say about Prince Charles and his ill-timed efforts to get the Americans to stop being beastly to the Muslims:

Having followed the last Prince of Wales in his taste for older divorcées, His Royal Highness seems to be emulating Edward VIII on the geopolitical front, too, and carelessly aligning himself with the wrong side on the central challenge of the age.

Although, there is one thing to be said in favour of appeasement, which is that it does allow everyone to grope their way towards approximate agreement about the nature of the enemy, based on what actually is the nature of the enemy, rather than on wishful fantasies.

Nicolas Sarkozy has threatened rioters with prison sentences. But this evening a BBC TV reporter ended his report from riotous Paris by saying that the Muslim Parisians who have been chucking bricks at the gendarmerie and torching cars say that the cause of the rioting is Nicolas Sarkozy with his hostile and unfeeling attitude, and that he should say he is sorry.

Quite so. The cheek of the man. Anyone would think that those rioters were breaking the law.

I guess Chadi Bou Habib has a bit more commenting to do.

Just to remind everyone that today is a rather special Trafalgar Day.

Nicely done, Horatio.

Drieu Godefridi, the Director of the Institut Hayek, looks at plans for a "new Marshall Plan" for a region of Belgium with incredulity

Politicians in Wallonia, the southern part of Belgium, think their region needs "a new Marshall Plan". Excuse me? The Marshall Plan was designed to help Europe rise from the ashes of World War II. Surely there has not been any war in Belgium since then. So what is the point?

This plan would benefit the socialists who govern Wallonia by helping their lagging economy to recover. But to recover from what? Basically, from sixty years of socialist governance.

Truth be told, Wallonia does need an urgent boost to its economy. With an unemployment rate of 18% and almost nil growth for years, Wallonia is now on the verge of being outclassed by Poland and Slovakia, countries that started from zero in terms of their economies just 15 years ago.

This "Marshall Plan" consists of massive public investments in some parts of the Walloon economy duly selected by the government. But it will not work any better than other plans the socialists have come up with over the last three decades. (Some years ago, the same socialists said that one of their plans at that time would turn Wallonia into a "Wallifornia").

What is comforting to learn is that the main goal of the Walloon government is now to encourage the creation of new businesses and to help to develop existing ones.

But these socialists need to understand that the creation and growth of companies are not only a question of political will. For businesses to be created and to grow, some basic conditions have to be put in place.

Probably the most important two conditions sine qua non for economic vitality currently do not exist in Wallonia: reasonable taxes and a reasonable level of regulation.

Belgian taxes are among the highest in the world, second only to France. Not every tax can be lowered by the Walloon government, but many of them could be. Unfortunately, Walloon politicians do not seem to understand the link between low taxes and economic prosperity. The Cour d�arbitrage, Belgium�s Supreme Court, recently struck down a Wallon law raising the rate of the inheritance tax at 90%.

The amount of regulation in Wallonia is ridiculously high. In every jurisdiction that it has inherited from the Belgian federal state, be it urbanism or environment, the Walloon Parliament and government have enacted several new regulations to restrict business, often developing new controls in new areas. The idea that the burden of such regulations should be measured, and compared with their merits, is foreign to the socialist elites.

That the politicians of French-speaking Belgium understand the need to create new businesses for their economy to thrive is good news. But to expect that anything like would happen without a plan that entails the drastic lowering of taxes and the abrogation of complete areas of nonsensical environmental and city planning regulations? That is just another Belgian joke.

Peak Talk has the perfect summation of the tragic affair of the murder of Dutch film maker Theo Van Gogh by a Muslim fanatic.

To kill one baby may be accounted carelessness, but to kill four . . .

Here is a classic gruesome shock horror well-I-never what's-the-world-coming-to? story from timesonline. The headline says it all:

Mother hid dead babies in the freezer

Who says they don't write headlines like that any more? They wrote that one today. No wonder Europe has a demographic crisis on its hands. These people really do not like to have children, do they?

To be more geographically selective, what is Austria coming to? To me Austria has long been a rather sinister place. It is one of the two national bits at the heart of Nazism, but unlike the other bit, Germany, it has never properly apologised. (Germany has never stopped apologising.) Very pretty waltzes, I agree. Nevertheless, Austria is, you might say, Japan on the Danube. Hitler, remember, was Austrian, and he incubated a lot of his worst ideas when living in Vienna. If only he had been frozen at birth. More recently we have had to share our planet with the creepy Kurt Waldheim.

On the other hand, I have only occasionally been to Austria, and have little first hand experience of its people. No doubt many of them are quite nice, and I do not just mean the Austrian economists.

This frozen baby thing happened in Graz.

Graz, a picturesque city of 250,000 lies 120 miles south of Vienna and is the birthplace of film actor turned California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.

They do not spell it out, but the implication is clear. The baby freezing was Arnold's fault! Along with most of the other Samizdatistas, I think Arnold is a good Austrian. However, according to this, Arnold invited Waldheim to his wedding, which I did not know until now. (Waldheim did not attend.) Nor do I know whether this means that Arnold is worse than I thought, or Waldheim better. Maybe it just shows that you get all sorts at weddings.

The fact that large numbers of French people are going to vote against the ghastly EU Constitution because it favours too much free trade and does not isolate Europe from competition even more than it already does is almost beyond parody. That most British people will (if given the chance) vote against it because it does quite the opposite just shows that the notion of having both nations as part of the same political structure is truly unsustainable.

Similarly the idea that some doctors could call for sharp pointed kitchen knives to be banned without being widely ridiculed in the press for being evil totalitarians indicates that Britain too has some grave social and intellectual deficiencies amongst the media classes. For all their bizarre political notions regarding that big-statist's charter called the EU Constitution, it is hard to see the French trying to ban pointed kitchen knives from people's homes.

So what will it take to snap people back to reality? Or is it just too damn late for that and the only thing left is to get the hell out and leave the lunatics in change of the asylum?

Maybe that is exactly what the US needs too, an influx of liberty seeking (or at least sanity seeking) folks from Europe who have seen the reality of what happened to a culture when it allows all the things the Democrats (and quite a few big-state Republicans) want to do in the USA. Who knows, if enough of them get citizenship they might be around in time to help make sure that Hillary only gets one term in office. Shudder.

German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder's social democratic (SPD) party has been hit hard in regional elections over the weekend, with voter anger at his party over the crummy state of the economy overwhelming an attempt by some of his own party members to whip up a storm of anti-capitalist sentiment in order to cling to power. Good. I honestly don't know whether we are seeing a transition phase in Germany towards sanity and liberal economics. What is clear is that a country that has suffered double-digit unemployment for more than half a decade cannot go on like this without dreadful strains on its social fabric. Maybe some of the more intelligent parts of the German political class might get this point. We need the once-mighty German economic machine, brought to such a pitch by the late great Konrad Adenauer and Ludwig Ehrhard (friend of Hayek) brought to a purring level of growth again. It is in no-body's interests, least of all ours in Britain, to see that nation permanently in the doldrums.

There is a related article here about what has gone wrong in Germany here in the latest edition of the Spectator. As Glenn Reynolds likes to say, read the whole thing.

On first viewing, my instinctive reaction would be to punch the air with triumphal joy:

Flat taxes, once a fantasy of free-market ideologues, are sweeping across the European Union and could be introduced in more than 10 of the bloc's 25 member states.

The European commissioner for taxation, Laszlo Kovacs, described flat taxes, - one rate for all income and corporate taxation - as "absolutely legitimate" and said Western European nations may be tempted to adopt them. His comments will fuel debate that low-tax, low-cost economies of the East are undercutting Europe's industrial heartland.

However, and in my experience, this needs a second viewing and even a third viewing.

First off, what they are sloppily referring to here is not 'flat tax' but actually 'flat-rate tax'. The prospect of a flat tax (however remote) would most certainly have me breaking out the bubbly.

Secondly, let us assume that Mr. Kovacs and his posse somehow manage to persuade Western Europe's nabobs to swallow this idea and go with the flow. I would not put it beyond them to agree to a flat-rate tax and then set the rate at 60%. The fate of politicians in Western Europe is decided almost entirely by their bloc-vote public-sector clients and they are not going to kick them in the teeth any time soon or at all.

Thirdly, there is no mention at all of what happens to the various extant reliefs and allowable deductions. A great deal of the complexity in the tax system results not from calculating the rates but negotiating the brain-fryingly difficult issues of the applicability of reliefs and the legitimacy of deductions. Hence, simply establishing a 'flat-rate' will not simplify the system to any material degree. Furthermore, it is only those reliefs and deductions which save many businesses and self-employed people from being bled white.

This could all turn into a lamentably hollow 'victory'. I can easily see HMG apparently agreeing to a 'flat-rate tax' and even agreeing to set it at a reasonable level and, while we are all celebrating, promptly announce the abolition of all reliefs and deductions which would result in a great many people paying a lot more tax and not less.

No, I am not happy. Not yet anyway. There are far too many devils lurking in the detail.

One of the fables that socialists like to tell is how wonderful life is in their peoples' paradises. From risible stories about how the Cuban people have world-class health care freely available to all and are 100% literate, to more plausible, but equally erroneous, tales about how our Scandinavian brethren manage to have a high standard of living, short work weeks, a benevolent welfare state, etc., these tales are inevitably spun by statists seeking to cast dust in the eyes of their more plebeian subjects the better to hide the failure of their grand schemes.

The received wisdom about economic life in the Nordic countries is easily summed up: people here are incomparably affluent, with all their needs met by an efficient welfare state.

Not so fast. Even in the notoriously socialist-freindly confines of the New York Times, hard economic truths have a way of making themselves felt eventually. What the Times has belatedly discovered about its beloved third way socialist-lite economies is that they are falling behind, shackled to the dead weight of the welfare state, the enervation it breeds, and the taxes it imposes.

All this was illuminated last year in a study by a Swedish research organization, Timbro, which compared the gross domestic products of the 15 European Union members (before the 2004 expansion) with those of the 50 American states and the District of Columbia. (Norway, not being a member of the union, was not included.)

After adjusting the figures for the different purchasing powers of the dollar and euro, the only European country whose economic output per person was greater than the United States average was the tiny tax haven of Luxembourg, which ranked third, just behind Delaware and slightly ahead of Connecticut.

The next European country on the list was Ireland, down at 41st place out of 66; Sweden was 14th from the bottom (after Alabama), followed by Oklahoma, and then Britain, France, Finland, Germany and Italy. The bottom three spots on the list went to Spain, Portugal and Greece.

Alternatively, the study found, if the E.U. was treated as a single American state, it would rank fifth from the bottom, topping only Arkansas, Montana, West Virginia and Mississippi.

While the private-consumption figure for the United States was $32,900 per person, the countries of Western Europe (again excepting Luxembourg, at $29,450) ranged between $13,850 and $23,500, with Norway at $18,350.

Faced with the undeniable economic reality that they have almost eaten their way through the economic seed corn laid up by their frugal ancestors, what do the current panjandrums of the welfare state do? Why, they lie, of course.

Meanwhile, the references to Norway as "the world's richest country" keep on coming. An April 2 article in Dagsavisen, a major Oslo daily, asked: How is it that "in the world's richest country we're tearing down social services that were built up when Norway was much poorer?"

Being a casual and undisciplined surfer of the net means that I often get guided towards stories right in front of me, and very late, by somewhat circuitous routes. For instance, I only got to this as a result of Harry Hutton linking to a James Lileks piece in the Washington Times. But never mind, I got there:

A 25-year-old waitress who turned down a job providing "sexual services'' at a brothel in Berlin faces possible cuts to her unemployment benefit under laws introduced this year.

Prostitution was legalised in Germany just over two years ago and brothel owners � who must pay tax and employee health insurance � were granted access to official databases of jobseekers.

The waitress, an unemployed information technology professional, had said that she was willing to work in a bar at night and had worked in a cafe.

She received a letter from the job centre telling her that an employer was interested in her "profile'' and that she should ring them. Only on doing so did the woman, who has not been identified for legal reasons, realise that she was calling a brothel.

Under Germany's welfare reforms, any woman under 55 who has been out of work for more than a year can be forced to take an available job � including in the sex industry � or lose her unemployment benefit. Last month German unemployment rose for the 11th consecutive month to 4.5 million, taking the number out of work to its highest since reunification in 1990.

This is as classic a case of an ( I presume) unintended consequences as I have ever encountered, and it is an unintended consequence of two opinions both of which I hold myself. First, I do think that prostitution should indeed not be illegal, and second, in the absence of the abolition of state welfare, I do think that persistent welfare claimants should be obliged to lower their sights about what work they are willing to accept. Very unemployed information technology professionals should not lounge around watching day time television for year after year until such time as someone finally offers them a job in the information technology profession.

So, add to all of the above a tiny pepper shake of that Germanic manic logic of the sort that we all know about from our history books, and you get: be a prostitute, or lose your benefits. Amy Alkon, commenting on this post, explained why being a prostitute can be a fine and noble thing and can have very good consequences for society, but she surely did not mean this

That is the trouble with micro-managerially interventionist welfare (or attempted welfare) states. Arguments have a tendency to degenerate into whether any and every imaginable sort of human behaviour or employment or enjoyment should be either (a) illegal or (b) compulsory. (c) Take it or leave it/your choice/we do not care/enjoy it - shun it - it makes no difference to us/you decide . . . has a way of getting squeezed out.

With all the understandable attention being focused on the dreadful situation in the lands skirting the Indian Ocean, there is always a danger that disasters of a different, more Man-made kind, get overlooked. Well this week the German statistics office reported a dreadful set of unemployment figures, showing the number of jobless in Europe's biggest economy to be at the highest level for seven years

A Bloomberg report on the story contains the following passage:

New measures cutting benefits for the long-term unemployed took effect on Jan. 1. Those without a job, including people previously registered as social-welfare recipients rather than as jobless, will also face increased pressure to accept job offers or risk losing benefits. The changes will add an as yet undetermined number of people to the January jobless total.

But it is clear that the German authorities are still tinkering with the issue. That 10.8 percent of the working age population of such an important country should be out of a job is a disgrace. What I find odd though is how little outraged commentary in the economics part of the press there is about this. It is almost as if the European chattering classes have come regard this problem in Germany, and also France, with an air of sullen resignation. Of course, dealing with it will involve lots of vulgar, Reaganite actions such as deregulation, tax cuts to spur business formation and the like, which of course goes against the grain of Germany's 'managed' form of business so beloved of leftist commentators like Britain's own Will Hutton.

Germany needs to get its act together. Some 15 years since reunification with the eastern part of the country, Germany has failed to live up its early promise. With so many young people, including those from immigrant backgrounds, on the dole, no wonder commentators wonder about the social fabric of that country. They should.

Governments are now peddling myths to cover up their own inaction during the first few days of the catastrophe. They are stating that the magnitude of the catastrophe was unknown and, therefore, they did not feel compelled to set up the emergency infrastructure to supply information to distraught relatives. One of the first countries to feel the angry wind is Sweden, where the Foreign Minister attended the theatre on Boxing Day night, with appalling lack of judgement.

Der Spiegel's article highlights the comparison between government confusion and private sector organisation:

Swedes are fuming. Partly, they are unleashing their rage, horror and sense of utter helplessness in the face of a disaster felt by almost every family, directly or indirectly, in this tightly knit nation of 9 million. But they are also launching some very sharp criticism at a government that failed to absorb the magnitude of the Asian tsunami and took too long to respond. As many as 4,000 Swedes were swept into the tsunami's watery folds.

An editorial in the mass-circulation Aftonbladet lambasted Swedish Foreign Minister Laila Freivalds for not showing up to work until more than a day after she learned about the disaster. Even worse, said the paper, Freivalds did not sit worriedly at home like so many Swedes on Sunday night. Instead, she went to the theater in Stockholm. She did so knowing full well that, at that point, 10,000 people were already believed dead on Southeast Asia's beaches, which draw Swedes in droves each winter. And she didn't exactly rush to get to the office. "At nine o'clock the next day their chairs at the foreign office were still empty," hissed the paper. "Not until 10.30 a.m., 31.5 hours after the death wave, did the foreign minister arrive at work."

Is this grounds for Freivalds and Prime Minister Goeran Persson to resign? The paper thinks so, as, it seems do many Swedes. Since Wednesday, the Swedish Ministry has been deluged with thousands of nasty e-mails accusing the government of indecision, failure to act and not doing enough to help stranded and wounded Swedes get home. "You and your government's incompetence shines like a beacon in the night," wrote one Swede. "Today, Dec. 28, the government's weakness and indecisiveness surpassed my wildest and most terrifying fantasies," wrote another. Commentators, too, are lashing out. "I am ashamed of being Swedish when I have a prime minister who says that he can't get more people answering telephones because it is Boxing Day (Dec.26) and people have the day off," wrote Claes Thilander in the newspaper Dagens Nyheter.

This contrasts with the role of Lottie Knutsson, the information director at Fritidsresor, a travel company.

In fact, one of Sweden's unlikely new stars is Lottie Knutsson, director of information for the travel company Fritidsresor. Since Sunday, Knutsson has been working tirelessly to arrange flights home for Swedes and to get the government to ship more medicine and send more airlifts to get the injured home. "Let Lottie Knutsson from Fritidsresor change places with G�ran Persson," one reader wrote to the Foreign Ministry. On Thursday, the headline of the daily Svenska Dagbladet screamed "Bring them home now," referring to Swedes still stranded in Thailand.

It takes a disaster to bring home to many that their political elites, having sold their mess of pottage to Brussels, no longer subscribe to the notion that they are servants rather than masters.

London celebrated the arrival of the New Year in what was under the circumstances rather too flamboyant style last night, with a firework display in, over and around the Wheel. The trouble with a firework display celebration at a time like this is that you can either do them, or cancel them. You cannot tone them down.

I have more photos of how this looked on my telly here.

Huge firework displays fit very snugly into the Way We Live Now, and in particular into the Way We Are Governed Now. More and more fireworks shows are now collectively staged, and collectively viewed, including on TV of course. Meanwhile, free enterprise firework enjoyment is discouraged, allegedly because of safety, but probably also simply because it is free enterprise.

I wonder if there is an EU dimension to this? There usually is, after all. The EU is all about centralised power and the suppression of freelance activity. It is also all mixed up with Roman Catholicism. As is November 5th, otherwise known as Bonfire Night or Guy Fawkes Night. Are our continental rulers now discouraging us from celebrating the burning of a Roman Catholic terrorist, who was, like them, hell bent on reversing the defeat of the Spanish Armada?

Whatever the reason, and however much I hate what the new arrangements may or may not symbolise, I prefer the new firework dispensation. I recall being in Germany over the New Year some time in the eighties, and seeing the entire sky of Germany lit up at midnight on the dot. I thought to myself, we should do that, instead of the sputtering, long -drawn-out, chaotic, dog-scaring mess that our November 5th celebrations have degenerated into. (This year's, to my ears, were particularly feeble and pointless.) Having them all at one means that we can all enjoy them all at once, and then go back indoors and get stuck into the New Year. Which I hope is a happy one for all who read and write here.

None of which means that the inconsolable unhappinesses of many in the world just now, which for me have been most vividly and most gruesomely evoked by Amit Varma, should be ignored.

Who would have thought that the eastern coastal parts of India would, following the tsunami devastation, be afflicted by a shortage of kerosene, of all things and among many other things? Yet it is all perfectly logical. Burying the bodies is taking a long, long time, and by the time many are reached they have decayed and cannot be dragged. Grab hold of a leg, and you end up holding only a leg. Yet the bodies must be disposed of, to prevent disease. So, they must be burned. But for that you need... kerosene.

For the link to that piece I thank Instapundit, who I think has been outstanding in recent days, both with his abundant tsunami linkage � what is happening, what needs to be done, how to help, etc. - and for his abundant postings about and linkings to other matters. Update: as Instapundit again notes, there is now more Amit Varma reportage.

So a very unhappy New Year for many. If any of those reading this are personally afflicted in any way by these terrible events, please know that you have the deepest sympathy of all of us here and of all the other readers of this.

On Saturday I found myself (as one does) in the "Freetown" of Christiana, an "alternative community" in Copenhagen in Denmark. An abandoned military barracks quite close to the centre of the city was inhabited by a large number of squatters in the early 1970s, and arfter decades of sometimes hostile, sometimes violent clashes between inhabitants and the authorities (often over drug use), the people of Christiana and the Danish authorities these days basically tolerate one another.

These days Christiana has become a major venue for such things as live music and other entertainment, and it contains an assortment of bars, cafes, art galleries, workshops selling a variety of craft goods, music related items, and a vast amount of cannabis also seems to be consumed in the area. Clearly the economy of Christiana is very largely funded by selling stuff to visiting people like me, but that is fine. (I am all in favour of people who want to sell stuff, and I am all for people being able to smoke or ingest anything they want). And like anywhere else, Christiana has a fair bit of municipal pride, with clearly demarcated signs indicating city limits.

(It is actually relatively difficult to document this post with pictures, as photography is discouraged in all of Christiana, and is prohibited entirely in the entertainingly named Pusherstreet, partly because of the questionable legality of some of the things being sold, and partly I suspect because this is a way of preventing Christiana from degenerating completely into a tourist circus, which is always a danger).

But clearly the local promoters of certain iconic pop-cultural properties believe that nearby walls are a good place to advertise.

But in a cultural or pop-cultural sense, there are certain issues that are clearly in dispute. For one thing, quite a few of the buildings in Christiana have satellite dishes on their roofs. Despite this, there are clearly theological issues about whether television is a good thing or a bad thing, and as someone who these days watches little television other than the occasional cricket or football match, I did find this graffiti and counter-graffiti amusing.

However. it was perhjaps most interesting to walk out of Christiana, and to look at the other side of that entry gate. Walking back into Copenhagen proper, I had my chance to Interesting though to see just which organisation the Freetown of Christiana most wants to be free of.

Fancy that.

Last night I attended a fascinating talk about the libertarian movement in Spain, hosted by Tim Evans in Putney, and given by Gabriel Calzada, who had been known to me before last night only as the author (maybe � I was unsure) of this essay.

The message Gabriel delivered to a small but very attentive group of London libertarians can be briefly summarised as follows: the Spanish libertarian movement is extraordinarily big and is doing extraordinarily well.

Gabriel started his talk with some history, concerning the Salamanca school of Natural Law theorists, mentioning the names of Francisco de Vitoria, Francisco de Suarez, and Juan de Mariana. Here is a famous Mariana quote:

Taxes are commonly a calamity for the people and a nightmare for the government. For the former they are always excessive; for the latter they are never enough, never too much.

But that was a very long time ago, and that kind of thing only influenced modern Spain indirectly, via its influence on the Austrian school.

It became very clear as the evening went on that the enormous Spanish anarchist movement that flourished about a century ago is crucial to any understanding of the current Spanish libertarian movement. Anarchism as a political force in Spain was eventually decapitated by the supposed allies of the anarchists, the Communists, for being insufficiently obedient to Stalin, but the climate of opinion � what we here at Samizdata call the meta-context � of anarchism lived on in Spain. Whereas the typical political question in other countries is something like: How shall we govern ourselves?, in Spain the question is: How shall we be free? How, as it were, do you do freedom? With a question like that, it makes sense that the libertarian answer to that question (one word summary: property) would attract a mountain of enthusiastic attention, and it has.

Perhaps another reason for the dramatic impact of libertarianism in Spain is that Spain has, until challenged by the libertarians, been intellectually dominated by Communism. Anarchism having been wiped out, and anti-Communism having become so tainted by Francoism, that left the lefties ruling the media roost in Spain, in the form of such mass media giants as El Pais, the biggest national newspaper in Spain, which makes the Guardian seem to Gabriel like a centrist/liberal kitten by comparison. Lots of libertarians are converts from leftism, and Spain is very full of people who have been raised in a leftist manner but who are looking for different answers.

It may also have helped the rise of libertarianism, although this was not mentioned by Gabriel or in discussion, that Spain is now economically so vibrant, compared to earlier times.

Gabriel, interestingly, preferred to focus on the achievements of two individuals: Jesus Huerta de Soto, and Federico Jimenez Losantos. Huerta is the key scholar, and Jimenez is a key media performer, and both are men of "contageous enthusiasm", a phrase Gabriel used several times.

He also mentioned the vital role that the Internet has played in this story. Again, summarising brutally, whereas the Communists owned the old media, the libertarians own the Internet, to the point where the Communists are getting seriously worried.

Gabriel mentioned two internet sites in particular, liberalismo.org (scholarship) and Libertad Digital (current affairs). Both have astronomical hit rates, of the order of a million a month (sorry but I am bad at numbers). When those Communists type any Spanish 'issue' into their search engines, time and time again, the first few hits are libertarian analyses. No wonder they are so anxious, and have been saying that something ought to be done about controlling the Internet.

Jimenez is also doing extraordinarily well on the radio.

I could attempt to go on, on the basis of my scribbled and inadequate notes, but I will leave it at that for now, hoping that Gabriel will regard this report as better than nothing. (Antoine Clarke, also present, might like to comment about all the things I missed, and maybe clarify some of the numbers involved in this story, people, hit rates, etc.) I will add only that whereas there are now no Spanish libertarian sites which also present themselves to the English speaking world in English, this is apparently about to change. There will soon be an English language site devoted to Spanish affairs, written by Spanish libertarians. Gabriel has promised to inform us as soon as it gets going.

Altogether a fascinating, and most encouraging evening.

Afterwards we had a late supper at Tim and Helen's, which is where I took this photo of Gabriel.

Hayek (on the left in black and white) is saying: what is that greenery doing in front of me? Gabriel is a great enemy of greenery, having recently penned a denunciation of the Kyoto Treaty, so particular apologies for that blemish.

Oh, and did I mention that Gabriel Calzada has also just been made a Professor at the University of Madrid?

If ideas have consequences, and they definitely do, then Spanish libertarianism is going to have some very big consequences indeed.

This is a very odd piece of reportage, from Spiegel Online:

Finally some news out of Holland that doesn't have to do with the religious violence that has gripped the country for the last 10 days: The Dutch cabinet has decided on a March 2005 withdrawal of the country's 1,350 troops in Iraq. Dutch Defense Minister Henk Kamp made the announcement on Friday afternoon.

What, not anything to do with it? Surely the Dutch cabinet at least hopes that Dutch Muslims will be slightly less angry about everything now, even if the actual decision to bring the boys home was made either before all the domestic rowing, or during it but for genuinely unrelated reasons.

And some will certainly argue that there is a connection, so there is your connection right there.

I do not say that the religious violence was the sole cause of the withdrawal, merely that these are definitely inter-woven news stories.

The Vlaams Blok is the largest political party in Flanders, the Flemish speaking half of Belgium... and the Belgian high court has just in effect required it to disband. Now I hold no brief for an ethnic nationalist political party (though they are the closest thing to a free market party in Belgium, which I certainly approve of), but it is hard to see how the nation which hosts the key institutions of the EU can now claim to be democratic in any meaningful way.

To ban the Vlaams Blok because it is allegedly racist, and yet not ban communists or socialists from running for office, means that only certain types of enforced collectivism will be tolerated, namely the type which is imposed equally on all, but not any form which is only imposed on immigrants. Repression is only acceptable if everyone is repressed. Keep in mind that the Vlaams Blok is not some tiny lunatic fringe of neo-fascist moonbats like the BNP in Britain but are a major political party. Yet the political establishment have just used the courts to put there opponents out of business.

I eagerly await a series of fierce denunciations of the wholesale disenfranchisement of a significant proportion of the Flemish electorate. Given the importance attached to democracy by the Guardian and Independent, I expect at least a week of outraged headlines and calls to action to defend democracy in Europe by Robert Fisk and George Monbiot.

Ok, I am waiting .

Blogger, film scriptwriter and novelist Roger Simon notes that there have not been many sounds of disgust from his Hollywood backyard at the murder of Dutch film-maker, Theo Van Gogh (a descendant of the artist) on November 2nd.

I must say there has not been a huge amount of noise from our own British film-makers, documentary producers and big shot journalists, either. I get the distinct feeling that a lot of folk in the artistic community are simply scared or uninterested that a man who made a film about the treatment of women in Islamic culture was shot in broad daylight in Holland, that most laid-back of nations.

I find that there is something rather shabby about this silence. I hope to be proven wrong and that all those who have cause to value freedom of speech and the right to challenge certain ideas will speak out at the brutal murder of Mr Van Gogh.

Amidst all the kerfuffle over the US elections, I urge you to spare a charitable thought for all those American writers, actors, singers, poets, puppeteers, directors and musicians whose right to dissent will continue to be crushed in George Bush's Amerikkka - a country where it is dangerous to speak out.

Mind you, they can always decamp to tolerant, liberal Europe where they will be free to express themselves:

An outspoken Dutch film-maker was shot and stabbed to death yesterday by a Dutch-Moroccan man in apparent reprisal for his campaign against Islam, sending shock waves through a country that exalts freedom of speech.

Theo van Gogh, 47, a provocateur and enfant terrible of Dutch cinema, was ambushed by a bearded man in Arab clothing as he cycled through the heart of Amsterdam.

The Dutch media immediately linked the attack to the director's latest film, Submission, which highlights the repression of women in some Islamic cultures.

Well, after a fashion.

Avant-Garde French philosopher, Jacques Derrida, has finally been deconstructed:

Jacques Derrida, one of France's most famous philosophers, has died at the age of 74.

Though to say that he has "died" is to, perhaps, impose a structural context defined by the ontology of Western metaphysics. In the grammatic, linguistic and rhetorical senses he has merely desedimented, dismantled and decomposed. Indeed, this is a grand narrative undoing in the egological, methodological and general sense, as opposed to a mere critique in the idiomatic or Kantian sense.

Er...or something.

Alert readers will have noted that I often write here about education. What happens is that I dash off a piece for my Education Blog, and then say to myself: this will just about do for Samizdata. And since I now find writing adequately for Samizdata harder than for my private blogs, and since Samizdata has many more readers, here is another such piece which I hope will suffice for here, provoked by an essay I am in the middle of reading, by Paul Graham. (Thank you Arts & Letters Daily, a daily resource without which I could not now do.) The first few paragraphs of this esssay grabbed my attention, and I am now about half way through it.

In that previous reaction to Graham's essay, I made much of the idea of an essay being "persuasive".

I am right, and wrong, says Paul Graham. Yes, a lot of education is rooted in legal education, but, he says, too much. An essay, he says, is not � or should not be � lawyering:

Defending a position may be a necessary evil in a legal dispute, but it's not the best way to get at the truth, as I think lawyers would be the first to admit. It's not just that you miss subtleties this way. The real problem is that you can't change the question.

And yet this principle is built into the very structure of the things they teach you to write in high school. The topic sentence is your thesis, chosen in advance, the supporting paragraphs the blows you strike in the conflict, and the conclusion � uh, what is the conclusion? I was never sure about that in high school. It seemed as if we were just supposed to restate what we said in the first paragraph, but in different enough words that no one could tell. Why bother? But when you understand the origins of this sort of "essay", you can see where the conclusion comes from. It's the concluding remarks to the jury.

As I often find myself saying, to justify my enthusiasm for argument: my dad was a trial lawyer, and so were both my grandfathers. My family's basic activity when dining, when we weren't eating or listening to classical music on the Third Programme or Family Fun Chat on the Home Service, was arguing. And if no one was disagreeing with a dominant consensus, someone would, just for the fun of it. "Defending a position" is, I think, a pretty good way to get at the truth, provided more than one position is being defended, which is exactly what is happening when a jury is involved. The adversarial principle is, I would say, a whole hell of a lot better than a "necessary evil".

Think only of the clash of conclusions � of, in Dan Rather's words, "political agendas" � that recently got the truth of the Rather documents fracas out into the light of day in the space of a few hours.

In our legal world, the advocates start with their rival conclusions and defend them, and attack them, while the judge listens, occasionally asking a question, or insisting that a question already asked be answered. ("The witness will answer the question.") Also, the judge occasionally, sports umpire style, restrains the advocates if they get too rude, or if they use arguments that are too sneaky. ("I object your honour!" � "Objection sustained.") In the blogosphere, the 'judge' is other bloggers and other journalists, and the 'jury' is the people reading it all and buying things and voting for things on the strength of all that arguing and counter-arguing.

On the Continent of Europe their legal tradition is very different from the one shared by Paul Graham and me, and by most of you reading this. There, the judge takes the initiative. He does not merely endure the clash of the advocates and help the jury to decide. He decides, by doing just what Graham says an essayist should do. He searches disinterestedly for the truth. He walks, to use Graham's excellent metaphor, through the open door into the room where the truth of the matter is to be found, and he finds whatever he finds. Then he announces it, and that is what is true and what is to be done.

These contrasting traditions have a profound effect on the different ways in which education is done in the Anglo-Saxon world and in Continental Europe, or so I am persuasively informed by my continental friends). (By the way, in Scotland, they also have a 'Continental' legal system. They do not have judges. They have 'intendants' in Scottish courts. I think that is what they are called. That is, active investigators, as in 'super-intendant'.)

Anglo-Saxon schools are often experienced by their congregations as boring churches in which the God Almighty Preacher says what is what and they, the congregation, just have to suck it up. But it is the very things that these Preachers often say in these churches, to say nothing of all the things said outside of them, that do much to make the congregation so restive. On the Continent, the Teacher/Professeur (the Judge substitute) finds The Truth, and then announces it. Your job as a mere pupil is to learn it, not to argue about it. Anglo-Saxon schools are anarchic dog-fights compared to the average secondary school on the Continent of Europe.

The weakness of the Anglo-Saxon system is that the truth gets lost in the mayhem and din of battle. Juries emerge from trials wondering what the f*** that was all about and having chosen their verdict with a coin toss or because the prosecuting lawyer had a cute smile. We tune into the Internet, and retreat in confusion from the hubbub. School pupils just become confused and give up, steamrollered by their more confident and louder rivals. Or they do not know which is the right answer and hate having to decide it for themselves.

But the weakness of the Continental system is that the actual truth of this or that particular matter may be forbidden or ignored, with only lies or obsolete platitudes about it being taught by the Man At The Front, and these lies and platitudes may not be contested by the peasantry.

It is in the nature of educated people brought up in either tradition, but aware of the existence of the other tradition, that they often perceive only the vices of their own system and cast envious eyes over the fence, or in this case over the English Channel (known over there as 'La Manche').

No accident, then, that 'essay' is a French word.

So. On with Paul Graham's essay...

An acquaintance sent me a link to an article about the future of Europe and asked me for my opinions in response. As someone with a reputation for having an opinion (usually a fairly inflammatory one) about everything, I find myself untypically, and perhaps rather annoyingly, equivocal. But this is entirely due to the fact that I am unsure whether or not this kind of thing can or should be taken seriously:

How quickly is Europe being Islamized? So quickly that even historian Bernard Lewis, who has continued throughout his honor-laden career to be strangely disingenuous about certain realities of Islamic radicalism and terrorism, told the German newspaper Die Welt forthrightly that "Europe will be Islamic by the end of the century."

Or maybe sooner.

I have heard such sweeping assessments before, courtesy (mostly) of some of the more intemperate conservative blogs and websites. But is there any substance to the claim?

On the face of it, it appears both alarmist and far-fetched. Just taking the EU countries alone, I believe that there are, at most, some 20 million Muslim people out of a total population in the region of 470 million. Less than 5%.

But, let us suppose that some profound demographic shifts over the next few decades result in Muslims outnumbering non-Muslims. Does it automatically follow that Europe will then be 'Islamic'? And, if so, what type of Islamic? Are we talking about the arid, monochromatic, repressive Saudi 'Wahabbi' version or the more secular and easy-going Turkish variety? Or could it be some newly-manifest and unique 'European' version of Islam?

Also, and given much of Europe's descent into post-modernist torpor, would any of these scenarios (assuming they came to pass) necessarily be a bad thing?

So many questions with no answers. Or no satisfactory answers at any rate. My own inclination is to regard the article with a high degree of skepticism. Human affairs are sufficiently fluid to make predictions about the next week seem foolhardy, let alone the next century. However, it is worth bearing in mind that North Africa (the Maghreb) was once as European as France or Italy is now and that fully two-thirds of what was once the Roman Empire is now a part of the Islamic world.

But the past is not necessarily a guide to the future, so that just leaves me back where I started. In short, I just do not know and I am hesitant to venture any sort of opinion more definite than that.

Gibraltar remains a British colony to the overwhelming relief of its 27,833 inhabitants. Yet they are well aware that the reason Geoff Hoon, Britain's dismal defence minister, yesterday attended the 300th anniversary of Britain's capture of The Rock has little to do with any great enthusiasm for the people on The Rock or a deep commitment for retaining Gibraltar, but rather a disinclination to 'make nice' with Spain due to its policies regarding Islamic terrorism and Iraq.

In fact members of both the 'tranzi left' and 'paleo right' see Gibraltar as a weird anachronism and despite those groups fetishising their minor differences, both have a shared collectivist meta-context and think nothing of what the inhabitants of The Rock wish for themselves.

If the Gibraltarians were wise, they would let it be known that they are prepared to go all the way and exercise a 'dooms day' option of Unilateral Declaration of Independence if the political class in Britain ever decide to 'give' Gibraltar away: the battalion sized Gibraltar Regiment should simply take up arms with whoever will rally to the red and white flag, and man their border with bayonets fixed. Of course it is unlikely a militia army in Gibraltar could hold off a serious military move by Spain, though success against the odds is not without precedent, but would Spain actually be prepared to fight for 27,833 people who simply do not want to be Spanish?

I realise that is indeed what the Spanish state is doing in the Basque parts of Spain but this is a rather different proposition and unlike in the Basque country, there is no friendly constituency in Gibraltar who sees Spanish sovereignty as in any way tolerable. A Spanish takeover would be nothing less that a colonial occupation of an unwilling population.

People have to be prepared to literally fight for the things they value and if the people of Gibraltar made it clear that in the final analysis they would be willing to do exactly that, perhaps the chattering classes in both Spain and Islington Britain would stop thinking those people's fate is something that can be lightly signed away by people in a ministry building in London or Madrid.

One of Spain's top banks, Santander, is making a bid to buy the British banking firm Abbey plc, the mortgage lending firm which used to be a building society (what Americans would know as a Savings and Loan).

I do not have much to say about the specifics of the deal. It is all a part of the merger, acquision and disposal process which is a healthy part of capitalism and the efficient allocation of scarce capital. Maybe the shareholders of either firm have strong views on the matter but I do not. However, what is interesting to me is what this deal says about Spain's development as an economic power.

Spain is one of the success stories of the past few years. When I went to the glorious city of Barcelona last year I was struck by how prosperous and dynamic the place was. I hear and read similar impressions from other sources. Much of this has to do with the determination of Spanish entrepreneurs to throw off the shackles of former failed socialist policies and embrace a more liberal economic culture, which former centre-right premier Aznar helped spawn. Let us hope the new socialist government elected earlier this year in rather shameful circumstances after the Madrid bombings does not mess it up.

It would be a grave error to infer too much from the acquisitive activities of a Spanish bank in Britain. But I get the feeling that this grand old nation is flexing its economic muscles again, and who knows, making a distinct improvement to the quality of Britain's economy while getting richer as well. Good. It feels appropriate somehow. There are hundreds of thousands of British expatriates living in Spain so it perhaps fitting that Spain's biggest companies are trying to get a piece of the action in the UK.

(As an aside, I would like to know what the Spanish-based blog Iberian Notes makes of this).

There are many myths about Sweden and they go back a long time.

For example, in the 1930's various supporters of the 'Middle Way' (such as the future Conservative party leader Harold Macmillian) suggested that if Britain followed a policy of greater statism, Britain would be more prosperous - and they pointed at Sweden as an example of greater statism. Such folk did not tend to stress such things as Swedish levels of taxation being about half British levels at the time.

Sweden's great success was avoiding both world wars (and the capital consumption these wars involved), but this is not often talked about (the record of Sweden, in relation to Germany, in the 1930's and during WWII is especially not something people like to talk about).

Of course these days Sweden does indeed have very high taxes (although I doubt they really are the "highest in the world", as is often claimed - after all the stats for levels of taxation in many nations in the world are fantasy as they do not include the endless bribes one must pay and extortion one is subject to in these countries).

However, at least in recent years the Swedish government has at least managed to control its (very high) levels of government welfare-state spending (unlike the United States - see the Cato Institute for the Bush Administration's latest lies about the cost of the Medicare extension), and whilst not as well off as Americans ("Sweden most prosperous nation in the world" is an absurd myth one still finds being talked of from time to time) the Swedish people are not doing too badly.

Apart from the control of government spending (yes it is still very high - but at least it's growth has been controlled in recent years so government spending as a percentage of GDP has fallen - although, I repeat, it is still very high) which has led to a balanced budget, Sweden has also followed a policy of one of the lowest money supply growth rates in the world.

Now why is this? Fiscal and monetary conservatism is hardly what Sweden is supposed to be about - this is supposed to be a nation that has long worshipped the doctrines of Lord Keynes.

However, a theory does occur to me. The Swedish government has long wished to get the nation to join the European Union's system of money (the "Euro"). How would the people of Sweden be convinced to vote to join the EU currency?

According to the doctrines of Lord Keynes (at least as they are popularly understood) if a government follows a policy of balanced budget and tight control of the money supply then (at least at some points of the "economic cycle") such lines of policy will produce recession.

Could the intention of the government of Sweden have been to produce recession and get people to vote for the Euro as a possible "way out"? In short could the rising levels of GDP and industrial output in Sweden be not just unintentional, but the opposite of what the government wanted?

Everyone is aware by this time that al Qaeda's attack on Madrid led to the election of the candidate who promised immediate withdrawal of Spanish forces from the coalition in Iraq. The Spanish electorate are acting like the child who, after getting knocked down by a schoolyard bully, cowers in the hope said bully will stop hitting them and just go away.

Based on this thought, I was going to do a cute 'appropriate' modification of the Spanish flag.

To my chagrin, I have discovered the Spanish flag already has a yellow stripe down the middle.

The forthcoming Olympic Games which are to be held in the birthplace of this event, Greece, promise to cause a few headaches. In particular, security services around the world must be wondering what level of risk is being run in holding an event relatively close to the Middle East, and in which lots of Americans, Brits, Israelis and other parts of Dubya's great Zionist/Halliburton conspiracy are taking part.

So while I was chatting to a work colleague about Greeks' own views of the situation, I came across a corker of a quote from an unnamed Olympic official:

Greece hasn't hit the panic button yet. That is because it hasn't even installed the necessary wiring.

Brilliant.

Just who are these people going around saying that a decadent, post-historic, senescent Europe is no longer capable of galvanising in response to dangerous threats?

Nothing could be further from the truth:

Jelly mini-cup sweets have been banned by the European Commission because of a risk of children choking.

The sweets are packaged in plastic cups and designed to be swallowed in one.

The commission said they were a risk because of their "consistency, shape and form" and that warnings alone were not enough to protect children.

Though I do think that diplomacy and negotiation should have been tried before embarking on such unilateralist and aggressive actions.

The claim is being made (by various people) that the founder of the IKEA company, Ingvar Kamprad, is now the richest man in the world (supposedly Mr Kamprad has overtaken Mr Gates).

In the British media (both electronic and print) Mr Kamprad is described as 'Swedish'. Now he may well still be a citizen of Sweden, but Mr Kamprad has been a resident of Lausanne, Switzerland since 1976.

Sweden is not doing badly economically at the moment, but I do find it interesting that the taxes of Sweden mean that its most successful businessman is unable to live there.

Fifteen suspected Islamic extremists linked to the Casablanca bombings of 16 May 2003 have been arrested this morning, according to the Europe 1 radio station which broke the news.

The bomb attacks last year killed 45 people, including 3 French citizens.

The arrests were made by the DST (French equivalent of MI5) and the RAID (elite Police unit) in two Paris suburbs, Aulay-sous-Bois and Mantes-la-Jolie. They come as Queen Elizabeth II makes an official visit to Paris, to coincide with the centenary of the 'Entente Cordiale' between the United Kingdom and France.

Over the week-end French police made a number of arrests of Basque ETA terrorists, including Felix Ignacio Esparza Luri, alias "Navarro", at Saint-Paul-lès-Dax in the Landes département.

One of the very many arguments in which I was embroiled while I was a student in the 1980's involved one of my house-mates who steadfastly held that the government should pay students a handsome monthly salary in return for all the hard studying they did. Now this was at a time when, in fact, the government did pay most students an annual grant which covered the costs of their education and left them with a bit of spending money to boot.

But that was not enough for my protagonist. As far as he was concerned this was 'mere crumbs'; a demeaning insult from a skinflint Tory government. No, students were so precious and valuable that they deserved an 'executive' style pay package so that they would not be subjected to the indignities of having to buy second-hand clothes from charity shops.

When I explained (in some detail) why the government (Tory or otherwise) could not possibly afford such magnanimity, he responded by trying to convince me that arithmetic was but a political 'mind-trick' constructed to oppress the masses (and students, of course).

And, by jove, he was right. Well, after a fashion:

Hundreds of thousands of people across Europe, many of them elderly, have marched in protest at plans to reform welfare systems. In Rome, pensioners arrived on buses, special trains and even boats from the island of Sardinia to demonstrate against the rising cost of living.

Various German cities saw people march against welfare cuts introduced to combat economic stagnation.

And in Paris they demanded more jobs and social justice.

Across Europe governments are trying to find ways to pay pensions to ageing populations, or to cut back on expensive social provision.

It is always tempting to sneer at people who think that the dried-up wells of government money can be refreshed by the act of marching up and down waving self-pitying slogans. Mind you, that has generally been the means of opening up the state spigots in the past so I suppose I cannot really blame them for giving it another try. That is the thing about street protests: they are the modern equivalent of rain dances.

There is also an extent to which I feel quite sorry for these people. They have been took, they have been had, they have been sold a pup. They have been 'mind-tricked' by a post-war political class that has mesmerised them into believing that a river of easy largesse could be conjured out of nothing and made to flow forever by sleight-of-hand. Yes, you can vote to abolish the iron laws of economics and two plus two can equal sixteen thousand four hundred and thirty five if only you are willing to let your 'intellectuals' handle the mathematics for you.

But now the dwindling numbers of producers have been taxed down to the bone and there are simply no more sweeties to hand out. That was not supposed to happen but it has happended and it heralds an end to the days of milk and honey.

These trains of irate Italian pensioners may appear slightly pathetic. Comical, even. But they are part of a generation (and maybe the front-line of two or even three generations) that is not so much 'hitting the streets' as hurtling towards a big brick wall into which they will eventually crash with sickening thud. When that day comes, a lot of dazed and angry people are going to be looking for something or someone to blame for their pain and, given Europe's track record on these matters, I have little confidence that they will assign that blame correctly.

According to the ABC website (Spanish conservative daily newspaper), the Islamists blew themselves up rather than face capture. My Spanish is not great so any better linguists can check this out. (not permanent link). Three suspects implicated in the Madrid railway station bombing were pursued to the residential building where the explosion occured this evening.

Following yesterday's find of an explosive device along the Madrid-Seville railway, an energetic series of police actions in Spain and France against both ETA and the Islamic terrorists.

According to the Spanish government two leading members of ETA have been arrested in South-West France and other suspects detained over the past two days. Four explosive devices were found, two of them ready for immediate use. The French government, whilst confirming that arrests have been made has not been forthcoming with any details.

Meanwhile in Madrid, an explosion was heard today and small arms fire during a police raid on an appartment complex in the Leganes suburb (my thanks to Susan for the link to Jihad Watch ). Official sources say the explosion was a controlled detonation.

French TV is running a story about explosives found along the high-speed railway link between Madrid and Seville today.

The explosives with copper wiring similar to that used in the 11 March attacks on Madrid appear to have been abandoned when a routine track patrol was made near Toledo.

N.B. Toledo was the site of two decisive battles: the first confirmed the Moorish conquest of Spain in 712, and the second was the launchpad of the Spanish Reconquistada with the Moorish defeat there in 1212. If this is the work of an Islamist cell, we have an answer to the question: "Did voting for the PSOE appease Al-Qaeda?"

The report adds that the new (Socialist) Interior Minister - responsible for law enforcement and internal security - is having a meeting today with the outgoing (conservative) Defence Minister. Bi-partisanship in Spain is about as frequent as Bible rallies in Riyadh. Nice one!

Gloomy prognostications about the future of Europe seem to be flying thick and fast these days. It seems that everybody who is anybody, especially on the other side of the Atlantic ocean, is quite convinced that the whole European continent is riding on a one-way ticket to Palookaville.

Speaking for myself, I am not entirely persuaded. Certainly the combination of demographic decline and economic and political sclerosis means that Europeans have some very difficult choices galloping over the horizon towards them. But that is not the same as saying that they are all doomed and done for. Who is to say that they will not make the right choices?

Well, British historian Niall Ferguson for one. In his reading of the entrails, choice does not even come into it:

The fundamental problem that Europe faces, more serious than anything I've mentioned so far, is senescence. It's a problem that we all face as individuals to varying degrees, but from society to society the problem of senescence, of growing old, varies hugely. In the year 2050, which is less remote than it may at first sound, current projections by the United Nations suggest that the median age of the European Union countries, the EU 15, will rise from 38 to 49.

There is only one way out for this continent, and that is immigration. There is an obvious source of youthful workers who aspire to a better standard of living. All around Europe there are countries whose birth rate is more than twice the European average, indeed, significantly more than twice. The trouble is that nearly all these countries are predominantly Muslim.

So far, so what? There is nothing here that is not being editorialised about in much of the press. But Ferguson takes matters a little further.

The reality is--and it is perhaps the most striking cultural phenomenon of our times--that Western and Eastern Europe are no longer in any meaningful sense Christian societies. They are quite clearly post-Christian--indeed, in many respects, post-religious--societies. In the Netherlands, Britain, Germany, Sweden, and Denmark, less than 1 in 10 of the population attends church even once a month. A clear majority do not attend church at all. There are now more Muslims in England than Anglican communicants. More Muslims attend mosque on a weekly basis than Anglicans attend church. In the recent Gallup Millennium Survey of Religious Attitudes conducted just a couple of years ago, more than half of all Scandinavians said that God did not matter to them at all. This, it seems to me, makes the claim to a fundamental Christian inheritance not only implausible but also downright bogus in Europe. The reality is that Europeans inhabit a post-Christian society that is economically, demographically, but, in my view, above all culturally a decadent society.

They cannot, though they will try, resist forever the migration that must inevitably occur from south and from east. They will try. Indeed, they try even now to resist the migration that really ought legally to be permissible from the new member states to the old member states after May the 1st. Even that has become contentious. Increasingly, European politics is dominated by a kind of dance of death as politicians and voters try desperately and vainly to prop up the moribund welfare states of the post-Second World War era, but above all to prop up what little remains of their traditional cultures.

I understand Samuel Huntington is worried that Mexican culture is taking a firm root in this country and shows no sign of being dissolved into the traditional American melting pot. I read an alarmist article by him in Foreign Policy this week. Well, I have good news for him. Long before the mariachis play in Harvard Yard, long before that, there will be minarets, as Gibbon foretold, in Oxford. Indeed, ladies and gentlemen, there already is one. The Center for Islamic Studies is currently building in my old university a new center for Islamic studies. I quote: "Along the lines of a traditional Oxford college around a central cloistered quadrangle, the building will feature a prayer hall with traditional dome and minaret tower." It will open next year. I wonder what Gibbon would have said.

At the risk of grossly misrepresenting him, Ferguson appears to be of the view that faith matters. Or, if nor 'faith' as such, then perhaps 'spirit'.

Few serious analysts of my acquaintaince make any attempt to examine the role of religion in civilisation and, as a wholly secular individual, I must admit that I do not give it a great deal of thought either. But maybe that is to overlook the importance of religion as a sort of civilisation catalyst.

Ferguson clearly indicates that Islam is poised to rush into the vacuum left by the soon-to-be-departed Christianity but even he does not suggest that this means the 'end' of Europe as a civilisation. Merely that the Europe of a hundred years from now will be an altogether diffierent place from the Europe of a hundred years ago.

If faith plays a key role in bolstering a successful civilisation then could Islam give Europe that new lease of life? Or will it simply be North Africa with pine trees?

[My thanks to the Brothers Judd for the link.]

Far be it from me to find anything hopeful about the PSOE election victory in Spain last weekend. After two election terms of relative fiscal sanity and an end to the grotesque corruption of the Felipe Gonzalez era, a return to PSOE government is bad news for Spain. It is also extremely bad news for the rest of the European Union, as this represents a shift away from pragmatism towards an (even more) collectivist EU agenda.

It is not however, necessarily good news for terrorism. Among the multitude of scandals faced down by the previous Spanish Socialist government the 'GAL affair' looms large.

GAL was the name assumed by a anti-ETA terror group in the 1980s that entered France and murdered ETA members and supporters. I no longer have the details but there was a spate of terrorist attacks on Basques living in the Bordeaux area, as well as closer to the Spanish border.

Following the arrest of several GAL members it transpired that they were all either members of law-enforcement agencies and the armed forces, or recently had been. It later emerged that the money to finance GAL came from the Ministry of the Interior and was signed off ultimately by the Minister. Whilst the Prime Minister Felipe Gonzalez himself was never proven by documentary evidence to have sanctioned the GAL death squad, let me just say that if he ever wins a libel action on the issue, I will be amazed.

Two things are worth noting, firstly that both the French and Spanish governments were under Socialist control at the time, second that Spanish public opinion was firmly on the side of the death squads: the only non-Basque critics of the policy tended to shut up because it was their own party that was doing the dirty deeds.

In France the President from 1981 to 1995 was François Mitterrand, the former far-right youth organisation member turned founder of the modern French Socialist Party. It is worth noting his record as an Interior Minister in the 1950s.

In 2001, one of the big political scandals was the publication of Services Spéciaux: Algérie 1955-1957, by the retired General Paul Aussaresses. The French Left went beserk and managed to get the retired former leader of the Action Service to have his Légion d'honneur withdrawn. They also tried to get his pension removed. The ostensible reason was that General Aussaresses had exposed and admitted the use of torture against Algerian terrorists during the Battle of Algiers.

In my copy of this extremely interesting book I find on page 12:

De son côté, François Mitterrand, le ministre de l'Intérieur chargé des départements français de l'Algérie, considérant que la police était impuissante à maintenir l'ordre républicain, envoya son directeur de cabinet au ministère de la Défense nationale pour y requérir la troupe et déclara sans ambiguité ce même 12 novembre, devant les députés: "Je n'admets pas de négotiations avec les enemis de la Patrie. La seule négotiation, c'est la guerre!"

My translation: For his part, François Mitterrand, the Minister of the Interior responsible for the French administrative districts of Algeria, believing that the police was powerless to maintain the Republic's peace, sent his chief advisor to the Ministry of National Defense to resquest the use of troops [including the 11th Shock Paras, better known as the Action Service]. He also declared without ambiguity on the 12th November, before the Chamber of Deputies [French House of Representatives]: "I will not tolerate negotiations with the enemies of the Fatherland. The only negotiation, is war!"

It took the removal of the French Socialists and the introduction of the General de Gaulle to bring about appeasement of the Algerian terrorists. There is a strand of Western Socialist thought that takes the secular State seriously. I seriously doubt if there will be any safe-haven for Islamist terrorists in Spain for the forseeable future. Jacobins ain't soft on Terror.

In the wake of the massacre in Madrid, and the subsequent election result, it has become the conventional wisdom that the election went according to al-Qaeda's design. Robert Clayton Dean expressed this view concisely here at Samizdata a few days ago:

Spanish voters reacted to the election eve bombings by doing exactly what the bombers undoubtedly wanted: elect a Socialist who will take a soft line in the war on terror.

However, there is in fact little direct evidence that such was the goal of al-Qaeda. It does sound rather logical, of course, but there may well be other factors at work. And it is not clear that logic is a useful tool in analysing the methods and aims of this enemy.

What follows is a purely speculative guess to make the case that the political goal of al-Qaeda was in fact the direct opposite- their goal may well have been to ensure the re-election of the Popular Party.

al-Qaeda as an organisation has been going through a rough couple of years, and it has not achieved much in terms of murder and mayhem in the West. If we consider al-Qaeda as a company, it would aim to market itself as the organisation of choice to the Islamic Fundamentalist section of the Islamic marketplace.

However to gather revenue and recruits, it needs to demonstrate that it is still alive and kicking after having its Afghan strongholds destroyed by the US and it's allies in the wake of the September 11 attack. No Saudi princeling is going to waste his oil money on a spent force. And no disaffected Muslim intellectual with a personality disorder is going to join an outfit that doesn't actually create murder and mayhem.

Joining al-Qaeda requires a willingness to risk facing very hostile treatment from enraged law enforcement operatives and prison warders; and indeed, other prisoners.

Of course, al-Qaeda has been creating murder and mayhem, but over the last couple of years, that has taken place in the less developed and Muslim parts of the world. This does not really impress people in its target market very much - to get noticed, al-Qaeda needs to be seen to be active in the West.

One other point to take note of was that no terrorist blew himself up in the Madrid attack. This could indicate that the Moroccan suspected of doing this deed lacked the zeal of the September 11 maniacs, but it could also reflect an instruction from al-Qaeda bosses to avoid martyrdom operations, due to a shortage of operatives.

It takes more then that though for al-Qaeda to thrive as an organization. It's goal in life is to take the battle up to the West and bring about some Muslim utopia. However, it needs the West to give battle, as it were. al-Qaeda wants the West to fight back, so it can present the West as a 'threat' to the Islamic world. This allows it to play on the paranoia evident in many Muslim societies, again with the aim of gaining funding and recruits.

To get the West to fight back, it needs to stir things up. The massacre in Madrid was expected to cause support to rally to the government - that was the view of bloggers in the West, as evidenced by the surprise at the victory of the Socialist Party. The enormous rally that Spanish people flocked to in their millions, surely, pointed that way; to the anger of the people, and a desire to strike back. However they voted for the Socialists.

Let us not give too much credit to the enemy; they scorn democracy, so let us not assume that they understand it. If bloggers who study politics all the time didn't see this coming (and I certainly did not) then why should we credit al-Qaeda with such skills. No, I think that they calculated that the bombing would help the Popular Party win the election, and intensify the war on Terror.

Why would they do this? By presenting forceful countermeasures against terrorism as a 'threat' to Islam, they can gather for themselves more funding and recruits. If this doesn't make sense to you, then consider this-

al-Qaeda think they can win the war on Terror.

That is not to say that al-Qaeda will not make gains from the Spanish elections. I think the election results will generate more election time terror (and some key players have elections in 2004, Australia, the US, India, Indonesia, all of which will have repercussions on the war.)

But I do not think al-Qaeda foresaw this.

I think their goal in the Madrid Massacre was, first, to kill as many people as possible, second, to promote the al-Qaeda organisation to Saudi fundraisers, and to assist in recruiting, and then only to influence the Spanish elections. And I think they wanted to see the Popular Party re-elected.

By electing the Socialists, the Spanish people have chosen a government that will take a soft line on terrorists. We ca not assume that is what the enemy wanted. They might have wanted to intensify the war; the political aim of the Madrid Massacre might have been to provoke the Spanish government into direct military action.

Spanish voters reacted to the election eve bombings by doing exactly what the bombers undoubtedly wanted: elect a Socialist who will take a soft line in the war on terror. Electing a Socialist is bad at any time, of course, and the invisible hand will undoubtedly spank the Spanish in due time as the inevitably increased taxes, regulation, and rent-seeking drag down their economy.

However, this particular election rewards the terrorists by demonstrating to them that European voters can be bullied into doing what the terrorists want. As ever in human affairs, you get more of what you reward, and so the Europeans can expect to see more election eve bombings as time goes on. For this, they can thank the Spanish.

I don't buy the line that voters punished Aznar for inept post-bomb spinning. Aznar jumped to the conclusion that it was Basque killers, when it was most likely an Islamist or Islamist/Basque joint op. Spanish voters mad at Aznar for not going after the Islamist connection early enough would not vote for the Socialist, who ran on a platform of Spanish disengagement from one of the main fronts in the war on Islamist terror.

No, the Spanish public has, by all accounts, never wanted to pull its weight in the war on terror. They were big backers of the Save Saddam strategy last year, and Aznar showed considerable courage by joining the coalition. Voting for the Socialist is of a piece with the overall appeasement apparently favored by many Spanish, so the bombings represent a timely push by the terrorists in the direction the electorate wanted to go anyway. The bombings made the war the top shelf issue again, and thus paved the way for Aznar's defeat.

In the US, I have no doubt that election eve bombings like this would guarantee a Bush landslide, as the American public's instictive reaction to being attacked is to elect the guy most likely to kick the shit out of our enemies. In Spain, apparently, the instinctive reaction of the majority to being attacked is something else.

Sad, really. And sure to be a sterling exhibit for the Law of Unintended Consequences. By electing a Socialist who promised to pull Spain back from the war on terror, the Spanish, by rewarding the terrorists, have guaranteed more bombings and other terrorist activity. After all, the Spanish election represents the first victory for the Islamists since 9/11. It will undoubtedly be taken as a model for many future operations.

Notwithstanding the result of the Spanish election that David so poignantly blogged about yesterday, one thing that the commentators note is the turnout. Apparently, the extra 3 million voters who turned out to vote were spurred by the terrorist attacks and disgruntled by the Aznar government's handling of the information in the aftermath. It transpires that the popular opinion in Spain was against supporting the US in the conflict with Iraq and the country's participation in the 'Coalition of the Willing'.

The BBC commentators have a field day - the 'power of democracy' has been demonstrated and the Spanish voters have chosen a socialist government. It don't get better than that. It is a dream come true.

Oh, wait. The Russians have elected its President. In an extraordinary and widely predicted result, the former KGB agent crushed his closest rivals by securing 70 per cent plus of the vote, according to preliminary exit polls:

Russians overwhelmingly turned their backs on western-style democracy yesterday, voting for stability and a strong hand at the helm by giving four more years in office to President Vladimir Putin.

Although there was a small chance of under 50 per cent turn out, the Russians were forcefully encouraged to exercise their democratic rights, or else:

Officials are trying to bolster interest with patriotic advertisements showing Soviet-era rockets blasting off and glossy pictures of model Siberian mines. Others exhort parents to vote for the sake of their children.

Some officials have used bribes, threats and other schemes. Last week hospitals in the far eastern city of Khabarovsk put up notices saying they would refuse to treat patients who could not prove they had registered to vote in hospital.

So in one country we have a socialist government taking over as a result of democratic elections that were influenced by terrorist attack whose horror is still fresh in the people's mind. In another, an overt authoritarian has cemented his already powerful position for another four years. I doubt very much that either election was determined by anything resembling rational discourse. No, I am not naive and do not expect every single voting decision to be rational or even sensible, however, the events of yesterday point to the other extreme.

[Retiring back to his cave, mumbling something about "emotionally incontinent" times...]

The Conservative government of Spain has conceded defeat to the opposition Socialists following today's election:

Opposition Socialists have claimed victory in Spain's general election as voters apparently punished the government over Madrid bombings that may have been retaliation by al Qaeda for the Iraq war.

"It's a victory," senior Socialist official Jose Blanco told cheering supporters in Madrid on Sunday. "The Spanish Socialist Working Party is ready to take charge of government in Spain."

Official results showed the Socialists leading the ruling centre-right Popular Party by 43 percent to 37.5 percent with 85 percent of votes counted.

So disaster follows hot on the heels of tragedy. For Spain this probably means a reversal of some or maybe even all of the tentative reforms that the Aznar government managed to institute over the last few years and which enabled that country to enrich itself considerably.

But the implications are not just domestic:

The Socialists have pledged to withdraw Spain's 1,300 troops from Iraq if the U.N. does not take control by June 30 when Washington plans to hand power back to Iraqis. Opinion polls showed as many as 90 percent of Spaniards opposed the Iraq war.

It sounds as if the 'Coalition of the Willing' is about to lose one of its members.

Having no knowledge whatsoever of the Spanish political landscape, I cannot say whether the result of this election was on the cards or whether it was influenced by the Madrid train bombing. Maybe the Socialists were on course for victory today regardless. Maybe it was all about domestic issues. Who knows?

But in one sense, it may not matter why Aznar and his centre-right government lost. If Al-Qaeda did orchestrate the Madrid attack (and it appears increasingly likely that they did) then they will chalk this up as a major success. In their own minds, they have successfully terrorised the Spanish electorate into installing a government that was more to Islamicist liking.

That may not actually be true, but the danger lies in these maniacs believing it to be true.

Although it is more or less a policy of mine to not write directly about comments made regarding Samizdata.net articles, it is a policy occasionally worth ignoring.

Many commenters have reacted poorly to David Carr's article AZNAR KNEW!!!. Whilst it is the readers prerogative to judge articles here as they see fit, I must disagree with some of the views put forward that it was an inappropriate article at a time of such truly hideous moment. I do not say so out of an urge to 'circle the wagons' but rather because many of the commenters are fine people whose opinions are of value to me. And because I think they are quite wrong, I feel I must say why, as Chief Editor of Samizdata.net, that I am delighted David wrote such a piece and published it now.

It is a 'humorous' article in so far as satire is an appeal to humour, but that does not mean David is laughing at what happened. Just as Jonathan Swift was not laughing at the Irish famine when he penned A modest proposal, so too is David drawing attention to something deadly serious.

It is at times like this when we most need to pour scorn on the people who are, by virtue of their world views, indirectly part of the problem. This hideous and evil act must be met with force and implacable resistance... and it is that sort of response that the people who are the targets of David's satire will work tirelessly to prevent.

All David is doing is shining a light on them and now, not later, is the time to do that. The fact that what David wrote is close to the bone is what makes it effective. Why? Because it is only a few degrees off the non-satirical screeds we will actually be reading in a few days.

Now of all times, while the stench of death and horror are fresh in Madrid, it is right to point out that some well meaning people's views, and some not so well meaning, are nothing less than an apologia for mass murderer. Ideas have consequences and that it what David was writing about.

I made a brief visit to the Spanish Embassy in Belgravia this afternoon. At about 4pm there were no queues, but a trickle of people were going in and out. There was a large pile of wreaths of flowers outside the door. There were two thick condolence books, which contained the signatures of many people from many places. I signed one of the books. A Spanish official thanked me as I walked out the door. There was not really anything to be said. I was last in Spain about six weeks ago, and I had a wonderful time, as I always do.

Every decent and right-thinking person must surely condemn today's tragic events in Madrid.

BUT...while our thoughts go out to the families of the innocent victims this must not cause us to forget that horrible incidents such as we have witnessed today are the wholly predictable result of the Spanish government's wrong-headed, meddling foreign policy and their continued brutal occupation of the Basque homeland.

Of course, no one can ever condone such senseless acts of bloody violence but that does not mean we cannot sympathise with the plight of the ruthlessly oppressed Basques who are struggling for dignity and nationhood beneath the jackboot of Spanish domination. Such people, who are condemned to a future without hope or self-worth, can hardly be blamed for the state of desperation that may have forced some of them to indiscriminately slaughter hundreds of people on public transport. What choice do they have?

While the rash and the thoughtless among us may seek scapegoats here, a more mature and nuanced analysis is required. The truth is that there are no perpetrators here, just different types of victim. The real culprit is Spain's ultra right-wing fundamentalist Prime Minister, Jose Maria Aznar whose lunatic extremist policies are the root causes of today's shocking violence.

This dangerous demagogue (who some have compared to Hitler) has surrounded himself with a sinister, shadowy cabal of Neo-Conquistadores and, together, they have hijacked this country and brought the shame and opprobrium of the world upon it with their wicked plan to establish a Global Iberian Empire. It is the policies of Aznar and his government that are driving Spain, and maybe the whole world, into catastrophe. Until they are stopped, there will be more horrific carnage of the type unleashed on Madrid today.

The Spanish people would do well not to squander the sympathy they have earned as a result of this attack. They must immediately distance themselves from their own deranged leaders and join in with the efforts of the rest of concerned humanity in ending the occupation and bringing Spain back into the fold of civilised, peaceful nations.

Here, reproduced as it was sent to us, is an open letter to the international mass media by a very worthy website in Spain regarding the horrific and vile attrocity carried out by Marxist terrorists in Madrid yesterday that has resulted in the murder of at least 190 civilian commuters and the injury 1,200 more. The only comment of mine that I will add to what follows is that I share the author's outrage completely

To the international mass media, ETA is not a Marxist-Leninist terrorist group but a "Basque separatist group". The magnitude of the 3-11 attack has not changed their narrow sighted style. This is particularly poignant in the case of the US media. After Spain's support of the American war in Iraq, the coverage by American media is still worthy of a band of ignorants who keep scorning this Spanish bleeding tragedy.

Thus, to try to stop such indecency, I have sent the following brief email to Fox News and CNN. Let's fill their inboxes with our anti-collaborationist clamour!

I want to express you my most strongest complaint for your horrible coverage of the massacre in Madrid. You name ETA "Basque separatists group". That's awfull and infamous. ETA is a terrorist group, as it is recognized as such by all international institutions and developed nations, among them, the USA.

Do you think we should call Al-Qaeda "the resistance"? Has Spain been with the USA and UK in its struggle against international terrorism to deserve that kind of insult?

I am very disappointed by this dishonest style. It is just miserable.

Juan Ramón Rallo
From Spain

Mass media where to send the mail

CNN
Foxnews
BBC
WallStreetJournal
New York Times
Reuters
Associated Press
Washington Post

Amidst all the partying I did in Brussels last weekend, I somehow managed to find the time to actually learn a thing or two.

The first thing I learned was not everyone takes the Euro terribly seriously (while fiddling around for correct change to pay for a taxi, I let the words 'Mickey Mouse money' slip from my mouth whereupon the taxi driver began laughing and said "oui, Monsieur, oui").

Secondly, and rather less anecdotally, I also learned of something called the Stockholm Network. Before last weekend I had no idea that this organisation even existed and, in this case, ignorance was not bliss.

I think it fair to say that there is a widespread impression in the Anglosphere (especially the American bit) that the continent of Europe has fallen under the unbreakable spell of the Grand Wizards of Schtoopidity. Sadly, this is mostly true. But it is not completely true and the difference between 'mostly' and 'completely' can be found at the website of the Stockholm Network.

Billing themselves as 'Europe's only dedicated service organisation for market-oriented think tanks and thinkers', the website is contains a treasure trove of links to well-organised, well-funded and highly active free-market and libertarian think-tanks and organisation in Britain, Ireland, Albania, Finland, Turkey, Macedonia, Switzerland, Sweden, Portugal, Serbia, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Poland, Italy, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Holland, Norway, Spain, Russia, Austria, Belarus, Belgium, Croatia, Estonia, Rumania, Georgia, the Ukraine and elsewhere.

The idiots and the kleptocrats may be running the show for now but, pleasingly, there are pockets of determined guerilla resistance. Even more pleasingly, these pockets seem to be growing in number.

And that is all I am going to say on the matter. Otherwise there is a danger that I might start sounding optimistic and, as everybody knows, that is strictly against my religion.

The Balkans: Nationalism, War and the Great Powers 1804�1999
Misha Glenny
Granta Books, 1999

Though well-written and well-organised, its length (662 pages +) and the nature of its subject make this a book to be ploughed through, as one switches from one depressing topic to another. Yet Glenny's attitude to it all is a little difficult to fathom. On the last page he complains of the "long periods of neglect [when] the Balkan countries have badly needed the engagement of the great powers. Yet the only country to demonstrate a sustained interest ... was Nazi Germany during the 1930s." Some model!

Certainly, left to themselves, every ethnic group (Jews excepted?) behaved badly, both internally and externally. Just how badly the book is disgustingly, though not exactly surprisingly, informative. Yet this does not seem to arouse in Glenny any doubts as to the desirability of mixed-ethnic communities. Contrast this with Spain, where the essence of the reconquest there was the homogenising of the population, with the separation of Portugal, and the imperfect assimilation of the Basques exceptions tending to prove the rule that this uniformity was ultimately beneficial. Neither the Ottoman conquest, nor its liberation homogenised the Balkans. Much of it was Slav, the exceptions being Romanian, Albanian and Greek speakers, with a good deal of intermingling, a large Jewish community in Salonica, descended from Spanish expellees, the whole top-dressed with a Turkish ruling class and military. Not that being Slav in any way prevented mutual hatred between Serb, Croat, Bulgar and Macedonian.

Glenny has chosen 1804 as the date when, with the Serbian revolt, the Ottoman Empire started to disintegrate territorially. Attempts to halt this by progressive" well-meaning Sultans failed because any liberalisation encouraged it, while the economic levers were not in Turkish hands. After relatively discrete parts of the Empire had achieved independence or autonomy - Serbia, Greece, the Rumanian principalities and Bulgaria - the rest of the peninsula was land to be squabbled over. The impression is that the Turks were not major contributors to the turmoil, nor the Islamicised Bosnians and Albanians they left behind.

It is difficult to imagine how the great powers could have intervened more effectively than they did. After all, they brought about the independence of Greece (in nuclear form) in 1830, and a settlement of the Bulgarian border at the Congress of Berlin in 1878, after Russia had done most of the fighting. Not that Glenny seems very pleased with the Congress, loading it rather heavily with responsibility for future events in Afghanistan, Bosnia and the Sudan and for the scramble for Africa (p. 150). Admittedly either Austria or Russia could have tried to establish a Balkan protectorate, but why, except to keep the other out? And Britain would never allow Russia control of the Bosphorus and Dardanelles. There was nothing to be gained from a political occupation of a region where all the natives would turn hostile. Economically there were no resources to be exploited or with which to set up an industrial base. Building infrastructure, such as railways, could be, and was, seen as a strategic threat, by the Ottomans or the successor states, or both.

In each of his eight Chapter-Periods, Glenny makes a repeat visit to each separate area, discovering depression and despair in every one, with assassinations for the prominent and massacres for the common people unlucky to live on the wrong side of an ethnic line or be a minority in a particular place. The only exception seems to be Slovenia, which managed to break away from Yugoslavia without much fuss. As man on the spot, Glenny must be regarded as an authority on Yugoslav disintegration and great power intervention, yet there is something contrary-minded about his castigation of America for not intervening sooner in Bosnia and trying to do so just by bombing "without risking the lives of their service men and women" (p. 640). As with recent responses to its intervention in Iraq, the US position seems to be damned if you don't, damned if you do. Leaving aside the idea that the Americans might consider the bombing option (as also followed in Kosovo) a reasonable preference,surely the facts are that the initial EU reaction was that this was a European dispute and as such should be left to Europeans to take care of. Yet he makes no mention of the inactivity of the Dutch UN "peacekeepers" which preceded, if it did not permit, the massacre of Muslims by Serbs in the so-called "safe haven" of Srebrenica (p. 650). As for the Serbs rallying round Milosevic when he got them bombed, it must be a sign of the times that it is NATO and the Americans that Glenny seems to blame for the irrational behaviour of the Serbs (p. 658).

This is not a very gracious review for a massive, painstaking and brilliant historical survey, but it is a tribute to the fact that its judgements provoke thought and, to some extent, dissent. Incidentally, Glenny uses the presumably Slavic spelling and lettering with the appropriate diacritical marks, but gives no indication as to their pronunciation.

In a Reuters interview (not available yet on the Web) with Luigi Spaventa, the former head of the Italian stock market watchdog, Consob, he says stock markets should refuse to list firms such as stricken food group Parmalat whose ownership structure spreads into murky offshore centres, such as the Cayman Islands.

If a stock market is allowed to run its own affairs, then of course there is nothing wrong in it banning a would-be listed firm on the grounds of its ownership structure. But it is surely a different matter when it comes to a government regulator telling investors that a firm is so dodgy that they cannot put their own wealth into it via an exchange. Surely caveat emptor ("let the buyer beware") applies here.

In any event, I wonder if crossed the mind of this old regulator that one key reason why so many firms domicile their business affairs in offshore centres is to avoid the crushing taxes imposed by European nation states?

I think Samizdata's readership is ahead of me already on that one.

It sounds as if brows all over Europe are being furrowed, heads are being shaken and hands being heavily wrung. What to do? What to do?

Via Instapundit:

Europe's apparently doomed attempt to overtake the US as the world's leading economy by 2010 will today be laid bare in a strongly worded critique by the European Commission.

The Commission's spring report, the focal point of the March European Union economic summit, sets out in stark terms the reasons for the widening economic gap between Europe and the US.

It cites Europe's low investment, low productivity, weak public finances and low employment rates as among the many reasons for its sluggish performance.

Mama Mia, Ai Caramba, Gott in Himmel and Merde! Does this mean that the European 'social model' is not working?

The Professor himself points the way:

Hmm. Bloated public sectors, high taxes, excessive regulation, and inflexible hiring rules probably have something to do with it.

Well, yes. They do have something to do with it. In fact, they have everything to do with it. But just because this is slap-in-the-face obvious, it would be unwise to assume any public (or even private) recognition of this obviousness in the halls of European power.

For, all this dovetails very satisfactorily with an article, via Stephen Pollard, which illustrates the excrutiating difficulties faced by political rulers in trying to institute reforms in circumstances of long-term petrification:

Make no mistake: Tony Bair's proposal for university "top-up" fees, Silvio Berlusconi's nip-and-tuck pension reform, Gerhard Schroeder's welfare and tax cuts, and Jean-Pierre Raffarin's reforms to tax and labor market policies are all, to varying degrees, departures from the social market consensus that has dominated European politics for much of the postwar period. It's progress. Possibly, they are the thin edge of the wedge, if we're being optimistic.

But if we're honest, we'll admit that as reforms go, these are mostly wimp-outs. What is really remarkable here is not that they are happening at all, but rather how ultimately skimpy they are.

In short, the reformation of long-cherished (but failing) economic models is simply too agonising for politicians to even contemplate let alone execute. From an electoral point of view they may consider it safer to leave the ship floundering and rely on future generations to try to salvage something from the wreckage. Utter madness of course but don't bet against them making exactly those calculations.

Despite that fact that there does appear to be something approaching a consensus on the nature of the disease, that is no guarantee that there will anything like a similar consenses on the course of treatment required. Given their track record the decision-makers could just as easily apply altogether different remedies. Low investment? We need more public spending. Low productivity? We need more workplace regulations. Weak public finances? The answer is higher taxes. Low employment rates? More labour laws.

Sweet-tasting medicine, yes, but the harsh kind rarely wins elections over there.

Clearly nothing escapes the hawk-eyed attention of these rapier-witted and attentive public servants:

A tax office official in Finland who died at his desk went unnoticed by up to 30 colleagues for two days.

The man in his 60s died last Tuesday while checking tax returns, but no-one realised he was dead until Thursday.

Getting a fiddled expenses claim past them must be a doddle. Let's all move to Finland!

He said everyone at the tax office was feeling dreadful - and procedures would have to be reviewed.

From now on, mandatory pulse-checks every 24 hours.

The European Commission has released the latest press release on demographic developments in the European Union during 2003. This shows that the long-awaited time when deaths outweigh births and immigration maintains the population of the European Union is beginning to arrive.

The population of 380.8 million increased by 1,276,000 during 2003, of which three-quarters was due to natural migration. However, there are two worrying trends that suggest Europe's demographic problems can only worsen in the coming years.

Germany, Italy and Greece would all have faced population declines without immigration. More countries will join this select group in the first decade of the twenty-first century.

Secondly, half of the accession countries that are scheduled to join the European Union on the 1st May 2004 are already facing the problem of population decline, a problem that will be exacerbated by migration towards Western Europe.

There always has to be a disclaimer using the figures from Eurostat since demographics are one of the most unreliable of all collected statistics. Neverthless, taking this disclaimer into account, the population decline is beginning to take hold at a rapid pace.

It is the accession countries who probably have most to fear. Enlargement can be viewed as a cannibalisation of the labour markets of the accession countries by existing Member States and the newcomers face huge problems of tightening and declining labour markets in the long run. If they join the Eurozone, they will lose the remainder of the economic flexibility needed to combat this problem, since their adoption of EU laws, known as the acquis communautaire, will lead to far greater regulation from May 1st.

The European solution to the problems that they have created will be further subventions to cushion the blow of joining the European Union and satisfaction at removing a possible ring of economic competitors along their eastern border. Hopefully, Russia and the Ukraine will begin to attract more investment in the next few years and prove too large to swallow.

I suppose it had to happen. Italian legislators, no doubt hoping to look useful in the wake of the near-collapse of Italian food group Parmalat, say they need new laws to prevent the kind of abuses that have dragged the firm into the mire.

Yep, that's the spirit. What we need is a "overhaul", a "sweeping new set of powers", a new super-agency with "wide-ranging" powers to prevent such things happening again.

They never learn, do they? If the public authorities had been doing their job in the first place, ie, enforce the laws preventing fraud and theft, then Parmalat would be chiefly known for its milk cartons, and not as a firm which is doomed to be known as Europe's Enron. But I guess where there's muck, there's brass, as we Brits say. The firm may be teetering on the brink, but at least politicians can see the bright side and pass some impressive new laws and bolster their wonderful reputations.

I am a bit surprised there has not been more attention paid in the blogworld to the recent demise of Italian food group Parmalat, one of the country's largest businesses employing more than 35,000 people. The firm, due to problems centering around its debt and some allegedly dodgy investment decisions, is on the brink of falling down a deep black hole.

Now, there are certain specific features of the story that pertain only to Italy and Italians. But more broadly, this saga also reminds us of how, in the higher reaches of the corporate world, accounting standards are falling short. In fact, there appear to be no standards at all.

I am sure readers will recall how the American model of capitalism was mocked for its supposedly laissez-faire nature at the time of the Enron, WoldCom and other collapses. A certain smug tone was detected in the pages of European newspapers. Well, now we have a prime example of Enronitis in Europe. Of course, European business shenanigans have been legion - witness the Byzantine affairs of French banking group Credit Lyonnais, for example. And the accounting practises of the European Commission are also a wonder to behold.

Maybe Parmalat will, however, instill a little humility among editors of European business news channels. There's always hope.

I made a very brief trip to Belgium at the end of a trip to Amsterdam last year. On that occasion I spent a day in Brussels and a day in Bruges. My great discovery on that trip was the extraordinary quality of Belgian beer. I spent a tremendous evening in 't Brugs Beertje in Bruges, sometimes referred to as "the best bar in Belgium", which on that occasion was filled with English beer buffs. (The best kind, quite possibly). On that trip, I passed Antwerp in a train, and from my guide book and what people told me, I got the impression I had missed somewhere good.

And, as it happens, the Channel Tunnel Rail Link from London to Ashford opened recently, giving me the chance to travel through Kent at over 200 km/h. I was able to both try this out and see Antwerp last weekend. I had an evening in Bruges and then a day and a half in Antwerp. The drinking in Bruges section of the trip I have documented already.

But the next day I did get to Antwerp.

The first thing I discovered is that the city has one of the more beautiful railway stations I have encountered. It is a single arch train shed, not quite London St Pancras but beautiful just the same, and for similar reasons. Brussels is essentially a French city, Bruges is a medieval Hanseatic League anachronism that was sort of stranded in time when the estuary of the river Zwin silted up in the 16th century, and Antwerp is the Dutch (Flemish) city where all the traders went when this happened.

One problem though is that Antwerp Central is a terminal station, rather than an intermediate stop on a line. Trains from Brussels to Amsterdam do not come into the centre of Antwerp but stop at a station on the edge of the city. (It was apparently not properly appreciated in the 19th century that however important the city was, it was essentially an intermediate stop, or at least would become one). This is being fixed, as a rail tunnel is being built under Antwerp to take TGV trains. Through trains will stop at new platforms underneath the existing ones. Heaven knows what this is costing to build, but it will certainly improve transport to and from Antwerp. (Brussels once had the same problem, but a tunnel under the city was completed around 50 years ago).

Anyway, Antwerp itself. For historical regions I do not fully understand, the Dutch speaking world is full of Argentinian steak houses.

This is true in Amsterdam, and also true in Antwerp, even though Antwerp is in Belgium. The cultural differences are dramatic when you cross from Flanders into Wallonia, much less so than from the Netherlands to Belgium. Architecturally it looks Dutch and not French. Shopping streets are not quite fully Dutch, but things are heading that way, although you still do see more French high street shops than in Amsterdam. Quite a lot of it feels Dutch or German though. Still, though, Antwerp (unlike Brussels) feels like an economically alive city. Which is accurate. Antwerp is perhaps most famous due to the fact that the world diamond business is centred in an area just near the railway station and is run by a community of Hasidic Jews. However, this actually pales in importance compared to the city's immense port and huge petrochemicals business.

Antwerp Cathedral is one of the most beautiful I have seen, especially on the inside. (There are four original Rubens paintings - Antwerp was his home city). This photo doesn't come close to doing the building justice.

It feels more planned than many great cathedrals, some of which tend to be a hodge podge of styles, with the key thing being to make the building as large as possible. Not so much this one. It is pretty large, however.

Like any major port, the city has lots of ethnic colour. I wasn't careful and thus had lunch in an Egyptian restaurant rather than the Turkish restaurant I had intended. The food was good though.

The Belgian Congo (initially the personal property of King Leopold II of Belgium, who had ironically managed to get control of it in the first place by presenting himself as a great humanitarian) was perhaps the most brutal colonial enterprise of them all. Essentially, at the end of the 19th century the colony was turned into a slave labour rubber plantation by King Leopold and his men. Over a thirty year period the population of the colony was reduced from 20 million to 10 million. The level of brutality is hard to imagine. People who are interested in the story should read this or (for the same story told in the broader context of African colonialism) this. The ships bringing back rubber and other extraordinary bounty from the Congo sailed into the port of Antwerp, up the river Scheldt. There are raised promendes on the sides of the river which were erected at the time, so that people could watch ships arriving with African bounty.

The brutality was exposed by a passionate English advocate of free trade named Henry Morel, who founded the Congo Reform Movement after observing that the ships sailing into Antwerp were full of rubber and other things of great value. The ships going out contained nothing of value, except for some firearms and ammunition. From this Morel (correctly) deduced that the only explanation was slave labour. (The practice in the Congo was truly mindblowingly barbaric. One of its more notable practices was to demand that the men enforcing the collection of rubber from Africans bring back a severed human hand for every bullet they were issued with, to demonstrate that the bullet had not been "wasted").

You can see remnants of the Congo trade today.

There are no bridges across the river at Antwerp, perhaps because of all the shipping. As I said, Antwerp is one of the busiest ports in Europe. Most of the port is downstream from the city, but a little is upstream. No doubt a larger proportion of it was once upstream. If anything, the city is a touch like Hamburg in layout.

And of course at least some of the Congo bounty (at least that portion that did not end up in the hands of Leopold's mistress' pimp) was used to build ornate public works throughout Belgium - museums, opera houses, and other monuments to King Leopold.

Like at most major ports, containerisation has moved the ships downstream from the city. Unfortunately I did not see most of it. But, if anything, the city is a touch like Hamburg in layout, because the river is navigable upstream further than is often the case. There is even a little container port just upstream from the main city.

I do love a container port in the evening.

Back to Brussels for the first time since 1990 (and the first time since 1988 for more than 24 hours).

The racism is worse than I expected, especially on the part of Flemish speakers against French speakers (not just Walloons). The little things like shop opening hours, the lack of intelligence of policemen, the incompetence or unhelpfulness of bus drivers, trigger my French prejudices about Belgium being a sort of Franco-Dutch nation of retards. Partly it's the accent and the slow-paced speech. A Belgian professor of mathematics with an IQ of 180 describing integrated calculus would sound like a dimwit to a French person.

It is all the more strange for the attractiveness of the central districts of the town. Belgium is an ancient centre of capitalism: at one time Antwerp was the world's largest trading centre and either Ghent or Brussels (I forget which) is supposed to have the oldest stock exchange in the world. There is architectural evidence of this: the older houses of Brussels are very individually designed, there was clearly a lot of wealth around in the 17th century, and there are more statues per square mile than any other city I can think of (and most of them look pretty good).

White beggars in Belgium speak at least three languages: French, Flemish and English, they often also speak at least a smattering of a couple of either Dutch, German, Turkish or Arabic. The non-white beggars didn't speak to me (is this an indication that whites don't give them money willingly?). As usual in Europe, the East Europeans doing the low-status jobs are ridiculously overqualified: engineering school graduates working as garbage collectors or cleaners, bar staff with medical qualifications.

In one respect Brussels is far superior to Paris: there are street kiosks in the town centre where one can buy snails, as well as the gauffre (waffle) and crèpe sellers that have been exported to other cities. One nastier thing is that in France I can go to a hotel, pay cash, give a false name and show no ID, whereas Belgium seems to have the old surveillance society trick of requiring all visitors to register their ID (this used to include staying at private addresses, but I don't know if that still formally applies). Another bad thing is the police sirens are the same as in London: the stupid loud whooping noises designed for a grid road city that are confusing in cramped city streets. Parisian sirens are less noisy, don't pump the adrenalin of police drivers as much (I would love to know if there are fewer fatal road accidents caused by Paris police responding to emergency calls than London), and you can tell where they're coming from.

I made a walk-in visit to an Emergency Room to arrange for a prescription and found a compromise between the British National Health Service (queue, grubby surroundings) and France (helpful, competent and much, much, much faster, but one pays). The price of the medication was cheaper than in the UK. I shall make enquiries about gun laws and taxes. The disturbing evidence so far is the number of notices about taxes. It is easier to find information about registering for taxes than finding a decent street map of Brussels.

In the midst of a vast, arid desert of small-minded envy and zero-sum culture, there emerges a little oasis of cool, clear refreshing sanity:

The Swiss economy has faced hard times in the past few years. One canton, Schaffhausen, is doing something about it by changing its tax law to attract wealthy people. Beginning in January 2004, Schaffhausen will replace its system of increasing marginal tax rates on income with a system of degressive marginal rates. The cantonal tax rate will be set at just under 8 percent for income of SFr 100,000. It will rise to a peak of 11.5 percent for income between SFr 600,000 and SFr 800,000. Thereafter, the marginal rate declines with each incremental chunk of income: 10 percent at SFr 1,300,000; 8 percent at SFr 3,000,000; and just over 6 percent for income more than SFr 10,000,000. This is a true incentive-based tax system�the larger one's income, the lower one's marginal rate.

Seems that the penny (or the Franc) has dropped in one small corner of one small country. They have realised that penalising success is a pretty good way of guaranteeing failure.

Schaffhausen has its own legislative parliament, which contains eighty deputies representing all regions within the canton. Eight political parties compete for these seats. Evidently Schaffhausen's voters support a tax cut that gives the greatest benefits to the richest people. They believe that attracting wealthy individuals to reside in their midst is good for everyone.

And they are right.

[My thanks to Stephen Pollard for the link.]

Brave, crusading, iconoclastic Guardian correspondent Matthew Tempest is striking out against the evil, right-wing, corporate-media conspiracy that is actively suppressing the truth:

It's an unthinking, immutable truth for the mainstream media that young people are not interested in politics.

So, if they were permitted to read about it, many of that media's consumers/readers would be surprised to learn that today something like 60,000 mostly twentysomething people from all over Europe will gather in Paris, unpaid, in their own time...

No-one is permitted to read about this. It is unclean. It is seditious. It is dangerous propoganda and, I swear, if you even cast your eyes over so much as a single sentence of it, your door will be knocked down and you will be dragged away by the jackbooted goons of the Bushista-Berlusconi-Murdoch Mind-Control Reich and subjected to continuous loops of Fox News until your eyeballs explode.

...to sit through four days, 10 hours a day, of..

Nose-picking, navel-gazing and self-abuse.

...lectures, seminars and talks on politics.

Same thing.

And it's not just any old politics. The topics are largely esoteric, complex and abstract...

Translation:a load of incontinent, incomprehensible drivel.

Until today, the ESF had almost no coverage in the mainstream British media.

Well, what do you expect? Nobody dare speak of such things, lest they be 'eliminated' by the all-seeing, all-knowing, omnipotent Zionist-Corporate-Illuminati World Control Machine.

The event is the European Social Forum...

No kidding?!!

The ESF (slogan: A Europe of Rights and a World Without War) is, admittedly, a tricky topic to cover. Fascinating as the planned speeches and seminars may be, it doesn't translate easily into "hold the front page" breaking news.

Oh I don't know. Surely all it takes is a little imagination. Let's see, here is the itinerary which includes "Sustainable methods of production and consumption, ecology and preservation of the ecosystem". Need to translate that into a tabloid headline? Easy. "Save the Bamboo Forests, Start Eating Pandas."

No (immediate) changes to the world will be visible by Sunday, when it closes.

And no changes to underwear will be visible any time this decade.

With that in mind, this reporter will be filing a daily weblog, chronicling the events as they happen, who I talk to, bump in to, and, not least, how well I sleep at the "crash accommodation" - a so far undisclosed gymnasium floor somewhere in Paris.

Er, Matthew, I get this distinct feeling that you're going to be bedding down in a 'so far undisclosed' shop doorway.

First of all, though, is the Eurostar, and a train journey I'm looking forward to.

At least he will be able to get some sleep.

Instead, there will be 300 of us commandeering a carriage or two, with political theorist and global justice guru George "Moonbat" Monbiot (that's the nickname his rightwing critics give him) giving a lecture on the train...

CONDUCTOR: "Tickets, please?"

MONBIOT: "Do you realise that, by demanding a ticket from me, you are, in fact, acting as the unwitting pawn of the global capitalist conspiracy to exploit the underprivileged and suppress the democratic rights of the world's native peoples?"

CONDUCTOR: "Oh they're right. You are a Moonbat."

...before a hip-hop act takes over for an impromptu gig under the Channel.

So 'impromptu' that it has been meticulously planned in advance.

Revealing that I'm reporting on the event for the Guardian is on a "don't ask, don't tell" basis, for fear of being lynched for the sins of my colleagues. That's a slight exaggeration, but for the reasons just stated, many of the activists regard the mainstream media, even (or especially) the Guardian and Independent, according to the Noam Chomsky doctrine - as a safety valve by which the state-corporate nexus maintains its stranglehold on information through the existence of a fringe "liberal" media.

Oh my gosh, the Guardian and the Independent are both in on it, too. They are mere tools of the Right-wing-Bush-Hitler-Corporate-Nazi Programme of Social Control and Dissent Crushing.

STOP. DO NOT READ THIS ARTICLE. DO NOT FOLLOW ANY OF THE LINKS. IT IS ILLEGAL. YOU WILL BE CAUGHT AND YOU WILL BE PUNISHED.

The 'fraudster' meaning, of course, Jacques Chirac. The new president of the European Central Bank is M. Jean-Claude Trichet and buried away at the foot of an old news report is this gem:

Mr Trichet's nomination was made possible earlier this week when he was cleared of involvement in the Credit Lyonnais banking scandal in the 1990s. He was one of nine men on trial for their part in the affair, which culminated in a €31bn ($33.7bn) bailout by the government.

That is more than £21,000,000,000! For one bank. Nine people. I can just hear them: "Bah! Nick Leeson! "Betsygate" indeed! You English drive your minis with your Benny Hill and your Michael Caine, stealing a few gold bars in Milan and think you're so marvellous! Hah!"

The Crédit Lyonnais bank 'affair' included a massive fraud including loans being made to friends of the late president François Mitterand. At least one of them got a few months in jail to my knowledge. A concerted effort was made to delay the appointment of a new ECB president until M. Trichet's problems could be dealt with. Ironically, the French verb for to cheat is tricher which is pronounced exactly the same as our new Euro bank president's name. A very suitable friend for M. Jacques Chirac. The president whose unofficial re-election campaign slogan was Vote for the fraudster, not the fascist! but who has avoided judicial processes by virtue of presidential immunity from prosecution. So much in common for them to talk about.

Now let us assume that M. Trichet were the innocent victim of devious bank subordinates who stole £21,000 million. Personally, I find such a degree of stupidity fantastic: the guy could scarcely have enough brain cells to know how to breathe. Is this really the calibre of executive to put in charge of an EU institution?

A couple of other things worry me. What did the other European leaders think they were doing when none of then vetoed the appointment of Trichet? Perhaps Mr Blair really is a closet hater of the euro - I hope so. And if the currency markets are not dumping euros for US dollars before M. Chirac's friends get their pillaging underway... what do they know about what the Federal Reserve guys are up to?

Italy has just had a major blackout.

Let's see now... USA, UK, Italy... I wonder if Spain has had one yet? Each blackout has a prosaic explanation, but taken all at once this rash of failures flags these blackouts unusual in a statistical sense if nought else.

At the risk of inviting opprobrium, I must admit that the murder of Anna Lindh did have me reaching for the tin-foil to wrap around my head.

Even with the solid support of the entire Swedish political class, the 'yes' camp was still trailing the 'no' camp in every single opinion poll and it did briefly cross my mind that a 'heroic sacrifice' might have been arranged to swing the vote. The stakes here are certainly high enough.

But, on balance, probably not. Political assassination is common enough in Europe not to have to ascribe a conspiracy to this one. Even if there was more to her murder than meets the eye, it didn't work. The Swedes voted 'no' to the Euro.

On any reading this is a blow for the EU project and the coming weeks will see a deluge of federast seething, threatening and whining. Their will has been thwarted and that it just intolerable. They will even try to float the notion that the result of the Swedish referendum was 'undemocratic'. I also expect the Swedish government to begin agitating for another referendum to get the desired result but, given the margin of the 'no' victory, they may not get away with that.

Quite aside from all the furore and recriminations that are bound to follow, I wonder if this could be the catalyst which leads to the unravelling of the whole project. It isn't very likely but neither is it altogether impossible. In fact, I quite like the idea of a 'Euro-Watch' sweepstake: who will be the first to bail out of the Euro?

For the record, my money (sterling!) is on the French. The Germans will stick with it because they have always had an emotional investment in the European project. It enables them to be 'Europeans' and thus serves to expiate their guilt about being German. They will endure a lot more economic pain before they begin to think the unthinkable.

But not the French. For them, the EU has always been about advancing their national interests. All the kumbaya mummery about a united Europe is just window-dressing to disguise the self-serving reality. If it looks like wrecking their economy (or, more particularly, it begins biting into the privileges of the political class) the French will simply dump the Euro and swan off to look for another boondoggle.

Not inevitable by any means, but possible. In anticipation, I would like to extend my thanks to the Swedish electorate. They may just have done us a great favour.

The Swedish Foreign Minister, Anna Lindh, has died from stab wounds inflicted while she was shopping in the centre of Stockholm. This rather macabre and brutal incident, the murder of a prominent Pro-Euro politician by attacker unknown, reminds us, as in the case of Pim Fortuyn, that the ideas we discuss on blogs like Samizdata, can often go far beyond mere words. Anna Lindh's death will have repercussions on the future of Europe, which will also go far beyond mere words. Whatever they are, I can only offer my heartfelt sympathy to her family, her friends, and her colleagues, and hope the perpetrator of this appalling crime is brought to justice swiftly. It should never come to this.

Yesterday the Telegraph published an interesting account of life in Italy, namely Rome. The author opens his article with the following paragraph:

"How lucky you are to be living in Italy." "That must be heaven." "I do envy you." If you live in Rome, as I do, you get used to comments like these. But you soon realise that the idyllic vision of Italy suffers from just one drawback: it is almost complete rubbish.

I must admit this caught my attention since Rome has long been my favourite place of escape for a long weekend. The scenery, food, wine, weather, shopping... Indeed, what's there not to like?

For the first few months after you move here, all is indeed perfect. The sun is warm, the people are welcoming, the language is a joy, the food is delicious, the wine is cheap, and everyone is a pleasure to look at. You congratulate yourself on your wisdom and you pity your friends who are still locked up in their grey, northern offices.

The enchantment, however, does not last long:

But then you begin to realise that in this new paradise you face a major problem: it is virtually impossible to earn a living. Take Rome. To live here with a minimum of dignity (renting a small flat, eating out occasionally, but no car and no proper holidays), you need a good 3,000 euros a month pre-tax, say 1,800 euros post-tax (roughly £2,100 and £1,250 respectively). However modest this seems, it is not what you will get. While in the Anglo-Saxon world most adults expect to be able to live independently off their salaries, in Italy most don't. They stay with their families. Indeed, a staggering 70 per cent of single Italian men between the ages of 25 and 29 live in subsidised comfort at home, where their meagre earnings do very nicely as pocket money. And when they do move out to the stability of marriage or cohabitation, it is generally into a flat that is provided by the family.

...after a while, you begin to appreciate the true cost of the many undoubted joys of living in Italy. You realise, for example, that the flip-side of the cheerful noise and chaos is the mind-boggling complication of life here, the Italian inability - no, refusal - to organise anything or to think ahead.

How does the EU fit into the picture?

In other words, Italy is, in many ways, a banana republic. That is why, until recently - until they realised what a forlorn hope it was - the Italians were so mightily keen on the EU: they were praying that Brussels would save them from themselves. As a British ambassador once said to me: "Italy? No one takes it seriously. The place is a joke."

And finally, there is the conclusion that Luigi Barzini came to 40 years ago at the end of The Italians, his classic portrait of the nation:

The Italian way of life cannot be considered a success except by temporary visitors. It solves no problems. It makes them worse. It would be a success of sorts if at least it made Italians happy. It does not. Its effects are costly, flimsy and short-range. The people enjoy its temporary advantages, to be sure, without which they could not endure life, but are constantly tormented by discontent The unsolved problems pile up and inevitably produce catastrophes at regular intervals. The Italians always see the next one approaching with a clear eye but cannot do anything to ward it off. They can only play their amusing games and delude themselves for a while.

Interesting... Any comments, insights or opinions?

I recently returned from an extremely relaxing weekend in the fine Spanish city of Barcelona with my girlfriend. I have fallen for the great Catalan metropolis, the home of the weird and wonderful architecture of Gaudi.

During a stroll around the old city centre, I came across one of the most astonishing shops I have ever seen. It was a shop selling just about every kind of sword, knife and gun. Samurai swords nestled among racks of old Winchester repeater rifles, copies of 15th century broadswords, cutlasses, calvalry sabres, hunting knives, old pistols. Amazing.

I do not speak Spanish very well, so I wasn't able to discover from the shop owner as to what kind of laws exist in Spain regulating the sale of such weapons, but it was clear that laws in Spain are far, far more liberal than is the case in Britain. And on the basis of trips to other parts of Continental Europe, it would appear that the law is also more liberal than in the UK.

Why this is so is something on which I don't have an easy answer. Spain is a country less infected, so it seems to me, by political correctness and the culture of 'victimhood'. Whatever else you think of it as an activity, a country that embraces bullfighting as one of its most popular 'sports' clearly has not fallen under the rule of Guardianistas (although I find bullfighting pretty revolting).

We often slip into the comforting notion that we in the free Anglosphere are so much less regulated than our European peers, and in the realm of business and finance, this is true, on the whole. But let's give credit where credit is due. It appears that in certain aspects of life, Europe is actually more liberal.

Oh, and the tapas tasted fantastic.

Just over a decade ago, the US and the EU conspired to conduct what has proved to be a very successful war against low-tax jurisdictions and banking secrecy. Under a fig-leaf of a campaign to eradicate 'drug-dealing' and 'terrorism' (but truthfully to maintain the integrity of their various state-welfare arranagements) they employed a combination of legislation, diplomacy and outright bullying to effectively hobble (and, in some cases, shut down) the Western offshore-investment industry.

As expected, the EU went further in this war than the US where the 'anti-money laundering' regime metastasised into a ludicrous campaign against what they called 'unfair tax competition'.

Well, now the chicks are coming home to roost. Or, more accurately, they are flying the nest:

The world's major private banks are beefing up operations in Singapore, anticipating that up to a trillion US dollars worth of offshore assets in Europe may be looking for a new home in the next couple of years.

Changes in banking secrecy and tax laws due to take effect in the European Union from 2005 are expected to encourage offshore investors in traditional havens like Switzerland and Luxembourg to start moving their money to other centres.

Singapore, with its stable political system and excellent infrastructure, is seen getting a big share of this money.

"We have estimated that from Europe about a trillion plus could be highly movable without too much difficulty," said Roman Scott, vice-president at the Boston Consulting Group (BCG). "Some of those guys are going to say; 'I need an offshore centre that's not going to be squeezed down'.

All the European places are being squeezed. You can't go into the US, so you suddenly start to look at Asia as attractive," he said.

Western political elites are rather like heroin-addicts. No amount of argument, persuasion or reason will do anything to deter them from their narcotic fix.

Lessons generally have to be learned the hard way.

[My thanks to Dr.Chris Tame who posted this article to the Libertarian Alliance Forum.]

I defy anybody to refer to this guy as a chickenhawk:

A Danish pizzeria owner who refused to sell pizzas to Germans or Frenchmen because of their governments' stance on the war in Iraq is to go to prison.

An appeal court upheld the conviction yesterday of Niels-Aage Bjerre for discrimination and his fine of �500. He said he would refuse to pay and will instead spend eight days in jail.

"I will not pay the fine but I'll do the time instead," said Bjerre. "It is a matter of principle."

Now, speaking personally, I regard the boycotting of individuals as rather unfair and petty. Having said that, Mr.Bjerre should not be prosecuted for doing so.

Mind you, I bet if look the word 'defiant' up in the dictionary you'll find this guy's photograph underneath.

He said yesterday that both the courts and those who had reported him to the authorities were "traitors".

"The judges have chosen to support those who do not support the official Danish position on the war against Iraq."

His boycott would end only "if the governments of France and Germany change their attitude toward the United States and support Washington wholeheartedly," he added.

He's not just a restaurateur, he's a neo-restaurateur.

After nearly a decade in which many Big Government restrictions have been lifted from Ireland, helping turn it into the Celtic Tiger, it seems Big G is back again.

Irish pub landlords will now be fined up to thousands of pounds if they allow their customers to become drunk (no, I'm not kidding). Happy hours are also banned, when landlords can decide what prices to charge for their drinks, at any particular time of day.

This should raise another nice little line of regulation for another bunch of twerpish bureaucrats to supervise, rather than working for a living, interfering once again in the market trade process of exchanged goods.

Pub landlords will also be deemed responsible for anyone who is drunk, after they have left their premises. Which is nice. It seems even Ireland, for millennia a land of little or no government, is getting Big G back with a vengeance.

If we dug a little further would you suspect the EU is under this somewhere? I wonder...

I just did a little talk spot on the radio, jabbering away about politics with a guy called Mike Dickin, who, in addition to doing his fare share of sport talk, takes care of the political chat on Talk Sport Radio. I'm doing little spots with Mike Dickin quite often at the moment, although usually at very short notice. When I typed "Mike Dickin" and "Talk Sport Radio" into google, this came up as entry number two, out of just ten. I don't know what that proves exactly. Perhaps that most of the people who listen to Mike Dickin are too old or too poor to be bothering with the internet.

Mike Dickin is what we here would call a Carr-ite. The world's going to hell but what the hell can we do about it? "I don't trust the police. I don't trust social workers. I don't trust any of the people to whom I pay such vast sums of money to take care of things" - that's what he was saying today in his intro. In among agreeing with him about state over-regulation and the state crowding out individual initiative, I tried to put in an optimistic word along the lines of "you can still do some things � it's not all misery". He replied "Maybe you can, but I'm starting to think seriously that you can't do it here any more?" "So where can you?" I said. I can't remember what he replied, but no specific locations were mentioned.

During our brief conversation, I accused Dickin, politely I hope, of being a fine example of the Baby Boom generation having entered its Grumpy Grandad phase. When the Baby Boom was a teenager it told the world it had invented sex. When it got its first job it and started driving about in a flash car it told the world that it had invented the idea of getting a job and driving about in a flash car. And now the Baby Boom is starting to creep away to the pub where it booms forth to anyone who will listen that the world is going to hell, and that young people these day, blah blah blah.

However, it occurs to me that I might just as fruitfully have identified the particular way in which the State now makes a mess of our lives as having lilkewise entered its Grandad phase, or to be more exact its Grandma phase.

When young people use politics to wreck lives, they do it by shouting at you with megaphones, by yelling big vague words at you like "Freedom!", "Revolution!", "Democracy!", "Peace!", Participation!", and of course, by way of justifying all this, they generally also yell something like: "Socialism!". If they shout their way into a position of real power, they get hold of the most impressive old people they can find and of whom they are most jealous, and they sit them in chairs and stand around them in a circle and yell big words like these at them, until the old persons are blubbering wrecks. This is what the Red Guards of Red China did to their elders and betters during their infamous Cultural Revolution, and I had a close enough look at their ideological cousins in western Universities when I was a sociology student at Essex University in the seventies to know that our would-be Red Guards would have done something like this to their professors and betters if they could have.

But when Grandma makes life hell for you, she doesn't do it with generalities like "Freedom" or "Democracy", or even "Socialism". With Grandma, the hell she inflicts on you is done with a relentless stream of detail. Don't talk like that! Beans aren't supposed to go on that bit of the plate. Here, let me do that, you're doing it all wrong! And when Grandma uses politics to make life hell for you, the laws and diktats she throws at you are not tyrannical in their vagueness. Rather are they tyrannical in their relentless volume and their relentless detail.

Young people use the grandiose vagueness of political ideology to even the argumentative score with the oldies they are up against. Detail (by which they often mean experience) doesn't matter, they say. What matters is the Grand Principles. What matters is the simple list of Big Ideas against which all the Old People type detail can be checked and found wanting. But old people, when they hold the political whip, smother the young in detail.

Looked at in this light, the much trumpetted "New" left, "New" Labour shunning of ideology looks rather different and rather more sinister and creepy. A major paradox of New Labour is that although it is feebler and more timid in the Big Word aspect of socialism than any previous left-inclined government that I can remember, the volume of legislated complaint and nit-picking that it is presiding over is unprecedented.

Looking beyond Britain and across the channel, I also see something very Grandparental about the EU. In France, which I visited earlier this year, I got the palpable feeling that I was in a sort of giant old people's home. France is beautiful. France does, in its own fuss-pot pretty-pretty way, work. It photographs beautifully. It makes a lovely calendar, practically everywhere you look. But if you are a entrepreneurially inclined twenty year old, God help you, because France will be no damn use to you. You can be a waiter. You can wipe old people's bottoms in old people's homes. You can sell little cakes in a little cake shop, the one run by your grandparents. And that is pretty much it, if you aren't qualified enough to join the predator class by going to that Ecole Normal SUPERIEUR thing, or some similar place. At present, although I don't know how long this will last, if you are a French person of spirit and you want to make anything of your life, step one is to come to London. That's right, for a lot of French kids now, this is the country you flee to,

In my last Samizdata posting I pointed towards lawyers as one of the sources of the current maniacally meddlesome state. Commenters pointed out that there were other forces at work, and that a lot of the government lawyers now churning out laws were merely doing what their client wanted. So why does the client now want so many laws, and of such meticulous annoyingness, while in public claiming that socialism has nothing to do with it and its just commonsense and doing things the way they should be done?

The state is never your friend, but the kind of enemy it is varies from decade to decade. I think another part of the story is the particular style that the Baby Boom has imparted to state annoyingness as it has got older. This definitely makes sense to me.

I know. What comes next? It's a horrible thought, isn't it. The senile state. The great grandad and great grandma state. The state with its short term memory shot to hell. ("Never mind what I said yesterday!! Bring me my stick!! I want to go to Birmingham!!" "But Gran, you're already in Birmingham." "Bank robbing should be illegal!! It's got to stop!! Stop it!! Stop it!!" "Gran, bank robbing already is illegal.") And then eventually, the state just lying in a bed, breathing with extreme difficulty and running up a huge medical bill, fed with tubes.

I remember once talking with a priest � the father a school friend of mine � about a stint he did in Norfolk or some such rural place, and he told me that although the people there would never admit it straight out to a priest, as a result of such things as arms-folded silently meaningful eye contact what he became convinced they did with old people who had become extremely annoying and nothing else was smother them with pillows.

So, in twenty years time, we smother the state with a pillow? Or, the modern equivalent, we rip out the tubes and unplug the machines? This also makes sense to me.

A British mother and her two sons were given jail sentences yesterday, less than four days after they were arrested for allegedly attacking an Athens shopkeeper.

During a four-hour hearing at Athens criminal court the main prosecution evidence was read, with no opportunity for cross-examination. Police statements were contradictory and the British defendants had only five minutes each to state their case.

The family believes it has been the victim of a Greek backlash against the drunken and lewd behaviour of young British holidaymakers on the islands of Rhodes and Corfu.

We are being made scapegoats for the antics of hooligans on some of the islands. There have been despicable occurrences on the islands, but we are not that type of people.

No forensic evidence was presented, although it had been stated that Mr Karamichalous was bleeding heavily after the brothers kicked him.

The metal bar referred to both by the Britons and Mr Karamichalous was not recovered from the scene. Although the Johnsons had been locked up since the early hours of Sunday, officers did not take a statement from any of them.

Their only opportunity to give their side of the story was when each took the stand for about five minutes.

Regardless of the facts of the case, of which I have no detailed knowledge, the speed and manner in which the family of Britons living in Greece were sentenced smacks of political and nationalist gestures. Their prosecution is seen as backlash against the loutish behaviour of British tourists on Greece's holiday islands. The case has made headline news in Greece where the Johnsons' story has been illustrated with photographs and footage of British tourists misbehaving on the islands of Rhodes and Corfu.

Blimey! The Greek legal system makes the British courts seem like the pinnacle of civilisation.

Although this article was published a week ago, I doubt it is out of date. Andrew Osborn speaks of his and other Belgians' encounters with the country's small army of fonctionnaires.

Armed with a battery of Dickensian stamps, a rulebook as obtuse as it is thick and the mindset of Cruella De Vil, they do their best to make the life of the ordinary citizen a special Belgian form of hell.

Apparently, in Brussels, you can end up in court for taking your rubbish out a day early.

Put it out on the wrong day or in the wrong type of bag and you are likely to bring down the entire weight of the Belgian establishment on you. A friend recently received a letter saying she had been fined 80 euros (�57) for putting her bin bags out a day early.

But how did they know it was her rubbish? The "rubbish police" of course: enclosed with the demand for 80 euros were grubby photocopies the police had made of letters addressed to her which they had scrupulously recovered from the offending bin bag. Big Brother, it seems, is alive and living in a suburb of Brussels. In order to contest the fine she had to appear before a special "bin bag" tribunal and explain that a neighbour had erroneously put it out for her.

Failure to sort your rubbish into a choice of three different coloured bin bags is also a serious offence. In normal circumstances, that would be understandable, highly laudable, and a real fillip for Belgium's environmental credentials. But it isn't: all the bags are thrown in the back of the same truck and then thrown onto the same dump. The Belgians, it is explained, are merely trying to get people into good habits before they start properly recycling the rubbish themselves.

The Belgians are taxed on the most ludicrous items. Who works out which ones they should be?

The issue on which Belgian officials outdo themselves is tax. Own a car radio? You had better make sure you're paying the special car radio tax, and don't try to pretend that you haven't got one. They know.

Want to open an office in Brussels? Then make sure you're paying your computer screen tax. Just count up the screens and tell the authorities and they'll send you a bill.

The most poignant example of the kind of mentality that is threatening to engulf Britain is the depressing lack of humanity of the rule and those who enforce them. A long-term resident gloomily describes his trip to a Belgian police station to complain about being woken up by builders illegally starting work at 6.30am:

"Do you have your identity card Monsieur?" (mandatory in Belgium).

"Well, no, it's 7am and I've forgotten it. I've just woken up. Sorry."

"Monsieur, that's an infraction of the penal code. You're breaking the law."

We often complain that the British officials are robotic, impersonal and inefficient. And yes, they are. But they cannot compete with the spawn of the Belgian officialdom.

Having already done most of my schoolboy sniggering in private (although I reserve the right to indulge it again at a later date) I think I can now bring myself to say a few (semi) serious things about this:

Belgian legislators are hoping to bring that to a close with a parliamentary bill that would draw prostitutes into the legal fold and bring the industry under state control, providing sex workers with labour rights and greater health protection.

But for a fee.

The sex workers themselves would be expected to pay up when the tax man calls - boosting state coffers to the tune of an estimated 50 million euros a year.

It represents an attractive option for a country currently struggling to balance its budget deficit - a means of generating money while affording prostitutes better protection.

Not so much legalisation then as part-nationalisation and while it would be nice to imagine that Belgium's lawmakers have been driven by a genuinely liberal impulse it is more likely that they have been prompted by the desire to get their sticky mitts on all that revenue.

However, I think complaints would be out of order. The trade in (ahem) 'personal' services between adults is not a crime and should not be treated as one, so although they may have to hand over a chunk of their earnings to the state at least the prostitutes (and their clients) will have been freed from the constant threat of arrest and prosecution. That is a good thing.

Aside from the fact that we can now justifiably and factually regard them as pimps, the Belgian government would undoubtedly argue that they cannot legitimise the sex industry without subjecting it to the same taxes that every other legitimate industry is forced to stump up. Nor should it be overlooked that gangster protection may prove cheaper than the Belgian state but tax-inspectors generally do not use razors as a means of enforcement.

I sincerely hope that HMG decides to follow the Belgian example on this issue but I don't expect they will do so anytime soon. Even in this day and age there is still a deeply-ingrained Sabbatarian disapproval of 'bawdiness' in this country that manifests itself as a very noisy and effective 'no' lobby at the merest mention of relaxing the laws on prostitution. I wish it were not so because even a taxed-and-regulated sex industry would be an improvement on the current arrangements.

There are probably several books worth of analysis here but, at first glance, I cannot decide if this is an example of the left trying to appeal to Islam or Muslims trying to appeal to the left:

An Islamic conference in the Spanish city of Granada has called on Muslims around the world to help bring about the end of the capitalist system.

The call came at a conference titled 'Islam in Europe' attended by about 2,000 Muslims.

On the face of it, it looks like Muslims nailing their colours firmly to the marxist mast but, on closer examination, that may not actually be the case because it appears that the ringleaders here are not Arabs or Africans but European converts:

Mr Vadillo, a Spanish Muslim, called on all followers of Islam to stop using western currencies such as the dollar, the pound and the euro and instead to return to the use of the gold dinar.

The conference also heard from Abu Bakr Rieger, a German Muslim.

He said Islam could only be practised in Europe in a traditional way, not in one adapted to European values and structures.

It is entirely possible that these peope have converted to Islam our of a sense of sincere conviction but it is equally possible that they are anti-Western revolutionaries who, thirty years ago, would have joined the Red Brigade or the Bader-Meinhoff gang. For them, Islam is now the best and most accessible means of publicly rejecting Western enlightenment values as wella s providing a far bigger and more respectable fig-leaf behind which they can play out all of their psychoses.

If that is the case, then maybe it is not so much a case of Islam overunning Europe but Europe overunning Islam.

With his surname partially derived from the Gods, and his standing as an Englishman of Scottish descent, you may already know I love Iain Duncan Smith, beyond the edge of reason. But yesterday, in Prague, he ripped open his long silence, on the European issue, and moved to lead the Europe-wide revolt against the long-planned socialist super state. Which, for those of us in the "Get out of Here" Euro-nexus, within the Tory party, is excellent news; it confirms our faith, in why we voted him in, as leader.

As the Maastricht rebel leader strutted his stuff, he even picked up a favourable review from Alastair Campbell's scoop-favoured creatures on The Sun. Trevor Kavanagh, their maverick political commentator, feared by the Downing Street lie machine, and a man, by order of Rupert, beyond the reach of Labour-supporting editor Rebekah Wade, also said about Duncan Smith:

Europe will hear him and Britain will agree

In my opinion, IDS is the bravest man, in British politics, from the entire period of the last 30 years. Can you imagine having woken up, every morning, for the last two years, and then been forced to view the world through his semi-oriental eyes? He has been vilified, pilloried, and humiliated, in every newspaper, on every Channel 4 news programme, and on every BBC web page — virtually every single day — for being a charisma-less, hopeless, and witless fool. But he has come through this burning fire, to nudge ahead of Phoney Tony in the polls, much to the incredulous bafflement of the New Labour-Guardian-BBC aristocracy, which rules this once glorious, and sceptred isle.

It's a fragile lead, admittedly, and there's still a lot more work for IDS to finish, to cement it in; even assuming it's not Gordon Brown who ends up as the initial beneficiary, from Tony's fall; and yes, it's a shame about that bovine statism, inherent within the general Tory Party; and yes, I would prefer a straight decision to just get out of the EU Dodge City, right now. But on the topic of Iain Duncan Smith, army officer and gentleman; I am a believer.

The French and German ministers recently tasked with boosting bilateral cooperation have already agreed on one important point - the need for summer crash courses to learn each other's language. French European Affairs Minister Noelle Lenoir and her German counterpart Hans-Martin Bury said each would spend part of their holidays in the other's country sweating over grammar rules and vocabulary lists.

They met to prepare an October conference bringing together the heads of France's 22 regions and Germany's 16 federal states to discuss boosting cooperation in education, culture, economic development and environmental issues. Lenoir told journalists in French after talks with Bury:

German must gradually become almost as widely spoken and as easily spoken as English is today.

Heh.

I suppose that, one way or another, this will all get smoothed out in the long run but, nonetheless, we can enjoy it while it lasts:

Gerhard Schroder, the German chancellor, called off his summer holiday to Italy yesterday, as the worsening row between the countries began to unravel years of carefully orchestrated co-operation at the heart of Europe.

More and faster, please.

We're all familiar with the popular cartoon caricature of Americans as gun-crazy cowboys who would shoot you as soon as look at you and peaceful, sophisticated, post-history Europeans who only need their directives to keep them safe from harm. In fact, I have lost count of the number of sneering British lefty journalists who prefix every reference to Americans with the words 'gun-toting' as a means of driving home the impression that they are dangerous, violent, atavistic non-communautaire people.

True? Well, probably not:

"Contrary to the common assumption that Europeans are virtually unarmed, an estimated 84 million firearms are legally held in the 15 member states of the EU. Of these, 80 per cent - 67 million guns - are in civilian hands,"

Good gracious! And to think that Tony Blair wants political union with these gun-loving maniacs!

Finland, with its strong hunting tradition, has the most legally registered guns in the EU at 39 per 100 people, the UK has 10 - one third of the German and French figures - and the Netherlands has two. Gun laws are tightest in the UK, the Netherlands and Poland, while France has more legal handguns than the Czech Republic, Denmark, Poland, England, Wales and Scotland combined.

Just one quibble: there are no legally held handguns in the UK at all so maybe France is not quite as awash with hand cannons as the article would suggest. Nonetheless it is clear that most Europeans have not, in fact, been gripped by the same anti-gun hysteria that has swept over Britain.

On this day, nearly two hundred years ago, the artillery, cavalry and red coated infantry of Britain, along with their Dutch and Prussian allies, finally put an end to the tyrannical rule of Napoleon Bonaparte on the Belgian wheat fields of Waterloo, near Brussels. It was the Duke of Wellington's greatest triumph.

Given that this blog is of course, such a great fan of the French political class (heh), I trust no readers of this publication would be so vulgar and unsophisticated to point out this salient historical anniversary to their friends and colleagues today.

I just thought you would like to have this titbit of historical information, gentle reader.

"Up Guards, and at 'em!"
- Wellington, June 18th 1815

As a break from the usual tread-mill of Libertarian Principles, here is a story that best reflects the 'quagmire' Britain got itself into by having anything to do with the EU and the countries using its institutions to their advantage. Despite the ravenous inclusiveness of the European Union, the one thing there is no room left for is common sense.

The European Court of Justice in Luxembourg ruled that Italian Parma ham must be packed and sliced in Parma itself to be marketed with its name of origin. The Asda supermarket chain has lost its legal battle to carry on selling Italian Parma ham, because it is packed and sliced in Britain.

Asda's Parma ham comes from Parma, but it is sliced and packaged near Chippenham in Wiltshire. Its delicatessen Parma ham also comes from Parma - but is sliced in its stores, in front of the customer. European judges have ruled that this is not enough under EU law to justify using the name.

Maintaining the quality and reputation of Parma ham justifies the rule that the product must be sliced and packaged in the region of production.

According to The Daily Telegraph Asda claimed the Italian law was not part of EU law and could not be applied in the UK, but ham from Parma was registered under a 1992 EU rule protecting the use of geographical names on some products. The battle went to London's High Court, which passed the matter to the Luxembourg judges for a ruling on the EU's Protected Designation of Origin (PDO) law.

The Parma ham producers' association, which owns the trademark Prosciutto di Parma, has been seeking an injunction against Asda since 1997. Consorzio del Prosciutto di Parma won the battle despite judge's recommendation to overturn the relevant European regulation and the advice the European Court of Justice received by one of its own members to invalidate the European Union rule.

As Asda representative said last year:

No one doubts that Scotch beef remains Scottish if sliced in Southampton; Jersey potatoes are still Jerseys when boiled in Blackpool; and cheddar cheese is still cheddar if grated in Gretna.

In most cases the court follows such advice, for example, the European court's advocate general delivered a similar opinion in a case brought against a company that grates the hard Italian cheese Grana Padana in France.

Not this time though. When you next eat your Parma, you can rejoice in the knowledge that it has been subjected to the traditionally tough quality control by its Italian producer. I suppose there is a first for everything...

Dutch politician Pim Fortuyn was assassinated by an eco-terrorist, ending what was a truly interesting period of business-not-as-usual in the Netherlands.

Fortuyn was a fascinating man, easy to misunderstand. Both David Carr and I had initially mistaken him as just a Dutch version of French fascist Jean-Marie le Pen, but in fact nothing could have been further from the truth. To have even labelled him as 'right wing' was profoundly uninformative and in many ways down right misleading, revealing more about the commentator doing so that anything about Fortuyn.

One year on and sadly the people who reaped the 'benefit' of Pim Fortuyn death have proved to be the same grey men and women of the orthodox Dutch left and right who have enervated that once dynamic nation, hanging on to an electoral party list system that amounts to the political equivalent of Henry Ford's 'choose any colour, as long as it is black'.

The weed has been pulled out by the roots and nothing disturbs the monoculture of blood red poppies adorning that graveyard which is the political status quo.

The European Central Bank has said that joining the Euro would mean the end of the free NHS, reports The Times (we do not link to the Times). Apparently the April edition monthly report of the ECB said that:

Governments should distinguish between "essential, privately non-insurable and non-affordable services", such as emergency treatment, and those where "private financing might be more efficient".

In truth, the actual ECB report [pdf file] does not say anything quite so bluntly. The actual report is full of careful conditionals and non-assertions: "governments may have to rise contribution rates", such co-payments could increase efficiency", "pre-financing [of geriatric care] has been proposed" and "It has been argued that setting of budget caps...can improve overall performance". (page 45)

Nonetheless, this report should be taken very seriously. It is the formal monthly report; not a mere research paper or discussion document, but the official view with the imprimatur of the body charged with running the Euro. Given the sanctity of free NHS provision in mainstream British politics, to have its underlying rationale brought into question by a multilateral institution of such power and influence is a political bombshell. We are not talking 'Private Finance Initiative' here; the ECB is suggesting that for most operations patients should arrange their own insurance voluntarily, pay up when they need it, or go without. In suggesting patient co-payments for operations, rather than mere privatisation of provision with continuing government funding, the report goes far further than anything suggested by the Conservatives.

Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown is due to report to Parliament on the 'Five Tests' for Euro membership shortly. Before then there will be a major Labour rebellion on Foundation Hospitals; giving hospitals slightly greater control of their own funds and services is already too radical for many MPs (including, with little concealment, Gordon Brown). This report is therefore also be an amazingly timed intrusion into that debate.

One can imagine the glee with which Iain Duncan-Smith will seize upon this report: he will be able to simultaineously portray the Foundation Hospitals policy as unduly timid, with the full weight of the ECB as 'independent experts', while also saying that the NHS is only 'safe in Tory hands' because of the government's committment in principle to joining the Euro. After all the kerfuffle on IDS' leadership in recent days, I shall be reserving my judgement on his capabilities to see whether he makes real capital out of this absolute gift from Europe.

As a firm believer in judicial independence, I consider it to be a generally good thing when Courts refuse to be swayed by the capricious impulses of public sentiment. Having said that, I wonder if the Dutch judiciary are going to have cause to regret the perceived leniency they have shown towards the assassin of Pim Fortuyn:

Admirers of the assassinated Dutch politician Pim Fortuyn struggled to contain their fury yesterday when his self-confessed killer got off "lightly" with an 18-year prison term.

The killing and its overtly ideological nature had persuaded many that the only sentence the judges would dare pass was life.

Regardless of the 'ideological nature', I think a life sentence is wholly appropriate in cases of pre-meditated murder such as this.

Dutch convicts tend to serve only two-thirds of their sentence, and the three judges in Amsterdam made it clear that they believed he should be given a chance to reintegrate in society.

Which means that the perpetrator will actually serve about 10 or 11 years.

Comparing Fortuyn's rise to that of Adolf Hitler, he said he had felt compelled to eliminate him as a favour to the Muslim minority and other vulnerable sections of society.

As with most 'Hitler' comparisons, this one is way over the top. The late Mr.Fortuyn may have had some rather strident views on immigration but nothing I have read about the man suggests that he was any kind of 'blut und boden' ethnic nationalist.

"This is unbelievable," Henk Sonneveld, a member of one of Fortuyn's political vehicles, Leefbaar Rotterdam, told the Guardian.

"We are angry and mad with this. Eighteen years is not enough. In nine or 10 years' time this guy could be walking the streets. It should have been life. Fortuyn was killed for his ideas - think about that."

Yes, I have thought about it and my conclusion is that the ghost of Pim Fortuyn is going to be rattling its chains around Holland for a long time to come.

One of the oddities of being a samizdatista is that comments are often attached to things you wrote weeks or even months ago, in a way that no one else is ever likely to see. Usually such comments are of no great note, but two yesterday, attached to a posting on a completely different subject, definitely got my attention. First, there was this, from Victoria Miller:

DEMOCRATIZING BEGAN IN IRAQ

coalition troops set heavy weapons
thousands of marine soldiers,
airplanes, tanks, uniformed lapdogs and bulldogs
open and secret machines of modernized war industry
general Shurk in Pentagon says;
we bring democracy.
meanwhile they systematically bombed
showed fake pictures, Ghurka-media served
massacred civil people of Basra, Baghdad, Mosul
like Dresden, Leipzig, Berlin
on the blood of children, they declared victory
at least, the thieves celebreting everywhere
world witnessed similarly scenes under WW II,
americans saving the plunderers
the Jews, steal wealth of whole Continent
and escaped to Jew York, Sweden, London, Australia
like that, looting continues all over Iraq
general Shurk in Pentagon says;
democratizing continues

And then there was this, from Martin Brandberger:

"I AM AN AMERICAN NOW!"

"when the criminals released from prisons of Iraq most bloody pedophile ones didn't delay to embrace these uniformed human butchers Evangelian Jewish coalitioned bastards, followers same day he killed two children more "I am cleansing Saddam's guards". explained when a journalist witnessed him on next deal manouvred well, joined plunderer masses of thieves the journalists almost took his group's photo because he was most active provocator instrument on all the cold-bloody scenes, what Big Brother needs to manipulate the opinion centers of the communities most useful traitor like many other willing whores, everywhere I saw him when he climbed on Saddan Hussein's statue like a monkey danced on the ruined wealth of the museums "democracy saver army" saved such nonsense actors during looting weared American flag on an american tank cried showed his knife and a handfull bloody dollars yelled like an true Texas jackal: "I am an American now I love you Bush double U Sharon!.. from and now I am an AmeeeeriiiiiCoww!.."

These two poets were, for some reason, only following in the footsteps of (I kid you not) "Aisha Maria Oilworkperson", who for equally opaque reasons appended to the same posting, not long after I wrote it, a screed that was somewhat less nasty but in a similar vein. And she has "intifada" in her email address. And you'll see that another blogroach (who wrote at truly psychotic length, as I recall) had to be removed by Perry.

Several thoughts occur to me concerning these various exhibits.

I'm guessing that Mr Brandberger's first language is not English and that he is European. If so, Mr Brandberger, in particular, is the best argument I know for not bothering with racial profiling, because this is suicide bomber talk. Guess/prediction: the next suicide bomber will be a white European, probably from Germany or Scandinavia. If this poem is any sort of clue concerning how a certain sort of person in Europe is thinking, and I'm guessing it is, then we don't only need to be concerned about Muslim nutters or Muslim convert nutters with white skins but middle eastern names. Suicide bombing may be about to become an equal opportunities career. (In fact I rather think it may already have done so. I vaguely remember David Carr saying something here along these lines. Did not some Scandinavian strap a bomb to himself and blow up a shopping centre? Perhaps he, or someone, can jog my memory and supply a link back.)

But second, if that turns out to be right, the name of the suicide bomber is unlikely to be Martin Brandberger, because Mr Brandberger has already very publicly identified himself as a rather threatening sort of person who ought to be watched by those whose job it is to watch such people.

What we have here is an argument, paradoxically, for freedom of expression. I think it is good that people like Mr Brandberger are allowed to warn the world concerning the sort of persons they are and the sort of thoughts they are having. Mr Brandberger should not be locked up for his poetry, horrible though it is both poetically and morally. But I think that I am in favour of someone tapping his telephone from time to time, preferably in a rather obvious way involving lots of clicks and buzzes that makes it clear to him that "AmeriCow" persons are observing his every move and scrutinising and pondering his every thought.

Imagine how the world would be if such people were not allowed to write such things and fling them about on the Internet, and thereby identify themselves as the nasty and perhaps dangerous nutters that they are.

As for "Victoria Miller", she doesn't sound like a European, does she? But if you follow the link from her comment, you get to a Swedish website of what looks to be some variety of socialist persuasion. No doubt someone can translate and explicate.

It all seems to me to be further proof of the depths to which a certain sort of European anti-Americanism and anti-Anglo-Saxonism has now sunk.

This is the stuff that some of the most prominent leaders of continental Europe have spent the last few months, with their every public pronouncement, encouraging.

Megan McArdle (linked to by Instpundit) probably speaks for many on both sides of the Atlantic, but especially in the USA, when she asks: what is Chirac up to? She doesn't know. All he seems to be achieving is to antagonise the USA, to no apparent purpose.

She's right about what he's doing. But maybe the answer is that he is doing this deliberately, for local reasons.

It was said after 9/11 that you couldn't understand Al-Qaeda's thinking if you thought only about what they were trying to do to the USA. You had to look at their local picture. What if they were really trying to impress fellow Muslims, and to increase their power not so much in the world as a whole but within the Muslim world?

I believe that something similar applies now to France. France's main concern now is to get the sort of Europe it wants, namely a centralised European state, with France playing a very prominent part.

One of the basic problems that the European Project has had in recent decades has been to create a sense of European nationality, to replace all the existing national feelings of "old" Europe. How do you do this? Well, the usual method is to pick a fight with a nice big enemy, who then obliges with insults against the nation you are trying to put together, with the result that people who might join this new nation, but might not, depending, feel insulted by the big bad outsider, and throw their lot in with the new nation. Oh yes, and it's best to pick a time when they are preoccupied with their own situation, rather than with yours.

For an exposition of how this kind of thing is arranged, see Robert Heinlein's The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress, where separatist Moon colonists contrive a war of words (and by the end a great deal more than words of course) between the Moonies and the Earthies. This has the effect of uniting the Moonies behind the revolutionary separatists.

I don't know much about the history of the American Revolution, but I'm guessing that this kind of trick was also pulled in America, to unite the colonists there, and to persuade them to stop thinking of themselves merely as the citizens of their separate little sovereign states, but rather as Americans.

Well, France seems to me to be working the same trick. Time was when Russia served as the perfect unification Big Bad Wolf, and during the Cold War, European unity cruised ahead, seemingly unstoppably. But then Russia was switched off as a threat, and so now the USA is the Bad Guy, an enemy with whom, one suspects, many French leaders are, in any case, far more comfortable. Preoccupied Americans look hastily at recent French diplomatic (i.e. extremely undiplomatic!) moves, and ask in amazement: Don't these cheese eating surrender monkeys realise that they will bring down upon themselves the wrath of America? Yes they do. And I surmise that this is the whole idea.

The speed with which even now EUro-integration is proceeding certainly fits in with what I'm saying.

Of course this is a risky strategy. What if the other Europeans interpret all this not as America v Europe, but as France v Sensibleness (and by extension France v. Rest of Europe � dragging the rest of Europe into their silly little French antipathy to hamburgers and Stallone movies)?

The USA may oblige with an artillery barrage (see the rest of the blogosphere) of anti-French and anti-European insults, and a number of non-lethal economic punishments, a process that is already under way. Defacing war memorials always works. You daub some anti-American crap on war graves, the Americans explode with rage and say things about all the damn Europeans that not all Europeans are guilty of by any means, and all Europeans feel insulted. Or maybe many Europeans hear the American counter-blasts without hearing about the original insult hurled at them, and so it tit-for-tats into a serious antipathy. Success!

But the USA may, instead, give some serious thought to getting its revenge over France by doing exactly what France does not want, which would be something more like to sweet-talk its way around Europe, and dissolve "L'Europe" in a bath of Uncle Sam niceness.

Until recently, the USA has been supportive of European unity, as understood by the French, because unity against the Red Menace was what mattered. After 1990, the USA has been indifferent. But what if the USA now (a) decided to smash up not Europe itself, but the French version of it, and what if (b) they got serious about this and did it properly and subtly, rather than in a way which plays into French hands? What if the USA settles down to help the UK to create a European Free Trade Zone, a loose affiliation of freely trading nations (either within the EU or outside of it � whichever), rather than a deeply statist Euro-Superstate presided over by a Euro-version of France's "Enarques"?

Interestingly, one of the commenters over at Megan McArdle's notes that the man doing all this is the Gaullist Chirac, who is trying to get us all here to feel about "L'Europe" the way that de Gaulle used to talk about "La France", as a mystical entity and an object of blind love and devotion. And a recent critic, this commenter notes, of Chirac's anti-Americanism is the Socialist Jacques Delors. The Gaullist is the nationalist, with "L'Europe" as the new nation. Delors, the socialist, is concerned about the unity of mankind, and sees a Europe vs. USA split as a mortal threat to everything he believes in.

As does Tony Blair, but that's another post.

I don't know if this is true, I'm not an expert, I could be quite wrong, blah blah blah, but it sounds about right to me. What does anyone else think?

You can barely take a casual stroll through cyberspace these days without tripping over some hot-off-the-press manifestation of blistering European anti-Americanism. Such a stark contrast to all the pious one-world anti-xenophobia cant that Brussels has spent that last decade or so assiduously peddling.

Since 'xenophobia' is regarded as a crime under the proposed European Criminal Code, it does make me wonder how they're going to enforce it against the gangs of 35 year-old 'students' burning flags and screaming 'Death to America' on the streets of Berlin and Paris. I suppose the answer is, they're not.

Which leaves the Americans to do something about it themselves. That is, if they are so inclined. While B-52s are still swooping over Baghdad, it is unlikely to be a top priority but if, at some point in the future, George Bush et al are minded to huddle in the War Room and cook up some delicious helping of Creme du Revenge, my advice would be, don't bother:

Europe's population could fall by up to 40 per cent by the end of the century because of declining birth rates and the tendency for women to have babies later in life, researchers have found.

For the first time in human history, the population has begun to experience what demographers call "negative momentum", when a shrinking population goes into a spiral of decline. Wolfgang Lutz of the Austrian Academy of Sciences, says that Europe experienced a "flip" from positive to negative momentum in 2000 because fewer babies were being born to younger mothers

There is an element of pantomime here. While legions of moral busybodies in Brussels spend all the live-long day worrying about whether Dutch toe-nail growth conforms to European standards, somebody from the audience should be shouting 'Look behind youuuuuuuuu' as big, bad reality creeps up from the wings wielding a terminal two-by-four.

The huge social and economic costs of the shift to an ageing population, where one European worker would be expected to support two pensioners by 2065, could be offset if governments encouraged women to start families earlier, he said.

And how are governments going to go about that exactly? Oh, I sense a whole new 'regulatory framework' in the pipeline. The suggested solution does nothing except to perfectly illustrate the problem: to the European way of thinking, change must come from the top down or it will not come at all and there is nothing, absolutely nothing, which cannot be satisfactorily addressed by the appropriate form of state activism.

I do not suppose that it has even occurred to the authors of this report that government is not the solution to the problem, government is the problem. The ubiquitous well-meaning interventionism of the kind they have invoked only comes with the kind of tax rates that price babies out of the family budget. It is almost like a prospector mentality; that curious messianic fever that causes otherwise intelligent men to sell all their belongings, hock the family silver and mortgage their houses to the hilt so that they can keep digging away in the unshakeable, quasi-mystical belief that the mother lode is down there somewhere. If only they can keep digging they are bound to find it and then everything will be well.

The calculations do not taken into account immigration from outside the EU but the scientists warn that policies designed to counterbalance the population decline by relying on foreign migrants could trigger their own social problems.

That's because the kind of 'immigration' envisaged is not immigration at all. It is more like population replacement, a sort of demographic transfusion. Out with the tired, old blood and in with the new, young, vigourous variety. The mestizo zone that European paladins envisage will not be the vibrant melting-pot that quickens the continent and heralds in a new age of wealth and glory. Rather it will resemble a huge, open-air Retirement village with a native population of arthritic, dependent, grumpy pensioners being entirely supported by (and therefore at the mercy of) a working cadre of African metalbashers, Asian entrepreneurs and Middle-Eastern shopkeepers.

But, who knows, perhaps this is what they want. Perhaps it is already too late to reverse the trend. Maybe the die is already cast. In so far as any 'European' identity is publicly flaunted it is expressed in terms of a preference for 'stability' and the conscience-salving constructs of 'social justice'. Yes, it all sounds so warm and comforting and I suppose it is warm and comforting as long as there is sufficient cash slushing around to pay for it. But as the civilisational credit-card tips over the spending limit, Europe's planners and thinkers prefer to shut those alarming monthly statements in the draw and kid themselves that the reckoning will never come. After all, tomorrow is a brand, new spending day.

The future is not bright. They don't need shades.

Polish Ambassador Maciej Kozlowski said yesterday that Europe should remember what America has done in the last 80 years, twice saving Europe from calamity. He brushed aside French President Jacques Chirac's harsh criticism of those European countries which support the war, insisting that France and Germany are misreading the political situation.

In a mostly symbolic move that exemplifies the pro-American stance that Poland has taken, the Polish army sent some 200 troops including special commando forces, navy, and chemical warfare experts to buttress the primarily American and British forces. The country's small contingent of special forces, which also operated in Afghanistan, is reportedly now in action in Iraq.

Declaring that each country has deeply different historical remembrances, Kozlowski, who came to Jerusalem without a gas mask, said that Poland remembers America opposing communist and other brutal dictatorships.

As such, we accepted as inevitable the war with Saddam, who by everybody's account is a brutal dictator.

Refreshingly straightforward.

Vaclav Klaus has been inaugurated as the new president of the Czech Republic, after several months of wrangling in Parliament. The position is elected by the two houses of the Czech legislature and represents a victory for the free-market opposition.

I first heard of Klaus when he was the Finance Minister of the Czech Republic when Czechoslovakia was a federal state (1989-1993). He was known to have a photograph of Mrs Thatcher on his wall and to be a keen follower of Hayekian economic theory. Vladimir Meciar, the double-agent populist who became Prime Minister of Slovakia in 1992 on promises to restore Slovak honour, demanded more subsidies from the Czech Republic or he would take Slovakia out of the federation. The response of Klaus, by then Czech prime minister was to say "Goodbye!" and not out loud, "Good Riddance!" to the horror of Meciar's entourage. The episode soured relations between Klaus and Vaclav Havel, the friend of London's 'champagne socialist' set who enjoyed the trappings of the presidency.

I last saw Klaus at the summer university last September at Aix en Provence, where he was awarded a special honour by the town, and guest of honour at the IES event. His election is a blow to the Left in the Czech Republic, to the European Social Democrat consensus (especially Messrs Chiraq and Schroder), and to spin-doctoring. Klaus's TV debate technique is to explain unemployment by drawing supply and demand curves on a blackboard and drawing a line to show how many more people need to lose their jobs or take pay cuts. With the imminent accesion of the Czech Republic to the EU, I think some entertaining Council of Ministers' meetings are in prospect.

Will this age of wickedness never end? First, some Danish quack tries to convince us that the world is not about to end and now some Swedish 'reactionaries' try to debunk recycling:

"Throw away the green and blue bags and forget those trips to the bottle bank: recycling household waste is a load of, well, rubbish, according to leading environmentalists and waste campaigners.

In a reversal of decades-old wisdom, they argue that burning cardboard, plastics and food leftovers is better for the environment and the economy than recycling."

WHAT??!! How dare they? Don't they realise how many years of activism are at stake?

"The claims, which will horrify many British environmentalists, are made by five campaigners from Sweden, a country renowned for its concern for the environment and advanced approach to waste.

They include Valfrid Paulsson, a former director-general of the government's environmental protection agency, Soren Norrby, the former campaign manager for Keep Sweden Tidy, and the former managing directors of three waste-collection companies."

Probably just a bunch of nazi zionist illuminatis in the pocket of Donald Rumsfeld.

"The Swedish group said that the "vision of a recycling market booming by 2010 was a dream 40 years ago and is still just a dream"

Do the words of John Lennon mean nothing to you, you baby-eating monster?

"Technological improvements had made incineration cleaner and the process could be used to generate electricity, cutting dependency on oil."

See, it's all really about OIL!!!.

They added: "Protection of the environment can mean economic sacrifices, but to maintain the credibility of environmental politics the environmental gains must be worth the sacrifice."

What do these people know about credibility? Everybody knows that the credibility of enviro-mentalism is maintained by clambering all over public monuments unfurling stupid banners and shilling for marxist despots.

"A spokesman for Greenpeace said: "It's a nonsense to say incineration could ever be better than recycling. That would be a regressive step."

Yes, quite right. How can one possibly tolerate anything 'regressive' whilst trying to drag us all back into the Stone Age?

These Swedes are nothing but terrorists.

Well, if you have a lefty friend who you think should be taken to sample what life under socialism is really like, then this "tourist attraction" in former East Germany is just the ticket.

Who said the Germans don't have a sense of humour?

I ran across this great quote from the Cold War generation:

"An infallible method of conciliating a tiger is to allow oneself to be devoured." - Konrad Adenauer

There was an interesting piece earlier this week in the UK's Independent newspaper by one of its main economics correspondents, Hamish McCrae. He argues - and this won't be a surprise to you, gentle readers - that the economic weakness of Continental Europe, especially the highly-taxed, highly-regulated bits such as France and Germany, poses a long term problem not just for the citizens of those nations but for the wider world. A good, thoughtful article. Read.

The piece is all the more telling for being written by someone who hardly qualifies as a rabid free-marketeer. Parts of the liberal-left are beginning to understand that the supine foreign policy stance of the French and German political class is in many ways a reflection of those countries' relative economic decline versus the Anglosphere nations, especially the US and Britain.

Oh, and while I am in the mood to plug interesting places of economic wisdom, take a look at this site, The Capital Spectator, which is a broadly free market blog focussing on economics and official policy. It has a particularly sharp piece on the Bush tax cut and the reputation of US Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan. I have even got my work colleagues to bookmark it. (Ideological subversion in the office. Heh).

I'm certain all have been following the Orange Alert in the US. If, as
George Tenet said today, these threats are about radiological or chemical attack on the US to occur this week then the Weasel Axis are following a very, very dangerous course.

If the headlines on one day are "France blocks NATO protection of Turkey" and the next day it is "10,000 feared dead in DC Attack" then France can expect to recieve a level of anti-frenchism verging on pure hatred. The damage would last until the American youngsters of this generation are dead and gone.

And worst of all for the dirigiste... they will have to defend their own the next time, something they have proven summarily incapable of in the past.

Maybe the Germans will help them.

Drop what you are doing and follow Instapundit's link to the Washington Post article on German Minister Joschka Fischer's past.

To be fair, many, many people at the time would have been involved to some level or have known some of these people. I imagine more than one amongst us cringe at the memory of things they did as kids. Why, I knew a person who knew Bernadette Dohrn (later of the Weather Underground) when she was a teenager. This was a status conferring thing. We'd sit around the Student Union and say "Wow, man, like you really, like knew her? That's like, really far out! Pass that over would you?"

There was a certain cachet about those who "did something". None of us would have dreamed of doing anything really destructive. We even had a team clean up the administration building (Warner Hall) before we handed it back in the morning [we took it over the night after the Kent State murders]... all tidied up and us on our way just in time for the staff arrival at 8am. Wouldn't have been nice leaving all our coffee cups and candy wrappers laying about from the overnight demonstration, now would it? Such was CMU.

I particularly remember the Coke machine on the second floor (first floor in the UK). If you gave it a sharp punch in just the right place, a cup dropped into the dispenser, a relay clicked and you got a Coke. Free. By the end of the night almost everyone had mastered this student survival art.

I'm afraid the youthful Joschka and his violent friends would have laughed at us for our bourgeoise values.

It was another time and place and has little connection with today's world. For many of us they are fond memories of a time past. It was fun. Sadly, there are those who are forever sitting in the Student Union of their minds. They have not moved on. They do not live in the world that is.

I'm not saying Joschka is quite that stuck, but the Washington Post story does tell us "where he is coming from".

MORE:Glenn posteda link to an even worse bit of Joschka's past straight from the mouth of General Ion Mihai Pacepa, a former Nicolae Ceausescu intelligence chief. Fischer is connected via a number of insider sources to a Libyan terror operation run by Carlos "the Jackal".

Yesterday France, Germany and Belgium announced that they are invoking an unprecedented NATO procedure to prevent the United States lending support to Turkey to defend its border with Iraq. Washington was disconcerted and dismayed by last week's move. Donald Rumsfeld, the US defence secretary, described the Franco-German action as a "breathtaking event" that would "reverberate throughout the alliance".

Turkey has invoked Article 4, that requires members to consult together when, in the opinion of any of them, their territorial integrity, political independence or security is threatened. It is the first time this has been done in the history of the alliance, thus ensuring an urgent and high level debate over the Franco-German action. The impact of that action is questionable for a number of reasons.

John Keegan has an insightful analysis of the reasons for the rift and the potential fall-out.

1. Turkey has bilateral defence agreements with the United States, which allow military aid outside the NATO relationship.

2. The Patriot missiles offered to Turkey are under Dutch sovereign control and so not subject to NATO interference.

3. America could provide the Awacs early warning aircraft if NATO refuses to send its own.

There is nothing new about the French being obstinate towards the United States in general and NATO in particular. France withdrew from NATO's military structure in 1966 to pursue an independent foreign and defence policy. Later it attempted to revive the military role of the Western European Union, NATO's long sidelined precursor, and then tried to invest the European Commission with defence responsibilities.

As long as the United States perceived the drive for European unity to be economic in thrust, the French efforts to create a parallel military structure within the western European NATO area were tolerated. It was the disputes over authority in Bosnia and Kosovo that eventually caused Washington to see the purpose of French policy as intended to weaken NATO. American acquiescence was eroded and led to hostility.

I whole-heartedly subscribe to Keegan's view that the United States created NATO and has fostered its development and welfare devotedly over 50 years and that the alliance is, without question, the most important, successful and creative foreign policy initiative of the United States since the Second World War.

The French and Germans, not to mention the insignificant Belgians, seem simply, like tiresome neighbours, to be demanding attention. In so doing, they are inflicting damage on the organisation that secured their safety during the Cold War, and affronting the ally that guaranteed it, to a degree that cannot easily be forgotten or forgiven.

Several NATO members are unshakeable in their loyalty. They include this country, Turkey and probably Italy and Spain. Several of the new NATO states, Poland foremost, would be eager to offer basing facilities to troops withdrawn from Germany soil. The Belgians do not count. The Dutch seem solid. Denmark and Norway are, with reservations, good NATO citizens.

A map of NATO with a hole where Germany had been would look odd; but the map has looked odd for 40 years since the French went their separate way. Now that the Soviet threat is no more, Nato does not really need Germany, except for purposes of internal communication. Germany's armed forces are in disarray, as are those of France.

An Anglo-Saxon NATO, plus Turkey, plus Scandinavia, plus Italy and Spain would still have the bases necessary to command the key strategic positions and the strength to keep the peace in the northern hemisphere.

I just hope the United States does not budge and ensures that the French and German leaders get exactly what they deserve for their unprincipled and self-interested behaviour. To me that would be France and Germany finally occupying positions on the international scene that are commensurate with their true significance rather than based on some historically misplaced delusions of grandeur.

I don't care how hungover you are. Get thee hence to the newsagents and buy, yes buy, a paper copy of the Mail On Sunday today. They have a story about some TV chick the German Chancellor is shagging. You care not about the paramours of foreign potentates? Buy it anyway. The point is that it's a test case about whether British courts are supreme or whether the EU can over-rule them. Apparently Lover-boy Gerhart has got an injunction to suppress the story in Germany and is claiming that under EU law that means he can suppress it here too.

Germany's hapless Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder has dished out insults at the musician who penned a chart-topping song that Adriana wrote about last week, taking a crack at Germany's onerous taxes.

Well, tough luck, Gerhard. It seems the Chancellor doesn't like the fact that the crippling confiscation of German citizen's money is provoking satire as well as anger. When a politician starts bashing the comics and music makers, it is a clear sign he or she is in trouble - big trouble.

This bespeaks a political elite on the Continent of Europe that is increasingly aloof and out of touch with ordinary citizens. On one level, this is encouraging, because such arrogance usually comes before a fall from grace. However, it also suggests that if the situation is not tackled soon, the anger boiling up in Germany and elsewhere could turn ugly.

Sure, Gerhard. As logical as
assaulting someone's fist with your face

Paul Staines reports on the latest rather splendid twist in the ongoing German anti-tax protests about which Adriana first reported last month on Samizdata.net

There is a brilliant story at wired news about a tax protest with a difference. It started as a wacky idea in an Internet chat-room but now thousands of Germans have sent Chancellor Schroeder their shirts. Schroeder has donated the thousands of shirts his office has received to charity. Shame he does not show some charity towards taxpayers...

The political campaign is being promoted with this rather fetching picture of Katja Kassin in the process of losing her shirt! Who says the Germans do not have a sense of humour?

Paul Staines

The German Chancellor is clearly feeling just a wee bit insecure these days. Why else would would he actually go to Court to sue a news agency because they claimed that he used dye in his hair:

"With affidavits from his barber, Schroeder insisted that the article was false and that it had created a wave of stories that were hurting his image."

Would that be his image as an incompetent, plundering, unreconstructed tax-and-spend socialist who is wrecking his country's economy? Oh right, that image.

Anyway, in order to avoid any legal complications here at Samizdata, I hereby categorically refute any suggestions that the German Chancellor has ever dyed his hair. After all, why would he need to? It is a wig.

Germans are fighting back with humour! The country's number one hit is called Der Steuersong (The Tax Song), and has found fertile ground in the hearts of a nation fed up with broken election promises and increasing taxes.

The song that shot to the top of Germany's pop charts with more than 350,000 copies sold within a week is a spoof sung by Schroeder's impersonator, Elmar Brandt, who has captured the mood of the country in the lyrics:

"Promises that were made yesterday can be broken today...."

"I'll raise your taxes, I'll empty your pockets, every one of you nerds stashes some cash away, but I'll find it no matter where it is..."

"I'll raise taxes now because the election is over and you can't fire me now..."

"We could raise a 'bad weather tax', or an 'earth-surface usage tax', a levy for breathing, air's going to become more expensive, and I'm only getting started.."
"A tooth tax for chewing, bio tax for digestion - nothing's free anymore..."

Schroeder's government of Social Democrat-Greens has slumped dramatically in voter surveys since the September 22 polls after breaking election promises not to raise taxes. On Monday Schroeder announced another new tax on equities and property sales - which the conservative opposition called the 49th new tax since he was first elected in 1998.

"I'll rip you nerds off, you'll be overpowered, I'm always in for a surprise..."

"There is no tax that I can't collect. I want your bank notes, your sweaters, your cash and your piggy banks..."

"Dog tax, tobacco tax, car tax, ecological tax - did you really think that was the end of the line? Like a pirate hunting for income, I'll raise all your taxes and if you're broke, you can buy your food at a discount store or go hungry..."

I am not sure it sounds better in German (here is the full English translation) but the spirit of the song is sound. Ordinary Germans say that "it sums up what we're all thinking." Fed up with taxes? Well, what are you going to do about it?

The tide of mendacious pro-EU propoganda that has flooded this country for the last 20 years or so, has been so relentless and has become so institutionalised that us beleaguered 'antis' were, until recently at any rate, quite despondent about the prospects of getting our message across concerning the reality of this misconceived 'Reich'.

No lie has been too outrageous and, on occasion, the lies have even been contradictory without anybody seeming to notice. We have been told that Europe is more prosperous, Europe is fairer, Europe is more open-minded, Europe is more dynamic, Europe has less crime, Europe is more modern, Europe is more generous, Europe is more caring, the cost of living is cheaper, everyone in Europe has a better standard of living and (drum roll, please) Europeans are more sophisticated!!

My father told me that he remembers exactly the same things being said about the Soviet Union in the 1930's.

So it gives me an incalculable thrill to see an article about Europe's coming collapse in a British newspaper:

"The cause is a self-destruction wrought by a political elite that has wrapped itself in fantastical self-delusion about the superiority of its economic system, the coming ascendancy of the single currency over the dollar, and the tide of wealth and prosperity that would inevitably flow from the relentless pursuit of "ever closer union". Here, on an epic scale, has been a procession of naked emperors who cannot begin to grasp why the world has stopped applauding."

The article may be right or it may be wrong but, for my purposes, that almost doesn't matter; its very publication is the rub. It would certainly not have appeared even a year ago and the fact that it has surfaced now, and in a mainstream publication to boot, is an indication that the tide is turning.

We all know what caused the 9/11 attacks on New York and Washington, right. We all know because we have been told (ad nauseum) by this lot among others that the root causes lie with America's wrong-headed foreign policy, its empire-building and its constant meddling in other people's business. If one accepts that argument then the solution presents itself: America should mind its own business, stop arming foreigners, bring troops home and quietly get on with the business of building a peaceful, free, non-interventionist country. Then the worlds bad guys and bullies will simply leave America alone and go off to look for someone else to haunt.

In other words, America should be more like Switzerland. After all, nobody ever attacks Switzerland. Why should they? There's no reason to. Switzerland is neutral and peaceful and prosperous and...under attack:

"Switzerland is facing the risk of sanctions from the European Union over failures to lift its banking secrecy laws and co-operate with Brussels over a new savings tax".

Nothing to do with Swiss foreign policy then. Nothing to do with Swiss meddling in other people's conflicts. No, it's everything to do with the exceedingly domestic policy of banking secrecy which means that Switzerland is a living, breathing bolt-hole for those desperate Euro-serfs who want to hang on to whatever precious capital they have left and shield it from the endless predations of Brussels.

The conclusion, therefore, is that Switzerland must die. Well, more accurately, its sovereignty and independence must die because it cannot be allowed to continue to flourish in the face of those who have altogether different plans for Europe.

Now, I do not expect missiles to be raining down on Geneva any time soon or at all but that is largely due to the fact the EU countries don't really have the cojones for that sort of thing. However, if the EU were just a bit more aggressive and a bit better armed then that vista is not inconcievable if the Swiss steadfastly refuse to buckle.

But the attack is both political and diplomatic and may soon degenerate into economic blockade and in case anybody thinks that that threat is just smoke and mirrors they would do well to remember that economic blockade (itself an act of war) is exactly the threat that was used by the EU to strong-arm little countries like Malta, Liechtenstein and Andorra into abandoning their lucrative tax-haven status and toeing the line on the EU's ludicrous 'campaign against unfair tax competition'.

The Swiss have played by the rules exactly as they are written by the isolationists and they have played them both sincerely and immaculately. Their reward for doing so is that the barbarians are now at their gate. The Swiss may choose to either surrender a big chunk of what makes them so prosperous in the first place or make a stand against the barbarians. Ignoring them is no longer an option.

Now before anybody flames back with affirmations of the obvious, yes I do realise that threatening the USA is a very different proposition from threatening Switzerland but just because your protagonist is militarily weaker doesn't mean that they can't make life very nasty for you, as Al-Qaeda have so graphically proved.

The peaceful, neutral, non-interventionist, money-making Swiss are under siege because they are, comparatively speaking, a beacon of light amidst a sea of darkness and they threaten that darkness by sheer dint of their existance. This should serve as an object lesson to those who are naive enough to believe that, as long you mind your own business, then the bad guys will respect your privacy.

Creating a free and prosperous society places you in the cross-hairs of those who harbour less laudible ambitions and turning the other cheek just gives them a golden opportunity to punch your lights out. As far as they are concerned, you must change or die. You may refrain from intervening in their affairs but they are compelled to intervene in yours whether you like it or not.

A suicide-bomber has exploded himself in a shopping mall in Helsinki killing eight people and maiming and crippling scores of others. [I find the word 'wounded' to be so anodyne and unsatisfactory. It implies that the damage done can be healed by the application of some bandage and a smear of antiseptic cream. Bomb explosions leave people limbless, blind or paralysed]

It appears as if the perpetrator was a 20 year-old student but there is no indication as to his motives. Of course, given the style of attack, thoughts immediately turn to Islamic radicals but there is nothing in the reports thus far to suggest this and, in any event, why they should target the Finns is beyond me.

More likely this young man's head was buzzing with some other kind of savage insanity but the method he has used to vent it does have some significance nonethless. We have never been short of psychotics or dangerous malcontents in our midst but when they do finally unhinge they typically do so by taking pot-shots at their employers or attacking their landladies with a kitchen knife.

Is this changing up a gear? Could it be that the suicide-bombing is becoming the preferable modus operandi for the deranged and the grudge-ridden? It is certainly a far more dramatic way of leaving your forget-me-not impression on a world that you loathe and that you believe loathes you.

Maybe I am extrapolating too far here. It is, for sure, too early for anything like a cogent analysis. But, if it turns out that I am on the right track, then we all better start watching out for that twitchy guy on the bus; that thing on his shoulder could be a lot more than just a chip.

Paul Marks points out the importance of remorselessly pushing out the libertarian memes into a world that does not 'get it'.

As I write this the�results of the German general election are not known. However, there will be few clear lessons to learn even if the Red-Green alliance win (as it could be argued that the Germans voted Red or Green out of hatred of the United States and hatred of Jews [oh sorry, 'love of the Arab people'] rather than because of support of Red/Green economic policy).

However, the recent election in Sweden teaches us�some clear lessons. Promising tax cuts and pretending there will be no cuts in the Welfare State (the policy of the Swedish opposition "Moderate Party") does not work. People, quite correctly, reject the idea that 'public-private partnerships' (or other clever schemes) mean that one can have tax cuts and much the same level of 'public services'.

The Swedish election also shows us that given the choice of tax cuts at what people believe will be the 'cost' of cuts in the public services most people reject tax cuts. Although (it could be argued) that an honest approach "we are going to cut taxes and government spending" would have done better (some people may have voted against the Moderate party because they were seen as liars).

The basic ideology of our age is that government should look after the poor, the weak, the children, the old, the sick (and so on). So are we doomed? Is libertarianism (which runs directly counter to the basic ideology of our age) simply never going to be 'relevant' to most people?

I do not think we are doomed. I continue to believe that in a time of economic crisis people are capable of changing their beliefs.

It is a matter of making libertarian ideas known - not so they will be accepted now (they will not be accepted at present), but so that they are available to be turned to in a time of crisis.

Paul Marks

This piece by Janet Daley in today's Telegraph is of interest, and these paragraphs are the heart of it:

� there must be a lesson here for those who hold - and would like to proselytise - currently unfashionable opinions. How exactly has this happened? How is it that this stance, which has been travestied and traduced by the entire Left-liberal media behemoth, has still managed to win through to the hearts and minds of so many fashionable anti-establishment people?

And perhaps even more beguilingly, why are so many acerbic comedians and social satirists happy to stand up in public for a cause that has been largely associated with politicians who have never knowingly told a joke? �

Of one thing I think we can be fairly sure. Harry Enfield, Bob Geldof, Vic Reeves et al were not won over by Teresa Gorman's 'street cred' or Norman Tebbit's hairstyle. Neither the cut of Norman Lamont's suits nor John Redwood's demotic vocabulary made them think: "Hey, these guys are my sort of people. I like the look of them. What's this they're saying about the European single currency being a bad idea for Britain? I think I'll join up."

No, I believe not. They must have been - wait for it - persuaded by the arguments. Imagine that. They must have heard people who look and sound nothing at all like them, saying things that struck them as basically sound. �

I've been flogging away with ideas for the best part of my adult life so far, so you might expect me to greet JD's piece with unmitigated reverence. However, one of the ideas I've been flogging away at is that persuading members of the Conservative Party to support something is not the kiss of life, rather is it the kiss of death. This is not an idea of the kind JD is talking about; it's a propaganda idea, a focus group idea, an idea about how to win arguments by unfair means as well as by fair ones. It's an idea about "positioning", "associating", about atmospherics rather than just about principles. (At the risk of getting too technical, much of the idea of being principled is itself an idea about atmospherics.)

The story here is of a generational divide, between on the one hand the parents of the sixties generation, and the other the sixties generation and all generations since. "New" Labour is now firmly this side of The Divide. But the Conservatives are still desperately trying to cross this divide (the less dumb ones) or still fighting the old sixties battles against the future (the relentlessly dumb, geriatric ones), and thus still pathetically stuck on the far side of The Divide. Poor old Norman Tebbit is a perfect example of this phenomenon. He explicitly blames "the sixties" for everything bad that has happened since, and if he doesn't actually believe that the Beatles etc. should be dis-invented he nevertheless allows himself to come across like that.

And my point is this: "we" (the libertarian movement, the social and intellectual and cultural milieu that gave birth to things like Samizdata.net, i.e. every other rock musician on the planet who hates both taxes and drugs laws and all their friends and admirers) are all firmly this side of The Divide. We don't have an army of old age pensioners moaning about single mothers to piss in our propaganda every time we say anything. We don't have a racist rump to expel, because our pro-immigration propaganda made sure that these bigots never joined us in the first place.

Every time some hideous Conservative dinosaur denounces us, we win. New Labour people don't hate libertarianism; they listen to it and learn from it. Many Old Conservatives do hate libertarianism with a passion, because we piss in their propaganda (by pointing out, for example, that freedom means capitalism and drugs). The strength of the libertarian movement is not just its friends; it is also its enemies.

In general, if you have a good idea, you have to explain it to the post-sixties generations in their (our) language, and wrench your idea out of the hands of the Tebbits of this world.

It helps if you are post-sixties yourself. And I'm not just talking date of birth here, I'm talking state of mind. I know dozens of self-crafted Conservative dinosaurs, many of them not born until long after the Beatles split up, who have spent their lives making sure, quite deliberately, that they didn't cross The Divide. (Think John Redwood.) These idiots and their camp followers spent the eighties telling me that they knew all about "persuading people" and that I and my fellow libertarians knew nothing of such things, because we were too "extreme". You have to "take people with you", not "upset people", blah blah blah. Now, these wretched folks, and all those whom they duped into wasting half their lives following them, are realising that it was actually the other way round. We were ahead of them both intellectually and atmospherically.

And one of the ideas we have spread is that, despite many appearances to the contrary � niceness to foreigners, better food, better sex, etc. - British membership of the EU is actually a bad idea.

It was us (broadly defined - I'm including the rock guitarists in with "us") who got through to those comedians, not the Conservatives. Those cinema adverts didn't just happen. 'Street cred' operators, former rock guitarists and pop group managers, made them happen, operators from this side of The Divide.

It is precisely because the Conservatives have not been in charge of the anti-EU campaign that it may now be beginning to succeed. We anti-Conservative anti-EUers translated the anti-EU case out of Conservative dinosaur language and into post-sixties language, normal language, and enough of what we said got through, despite the best efforts of the Conservative dinosaurs to keep this argument to themselves and thus guarantee defeat for it. When you look at the Conservative Party, don't think: future. Think: asset stripping. Think: rescue the good stuff and kill off the thing itself. "Conservative"? What kind of a brand name is that? If it wasn't called that, would anyone with a grain of sense want to call it that now?

It's a nice idea that the Euro is becoming unfashionable because of pure high-minded principle. But there was more involved than that in this victory, if that is what it proves to be.

There is an interesting article in the print version of Inside The Vatican (sorry, no article link at their meagre on-line site) about Rabbi Israel Zolli, formerly the Chief Rabbi of Rome from 1939 until 1945.

So if Pope Pius XII was an anti-semitic pro-Nazi collaborator in Italy as some have claimed, why did Rabbi Zolli convert to Christianity in 1945, professing his admiration for the pontiff? Zolli was certainly in a position to know what the truth of the matter was! The fact the Pope was no supporter of Zionism did not mean he was antagonistic to Jews.

Clearly the reality is the calumnies against Pius XII have more to do with modern agendas than historical facts.

The Dutch have rained scorpions of political death onto the Centre-Left coalition government and driven the List Pim Fortuyn into second place behind the Christian Democrats making it highly likely that that the 'List' will form some part of a new Centre-Right coalition government.

It is a spectacularly vicious kick in the Nether regions for the left but will it actually amount to anything more than ripples across a very stagnant pond? The media hacks have been quick to point out that, minus their charismatic leader, the 'List' is a party which is less than three months old and appears unfocussed and a little incoherent. For once, this may be more than the familiar journalistic (which is to say, socialist) whining and sour grapes. There does seem to be something which is rather cobbled-together and even rather amateurish about the 'List' which, whilst it may have benefitted from a sympathy vote to a degree, is also the collective expression of an impatient, anti-consensus, anti-elitist grouch.

Such movements, when they actually do get anywhere near the corridors of power, have a tendency to be ineffective; proving to be nothing more than smoke, mirrors and tinkling brass. Lacking both political nous and a clear vision, they may find themselves being outmanoeuvered by their establishment foes who, while lacking any enthusiastic support, nonetheless possess the guile and experience sufficient to form the de facto coalitions and horse-traded allegiances that ensure that they keep their grip on the real levers of power.

And the Dutch will find themselves right back where they started.

It seems the death of Dutch politician and media commentator Pim Fortuyn, which continues to reverberate in the blogosphere and elsewhere, has shed light on just how useless the words 'left' and 'right' are when it comes to making sense of the political and cultural landscape.

An article in the latest edition of the UK weekly magazine The Spectator by Melanie Phillips, makes an attempt to figure out how Fortuyn grappled with the issues of defending secular, liberal democracies against influences thought to be malign, like militant Islam. But she fluffs it.

Take this dumb paragraph:

"Above all we have to reassert liberalism as a moral project which does not pretend to be morally neutral. We have to acknowledge that liberal values are rooted in the Judaeo-Christian tradition and sprang from British culture... Liberalism has to be rescued from the clutches of the libertarians, in order to defend liberal democracy from militant Islam on the one hand and the racist Right on the other. Fortuyn was never going to be the answer. He was part of the problem."

Phillips' attacks legalisation of drugs, voluntary euthanasia and same-sex marital unions, all causes Fortuyn championed, and avers that such "libertarianism" undermines liberty. Eh? Surely the common thread running through his stance on tax, public sector services, and social issues like drugs was support of arrangements arrived at by consenting adults and a general desire to stop Big Government getting in the way. His opposition to unchecked, massive immigration from largely non-Western societies was predicated on a fear that such freedoms were under threat. One can argue whether his fear was justified or not - I am not entirely convinced either way - but Fortuyn's views struck me as entirely coherent.

As for liberalism's roots in the Judaeo-Christian tradition, that strikes me as only partially accurate. Unlike some atheists, I do fully appreciate the contribution of this religious tradition to liberty (such as the doctrine of Free Will) but for starters, what about the heritage of Greece and Rome? What about the Enlightenment?

Phillips' analysis is flawed because, ultimately, she cannot see how freedom can flourish without state-imposed restraints. Nowhere is there any grasp of how order and rules can evolve spontaneously from below, rather than be imposed from above. This is a shame because Phillips does have some good things to say, particularly on how Fortuyn has forced many commentators used to thinking of politics through certain prisms to sharpen up their act.

Tolerate v.tr. 1 allow the existence or occurrence of without authoritative interference. 2 leave unmolested 3 endure or permit, esp. with forbearance

Accept v.tr. 3 regard favourably; treat as welcome 4 a believe, receive (an opinion, explanation etc.) as adequate or valid. b be prepared to subscribe to (a belief, philosophy etc.)

The assassination of Dutch cultural nationalist Pim Fortuyn has raised many questions about the nature of tolerance and liberty. Orrin Judd suggests that Fortuyn was not a libertarian as some have claimed and in this I agree. Fortuyn was indeed informed by some very libertarian principles but sought to apply them within a statist context that placed him at least somewhat within the stranger wing of a Euro-conservative fringe with more than a few touches of the 'classical liberal' about him.

In truth Fortuyn defied easy categorisation but in some ways his views on immigration were just dealing with the inherent contradictions between distributive statism's prerequisite of homogeneity (the need for a quantifiable unit called 'citizen') and the dis-incentivization for cultural assimilation and social integration inherent in welfare statism. Much of what he said has also been said by Ilana Mercer (who is a top flight pukka libertarian with whom I just happen to disagree regarding the implications of immigration in a free society) as well as many cultural conservatives.

Orrin Judd takes the view that the essence of Fortuyn was just about advocating sexual licence (a word loaded with political meanings I reject) whilst himself not tolerating religious based distaste in others for Fortuyn's overt homosexuality. Yet having read some of what he said and trying to filter out the political populist crap that all democratic political figures encode their words with, it seems clear to me that what Fortuyn really opposed was the fact within the Muslim community in the Netherlands were elements who wanted to translate their lack of acceptance into intolerance.

Fortuyn was not insisting Muslims or for than matter Christians like Orrin Judd accept, which is to say agree with his sexual predilections, just that they tolerate them and for him this was non-negotiable (and I happen to think he was correct in that view). And therein lies the fatal flaw of all democratic state centred societies rather than classical liberal civil societies with the state just as 'nightwatchman'... if political manipulation of the state gives the more cohesive sections of that society the ability to back their lack of acceptance with force (i.e. to make the laws of the state reflect their views), then a legitimate lack of acceptance becomes illegitimate intolerance. Fortuyn feared that in a democratic state, a cohesive alien Muslim cultural bloc lead by people for whom society and state were logically one and the same, would start to move the state away from being the guarantor of tolerance for people largely not accepted: of which homosexuals are a classical example being as they are both ubiquitous and always a minority.

Tolerance however is not a value neutral condition, far from it in fact. To tolerate something is to not accept it. One does not tolerate one's friends, one accepts them. I tolerate people listening to heavy metal music even though I think most of it is drivel, for the simple reason it is none of my damn business what other people listen to. It only becomes my business if they are playing it loudly in the next house at four o'clock in the morning but then it is not a matter of 'tolerance' any more, it is a matter of unwillingly imposed real cost regardless of the type of music involved. I tolerate smokers because if they want to kill themselves and smell like ashtrays, that is their business not mine. I do not accept it as a good idea however. What is wrong is to use the violence of the state to prevent people doing what they want to themselves and others of a like mind and there is the problem with some conservative Christians and more or less all radical Muslims: they want to criminalise what they see as sin rather than criminalise the violation of the objective rights of others. Opposing that is not intolerance because tolerance does not mean tolerating intolerance, any more than it is tolerance to tolerate anything which actively seeks to violate your self-ownership. If you believe homosexuality (or eating pork or looking at pictures of naked women) is a sin, well fine, that is up to you, feel free to not engage in gay sex (or pork dinners or Playboy). If that then induces you to vote for people who will use the violence of the state (laws) to discriminate against homosexuals (or ban pork butchers and Playboy magazine), well that is not fine.

Just remember that what is sauce for the goose is also sauce for the gander. In a democratic state, no one group ever monopolizes power for ever. If the people who, on the basis of religious non-acceptance, want to legally disadvantage (i.e. no longer tolerate) certain people because of their sexual peccadillos... and then use their transitory political clout to actualise that, well don't be too surprised if one day the object of that discrimination tries to use the state to legally discriminate against the religions which are seen as the source of the intolerance towards them. In a democratic state, any large cohesive voting bloc with intolerant rather than just non-accepting views is a potential threat. The more truly democratic a system is, the greater such threats are.