Falklands Are a 'Colony?' Tell that to the Falklanders

The Falkland Islanders don't want to be sold out by their fellow citizens.

Much has been made of Sean Penn's latest verbal escapade, and there's not much more that can be done, other than mentioning this. I just thought I'd bring you all some good news from the South Atlantic that flies in the face of Argentina's pretensions: the people of the Falkland Islands have held a voluntary procession along the islands' main thoroughfare, waving British flags and calling for their UN-enshrined right to self-determination to be respected, by both world leaders and right-on celebrities alike. One local, noting that the inhabitants donated several pounds per person to the Haiti earthquake fund which Sean Penn was deeply involved with, deliciously told told the American celebrity - known for his world around the world - that 'we have rights too.'

British people were the first to permanently settle on the islands, and, barring brief interludes of abandonment or conquest, the islands have been British for all of their recorded history. Aside from some in a small community of Chilean citizens (who held a similar demonstration to declare their support of the UK), almost all of the residents have British passports and full British citizenship. Their simple gesture proves at a stroke not only that the usual accusations of colonialism and jingoism are wrong, but that to call for their handing over to Argentina is to set yourself against the democratic will of the people.

The Prolier-Than-Thou Cult of Celebrity

Wear a picture of a smoking mass-murderer? You're 'hip'! Wear a picture of a Tory? Crossing the line there, pal...

Am I the only one who thinks that an odd assemblage of music personalities falling over themselves to be prolier-than-thou actually rather funny? First we had a long list of self-appointed men of the people publically forbidding Republican presidential candidates from using their lyrics, following on from our own home-grown storm in a teacup when UKIP leader Nigel Farage attempted to use Tubthumping by British alternative rock (and anarchist) band Chumbawamba. The band reacted with 'total and absolute outrage and horror,' helpfully adding 'Nigel Farage is an arse' by way of justification. Oh, and Morrisey banning David Cameron from liking his music. Now, we have Noel Gallagher explaining comments he made about Lady Thatcher, which, he claims, were misconstrued.

Originally, media reports had him praising her, stating that 'under Thatcher there was a work ethic,' and it was better culturally, to boot. He even seemed to take a dig at modern celebrity culture, noting that under Labour and the 'coalition thing' all people want to go is get on television. Sadly, for those right-wing celebrity watchers who thought someone from the music industry was finally coming out of the world's deepest closet, it was not to be: he later claimed that his comments were misinterpreted, saying on his blog that 'all great working class art...came about in spite of that woman and her warped right-wing views, not because of it.'

In doing so, he's obeying two rules that prominent critics of Thatcher have to adhere to: one, they have to be tremendously rich. Three years ago, he was worth $27,000,000 (£14,000,000), which definitely puts him in the '1%' category. He then added 'if anyone's reading this - particularly from the Inland Revenue - I haven't got fourteen million quid in the bank...not in cash, anyway.' Not what I'd call a man of the people, but he certainly fits in well with New Labour. Two, his experience of the Thatcher years is limited. Unlike most of her critics, he was actually alive at the time, which I guess is something - but I doubt he was a prominent conniseur of working-class art at the time. Examining the finer points of proletarian expression is not that high on the list of priorities for a twelve-year-old, just below buying a skateboard and climbing trees. Not to mention finding a new source of milk after that warped right-wing witch took it all.

Still, Noel Gallagher's personal views aren't important. This is: if the left is as committed to stamping out societal inequality as it claims, so much so that it has put numerous examples of 'affirmative action' legislation in place to disadvantage white males, why does it not tackle what is perhaps the most glaringly public inequality of all - the total lack of right-wing celebrities? About sixty per cent of the European population is right-wing, according to election results (look at the domination of the EPP, bearing in mind that EFD, and ECR are also right-wing affiliations). Almost all the US electorate is right-wing by British standards. So why is there no celebrity worth mentioning who espouses anything to the right of Nick Clegg? There's the occasional waft of right-wing rhetoric from some virtual non-entity (as proven by the fact that you can't guess who that could possibly be), but the number of radical left-wing ideologies in comparison to moderates and right-wingers is hypocritically disproportionate.

Believe it or not, this is a serious problem. The chief argument for affirmative action is to represent society accurately. How accurately, then, can celebrities - doubtless the biggest influence on most people's opinions today - reflect society if one half of it is excluded, and the other is represented by its most radical elements, such as Michael 'capitalism is evil' Moore and Sean 'those who criticise Hugo Chavez a dictator should be jailed' Penn?

Report Claims Conservatives Are Less Intelligent Than Liberals

Does not having to read that sign make me a liberal? Picture by Peter Facey.

It’s the oldest trick in the book: to claim that your side is, by definition, more intelligent than the other side. Since time immemorial humans have been lambasting their critics and conquerors as being of somewhat less-than-average intelligence. Now, a group of Canadian academics from Brock University in Ontario have gone one stage further: they’ve had it published in a journal.

A ‘controversial’ report, published in Psychology Science, claims (with a fair few mealy-mouthed caveats) that conservative people tend to have lower IQs than their more liberal counterparts, and then went on to offer an explanation – that people who have an ‘innate’ lack of intelligence gravitate towards authority and order, as they are less capable of managing their own affairs and their own morality. If you approach conservatives from the classic (false) belief that they think all change to be bad, it makes a token degree of sense. But surely there’s enough empirical evidence to prove that all such studies are bunk?

Not only does their claim that left-wingers are more tolerant ring hollow when coupled with insinuatinfg that everyone else is innately thicker - a contradiction wonderfully exemplified by the unintentional self-satire from triumphant left-wingers in the comments section of the Daily Mail - but it fails to take into account some self-evident truths. There are ready wits and gross ignoramuses on both sides of the spectrum. Einstein, one of the greatest minds of all time, exhibited great fondness for socialism, yet some of his most worthy predecessors - virtually all the leading thinkers before 1800 - would have been ultraconservative, by today’s standards. The levels of racism and xenophobia expressed by some of our more esteemed Enlightenment thinkers and early philosophers would land then a hefty fine and a prison sentence, yet they were not stupid - not by any stretch of the imagination. Much of their work frames the modern world. And, if it is determined by innate intelligence, as the report specifically states, how and why can a person’s viewpoint can change over time?

That’s just on an individual scale - on a grand scale such a study makes even less sense. There are five hundred million people in the European Union, two thirds of whom (according to election results and European Parliament blocs) are right-wing. Are two-thirds of the European population mentally stunted? Or, as several of the aforementioned triumphant lefties in the comments stated, ‘tards?’ No. They’re perfectly functioning human beings, thank you very much, and aren’t any less so because their cross on the ballot paper doesn’t square up to that of someone else. Take a look through the comments of the Daily Mail article for the ultimate proof of how the study is wrong: watch, as the people who - it claims - are more tolerant and open-minded turn condescending, spiteful, and bigoted when someone dares voice an alternate opinion.

The 'Citizen's Initiative' is an Exercise in Hot Air

The 'Citizen's Initiative' is an exercise in hot air. Picture by JLogan.

We have just weeks to go until the European Commission launches the biggest experiment in participatory democracy anywhere in the world. It is called the 'citizen's initiative,' and, fittingly coming into play on April Fool's Day, is widely hailed as a landmark in democratising the European Union, and making it more accountable to the people. Political commentators and analysts have been gushing over it since it was first announced, welcoming it as revolutionary, uber-democratic, and impressive: a new era in direct participation, apparently.

Well, it may be revolutionary - this is the first time EU citizens have been given the ability to direct Commission (that is, executive) policy. But uber-democratic and impressive it is not. In fact, aside from the vaunting and adulation, it's pretty much worthless. It is a petition-based procedure: if a petition gets gather at least one million signatures from at least quarter of the EU's member states, the Commission will then take it upon itself to consider legislating in that field. That's right, consider. There's nothing legally binding to do anything other than think about it. If the Commission doesn't want to do it, it won't happen - regardless of how many people put their names to paper.

Second, that is an awful lot of signatures for a petition to get, taking into account language barries. Especially across seven states. What happens if the same petition pops up several different times, each in different languages? Each of them only has a few hundred thousand signatures, but together they have well over a million. What then? Do they count? At the Commission's convenience, most likely. If they are true to past form when it comes to public consultation, a la Irish referenda, they'll adopt anything they do like and ignore anything that they don't. You can bet that 'greater fiscal control for the Commission' will get passed with 'popular approval,' and, say, 'let's see Barroso's million-euro expenses forms' won't because it doesn't meet the criteria.

Thirdly, all the vaunting and adulation is missing the point - this isn't 'democracy' at all. This is evidence of a lack of democracy. Why implement a petition-based system where citizens have a chance at directing policy and legislation - if the lawmakers agree - when you could just make the lawmakers elected in the first place? That's true democracy - choosing who you want in government and telling them what laws to make. Not jumping through hoops to please unelected officials who might then deign to ignore you regardless.

***********************************************************************************

In other news, a stunning example of why proper democratic oversight is sorely needed has been brought back from the EU's Valhalla. Jacques Santer, who resigned - along with most of his Commission - amid allegations of mass-corruption in 1999 is now chief of the debt-selling 'SPIV' - the fundraiser for the European Union's 'new' (read: latest) bailout fund.

A Massive Blow for Parliamentary Neutrality

Martin Schulz has just taken over the Presidency of the European Parliament. The German leader of the Socialist parliamentary group was far and away the most obvious candidate to take the role, ahead of Green MEP Rebecca Harms, Conservative MEP Nirj Deva, and Liberal MEP Dianna Wallis. It was, in EU fashion, something of a stitch-up: the two dominant parliamentary blocs, the centre-right EPP and the socialists, had already agreed to share the presidency. This is more comparable to the Blair-Brown handover than it is a 'free vote' of MEPs, as Mr. Schulz insists. With most British politicians in the EU still suffering 'collateral damage' as a result of David Cameron vetoing their proposed European treat - or, as it ought to be known by analysts, 'pulling a French one' - the other contenders really didn't stand much of a chance.

But Schulz's appointment isn't just about foregone conclusions making a mess of democracy. It is of vital importance, from a democratic standpoint that the Presidency of the European Parliament remains neutral; something that Mr. Schulz is not, by any stretch of the imagination. Not only is it the only one of the six EU presidences to be subject to a popular vote, but it is also the only chamber of EU government that citizens get to see in action. Where the Commission and the Council are headed (or populated) by unaccountable, appointed individuals, the President of the Parliament is always an MEP. And, where the Commission and the Council are often highly secretive and sealed off from the media, the Parliament is always open - it even has its own television channel (Europarltv), the only glimpse into the workings of the European Union that citizens of Europe are likely to get. Parliament is also the only venue for views which differ from those of the Commissioners (who are almost exclusively from the centre-right EPP) can be aired. In other words, a vital asset - one whose premiership should be put beyond the reach of one side or the other.

The position itself is one of tremendous power. Although it may be largely ceremonial in the grand scheme of things, in the chamber, the President is king. This was exemplified by a 'riot' in the Parliament back in 2008, when eighty MEPs protested the decision to hold the Irish referendum again with banners and placards. The President of the Parliament ordered the banners confiscated, the MEPs escorted out, and had some of them disciplined. The punishments included fines of up to one thousand euros and explusion from the chamber.

But it was all decided arbitrarily. Although several MEPs had called for the protestors to be removed, the final say was the President's. In the end, thirteen MEPs faced discipline: one of them, according to Nigel Farage, had 'never shouted in her life.' And another, Andreas Molzer, was, as pointed out to Parliament by Mr. Farage, actually in Frankfurt. The President of the European Parliament has the power to evict MEPs at a whim, even when their innocence - for the crime of 'protesting,' no less - can be readily proven. That is not power that Mr. Schulz should wield.

Mr. Schulz was one of those MEPs that called for the protestors to be removed. He called them Communists and Nazis. Insults which he has employed repeatedly, although takes offence to when deployed against him. He once famously called a Dutch MEP a 'fascist' because he said that details of Barroso's expenses - over one million euros per annum - should be made public (the video has since disappeared from YouTube channel. But you can still see its husk here in all its uncontestable glory). He's as far from neutral as it's possible to get in the European Parliament. So why does he now hold the post where neutrality is most important?

*****************************************************************************

In other news, the European Commission has claimed that 'it knows better' than ratings agencies when it comes to the financial viability of its rescue fund. It cited 'secret evidence' which, it claims, shows that European economies are in a much better financial position than it cares to admit. Although it sounds like bombast, we shouldn't dismiss this announcement too readily - after all, it knew Greece was fiscally incontinent a long time before it told anyone else.

Diane Abbot's Comments are Decades Out of Date

Map of Africa, pre-conquest. Divisions clearly visible.

Make hay while the sun shines. I have a feeling that the right-of-centre commentariat is going to make enough hay out of this one to fuel a medium-sized powerstation for a week. Diane Abbot, former Labour Party leadership contender and current MP for Hackney, has came out and made the kind of sweeping generalisation that, were she a Tory, and were any other ethnic community the object of her ire, would have prompted calls for her resignation from more than a lone Conservative MP. In a response to someone on the social network site Twitter, who made the profoundly sensible point that the term 'black community' is a load of bunk (and who, incidentally, is black), she tweeted: 'white people love playing divide and rule. We should not play their game,' and then tagged it 'tactic as old as colonialism' for good measure.

She denies what she said is racist, which it isn't (it's prejudice: racism, pre-PC, meant something rather more extreme), and apologised for the way it had been 'interpreted.' But there is no other way that a sentence beginning with 'white people love...' could be interpreted. If an MP stood up in the House of Commons and said 'black people love...,' there would be a collective intake of breath and there would be no fewer than three Guardian articles commissioned. But, racist or otherwise, it's quite wrong.

I am a white person. I do not wake up in the morning and think: 'how can I subjugate black people today?' At the risk of falling into a cliche, I do not have all too many black friends (at least not as many as a quota would suggest I should), but I do know and speak to black people regularly, and, funnily enough, the thought of emphasising their Ghanaian and Nigerian passports to stoke division and make it easier to oppress them does not enter my mind. I doubt it troubles many other members of the 'white community,' either. It is not the government's policy, and nor do white people have a collective conscience: our 'divide and conquer' tactics are entirely in Ms. Abbot's head.

She may have noticed that the only one, as far as I'm aware, to call for her resignation - loveably on the basis of 'offending' his constituents - is one Nadhim Zahawi, MP for Stratford-upon-Avon and an Iraqi-born Kurd. An African think tank, which purports to 'strengthen principled Afrikan Unity in struggle for Global Justice,' derided her generalisation. Her one prominent defender, George Galloway, happens to be white. There is no finer illustration of just how irrelevant racial lines really are in modern, mainstream Britain: her attitudes to race relations, where people only think in terms of their 'community' (which, in the case of the 'black community,' is a lot more diverse than the race relations industry gives it credit for), are stuck in the same century as those colonialists she thinks still exist.

The 'Three Millions Jobs' Claim is a Massive Lie

Tony Blair is known for his exaggerated claims.

 

If you're thinking that the pages of the Guardian are looking a little bare of fiery pro-euro commentary at the moment, you're right. They are. It seems it all the avowedly pro-euro commentators that produced them are giving up on the British electorate, In their efforts to escape a world of unashamed and unabashed 'nationalism' and 'xenophobia,' some, such as Richard Cohen, go to America. Others go to Oman. Adrian Croft has written a piece for the Oman Daily Observer, which almost sounded neutral until he wheeled out the phrase 'vocal band of EU-haters.' He goes on to make some familiar pro-euro claims for the benefit of the Omani readership, repeating the somewhat accurate but nonetheless misleading claim that 'half our trade is with the EU' assertion, before dragging out the oldest and most roasted chestnut of all: that over three million jobs depend on our EU membership.

This is a claim that anyone who's waded so far as ankle-deep into the EU debate will have heard more times than they can care to count. But there's a problem with it. No-one actually said it. The original statement, made by the National Institute for Economic and Social Research on behalf of Britain in Europe, a think-tank of high-flying politicians including Tony Blair and Kenneth Clarke, was that three point five million jobs were involved with trade with Europe, which, including every piece of paid employment that's in any way to do with a product exported to or imported from the Continent, is a different thing entirely. The NIESR's then-head, Dr. Martin Weale, was so outraged by how the pressure group twisted his words that he likened them to Nazi propagandist Goebbels. His exact words were 'in many years of academic research I cannot recall such a willful distortion of the facts.'

He, of course, was only referring to how they'd disfigured his statements: even if it was true that three point five million jobs depend on trade with the EU, that says nothing about the pros and cons of EU withdrawal. There is no reason to believe that if we left the EU this trade would cease. There are one hundred and sixty-two reasons to believe the opposite: the countries of the world, who, although they are neither members of the EU nor the European Economic Area, still manage to trade freely with both. Often, the trade that countries in this group generate is, in most instances, much smaller than that between the EU and the United Kingdom. It includes Afghanistan, Sierra Leone, Haiti, for example. Plus, many of them have a trade surplus with the EU - i.e. they make more money from trading with the European Union than the EU makes from trading with them - whereas the UK is currently running at a deficit of £48,000,000,000.

It is inconceivable that EU countries would cease trade with us if we left - one, most countries on the planet have never been members of either the EU, or even the single market, and yet they can import and export as they please. Two, they'd lose a lot of money from lucrative export markets. There is a historical precedent for those who still aren't convinced: an island, a part of Denmark with the population of a small town, left the EU's predecessor, the EEC, in 1985 following a popular referendum. Yet they still trade with the EU and EFTA.

And if you still aren't convinced, here's a quote from Tony Blair himself:

'Of course Britain could survive outside the EU...we could probably get access to the Single Market as Norway and Switzerland do'