That EU mess

Dutch politics, EU "democracy"
Published on

Some two weeks ago, the Dutch government decided that holding a second referendum about the new European Union treaty was not needed. Balkenende patiently explained, in his own inimitable style how the criticisms levelled against the original EU constitution had all been answered with this new treaty, that it was no longer a treaty anyway and besides, the Netherlands could not afford a second no. The coalition partners agreed, including the PvdA, the party that had championed the original referendum two years ago, but now glad not to have to deal with another no vote or inclined to fight with their partners over this. After all, the criticisms have been met and the treaty is different from the constitution, right?

Wrong.

A very “helpful” British report on the new treaty was published this week, and it turns out it’s essentially the same as the old constitution. Which means most of the reasons the Dutch government gave for not holding a referendum have fallen by the wayside. The only remaining still valid argument is the one that was the real reason all along: that a second no would “damage the Dutch position in Europe”. In the end, the will of the people can not be allowed to inconvienience the progress of the EU project. A referendum is only useful as long as it will endorse the treaty.

But ignoring the problems with the EU doesn’t mean these will go away. For decades the Dutch have been more or less enthusiastic supporters of greater European unity, when it was all still fairly esoteric and dull, not sharing the hangups the British have about surrendering sovereignity. In the last decade or so however, this support has been draining away, as the result of two developments: the metamorphosis of the EU from a trade organisation into something more like a real state and the enormous enlargement of the EU. The euro hasn’t helped either. It has all happened too soon and too fast for people to be comfortable with.

And because there has never been a real debate about the European Union in the Netherlands, as support for the union has long been a given for all mainstream parties, because succesive governments never sought to stimulate debate other than giving people the vague impression European integration was a good thing, a sort of moral stance rather than a political position and granted, also because most people were more than willing not to care overtly much about the EU, we’re now in the position that we cannot afford any debate anymore, because the EU train has to move on and we have no other alternatives. But public support for it has been lost and is not likely to be soon recovered, as more sovereignity is given up for dubious benefits.

Top 5 socialist blogs — that are not updated enough

Meta, socialism
Published on

After the Socialist Unity list of the top 101 leftwing blogs and Histomat’s Top Ten International Socialist Blogs, I thought it was time to prepare my own top five socialist blogs –that haven’t updated in yonks or don’t update enough.

Honorable non-socialist mention: Vaara.

A puzzler

Israel/Palestine
Published on

Here’s a puzzler for you. While “foreign insurgents” in Iraq and Afghanistan are routinely condemned as the worst of the worst, which other Middle Eastern country has no problem with letting foreigners like Jeffrey Goldberg serve in its army, with not even a hint of disapproval from the usual suspects?

Death of criticism: film at eleven

"Literature"
Published on

It must be a month with a vowel in its name, as once again the Guardian‘s blog Comment is Free has an article lamenting the death of professional criticism, this time written by one Ronan McDonald, who isn’t important enough to have his own Wikipedia entry. His article follows the usual pattern of these things: first an assertion of the importance of literary criticism, then the contrasting of a vanished golden age of criticism when critics were Taken Serious as arbiters of good taste, with the present democratisation and vulgarisation of opinion through blogs and Amazon ratings, all the while confusing criticism with reviewing, followed by a call to arms to the great unwashed to once again let professional critics determine what we should like or not like. The following excerpt is typical in its confusion:

The bloggers and reading groups often claim that they would rather get recommendations from someone they know, someone with similar tastes. One problem with this is that the public are relying on a reviewing system that confirms and assuages their prejudices rather than challenges them. An able and experienced critic, with sufficient authority, could once persuade readers to give unfamiliar work a second chance, to see things they did not see at first glance. In that respect, critics can be the harbingers of the new.

Can we rely on the bloggers to bring vital if alienating art to a wide audience? The conviction that educated taste is an elitist ruse, that one opinion is as good as another, and that we should take our lead for our cultural life solely from people like us might seem like an instance of “people power”. Yet the death of the critic is to be mourned. If we only listen to those who already share our proclivities and interests, the supposed critical democracy will lead to a dangerous attenuation of taste and conservatism of judgment. Without critics of authority, the size and variety of contemporary criticism may ultimately serve the cause of cultural banality and uniformity.

See? It positively reeks of sour grapes and fear. Literary criticism rarely sold papers anyway, and with informed opinion on almost every book imaginable just a google away, who would want to buy a Guardian say to read up about the latest predictable novel by a well established middle aged author, reviewed by a friend of said author hoping for a nice blurb from him for their own next book? Professional critics these days rarely if ever champion controversial art other than that branded controversial by the artist because it’ll sell better… Modern art and literature has gotten in a rut, is created and written for a small circle of London literati, smug and self satisfied and professional criticism echoes this.

Meanwhile for every professional critic eking out a living regurgitating received wisdoms, there are thousands of people online just as qualified if not more so to give their opinion about art, even when we would want to adhere to McDonald’s absurd standards, and who do it for free, for the sheer love of literature, of art. And they aren’t bound by London conventions…

Brown bottles out

Nu Labour, UK politics
Published on

The question has been doing the rounds for weeks now: will he or won’t he? Today the answer came: he won’t. Brown won’t call for an early election:

Mr Brown told the BBC he had had a “duty” to consider whether to hold an election, but decided against it so he could show his “vision” for Britain.

[…]

He denied the opinion polls had led to the decision not to hold an election, saying: “I have a vision for change in Britain and I want to show people how in government we’re implementing it.”

Pressed on the decision, Mr Brown said that the series of crises since he became PM in June meant “the easiest thing I could have done is call an election. I could have called an election on competence”.

He added: “We would win an election, in my view, whether we had it today, next week or weeks after.”

But, he said: “I want the chance in the next phase of my premiership to develop and show people the policies that are going to make a huge difference and make a change in the whole country itself.”

That’s typically New Labour, to always talk as if they’ve just come into power, to ignore their own history. It’s always new policies, more change, new approaches, new opportunities for the people of Britain, as if the past ten years of Labour governments never happened and the Tories have just been ousted from power. This way their own mistakes and failed policies are swept under the carpet, while keeping the momentum of a new government. Having an early election would be part of that process, if Brown had been confident he could’ve won and won convincingly. But he bottled out and now he’s going to recreate this momentum the oldfashioned New Labour way: with lots and lots of new, improved, not very well thought out policies.

However, none of this changes one very important fact: that Brown has become the prime minister of Britain without ever having had a mandate from the voters.