Referendum or Referenda?

Posted on by

No this isn’t a linguistic point about the plural form in English. According to Wikipedia at any rate both forms (referendums and referenda) are acceptable (but I did feel the need to check). The issue here is rather whether the referendum is a singularly British obsesssion, something which in the French context is lacking in real significance. This, at least, would seem to be the conclusion you could reach if you went by Alain Jupp?’s latest pronouncements on the matter:

European countries should think carefully before copying Mr Blair’s “rather personal, and perhaps I should add, ultimately British, initiative”.

“When it comes to choosing [between ratification by vote in parliament and a referendum], we would like to take a concerted approach with our partners and in particular with Germany,” Mr Jupp? said at a press conference.

And this despite, of course, the fact that Jacques Chirac delared in Thessaloniki last year that he was “logically in favour of a referendum” since “It would be the only legitimate way”.

In my schooldays we were taught that referenda were a very un-British thing. That their existence in the constitution of the Fifth Republic was one of the weaknesses of the French way of doing politics. That they could lead to demagogic manipulation depending on how the question was framed. My oh my, how things have changed!

The British sovereignists are the most fervent advocates of this most ‘un-British’ of institutions, while the home of referenda finds the present suggestion an ‘ultimately British’ initiative.

I suppose the definitive, long-standing objection to the referenda system has to be the leeway it provides for all that jiggery-pockery we are currently seeing.

As the FT observes:

“Mr Chirac’s decision will hinge on his estimation of whether the Socialist opposition would seek to trip the government up in a referendum either by calling for a No vote or by encouraging voters to see it as a protest vote against an unpopular administration.”

Principles, above all principles.

From History to Hope.

Posted on by

One of the more important lessons of what has come to be known as the ?transatlantic rift? is that designing political communication for domestic consumption has become much more difficult and is certainly more likely to have undesirable unintended consequences in an increasingly interconnected world.


Zionist heritage in Cologne.A recent example of these difficulties is US President Bush?s letter of support for Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon?s plan to relocate Jewish settlers from Gaza in return for an explicit American recognition of Israel?s right to keep some settlements in the West Bank and a ?realistic? scenario for the ?right to return? of Palestinian refugees. What seems like an inevitable move for both politicians ? giving the Prime Minister, weakened by continuous allegations of corruption, the political clout to propose his plan in an increasingly difficult parliamentary environment – is equally inevitably causing resentment ? as much as opportunities for posturing – among the Palestinians and the other negotiating parties, even if less for the substance than for the ?unilateral? style. But the letter is hardly a new ?Balfour Declaration?, as some commentators rather naively stipulated.

I doubt any serious politician eve r believed in an agreement based on more than the idea (?land for peace?) of the UNSC resolutions 242 and 338. In fact, even the famously balanced and incredibly unofficial ?Geneva Accord?grants Israel the right to keep several settlements (or 2,5%) of the territory occupied in 1967. But last week?s letter (and even more so the press conference) was about politics, not facts.

Continue reading →

It could have been you.

Posted on by

Gentle readers, you may not have noticed it, but about an hour ago, we at AFOE welcomed our one hundred thousandth visitor. It could have been you – but if I counted correctly, it was a reader from a British academic institution (ac.uk).

But, obviously, he or she would not have the “lucky one” without your continuing interest in this blog. So – thank you.

An end to balance

Posted on by

This morning’s Independent had a map of the EU on its cover this morning (concerning which states may hold a referendum on the constitution), but looking at it, another thought struck me. When the ten new member states join the EU next month, for the first time in its history republics will heavily outnumber monarchies within the EU. Of course, all monarchies within the EU are constitutional and limited monarchies, but the two forms have always been in close balance throughout the EU’s history.

The original six members who signed the Treaty of Rome in 1957 were balanced: Three republics (France, Germany, Italy), two kingdoms (Belgium and the Netherlands) and one Grand Duchy (Luxembourg), giving a 3-3 split. The first enlargement in 1973 placed the monarchies in the lead for the first and only time with the UK and Denmark making them five-strong to only 4 republics (now including Ireland). Balance was restored with the accession of Greece eight years later and maintained with the addition of Spain and Portugal in 1986.

The republics took the lead for the first time in 1995, adding Finland and Austria to their ranks, with only Sweden joining the monarchies. Exact balance, of course, is impossible with an odd number of members, yet had Norway decided to join then, balance would have been maintained.

However, that balance will be lost, probably forever with the next ten members, all of whom are republics, none of whom seem to be likely to be restoring or introducing a monarchy in the near future. The closest any of the new members come to a monarchy are Malta and Cyprus, both members of the Commonwealth which has the UK’s Queen Elizabeth at its head. Indeed, balance seems likely to never be restored with Norway and Liechtenstein (and perhaps Morocco in the long term) the only monarchies left to not be members.

Of course, this has very little effect on the politics and operation of the EU, but I thought it was a interesting point of trivia worth noting.

Undressing Brains

Posted on by

Ok, get ready, this is going to be an extremely weird, not to say ‘whacky’, post (well, what else would you expect from the so-called president of the association of ‘whacky economists’: at least nothing dismal I hope).

The idea started to form in my mind as I was writing a mail earlier this morning to a fellow blogger. As the ‘correspondent’ (this term is, please note, also used to describe one of the parties in adultery-based divorce proceedings ) was young and female I felt the unusual need to hedge what I was saying with all kinds of qualifiers to avoid the wrong kind of interpretation. Since the ‘undressing’ thing is a metaphor which I would like to continue to use I thought it might be better to come out of the closet now and declare my secret ‘peeping tom like’ proclivity for this bizarre practice.

Full disclosure: I enjoy watching other people ‘undress their brains’, I have even what may be described as an ‘un-natural’ interest in the topic.

Now if you are over 18, and willing to risk your luck, please press continue reading.
Continue reading →

Anti-Islamism in France

Posted on by

One of the things I looked for during the recent discussion about anti-semitism in France was some statistics about anti-Islamic and anti-Arab violence for comparison. I was shocked that I couldn’t find any. The French government went out of its way to disagregate data about antisemitic attacks, but could not even be bothered to track attacks on mosques. I knew that there had been attacks on mosques – I remembered seeing them on the news – but no figures seemed to be available. All I could find was Tariq Ramadan, a fairly visible European Muslim intellectual, making the same complaint.

Today’s news from AFP leads me to think Ramadan may be on to something:
Continue reading →

A Francophone President in the White House?

Posted on by

This week’s New Yorker has a rather discouraging item for European anti-Bushites – e.g., most of us:

PARDON?

[W]hen John Kerry became the front-runner for the Democratic Presidential nomination [France 2 Washington bureau chief Alain] de Chalvron and other French journalists in Washington were understandably excited. They knew about Kerry: he went to a Swiss boarding school, he has a cousin who ran for the French Presidency, and he supposedly wooed Teresa Heinz by impressing her with his fluent French.

For a time, Kerry seemed equally enthusiastic about the French reporters covering his campaign. “He was quite accessible in Iowa and New Hampshire,” de Chalvron said the other day, in his office in Washington. “He understands French very well. His words are correct and sometimes even sophisticated. [..]

Everything changed, though, when, in recent months, Republicans started intimating that Kerry was too Continental. Conservatives complained about his touting of endorsements from foreign leaders, and Commerce Secretary Donald L. Evans told reporters that Kerry “looks French.” Right-wing talk-show hosts began referring to him as “Monsieur Kerry” and “Jean Cheri.” […]

Suddenly, Kerry appeared to develop linguistic amnesia. “During a press conference, I asked Kerry a question, on Iraq,” de Chalvron recalled. “He didn’t answer. In front of the American journalists, he didn’t want to take a question that was not in English.”

[Via Language Log]
Continue reading →

Guess Who’s Been Here for Dinner?

Posted on by

More than 7.3 million people living in Germany are citizens of another country. Along with roughly 115,000 other Americans, I’m part of an insignificant minority, outnumbered by Greeks (355,000), Serbs & Montenegrins (570,000), Poles (480,000) and Italians (601,000). All of us, of course, are outnumbered by Turks (1.88 million). Spare a thought, though, for the 10,000 Aussies and Kiwis, of whom there are far fewer than stateless persons or people of uncertain citizenship (70,000).

The numbers are all from a report released yesterday by the Federal Statistical Office and discussed in today’s Frankfurter Allgemeine (p. 9).

All told, people who only hold a foreign citizenship make up 8.9 percent of Germany’s population, a share that has held steady since 1998. Average tenure in the country is 16 years. On average, Slovenes have stayed longest, with 26 years. (The Slovenes up and downstairs from my apartment have got that beat by a good bit.) Spaniards come next at 25, which is only fair given Mallorca, followed by Croats and Austrians (23), Italians and Greeks (22) and Turks (19).

The main reason the share of foreigners has held steady, according to the Statistical Office, is that people who are eligible are taking German citizenship, under a law that went into force in 2000. There are still plenty of problems associated with migration, immigration and integration, but these numbers are basically good signs.

And the next time a conservative German politician says something about the country not being a destination for immigration, please, laugh out loud. It’s the only appropriate response.

A French Referendum?

Posted on by

More information is now becoming available about the proposed UK referendum on the EU constitution which Nick drew our attention to yesterday.

The FT has an article today which fleshes out some more details, including the fact that an ‘unnamed’ French minister expressed fears that any decision by U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair to hold a referendum on the European Union constitution may hurt the treaty’s implementation.

“We don’t see any malice in Tony Blair’s decision as he is not an adversary of European construction . . . However, it [Mr Blair’s move] does create difficulties as the treaty needs to be ratified by all members.”

You bet it creates difficulties. Seven other EU members have already indicated they will or could hold referendums on the treaty: the Czech Republic, Denmark, Luxembourg, Ireland, Netherlands, Portugal and Spain. Now it is clear that France will be under pressure to do likewise. It would be a foolish person who tried to make a short-list at this stage of those which were a certain bet to say yes.