Thursday, November 14, 2002
Welcome, Eugenia I know this doesn't have anything to do with international affairs and what Sentinel is all about, but I am so happy I need to tell the world. Welcome, Eugenia Passino!
Celebrating the arrival of a new family member
After some ten years of red tape, my uncle and aunt have finally been given permission to adopt a little girl from the Ukraine. There are more bureaucratic hurdles to clear before they can take her home - which means she won't live with them until early January. But she is now officially their daughter and this is what matters.
posted by Carla Passino at 7:59 PM
Bridging the Gap I couldn't agree more. Problem is that we Europeans - if there is any such thing, given that Europe is more an aggregation of national states than a cultural entity in its own right - are convinced we are right on many issues, from Russia to Kyoto, and are hardly prepared to accept America's 'we know best' attitude. What we perceive as American unilateralism exasperates the situation. The American government puts - quite rightly - America first. Unsurprisingly, European governments do precisely the same thing. Only, they put Europe first. Historically, each major Western European government, with the exception of France, has prided itself on having a special relationship with the United States. However, Europeans are very conscious that, nowadays, this 'special relationship' means that where America goes, Europe must follow. Unquestioningly. But, with the Cold War over, many Europeans are wondering just how well this kind of blind obedience to the United States serves their interests. Because, shocking as it may sound, European and American interests don't always coincide. They do when it comes to war on terror, of course. But, for example, many European companies have strong economic ties with the Middle East, which they are understandably wary of jeopardising. Many countries, such as France, Germany or Britain, have significant Muslim minorities. And, most importantly, Europeans have a different sensitivity to war. Beside the war of independence and the civil war, September 11 was probably the closest thing to a war on the home front that America has ever experienced. Europe, on the other hand, still has fresh memories of the Second World War. For many of us, war is a trauma to be avoided at all costs. Understandably, therefore, European governments are reluctant to jump on the 'war against whoever the US sees as an enemy and sod the UN' bandwagon. Unfortunately, the Bush administration's bullying, often childish attitude towards Europe does nothing but widen this cultural gulf. What we desperately need is a bridge: something, or better someone to remind Europeans and Americans that, beyond superficial differences, they fundamentally share the same vision of the world, and they need to stick together to uphold it. Hey, I have an idea: bring back Bill Clinton!
Yet another long ramble on the Europe v America diatribe
Commenting on a UPI report on growing euro-scepticism among American diplomats (via Instapundit), Calpundit raises a very interesting point on Euro-American relationships: "The war against terrorism is mostly a war of ideas, only occasionally backed up by military force, and in a war of ideas the more allies you have the better. I don't think we can afford to lose Europe any more than they can afford to lose us."
posted by Carla Passino at 2:13 PM
Wednesday, November 13, 2002
The Courage to Choose Will Britain join the euro? "My Government will make a decision on whether to recommend entry into the single currency on the basis of the assessment of the Five Economic Tests to be completed by next June." We have heard the story of the Five Economic tests since Labour got to power in 1997. The great novelty is that the Government is now setting a specific date for the tests - but will a policy decision follow? I doubt it. How will the House of Lords be reformed? "My Government looks forward to considering the report from the Joint Committee on House of Lords Reform." Now, this is a clear policy direction. And what about hunting with dogs: will it be banned? "A Bill will be introduced to enable Parliament to reach a conclusion on hunting with dogs. Parliament will be invited to scrutinise legislation in draft on a number of measures, reflecting the importance that my Government places on pre-legislative scrutiny by Parliament." I'm sure that the people of Exmoor, whose livelihood depends on hunting, are much relieved at the thought of Parliament's pre-legislative scrutiny over their future. Despite introducing 19 bills and drafting three more, the only issue which the Queen's Speech addresses with clarity - beyond the liberalisation of pubs' opening hours - is crime. Two bills will tackle sexual offences and anti-social behaviour respectively and one will deal with the reform of the criminal justice system. And here, a quiet revolution takes place: the double jeopardy rule, according to which you can't be tried for the same crime twice, will be abolished. "The Bill will … allow retrials for those acquitted of serious offences where new and compelling evidence emerges. It will also simplify the rules of evidence to allow judge and jury to hear all the facts, including relevant previous convictions of a defendant." The end of double jeopardy has caused sensational furore in Britain- if nothing else, because the protection has existed since Norman times. And that's good news. I'd rather see this government have the courage to take a controversial decision -any decision, even one I disagree with (such as, for example, Blair's stance on Iraq) - than die of inertia while trying to please all the people all the time.
The 2002 Queen's Speech dodges many issues but it introduces a quiet revolution of the British criminal justice system
Finally unveiled…Tony Blair's plan to extend drinking hours. Seriously, the 2002 Queen's Speech - the annual event in which the Queen announces her Government's key proposals for the year - was, in many ways, a disappointing affair. Blair's government perfected the art of 'dodging the issue', at which it already excels, on a number of hot-potato policies.
posted by Carla Passino at 3:20 PM
Tuesday, November 12, 2002
Trouble is afoot-ball. With such a strong customers’ loyalty, it’s not a wonder that most clubs have tried to cash in, moving (or pretending to) into the entertainment business. The rapid growth of cable and satellite TV, the increase in merchandising revenues, the rich sponsorships were suppose to transform European football clubs into money machines. Alas, results have been disastrous so far. Revenues are down, Costs have skyrocketed, and all that money has been passed directly from the fans’ pockets into the hand of now-multimillionaire players. With the exception of Manchester United, the richest but above all the best-managed team in the world, all clubs are going down the financial drain. Where wealthy (and I mean VERY wealthy) patrons can cover losses running in the hundreds of million Euros, clubs still have a breathing space. But other franchises that rushed into crazy IPOs, whose proceeds were burned in six months of salaries, are now facing the financial disaster. Fiorentina (disclosure: that’s my team), once an Italian powerhouse has been relegated into fourth division for its financial troubles, many other teams in Italy and England are risking a similar fate. Where did it all go wrong? The problems were and are many. From poor management to the mindset change necessary to manage a for-profit business as opposed to a big money-losing PR machine (this is what most clubs were before for their owners), from the disappointing take-up of the cable and satellite TV to the general economic crisis and the diminishing ad revenues. But the biggest mistake has been to ignore the lessons from the professional US sports, where concepts as the salary cap are now familiar to everybody. Things are slowly starting to change but not before many other clubs will go into receivership or get out of business entirely. The beautiful game will still be there but many teams may not.
Football clubs in Europe are discovering that being profitable is more difficult than winning the Champions League
Football (the one played with the feet) is more than a passion in Europe. In most countries it’s akin a religion for its supporters. One can get divorced, emigrate, convert to another faith but would never ever change the allegiance to his or her favourite team.
posted by Mooraq at 6:05 PM
Monday, November 11, 2002
Right, Left. Left, Right. Traditional positions such as the centralizing left vs. libertarian right are disappearing to be replaced with a centralizing (mainly French) position vs. a de-centralizing (British-inspired) group. It would simple to dismiss this as the usual French vs. British clash. It’s much more than that. In fact the main fighting is happening within the political parties themselves, with old Marxists often aligned with extreme Conservatives. Last weekend, about half a million people marched in Florence against the war on Iraq (traditionally a leftist issue) but also against the opening of global trade (usually a bastion of the right). They were shouting slogans against Mr. Blair (who is left) and in favour of Jacques Chirac (right) but also against Mr. Berlusconi (right) and for Schroeder (left). It’s too early to look at this as the emerging of a new structure of political aggregation but it is worth noting that, since economic themes are not differentiating between left and right that much anymore, since ideology is dead and buried, voters are looking at different things when deciding where to put their Xs on the ballots. The best definition I got so far of this emerging structure is reformism vs. conservation, which does not coincide with any traditional political party yet, but it might be the shape of things to come soon.
Europe is redrawing its political map. In a subtle way.
God is dead, Marx is dead and ideology is a thing of the past. Without this clear moral compass, political battle lines needs to be re-thought and re-drawn. In Europe the transition is taking place within the framework of the discussion about the future of the Union.
posted by Mooraq at 11:03 AM
 |
|