EU’s Reality Check?
European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso has hailed the Brussels summit as a ‘reality test’ that the EU has passed, but is that really true? Many EU countries are feeling economic strain—the UK’s new budget and the criticisms of it are only the most recent of events showing that the EU is following in the US’s footsteps toward a shaky economic time, and Bear Stearns’ banking crisis leaving its future unstable and at the mercy of the markets could well be a dark harbinger of things to come in Europe. No wonder that even as he is claiming a ‘reality test’ has been passed—somehow implying that the trouble is behind us—Barroso is also noting that the EU has a storm to weather.
In that storm, every one of the EU member countries will be feeling different pressures and tackling different in problems their own way, and no matter how well the European Central Bank does, the credit crunch of late 2007 is unlikely to be the last of the EU’s economic judders. Globally unstable financial markets are worrying, and a little check mark next to the ‘pass reality test’ box is hardly reassuring. It certainly won’t help European citizens—or European countries—who are going to be wrestling with their finances in the time ahead.
Listening In
Wire-tapping, that memorably scandalous activity, is making headlines again in the UK. MP Sadiq Khan reportedly had a conversation with an incarcerated constituent recorded by counter-terrorism officers: a decision taken by the police force, unbeknownst to MPs, and without either of the participants’ consent. Now, an investigation has been begun by the Justice Minister, Jack Straw, and he’s made it very clear that the decision to instigate such an investigation is made by a police chief, not a minister. PM Gordon Brown’s claims, contrary to prior PM’s decisions, that evidence obtained via wire-tapping should be used in court, particularly against terrorism suspects, undermines this message, however. Wire-tapping is political. It’s the next step in Britain’s more stringent police powers against terrorist subjects in our milder version of The War On Terror. And the investigation into the Khan tapping case is a clear sign of that. Former PM’s have ruled out using wire-tap evidence in court because of concern about revealing police and secret service techniques. And that’s just what’s being highlighted here. Who’s doing what and with who’s permission? Effectively: What can we admit in court? Let’s make sure we’re doing things by the book because when we want to use this stuff, we better be able to. The “simpler and stronger surveillance laws” called for by Liberty director Shami Chakrabarti are going to work so well with Brown’s new plans. The veto power of the secret service – the right to refuse to admit tapes into court – seems to imply that that sort of evidence will be used only in the cases where it’s the only evidence. Trying to fast-track suspects to convicts is a worrying trend when we’re also trying to increase the amount of time we can imprison suspects without releasing or charging them.
Why Europe Can’t Have A Constitution
The Lisbon ‘Treaty’, the replacement for the EU Constitution shot down by France and the Netherlands in 2005, has ‘made news’ again today when UK MPs reported that parts of it were nearly identical to the EU Constitution. Well, yes. Didn’t we know that already? One of the ‘best’ changes—from its architects’ perspective—made to the Constitution to make it into the Treaty that’s being signed is that it’s become non-constitutional. So there’s no need for referendums, which were the Constitution’s downfall. Instead, the individual member state’s governments can sign the Treaty.
Having been promised a vote on the Constitution, at least in the UK, and then being refused a vote on the ‘Treaty’ sticks in one’s throat a little because there is an overwhelming feeling of being cheated. Even the UK’s Parliament is feeling a little put out that it wasn’t consulted more on the drafting of the Treaty. Hence, ratification of the Treaty began in the UK Parliament today with Gordon Brown expecting a rough ride amidst concerns about the UK’s ‘get-out clauses’ for things such as asylum laws. There is a legally binding protocol saying that no court can rule that the “laws, regulations or administrative provisions, practices or action” of the UK are inconsistent with the principles in the charter, but many people question whether this will really stand firm and prevent EU interference in UK affairs, even though Britain has negotiated the right to pick and choose which legislations to sign up to.
But surely, then, even this state of compromise is a problem. One or Europe’s biggest troubles is that each member state wants to remain different and specially-treated somehow. There’s no option for unity while there are still disparities in the community. And that’s why we can’t have a ‘constitution’: because voters would have to choose, and many ‘European’ voters are more patriotic than… well, continent-otic? So politicians are having to get together to negotiate a compromise that isn’t quite constitutional, but also sort of is.
At least Ireland has promised a referendum to its voters.
‘Really Re-elected?’ Update
As noted in ‘Really Re-elected?’ Mikhail Saakashvili officially, technically won the elections in Georgia with 53% of the vote, besting his opponent, Levan Gachechiladze, who received less than half of that. But rallies in Georgia from opposition supporters show that it’s difficult to ever really win an election in the situation Saakashvili is in. Whether they’re true or not, allegations of fraud and poll-rigging are bound to fly. Which means that Saakashvili isn’t just the target of angry opposition in Georgia – Western countries that support the vote and want to let it stand (if only to maintain Georgia’s stability), are also on that list. It really is just getting hard to win around here. And not just for Saakashvili. The US has to support democratic elections: that’s is default stance. It is not their responsibility to conduct an investigation into whether or not the elections were ‘really’ democratic. That’s what the election commission and the courts are for. And then the US (and everyone else, t00) is supposed to support their decision. If we didn’t and sent in people to ‘ensure’ democracy, there’d be accusations of meddling with the questions over whether or not the elections were really democratic. Like there were questions during the Iraq election about whether or not the US’s presence was good or bad. Either way, there would have been criticism, just as either way, this Georgian election was going to come under fire.
Really Re-elected?
Georgia’s president has been re-elected, preliminary reports are suggesting, after a snap poll in which he has won around 52% of the votes, just narrowly avoiding a second-round vote:
This vote was supposed to legitimise his continuing as president by proving his democratic credentials in the face of accusations about his leadership lapsing into the authoritarianism he once opposed, but opinion still seems divided about the legitimacy of his leadership, both inside Georgia, and without.
As we might expect, opposition leaders are calling for a second-round vote, claiming this round to have been fixed, but it does seem that this was a legitimate election win for Mikhail Saakashvili. However, enough people clamouring about fraud will always cause concern. The head of the monitoring group from the Council of Europe has urged other political leaders (both in and out of Georgia) to respect the verdict “for the stability of Georgia.” The US has already waded in to urge opposition leaders in Georgia to accept Saakashvili’s win, but Russia has taken the opposite stance. And this is really the point. Even with 52% of the votes won legitimately, Saakashvili’s position is hardly rock-solid. Even if this first round ends the election, the stability of Georgia may be sadly short-lived.
‘Really Re-elected?’ Update
As noted in ‘Really Re-elected?’ Mikhail Saakashvili officially, technically won the elections in Georgia with 53% of the vote, besting his opponent, Levan Gachechiladze, who received less than half of that. But rallies in Georgia from opposition supporters show that it’s difficult to ever really win an election in the situation Saakashvili is in. Whether they’re true or not, allegations of fraud and poll-rigging are bound to fly. Which means that Saakashvili isn’t just the target of angry opposition in Georgia – Western countries that support the vote and want to let it stand (if only to maintain Georgia’s stability), are also on that list. It really is just getting hard to win around here. And not just for Saakashvili. The US has to support democratic elections: that’s is default stance. It is not their responsibility to conduct an investigation into whether or not the elections were ‘really’ democratic. That’s what the election commission and the courts are for. And then the US (and everyone else, t00) is supposed to support their decision. If we didn’t and sent in people to ‘ensure’ democracy, there’d be accusations of meddling with the questions over whether or not the elections were really democratic. Like there were questions during the Iraq election about whether or not the US’s presence was good or bad. Either way, there would have been criticism, just as either way, this Georgian election was going to come under fire.