LaoSexMachine
03-16-2007, 09:32 PM
http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/img/printer_friendly/news_logo.gif
Europe diary: Whiff of hypocrisy
15 March 2007
BBC Europe editor Mark Mardell looks at varying definitions of hypocrisy in different parts of Europe, the unknown cost of EU efforts to avert climate change, and the Blair-Merkel relationship.
The diary is published every Thursday - bookmarking this page will always take you to the latest issue.
BLOOD IN THE WATER
Heard the one about the politician's *** life, the gas guzzler and the Pope?
Shortly before last week's big summit to cut carbon emissions, European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso uncharacteristically blew his gasket. He was being questioned about his choice of vehicle - a monstrous 4X4 which pumps out three times as much CO2 as a proposed new EU law would allow. The hacks were just doing their job: to most journalists the very whiff of political hypocrisy is like blood in the water to sharks. But the Portuguese politician wasn't going to play by these rules. He said: "If we start now creating the idea that for every person we establish a certificate of good behaviour there is a risk that tomorrow it is not only ecological behaviour, it is family behaviour, ****** behaviour." Should we scoff or accept there is a genuine cultural argument here?
THE OLIVE OIL / BUTTER LINE
Just before this, someone close to Mr B was telling me of his boss's frustration at those in the media who were busily checking which commissioner drives what car. The gist of it was that he could not see why politicians - technical experts at designing the best possible laws - should have to behave in a certain moral fashion before any such law is introduced.
My contact claims this is a line through Europe, much more wobbly and patchy but just as real as the olive oil / butter line. It is the political line between Catholic and Protestant Europe. He thinks it is very Protestant to expect politicians to be secular saints who lead by example.
According to this theory, most Catholic nations accept flawed human nature for what it is and know that preachers may stumble in practice without affecting the truth of their doctrine, or indeed the wisdom of their laws. The flaw in this argument is that in resolutely Catholic Belgium it has been a great sport for the press comparing what monstrous cars ministers drive.
ARISTOTLE AND THE STOICS
I was just musing on this when I got stuck in Madrid airport until the small hours, courtesy of Sir Ricky B. It's a wonderful new airport but the priority on such occasions is to conserve reading matter in case the plane never arrives.
This bit of colour is just to explain why I finally got around to reading Europe 2050, a pamphlet of essays published by the Finns to mark their presidency at the end of last year. It had evidently been lurking at the bottom of my spacious if inelegant flight bag for several months, journeying with me around the continent. What caught my eye was an article by Juha Sihvola. The professor argues that the difference in European social policies goes back to the ancient Greeks. To sub down a complex argument to its very basics, he says that the Aristotelian tradition of man as a social being fed in to Catholicism, but the Stoic distrust of emotion and human motives contributed to Protestant thought.
So Aristotle's theory of natural social hierarchies leads to a welfare service run by society at large and focused on those in most need. Stoicism, with its distrust of human nature, leads to universal provision run by the state. And he suggests the Calvinist doctrine of the elect, saved spiritually and rewarded by God materially, leads to an "on yer bike" mentality which "one might be inclined to blame... for... some of the acute problems of modern neo-liberalist ideologies."
THE COST OF CLIMATE ACTION
For my money, the best article on the recent summit was by Dirk Kurbjuweit in Spiegel online (http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,471208,00.html) . He highlights an embarrassing moment at the summit which, strangely, did not result in fireworks, did not lead to anyone's undoing. As much as hypocrisy, politicians being vague with figures acts as blood in the water and triggers hack attack. But climate change is at the moment seen as an issue more important than details, beyond details.
At Merkel's news conference somebody asked the good straight question: how much will all this change to prevent climate change actually cost? Mrs Merkel and President Barroso looked slightly blank, slightly nervous. Into this hesitant gap came the killer follow-up: "What's the cost in euros? Millions... billions... trillions?" Frozen half-laughs from the stage added nothing in the way of a real answer. Mrs Merkel indicated it would all be all right in the end. Of course, this is not the same as a politicians not saying how they'll pay for an increase in spending. It really is very difficult to project exacts costs weighing predicted gain against possible loss, balancing the savings of changing technologies against the cost of developing them. But it left me with the feeling that the real answer to "How much money?" was... er... lots.
EUROPEAN ROYALTY
The Spiegel article is entitled The Queen of Europe. But it seemed to me that Tony Blair rather liked his role as willing lieutenant and courtier to German royalty.
He can in all fairness argue that he first put climate change on the EU agenda at the Hampton Court summit in 2005. Or to put it in a rather more negative way, by dropping Britain's long standing objection to an EU-wide energy policy he opened the door to a deal on climate change. But it is odd how such a dominant politician seems almost happier playing second fiddle on the international stage. Perhaps with Merkel, as with Bush, it is the only role on offer. But who would have thought it, Blair as the ideal no.2? Gordon perhaps?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/europe_diary/default.stm
Europe diary: Whiff of hypocrisy
15 March 2007
BBC Europe editor Mark Mardell looks at varying definitions of hypocrisy in different parts of Europe, the unknown cost of EU efforts to avert climate change, and the Blair-Merkel relationship.
The diary is published every Thursday - bookmarking this page will always take you to the latest issue.
BLOOD IN THE WATER
Heard the one about the politician's *** life, the gas guzzler and the Pope?
Shortly before last week's big summit to cut carbon emissions, European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso uncharacteristically blew his gasket. He was being questioned about his choice of vehicle - a monstrous 4X4 which pumps out three times as much CO2 as a proposed new EU law would allow. The hacks were just doing their job: to most journalists the very whiff of political hypocrisy is like blood in the water to sharks. But the Portuguese politician wasn't going to play by these rules. He said: "If we start now creating the idea that for every person we establish a certificate of good behaviour there is a risk that tomorrow it is not only ecological behaviour, it is family behaviour, ****** behaviour." Should we scoff or accept there is a genuine cultural argument here?
THE OLIVE OIL / BUTTER LINE
Just before this, someone close to Mr B was telling me of his boss's frustration at those in the media who were busily checking which commissioner drives what car. The gist of it was that he could not see why politicians - technical experts at designing the best possible laws - should have to behave in a certain moral fashion before any such law is introduced.
My contact claims this is a line through Europe, much more wobbly and patchy but just as real as the olive oil / butter line. It is the political line between Catholic and Protestant Europe. He thinks it is very Protestant to expect politicians to be secular saints who lead by example.
According to this theory, most Catholic nations accept flawed human nature for what it is and know that preachers may stumble in practice without affecting the truth of their doctrine, or indeed the wisdom of their laws. The flaw in this argument is that in resolutely Catholic Belgium it has been a great sport for the press comparing what monstrous cars ministers drive.
ARISTOTLE AND THE STOICS
I was just musing on this when I got stuck in Madrid airport until the small hours, courtesy of Sir Ricky B. It's a wonderful new airport but the priority on such occasions is to conserve reading matter in case the plane never arrives.
This bit of colour is just to explain why I finally got around to reading Europe 2050, a pamphlet of essays published by the Finns to mark their presidency at the end of last year. It had evidently been lurking at the bottom of my spacious if inelegant flight bag for several months, journeying with me around the continent. What caught my eye was an article by Juha Sihvola. The professor argues that the difference in European social policies goes back to the ancient Greeks. To sub down a complex argument to its very basics, he says that the Aristotelian tradition of man as a social being fed in to Catholicism, but the Stoic distrust of emotion and human motives contributed to Protestant thought.
So Aristotle's theory of natural social hierarchies leads to a welfare service run by society at large and focused on those in most need. Stoicism, with its distrust of human nature, leads to universal provision run by the state. And he suggests the Calvinist doctrine of the elect, saved spiritually and rewarded by God materially, leads to an "on yer bike" mentality which "one might be inclined to blame... for... some of the acute problems of modern neo-liberalist ideologies."
THE COST OF CLIMATE ACTION
For my money, the best article on the recent summit was by Dirk Kurbjuweit in Spiegel online (http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,471208,00.html) . He highlights an embarrassing moment at the summit which, strangely, did not result in fireworks, did not lead to anyone's undoing. As much as hypocrisy, politicians being vague with figures acts as blood in the water and triggers hack attack. But climate change is at the moment seen as an issue more important than details, beyond details.
At Merkel's news conference somebody asked the good straight question: how much will all this change to prevent climate change actually cost? Mrs Merkel and President Barroso looked slightly blank, slightly nervous. Into this hesitant gap came the killer follow-up: "What's the cost in euros? Millions... billions... trillions?" Frozen half-laughs from the stage added nothing in the way of a real answer. Mrs Merkel indicated it would all be all right in the end. Of course, this is not the same as a politicians not saying how they'll pay for an increase in spending. It really is very difficult to project exacts costs weighing predicted gain against possible loss, balancing the savings of changing technologies against the cost of developing them. But it left me with the feeling that the real answer to "How much money?" was... er... lots.
EUROPEAN ROYALTY
The Spiegel article is entitled The Queen of Europe. But it seemed to me that Tony Blair rather liked his role as willing lieutenant and courtier to German royalty.
He can in all fairness argue that he first put climate change on the EU agenda at the Hampton Court summit in 2005. Or to put it in a rather more negative way, by dropping Britain's long standing objection to an EU-wide energy policy he opened the door to a deal on climate change. But it is odd how such a dominant politician seems almost happier playing second fiddle on the international stage. Perhaps with Merkel, as with Bush, it is the only role on offer. But who would have thought it, Blair as the ideal no.2? Gordon perhaps?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/europe_diary/default.stm