To explain my recent lack of posts, I’m having a little trouble with the latest version of Safari 4 and the post editor in WordPress. The easy solution is to turn my chair a few degrees to the right and use my PC, or fire up Firefox on my MacBook, but I’m honestly too lazy for either of those. Posting will resume shortly.

This blog could get a bit to serious and worthy if I carry on as I have done so far this year, so before I have to stand on one leg (a Federation of Young European Greens custom where the audience can demand the speaker stand on one leg while delivering their speech to show they don’t take themselves too seriously, and a custom I’d love to see at Holyrood or Westminster) I thought I’d do a post on what European blogs, podcasts and other assorted media I ‘consume’. There are great blogospheres at most political levels, but I’m still looking for the European one. So here are four of my daily reads/views/listens:

Network Europe

Okay, so most of my choices are from MSM of some form. Network Europe is good at the non political stuff. It covers cultural and lighter stories, though there is a painfully loud tone at the very start of the programme, which makes iPod listening less than perfect.

The Record: Europe

This seems to be the only programme on EU affairs on British television, so it has a guaranteed slot in my viewing habits. Most definitely for proper politics geeks, and unfortunately only available for UK viewers unless you have BBC World News.

Café Babel

A strange quasi-blog/magazine/social network for young Europeans. The RSS feed hasn’t worked for ages, but it’s worth a browse anyway. Has some of the odder European stories.

EurActiv

Without this I’d know nothing of what happens in Brussels. The news section is on my list of must read RSS feeds every day, and the LinksDossiers have become my first port of call for research.

Of course there are lots more that I’d list here if I could be bothered (but I can’t, and I have a kettle to replace), so I’ve updated my blogroll with some of them.

Just a short post today, as I should really be researching the EU’s climate change policy instead of blogging, but I was quite surprised by the remarks of Václav Claus in the EP yesterday, where he attacked the institution for not having legitimacy. Certainly there are arguments that the EP lacks legitimacy, but these are mainly based on low voter turnout at elections. Claus’s argument was that the lack of a government and opposition in the model of a more traditional parliamentary system led to the deficit of legitimacy. Being familiar with the pointless trading of insults and jeering that comes from that system at Westminster PMQs, I can’t say I’d like to see it replicated in Brussels.

And so Lisbon stumbles and limps onwards towards that hopeful day when it might finally be ratified. Tomorrow could see the lower house of the Czech parliament having another go at voting on the treaty, though given their past record I don’t hold out much hope of the vote actually taking place. If it does though, it will have to be in reference to the news from Ireland that with 51% of voters now supporting Lisbon, the second referendum may be moved to June, to coincide with the EP elections.

I’m generally in favour of Lisbon, though my understanding of exactly what it says is marred by the fact that it is an amending treaty, rather than the originally coherent constitution, and is filled with paragraphs such as:

the words ‘this Treaty’ and ‘the present Treaty’ shall be replaced by ‘the Treaties’, the verb, where applicable, shall be put in the plural and any necessary grammatical changes shall be made; this point shall not apply to the third paragraph of Article 182 and to Articles 312 and 313; 

Now clearly this makes sense, but only if you happen to have copies of the Treaty on the European Union, and the Treaty Establishing the European Community to hand, coupled with a lot of patience. To be fair, the protocols later in the treaty are more readable, but European citizens are still presented with a largely incomprehensible and highly technical document. Of course, as with most legislation, citizens themselves rarely see the raw material. But the barrier to entry on something as important as Lisbon means that the alternative way of participating in the political discourse—through the media—is vulnerable to the sort of lies and scare-mongering which was seen in the Irish ‘no’ campaign, and which will likely be seen again in June or October, and in any referendum held in the UK.

The aims of Lisbon are frequently ignored in debate on the treaty, and should it ever be fully ratified, we’ll be able to enjoy a better and more democratic Union, but I’m certain the legitimacy of the treaty will be called into doubt after so much of a muddle has been made over its implementation.

OK, this one puzzles me: someone (apparently wearing a wig and make-up) managed to commit armed robbery at a branch of ING Bank inside the European Parliament, and they haven’t been caught!

 A spokesman for the Parliament said that the perpetrator might still be at large inside the building.

European Voice

I have a security pass for The Scottish Parliament, so I’m familiar with the procedures for access to that building, including the need to escort guests at all times, but on the occasions I’ve visited the EP, the fact that I can wander around freely on my own has always seemed somewhat unusual. I guess they’ll maybe consider tightening things up a bit now.

Update – 13h33

According to Twitter the best place to go in event of security breaches is the canteen! Twitter really comes into its own with things like this.

There’s been an interesting situation simmering in Mexico. The Partido Verde Ecologista de México recently came out in support of the death penalty, prompting concern from the European Greens. Initially, there was a call for the Mexican Greens to be expelled from the Global Greens, on the grounds that they had transgressed a core principle of the green movement, expressed in the Global Greens Charter as:

6.10 Demand that the death penalty be abolished worldwide.

Personally, I would agree that some action ought be taken against the Mexican Greens if they are willing to show disregard for the Charter, which sets out the fundamental ideas of the green political movement. This view is of course open to accusations of ideological imperialism, exporting the sensibilities of Europe to an advanced developing state, and naturally these accusations were made.

I have to say, this seems to me to be somewhat patronising. The fundamental respect for human life enshrined in Article 6.10 should be universal. It is not something for which I can see any argument for Mexican exemption. The idea that a stated opinion from Europe to Mexico is an imperialistic one merely reinforces the idea that Mexico, and the Mexican Greens are not equal to European states.

It was announced today that the European Green Party does not any-longer consider the Mexican Greens to be part of the green political family. I’m inclined to agree, at least until the views on the death penalty are reconsidered.

Yesterday I made the mistake of putting my head above the parapet in the matter of the Green Party’s response to the Israel/Palestine issue. My first mistake was to think that people would assume my views on the issue to be promoting peace, love and universal harmony. I’m not going to go into detail of what exactly was said, suffice to say I advised a Green Party member to check the GPEW national approach to the conflict in Gaza before issuing a statement, to ensure that the statement represented the subtleties and complexities of the party’s opinion. The response to this essentially accused me of sitting on the fence on the issue, and of supporting the “Israeli military machine”.

Considering that at no point had I given any personal opinion on the issue, simply a piece of advice, I find this, not insulting, but certainly annoying. Annoying, because it demonstrates that the knee-jerk reflexes and lack of rational, reasoned analysis of the conflict, and its long-term implications on the region extends into the Green Party.

The debate on Israel and Palestine needs to be removed from this hot-headed approach, and considered properly and calmly. Any resolution to the present conflict must either set the stage for the development of a long term programme for peace, or be that very programme.

Conflicts in Israel and Palestine will continue so long as inequalities and discrimination continue. A peaceful resolution can only be achieved if both sides in this conflict (and I show no preference for Israel or Palestine here) lay down their arms and realise that they are all people. They have the same needs: food, water, shelter, social contact. Yes, they practice their religion in different ways, but that is no excuse whatsoever for the divisions in Israeli/Palestinian society.

The essential point I wish to convey with this post, is that I think there is a need to step back for a moment and make reasoned consideration of the full complexities of the conflict, and what can be done to resolve it and provide a sustainable peace. Accusations flying around help no-one, least of all those suffering in Gaza and Israel.

I support peaceful, non-violent protests to call for an end to conflict on both sides. What I don’t support are protests or actions which take sides with either the Israeli government, or the Palestinian Hamas government. Now is the time to bring peace for everyone living in Israel and Palestine, not peace for some, and punishment for others.

Comments are moderated on this post. My blog, my rules.

Why on earth does nationalism have to be so stupid at times?! Some municipalities in Flanders have decided not to hold the European Parliamentary elections this year, unless an issue over the number of Wallonian and Flemish voters in the Brussels-Halle-Vilvoorde constituency is resolved. Only in Belgium could this happen! A petty local inability for two communities to live side-by-side, blocking European citizens from choosing who to represent them in a Parliament which has almost nothing to do with the perpetual break-up of Belgium.

I should stop the rant just now though, and compose myself. I can’t see how the refusal to hold the elections could really continue. One mayor claimed that:

“My council has passed a motion stating that we cannot organise the European elections because the Belgian constitution is not followed in this region,”

Well if they must pursue their policy of thoroughly dividing the country, then they probably do have a justified argument with the federal government, but surely that doesn’t release them from the constitution? 

Wouldn’t it be lovely if sense could prevail, and people could just live happily, side-by-side without divisive nationalism?