Andrew's Blog from Brussels

Now that the dust has settled on the massive Irish 'Yes' vote in the referendum on the Treaty of Lisbon, the question of who would eventually become the new President of the European Union has remerged.

Tony Blair, the former UK Labour Prime Minister, is the favourite for this post, which would be created when the Lisbon Treaty comes into action after being ratified by all 27 Member States. Now that Ireland gave their consent, Poland has indicated it too will sign soon, leaving the Czech Republic the only country yet to ratify.

Its perhaps most significant action would be to create the post of EU President to replace the rolling six-month presidency that is in operation at the moment (currently Sweden, Spain will assume control on January 1 2010). This would allow the EU to have a fixed figurehead on the world stage, which it believes will give it much more weight in international relations.

It was The Times last week that reported French President Nicolas Sarkozy as saying he believed Blair is the best man for the job and that German opposition from Chancellor Angela Merkel is said to have softened.

Asked if Blair was the only real candidate, French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner is quoted as replying: "For the moment, indeed." While the opinions of attitude of France and Germany are crucial to any decision, the future president will have be elected by all 27 EU leaders.

But here is the interesting bit, Blair, who appears to be disliked by all political parties in the Parliament, especially by his supposed allies on the left, and many of the national leaders for the UK's terrible decision to engage in war with Iraq amongst other things, may end up being elected because of the lack of another suitable candidate!

[Imagine how Gordon Brown would feel should his former boss, who he finally displaced, became his 'boss' again...]

Because of the arrangements to share posts between the two most represented political groups in the Parliament, the future president will be either a social democrat or a conservative, and while a few other candidates have emerged (for example former Danish prime minister Poul Nyrup Rasmussen, and former prime minister of Spain, Felipe Gonzalez) you can hardly say they have the international clout that Blair possesses. The same is true of the potential conservative candidates Jean-Claude Juncker, the current Prime Minister of Luxembourg, and Jan Peter Balkenende, his Dutch equivalent.

Renowned blogger Jean Quatremer (fr) says that such international status will raise the EU to an equal footing on the world stage with the other big players, such as the USA. But symbolically, how would we all feel with a Brit holding the most powerful post in Europe?

For me, this feels rather uncomfortable considering how disengaged and unenthusiastic we have become to engage with the rest of Europe and participate fully in the European Union.

If Blair's appointment would be a catalyst for the UK to integrate further with the EU, i.e. declare the five economic tests passed and adopt the Euro and become a full member of the Schengen area for starters, then I would be very enthusiastic about the appointment.

But I don't think it will be, even more so with the ominous threat of a Conservative Government with anti-EU David Cameron at its head. At the party's conference, Shadow Foreign Secretary William Hague reaffirmed the desire once in power for a referendum of our own, and consult the public on whether we still want to be part of the EU. Naturally, this would be a catastrophic step and one which I hope will be avoided, but with Blair potentially at the helm of the European ship, you get the feeling it might make the Conservatives even more hostile and more willing to jump ship.

The role of President should be awarded to one of the founding countries, or at least to a country that over the years have proved that it is fully committed to the European cause.

So that would certainly rule out the UK then. But just what is the alternative now?

Labels: Comment, Current Affairs, EU, Politics

Posted by Andrew at 3:16 PM | Permalink | Comments

Do you have a question that you would like to ask Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg? Well now you can, without having to move away from your armchair / computer, as today marks the day that Mr Clegg will hold an interactive Q&A session broadcast live online from 12.oo GMT.

Since becoming Liberal Democrat leader, Clegg has travelled around the country holding weekly Q&A sessions in local town halls, where anyone can come along and ask him anything. But today, his next public Q&A meetings is going to be live and online. There will be no script and no special invitations - just get in touch and ask a question on subjects that concern you.

This level of public interaction via the internet has yet to be done by our countries' politicans, although we've seen the dramatic rise in the use of social networking sites such as MyFace and Twitter and the increased use of personal blogs and websites.

So to find out more and to find out how you can ask the Lib Dem leader a question yourself, head over to the The Great Debate.

I hope he answers my question on whether in the current financial crisis, now is the time for the UK to adopt the Euro single currency...

Labels: Politics

Posted by Andrew at 11:23 AM | Permalink | Comments

A little bit of fun to end the week. As a result of Gordon Brown's reshuffle this week, the announcement of Bob Ainsworth as the new Defence Secretary has marked the return of the moustache into the UK cabinet.

After an absence of 40 years the moustache is back, as this clip from the BBC's Daily Politics show documents (click image to view).

Labels: Politics

Posted by Andrew at 9:38 PM | Permalink | Comments

Imagine the following situation if you will. You’re a die-hard PSG* fan (perhaps harder to imagine than I thought) and you are a civil servant. PSG are about to play Olympique Marseille in what is the football match of the season. It is to be played behind closed doors, without any spectators in the ground, in the middle of the afternoon broadcast live on the TV. You have already taken your week of holiday, and have yet to reach the require 35 hours of work for the week, and if that wasn’t enough, you are expecting your new director general to arrive that week so must be on your guard.

But nonetheless you’re desperate to watch the game. So how can you? This is the dilemma facing Claude Guichon in the play entitled ‘Le Temps des Fonctionnaires!’ that I went to see last night at the Theatre du Gymnase* (Paris 10).

After hearing about this in the local press it sounded exactly the sort of play that would interest me, but I was put off by the price of the tickets. However, I came across a website that offers last minute theatre tickets and I have consequently snapped up a ticket, one of the best in the house I might add, with a reduction of a massive 70%. Was very pleased indeed with that!

So how on Earth therefore could you watch the game live? Surely the answer would be ‘you can’t watch it at all’, but never underestimate the power of a civil servant.

Their solution, albeit rather stereotypically French, is to plot a ‘surprise strike’ which would therefore release him from his work duties long enough to watch the match. The reason for their strike: paperclips.

Constructing the argument that more paperclips would improve the efficiency of the service by 2300%, their new social movement rapidly gains ground. The media are mobilised and start holding debates on whether or not paperclips should be used in the world of work. Vast rallies are held and even the Prime Minister and the President get involved. Difficulties arise also from establishing and mobilising this movement in complete secrecy from their new boss, who could arrive at any time.

Simply put, the whole situation gets completely out of hand. The leader of the movement begins to lust for power following all the media attention the strike received and naturally starts to plot a course into politics based on a manifesto evolving from the demand for more paperclips.

On the day of the strike, naturally the day of the match, more than 12 million workers take to the streets – a huge success you could argue. However, that number included the workers on the TV stations so he wouldn’t even get to see his match after all…

This truly was a fantastic spectacle of comedy. The majority of the jokes were improvised and even the actors themselves struggled to keep a straight face. It presented another jovial look into the life of a civil servant and their practices – a notable highlight for me was the frequent telephone conversations in which the civil servants devised ingenious new ways to be unhelpful and not to tackle that person’s dossier, demanding documents, family photos, birth certificate of their family pet etc…

It was an excellent show and was staged in a really beautiful theatre. I was sat in one of the best seats in the house and paid a lot less than the person next to me, which is always nice! Thoroughly enjoyed the experience so will be searching that website for another cheap seat again soon!

Labels: Concerts, Politics

Posted by Andrew at 9:26 AM | Permalink | Comments

Today marks the start of the Songkran, AKA the Thai New Year. Although Thailand has recognised January 1st as the official start of the year since 1940, this time of the year (13th – 15th April annually to be precise) is still honoured traditionally as a nationwide public holiday.

Normally falling in the hottest time of the year in Thailand, I understand under good authority that what normally now ensues is a large-scale water fight, with the water symbolic for the washing away all of the past years’ evil and the renewal of each person for the year ahead. Songkran therefore is a time for personal development and national cleansing.

However, this year, the water fights have been cancelled.

What normally is a time for peace and respect for elders, has descended into a war-zone set upon a background of increasing political tensions, violence and Molotov cocktails.


Thailand is a divided country; you have the ‘yellow shirts’ on one side and the ‘red shirts’ on the other. Politically speaking, Thailand has been remarkably instable for the last few years and as a result we have seen one crisis after another ever since the military coup that disposed of Thaksin Shinawatra* from power back in September 2006 whilst he was attending meetings at the UN in New York.

Since then the ‘yellow shirts’ and the ‘red shirts’ (pro-Thaksin) have engaged in a bitter tug-of-war over which side should govern. Naturally both sides reject the other's view of who should run the country, and each has staged long-running protests to push their cause.

Cast your mind back earlier this year to November, when the ‘yellow shirts’ staged a sit-in at Bangkok’s Suvarnabhumi International Airport, which subsequently blocked the arrival and departure of hundreds of flights and hit the Thai economy hard.

It was described at the time as “the most dramatic move so far in the protesters' campaign to oust the government”, but it succeeded. A few weeks later, their man – Abhisit Vejjajiva*, who represents the Peoples' Alliance for Democracy (PAD) – was democratically chosen by the members of the government as the new Prime Minister. At the time, many Thais must have thought that their troubles were over. That however was not to be the case.

Their opponents, the United Front for Democracy Against Dictatorship (UDD), believes that Prime Minister Vejjajiva came to power illegitimately and is a “puppet of the military” and so are demanding his immediate resignation and calling for a fresh set of elections from which it strongly believes it would emerge victorious.

To demand this change, the protesters have engaged in similar acts of protest to those of the ‘yellow shirts’. Since March, the protesters have held sit-in protests outside government offices, and have occasionally prevented the cabinet from meeting.

Their major achievement (if you can call it that) is that they successfully managed to force the cancellation of a summit of the Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN) last weekend, which was an important event for the Thai government.

They did this by storming the intended venue for the summit in the seaside resort of Pattaya, making it nigh-on impossible to guarantee the safety of the foreign dignitaries due to attend. Prime Minister Vejjajiva therefore had no choice but to declare a state of national emergency.

The following day, the protesters succeeded in breaking into the interior ministry and have established roadblocks on main of the busy roads in central Bangkok. Tens of thousands of ‘red shirts’ remain camped around Government House, where the Prime Minister's office is based, and are continually spurred on everyday by the words of Shinawatra, broadcasting daily via a video-link.

Shinawatra, who now lives in self-imposed exile here in the UK, faces two years in jail after being found guilty in a conflict of interest case should he return to Thailand. Following this conviction he fled to the UK, where he purchased Manchester City Football Club, only to later sell it on.

Back on the ground in Bangkok, the protesters have now been surrounded by the Thai military. As expected faced with such circumstances, the ‘red shirts’ have started to hit out and the army has not restrained itself from joining in the retaliation. The BBC News website currently displays videos showing soldiers firing hundreds of live rounds, some into the crowds of anti-government protesters, in a bid to clear a big road junction, while the protesters reacted by hurling petrol bombs and driving buses they had commandeered at the lines of troops.

The armed forces chief has since vowed to restore order using "all possible means". These three words can only mean one thing for me: further violence.

Prime Minister Vejjajiva, through his rhetoric and actions this past week, has indicated very clearly that he has no intentions of stepping down and relinquishing his power. The ‘red shirts’ too have shown no signs of stepping down their protests.

In an interesting interview conducted by the BBC today, Thaksin Shinawatra said that while he never ‘instigated’ the attacks, he wants his supporters to fight for democracy and that he offers them ‘moral support’. To watch that interview click here*.

Prime Minister Vejjajiva has since come out and explained that the protestors are allowed to exercise their constitutional rights and demonstrate peacefully but they are not allowed to resort to violence. Under the current state of emergency, gatherings of more than five people can be banned, media reports can be censored and the army can be deployed to help police maintain order. "We will try to find the best solution we can over the next couple of days," he added. Uh-oh.

In the current climate it appears impossible that a solution to end this conflict can be found quickly, peacefully, and more importantly that will be acceptable to both sides. But it is essential that a solution be found, and soon.

Tonight the British Foreign Office issued a statement advising British nationals against travelling to Thailand, a move that will surely be echoed by other embassies as this conflict continues. With Thailand’s economy so terribly dependant on tourists, this could not come at a worst time, especially as the tourist season approaches. Even if a resolution can be found soon, will the country regain the trust of travellers quick enough?

So far only two people have lost their lives, and the injured tally stands at 70 people, 23 of whom are soldiers. The longer this conflict continues, the greater these figures will rise.

Songkran is supposed to be a time of peace, a time of clensing and time of respect. You can hardly say that this is the case this year. Water has been replaced by blood, and water pistols have been replaced by guns and rifles.

So far, it’s not such a Happy Thai New Year. Sawasdee wan Songkran.

Labels: Current Affairs, Politics

Posted by Andrew at 11:48 AM | Permalink | Comments

In the same week that marks International Women’s Day, it would be relevant to pay tribute this week to a woman who has certainly proven that she has balls (pun intended). This woman, of course, is US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who this week sought single-handedly to reverse decades of tensions and hostilities between the USA, Iran and Russia and impose the new American administration’s views upon the world.

She was in Brussels this week on what was her first trip to Europe as Secretary of State, and held discussions with both NATO and EU bodies on topics relations with Russia for NATO and climate change for the EU. Two increasingly important topics.

While on Thursday we learnt that NATO will resume high-level contacts with Russia after having frozen contacts over the conflict between Russia and Georgia, the most interesting development in my eyes came on Tuesday when the world learnt of President Obama’s letter to Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev.

In this letter Mr Obama asked for his counterpart’s support in stopping Iran acquiring long-range missiles. As a trade-off for their support, he is thought to have proposed scrapping the USA’s plan for a missile defence shield to be constructed across Eastern Europe, a plan that quite frankly is one of paranoid-drenched madness.

The US maintains that its planned missile defence system in Europe was conceived to destroy incoming ballistic missiles fired from "rogue states", such as North Korea and Iran, but seen from Russian eyes, this interpretation could also easily be seen to include them, and as a consequence be interpreted as a renewed effort to recreate another east-west division (albeit this time virtual not concrete).

Even its proposed location is significant because those countries were the barrier would be were part of the now defunct Soviet Union, which in the view of the Kremlin still falls within its sphere of interest. The Russian’s therefore were understandably unhappy with the USA’s defence shield plan and the EU was most likely uncomfortably also as this would not only intrude upon its own defence strategies but also give the Russians the impression that it was overtly cooperating against them; an act that could so easily have triggered Cold War II.

But one must still ask whether such a defence shield is really necessary? The Iranian military insists its missiles have a range of only 2,000km (approximately 1,240 miles) which would mean they could potentially hit targets in Greece, Bulgaria or Romania, all of whom are NATO member states. But America, being America, is extremely paranoid and does not believe that. After all, relations between the USA and Iran can hardly be described as warm, friendly and ‘special’ in the same terms as that of the UK.

Just last week I finished watching the BBC2 series ‘Iran and the West’ that I had downloaded, which was an extremely interesting programme outlining this key events in this relationship. From the citizen revolution which disposed of the US-supported Shah in favour of the banished Ayatollah Khomeini, who preached his revolutionary messages from a small safe house on the outskirts of Paris, US-Iran relations have never been great.

In November 1979 the US embassy in Tehran was overpowered by Iranian students who took 63 staff hostage and prompted the US severing all diplomatic ties and imposing strict sanctions upon Iran. Initially the students demanded that the Shah return from the US to Iran to face trial, but later their demands changed to require the USA to promise it never interferes in its affairs in the future. Evidently the superpower did not comply and the subsequent failure of a top-secret military attempt to rescue the hostages did nothing help the USA’s cause nor did the mistakenly shooting down of an Iranian Airbus by a US gunboat in July 1983…

With Hillary’s husband Bill as US president and Muhammad Khatami elected to the position of Iranian President in 1997, there was a brief glimmer of hope as Khatami appealed for a "dialogue with the American people" in American TV interview he requested set up. However, this hope was short-lived, when in a sermon a few weeks later he was sharply critical of the US and its "oppressive policies".

Then, when in January 2002 the-then president George W Bush describes Iran, Iraq and North Korea as an "axis of evil" in his State of the Union address, it became near impossible to see any cooperation and resumption of friendly ties being resumed.

While these are only a small number of incidents (more here*), there is a long-running animosity between the two countries, perhaps as hotly contentious as that between Russia and the USA. So is President Obama’s plan realistic or just extremely optimistic? His campaign may have revolved around the banner of ‘hope’, but I think that this latest step is simply just too hopeful.

Indeed, the arrival of Obama in the White House has exhaled a huge breathe of fresh optimistic air around the world, bought about a renewed sense of global friendships and more importantly brought about a sense of real change. Unsurprisingly, UK Prime Minister was very quick to head to the States and reaffirm the UK’s love and support of America in his speech to Congress. Mr Brown recognises that America is moving forward.

But can the same be said about US-Russia relations? Is there a real possibility now that the Cold War sentiments are really going to evaporate away? Perhaps not entirely. The USA may want a fresh-start but that certainly wasn’t the message that Secretary of State Clinton delivered to Moscow on Saturday (albeit unintentionally).

In case you missed this piece of news, Hillary Clinton gave her Russian counterpart Sergei Lavrov, a mock "reset" button with the complete intention for the gift to symbolise the USA’s hope to mend its frayed ties with Moscow. A good gesture in itself, it didn’t have quite the desired effect as the word written on the button was "peregruzka" meaning "overloaded" or "overcharged", rather than the desired "reset".

Naturally this was a too good an opportunity for the Russian press to miss, and so they poked fun at the Americans, with the one of the daily newspapers Kommersant apparently declared on its front page rather wittily: "Sergei Lavrov and Hillary Clinton push the wrong button."

In true Woman’s Day fashion, Hillary Clinton said in a statement this week that “women's full participation is the key for the international community to combat challenges in the 21st century, since women have a crucial role in tackling major issues such as the global economic crisis, sectarian warfare and terrorism.” She is certainly making her mark and combating the challenges of the 21st century, and her efforts have already bought about changes this week. With talks due with Turkey and China next, you have to wonder what will be next…

Labels: Comment, Current Affairs, Politics

Posted by Andrew at 10:49 PM | Permalink | Comments

Last Tuesday evening I attended a seminar hosted by Temtsel Hao, a producer from BBC World Service China, on the issue of the press in China and the subsequent reporting of the Olympic Games. The impression that emerged from the seminar was that there ‘undeniably existed’ an overwhelming heavy ‘anti-China bias in the Western media’. This is something that I wholeheartedly disagree with and has been on my mind since then. That is, until now.

I should firstly state that while speaking in a personal capacity, that opinion was not that explicitly expressed by Mr Hao, but was that inferred by his speech which referred heavily to the supposedly anti-China coverage by the ‘West’ surrounding the Free Tibet campaign. In his talk he also showed a video from YouTube that was blatant pro-China propaganda produced by a Chinese local, which he then proceeded to explain why each of the ‘facts’ presented in the video was correct and confirmed this bias.

One of those arguments he expanded on revolved around the coverage, particularly by the BBC, of the protest surrounding the Olympic Torch as its global parade reached the streets of London. Apparently the BBC’s articles, such as this one (click here to read)*, drew more attention to the protests than the symbolic message the torch carrying conveys.

Well Duh! In media terms, the successful completion of a torch parade is not news, unless of course all the previous attempts had been interrupted.

Therefore the protests that occurred inherits a massive news value because this is news. I certainly don’t believe that reporting this was anti-China, or even pro-Tibet for that matter. It is called news reporting, and is an essential part of any news media, especially the free press - something that China currently does not enjoy.

And it is there that I believe the real issue lies. For me, a free press is an essential instrument of democracy, but then again you cannot call China, with its one-party system a functioning democracy. The press in China is far less free than the press in the United States or France or here in the UK, and there are no clear signs that the ruling Communist Party of China led has any intention of changing the rules of the game in the future.

Media outlets, although numerous, are continuously subjected to government censorship and newspapers, magazines and web sites are being shut down on a regular basis because the powers that be don’t like the substance being produced.

In some instances, the very content that was censored was just the simple facts (e.g. the number of people at a protest), but even those facts would create a more transparent political atmosphere and induce government accountability. These two factors, I feel, are all the more critical in a society, such as China’s where governmental authority is monopolised by a single party that continues to play a major role in the economy through its ownership of the banks and controlled of inward investment policy that has seen its massive rise on the global scene.

Such transparent and investigative reporting, whether you like it or not in the English press, has made the English government far more accountable to its citizens and gone a long way to ensuring that massive scandals and corruption (something that is rife in China) is exposed and actively discouraged.

As for the issue of the anti-China bias, I will admit that I believe such a bias exists, but it is not as strong as those who attended the seminar believed. My personal opinion is that China has brought it on itself – if it had nothing to hide then why does it exercise censorship so often and rigorously?

It may claim that reporting restrictions in the run-up and during the Olympic Games 2008 in Beijing will be unrestricted, but why then was the Panorama journalist John Sweeney assigned a government supervisor who ensured he only reported on things ‘permitted’ by the government? (Episode details here)*

It has been true, however, that some allowances are beginning to be made. For example, back in July the Chinese authorities removed the public-access restriction allowing locals to browse the BBC’s China pages (story here)* and the Party has gone further to suggest that its ruled may be permanently relaxed after the Games to allow foreign correspondents to travel around China without first getting permission from the authorities - as they had to do previously, and being able to interview people without prior consent.

But significantly, the regulations do not apply to Chinese journalists, who will continue to face a high degree of control and censorship by the Chinese government.

With that in mind it might be many more years before the Chinese Press can enjoy the same freedoms as their English counterparts can over here on a daily basis. Until China loosens the straight-jacket on the reporting of its national media, its government cannot be held accountable, and whose to say that public discontent will not rise to a level witnessed in the horrifying events of Tiananmen Square in 1989?

After all, next year will be its 20th anniversary, and the eyes of the world’s press will no doubt assign that some attention…

UPDATE: 25/11/08 18.42

Funnily enough, the Chinese have today reacted negatively to the release of the highly-anticipated new album from Guns N' Roses, labelling it as 'venemous'.

Released around the world yesterday, it is the band’s first studio album since their last 15-years ago in 1993, is called Chinese Democracy (surely a contradiction in terms). As reported on the BBC news website, an article in the Global Times that was published by the Chinese ruling communist party, says the album "turns its spear point on China".

Inevitably it has been on the receiving end of the censorship treatment. Already, the official website for the album has been blocked, the title track of the album refers to the banned Falun Gong spiritual group. Although I’m personally not a fan of the band and so have not listened to the album, lead singer Axl Rose apparently during the title track sings: "If your great wall rocks, blame yourself”, and if that wasn’t enough, the artwork for the album includes the oil painting Red Star by Beijing artist Shi Lifeng - the one which depicts the Chinese people as powerless.

With China's reluctancy to allow anything that undermines the regime and their perception of such an anti-China sentiment from America and the West, I wonder if the Chinese authorities will ever allow this American band to play a live show there in the future? I believe not...

Labels: Comment, Current Affairs, Politics

Posted by Andrew at 6:16 PM | Permalink | Comments

So it is done. Barack Obama is to be the next occupant of the Oval Office. He may not officially start work there until late January but I’m sure he will have plenty of things in his in-tray to address before then and we’re all eagerly anticipating the announcements of who will consist his cabinet.

Yet while we wait for those, we have seen national political leader after leader throw (or at least attempt to) themselves into the arena as ‘New Obamas’ to capitalise on his popularity in what I am calling the ‘Obama Effect’.

But it’s not just political leaders, the rest of the world is embracing him and calling him their own, even the computer gaming world, who have started to release Obama-related games.

One such game, entitled Super Obama World (modelled on the best-selling Nintendo's Super Mario World franchise) has Obama running round a virtual world collecting flags and dodging lipstick-wearing pit bulls, lobbyists and… Sarah Palin. Click here to have a play yourself*

So this is it, today is the day that America votes for its 44th President.

To think that the campaigns for Obama and McCain began almost two years ago is amazing yet this evening will feel just as long for the two candidates I’m sure.

I am already anxious and nervous as to how the evening will unfold. I cast my mind back to the last American general election four years ago, when confident of a Democrat win (in the form of John Kerry), George Bush won a second term in the White House and surprised me and many others. I am now really hoping the same will not happen again.

But looking at the opinion polls throughout the election, why should it? Obama has consistently been ahead in the polls and McCain has suffered massively in terms of public opinion with his handling of the economic crisis and, of course, Sarah Palin.

The bottom line is that if all those who pledged to vote Obama, vote Obama, he will be the next President of the United States of America. In some parts of the country, voters were being drawn to the polling stations with sausage rolls and hot drinks, so long as they all turned up and voted Democrat...

I've also been careful not to mention the Democrat buzzword, because I'll be honest (and I'm sure you'll feel the same) I'm a little tired of hearing it. But nonetheless, Barack Obama is the favourite to win and hopefully that will not change.

For me, the night is young...

Labels: Comment, Politics

Posted by Andrew at 11:01 PM | Permalink | Comments

This is the latest cover of the Economist magazine. They say a picture speaks a thousand words so with that in mind, I shall spare you the other 972...


[You can read their leader here (click)*]

Labels: Politics

Posted by Andrew at 7:22 PM | Permalink | Comments

The paper is known in the industry to stay more towards the liberals and backed the Democratic candidate in the last three presidential elections. Yet coming out and flying the flag for Obama in such a comprehensive dismissive fashion now is highly important, especially so as it described Mr McCain as the "wrong choice".

The editorial states that Republican presidential candidate John McCain has "stumbled and fumbled badly" in dealing with the economic crisis: "[John McCain] embraces the extreme Republican orthodoxy he once resisted and cynically asks Americans to buy for another four years", it says. (Read the full editorial here).

Labels: Politics

Posted by Andrew at 6:07 PM | Permalink | Comments

So now we all know the complete line-up. In the red corner representing the Democrats we have Barack Obama and his running mate Joe Biden. In the blue corner representing the Republicans we have John McCain and his surprise choice, Sarah Palin.

Mr Obama, in Joe Biden, has opted for a safe candidate, one that will bridge the hole that many political commentators across the pond have remarked in Mr Obama’s campaign, and that is his relative weakness in the field of Foreign Affairs.

Mr Biden has plenty of experience in the US Senate having represented the small state of Delaware in the US Senate since 1972, but what is crucial is that he has chaired the Senate Foreign Relations Committee three times.

Although he voted to approve the Iraq war, he started warning of the costs of a long occupation of Iraq long before it began, and just like Sarah Palin, the Republican prospective VP, he has a personal attachment to the conflict. His son, Beau Biden, is a captain in the Army National Guard, and his unit is set to be deployed to Iraq shortly. Mr Biden apparently told US media sources recently that "He'll go… I don't want him going".

Mr Biden is also no stranger to presidential races, and all that they entail as he ran against Mr Obama for the 2008 nomination but dropped out in January. He also ran for presidency in 1988 but was forced to withdraw after it emerged that he had plagiarised a speech by the then leader of the British Labour Party, Neil Kinnock.

He also apparently has a reputation as a forceful speaker and can be prone to the occasional gaffe – BoJo anyone? In 2007, he described Mr Obama as "the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy". Barack will be hoping he’ll be able to control his mouth, after all they are on the same side now…

Mrs Palin, on the other hand is a surprise selection. Following all the media hype that Mr Obama’s announcement generated I had expected John McCain, now 72, to select a surprise candidate.


Of course, we all knew it was going to have to be someone younger than him as age is currently one of main areas the Democratic camp are exploiting in their attack. I had a small inkling Mr McCain might opt for a female candidate to try to draw in the female vote that Hillary Clinton proved was so strong across the country. But realistically, I had never expected Sarah Palin to be the one chosen.

In truth, I like many I suppose, had never heard of her. A “devoted wife and mother-of-five”, at 44 she was the youngest to be elected to her post as Governor of Alaska, a role she has held since 2006. She has been credited with managing to bring about reforms in her first years in office but the point that stands out the most is that Mrs Palin is the first woman Republican to be put forward as a vice-presidential candidate.

In addition, she also has all the essential extras to appeal to the mass public. The governor, a former local beauty queen in her small town of Wasilla, near Anchorage, is keen on hunting and fishing and reportedly enjoys eating moose hamburgers. She has been married for 20 years, has five children, one of which has Downs Syndrome. Predictably perhaps, her oldest son joined the US Army on 11 September last year and is set to be deployed to Iraq next month.

Reacting to the selection, the Obama camp was predictably speculative. Mr Obama told reporters that Mrs Palin had a "terrific" personal story and would help make a case for the Republicans, but added: "Unfortunately, the case is more of the same."

However, could Mr McCain have inadvertently shot himself in the foot by choosing his prospective VP who herself only has two years experience in office when that was such a critical spear of McCain’s attack on Mr Obama?

The BBC’s North American correspondent, Justin Webb, believes so and added that: “The choice seems an audacious, perhaps slightly desperate, effort to bring youth and vigour to the Republican ticket.”

The two selections have battled for media publicity and each candidate has battled to make his stand out more. In rather an unprecedented act, Mr McCain issued a TV commercial message praising Mr Obama's achievement in becoming the first African American selected by a major party as presidential nominee (watch below).

Was this a genuine congratulatory message, or simply one to steal the spotlight? Only time will tell.

Overall when comparing the two candidates, you see that while Mr Obama has played safe, Mr McCain has been braver. He has shown how he can change and be bold, while Mr Obama will hope that Biden will fill the hole of his relative inexperience. The appointment of Mrs Palin will have accumulated the most newspaper column inches, but will she be enough to pull Mr McCain over the finish line into the White House.

Don’t expect a clean fight over the remaining 60 days or so, but also don’t expect a knock-out.

This will surely go to a point decision but at the moment I would put it at ‘advantage Republican’…

Labels: Current Affairs, Politics

Posted by Andrew at 1:33 PM | Permalink | Comments

We all went to Montreux yesterday and made use of the marvellous Swiss train network, CFF, which got me thinking about the state of our own rail system and that it needs to be nationalised once more.

It is well known that here in Switzerland all the trains run like clockwork, arriving and departing exactly on the times stated on the timetables – we’ve noticed that many a time, even with the Bex-Villars mountain train. It is even the same in France with their TGV network. The long distance trains are powered entirely by electricity and as a result are not only really quiet and the ride is smooth, the journey is environmentally friendly. The fares are also very respectable and what I believe is more important is that they are constant – there is a set fare for travel between places and no discount is offered for advanced or online ticket purchases.

The disadvantage, however, of the Swiss system is that services are not as frequent as they are in the UK. A busy station, such as Geneva’s Cointrin will see far fewer trains passing through its platforms than any of the London mainline stations. The CrossCountry train route from Penzance to Glasgow, formerly operated by Virgin Trains, was the route that I often took as I travelled between my home station at Exeter and university in Sheffield. There are two services per hour on that route, which in Switzerland would instead be just one service each hour.

What this inevitably means of course is that there is less traffic on the rails which allows any delays (heaven forbid) can be rectified between stations with a little extra speed. English train services cannot afford this luxury as because there are rival train services competing for consumers, they fill the rail timetables with as many services as they can, which then causes many huge logistical nightmares in terms of signalling and the inevitable knock-on delay that would be transferred upon future services.

Although I do not have the figures, I imagine that the number of passengers using the long distance services in both countries is similar despite the extra train services operating in the UK. I believe this because the long-haul Swiss trains typically carry upwards of 12-15 carriages that are longer than the ones in use in the UK and can hold more passengers. Instead of the typical five carriages on the aforementioned CrossCountry service – ten carriages per hour – the Swiss Geneva to Bern service would boast 15.

Of course, this immediately raises the issue of station size as extra carriages on each train would require longer platforms. From personal experience I believe that such trains could be accommodated at Sheffield, all of the London mainline stations, Bristol Temple Meads, Birmingham New Street, Reading, possibly Manchester Piccadilly and even Exeter St Davids. For other mainline stations perhaps money to expand the platforms would be required, but I would view this as an investment as it would ease the pressure on timetables and reduce the chance of a knock-on delay by removing more services from the rails.

I could not possibly justify this overall argument without tackling the issue of rail fares because this is one of the reasons why people perhaps don’t use the rail service. The fact is that there are too many different options for tickets in the UK. This has arisen from the various companies operating the many routes and trying to undercut their opposition. Recently the Government has announced its plans to have just three types of ticket with the emphasis on those buying in advance as they receive a better price than those who turn up at the station and travel on the day.

Buying in advance via the web has been a tactic I have used to my advantage many a time and have as a result benefited from travelling in First Class rather than Standard Class as the ticket was cheaper. I remember on one of my journeys north on the CrossCountry I caught a glance of my neighbour in First Class’ ticket and saw that I had paid a full £200 less and I was travelling a longer distance.

The most sensible move in my eyes would be to nationalise the fare structure and set a particular rate for travel within the UK. Perhaps this could be organised in zones like those operated by the London Underground or calculated from working out the time taken for that journey using the fastest possible route and the customer paying a set rate per ten minutes.

Unfortunately I cannot foresee the railways becoming re-nationalised as the Government earns a very handsome amount from selling the rights to operating the routes to particular franchises. And while the train services would become less frequent, they would become more reliable, more accessible for a greater number of people, and the fare system would not penalise passengers for not buying their tickets three months in advance.

Who knows, this might even get people out of their cars and onto the rails…

Labels: Comment, Politics

Posted by Andrew at 9:02 PM | Permalink | Comments

He decided to pull out and despite it representing a massive defeat for democracy I think it was the right decision.

Throughout the whole election campaign, it was obvious that something was going to give. On Sunday afternoon Tsvangirai called a press conference and announced that his party was pulling out of the presidential run-off scheduled for this coming Friday.

Tsvangirai said that he was pulling out of the presidential run-off because there was no point running when elections would not be free and fair and “the outcome is determined by... Mugabe himself".

As you would expect, the ruling Zanu-PF party replied to the news said that Tsvangirai had taken the decision so to avoid “humiliation” in the poll. However, the results of the March election would suggest otherwise. The election officials had announced that Tsvangirai won with 47.9% of the vote, beating Robert Mugabe's ruling Zanu-PF party, but because neither side won 50% of the vote, neither could declare themselves as the victor.

The MDC claimed those results were rigged by Mugabe’s supporters to prevent them from winning, an allegation that they deny. The campaigning then turned sour with the instances of violence reported back to us in Europe by the media.

The initial campaigning back in March, was by comparison, relatively peaceful with the MDC free to campaign around the country and Tsvangirai gained about 120,000 more votes than Mr Mugabe, according to official results.

Since then, the MDC says a campaign of violence has been unleashed against its supporters to try to overturn that deficit in the second round. Zanu-PF denies this, blaming the violence on the MDC in turn.

So back to the dilemma that faced Mr Tsvangirai. How could you possibly consider winning an election that you cannot campaign because you’re either being arrested, your rallies are being banned or become overwhelmed by violence, the lives of 80 plus of your supporters have been lost, a further 200,000 displaced and the national media – under complete control of Mugabe – feeding propaganda to the masses (if they’re alive)?

The conclusion is that it is hard to contemplate fighting on. Obviously it was not a decision to be taken lightly, but I believe that it was the right one on reflection. Speaking at his press conference, Mr Tsvangirai said: “We in the MDC cannot ask them to cast their vote on 27 June, when that vote could cost them their lives. We have resolved that we will no longer participate in this violent, illegitimate sham of an election process. We will not play the game of Mugabe.”

He then called on the United Nations, African Union and the southern African grouping SADC to intervene to prevent a “genocide” in Zimbabwe. But what can actually be done? How can we remove Robert Mugabe who shockingly said himself last week that: “Only God who appointed me will remove me – not the MDC, not the British”?

Mr Tsvangirai will now hope that by withdrawing the international community, in particular Zimbabwe's neighbours, will increase pressure on Mr Mugabe to step down, or at least form a government of national unity.

Neighbouring South Africa and China are the countries with the most influence, by helping to keep Zimbabwe's moribund economy afloat, so should naturally try to add their weight to the global pressure. South Africa's President Thabo Mbeki has appeared to try to mediate the political crisis but has so far refused to criticise Mr Mugabe in public – a move that should definitely be his first step.

The next step would be to resolve Zimbabwe's economy which is in a monumental crisis. Official figures for February 2008 show that the countries’ annual inflation rate is at 100,580% a rise from 7,600% in July 2007.

To put this into perspective: in 1980, one US dollar bought 80 Zimbabwean cents and in March this year, that one dollar was worth around 50 million Zimbabwean dollars. What this means is that one loaf of bread costs the average citizen 7 million dollars. As a result this has led to famine and even to food shortages because businesses say they cannot afford to sell goods for less than the cost of making them.

If that wasn’t bad enough, the badly-needed support from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) has been suspended because the government has fallen behind with its loan repayments…

Zimbabwe is currently in a crisis – in the full sense of the word. How it can be solved remains a mystery to many, but one of the absolute essential steps that need to be taken to begin this recovery is to remove Mugabe from any position of power.

The withdrawal of the MDC opposition in the elections was a good move to bring the situation into the global spotlight, but Mugabe will no doubt soon declare victory and continue his 28-year-term in office and continue with his regime of ‘state-sponsored terror’.


This buzzword in America raises the option of international troops entering Zimbabwe to remove Mugabe from power like it did with Saddam Hussein. But whatever the international community decide to do, they need to act soon. Whatever the course of action chosen, its 12 million population will suffer losses, but these losses would be worth it in the long-run.

No-one should risk death for wanting change.

Labels: Comment, Politics

Posted by Andrew at 1:41 PM | Permalink | Comments

Image credit: Peter Brookes, from the Times dated 13/06/08

Labels: Comment, Current Affairs, Politics

Posted by Andrew at 5:52 PM | Permalink | Comments

I find it really bizarre and somewhat frustrating that the only thing that came out of last weeks' PM's questions in the press was the fact that the Conservative leader David Camerons' parting had moved to the centre from its usual left-hand side spot (see below).


I remember back in March, possibly last year in fact, when his parting moved from the centre to the left, and the Daily Mail sketchwriter Quentin Letts cleverly said that it symbolised the direction in which Mr Cameron was taking his party. (full story here)

Today however, Cameron credited his 'bad hair day' to having worn a cycle helmet on his journey into Parliament that morning (full story here)

Speaking to GMTV, Cameron said: "All that happened is I got on my bicycle, put on a cycle helmet for once, because I'm always being told to... and something went a bit wrong."

"It's amazing how much can be written" about "these things". Yes, yes it is.

It seems that having good hair and a consistantly smart appearance means more and more in today's world of personality politics, I guess this means I should start taking better care of my hair! Ironically, I did actually get it cut today... something to do.

Labels: Comment, Politics

Posted by Andrew at 10:42 PM | Permalink | Comments

... that is the verdict of some 'experts' at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. Apparently, obese people consume 18% more calories than average and so are therefore responsible for using more fuel, which has an environmental impact and drives up food prices as transport and agriculture both use oil. Obese people are more likely to rely on transport more and so put "more strain on that transport because of their mass, which again drives up prices and usage"!

But the researchers did say there was a solution - exercise... You can read the rest of the article here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7404268.stm


Another absolutely shocking article I read today was one in the Times: the plan to make Bordeaux wine available to buy in cartons! To be introduced into the UK next weekend at the London International Wine Fair, they will appear in 25cl packs in all supermarkets - call me traditional but this is just wrong! Will probably have to try one though... You can read the rest of the article here: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/food_and_drink/wine/article3941731.ece

--

I'm now in Oxford, and have a pretty good day overall. Managed to complete one of my essays this morning and then went to have a pain au chocolate and expresso breakfast before playing snooker. The less said about that the better as I had a terrible game - just couldn't pot anything, but I'll manage as I spent a fair bit on some new French politics books beforehand...

Tomorrow me and Neil are off to London, and plan to visit a few exhibitions (James Bond!!!) before heading to the O2 for the main event: Roger Waters...

In the meantime we're settling down in front of the TV with a dessert. My choice: a whole mandarin cheesecake which is defrosting in the sink now... [It's the healthy eating one so it's not that bad!]

Labels: Current Affairs, Politics

Posted by Andrew at 9:06 PM | Permalink | Comments

Labels: Politics

Posted by Andrew at 11:56 PM | Permalink | Comments

While reading the newspaper this morning, one particular quote from Alain Juppé, the recently re-elected Mayor of Bordeaux, made me chuckle and then made me wonder.

Quoted in an article about a new campaign group being set up in the city to fight against the littering of the cities' streets with dog's mess, Juppé said: "Slipping on a dog poop the day of an election could change a vote". ("Glisser sur une crotte de chien le jour d'une election peut changer un vote")

But could it? Everyone's suffered it at one stage; perhaps no more so than the French.

Having pavements coated in dog pooh is often a common perception of France, and in certain parts of Bordeaux this is almost certainly the case. In the Saint-Jean area of the city, where visitors arrive in the city from the train station or are dropped off by the bus from the airport, the problem is especially bad.

It is almost impossible to drag your suitcase along the pavement without encountering the stuff or having to cause mass discontent by shaloming around it all. Not the best thing to welcome visitors to the city...

It is because of this that a group of local residents have set up a campaign group that campaigns for less dog pooh on the pavements. One member of the Comité "Anti-caca", Eric Lepage, is quoted in today's Metro as saying: "All we ask is that the city's streets are as clean as they are beautiful, so you can admire the building facades instead of having to watch where you walk!" ("Nous demandons que les rues soient aussi propres que belles, qu'on puisse admirer les façades au lieu de regarder où on marche!")

According to the group, more than 30 tonnes of dog pooh are removed from the streets of Bordeaux by the council every year. In a bid to reduce this staggering quantity, the council have this year provided 150 special bins and have introduced a maximum penalty of 450Euros (approx £300) for repeat offenders. They are clearly treating this as a serious issue.

And so they should, tourists don't want to arrive in a beautiful city only to find themselves constantly looking at the pavements. Tourism is such an important industry for the city, but it remains to be seen whether stepping in dog's mess could change a persons vote. And while it would probably be quite unusual for a candidate to speak of these such issues while campaigning, maybe they should so to avoid being defeated and then finding themselves, as they say, in the merde.

Labels: Politics

Posted by Andrew at 2:28 PM | Permalink | Comments

Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg today called for a massive overall to the MP expenses system after police announced that they could not to prosecute former MP Derek Conway, who hired his his student son and paid him nearly £40,000 to be a researcher.

Mr Clegg said: "the public have the right to expect that their money is being properly accounted for. The Speaker's review of expenses must provide the basis for fundamental changes to the system of MPs' allowances."

Since the exposure of the Mr Conway (left), there has been a renewed scrutiny shown towards the level of public funds available to MPs for expenses. Already, a Commons committee in the process of conducting a thorough review, has already reduced the amount MPs can claim without a receipt from £250 to £25 and promised a "more robust regime for audit".

But this is only one step in the right direction. MPs are paid by the taxpayers to serve their interests in the Houses of Parliament and beyond, and surely it is in the overwhelming interest of the public to see and know exactly what their representatives are spending their money on.

I believe therefore that a full overhall is required which hopefully should lead to all MP expenses being published, which will not only increase the already low level of public trust, but will go a long way to reduce money wasted. Although not related to MP expenses, I was amazed to watch on BBC Parliament a debate taking place on Wednesday in the Commons chamber over whether meetings should be catered with bottled or tap water! Only one member put forward the motion of bottled water only to have his suggestion laughed at - presumably MPs can't possibly drink London water...


From one scandal to another. Tory leader David Cameron was today exposed for breaching traffic rules as he cycled to work. Cameron, who prides himself on taking the green option, was photographed ignoring red lights and cycling the wrong way up a one-way street by a cameraman of the Daily Mirror.

You could argue whether following Cameron was in the public interest, but what will this do to the credibility of potentially the next Prime Minister...

Labels: Politics

Posted by Andrew at 10:25 PM | Permalink | Comments

The announcement this morning of the death of Chantal Sébire, the 52-year old French schoolteacher with an incurable facial tumour and whose euthanasia plea was refused by a French court last week, will no doubt reignite the debate into whether euthanasia should be allowed.

Mme Sébire (left), a mother of three who lived near the northern town of Dijon, had suffered from an extremely rare form of cancer in the nasal cavity known as an esthesioneuroblastoma. So rare in fact that apparently only 200 cases of the disease have been recorded worldwide in the past two decades.

She said the tumour left her blind, disfigured and suffering intense pain and appeared on French TV last month to gain the right to die. She even described how children ran away from her in the street.

She took her fight to a French court where the magistrate admitted that although the her situation "merits compassion" her request "can only be rejected under French law."

Now the legal aspect is a little more complicated. In France, legislation was adopted in 2005 that allowed families to request that life-support equipment for terminally ill patients be switched off. The bill allows doctors to stop giving medical assistance when it "has no effect other than maintaining life artificially". However, this law does not allow a doctor to take action to end a patient's life.

Of course, you also have the moral issue to contend with. In the case of Mme Sebire, her life was seriously affected and she was suffering from a terminal bout of cancer so was perhaps within her moral right to request an early death. But with the legislation and the Hippocratic oath sworn by doctors, euthanasia will probably always be denied by the state.

That is why people such as Noel Martin (left) are contacting associations that will aid people to end their lives early. Noel Martin, who is the subject of my latest translation for cafebabel (click here), became a paraplegic after his car was attacked by a band of neo-Nazis in a small town just south of Berlin in 1996.

The British citizen of Jamaican origin made headline news in Germany last year and is still fighting to be able to decide the date of his death. He had originally announced on German TV that he had chosen the date of 23 June 2007, the day of his 48th birthday, to end his life. However, two months before that date he postponed his trip to Switzerland indefinitely; he still needed time to organise his affairs and leave his legacy on his foundation and educational projects.

In 2000, he lost his wife to cancer, and says that he doesn't feel like a normal person, so does he have a valid case for euthanasia? Personnally, I believe that in such cases, the patients should be free to make that choice, after all "normal" people can make the choice of committing suicide. Everyone is entitled to a decent quality of life, and as Mme Sebire said on French TV: "One would not allow an animal to go through what I have endured".

Whatever the circumstances surrounding Mme Sébire's death, the euthanasia debate is now very much alive and in public discussion. So what do you think?

Labels: Comment, Current Affairs, Politics

Posted by Andrew at 10:51 PM | Permalink | Comments

I think I was as shocked as everyone else in France today to hear that President Sarkozy has officially married ex-model Carla Bruni. Sarkozy only divorced his former wife Cecilia in October 2007, and now suddenly he's fallen in love and three months later he's married again. Pardon me for being a traditionalist but surely that is too quick!

It is believed that Sarkozy first met Ms Bruni at a dinner party in Paris soon after his divorce but by mid-December the French media was abuzz with rumours that they might be about to tie the knot. The couple were followed to Egypt, and then to Jordan, where they did not seem to want to hide from the rumours and as a result have probably become the hottest topic in recent times when it comes to French politics.

Many commentators have noted that the pair's rapid courtship has coincided with a downturn in Mr Sarkozy's popularity ratings with many accusing the President of putting his private life on public display. This could not have been more evident when he called a grand mass press conference in the l'Elysée Palace and spoke about his relationship with Ms Bruni - a first in French history (Read more here).

Charles Bremner's blog for the Times has been pretty much entirely dedicated to the coverage of the Sarkozy - Bruni love story since it emerged, as have many of the mainstream French newspapers. But what I wonder is this: is it all simply one big publicity stunt?

It is conceivable that it was blown up onto such a scale to divert attention away from the memoires that Sarkozy's ex-wife Cecilia was due to publish following the couple's divorce. After all, Sarkozy had gone to the courts to prevent its publication, but failed, and the book became an overnight best-seller.

Alternatively, Sarkozy may have used this fast-developing relationship to smother the reaction to the many controversial changes that he has made since assuming the presidency. Apparently Sarkozy is said to be unconvinced that his "bling bling" personal life has contributed to his fall in popularity, and attributes the slide to a feeling of disappointment with the countries' economy and his failure to perform miracles. (Although in my eyes he did perform a miracle when he implemented the nationwide smoking ban! Read more here)

Or maybe I am too sceptical, maybe it really is love. Maybe he was so madly in love with a girl that 'swept him off his feet' and he wanted to shout it aloud to the world, court press coverage and use it as an excuse to make a name for himself in the history books.

So is it a publicity stunt, a man desperate not to be single, or love? I guess only time will tell...

Labels: Comment, Politics

Posted by Andrew at 8:12 PM | Permalink | Comments

When you think of France, what image do you conjure up in your mind of the average citizen? A Frenchman wearing a beret, riding a bike with a baguette and a necklace of garlic per chance? But what about a cigarette in their mouth?

I knew the French smoked a lot but I did not realise quite how much until I saw (or should I say smelt) it for myself on my Year Abroad. But now, January 1st 2008, France is officially smoke-free!

I have to admit when I read this story on the news I wondered whether it was actually April 1st and not January 1st...

Last year I was surprised that the first reform was implement that banned smoking from all workplaces. I remember reading at the time how companies had to adapt their work environments to the changes with some even installing smoking "chambers" which the smokers had to enter to have their fix.

I never thought it would last, but it has! So successfully in fact, that now smoking has now been banned in all cafés, bars, restaurants and nightclubs. The same ban has worked wonders here in the UK, so as a non-smoker and someone not wanting to contract cancer through other peoples' smoke, I am in favour of the move.

Charles Bremner on his excellent blog for the Times talks about the 'café-clope' ("the ritual expresso and smoke that gets you going in the morning"), a tradition that will surely die a slow death now - maybe it contracted lung cancer...

So will France be the same? I'm not so sure. Although I am in favour as a non-smoker, it just would not be the France I know without the smoke...

Labels: Current Affairs, Politics

Posted by Andrew at 9:26 PM | Permalink | Comments

The University of Bordeaux 3 is still blocked, and it has been blocked since the 13th November as students protest against the 'loi Pécresse'.

Introduced into law in August, the new law will fast-track the privatisation process of the universities and threaten the student voice in the running of the university, which is why two weeks ago, while out in Bordeaux, I attended an assembly for the students and voted in favour of blocking the university as a sign of protest.

Me and Nico estimated that at least a couple of thousand students filled the University concourse that day and took part in the debate which lasted for just over two hours under the midday Bordeaux sun, before the vote was taken that the students would officially oppose the law, and then the vote cast that the university would be blocked in protest.

Minutes after the meeting was adjourned, I took the photo above showing the crowd that had amassed in the University concourse from the nearest building. Minutes later there was a flurry of activity as staff and students got out while they can. Me and Nico however, we went for a coffee in the English club further inside the same building - as you do! So as I enjoyed my extremely nice black coffee, students out in the hall were transporting chairs and tables and then metal chains along the corridor as the building was sealed from the inside.

A vote was scheduled for last Thursday afternoon (22nd) as to whether the university would remain blocked, but that vote could not take place as students were prevented from getting to the urns by protesters, which of course meant the gendarmes were brought in...

Yesterday, a new assembly was called and voted 1097-601 in favour of continuing the blockage. The next assembly has been arranged for Friday (30th) - but are the students likely to vote to stop the protest? Not likely, not until the government has listened to their calls and has taken into account the effects that this law will have on its countries' students...

Labels: Politics

Posted by Andrew at 11:24 PM | Permalink | Comments

My Daily Politics mug has arrived! And it looks even better than it does on screen...

Labels: Politics

Posted by Andrew at 10:06 AM | Permalink | Comments

Yes, that's right, I won a mug! After trying and trying without success I have finally won one and it came on one of the biggest days in the political calendar this year - Wednesday July 4th - Gordon Brown's first Prime Minister's Questions!

I have to thank presenter Andrew Neil (legend) whose generosity that morning meant that a second mug was given away... to me! Former Labour party leader Neil Kinnock picked and read out the winner of the first mug, and then Conservative and former Deputy PM Michael Heseltine read out the name of the second winner: "Andrew Burgess from Exmouth"! I was in total shock, and to be honest I still am... WAHOO!

Labels: Politics

Posted by Andrew at 12:53 PM | Permalink | Comments

As you may or may not know today is a very big day in France as it is the day of the first round of the 2007 Presidential elections.

Although I cannot vote, I am having a great day! We have already been fishing on the banks of the Gironde, near the town of Saint Ciers-sur-Gironde where my friend Pastou lives, and even I managed to catch one! We had a lovely BBQ, drunk lots of lovely local rosé wine, and then went back to Pastou's and had a long discussion with his parents and relatives about who would win the election (to be honest what else was going to be discussed today!?).

During this debate, we were served cognac and on the route back to Bordeaux we stopped at Blaye to have a walk around what remains of the old city walls - which is quite a lot and is very well preserved. As I mentioned to Nico while walking around, I am not sure which is going to kill me first, the heat or the two glasses of cognac! I'm currently back in Bordeaux while Nico and the others head off to cast their vote in the election, before we all go to watch the results (and the Bordeaux match) on the TV.

Throughout the day we've been kept informed by our friend and informant, who is one of those in charge at the Pessac voting station, which has proved to be very interesting. Around 10am, we were told that those voters who were previously undecided (and made up nearly a third of the population) were voting for Besancenot (extreme left), Bayrou (centre) or Le Pen (extreme-right) - and not for the favourites Sarkozy and Royal... At midday we learnt that the participation rate was around the 30% mark (10% higher than in the last elections five years ago), and now at 6pm the participation rate is predicted around the 80-90% mark nationally - which is absolutely unbelievable!

Update: 8pm - the results of surveys conducted at polling stations have been released as the voting draws to a close. Sarkozy leads the estimates with 29% and Royal trails with 24% (Bayrou 18%, Le Pen 10%)

Update: 11pm - Bordeaux defeat St-Etienne 2-0 to take third place in the championship. Next weekend sees second place Lens travel to Bordeaux - I'll be there for sure!

Update: 10am (23rd) - France has opted for a left vs right second tour (as widely expected) with Royal going head to head with Sarkozy. 13 days until the second round of the election - so let the battle (re)commence!

Labels: Politics

Posted by Andrew at 5:16 PM | Permalink | Comments

I have just spent the last hour or so on the BBC news website and numerous other news sites reading and watching reports on the latest campus shooting in the States. This time it was at Virginia Tech University in Virginia, and at the time of publishing this post, 31 people have been confirmed dead and a further 10 injured. Frankly, this is a disgrace. When will America learn?

NOTHING, and I shall repeat for emphasis, NOTHING, good comes about from guns. Guns incite war and conflict, guns inflict totally unnecessary harm on people, and on animals, and quite how people can enjoy causing this amount of pain is quite beyond me.

Guns should be illegal. We have no good reason to have them and no need for them, and I am just wondering quite how many American students (or people across the world for that matter) will have to suffer because of them before something is actually done.

This is what President George Bush said after hearing the news of the latest shooting: "schools should be places of safety and sanctuary and learning. When that sanctuary is violated, the impact is felt in every American classroom and every American community," OK so do something about it then…

American campuses need metal detectors, why these were not installed following Columbine eight years ago is again beyond me. Is it because these machines would "invade" and "interfere" with people's privacy? I would rather have to walk through a metal detector every single day than lose a friend, family member, or even my own life to a firearm.

Guns are nothing but creators of destruction and unnecessary violence. There are presidential elections due in the United States in the near future, I just hope and pray that this issue is 'the' big issue and that something can finally be done to put an end to all this madness; Hopefully before another 30 students lose their lives.

Labels: Comment, Politics

Posted by Andrew at 10:02 PM | Permalink | Comments

Next Sunday is the first round of the French presidential elections and so the official campaigning has begun. Below is a table of all 12 candidates and a short 2 minute campaign video of each which are shown at certain times on national TV. Enjoy!

Labels: Politics

Posted by Andrew at 8:47 AM | Permalink | Comments

I've just about recovered from the events of last weekend (although I am still a little tired), but it is really lovely to be able to report that the sun has returned to Bordeaux! The last few days here have been extremely hot, and as a result my training runs have become much more challenging and I have had to increase my daily intake of water! Should not really complain though...

On Wednesday night, we finally went for the meal that Nico and his mates had wanted to do for ages yet never got round to finalising a date. It was meant to be at a traditional French restaurant so that I could experience some real French cuisine, but because of the proximity to the Easter weekend, many of the restaurants were closed. In the end, we found a Basque restaurant near to the Place de la Bourse, and I have to say that it was a really nice meal. It was also excellent value for money. For 18.90 Euros, I had a started of smoked salmon followed by a ham omelette, followed by a taster of Nico's foie gras and then a handful of escargots.

The foie gras I have to admit was horrible! Nico wisely chose to tell me after I'd eaten it that it was duck's liver, and I still can't believe I actually ate it. I won't again, that's for sure! Which is not what I can say for the snails, which were really nice! I did not think they would be, but I was extremely surprised, although I did not like extracting them from their shells much!

Anyway, for the main course I had what only can be described as a massive steak, accompanied with a lot of chips! I really struggled finishing this, so my face dropped with astonishment when the waiter then bought us out a massive cheese board and then asked what we would like for dessert! Excellent value for money, and it was really delicious. Each "menu" also came with effectively half a bottle of wine, which made it even better value in my opinion...

After getting back late that night / morning, I found it very hard to get up early this morning. Somehow I managed, which was a good thing as I had both my translation exams today! Both went really well I think, although surprisingly I think I did better in the version one (English to French) than the theme one (French to English)!

This evening I went to another political "meeting", which was hosted by one of the 12 candidates in the upcoming French presidential elections, Olivier Besancenot (LCF). Despite representing the extreme-left, I found his speech interesting and could really see why he is a candidate and just how he was able to obtain 1.2 million votes in the 2002 elections.

There is now only just over two weeks left until the first round of the elections, which unfortunately means I don't have too much time left out here :-(

Labels: Politics

Posted by Andrew at 10:06 PM | Permalink | Comments

Here's my latest published translation for your enjoyment:

Published on cafébabel: 20/03/07 http://www.cafebabel.com/en/article.asp?T=T&Id=10411

Labels: Comment, Politics

Posted by Andrew at 8:20 PM | Permalink | Comments

Ahead of next April’s French presidential elections, UMP party leader Nicolas Sarkozy has chosen the birthday of his foe, and current President of the Republic, Jacques Chirac, as the day to announce he will run to be his party’s candidate.

Announcing his candidature to the local press on Wednesday 29th November, Sarkozy, who has been president of the UMP party since November 2004, currently remains the favourite to win the election if the numerous recent opinion polls are to be believed.

His centre-right UMP party is due to select its candidate in January and President Jacques Chirac is not expected to seek a third term, but it is possible he may, even though he is now 74 years of age, chuck in his hat just to spite his rival Sarkozy.

Mr Sarkozy speaking in an interview published in a number of regional newspapers on Thursday said: “I feel I have the strength, the energy and the desire to propose a different view of France”.

“I have the ambition to develop a new relationship with the French based on two words: confidence and respect,” he continued, “confidence in pledges made, and respect for every Frenchman considered individually”.

Mr Sarkozy will offer UMP members an alternative to candidates from the Chirac side of the party – which includes such political figures as current Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin and Defence Minister Michele Alliot-Marie, and is thought to have the backing of about 75% of the UMP's membership, which currently stands at about 300,000.

But the rivalry and hatred between Chirac and Sarkozy has been long running - they were once even thought of as political father and son; or at least son-in-law. But since falling out 12 years ago, when Sarkozy revealed he would be supporting Edouard Balladur, the Prime Minister at the time and former Chirac acolyte, in the 1995 presidential election, they have vigorously detested one another.

Then there was the Clearstream affair, which was intended to dent Sarkozy’s name: a bogus allegation that Sarkozy, and others, had illegal bank accounts in Luxembourg, yet despite this Nicolas Sarkozy is apparently still one of the few politicians whom Chirac addresses as “tu” rather than the formal version “vous”.

According to the Independent’s John Lichfield, Sarkozy, “with his energy, his cheek, his uncloaked ambition, his impetuousness, his tactical brilliance, his occasional tactical stupidity, Sarkozy resembles the young Chirac,” but notes that there are important differences between the two: “Sarkozy seems at least to want to DO something; not just to BE something”.

He has, after all, been dubbed by many political analysts as “the French Margaret Thatcher”, someone who will shake up the country after having promised to reverse what many people see as a feeling of decline in France.

However, his handling of the 2005 riots in Clichy-sous-Bois, which were aggravated by Sarkozy’s describing suburban youth gangs as “racaille” (scum), did at the time did very little for his reputation. But Sarkozy is on his way back, and in the aftermath, he was even seen by many white middle-class voters as their best protection against suburban violence!

Sarkozy is now looking to be a powerful candidate.

Whoever wins the UMP's vote, to be held on the 14th January 2007, will face the Socialist Party's Segolene Royal, who won the race to represent the party with nearly 60% of the vote last month.

Whether it is Sarkozy or Royal who takes over the hotseat from Chirac in May 2007, one thing is for sure, the race for the Elysée is now hotting up. Sarkozy’s announcement of his intention to run for election came as little surprise, but the timing may have left Chirac choking on his Birthday morning croissant…

Labels: Politics

Posted by Andrew at 1:05 PM | Permalink | Comments

Last week saw the first anniversary of the deaths of two Parisian teenagers, which sparked riots across the country lasting 21 nights, in which over 9000 cars burnt and nearly 3,000 people arrested, but it also marked the annual celebration of youth culture in one community of Bordeaux.

On 27th October 2005 in the North-eastern Parisian suburb of Clichy-sous-Bois, two boys, Zyed Benna, 17, and Bouna Traore, 15, were electrocuted after climbing into an electrical sub-station - in what locals say was the result of an attempt to hide from police.

Two days beforehand on a visit to the Parisian suburb of Argenteuil to see how his new measures against urban violence were working, Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy had been pelted with stones and bottles, after having said that crime-ridden neighbourhoods should be "cleaned with a power hose" and described violent elements as "gangrene" and "rabble".

And so as the news of the two teenagers’ deaths spread, riots were triggered in the local area, which is home to large African and Arab communities.

On the 30th October 2005, Mr Sarkozy pledged there would be "zero tolerance" for the rioting and sent police reinforcements to Clichy-sous-Bois, where a tear gas grenade, like those used by riot police, exploded in a mosque, provoking further anger.

As the violence started to expand out from the capital, and thousands more vehicles burned with every night that passed, the French government put into force a series of emergency powers across more than 30 French towns and cities, including the Paris suburbs. In what was the first time the law had been implemented in mainland France since its introduction in 1955, the northern city of Amiens was the first to impose a curfew.

The police then as a result reported a drop in the level of violence across France as a whole, with the number of cars set alight falling to just over 600, hundreds fewer than the night before. Some 280 people were arrested and disturbances broke out in 116 areas, half the number affected the previous night.

However, violence still persisted in isolated patches with Bordeaux itself being one after a gas-powered bus exploded after it was hit by a petrol bomb in the cities’ suburbs.

A year on, 2006, and the violence has reared its ugly head once again as thousands of riot police were redeployed back into the Clincy-sous-Bois suburb, where the original riots has started, and where more buses were burnt and at least 500 people marched in memory of the two teenage boys, both of whom were from immigrant families.

And in Marseille on Saturday (28th October), a 26-year-old Senegalise woman, Mama Galledou, was left with burns to nearly 70% of her body after a group of teenagers reportedly forced open the doors of a bus and threw an inflammable liquid inside before fleeing.

Elsewhere around the country, around 200 vehicles were set alight and nearly 50 people were arrested.

But despite the year anniversary of the violent attacks, in Pessac, a “commune” of Bordeaux, the community was not being set ablaze by fire, but by community spirit and the 9th annual youth festival celebrating all that encompasses youth culture.

The “Urban Vibrations” festival takes place over a period of 11 days (25th October – 5th November) and is crammed full of events for youths and the rest of the community to partake in such as rap evenings, film and documentary screenings, break-dancing lessons and competitions, beat-boxing, art exhibitions, basketball and street ball competitions, Pro Evolution Soccer competitions and an array of other sporting contests and even a “turn-up and decorate the festival sites” graffiti evening.

One of the sporting contests taking place was a skateboarding competition, which carried a cash prize to the winner of 15,000 Euros (roughly £10,000).

Free to enter and with the only other obligation being that you wear a helmet, anyone was able to participate in the qualifications, and although they really tried their best, this reporter declined! The contest’s finale was very well supported and the standard of competition was surprising to say the least, but what struck me about the whole event was that it was for everyone – families, elderly people (ok maybe not the skate-boarding, BMX or roller-blading - but they were all there!).

So while the recent bus attacks in Paris and Marseille have marked the anniversary and spread new fears of nationwide riots, in other parts of the country community relations are very much on a better foot. So much so I might go pick up a spray can and leave my mark on the wall in Pessac with the rest of the citizens!!!

Published on the sheffieldbase http://www.sheffieldbase.com/story.php?s=1376

Labels: Politics

Posted by Andrew at 6:56 PM | Permalink | Comments

Former French Premier Ministre Alain Juppé is today beginning his second term as the mayor of Bordeaux following last night's election victory - in which he recorded his highest percentage majority vote (56.24%) - [abstention rate: 55%].

Juppé, representing the RPR party, was the mayor of Bordeaux from June 1995 until December 2004 when he was convicted of mishandling public funds and was forced to leave the political world. He was convicted and initially sentenced to a 18-month suspended jail sentence, the deprivation of civic rights for five years, and the deprivation of the right to run for political office for 10 years, but he appealed against the decision and as a result his disqualification from holding elected office was reduced to one year and the suspended sentence cut to 14 months.

At the end of this "year out" spent in "exile" in Canada, Juppé returned to Bordeaux and was relected mayor in the municipal elections of 8th October 2006.

The man who gave Bordeaux the wonderful tram network is back, and according to "la Rachitique" - a student paper I was given today while queueing for my sandwich - the locals are pleased to have him back. "Ah Alain", it reads, "tu es revenu, enfin" (you have returned, finally).

Labels: Politics

Posted by Andrew at 6:01 PM | Permalink | Comments