In the absence of sound arguments and growing support for the 'no' option, the 'yes' camp has resorted to fearmongering in order to avoid a rejection of the draft European constitution. Not exactly the best approach argues Mark Steyn:

So the choice for voters on the Euro-ballot is apparently: yes to the European Constitution, or yes to a new Holocaust. If there's a neither-of-the-above box, the EU's rulers are keeping quiet about it. The notion that the Continent's peoples are basically a bunch of genocidal whackoes champing at the bit for a new bloodbath is one I'm not unsympathetic to. But it's a curious rationale to pitch to one's electorate: vote for us; we're the straitjacket on your own worst instincts.

Steyn also picks up on the theme that a common European approach to avoid ethnic slaughter hasn't always worked that well:

Jacques Poos, foreign minister of Luxembourg and as the holder of the rotating Euro-Presidency the Union's chief negotiator with the disintegrating Yugoslavia, told the Americans to butt out and declared: "The hour of Europe has come!" The hour of Europe came and went, and a couple hundred thousand corpses later the EU was only too grateful for the Americans to butt back in again.

Ariel Sharon has started his US tour this week, seeking support for the plan to pull out of Gaza. Of course he's accompanied by the usual gang of protesters and hecklers.

Whatever the merits of the plan, the near hysteria from those in the pro-Israel camp who feel they can tarnish and soil the reputation of a man who has dedicated his entire seventy-seven year life to Zionism is becoming ridiculous, even offensive. And for many Israeli residents it's an odd thing to watch from a distance:

If you are Jewish and you really believe that (parts of) this land belong to the Jewish people, you should pack up your things and take the first plane to Israel. If not, you can of course still support or criticize whatever government is in power here, but it does not help anybody - Jew or Palestinian - if you overcompensate for your own weaknesses and failures. Showing 'solidarity' with the settlers by coming here in order to complicate the work of Israel's security forces, shouting at Israel's Prime Minister, embracing the Jewish-Zionist version of trying to be 'more Catholic than the Pope', all those expressions of 'love' for the Jewish state by rightwing Jews abroad are meaningless, and only are yet another proof that fanatics on both sides share oh so many ideas and interests.

Amen to that. Given the complexity of the task and the emotional impact of it on the Jewish psyche it seems to me that closing the ranks and lining up behind one of the nation's shrewdest survivors is a far wiser approach.

Dan Drezner has an interim round-up on the French and Dutch sentiments in the run up to the referenda on the draft EU constitution. While it appears to be a tight race in France, the strong "no" sentiments that polls have found in The Netherlands appears to be irreversible.

The Dutch 'no' vote is driven by frustration over the introduction of the Euro, fears over a Turkish entry into the EU, and a general protest vote underlining the somewhat unstable political situation in The Netherlands following the Foruyn and Van Gogh murders and less than impressive economic growth. In all my conversations with Dutch family and friends absolutely no one is able to clearly formulate any ideas over the constitution, but since most of them are tilting towards 'yes' it's interesting to note that their rationale is driven largely by a fear that the Dutch will be left out of the ever advancing European Union. Contrast these sentiments with how Dutch politicians see it:

'This vote is just about the European constitution," pleads Lousewies van der Laan, alone in the studio with a television camera. The window behind her frames the Dutch parliament in The Hague; the desk in front conceals her blue jeans. "It's not about whether to allow Turkey to join the EU, or whether we should abandon the euro and get the guilder back."

She's technically right but no one on either side is particularly concerned over the draft consitution itself. The majority of both the 'no' and the 'yes' voters will cast their ballot without having a full understanding of the contents of the constitution, its impact on national sovereignty and how the implementation of it will steer further integration. For that reason alone we should hope for a rejection so that a real debate and education process - ideally backed up by a national election where European integration is a major campaign theme - can take place.

Jim Hake has an update of the Spirit of America activities in Lebanon and Iraq. They're doing a great job and are making great progress.

Say about Gerhard Schroeder what you want, he does understand the extent of the mandate given to him by the German voter:

In a surprise move, Chancellor Gerhard Schröder called for national elections to be held a year earlier than scheduled, after a shattering defeat today for his Social Democratic Party in local elections in Germany's biggest state, North Rhine-Westphalia.

"With this bitter election result for my party in North Rhine-Westphalia, the political support for our reforms to continue has been called into question," Mr. Schröder said in a brief statement, referring to the economic reform program on which he has long staked his chancellorship.

Mr. Schröder, citing his "responsibility and duty as German chancellor," said he would ask the federal president, Horst Köhler, to arrange for new elections by this fall. In doing so, he became the first incumbent chancellor in postwar Germany to propose early elections.

German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder and his Green partners today suffered a major defeat in North Rhine-Westfalia, Germany's most populous province and longtime stronghold for Schroeder's SPD. What's more, it may bring forward national elections scheduled for 2006 to late 2005 and the SPD/Green coalition's chances to survive that vote are extremely bleak.

The struggle to reform and improve Germany's economy however will prove to be equally difficult for Germany's right. It has taken a while but competitive pressures from a resurgent Eastern Europe are now in full swing and will have a serious impact on Germany's long term economic prospects. From this week's EBRD report:

The economies of central and eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States last year grew at their highest rate since the collapse of communism, reaching on average 6.5%, according to the EBRD’s Transition Report Update, published today. Moreover, foreign direct investment to the region surged to a record US$34 billion, reflecting reforms made in recent years.

If that pattern holds it will not just be Germany that will be affected and the distinction between Old and New Europe will be more than just political.

Here's an interesting column that looks at the demographic and political shifts that are forever changing Europe, although it isn't really clear in making the distinction between Old and New Europe. Still it highlights a very relevant dilemma:

" ... the U.S. faces a delicate task: how to keep an old but estranged friend from committing suicide"

Judging from the post above my initial take would be to invest both financially and politically in Eastern Europe. Caught in between the older Europeans may have no other choice than to change their ways and opt for life rather than suicide.

The UN criticizes one of its best friends.

Rick Santorum got into some hot water yesterday when he compared Democrats to Hitler during the filibuster debate:

"The audacity of some members to stand up and say, 'How dare you break this rule,"' Santorum said in Thursday's Senate speech. "It's the equivalent of Adolf Hitler in 1942 declaring," "'I'm in Paris. How dare you invade me. How dare you bomb my city. It's mine."

It's not a very clever and somewhat ignorant use of history in order to make a point and Santorum probably lost some sense of perspective in the heat of a debate. At the same time there was a more deliberate misuse of the holocaust and other atrocities on the other side of the pond to boost the 'yes' vote during the upcoming referendum on the EU constitution:

The Liberal VVD party in the European Parliament quickly abandoned plans on Friday to use the Jewish Holocaust in a television commercial aimed at convincing Dutch voters to approve of the EU Constitution.

But the commercial had more to offer than just the holocaust:

A shed full of some of the bodies of the 8,000 Muslim men and boys killed by Serb troops at Srebrenica in 1995 would have been shown next with the text 'The danger lies in waiting'.

UPDATE: EU Rota has a link to the commercial and a translation. It's even more bizarre than I thought, linking Auschwitz, Srebrenica and the Madrid bombings to European regulations.

For those of you who have been following the spat between Andrew Sullivan and Glenn Reynolds, please check out Greg Djerejian who has taken on (in what is a blogospheric first?) the role of mediator.

The political drama in Canada is over for now with the embattled Paul Martin government living another day, and various under-privileged Canadians no doubt more than pleased to see a steady flow of cash coming their way as outlined in the budget that was passed yesterday. And while Canada’s conservatives start licking their wounds and point to a host of factors that frustrated their commendable effort to bring down Martin, the bottom line is that they failed, again.

Despite the reckless and corrupt ways of the governing Liberals, Harper’s conservatives picked the wrong strategy to get rid of Martin and in the process lost their golden ballot-box asset, Belinda Stronach. On top of that they saddled the country with a perilous economic legacy. The various conservative commenters are keeping on a brave face, arguing that Belinda’s loss may turn out to be beneficial, that they are still moderate enough and there are good chances to win votes in Ontario in Quebec, but the reality is different. While Paul Martin’s position is weakened and almost beyond repair, the stunning fact is that he is still in charge of the game by masterfully playing to the natural instinct that voters here prefer the status quo, whatever the price. That more than anything is reflected in the endless poll numbers that were spewed out over the past few months and which indicated that Harper’s gamble wasn’t really getting as much traction among ordinary Canadians as he himself believed.

Still, Harper bravely rolled the dice but he made two crucial mistakes. He failed to contrast the rudderless Liberal kleptocracy with an alternative vision, instead relying overconfidently on the fact that the Adscam fallout in and by itself would sway voters (and Liberal defectors) en masse to the conservative side. And in the heat of tightly managing and scripting his effort, a commendable leadership trait, he failed to recognize that star talent needs pampering and not an iron hand. It raises questions about Harper’s ability to formulate a visionary strategy and to manage people.

Now Harper is back to where he was and judging from the various TV panel discussions he’s back in the corner of being singled out as the uncompromising social conservative from the West. There are two redeeming factors. Even without 9/11 George Bush was able to attract a lot of socially liberal centrist voters and even after frivolous exercises to placate the Christian base such as the federal marriage amendment he could still play in the mainstream and get centrists into the Republican tent. With a seriously damaged Martin a sharp and engaging Canadian conservative leader should be able to replicate the same feat, but I am increasingly uncertain if Harper is the guy to pull it off.

UPDATE: Ed Morrissey is taking a critical look at Harper too and notes:

Harper also failed to come to terms with Canadian ambivalence about his own political image; since he was in effect running for PM, he needed to make his case more publicly for that position. A slew of polls resulted in some contradictory numbers but showed a trend swinging back to the Liberals, driven mostly by a distrust of his leadership, and that needed immediate addressing.

ONE MORE UPDATE: Angry in the Great White North defines exactly why Canadian status quo instincts contribute to, well, the status quo.

A lot of the analysis not unsurprisingly focuses on the one independent voter that changed the equation, Chuck Cadman. I started to put some analysis together but Colby Cosh in the meantime expanded his original post on Cadman so often that it is now the must-read port of call on this aspect, and there’s very little I can add to that.

But talking about independents, my frustration with this entire saga is best worded by that other independent who wisely cast his vote against Martin and for the right reasons:

However, the deciding factor in my decision is a concern about what the postponement of an election will do to Canada's fiscal position. How many more hastily-made long term commitments will the government make if given the opportunity? Those who won the respect of many for restoring fiscal integrity now appear to be putting our economic future at risk. While I support altering priorities within the present fiscal framework to increase spending on affordable housing and overseas development assistance, I believe that the continuous stream of rapidly-conceived spending promises is not financially responsible.

Many Canadians appear not to favor an early election. However, I think it's important to clear the political air through an election. Canadians deserve the opportunity to provide a clear mandate to their government by choosing the vision of the future they prefer.

NOTE: The 60% number by the way is questionable but it has been recycled endlessly over the past few weeks. Conservative Life debunks it.

Rogier of the Nobody’s Business blog sent me an elaborate e-mail arguing that my sympathy for Tony Blair was not very well substantiated, in fact it was “off the mark” according to him.

It all depends on how you look at things. Rogier has turned his blog into a civil liberty pulpit and is thus highly suspicious of Blair trying to win popularity contests by restricting other people’s freedom or reigniting value debates, I happen to see a society where delinquent elements are increasingly tearing apart the fabric of our once civilized societies. Since I am equally interested in defending personal freedom and abhor any police state tendencies, there’s certainly merit to question excesses like this or in particular this one. The issue here is how we want to address the slippery slope of the undeniably anti-social journey that some parts of our society have taken. There are three ways open to achieve this:

1. Fight it with the existing tools at our disposal. Problem: not the greatest idea as today's justice systems are not equipped to penalize the modern day perpetrator, nor have they the capacity to deal with the steady influx of delinquents;

2. Come up with a new set of extra-judicial measures: Blair’s ASBO’s (Anti-Social Behaviour Order). Problem: they become random tools in the hands of unchecked law enforcement officers and are thus open to abuse, creating more problems than are actually solved.

3. Initiate a debate about values. That's what Blair did last week, and what other leaders in the west are trying to do as well. Dutch Prime-Minister Balkenende is talking about "norms and values" all the time but it seems no one is paying a lot of attention to it. Problem: It’s great to have a value debate and re-introduce the benefits of family life but: (a) who is conducting it and (b) how are we going to realize the outcomes, if we ever get them?

Applying justice can only be achieved through the justice system and new instruments such as ASBO’s should be incorporated into that framework ensuring that proper checks and balances prevent abuse. The basic premise here is however that sentencing should be faster, harsher, more effective and far more pro-active than what the justice system currently has on offer.

Still no matter how effectively we finetune the judicial response, anti-social behavior is a social problem and thus needs to be addressed in social terms. That means encouraging behavior adjustments in the family, at school, in the workplace, wherever you look. It’s something that societies and communities should strive for, a very tall order in times when individuals lack time or interest to participate in a 1950s style communal living when anti-social behavior was a rare occurrence. Heck, today’s parents can not even be bothered to raise their children in a responsible fashion so how can we expect them to make an effort to take on any community based or other civic responsibilities? That’s what Blair’s ruminations were about and absent any coherent efforts by members of society to look critically at themselves I applaud politicians that raise the issue. At the very least it may spark a much needed debate.

One final word. Yes, it may be odd to hear me going on about this topic, in particular since the anti-social tendencies find their roots in a system, free-market capitalism, which is worshipped on these pages. That’s why it’s a tough subject and why it’s hard to resolve it in one post. Expect more of it.

Talking about curbing anti-social behavior and the role politicians can play we should note that these days politicians have a hard time setting the right example. Mark Steyn on Paul Martin:

" ... I make the point that “the big flaw at the heart of the Westminster system is that in order to function as intended – by codes and conventions – it depends on a certain modesty and circumspection from the political class.” Perhaps it was always a long shot to expect a man as hollow as Paul Martin to understand that. When a fellow’s spent his entire adult life wanting to be Prime Minister without giving a single thought to what he wants to do in the job, it’s hardly likely he’d go quietly into the dignified losers’ club with Clark, Turner and Campbell"

Reforming Islam, revolutionizing immigrant integration and in the process restructuring Dutch society, all parts of Ayaan Hirsi Ali's multi-layered mission. Here's an excerpt from her lenghthy interview with the Guardian:

What Hirsi Ali found herself confronting was the central feature of social organisation in the Netherlands, known as "pillarisation". It is a principle that dates back to the 17th century when Amsterdam was Europe's busiest mercantile centre and when common sense dictated that, if business were to thrive, religious differences had to be set aside and antagonistic groups kept physically separate. Article 23 of the Dutch constitution, which established rights for the setting up of separate schools and institutions, is itself a central pillar of the Dutch system, and, in the 1960s, was conveniently reinterpreted as the standard of a new multicultural orthodoxy - officially expressed as "integration with maintenance of one's own identity". It was in this respect that Dutch society found itself in seeming harmony with the new Muslim populations who began to arrive from the 1970s - partly from the former colony of Surinam, but mostly from Morocco and Turkey. Muslims wanted their own schools and mosques, and the Dutch government happily provided for and funded them. Just as there had been Catholic, Protestant and secular "pillars" in the Netherlands, there could now be a Muslim one too.

Hirsi Ali's recommendations to the Labour policy unit were blunt and radical: close all 41 Islamic schools, put a brake on immigration and change article 23. Jaws hit the table.

Last month, the CBC broadcasted The Power of Nightmares which I discussed earlier this week. It's the documentary that attempts to equate Islamic fundamentalism with neo-conservatism. Tom Cerber at the Politic looked at it and concludes that despite the filmmaker's intentions, Leo Strauss is no Sayyid Qutb.

More ammunition for the "no" campaign:

A fresh row over the euro looks set to boost the eurosceptic climate in the Netherlands, where further polls have indicated a majority for a "no" in the upcoming referendum on the EU constitution.

The row erupted on 30 April, when the director of the Dutch National Bank revealed to Amsterdam newspaper Het Parool that at the time of the introduction of the euro, the Dutch Guilder had been undervalued by 5 to 10 percent.

UPDATE: Chrenkoff has looked at the potential that the French will reject the EU Constitution and concludes that indeed a French "no" is based on some faulty logic: the EU is too right-wing. The same phenomenon manifested itself in Holland where the loony-left all of a sudden found itself on the same page as the conservative free-marketeers when it came to campaigning for a "no" vote.

Whatever the rationale, voting down the draft constitution reveals once more why one uniform European federation will never be able to effectively accomodate the various regional sentiments.

That's all I can say after this morning's stunning betrayal by Belinda Stronach, a move designed solely to further her own ambitions it seems. In doing so she has shored up Martin's government regardless of the corruption it has been associated with. It's doubly sad as she was once identified as precisely the person that could help the Conservatives capture the middle ground with a pro-business, fiscally prudent but socially liberal brand of conservatism. Given that and her Austrian roots I once dubbed her Canada's Schwarzenegger but as of today we know that she ain't. To extend that analogy, Arnold would have thrown in a last minute endorsement for Kerry in return for a cabinet role upon defeating Bush.

Whatever the outcome of the upcoming confidence vote it can only be hoped that the voters in her riding dismiss her at the next election and end her career as fast as it started. That shouldn't be too hard given the slim margin with which she won that vote.

OTHER REACTIONS: Kate, Bob, and the Western Standard.

Today is election day here in British Columbia, a battle fought between the right-of-center BC Liberals and the leftist union-affiliated NDP. For the uninitiated, the NDP governed during most of the 1990s and accomplished the unique feat of turning British Columbia into an economic basket case at a time when the rest of the world was booming. The BC Liberals obliterated the NDP four years ago and started cutting taxes, privatized a number of government services, dealt harshly with the unions and helped secure the 2010 Winter Olympics. In short, they have turned the place around and without really disclosing any of their future plans, they have campaigned aggressively against a resurgent NDP arguing that the province can not return to the past.

Driving up the Lions Gate bridge yesterday into downtown Vancouver campaign teams were lined up on the bridge to get commuter attention. Well, they got mine. A dour looking woman waved an NDP placard and she was accompanied by an older man with a goatee with the sign “Enough is Enough”, probably referring to government cuts. Their message was very clear but I am not sure if they were aware of that. Further up the bridge was a bunch of smiling and enthusiastic young people waving BC Liberal and “BC is Back” signs. The contrast between the two campaigning groups was staggering and underlines the option that voters have today.

NOTE: Seattle-based blogger Matt Rosenberg is a BC aficionado and has written about the other parties that participate in this election. Especially the Sex Party has been getting a lot of attention and Colby Cosh explains why. As a foreign passportholder I obviously can’t vote, but I do wonder why the Annexation Party hasn’t been getting more attention. Their argument is compelling: if BC joins the US as the 51st state it will be both wealthier and freer.

UPDATE: The BC Liberals won a clear majority, but the NDP managed a strong comeback by capturing 41% of the popular vote. On the one hand it is worrying that a party that adheres to 1970s style socialism is able to get this much support, on the other h