Why the European project is effectively a waste of time and money

Heavily recycling here, an old comment on an old friend's blog. Well, there we are: these views aren't time sensitive.

The failure of the European project is surely that Europe has invested far too much time, money and effort in, essentially, broadening the scope of its remit (and its boundaries) and not enough time, money and effort (to which I should add, most importantly "will") on what business people call "core activity". If the EU (indeed, the UK Government likewise) focused on making things easier and less expensive for people, it would be much more popular and successful. At a trans- or inter-state level, this is going to be about facilitating trade (taxes, standards, tariffs, subsidy and competition management), travel and the fight against organised crime.

This is all best illustrated by the failings of the Euro, which would be a fantastic idea if, as everybody has pointed out, it was actually backed with proper fiscal and monetary mechanisms to ensure it actually works (which, sorry to say, does mean the surrender of more powers - the right ones for once - to the "European centre"). Instead, it'a grand scheme which, intentionally or otherwise, has ended up as a Franco-German tool of domination. What we get, as Dan Hannan usually points out, is a lot of posturing and money grabbing and a general lack of focus on the people of Europe.

Can anybody explain why the Opposition always backs the Government when it comes to military action?

A friend recently asked this question "Can anybody explain why the Opposition always backs the Government when it comes to military action?", to which my response was:

1. They're mostly men.

‎2. They are attracted to politics in part because they like and desire power. War is the ultimate expression of power: the power to give life, the power to take it away - we are moving in to powers of god territory.

‎3. Our "representative" so called democracy is based on the idea that we elect them to make decisions on our behalf. We do not elect them, ironically, to represent our views. This is how Tony Blair justified invading Iraq despite the couple of million people who took to the streets to say "No" to war in Iraq. Being used to taking decisions on our behalf but seldom having to deal with the consequences of their decisions, they believe they are infallible and so feel justified in making decisions that anyone with an iota of sense would shy away from, lacking, as we and they do, any real insight in to the matters at hand.

Developing this:

The Uk has to get out of its habit of interfering in the affairs of other countries. Admittedly, this is hard to do as engaging on any level, even if it's only trade, could be considered to be "interfering" but what I mean is: messing around with their politics. It's not up to us to decide who should rule or how they should rule. If countries like Libya or Bahrain aren't democratic, so be it: that legitimises their people to use undemocratic means to change their governments.

This whole sorry affair has also laid bare the pretensions of, for want of a better description, the Muslim world (or the "Umma", if you like). The UK and the USA (usually justifiably) are attacked for "interfering" but when it comes to the crunch, they are happy to leave it to us (wrongly) to sort out their mess. The Qaddafi State in Libya is not just undemocratic, it's also un-Islamic. So what are the people of the region doing to save their fellow Muslims from oppression? Where is Turkey? What is Saudi doing with all those expensive fighter planes we have sent them, to help sort out Qaddafi? What's that big army in Egypt doing? Nowhere. Nothing. Nowt. Why? Because for all of their self-aggrandising, puffed-up talk of Muslim brotherhood, these governments are venal, self serving, and irreligious.

Good Muslims may hold the notion of the Umma close to their hearts, but their leaders prove time and again that they will use Islam to justify their actions only when it suits them to do so and seldom do so when it conflicts with their self interest.

Egypt first hand

Got back from Egypt last night. Low level protests in Luxor and Aswan much of last week. The much hated Egyptian police were getting a pasting from the stone throwing lads. Most entertaining. The level of protest and popular engagement in Upper Egypt, however, was disappointing and not at all as seen in Cairo, Alex and Suez and looked pale in comparison with, for example, the recent student protests in London. This is perhaps due to the lack of any consistent leadership of opposition and uncertainty about who and "what" may take over post-Mubarak. El Baradai, for example, didn't seem to raise much interest from the locals, who sometimes referred to him as "an American". Nonetheless, I didn't hear one person say anything nice about Mubarak and his cronies either. There will be significant tension between the educated middle class, who want to see Egypt follow Turkey into a West-facing economy (accepting that Turkey may actually be changing to be more significantly Orient-ated) and the fellahin, who are more interested in a moderate Islamist solution, led by the Muslim Bortherhood. Neither position is actually supported by anything resembling "a plan", suggesting a significant ideological/power vacuum may form, which would be deeply destabilising for the country. We must remain optimistic that someone from outside the current political establishment will seize the initiative and set out a constructive plan for transition or else, I'm sorry to say, things are going to get alot worse before they get better. Good riddance to Mubarak though - a fantastic opportunity for the Egyptians to democratically determine their own future though, rather than have the military-industrial complex dictate it for them.