Ambrose Ambrosse, you keep repeating yourself.
One of the first comment of my great friend Ambrose is the fact that the UK and apparently Ireland have the Magna Carta and Europe is going to destroy this. I agree that in the 16 century England was providing more freedom and right than the rest of the world, but we are in the 21 century. The UK is not the best human right defender following Amnesty International. See the piece 'UK: Human rights: a broken promise' http://www.amnesty.org/en/
Then by being bind by the EU England would become a much freer place.
All EU regulation is also written so no prime minister can come back and revert any agreement already in the law, without having to change that law. The EU would push England to become more consistent in its application of the law.
What this article remedied me is the extreme touchy felly attitude of the English it is not enough for them to have democratically decided (the Lisbon treaty was ratify by the prime minister elected by the people) that improve there freedom and democracy, it also has to be done in a way that does not disagree with anyone.
Does it mean that the EU is perfect No of course, this is a work in progress and a lot can be improved if there is a decision making process that work --- a decision making process that can not been stop by any irrational state. So Lisbon is again a step toward a better Europe.
The only thing that the English that is going to happened that may trouble the English is the fact that the EU is a statutory institution. Common law will most likely been eliminated from the EU. But this is the rule of the club 26 countries have statutory law, one country have common law, the EU will be managed with statutory law. I believe that the very point that trouble the English who, for some reason inheritance to the Englishenss, are unable to voice.
The main reason why English are so mad after the Irish vote is double, first English are mad at themselves as Gordon Brown ratify Lisbon only after the Irish have said No; very obviously believing that the treaty would be dead (one of the most English attitude act only if you know that your action are not going to change the current statu-quo and make everybody happy). The other reason is the fact that the English still have this superior complex with the Irish that are consider as Paddy Wacery. So the very fact that the Irish expose the English hypocrisy make them mad!
Finally the English are always talking about the European Elite that have no popular representation. This is so funny because this is the Irish people who have vote (not a specific elite) that have put them in this situation (the main argument for popular vote is the fact that the people is not always right, but change its mind up and on average are more right than any other system). On the other hand it is the prime minister, Gordon Brown, elected official that made a very elitist calculation; the English people do not want any more Europe, but he deicide to still ratify the treaty just to be able to say No later.
I think this the time for the English to realised that those games wont work much longer and they should make a honest choice be in or out of Europe.
Monday, 5 October 2009
Elite Management or Democracy
Sunday, 4 October 2009
My word is my bond or should we do a referendum?
The UK have ratify the Lisbon treaty, but now the tories are thinking about doing a referendum to reverse the ratification.
This is incredible to read that a apparently democratic political leader would consider cancelling a written agreement just because he personally has not made that decision!
Anywhere else in Europe this is the kind of thing that would be just unthinkable. I have to say that the English have this capacity to always come back on previous agreement without feeling any bit of bad conscience. This might be one of the reason why their is sill no written constitution in England -- it would obliged them to commit to something written.
What the English seems not to understand is Europe is not a English colony, it is a club. If a club member come back on one of its written decision; the impact it is going to have on the others club member is going to be extremely strong.
The main issue is England is the only country in the EU that find so natural to always come back on theirs promises. Ask any German person what he/she think about a flipfloper. The European do not care who has ratify the treaty what we know is the fact that the UK has ratify the treaty.
Even in the corporate world if a company decide unilaterally for whatever reason not to fulfil its obligation this usually end up in court.
The only possible referendum would be to decide or not to stay in the union, nothing else would be possible without strong condemnation and certainly penalties.
Am I the only one to think this?
Unbelievably Hypocritical
The very message of this article is the fact that the poor Irish people were bullied in voting Yes because of the economy. This incredibly stupid!
First the Irish voted against the first time because of purely Irish political issues that had nothing to do with Europe.
Second if someone believe that the treaty is bad what is to downside for that person to vote No? This is a anonymous vote... How can anyone be bullied to vote in a given way?
Finally the economy is what has pushed Irish people to vote Yes. I have to say that it is the same for every European. We would prefer, I am French, being interdependent but we know that in the modern world it is not possible and as European we all have a voice. French do not react to bulling (or by setting bombs), but we are somehow rational and Europe is the rational way to go.
Now we just need to accept the new rule of the game, or leave.
The implication of this line of reasoning can be funny. If this is only the economy that have pushed the Irish to vote Yes, then it is the USA and the UK (responsible for the crisis) that are responsible for the Yes vote. But for whatever reason I do not believe that the English would agree with that...
Monday, 27 July 2009
Progress in the UK
I found the following quote extremely interesting:
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the conditions that surround him... The unreasonable man adapts surrounding conditions to himself... All progress depends on the unreasonable man." (George Bernard Shaw)
George Bernard Shaw (1856 – 1950) was an Irishman who lived in England. He is the only person to have been awarded both the Nobel Prize for Literature (1925) and an Oscar (1938).
I love the above quote because it explains perfectly the way progress is perceived in England. The believe that a “reasonable man adapts himself to the conditions that surround him” is so incredibly deeply rooted in the English mind that it come close to define it! This is so different from he way European, like French, German or Italian, think about the world. This is even more different to the way American thinks.
I think the cause of this is trust in reason. If you do not trust that reason can be perceived by the society, like some English thinks, then there is no way you can influence the world around you using reason; and that person should just ‘‘adapts himself to the conditions that surround him”. The very idea that something like reason could link all people is assuming level of transcendence that no self-respecting English man can accept.
On the other hand if you believe that the world can be made a better place using reason then you fundamentally disagree with the saying that a “reasonable man adapts himself to the conditions that surround him”. A reasonable man should try to improve his community.
This is something I really love about American: the believe that it is possible and desirable to ‘make a difference’. On that point, like on many other points, English and American are totally opposed!
Sunday, 26 July 2009
Polygamy in the UK
I was shocked when I read the Daily Mail article on polygamy ‘Polygamy UK: This special Mail investigation reveals how thousands of men are milking the benefits system to support several wives’.
I learned from this article that English law is fairly strictly against polygamy (extract from the article):
Officially, such unions are punishable by up to seven years in prison. They were first declared illegal in England and Wales in 1604, when the Parliament of James I took action to restrain 'evil persons' marrying more than one wife. Parliament ruled that anyone found guilty of the crime would be sentenced to death.
On the other hand the government knows about at least 1000 men in a polygamy situation, and apparently tolerate them. The Daily Mail article is detailing a very long list of polygamy story, but the bottom line is; this is OK for them to go against the law but it is bad for them to get the UK taxpayer money to sustain their lifestyle. It may be because I am a lawyer but I find it a shocking attitude i.e. breaking the law is OK, but stealing my money is not!
I agree that the government should not take into account something that is illegal to define benefits. The government should certainly make sure that it does not encourage that specific kind of illegal activity.
Some people of course are calling to change the law saying something like:
Even a prominent female member of the Muslim Parliament of Great Britain - set up in 1992 to debate Islamic issues - has claimed that she knows of many very happy polygamous marriages in Britain.
The article does not say at any point one of the most compelling argument against polygamy, which is the fact that it is a tool of female oppression.
It seems against that instead of using reason, which would push for the application of the British law for all – ‘for all’ is the main issue – the British government is trying to not hurt the feeling of a minority of UK resident, even if it mean forgetting about the culture and the law of its country.
Tuesday, 7 July 2009
Napoleon was Right
I am and have been always puzzled by the insistence of the English view that rule impose by an outsider group will never be able implemented and will never actually work. In this view it is basically impossible to change from the outside anything... This extremely fatalist --- or pessimistic --- view on institutional changes always strike me a weak and politically motivated.
Because of the French revolution, the French --- myself included --- believe that it is possible for a group of decide people to change all aspects of a government, and by that changing the fate of the people. Changing an absolute royalty in a modern democracy was done in a succession of reform started July 14, 1789 by the revolutionary movement.
This has implication in most human activities from the application of the human right to the creation of a World Finance Organization.
The human right application across the world is mainly resisted on the argument that we --- westerners --- cannot impose our view on the world to others; and only an organically grown development could work. This is just plain wrong. I cannot see any reason why religious or gender discrimination should be consider anywhere as normal.
Some prominent people have talked against the creation of a World Finance Organization that would work like the World Trade Organization for finance. The main argument is of course the fact that the outside can implement no external change.
The next objection on change impose by an external entity is the fact that it is going to be difficult. The only answer that I could find is yes: but the benefits are going to be greater than the difficulty to put in place the change. The only thing is to have the courage to do today something difficult to change tomorrow the life of millions.
I have to say that I was extremely happy to see read the article ‘The consequences of external reform: Lessons from the French Revolution’.
It looks at the results of the intuitional change forced upon continental Europe by the French Revolution. Those change were impose by the French administration in a Bing Bang manner, without any regard with the original culture. The MIT and Harvard economist authors of this paper found that economical results of this institutional change were significantly positive!
I quote the previous article:
Interestingly, the conservative English philosopher Edmund Burke seems to have been a precursor to these views. In 1790, he condemned the radicalism and the interventionist spirit of the French Revolution and argued:
“It is with infinite caution that any man should venture upon pulling down an edifice, which has answered in any tolerable degree for ages the common purposes of society, or on building it up again without having models and patterns of approved utility before his eyes.”(p.152).
On the other hand the contain of the French reforms was extremely modern:
The package of reforms the French imposed on areas they conquered included the civil code, the abolition of guilds and the remnants of feudalism, the introduction of equality before the law, and the undermining of aristocratic privilege.
For the time been, I will follow up only on the ‘equality before the law’. If this concept were widely admitted --- like on the European continent --- the very existence of the Sharia court would be totally impossible.
I believe that the French revolution has still a lot to bring to Britain.
Monday, 29 June 2009
85 sharia 'courts' in Britain
I have to say that I am concern about sharia ‘courts’ operating in Britain. It might be because I am French or it is because I am a lawyer; but I always were thinking that what define a county was its law. I was astonish to read the article ‘At least 85 sharia 'courts' operating in Britain, says Civitas report’.
In most of the discussion about the European Union the fact that European statutory law would replace some aspect of the common law is the main critic and justification for a lot of English people to want to leave the EU. So I am even more puzzled on why the application of sharia law is well consider. Why the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, last year said that the adoption of aspects of Muslim law in Britain, such as in divorce proceedings, "seems inevitable"; and then Lord Phillips, who was then the Lord Chief Justice, attracted controversy by saying that there was "no reason why" sharia law could be applied.
There are two principals that would be against the application of sharia law in the UK. Fist the unicity of the law. Only one law should be apply in a given country, the application of the sharia law is on the opposite say that a different set of law will be applied on the basis of religion. This is a clear religious discrimination. The EU or UK human right explicitly forbids this kind of religious discrimination.
The other point is a bit more technical, sharia law can be used for arbitration between parties in the UK, which mean that they can be use for minor disagreement, but they do not have the power to deal with divorce or anything substantial. Even if a divorce is settled under sharia law it could be overturn, as the female side of the couple usually get very little compare with what she could get under western laws.
Finally sharia ‘court’ is often compared with Jewish tribunals in a very misleading way. Jewish tribunals are dealing mainly with religious matter. Let’s take the example of a divorce, a Jewish person need first to legally divorce, but as the legal divorce is not recognised from a religious point of view, a separate and additional --- this is the big difference --- religious divorce proceeding need to take place. This religious divorce will deal exclusively with religious matter and not say anything about children custody or wealth division.
I do not think that religious radicalism in the UK can be tamed down by the application of the sharia law. On the opposite I think that showing the high level of freedom and fairness guaranty by the British law could be a good way to fight religious fundamentalism.
Posts
