About David Weman

The founder of A Fistful of Euros. He is Swedish, and was born in 1980. Works as a translator and subtitler.

Orange Refill

Viktor and Yulia, together again.

April 6 (Bloomberg) — Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko’s Our Ukraine party will team up in parliament with an alliance led by former premier Yulia Timoshenko and the Socialists, said Our Ukraine spokesman Valentyn Mondrievsky.

The Regions Party, led by Viktor Yanukovych, which won the most votes in March 26 elections, will remain in opposition, Mondrievsky said in a telephone interview today in Kiev. Our Ukraine party was third in the elections, behind Timoshenko’s bloc and the Regions Party.

Timoshenko had been demanding reinstatement as Prime Minister. It’s not yet clear whether that demand has been met.

The idealism of neocons

Sadly, No!: What’s The Phrase I’m Looking For?

The real concern to neocons is that the democracy in question is pro- or anti-American (or -Israel). And whatever new excuse they come up with to finesse their latest instance of double standard-bearing with regard to democracies, it will rest on the same nationalist underpinning as the Kirkpatrick Doctrine, disguised with a new false distinction (maybe the new “authoritarian vs totalitarian dictatorships” will be “liberal vs. illiberal democracies”).

One thing is certain: what is guaranteed to continue is neoconservative war-mongering.

Although in the days of detente neoconservatives often attacked Henry Kissinger (and always from the Right; he was never quite bloodthirsty enough for them, which is all you really need to know), they greatly resemble him in basic morality. The essential difference between neoconservatism and Kissingerian realism is not due to some high-minded idealism of the former, but rather due to neoconservatism’s greater love of aggression and its gift for manufacturing intellectual veneer. If Kissingerian realism can be described as pragmatically amoral, neoconservatism can be defined as aggressively immoral[.]

How not to govern

European Tribune – How not to govern

But what is certain is that these decisions make a mockery of our institutions. It undermines the rule of law (“ignore the laws we pass”), it shows that thos government is such a lameduck that legitimacy for negotiations must come from the outside (the UMPparty), it turns the prime minister (for being sidelined for a junior minister) and the president (for being unable to get rid of his reckless prime minister) into objects of ridicule, and it shows, if ever proof was ever needed, that the interests of France are the last thing on these people’s minds, who are focused only on their personal prospects at the next election, still a year away.

Defining protectionism down

Something worthwhile on the new Guardian blog: A post by Daniel Davies.

Economic “protectionism” is back in the news with a vengeance, with France objecting to takeovers in the steel sector, Spain putting together national champion utilities and the USA crying blue murder over Dubai Ports World’s proposed acquisition of P&O. James Surowiecki had an article in the Saturday Guardian painstakingly setting out the conventional wisdom on this subject (ie that it’s very bad). Trouble is, this isn’t really what “protectionism” means.

Via Atrios.

Ceuta’s place in history

Brian Ulrich writes a brief history of Ceuta.

What’s more, Ceuta has historically been a gateway to Europe rather than one to Africa. As noted above, the city was difficult to take, but even after it was taken, the mountains surrounding it meant that you couldn’t easily advance into the Moroccan interior. However, many invasions of the Iberian Peninsula and reinforcements of Muslim positions there were launched from its harbor. In fact, one could take this “gateway” pattern even up to the present, where desperate African economic migrants try to use it as a stepping-stone to continental Europe.

Via Coming Anarchy