Cardinal Martini pleads for a more articulate Church

Martini, the former Cardinal of Milan, spoke in clear terms against the stubborn repetition of the moral superiority of the Catholic Church.

Instead of doing so, the Church should promote its model as a good model. For example, the Church's understanding of family is not intresically superior to others and without reasons. The Church should articulate its reasons why it thinks that its family model may be more appealing that one put forward by competing ways of thinking.

Only speaking to the people in their own words will finally give the Church the moral leverage that it has lost, at least in Europe

Pope against Rights

The Vatican pursues its offensive line against the liberalisation of Italian society, but its message is obviously applicable to the whole world.

The battle is directed at the moment against the same sex union project of law. In Europe, Spain, France, Benelux, the UK and other States have already adopted legislation to this effect.

The Pope's turn of the screw include also some curious policies such as strengthening the use of latin during Mass. Read here.

Italy: a new immigration law

The draft proposal will be presented in Parliament next week.

You can find a report here.

Here's an excerpt:
The eight-page text, drafted by the legal offices of the Interior and Social Solidarity ministries, is finally ready. It will introduce a series of fast tracks for hiring home helps, carers and those with special skills, such as engineers and university staff, but entry will also be open to unskilled foreign workers.And to all those who already speak Italian.

American Universities and Equality

...do not go hand in hand. Rich people have a privileged access to the best Universities, as this interesting study in the NYRB confirms.

here's an excerpt:

The causes and consequences of these dispiriting facts are complex, and the cost to society—moral and material—is high. There is moral cost in the shortfall between the professed ideal of equal opportunity and the reality of rising inequality. As for the material cost, "there has never been reason to believe that all outstanding candidates will be able to pay whatever fees are charged without help," as Bowen and his colleagues put it, and "society at large needs all the trained talent it can marshal."

Bye Bye Chirac

President Jacques Chirac has announced that he will not run for a third mandate. After 12 years, and at 74, he decides to 'serve the French people in other ways.'

As a result 2007 will see the end of two heavyweight of European politics, Chirac and Blair, who have dominated the scene for the past 10 years or so.

We can only hope that after them, Europe and the world will be less polarized.

Energy and Europe: Not Without Hope

That is what Angela Merkel said yesterday in Brussels:

The European Union should make a binding commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 20% in relation to 1990 values and to increase by 20% the share of renewable energies. That is the goal Federal Chancellor Angela Merkel has set her sights on. At the end of the first working day of the European Council meeting in Brussels, she appeared confident that on this point the Member States would reach agreement.

The Chancellor also made clear, however, that on the specifics more discussions were needed. "What we can achieve I will only be able to announce at the end of the Council."The atmosphere during the discussion in the evening, Angela Merkel noted in Brussels, had been very positive and constructive. The debate had been a very serious one, since the goal was highly ambitious. "We want the EU to make a binding commitment to this goal," she pointed out.

"It is important that we can tell the G8 members that Europe has made a real commitment. That gives us a measure of credibility," the Council President emphasized. There are two goals at stake, she noted.

The first concerned the share of renewable energies, meaning wind, water, sun and biomass. "Nuclear energy," she made clear, "does not fall into this category."

The second concerned the overall reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 20%. In this context nuclear energy could count as a low CO2 emitting energy source. This was an issue France in particular had raised.

Catholics, pain and Europe

Are Catholics in Europe moving onward or backward?

Some medieval practices that are spreading again in Italy suggests the latter:

Here's an interesting article:

Here's an excerpt:

Catholics and the Return of the Spiked Metal “Cilicio”.

The unfortunate senator and Opus Dei numerary Paola Binetti fell into the trap of admitting on television that she was familiar with the “cilicio”, a spiked metal garter, and attempted to explain why it is used: “It forces us to reflect on the fatigue of living. It is the sacrifice of a mother waking up at night because her baby is crying”.

8th of March

Women's day.

This is the year of Segolene Royal, Hillary Clinton and Angela Merkel.

Royal is still misterious. Is she going to reform France at the root, or will she bring more of the old (French socialism).

Hillary is very ambitious and very experienced. But unfortunately, many men do not like ambitious women, or at least that is my feeling. They should give her a chance.

Angela Merkel is doing well despite many things. Her government formed by a large coalition is a slow machine. But Germany is improving economically and Europe is following. Merkel is also leading the European Council with more energy and ideas than their recent predecessors (notably Tony Blair).

We can only hope that 2007 will be a succesfull year for Women!

The European Council is coming up...

...It will take place on the 8th and 9th of March. This is Angela Merkel's message:

Europe is at an important crossroads. If we act decisively now, we have a chance of effectively counteracting the dangers of climate change. Climate and energy policies are therefore at the centre of this European Council. We must use the spring meeting to decide on a strategy which will safeguard our energy supply and ensure climate protection on a sustainable basis. Our response to this issue will have repercussions for the future of Europe and beyond.

Europe is currently experiencing an economic upturn. The reforms undertaken as part of the Lisbon Strategy for Growth and Employment are beginning to bear fruit. We should use this positive development to further modernise Europe and its industry and make them fit to face the challenges ahead.We also intend at the forthcoming meeting to take measures to boost employment and reinforce the social dimension, as well as to promote better regulation.We begin our consultations on Thursday evening at 17.30 with an exchange of views with the President of the European Parliament, Hans-Gert Pöttering.

Following this, the first working session will take place from 18.00 to 20.00. It will be devoted to questions of energy policy and climate protection policy. Last December we decided that we would work out an action plan in the area of energy policy for Europe and tackle the political, economic and external repercussions of energy policy and climate protection policy in that context. The Commission submitted a proposal on this subject in January 2007. We shall discuss a number of priority measures at our spring Council and we shall have the opportunity on this occasion to set out a European strategy with ambitious goals and timetables. I have asked the President of the European Commission, José Manuel Barroso, to give an introductory presentation on the subject.

David Cameron's Europe: Old, Boring, and Flawed

David Cameron, leader of the Tories in the UK, wrote a piece on his view of Europe together with Mirek Topolanek, prime minister of the Czech Republic.

The lack of ideas and projects of Mr Cameron is staggering. He claims he started a movement for european reform. He is probably unaware of the fact that there are thousand similar movements across Europe.

He makes three points as to where Europe should go. First, it should be committed to an open market. Second, it should be committed to a nationalist perspective. Third, it should be committed to a strong Transatlantic bond.

The third point is probably where we agree. It needs no commentary, if to say that he is stating the obvious. The second point goes backward instead of going forward. Europe was and is a succesfull project because it manages to go beyond national states. To fall back to that pre-WW2 position would be a dramatic failure. The first point is at best, and again, stating the obvious problem of competition in a globalized world. Everyone is aware of that. Cameron does not offer anything interesting or different or constructive.

Here's the text:

Fifty years ago this month, the post-war generation of mainland Europe came together to articulate a project conceived in hope and forged by necessity: the hope was for a peaceful and prosperous future; and the necessity was economic ruin and political division. In signing the Treaty of Rome, they laid the foundations of the European Union.

In 1973 Britain, at a time of its own economic weakness, joined what was then still a small club of nations. It was not an easy start. Britain already had strong links with strategic partners around the world through the Commonwealth, family ties and trade. And public and political opinion was split over the relative merits of membership.

This ambivalence was to characterise much of Britain’s relationship with the EU ever since. This is in stark contrast to the Czech experience. When the Iron Curtain came crashing down and a politically plural culture and free trade took root, there was little ambivalence towards the EU: joining it was a priority, not an afterthought It was necessary to entrench the new found freedoms which the Czechs fought so hard to win and the prosperity which they had so longed for.

Our countries joined the European Union for different reasons and with different enthusiasms. And we have had different experiences. But today, as leaders of our respective country’s leading centre-right political parties, we are united with a common purpose: to make the EU change so it can be a force for good in the twenty-first century.

Fifty years after the Treaty of Rome, we have a new Europe, facing new challenges and with a new generation of leaders. But we have the same EU, still too attached to the tenets of centralisation and regulation and still too interested in itself, rather than worldwide challenges such as globalisation, climate change and global poverty. A new, positive agenda for Europe means reconnecting it to these urgent priorities. It means moving towards a new flexibility and dynamism. And it means looking outwards to the world.

That is why we launched the Movement for European Reform. We will be carrying out a comprehensive review of the EU’s policies, priorities, institutional capabilities and budget, it is open to all those - public servants, professionals, diplomats, business-leaders and students - who share our determination to make the EU work better. We want to pioneer a new agenda for Europe, underpinned by what we believe to be the three key commitments for a forward-looking EU.

First, the EU should be clearly and unambiguously committed to open markets. With increased and fierce competition from countries such as India and China, Europe has to take the steps that make our economies both open and dynamic. Responding to this challenge means discarding the old habits of regulation and fighting for free trade both within and without.

But free trade must also be fair. As the world’s largest trading block, the EU has a responsibility to ensure that the benefits of economic growth are shared by everyone. We should use trade liberalisation at home to provide economic opportunities, and spur development, abroad. This EU must use its collective muscle to push the World Trade Organisation to reduce the tariffs which entrench poverty in the developing world.

Second, the EU should be committed to a Europe of nation states. This means matching the growing flexibility of the globalised economy with flexibility in the political compact between Brussels and member states. At the moment, the EU’s default response to the challenges of our times is always to reach for more power- not least through a new Constitution for Europe. There is a strong tendency to do this by debating the future of 500 million people behind closed doors. This is precisely why so many people feel disenfranchised by the European project. For the EU to be relevant in the 21st century, it must respect equal status for all EU members and, while maintaining the single market as the EU’s core, give more flexibility in areas where member states may want either closer or looser control.

A more flexible EU also means one that can continue to expand. The enlargement of the European Union – from just six in 1957 to 27 members today - has helped entrench democracy and stability from the Baltic to the Mediterranean. That is a marvellous achievement. But we cannot now allow arguments over institutional structures to block further enlargement. That means holding out a real prospect of membership to the Western Balkans, to Turkey, to the Ukraine.

Third, the EU should be committed to a strong transatlantic relationship. Europe and the United States have a deep and wide history of friendship based on shared objectives. That this remains the case today can be in no doubt. Whether it is in rising to the challenge of globalisation, articulating a coherent and progressive response to climate change, confronting the imperative of energy security, or advancing wealth creation and the principles of freedom across the world, EU member states must understand that we can achieve most by working with America, rather than against it.

Today, the Movement for European Reform is holding its inaugural conference in Brussels. A vast array of thought provoking policy-makers, thinkers and members of the public will outline how best they think Europe can marry these principles with the priorities of the 21st century: globalisation, global poverty, climate change and international security. After a year of consultation, it will publish its suggestions. Most importantly, we want to hear from you- visit our website and have your say on our shared future.

Our two countries came to the European project with different histories and motivations. But today, as a new generation of Europe’s leaders, we are committed not only to establishing a new political grouping in the European parliament, but also too making the EU fit for the 21st century: one that is a force for good in the world; one that leads by example; and one that delivers. Join us in building an EU that we can all be proud of.

Europe and North Korea

Another interesting area in which the European Presidency is actively engaged (statement released by the Presidency):

Today (Tuesday, 6 March), a delegation of the European Union, led by Germany´s EU presidency, will travel to Pyongyang in North Korea for two days of high-level political talks (6 8 March).

The aim of this trip by the EU Troika is to promote the rapid implementation of an agreement reached on 13 February in Beijing during the Six-Party Talks on North Korea´s nuclear programme. The European Union expressly welcomed this agreement. Furthermore, the delegation will emphasize that the EU expects the Six-Party Talks to continue with a view to implementing all the agreements included in the Joint Statement of 19 September 2005.

The European Union is committed to security and stability in the region and to the goal of a denuclearized Korean peninsula. For that reason, both Federal Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier, as representative of the German presidency of the EU Council, and Javier Solana, the High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy of the European Union Javier Solana, have welcomed the efforts made by the Six Parties and the understandings they have reached.

For the EU, the trip also is of an exploratory nature since the outcome of the visit will provide important guidelines for discussions within the EU as to its future relations with North Korea.The Troika delegation comprises Germany´s current EU presidency as well as representatives of the European Commission and the Secretariat General of the European Union. Portugal, which will take over the EU presidency after Germany, will also participate.

Europe and the Future of Georgia

The Presidency of the EU has issued the following statement:

The European Union reiterates its full support for the territorial integrity of Georgia within its internationally recognized borders and emphasises that it does not recognise the legitimacy of the so-called "Parliamentary elections" held in Abkhazia, Georgia, on 4 March 2007 and of the local elections held on 11 February 2007.

The European Union holds the view that elections in this region of Georgia can only be valid after all refugees and internally-displaced persons are given the right to a safe, secure and dignified return to their homes.

The European Union urges the parties concerned to immediately resume negotiations in order to reach a peaceful solution to the conflict.

Europe: 50 years after!

On March 25th, it will be the 50th anniversary of the Treaties of Rome (1957), the founding Treaties of the European Union.

Here's a good link to prepare for celebration!

Here's a brief intro:

On 25 March 1957, the European Economic Community (EEC) and the European Atomic Energy Community (EURATOM) for joint research and civil use of nuclear energy were founded with the signing of the Treaties in the Musei Capitolini in Rome. The two Treaties entered into force on 1 January 1958 after being ratified by the six Member States. Prior to this, the European Coal and Steel Community had been created in 1952 while the attempt to establish a European Defence Community had failed in 1954. But plans for European integration did not end there. As early as 1956, the Belgian Foreign Minister Paul-Henri Spaak presented his report on the draft Community Treaties foreseeing the creation of the EEC.
The merger treaty of 1965 brought the bodies of the three Communities together. The new group was commonly referred to as the European Community. This became part of the European Union (EU) in 1993.
As successfully as the Economic Community developed, the Atomic Energy Community created little momentum. Since the treaties for both Communities were signed that day in Rome, however, we usually talk about the "Treaties of Rome" in the plural.

Merkel pushes Europe (and its constitution)

Angela Merkel, the German Chancellor, is now presiding the Council of the European Union. Yesterday, she has delivered before the Bundestag, an interesting policy statement as an introduction to the forthcoing meeting of the council.

Every pro-European expects very much from the German presidency, also because Germany is doing very well economically at the moment. This is a breath of fresh air for Europe as a whole, as the economist pointed out few weeks ago.

The presidency only lasts for 6 months, so if something has to happen it will have to happen very soon. Here's a calendar of the proposed actions.

Here's the policy document.

And here's an excerpt where she mentions the European Constitution:

We know that the question as to what will happen to the Constitutional Treaty after our Presidency is – I believe rightly so – vitally important to our Presidency and, even more so, to the future of the European Union. It will determine how we go into the 2009 European elections. We know that we cannot shape the European Union's common future on the basis of the Nice Treaty. We need a treaty which focuses more on regional, that is to say, subsidiary responsibility, which renders Europe's institutions efficient, which makes it clear what unites the European Union. That is why we will carry on working until June on a roadmap to determine how we should proceed with the Constitutional Treaty. Initial consultations have shown that, despite all the difficulties, there is widespread consensus that we have to send the message that this European Union is capable of action.

The End of the Italian Crisis

Today, Prody got the green light in the lower chamber of Parliament, La Camera. This was an expected result, as the majority in this chamber is clear, as opposed to the thin majority in the Senate.

The good side of the story is that the response to the crisis was quick and relatively painless.
The drawback is that Prodi's government is an unstable government in constant search of a majority.

His 12 points to govern Italy, shows that the Italian Constitution does not really facilitate the role of prime minister as a leader of the government.

Partly, this is perhaps due to Prodi's lack of charisma; partly, however, it comes down to the heavily parliamentarian regime in Italy. The prime minister is in many cases the puppet in the hands of the parliament and has no safeguards against mutinies

Yoo Shall Torture

Professor John Yoo gave a huge contribution to Bush's administration in its more troublesome period (2001-2003). His memo in defense of Torture is one of the most controversial, and in my mind, repelling documents ever written by a lawyer working for a government.

Yoo may have taken Alexander Hamilton as a role model, but he does not understand that boldness does not equate with lack of intellectual honesty.

Yoo's most recent book on this and other issues 'War by Other Means: An Insider's Account of the War on Terror,' has been admirably reviewed by David Luban in the New York Review of Books.

Prodi Survives, but how long?

Prodi survives, for the moment. The italian higher chamber gives green light to the government. But only few votes guarantee the numerical majority.

How long will Prodi-bis last? Not too long, I suspect. Enough to change the electoral law and to achieve few other reforms (probably small).

And there we go, we will vote again in a year or so.

Italy's Never-ending Political Instability

Prodi will face the Senate this evening. In his speech yesterday he underlined the priority of the electoral law, which was modified by Berlusconi just before the elections last year.

If that is the priority, then Prodi clearly believes that his government (if the senate approves) will not last very long.

I believe that neither Prodi nor Berlusconi should run in case we had elections soon. They are both old and compromised. They are clearly unable to bring together a sensible coalition. Prodi's case is clear now, but Berlusconi's coalition is in pieces as well. Notably, the centre right party (UDC- Christian Democrats), does not want to accept B's leadership anymore.

Is Anti-Americanism serious in Italy?

Anti-Americanism in Italy is still present, unfortunately. Its roots are the communist movements that were very strong in the 70's and in the 80's. In 1976, the communist party
got the 33% of the votes.

Today, Italy is still partly stuck with its past and display irrational anti-american feelings.
Here's an interesting article on the issue.

Democrats: Struggle for Power

Here's a briliant article on the NYRB describing the struggle for the democratic leadership in the US.

This is an introduction:

Who will be the Democrats' nominee for president, and how will that choice affect the center of gravity? The three leading contenders—Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, and Barack Obama—are making starkly different pitches to voters, based on quite different assumptions about what the party needs to do to break its stalemate. The next year and a half—in which we'll see if the Democrats make a success of their congressional majority and who captures the presidential nomination—will be the most consequential eighteen months the party has faced in some time.

Play it Again, Romano

This Wednesday, Prodi is going to go back to Parliament to have his government (the same) re-approved.

He will obviously start with the Senate, as it is in the Senate that he lost the majority. It seems that some of the right wing senators are willing to support Prodi this time round, so his majority will increase, but it is unclear whether this move will make the government more stable.

Tribute to Ennio Morricone

Morricone is one of the greatest italian musician alive. The Oscar he won for his career at 78 testifies of a monumental achievement. But of even greater impact are his words: 'the prize is not an ending point, it is a starting point to improve further.'

Humility and continuous self-development are the most important characters of a great Man.

French Presidential Elections: Segolene Royal

Segolene is a mistery. Both to french and non-french. She is very keen to appear modern, a XXI century socialist.
Yet, the programme she has unveiled recently is only about welfare redistribution in a very old fashion socialist style.

Economically she is nothing really new. Socially, she claims she will be tough on crime and disorder, and this reminds us of Tony Blair. But Tony is nothing new. Plus, Tony without his economic achievement is close to nothing especially if you judge by his international politics.

So, who is Segolene, and what is XXI century socialism? Unfortunately, to look for an answer to this questions may be like 'waiting for Godot.'

Scotland v Italy, 17-37: you'd better believe it!

This is a fine European Week-end. One needs to get away from politics and law from time to time...

Prodi's Lack of Leadership

Below are Prodi's non-negotiable conditions in case he will be offered
a second term in office.

Points 11 and 12 in particular show how weak is the former prime minister vis-a-vis the subcomponents of his coalition. Point 12, for example, says that the Prime Minister should be able to express the view of the government in case of contrasting viewpoints within the cabinet.

But, isn't that an implicit pre-condition of any government??? Do we really have to stress the importance of a self-evident truth?

The fact that Prodi feels the need of stressing it, is a sign of his weakness.


1. “Respect for international and peace commitments. Ongoing support for foreign policy and defence initiatives established in a UN framework and for Italy’s international commitments deriving from membership of the European Union and Atlantic Alliance, with reference among other things to the country’s current commitment to the mission in Afghanistan. Incisive action for the support and promotion of the asset represented by Italian communities abroad”.
2. “Strong commitment for culture, school, university, research and innovation”.
3. “Rapid implementation of the infrastructure plan, and in particular the European corridors, including Turin-Lyon. Commitment on sustainable mobility”.
4. “Programme for the efficiency and diversification of energy sources: renewable sources, and localisation and completion of regasification plants”.
5. “Continuation of liberalisation action and consumer protection in the context of services and professions”.
6. “Permanent attention and concrete commitment in favour of the South, starting with security”.
7. “Concrete, immediate action to significantly reduce public spending and spending related to political and institutional activities (politics-related costs)".
8. “Reorganisation of the welfare system with close attention to financial compatibility, focusing on low pensions and young people. With a commitment to source a proportion of the necessary resources by rationalising expenditure, partly by means of the unification of welfare institutions”.
9. “Reviving policies in support of the family by the extension of more substantial family allowances to all and a concrete plan for a significant increase in nursery schools”.
10. “Rapid solution of incompatibilities involving government and parliamentary appointments, in compliance with already agreed procedures”.
11. “In order to impress greater coherence on communication, the prime minister’s spokesperson will assume the role of spokesperson for the executive”.
12. “In line with this principle, to ensure full effectiveness of the government’s action, the prime minister shall have the authority to express the government’s position in a unitary fashion in case of contrast”.

Italian Crisis reveils troubled TransAtlantic Relations

It is interesting to see that the Italian Government, whose majority was very thin anyhow, fell on a TransAtlantic issue, ie the American military base in Vicenza.

We need greater clarity on these type of issues. On the Italian side, I think that it is of the outmost importance to abandon any stereotypical adversion to the US. We are on the same side, we share the same values, and we have to keep cooperating as best as we can. It is only a small group of italian 'pseudo post-neo- communist' who think that America is a danger.

There's a lot to do on the American side, however. Bush did everything to create a very unilateralist image of the US. In Europe, and in the rest of the world, this means that many people do not trust America anymore. Its action is often perceived as purely self-interested, as opposed to based on a well balanced view of international relations and politics, not to mention a degree of principle.

And the Crisis goes on...

The good thing about italian politics is that it is never dull. Something is happening all the time.
Fellini's movie " E la nave va" (and the Boat sails on) is a good metaphor for it. But at times the boat can sink and Italy is taking a lot of risks... Berlusconi's ghost is haunting us again.

You can find a report on the governmental crisis here.

Italian Government falls on American military base in Vicenza

The Italian government went down in Parliament. The issue was an American military base in Vicenza and the parliament had to decide whether to give a green light.

Most of the extreme left wing was opposed to it, and d'Alema, the foreign affair minister, did not manage to convince them to vote in favour of the military base.

As a result, d'Alema has resigned and the government will have to be reshuffled. It is likely that Prodi will form a second government, but d'Alema will not be in it anymore.

Hard times ahead for Prodi who will certainly not be strengthened by this accident.

North Korea: Past and Future

North Korea is still a ticking bomb. An interesting article on the NYRB examines recent developments and future scenarios.

Here's the interesting conclusion:

Oddly though, what Kim Jong Il would decide if asked to choose between the bomb and a full, normal, nonbelligerent relationship with Washington has never been tested. Very likely, a working relationship with the United States would prove more subversive of the North Korean dictatorship than the efforts to isolate it and punish it have been. It is something that a new administration might try, assuming it is not already too late.

Distant Brides and Plural Societies

A court in Italy has recognized the validity of a marriage celebrated via telephone and in conformity to Pakistani laws. The woman will now be allowed to join her husband, who is presently in Italy, thanks to the norms that facilitate family reunion in Europe.

Yet another challenge to the Catholic conception of marriage? Is Italy moving to a value pluralist understandig of Marriage? In many ways, this is certainly the case. In this particular event, however, it simply comes down to a question of private international law.

The Vatican and Same Sex Couples

Today Prodi, the Italian Prime Minister, met some of the Vatican Archibishops to talk about the new same sex partnership law proposal. It is reported that the dialogue went well.

The Church is very skeptical about such proposal, but it seems as if they want to engage in a discussion to test new ideas.

Is it a sign of conversion on the part of the Vatican? We can only hope so. But I doubt it.

French Presidential Elections: 2 Months to Go

France will change its head very soon. After 12 years of Chirac, this election will be very heated and important.

For those who want to follow the election closely, please have a look here (in french).

CIA's kidnappings in Italy

Some further judicial frictions between Italy and the US. After the accidents involved in the killing of an italian secret agent (Calipari) in Iraq, Italy is trying again to bring some US CIA agents before the courts. Here's a report

Berlusconi's government is very likely to have turned a blind eye on the practice of rendition. Prodi will not be as lineant.

Europe copies American Green Card

It will be called Blue Card, but the idea is the same as the Green Card. Highly skilled immigrants will have privileged status. This way, Europe wants to compete with Canada and the USA for the market of brains. For a good report, please see here

It would be all well and good, if Europe really had a competitive private market able to integrate quickly highly skilled people, in particular young ones. But the very problem is that jobs markets in France, Germany, Italy and Spain are quite rigid and biased in favour of more experienced people, rather than young and talented.

This might have changed in the last few years, if you listen to the report of the Economist on European Business. Who are the Champions--in business terms-- the Economist asks. Surprisingly, the competition between China and America is won by... Europe.

The relative health of the German economy, coupled with the efficiency of London, a struggle to improve of Paris, the disappearance of Berlusconi in Italy and the good term of Madrid all contribute to a renewed hope of European Competitiveness.

Red Brigades and Terrorism in Italy

In a time of international terrorism, homegrown 'communist' terrorists sound almost like a joke. But in Italy they aren't.

Red Brigades are still working and plotting against the state and some personalities. They hate particularly labour lawyers, one wonders why.

Few years ago, Marco Biagi, a labour law professor and counsel of the government was killed in Bologna.

Yesterday, the italian police captured a bunch of red brigades who were plotting to kill Pietro Ichino, another famouse labour law expert. You can find a report here.

Same Sex Unions and Religion

The italian project of a civil union law is provoking extreme reactions in the country, as it was sadly predictable. The Vatican is trying to insist on the inviolability of the family understood as the union between a man and a woman. The Church is unable to understand that discrimination vis-a-vis homosexuals is comparable to any other type of discrimination based on race, or religion.

For a more balanced religious view, listen to Michael J Perry, a Catholic Law Professor at Emory, in his recent book Toward a Theory of Human Rights:

"I expect that within the next generation or two -within the lifetime of our children's children-- the understanding will come to be widely shared, in the world's liberal democracies, that refusing to recognize same-sex unions, if not morally akin to outlawing interracial unions, is nonetheless bereft of any non demeaning rationale.'

Toward a Theory of Human Rights by Michael J Perry

This book does exactly what it claims: it attempts to develop a theory of human rights. Perry suggests that a theory of human rights should deal with three basic issues. First, the moral foundation of human rights. Second, the normative relationship between the morality and the law of human rights. Third, the institutional arrangements that best protect human rights.

To each of these three issues Perry offers very stimulating, and conspicuously controversial, treatment. He argues that the moral foundation of human rights can be defined in terms of the principle of dignity and inviolability of each human being. The trouble is, Perry argues, that secular people cannot offer a proper justification of dignity and inviolability. The only sound rationale is religious.

Once the foundation established, the following step is to explain in what way the morality of human rights influences the law of human rights. This is inextricably linked to the two claims of inherent dignity and inviolabililty. In legal terms, it means that those who commit to that morality will have to do all they can to enact laws that do not violate human beings, and refrain from relying on laws that do violate human beings.

Perry takes three areas to illustrate his claims. Death penalty, Abortion, and Same sex unions. Not afraid of challenging conventional understanding, he argues that his morality of human rights requires that death penalty be abolished. It requires that the pre-viability abortions be banned; and that same sex unions be recognised.

All this, however, is not as straightforward as it looks in normative terms. For, the institutional perspective nuances the general picture in many ways. The main question is to know what role should the courts play. Perry argues that the US system of judicial review coupled with judicial supremacy, gives excessive powers to courts. In other words, he disapproves of judicial ‘ultimacy,’ the fact that the US supreme court has the last word on the most controversial issues. Instead, he favours something close to the Canadian system, that he deems a system of judicial ‘penultimacy.’ The Supreme Court expresses itself on controversial issues, but the parliament can, if it wants, overrule the court’s decision thanks to the Canadian ‘notwithstanding clause.’ Perry presents this solution as an elegant compromise that conciliate judicial review with democratic participation. He says the same for the UK HRA 1998.

In the US, judicial ultimacy is not likely to be removed. To mitigate its effect, Perry suggests that court should adopt a deferential attitude along the lines proposed by James Bradley Thayer. Roughly, thayerian deference requires courts to apply the rule of the clear mistake—that is, interference only when the statute is clearly wrong. Thayerian deference is not grounded on the belief that the legislative or the executive are better equipped to take hard decisions. Thayer believes instead that a non-deferential system of judicial ultimacy would render citizens less politically and morally awake. Institutions may make mistakes and the way to redress them is to fight political battles not to devolve all the power to review those decisions to courts.

How does this affect the treatment of the relevant issues from the US point of view? Death penalty violates the constitution, but the court should so rule only if it believes that the legislator has made a clear mistake. Pre-viability Abortion violates the constitution, but the same caveat applies. Finally, the ban on same sex unions is unconstititutional, but court should be deferential along the same lines.

Perry’s book is very welcome. He is right to insist from the beginning to the conclusion that the work on theories of human rights has just begun. His contribution will no doubt advance the debate because it focuses on central issues without seeking approval. His theses are clearly exposed and highly controversial. The debate can begin.

It should begin and take place globally. And here’s my first criticism to Perry’s book. As many Anglo-American scholars, he ignores almost entirely the debates in non-english speaking countries. Most of European countries have produced fine scholarship on these issues, and a lot of this material is also available in English. One example above all is Robert Alexy’s Theory of Constitutional Rights, translated in English and published by OUP.

This leads to a second point. One may argue that Perry draws a distinction between Human Rights and Constitutional Rights. He may then claim that theories have been produced on the latter but not on the former. Indeed, at the beginning he seems to concentrate on international human rights as opposed to domestic constitutional rights. But by the end of the book it is clear, that the morality of human rights he finds in the international arena should also apply domestically, say at the level of the US Supreme Court.

I would find such a distinction helpful as it could underline another major difference between international human rights and domestic constitutional rights. The latter are nowadays well protected precisely because of judicial review, while the former are far away from being effectively protected. This may also point to the fact that Perry’s criticism to judicial review is exaggerated. One may suggest, not so foolishly, that liberal democracies came to protect constitutional rights so robustly precisely because of judicial review. If anything, the UK example shows that during Thatcher’s government rights were not respected and judges had little weapons to fight back. Moreover, parliament was incapable to stand alone for the rights of the citizens. It is such an abuse that led the labour government to entrench rights and to protect them through judicial review.

Now Perry could say that the HRA does not introduce a system of judicial ultimacy, but only an elegant compromise between parliamentary sovereignty and judicial review. Whether that is an elegant compromise, I have many doubts. Whether it will work in the long run, it is another open issue. The HRA is in the eyes of many either too much or too little. It is too much in the very eyes of those who have entrenched it and then complained that it bound excessively the executive in its war against terrorism. Its too little in the eyes of many advocates who fought for a bill of rights, Lord Lester for example, and thought that the HRA could be a first step toward a fully entrenched and fully reviewable bill of rights.

The most controversial of all issue, however, is that of the foundation of rights. Many liberal philosophers, starting from Rawls and Habermas, have amply shown that our secular democracies have borrowed a lot from religious concepts. Dignity and inviolability of human beings may well be concepts of Christian origins, but our societies have translated those concepts to our secular frameworks. This is not to deny their Christian root, to the contrary. But liberal democracies, beyond translation, also made possible the effective protection of dignity and inviolability of human beings. This was not true of the period preceding the establishment of liberal democracies, which we could deem the age of the Res Publica Christiana. During those ages, dignity and inviolability of human beings might have been already strong Christian principles, but their violation in practice also was very common. We may say, therefore, that liberal democracies brought to a totally different stage those principles, and to a certain extent the Church is catching up with the recognition of the importance of the consequences that we may want those principles to have.

Thus, liberal democracies not only translated those principles, but they also transformed them into tools for the improvement of the society. Religion can claim part of merit, but it also has to acknowledge the intrinsic merits of liberalism, as far as the redefinition and concrete protection of those principles is concerned.

To engage with Perry’s book does not detract anything to its quality. To the contrary, the quest for a proper theory of human rights should probably start there.

Same Sex Unions in Italy

Italian Government has presented today its legislative proposal for same sex unions. If you read italian, you can have a look at the proposal here.

The proposal still has to be voted in parliament (both lower and higher chambers). Amendments are likely to be presented.

That said, the text is a very big effort of Prodi's majority to find a compromise between the religious and the secular wing of the coalition. Any amendments would risk to compromise the compromise (if I may say).

One important proviso, this proposal has the main goal of recognising de facto couples, including homosexual couples. It does not allow homosexual to get married.

It is still an important step toward the recognition of rights and duties of stable, non-married, couples.

A final point: the debate is likely to be intense. The vatican has already intervened many times to discourage this possibility.

Machism in Italy: Women are still an object.

Many newspapers report today last Berlusconi's gaffe. In public, he makes appreciative comments of young italian ladies; Berlusconi's wife did not like them and challenged him publicly to apologize.

Internationally, this news can only be interpreted in one way: Berlusconi is an old man with a very machist perspective on women.

Unfortunately, in Italy, many people still recognize themselves in this horrific image. It is sad and despicable, but that is the way it is. Of course, only a chunk of the population would share Mr B's attitude. Needless to say, those who support him in this, are also those who vote him. The rest of the population is likely to be shocked and appalled by the very possibility of such a behaviour.

Kofi Annan's Last words

Here, you can find Kofi Annan's last speech on the Middle East to the UN.

Berlusconi's Successor?

Berlusconi elects his successor: it will be Mr Fini a clever italian politician with a very dark past.
Fini was formed politically in the ranks of MSI (Italian Social Movement) a post-fascist party created
after the end of the Second World War.

When Fini became the President of MSI, he did his best to mutate it into a democratically acceptable party.
The output was Alleanza Nazionale. The mutation, however, has never been complete. Many representatives in that party hold on to the post-fascist credo and they are less than presentable.

Mr Fini himself managed to sell a much more palatable image. But it is less than clear whether he could lead a coalition of moderate people, when his own party has such a daunting past, and nebulous present.

Former allies are probably the most dissatisfied: to the right, the northern ligue disapproves of national alliance precisely because Fini's party is in favour of national unity, while the northern party is all for federalism.

The other, former, Chritian ally declares itself uninterested: Berlusconi's coalition is not that fashionable anymore

The ECHR has a New President

Jean Paul Costa is the new President of the European Court of Human Rights. His mandate has just begun. He replaces the former Swiss President, Luzius Wildhaber. Here's Costa's interesting speech.

Scotland & Kosovo

The Guardian argues how a possible supervised independence for Serbia’s Province of Kosovo might play the role of a precedent in other cases such as Scotland for example. The Guardian writes, “The breakaway British region of Scotland could be among the beneficiaries of this week's expected UN recommendation that Kosovo be granted provisional independence from Serbia, leading in time to full sovereign status. If the plan backed by the US, Britain and Germany is formally accepted by the UN Security Council, it will be taken as an important international legal precedent by would-be separatist movements from Georgia to Moldova to Chechnya, and possibly also the Scottish National party.” For more information read here.

New Books on Theories of Human Rights

A Couple of good titles for those of you interested in Theories of Fundamental Rights.

The first, just published, is Tim Macklem's Independence of Mind, Oxford University Press.

The second is M.J.Perry, Toward a Theory of Human Rights: Religion, Law and Courts published by CUP (forthcoming 2007)


I add Constitutional Dilemmas: Conflicts of Fundamental Legal Rights, just to make three.

Serbian 2007 Elections: Victory of the Pro-European Forces

On the Serbian parliamentary elections held yesterday 21^st of January 2007 Pro-European political block won the majority of votes. The largest number of citizens voted for the Ex-Milosevic’s ally Serbian Radical Party but this party will not be in a position to form the new government, both because no party seems willing to ally with them (because of the international pressure) as well as they themselves publicly announced would not form a coalition with any of the parties that entered the Parliament, apart from the parties of national minorities and possibly the Socialist Party of Serbia.

The electoral results are the following: Serbian Radical Party won 81 seats, Democratic Party (of the Serbian President Boris Tadic) won 65, Democratic Party of Serbia (of the Serbian Prime Minister Kostunica) won 47, G 17 Plus 19, The Coalition led by the Liberal Democratic Party 15, ex-Milosevic’s Socialist Party of Serbia 16 and the parties of national minorities 7. In other words political parties that were in power during the ancien regime of Milosevic won 97 seats, while the parties that governed Serbia in the post-Milosevic period won 153 seat. In the parliamentary elections of 2003 this ratio was 104 vs. 146, while in the 2000 elections post-Milosevic parties won as much as 176 seats, leaving the parties of the ex-regime on meagre 74.

Bearing in mind the fact that Serbia is undergoing a painful (but arguably a rather successful) transition process, it is rather surprising even that the populist opposition parties did not win even more. As far as the governing coalition of the Prime Minister Kostunica is concerned they suffered a significant blow. Together (DSS, NS, G 17 and SPO) they won 66 seats (SPO 0 since they did not manage to cross the threshold of 5%), while after the 2003 elections they held 110 (They ruled in a position of a minority government thanks to the votes of ex-Milosevic’s party Socialist Party of Serbia). The biggest victor in these elections is the newly founded Liberal Democratic Party that together with its coalition partners managed to enter the Parliament and win 15 seats. This party is largely formed of the ex-members of the Democratic Party and together with the Democratic Party holds the claim over the political legacy of the late Serbian Prime Minister Zoran Djindjic. Democratic Party, the main-stream reformist, centre-left party of the Serbian President Boris Tadic is also a winner of these elections (the best result ever of this party) although their supporters, who hoped to win more in the elections, are left with a bitter (for them) perspective of having to deal with PM Kostunica’s Democrats for the formation of the new government.

There are several scenarios for the formation of the new government but two are the most likely:

1) The coalition of the DS, DSS-NS Coalition and the G 17 Plus is the most probable outcome, although it remains uncertain who will lead this coalition, the candidate of DS Bozidar Djelic, the current Serbian Prime Minister Kostunica, the leader of G 17 Plus Mladjan Dinkic or a neutral technocrat able to rally the abovementioned parties together. The Coalition grouped around the Liberal Democratic Party is unlikely to take part in the government, both because the Party of the Serbian Prime Minister is unready to cooperate with them and also because they are most likely to benefit from the coalition of DS and DSS in the long run. Some or all parties of the national minorities that managed to enter the Parliament will most probably take part in the new government.

2) All other coalitions are highly unlikely since they are likely to cause serious political damage to both DS and DSS. According to the Serbian Constitution (article 109) if the aforementioned block of parties does not manage to make an agreement on the formation of the new government in three month, Serbia will have the new elections. The entire Pro-European block will not profit from the new elections, both because of the possible negative outcome of the future Kosovo status negotiation as well as because of the dissatisfaction of the voters with their inability to reach an agreement. So the two Democratic parties must reach an agreement, the sooner the better for Serbia and its citizens.

A brief reflection on some recent travels...

For the Christmas break this year, I drove with my partner from Geneva in Switzerland to Ružomberok in Slovakia. In doing so, we crossed a number of international borders: Switzerland to Austria; Austria to Germany; Germany to Austria; Austria to Hungary (took a wrong turn after Vienna; if you're ever going that way, don't follow the signs to Bratislava on the motorway, they'll take you via Györ, it's a good bit longer); Hungary back to Austria, and Austria to Slovakia. Six borders, and we didn't show our passports once.

This, of course, is one of the most striking advances made by the European Union; and the extent to which it has been consolidated is illustrated by the extent to which those of us from the old EU-15 states at least now take such freedom of movement completely for granted. My experience on the trip to Slovakia did not really strike me as in any way remarkable until an even more recent trip to the US, where the difference could not have been more stark. After some checking to ensure that my passport was machine readable - and I was thus eligible for the visa waiver programme, I still had to have both a digital photograph and two fingerprints taken before I could enter the country.

This is not, however, intended to add to the chorus of voices criticising the US for recent security measures; rather it is to insist that the extraordinary advances made within the EU - so accepted now as to be almost overlooked by those long used to benefitting from them - be accorded their rightful place in any evaluation of the advantages and disadvantages of the Union. It has many well-publicised shortcomings; it would be a huge error, however, to allow these to dominate discourse to the exclusion of its incredible achievements. Of course, these benefit, in global terms, only a select few; however, to arrive at this point in a continent so recently divided by two world wars and one cold one, is certainly no mean feat.

The Build Up to the American Presidential Elections

Hilary has officially started her campaign, see here Her committee will even use a blog.

It looks as if we'll have two interesting years to come in the US. I still have a doubt, maybe someone can help: Is Obama real or is he fake? On paper, he looks good, perhaps too good to be true. Any ideas?

European Constitution: A Revival?

At least if you listen to what Angela Merkel has to say, it would seem that the relaunch of the European Constitution is a top priority for the EU. See here for a report.

Merkel has just taken up the position of President of the Council of the European Union, a responsibility she holds along with the presidency of the G8. She is determined to make something out of it, as it may be easier to do something at the European/International level than to shake the torpid German political and economic stagnation (although the economy is going better as of late).

Her agenda is incredibly ambitious: 'It included progress on energy security and climate change, a global trade deal, a new partnership agreement with Russia, and greater peace efforts for the Middle East. ' Too ambitious, say the skeptic (the Economist in particular). In the last couple of years, though, the lack of initiative and action was devastating. A bold agenda can be launched now, we will see how long it takes to implement it.

Berlusconi is desperate to be America's Best Friends

At times Silvio (Berlusconi) is endearing, poor old little chap. Now He claims in his clownish fashion that he's the best friend the US have ever had. Then he adds that Prodi and the new italian government are foes of America.

I am always curious to know what is the image of Berlusconi across the Ocean. If you have any contribution please leave a comment. As far as the Atlantic Alliance is concerned, the US should not be afraid. Italy simply can't afford to be a foe of the US. That would be meaningless, if not ridiculous. But abroad many people now know that Berlusconi can indeed be ridiculous.

For a longer report, please read here

Independence of Kosovo vs. Humanitarian Interventions

In the current issue of the German Law Journal, entirely dedicated to the legal dimension of the future status of the Serbian Province of Kosovo I published an article: Srdjan Cvijic, “Self-determination as a challenge to the legitimacy of humanitarian interventions: The Case of Kosovo”, German Law Journal, Vol. 8, No. 1, January 2007

This article questions the legality of imposing independence for Kosovo without the consent of Serbia. It does so by firmly linking this question to the debate on the nature and legality of NATO’s 1999 humanitarian intervention in the FRY / Serbia. The UN-mediated process for negotiating the future status of this southern Serbian province, as well as the legal origin of the UN-mandated administration in Kosovo (UNMIK), represent a continuation of the original military and political involvement of NATO and the entire international community initiated six years ago. It is for this reason that no decision on the future status of Kosovo can be reached without bearing in mind the original basis of international involvement in FRY / Serbia. This article will analyse authoritative international jurisprudence that demonstrates how only “a thin red line” divides humanitarian interventions from being legal under international law. It further argues that instances of humanitarian intervention can, over time, acquire legality provided that stringent conditions are respected, the most important of which being that they serve no purpose other than the prevention of grave and immediate threats to human life. Consequently, humanitarian intervention should not serve as a tool for achieving political goals such as greater political autonomy, self-determination, or independence for particular groups within any given country. Infringement of this condition would amount to a revolutionary challenge to international law and threaten the return of the predominance of spheres of influence in international relations and law, taking us back to a past where war was considered the legitimate “continuation of politics by other means”. The imposition of an independence status for Kosovo on Serbia would not only amount to a revolutionary challenge to the established norms of international law, but would also jeopardize the development of the doctrine of humanitarian intervention.

Constitutional Dilemmas for 2007 (and beyond)

Euthanasia, Same sex unions, the legal status of embryos; these are few of the most daunting ethical issues that are debated in Europe and America.

The risk of polarisation of societies on these issues is great. In short, many believe that you simply can't regulate life at its beginning or at its end. In reality, part of the society believes that god gives and takes life so human cannot decide at his place. Half of the society disagrees and believes that humans must intervene in order to say what is permissible and what is not.

Given that the substantive issue is so difficult to settle, many argue that we should agree on a procedure on how to decide. Again, there's a party that trust supreme courts to do this job, and another faction that believes that representative instituions (i.e. parliaments) should take the lead.

I think that both majority rule and judicial adjudication are unfit for the job. Both would produce more polarisation than reduce it. Courts cannot escape the problem: the scene is always set as a confrontation between two claims, and the court must decide between those two claims. There is little margin for mediation and reasonable compromise. Parliaments, on the other hand, cannot possibly hope to settle these issues by voting. This process would have the result to trigger a neverending parliamentary battle, where opposing parties would try to impose their preferred view anytime they come to power.

Perhaps a better compromise on how to deal with those problems could be a special procedure whereby MPs and various other specialists are brought together to work out a compromise (it would inevitably involve a sacrifice). No simple majority would be allowed, at best a qualified majority (say 2/3) in extreme cases where unrelenting disagreement cannot be placated in any other way.

This is the gist of my new book, Constitutional Dilemmas, forthcoming in June 2007.

A Conference for 2007: the 23rd IVR Congress of Philosophy of Law

The IVR conference is organized every two year and its main focus is Philosophy of Law. This year it will take place in Cracow, Poland, from 1 to 8 August.

The Transatlantic Assembly will feature with a Workshop on Comparative Constitutionalism, see here

Luxuria, Islam and Gay Rights

The italian transgender MP, Vladimiro Guadagno, AKA Wladimir Luxuria is preparing to travel to Turkey and other Muslim states as a representant of gay rights.

This a very original initiative and it may well provoke more dialogue between Islam and Europe than the recent visit of the Pope.

You can read a good report in english here.

GLJ Koskenniemi Symposium

The excellent German Law Journal, a free online journal focusing, in part, on issues of public international law, has a fascinating collection of articles on From Apology to Utopia, written to mark the republication (with a new, extensive epilogue) of the already-classic volume. Countributors are a mix of established academics (such as David Kennedy) and up-and-coming scholars, and include a response from Koskenniemi himself. Well worth a read.

Ban Ki Moon and the Death Penalty

Ban-Ki-Moon, the new secretary general of the UN since January 1st 2007, hasn't started his mandate very well.
Questioned on the Italian proposal to end death penalty, Ban Ki Moon first rejected the idea on the grounds of national sovereignty. Then, today, he rectified his position through his office, claiming that he is against death penalty, but he believes the success of the motion is unlikely.

In short, Ban Ki Moon does not strike us immediately as a great communicator. Pity, the UN are not doing very well in terms of image and a strong President is the first requirement to build a new an improved image internationally. Let's give him the benefit of doubt.

Italy in the Security Council: No to Death Penalty

On January 1 2007, Italy joined the Security Council of the UN as a non-permanent member.

Its first proposal is very symbolic: Death penalty should be abolished around the world. Coming few days after the execution of Saddam Hussein, the proposal has a huge political impact.

American and Europe, though close on many aspects, do not share the same values when it comes to the desirability of the capital punishment.

Italy is one of the first country in the world where death penalty has been abolished. More importantly, Cesare Beccaria, a philosopher born in Milan in the 18th century, was one of the most outspoken advocate against the death penalty. His famous contribution to that debate, On Crimes and Punishments, is still worth reading for all those who are interested in the problem

European Enlargement and Deepening

Romania and Bulgaria have now joined the European Union. Slovenia has joined the Euro. These are only few signs that the EU is not sleeping, but it keeps very quiet.
Past problems have not disappeared and it is necessary to deal with them explicitly.
That is why Angela Merkl, the new President of the Council of the EU, has stressed the importance of a new text (Treaty or Constitution?) that can bring forward the all-important institutional adaptations. 2007 will be a crucial year in terms of institutional/constitutional reforms.

Democracy and Justice American style

Saddam is dead, hanged.
Is this day symbolic? Is it the beginning of a new democratic regime in Iraq?
Or is it the just end of a fair trial, as President Bush called it?

If it is meant to be the former, that is the building block of the Iraqui Democracy,
then this is a very bad point from which to start. Democracy is better founded on positive values such as respect for life, the life of everyone including grand scale criminals. Moreover, the Iraqui Democracy is in the process of being built. So who has the power to decide that the execution was democratic?

Some would say Justice! The question then is: was this a fair trial with a just end?
Many doubted the fairness of the trial itself (see Amnesty for instance). It is at least debatable whether the court, its composition, and its procedure were up to international standards of Justice.

Finally, and we come back to a previous issue, is the death penalty a just result of this trial. In Europe, this is clear, we agree that death penalty can NEVER be a just result. In America, the belief seems to be, on democratic grounds, that the death penalty can be a just outcome.

We can only wait and see what we will get out of this inhuman act of 'justice.' What we can say for the moment is that America has exported so far only the worst features of its own brand of Democracy and Justice to Iraq.

Scala says No to 'Berlusconi in underpants'

In Milan, people have a certain taste...
That's why the Opera Theather, La Scala, cancelled one of the shows meant to depict
Berlusconi, Chirac, Putin, Blair and Bush in underpants dancing on a black sea (of oil, needless to say).

Here's an article on the issue.

For 2007 we can only wish that the happy family of the five leaders mentioned above will disappear from the international scene.

Berlusconi was the first to go.
Chirac will be the second (French elections in April/May).
Blair will be the third (in june/july he will step down in favour of Brown).
Bush will join them in two years time.
And Putin will leave in 2009, when his second mandate comes to an end

Blair's Battle for Global Values

Tony Blair has decided what to do when he quits his post as Prime Minister:
He will be Philosopher! Here's a lengthy analysis of his political thought on global war and Justice.

This is the abstract: The war on terrorism is not just about security or military tactics. It is a battle of values, and one that can only be won by the triumph of tolerance and liberty. Afghanistan and Iraq have been the necessary starting points of this battle. Success there, however, must be coupled with a bolder, more consistent, and more thorough application of global values, with Washington leading the way.

Feel free to assess Blair's consistency. Words and Deeds do not always match...

Secession of Flanders

Yesterday evening, Belgian public TV station staged a fake programme announcing the alleged unilateral proclamation of independence of its Northern Federal Unit Flanders. It is only after a certain period that the editors of the programme decided to inform the public that the entire programme is fiction. By that time it was late, 89% of the population actually believed the news is genuine. Belgian political elite unanimously condemns yesterday’s programme.

The news actually caught me in an Algerian Restaurant in a beautiful municipality of Saint Gilles in the Brussels Capital Region. My Belgian friends with whom I dinned reacted emotionally, and although doubtful as to whether the news is actually through, started appreciating the state they though belonged to the past. As far as I am concerned, it made me thing of Yugoslavia, how it could have stayed a joint democratic state.

"You are killing the democracy"

Italian journalists Enrico Deaglio and Beppe Cremagnani made a film that managed to shake the very foundations of the Italian democracy by putting under question the legality of the 2006 parliamentary elections. The film, entitled “Uccidete la democrazia” (You are killing the democracy) makes an interesting and scandalous claim: it argues that a team of Mr. Berluconi’s close associates, acting on his express orders, rigged the 2006 elections.

The Italian governing centre-left coalition played down the importance of the film and the center-right, Mr. Berlusconi's coallition denied the allegations but welcomed a possible (now certain) recount.

The film is developing its story on the basis of electoral analysis but also on the basis of the claims of an anonymous source close to the Italian Minister of the Interior. According to the film Berluconi’s team used sophisticated software (allegedly bought and already used in the 2004 US Presidential elections in Ohio, see) to correct the electronic data arriving to the central computer in the Ministry of the Interior. Allegedly, it transformed many empty ballots (people refrain from voting for any candidate normally as a form of protest against the system), into votes for Berluconi’s party Forza Italia, but not manually but electronically. Thus, there is a possibility to double check the validity of these claims by recounting the totality of empty ballots. Apart from the testimony of the source of this film there are several other indications that, according to the authors, make their claims justifiable.

First the number of empty ballots significantly decreased from the elections in 2001 to the elections under scrutiny (2006). While in 2001 1.692.048 voters decided, so to speak, not to choose by placing empty ballots in the ballot box, in 2006 their number is significantly smaller 445.497. Not only that, but while in 2001 the number of empty ballots varied significantly from one to another Italian province (e.g. 2,6% in Tuscany, 9,9 in Calabria, 5,5 in Sardegna... in 2006 as if a strange centrifuge made Italy turn around producing almost identical percentage of empty ballots in all provinces, including the islands, from 1-2%). Moreover, the film considers strange coincidence the fact that before the elections The Minister of the Interior replaced numerous Prefects all over Italy. Bearing in mind that their offices were in charge of collecting and disseminating further the elections data this fact is not necessarily insignificant. Finally, the exit-polls predicted a much more convincing victory for the centre-left coalition, one that would have made possible a stable government for a full term in office. At present the coalition of the Italian PM Romano Prodi depends on a tight electoral majority often unable to undergo radical economic and social reforms it promised in its pre-election campaign.

An interesting and deeply troubling claim. However, the first logical question to ask is: If we accept the fact that Berluconi rigged the elections, why didn’t he make his coalition win? The film has an answer to this question, allegedly Berluconi’s Minister of the Interior Beppe Pisanu, an experienced Demo Christian politician, decided to stop the entire process preventing the victory of Berluconi’s coalition. Explanation as to why has he done so (the film is making a claim that he knew of the plan and participated in it from the very beginning) is far from clear.

I am personally not sure of this theory of conspiracy, it is indeed deeply illogical. The most illogical thing is the following: Why would Berluconi (and he did, see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4904294.stm ) publicly contest the results of the elections, he himself allegedly tried to manipulate? Wouldn’t such behaviour be too risky?

All this leads me to another conclusion, urging me to question the reliability of the film’s source. It is more in Mr. Berluconi’s favour (who lost the elections) than in Mr. Prodi’s favour (who won them) to contest the electoral results, regardless of the tight electoral victory of the centre-left coalition. This is simply because it is difficult to imagine that a full recount of 40 million ballots would ever be conducted. In this way, the story of alleged electoral fraud, paradoxically, even if conducted by Berlusconi, casts a shade on the legitimacy of the current government.

Moreover, it can be argued that the actual recount might possibly directly favour Berlusconi’s coalition (if we were to imagine that the total recount would actually occur – Berlusconi is calling for this). Namely, in the lower house of the Italian parliament the centre-left coalition won by a margin of merely 25.000 votes. This, small lead, due to the majority premium, awarded them a comfortable majority in the lower house of the Italian parliament (The ruling coalition has a tight majority in the upper house – the Senate). Bearing in mind that on 40 million voters, the margin of error (the votes are in general counted manually), could easily be 25.000 it is entirely possible that a possible recount comes to the conclusion that it is in fact Berluconi’s coalition, not Prodi’s who won the elections in the lower house. In this case it is Berlusconi that would win the premium of majority in the lower house, which would certainly cause the current government’s demise before the expiration of the 4 years term. Having said this it is highly unlikely that the team of 30 parliamentarians in charge of reviewing the ballots would manage to conduct a recount in 4 years. As an Italian MEP Marco Rizzo said on a recent presentation of Deaglio’s film is Brussels, the time needed to conduct the counting of 40 million ballots, would be “biblical”.

Having this in mind, we could construct another theory of conspiracy (provided that the film is indeed such a theory)…this time with no proof whatsoever so I beg the reader to take it as an intellectual exercise, by no means a claim to what has actually happened. Having in mind the fact that Mr. Berlusconi unsuccessfully urged the government to recount the votes perpetually after the 2006 elections. What if Mr. Berlusconi thought of another strategy to get the government to fulfil his demands? What if, the source of the film was actually instructed by someone close to Mr. Berluconi to contact the journalists and make them question the legitimacy of the 2006 elections? This is not entirely illogical. The governing coalition pressured by the public opinion (out of which an important part its own voters) is now forced to organize a recount. Now the centre-right coalition got what they wanted, the Court ordered the legislature to recount the empty ballots in some Italian provinces, and there is a possibility that the legislators will have to, at the end, recount every single vote made at the 2006 elections.

More on Scottish Independence

Things have been a little quiet on here of late, Lorenzo's efforts notwithstanding. To get the ball rolling again, I thought I'd share this interesting and insightful comment on, and expansion of, my post below that I received via email from my father Angus MacDonald, a lifelong resident in and observer of the Scottish political scene...

It is interesting to note that recent polls on Scottish independence show considerable support for this idea on both sides of the Scotland - England border. The polls seem also to show that the support for this in England is based substantially on the view that the Scots are 'subsidy junkies', reliant on an unequal distribution of government financial support through a funding mechanism known as the Barnett formula. Joel Barnett was Chief Secretary to the Treasury during the years 1974 to 1979. The first North Sea oil was piped in to Teesside in 1975. In 1974 Professor Gavin McCrone, who was Economic Adviser to the Secretary of State for Scotland, wrote his report entitled 'The Economics of Nationalism Re-examined'. This report concluded that an independent Scotland “could now expect to have massive surpluses on its budget and on its balance of payments and with the proper husbanding of resources this situation could last for a very long time into the future”. It also concluded that “for the first time since the Act of Union was passed, it can now be credibly argued that Scotland's economic advantage lies in its repeal”. This report was suppressed and only recently released under freedom of information regulations.

At that time, when the oil had just begun to flow, the slogan ' It's Scotland's Oil' had much appeal, but there was also, understandably, some doubt about the true value of the oil, how long it would last, and what would happen to a separate Scotland once it was finished. But there was also some unease about the situation that could develop in the best case scenario - that the oil truly was a massive and long-term windfall; these islands are probably too small, comfortably to contain massive differences in wealth between neighbouring states. That the balance of advantage would lie very clearly with the very much smaller state could only heighten the potential for tension. Perhaps this thought partly underpinned Professor McCrone's qualified comment - repeal of the Union could arguably be in Scotland's economic ( as opposed to political?) interest. The suppression of this paper meant that the debate was uninformed by the authoritative assessment of the potential of oil for Scotland that Professor McCrone had made, but in my view it is by no means certain that Scotland would have opted for independence then, even if the views expressed in this report had been widely known. Whether from fear of going it alone, from a sense of solidarity with and affection for England and the other parts of the UK, from an unwillingness to create major inequalities of wealth and the tensions that this could cause, or from a mixture of all these things, Scotland may well not have opted for independence at that time.

This background makes the view that independence would be good for Scotland, because Scots would then realise that, as Simon Jenkins wrote recently in the Guardian in an otherwise reasonable and balanced piece, 'that public money does not grow on English trees', deeply ironic. Deprived of the conclusions of an authoritative analysis, perhaps even motivated to some extent by a degree of altruism, Scotland continued with the Union, a situation sweetened a little by the Barnett Formula. The high political visibility of this formula, coupled with anunquestioned assumption that the wealth provided by North Sea oil could not possibly have been bestowed anywhere other than on Westminster, have been major factors in producing the view in England of Scotland as a land supported by subsidy; this in turn has fuelled the growth of the view in England as well as Scotland that independence for Scotland would be good for both - the very thing that the suppression of the McCrone report was designed to avoid. Had a fully informed debate been allowed to happen at the time, the Union would not now be threatened by the combination of smug condescension on the one hand, and resentment on the other.

The end of Paparazzi in Italy

The very name, Paparazzo, comes from an italian movie of the 60's (La Dolce Vita). Paparazzo is an obsessive photographer who runs after cinema stars. The rest is history.

Until now though. The italian justice is investigating on a scandal involving various paparazzi who blackmailed their victims. They asked money in exchange with the prohibited pictures.

The scandal is looming large, many seem to be involved in the scandal. Paparazzi seem destined to have a tougher life!

Read a report here

Back on the agenda: Scottish Independence

After a few years of turmoil and worse-than-expected electoral performances from the Nationalists, the issue of Scottish independence seems to be firmly back on the agenda, with a recent Scotsman/ICM poll putting support for separation from the UK at some 51% - its highest level since before devolution. Doubtless this is in large part the Scottish manifestation of the UK-wide disillusionment with Labour in general and Blair in particular, with the increasing support for the Tories that is evident in other areas of the United Kingdom not really a serious option in its northernmost nation. This has been further bolstered by the release of previously secret government documents from the 1970s, in which the then Labour Government was advised by a leading economist that oil revenue would give an independent Scotland one of the strongest currencies in Europe and an "embarassingly" large tax surplus. The report was supressed by the Government of the day, fearing the almost inevitable surge in support for the Scottish Nationalist Party, and was only made public a few months ago under freedom of information legislation. Many are likely to feel, not without significant justification, that the decision to do so was as cynical as it was fundamentally undemocratic, particularly as the first devolution referendum, held at the end of the decade, failed to achieve the qualified majority required by legislation.

Leaving aside the democratic significance of the fact that the recent poll suggests that 51% of Scots now favour independence, it is worth having a brief look at the contours of the current debate, with potentially crucial Scottish Parliament elections approaching next year. As Simon jenkins has noted in the Guardian, some fairly big guns from the UK Labour Party, including Blair, Brown and Reid, have been in Scotland recently to make the case against independence. I'm far from convinced, however, that Blair's chosen line of attack will be effective:

What I think it's about is the attempt by the SNP and others to say you're only truly Scottish if you're making the case for independence, but that's rubbish... You can be Scottish and British.

We share a currency, we share armed forces, we share social security systems - you rip Scotland out of the UK and you lose those benefits, and you will end up with an uncertain economic future with less power for people in Scotland to effect the big changes in the world.

the trouble with these is that, while the first just doesn't ring true, the second is likely to be counter-productive in the prevailing Scottish climate. The claim that "real" Scots support independence and reject "Britishness" altogether is an attempt to win support by making the position of the enemy extreme and unpalatable to most; it is not, to my knowledge, one that finds much support in the official rhetoric of the Nationalists, or, indeed, of the other pro-independence parties represented in the Parliament, namely the Socialists and the Greens. As argumentative strategies go, it is fairly transparent, and unlikely to be successful as such.

In terms of the second part of his argument, Blair would do well to remember that Scotland overwhelmingly voted "old" Labour throughout the Thatcher years - it always was, and remains, a considerably more left-wing nation than its southern neighbour, and the directions taken by New Labour in pursuit of the middle-English vote have not always been welcomed in the North, with the Scottish Labour Party being tainted by association if not by actual complicity. Nowhere is this clearer than, for example, the controversy over the war in Iraq; unpopular enough in England, but even more so in Scotland. Long used to the risk of having their voices lost in Westminster, many the Scottish electorate may well decide that having less power internationally is infinitely preferrable to having "big changes" effected in the world, of the type seen most dramatically in Iraq but readily evident elsewhere, in their name but without their consent.

Blair is correct that it is "up to them to make the argument" about the positive benefits of the UK; however, the current strategy seems to be a decidedly risky one. Of course, no decision about whether to remain within or dissolve the Union is without risks, both economic and political; but, as the impressive weight of expert opinion on both sides of the question suggests, these can only really be assessed in hindsight. In any event, it seems unlikely in the extreme that the simple act of secession would itself determine the future prosperity of either Scotland or England, in the manner that some on both sides of the debate seem to suggest; rather, such would depend in very large degree on the choices made subsequently. In terms of the current debate, in the light of forthcoming elections, we can but hope that, this time around, the Scottish people will be entrusted with all of the facts available in order to make a properly informed choice on this issue of central importance.

Benedict XVI does not think like Ratzinger!

I am glad to see that the Pope has expressed positive views on the entry of Turkey in the European Union. Ratzinger, the Cardinal, was extremely negative up until last year.

This is positive. Let's see how far Turkey can go now. The European Union itself seems to have some old prejudices, which will not be swept away easily.

The Legal Research Society ...

... is a nice Blog you may want to have a look at.
Have a look here

The Pope in Turkey

Benedict XVI is visiting Turkey in these very hours. He says: 'this is not a political trip.' What is it then?

John Paul II and Benedict XVI have vehemently insisted that Turkey should not join the European Union. They believe that Europe should be a christian club. This is not
an implicit deduction, this is the point Ratzinger makes quite explicitly in his book 'Whitout Roots.'

Now, the question I would raise to the Pope is: would you have anything against the enlargement of Europe to Turkey?

I stongly believe that the only possible way forwards is by letting Turkey in. It would send a very important sign to all the Muslim Europeans who are now struggling in Europe.

It would show as well that Europe is not, and cannot only reduce itself to, a Christian club. Europe is deeply plural; its christian roots are real, but only a side of a much more complicated picture

Berlusconi Faints during a Public Meeting

Few days ago Berlusconi said he would not run anymore for a post of Prime Minister or President.

Today, while speaking to a crowd of young supporters, he fainted and had to be carried away.

As said many times in this blog, Berlusconi is an old man, despite his youthful look (mainly due to cosmetic surgeries). He has worked very hard and he has been under an incredible amount of pressure in the last 40 years.

It is time to leave and take it easier. And he probably knows. It would not be easy in any event to convince his allies to follow him blindly as they did in previous occasions. It is not a total coincidence that he fainted just after mentioning his efforts to bring all the parties of his coalition under the same umbrella of a big 'party of liberty.'

Many times before in this blog I stressed the idea that the greatest pressure for Berlusconi comes from his 'allies', his 'friends' and not from the folkloristic opposition led by Mr Prodi.

The gist of my position is that Berlusconism (his philosophy on how to rule the party, the coalition and the country) is outdated and does not fully convince his
closest allies (it has never convinced the opposition and the remaining half of the country). Given this basic lack of internal legitimacy, Berlusconi is faced with a huge power struggle that has consumed him in the last five years of government.

It would be wiser to give up this frantic competition. Italy needs a renewal once again. A serious one. Despite what Berlusconi thinks and would like italians to believe, he is a representative of the old guard. He'd better believe it.