EURSOC news and comment from Europe

Well, he is the product of North London Marxists. Here's Matthew Parris on Ed Miliband:

About Mr Ed I’ve always had the impression — and was reminded of it again in his conference speech in Manchester this week — that he is one of those North London Labour intellectuals who find it genuinely difficult to believe that there could exist people of sound mind and humane instincts outside the circle of light in which the intelligent Centre Left feel they are bathed.In the surrounding darkness there can only be (they suppose) fools or, worse, knaves. When they meet us they tend to pay what they honestly mean as a compliment: “I can’t believe you’re really a Tory,” they say. And they can’t. It is beyond their imagination.

Also in the Times, which has admittedly made a theme from the suspicion that Labour choose The Wrong Chosen One, Daniel Finkelstein:

Ed, like his brother, is an intelligent, rather nice man. He’s a bit serious sometimes, perhaps, but maybe that is just because he cares a lot about the politics of belonging and it weighs him down or something. I don’t, however, think he much likes or understands people who voted for David Cameron. He regards supporting the Conservatives as a very odd thing to do. He gives you — and I am not the only person to experience this — a sort of compassionate but rather irritated look, as if you are a bit dim, perhaps, and certainly a great disappointment to him.

Britain's leftists concluded earlier than their European counterparts that the war on the economy was lost - temporarily, at least. They retreated into the media, the cultural sphere and the education system, better to shape the minds of the next generation. Labour followed their progress, becoming ever more distant from its roots among the working classes and ever closer to the idea of a metropolitan elite which holds the monopoly on truth.

Ed Miliband is the first product of that phenomenon.

From Geek to Gandhi

Only weeks ago, David Miliband was roundly mocked in the press. He was a banana-brandishing policy wonk with no life outside politics and the habits of Star Trek's Spock. Even his residency at the foreign office was much-maligned: Miliband Senior managed to offend both the Russians and the Indians with his sanctimonious pronouncements. Some commentators even felt nostalgic for Margaret Beckett's stint in the job.

Now that he has been defeated in his bid to become Labour leader by his little brother Ed, David has been awarded the mantle of Labour's King Across The Water, its "Brightest Star". His decision to quit frontline politics has been greeted with the kind of wailing and gnashing of teeth that follows the retirement of a great sportsman. He is, according to the Times, Labour's greatest leader that never was. A man so far ahead of his competition in the leadership race that only someone as thick and pig-headed as trade union activist could fail to see his dazzling brilliance.

Is this another manifestation of Britain's renowned love for the loser? Or was Miliband, D, really the best Labour could do?

On a related note. Do those Tories who believe Labour has condemned itself to defeat by selecting Ed Miliband really believe that i. Miliband is much more left wing than the average Liberal Democrat, ii. that if David Cameron couldn't defeat Gordon Brown after three years of Broonian misery he'd be able to beat young Ed?

Titanic Tale

EURSOC Three on a marine tragedy that continues to fascinate and cause controversy

The famous White Star Line passenger ship ´Titanic´ hit an iceberg  14 April 1912, on her maiden voyage.

Because of a ´basic steering error. Second officer, Charles Lightoller - perhaps - persuaded the Captain, Edward John Smith, to continue straight, instead of 40 nautical miles, port-side. (Left).

If anything more can be known about the disaster, it is that Lightoller, ´covered-up´ the error in two official enquiries in Britain and America, because he was afraid it would bankrupt ´White Star´ and have his mates un-employed. In the end, White Star was bought by Cunard of Liverpool.

The Cunard Line steamship, RMS Carpathia, saved over 705 people.

From Newfoundland, Canada, there were messages sent to Carpathia. This was of help.
The Captain, Edward John Smith ´went down with the ship´. As was naval tradition. He was the last to leave. And died.

The ´Carpathia´ was torpeoded by the German U-Boat, U-55; 17, July, 1918.

No one was saved.

Roma where you want to

EURSOC Three looks at the spat between France and the EU over the Roma

Tensions between France's President Nicolas Sarkozy and the European Commission continue to be super-heated thanks to divisions over France's treatment of the Roma minority.

Responding to France's targeting for deportation of 8,000 Roma, EU justice commissioner Vivian Reding drew comparisons with the Nazi Holocaust (in which an estimated half-million gypsies were murdered).

Sarkozy, unsurprisingly, was furious. He later had a stand-up row with the President of the EU Commission José Manuel Barroso, who tried to tone down Ms Reding's remarks but appeared to indicate that France would be the subject of an EU investigation nonetheless. Sarkozy's supporters suggested that if Ms Reding is so keen on the Roma, she should invite them to live in her native Luxembourg, which as the EU's richest nation by capita may not have much space but does have plenty of money to support their community.

The problem for both sides is that there in some truth in both sets of accusations, and there are wider implications for the European Union.

For Sarkozy's part, he is correct in arguing that the deportation of the Roma to Bulgaria and Romania are merely implementations of EU law. Citizens of the two newest member states have to demonstrate that they are capable of supporting themselves if they want to remain in France (and much of the rest of the west). The Roma, who employers are reluctant to hire and who seem to get by on begging, scavenging and petty crime, are clearly unable to do so.

While Roma numbers in France are low compared to neighbouring Spain, the minority has become much more visible in big cities (particularly on public transport) in recent years. Some French citizens grumble that a crackdown on the Roma in Italy drove thousands to France.

While Sarkozy's deportations have received much criticism on French television, there's little indication that they're overwhelmingly unpopular. Footage of mothers clutching babies being ushered into vans by police, their husbands carrying their meagre possessions, will always tug the heartstrings of a nation which sees itself as a defender of human rights. Yet for every viewer outraged by these scenes polls suggest there is another happy to see the back of representatives of Europe's most unloved minority (your correspondent has himself been lectured in a Paris park by a Roma lady on her people's plight, as her son attempted to wrest his wedding ring from his fingers). There is much mileage in Sarkozy-bashing, but it would be a brave opposition leader who ran on the slogan "Let the Roma stay and do as they please: We will pay for it."

On the EU's side, a leaked memo which indicated that the French government had specifically targeted 300 Roma camps as a "priority" is evidence that Sarkozy's campaign is aimed at a particular ethnic group and thus in breach of human rights law. Moreover, they say, the incident which sparked the deportations, a riot by itinerants near Grenoble, was not related to Roma but to France's own travelling community.

Both the Commission and Sarkozy are spoiling for a fight. The Commission sees a clear breach of the Human Rights of Roma, even if Ms Redings terms were outrageous and hysterical hyperbole. Someone must stand up for this minority which is indisputably discriminated against. If the result is to wrest the power of border control and citizenship even further from the clutches of national government, well all the better.

Sarkozy hopes that by defending France's honour on the European stage he can convince moderates who are uneasy about the deportations that he is the best guardian of France's interests. As his poll rating remains stubbornly low, this performance might be his last chance.

News Blackout for Cameron

BBC technicians and journalists are threatening to disrupt coverage of two of the year's most important news events in protest against pension reforms.

David Cameron's first speech to the Conservative Party Conference as Prime Minister is likely to be hit by the first strike, set for October 5 and 6 - timed to coincide with the Conference. The second walkout is planned for October 19 and 20, when Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne is set to reveal the government's spending plans review - or cuts, if you prefer.

Union sources describe the BBC's likely coverage of both as minimal should its broadcasters and technical support carry out their threats.

Tories have accused the BBC's staff of revealing their left-wing bias. The Conservatives should stop grumbling: They are in power now for the first time in nearly two decades (though they are forced to share power with the LibDems, who are more attuned to the BBC's pensée unique than even Labour). Do something about it! If BBC hacks refuse to cover the two most important events in the British political calender, hand those press passes out to alternative news operations.

Every newspaper has a video operation now: They can cover the speeches. Allow video bloggers and citizen journalists armed with Flip cameras to cover the conference. Flood the market with alternatives, to show both the BBC (and, more importantly, the public) that there are plenty of other news sources out there - the BBC's state-funded dominance overshadows all other operations, from Murdoch's SKY News to smaller independent operations.

The BBC's best trick is to persuade us there is no alternative: A 1970s style blackout is the best opportunity for news groups and government to demonstrate otherwise.

The land-grab comes to an end...

Does the backlash against land purchases in the developing world mean that the era of globalisation is coming to an end?

Two very different reports by two very different columnists dwell on the future of agriculture. In the first, motoring columnist (and farm owner) Jeremy Clarkson muses on the hay shortage in his part of the world. Because of a poor harvest, hay has unexpectedly become very expensive, leading previously upstanding country gels to consider pinching their neighbours' supplies. Looking further afield, wheat crops have also been dreadful in Russia, pushing the price of bread up in UK supermarkets. Britain is supposed to have a secure network of food supplies - yet the impact of a hopeless summer in the Ukraine can affect us all: Wheat prices are up 70 percent since the beginning of the year.

Clarkson doesn't mention the numerous other disasters that could befall nations who produce to sell in the west. War, disease, drought, the arrival of a protectionist regime, competition from nations with more money to spend, or a more agreeable regime... globalisation is caused by and a result of interconnectedness. But just as wealth and talent circulate freely, less welcome phenomena can also spread with ease.

Why can't we grow in Britain, wonders Clarkson, no doubt surveying his 400 acres in Oxfordshire. 400 acres which the government pays him to grow nothing on - with the exception of hedgerows - doubtless to fulfill some EU regulations, to keep big supermarkets sweet and to protect the various animal species which inhabit his land.

So where is our future food security coming from?

Soon we might need Clarkson's acres. Ambrose Evans-Pritchard reports in the Telegraph on how a backlash is developing against the "Neo-colonialist" rush for agricultural land in the developing world.

For some years, rich nations have been buying land in the developing world in order to feed their growing populations. China, South Korea and Saudi Arabia are among the biggest purchasers in Africa. Even India is getting in on the act, with Indian businesses backed by soft government loans purchasing vast tracts of land in Ethiopia, Kenya, Madagascar and other African nations.

It is easy to depict this as a neo-colonialist land grab by the rising powers of Asia, but Western funds are also aggressive purchasers of African and Latin American land. Our governments, steeped as they are in colonial history, are understandably wary of being seen to send men to Africa with Pith Helmets again, and prefer private enterprise to lead the charge. It is the business of leading financiers to be one step ahead of business, government and the wider public. They study geopolitical currents and global forecasts, laying bets on where money can be made in the short-to-medium term future. And there's a growing consensus that agricultural land will soar in value.

From Ambrose Evans-Pritchard:

"Hedge funds that struck rich 'shorting' US sub-prime have rotated into the next great play of our era: 'long’ soil. "Productive agricultural land with water on site, will be very valuable in the future. And I've put a good amount of money into that," said Michael Burry, star of 'The Big Short'."

The official line is that much of the land being bought is unused or poorly exploited by its previous occupants; that globalisation's policy of openness benefits us all; that farming in Africa allows Indian and Chinese businesses to develop economies of scale and transportation unavailable to the village-sized family farms at home (it is estimated that because of inefficient transport, £6 billion of India food rots before it ever reaches market).

Cultivating the developing world will also help the rich and almost-rich world to feed its own people. 

According to the World Bank, demand for food is likely to rise 50 percent within the next two decades, due to increasing population, greater prosperity and the consequent change in diets (we eat more meat as we become more affluent, for example). Much of what used to be farmland in China and India are being paved over; Saudi Arabia and South Korea, for different reasons, simply lack sufficient usable acres.

One can understand why so many western financiers are now looking at agricultural land as the greatest safe bet investment of them all.

However, the World Bank, which is officially positive about the globalised economy, is beginning to show concerns about the scale of acquisitions and their potential effect on the developing world.

Some reasons for their concern from Evans-Pritchard:

While the report endorses the Bank's open-door globalisation agenda, the sub-text dissents on every page. "Large land acquisitions come at a high cost. The veil of secrecy that often surrounds these deals must be lifted," it said.

It warns of a "resource curse" that may enrich a small elite, leaving wreckage behind. Proposals are not properly screened. Peasants are forcibly displaced. Communal grazing lands are closed off. Some investors manipulate opinion with a media blitz of false promises. Nothing has been produced so far on almost 80pc of the land purchased. Benefits are often minimal, "even non-existent". In Africa, the land rush is diverting effort from the core task of helping small farmers raise yields.

The Bank implicitly questions whether it is wise to divert half of the world's increased output of maize and wheat over the next decade into biofuels to meet government “mandates". It will be another decade before the stalks and other inedible parts of plants can be used in bulk.

Governments are belatedly waking up to the crisis. Foreigners are believed to own 7 percent of Argentina's land laws are being drafted to limit what is for sale. There are particular concerns about foreigners occupying regions rich in hydrocarbons, minerals and water, which suggest that they don't plan to grow but to exploit other resources. Madagascar recently pulled a deal with Korea's Daewoo to plant corn on an area of land half the size of Belgium: "Madagascar is neither for sale or for rent", said the new government.

Brazil's government minister has said that Brazil must belong to Brazilians, prompting Ambrose to comment that this could signal the end of globalisation's half-century.

Land has totemic value, as Evans-Pritchard observes. Politics will always prevail over the demands of the globalised economy. Imagine an African or Latin American country suffering famine or drought, its citizens looking wistfully through barbed wire at thousands of fertile hectares, now producing wheat for China or who-knows-what in the name of one of the west's great maligned hedge funds. How could a government justify this? And if an angry, starving mob stormed the barrier to feed itself - to be fought off by Chinese or private security workers... it is not difficult to imagine such a scenario, or the potential outcry.

And so EURSOC wonders, just how secure is our food security, dependent on it is on a teetering network created by globalisation? And when will Britain look closer to home for a means of feeding more of its people?

Sense of perspective

As the Muslim world simmers with fury at the prospect of a half-witted American preacher burning copies of the Koran, one's eye is drawn to rather more serious crimes directed towards Christian communities.

Yesterday, an Indonesian minister was beaten and a worshipper stabbed in the stomach in an escalation of violence against Christians near Jakarta. The attackers, members of the so-called Islamic Defenders Front, have been making the lives of Batak Christians a misery for some months.

"they have thrown shoes and water bottles at the church members, interrupted sermons and dumped feces on the land", reports the Guardian. The thugs have also attacked bars, targeted transvestites and beaten anyone else who they judge to be "blasphemous." They campaign to have the Christian church closed and, it appears, no-one in either the police force or the local government seems particularly concerned about their violent activities.

No-one in the western media, either, by the look of things.

Similar blind eyes are turned in Algeria, where in January this year, a mob of Islamists burned a Pentecostal church to the ground. The pastor was quoted as saying that worshipers fled when local police left a gang of local rioters unchecked.

Egypt's Copts are also subjected to violence and persecution, the bloodiest recent attack in January claiming the lives of eight people, leaving church after Christmas mass. There have been sporadic incidences of violence over the years, but they cannot be deemed the work of isolated fanatics: In 2008, a several thousand-strong mob attacked a Christian church in Cairo on the day of its inauguration, forcing the congregation to barricade themselves in the building. 

In Turkey, the Christian community is embattled. Three years ago, three Christians were murdered at a Bible publishing firm. A year before that, a priest was stabbed to death by a fanatic. 

The list is long and depressing and the incidents above are far from being comprehensive. Such attacks are not limited to Muslim countries. Chinese Christians are subject to restriction on where and how they worship (such restrictions have failed to prevent the Christian community in China from growing at an astonishing rate, however).

We don't support Koran-burning or any such attacks on faiths and the faithful. We simply wish that our press and leaders would get a sense of perspective on the above. We have nutters willing to offend millions by burning their holy book, and those nutters are subjected to demented coverage in the press, which seems determined to portray Florida Preacher Terry Jones as somehow emblematic of American attitudes to Islam.

Meanwhile, our co-religionists are subjected to repression, bullying, violence and even murder - but one must dig deep in the press to find a mention of this persecution.

Fasten your seatbelts

British trade unions are threatening industrial action and civil disobedience on an unprecedented scale once the government reveals its plans for public sector cuts over the party conference season. Flush with the success of last week's day of action, France's unions have called for a repeat performance next Thursday to force Nicolas Sarkozy to reconsider his plans to raise the retirement age. Massive protests are already taking place in Greece, where the civil service salaries and pensions have already been subjected to 20 percent cuts. In the face of a promised winter of unrest, the Socialist PM George Papandreou says that no further cuts are required - a claim likely to baffle the economists who argued only months ago that Greece's debt was unsustainable. There have been protests in Spain, Italy and Romania, with a European Day of Action being called by militants for 29 September.

It's going to be a bumpy night.

Behind the Paywall, Day 5 (addendum)

One place the Times does provide unique content is in its leader column, where it is still possible to find otherwise perfectly sensible voices defending Tony Blair.

Today's leader attacks those who dare criticise this "world class statesman" as the products of "venomous irrationalism." Blair hate is "more virulent (than the loathing Margaret Thatcher provoked) but also drearily predictable."

Predictable in that it is, according to the leader writer, lead by people who don't simply oppose the Iraq War but support the insurgent opposition.

This is disreputable nonsense. It is perfectly true that the Stop the War coalition, the most tiresome and vociferous of Blair's critics, is, as the leader writer has it, "not itself antiwar: it is pro-war on the other side."

Unfortunately for Blair and his few remaining defenders, Stop the War is not the only group likely to chuck an egg - or worse - at the former PM as he continues his book signing tour. The overwhelming majority of British people believes that the invasion of Iraq was a catastrophe for Britain. Blair is fortunate that he is pursued only by small groups of protestors, rather than million-strong mobs of disgruntled British subjects.

Iraq is the worst British blunder since Suez; perhaps even a greater foreign affairs disaster. 179 British troops died in Iraq - never mind the countless thousands of innocent Iraqis killed by the actions of our troops and our allies.

The families of those troops - and those of the 334 killed in Afghanistan - have a right to throw whatever ordure they like at a man who sent to many to their deaths for reasons only he and the leader writer of the Times appear to understand.

And then there are Labour voters, who saw their hope for Blair turn to despair as he expended his political capital on this appallingly ill-advised adventure. Pro-Europeans who saw him turn from his early Europhile philosophy towards a divisive US, centrists who wondered why someone so close to Bill Clinton would throw his lot in with George W Bush, moderate Atlanticists who cringed as Blair performed one of his many arse-licking speeches of praise to US politicians. We can't claim to speak for Labour voters, but one expects that they, too, would be among those willing to toss rotten vegetables at their former leader.

If anything, defending Tony Blair is a minority sport and it is only fitting that it now appears only in what has become a minority interest newspaper.

Behind the Paywall, Day 5

Your correspondent attempts to get by on one newspaper website for the week: The Times

 

 The best thing you'll see in the Times all week

It's becoming even clearer to me that newspapers online aren't the closed-off, autonomous articles that we used to have delivered every morning - or even the self-contained "apps" some of us now buy on iPads or Kindles. They are, by their nature, fluid things, updated throughout the day (or they should be) and, even if they don't regularly link to outside websites, discovering further information is a simple matter of opening another browser window and searching for the background you need.

Our fathers might read a story in a newspaper, be intrigued by a name or place and consult the Encyclopedia Britannica for more background. If he's still interested, he could pay a visit to the library to read more. They would have to take a quoted official - or the quote the journalist chooses to publish - more or less on trust. Today's reader simply has to fire up Google and find an entire world of background: Dissent, elaboration, support articles and first-hand reports by other players.

It took a long time for journalists to come to terms with the fact that amateurs on the internet can contradict their reporting. In theory, it should keep them honest and us better-informed. But is it sustainable?

It's difficult to understand how newspapers can exist as paid-for "walled gardens" amid so many billions of pages of free information, particularly from other news companies. Any such "walled garden" is going to have to be pretty damn attractive to keep readers within.

Unfortunately for the Times, the most striking image on its website in the past week has been Gemma Arterton's rear view in a pair of tight shorts, from the trailer of her new film Tamara Drewe. And that's not even exclusive content - you can find it on YouTube. The newspaper's web "exclusive" - an interview with some of the film's cast - is marred by dodgy sound recording. For the first minute, one can barely make out what Arterton and her co-star are saying. And we bloggers are supposed to be the amateurs!

Worse, it's a typical celebrity publicity interview; there are people interested in this sort of PR operation, but they find the same cast repeating the same clichés on numerous free channels.

The overwhelming sensation as a Times reader for a week has been, "this is OK, but would I pay for it?"

EURSOC went into this experiment with a fairly open mind. I support paid content. I don't think the figures stack up for those who wish to rely solely on advertising and even if they did I don't believe it is healthy for a free press to rely on the whims of advertisers any more than it should be funded by the state. The paying reader should, in an ideal world, be at the bottom line and he is who editors and publishers should be considering, not pleasing advertisers and PR operatives.

But that said, I like the idea of paid content, but I can't see how it can work. There are too many alternatives out there for Times readers. Moreover, the website feels unfinished. There are too many repeats, the readers who comment are a lonely breed and there are technical hiccups in the multimedia offering. Readers might be tempted to pay a few quid to an alternative news source to help get their operation off the ground and accept the inevitable start-up gremlins, but with his riches, Rupert Murdoch should be selling the finished product.

Unless the other UK papers join the Times behind the paywall, the "Googlejuice gloaters" are right. It simply won't work. What does Murdoch do then? Carry on with his defiant experiment regardless? Admit it was a failure and return with a free edition? Pull the Times website altogether and sell only a paper and iPad edition?

Unfortunately, it is likely that at least one UK daily will go to the wall before this experiment concludes.