There was a time when the Eurovision Song Contest was a major event that had European households glued to their TV-sets. It was also the time when the Dutch and Israeli judges would give each other the maximum allowable number of points irrespective of the quality of the song in question which usually was quite poor.

No longer, although it can still create some controversy today. Despite its quality problems, there were definite gems and the best Eurovision song in my mind was France's entry in 1977: Marie Myriam with "L'oiseau et l'enfant" or for the non-French speaking contingent, "The Bird and the Child". A vintage French chanson:

Thirty years ago Marie Myriam was the winner, the last time France won.

A record turn-out in France today and the possibility of dramatic change. Interestingly, the mechanics of Fortuyn's political impact resemble that of Sarkozy's who is also viewed as an anti-establishment outsider:

Throughout his life, Nicolas Sarkozy, 52, has fit awkwardly into the comfortable club of French leadership, like a brassy character actor dropping one-liners in the midst of a regal drama. In photos taken a decade ago, he stands out from the crowd like an awkward interloper: Surrounded by fellow ministers, he has always looked and acted like an outsider.

[...]

Mr. Sarkozy has sold himself and his policies as a violent break from French traditions — “ le rupteur,” he called it at first, then softening it to a “ tranquil rupteur” this year after advisers said it would upset voters.

[ ... ]

What has shocked France the most, driving half the country away from Mr. Sarkozy in fear and the other half cautiously into his arms, is that he is talking about things that have not been part of French politics since the Second World War: ethnicity, religion, morality, and, above all else, the importance of order and discipline.

France too has been served with a wake up call from a maverick. The Dutch example has shown that the larger parties after Fortuyn's death acquired parts of his agenda and gently tried to push the country back to the way things were before. Let's see if the French are able to effect lasting change.

UPDATE: Sarkozy is the projected winner according to The Times:

Polling does not end in France until 8pm (7pm UK time), until which time it is illegal to publish exit polls in France, but two Belgian media organisations ran unofficial estimates from the French Interior Ministry’s political intelligence service showed Sarkozy grabbing 53-54 per cent of the vote in today's second round.

Lots more here.

And Fausta: Sarko-O-O!

The latest poll numbers are in and Christopher Caldwell explains how Royal has been able to come this close, thanks to the Bayrou vote:

" ... the election will be decided by who gets the votes of Bayrou's 18 percent. Bayrou said he would not endorse anyone. But, having said that "Nicolas Sarkozy, through his closeness to the business world and media powers, through his taste for intimidation and threats, will concentrate powers like never before," he didn't have to.

One week to go.

Charles Krauthammer eulogizes Boris Yeltsin and makes the exact point I made earlier this week about Gorbachev:

Credit for the fall of communism usually is given to two sets of actors. On the one side, Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher and John Paul II, whose relentless pressure caused a hollowed-out system to collapse. On the other side, conventional mythology credits Mikhail Gorbachev.

This is quite wrong. True, Gorbachev inadvertently caused the collapse of communism. But his intention was always to save it. To the very end, Gorbachev believed in it. His mission was to reform communism in order to make it work. To do that, the Soviet system had to become more human -- i.e., more in tune with real human nature -- and thus more humane. Gorbachev's problem was that humane communism is an oxymoron.

Read the entire piece and the apt conclusion that Putin's ascendancy is a belated attempt to follow Deng's successful approach to reform China.

It may look like a far-fetched notion, but in this fascinating article from Nicholas Eberstadt and Hans Groth it becomes clear that there is indeed a silver lining to Europe's demographic problems:

Another economic benefit of healthy aging is that longer and healthier lifespans mean more vigorous senior citizens. The payoff would come not from putting great-grandparents to work but mainly from greater productive activity among people in their 50s and 60s. The generation of western Europeans currently 50 to 74 years old is more physically robust, and better educated and trained, than any before in that age group in the continent's history. The health and education of similarly aged cohorts in the future can be expected to increase further over the next quarter century--even as ordinary working conditions in Western Europe's knowledge-based and service-driven economy continue to become less arduous. All of this could make for an upsurge in economic activity among older western Europeans.

I have long argued that it is ridiculous to forcibly retire perfectly healthy and productive citizens only because they have reached the arbitrary mark of '60' or '65'. That in particular is an issue when the cost of that is passed on to society at large. Some nations are catching on to this, the Germans for instance have bravely set the first steps on the road to retirement age reform a little while ago. The benefits would translate into such tangibles as increased purchasing power and enlarging the scope for savings which in turn would benefit investment and growth. As obvious as the fix is, the harder it will be to implement as it requires a significant change in social and cultural attitudes, note where Europeans stand today:

Yet, over the last generation, western Europeans have translated all of their increased life expectancy--and then some--into leisure time. As life expectancy has risen steadily, the average age of retirement has fallen.

[ ... ]

Contrast these developments with patterns in other affluent OECD societies. Although in the United States, Japan, and South Korea labor-force participation at older ages has also declined as prosperity has increased, a major gap now separates these countries from prosperous western European ones.

The nature of European retirement will therefore have to change for the old continent to maintain its living standards or allow them to keep growing at roughly the same pace as North America and emerging economies. The beauty of it all is that these changes should be within reach even when we take into account that uniquely European obsession with leisure. Wealth can be built at a far earlier age allowing not so much the option to eventually retire, but the flexibility to work part-time later in life. Or better still, pursue career interests that are less driven by the need to pay the bills but by finding work that addresses self-fulfillment while matching the needs for “downtime” that come with advanced age.

I for one can not see myself retire fully, but I do look forward to shifting around some of my current activities so that they match my interests better. If I can continue to get paid for that, all the better. Sure, there will always be a mandatory component to setting retirement terms, but we should be able to move away from today’s often expensive and highly arbitrary model to something which actually generates wealth for a society. Europe, take note.

I have no particular feelings over Boris Yeltsin's death, but do rememember with fondness and excitement that late summer of 1991 when he stood atop a tank to defy the last attempt to preserve hardline Communist rule. For that, and for his generous treatment of the early stage investors in the new Russia he has definitely deserved his spot in history. It is odd though to note how much of the blame he gets for the chaos that ensued and which has now set the stage for another round of corrupt dictators occupying the Kremlin. Despite the neverending stream of hagiographies about the king of perestroika, very little has so far been said about Michail Gorbachev's conspicuous role in the descent and chaos of what once was a world power.

A good round-up with some great photos from the Yeltsin years can be found here.

RANDOM RECOLLECTION: In Hong Kong in the 1990s there was a fairly popular bar named after the man, Yelt's Inn. Not sure if it still exists.

As expected. Live reports and commentary here.

Based on the numbers, Royal's task to beat Sarkozy in the final round will be quite daunting.

The Times has the numbers:

Five hundred Britons are leaving the UK every day to live in the sun or find work abroad, according to the Office of National Statistics. A record 380,000 people left the country in 2005. More than half were British citizens leaving for more than a year. The top destinations are Australia, Spain, France and New Zealand.

It's an interesting article that also has some comprehensive numbers about who is replacing all these emigrants. There is no clear geographical pattern here, with the largest influx into the UK coming from India, Poland and Australia. I think we can only establish some real trends once more data over a period of time are gathered. What is clear though is that people are on the move and that will translate into signficant social and cultural change.

UPDATE: More here.

"But I’m not sure that they want to join the real world. Most of the old political crowd—they know nothing about globalization, about the economy. Not even the businessmen do. They are political, but they are not tied to politics. If they want the illusion of their nice French shelter, Sarkozy will lose.”

According to Christine Ockrent, France's top TV-journalist in a lenghthy and excellent essay about the French elections from the hand of Jane Kramer. Once you've read it you may want to reconsider putting your money on a Sarko win. The wishes of the pro-market Anglo-Saxon commentariat are miles away from the deep French attachment to the status quo. But as Ockrent correctly argues, no one is sure at this point, the float is simply too large to make any sensible prediction.

Hitchens finds it in France and explains:

And that reason, uncomfortable as it may be, is that most of the Communist electorate defected straight to the National Front.

To which I would add they they are equally happy to turn back to the left if the right fails to deliver on the grievances of the former 'Communists'. That is what I would term the Dutch lesson: dissatisfied voters looking for a new and decisive direction, irrespective of ideology. And yes, that is the hallmark of uncertainty:

Add to this the rather peculiar fact that a huge tranche of voters—most recently as large as 40 percent—simply refuse to tell the opinion polls (who last time got everything calamitously wrong) how they intend to cast their ballots. Again, the best intuitive explanation of this reticence is that many people are embarrassed to declare a Le Pen allegiance in advance.

Not sure if Hitchens is correct here as it would seem that a high level of uncertainty is an increasing characteristic of voting trends in Western Europe. And, the number of 40% that is apparently undecided again is in sync with Dutch trends where a similarly large floating vote was measured shortly before election day.

UPDATE: And like the Dutch, the French are increasingly likely to pack up and go:

According to a 2005 TNS Sofres poll, 2.2 million French people live in foreign countries — mainly in Europe. Half of those leaving are under the age of 35 years old, believing they will have more chance in other countries. Those departing, and above 35 years old, either say they are leaving for tax reasons or either for professionnal reasons. Even more striking; more than 90% of emigrants are pleased with their new life-styles, and 40% are planning on either never come back to live in France, or come back once they retire.

Interesting parallel.

Made by the Economist. Key excerpt:

Which leaves Mr Sarkozy as the best of the bunch. Unlike the others, and despite his long service as a minister under Mr Chirac, he makes no bones of admitting that France needs radical change. He is an outsider, born to an aristocratic Hungarian émigré father; he openly admires America; he is enthusiastic about the economic renaissance of Britain. He plans an early legislative blitz to take on hitherto untouchable issues such as labour-market liberalisation, cutting corporate and income taxes and trimming public-sector pensions.

So, it is not a 'EU Constitution Lite' from the hands of Merkel with input from Sarkozy, but a revised treaty that would obviate the need for a constitution altogether. The pragmatic Dutch have teamed up with the man in a rush to cementing his legacy:

The European Union should ditch plans for a constitution, Prime Minister Tony Blair has said.

Instead, reforms to make the expanded Europe of 27 nations more effective should be included in a conventional treaty, of the kind that has been seen many times in the Union's 50-year history.
Speaking at 10 Downing Street, following talks with Dutch prime minister Jan Peter Balkenende, Mr Blair gave his backing to a Dutch proposal for an "amending treaty".

Mr Balkenende said the change might free some EU governments from the commitment they have made to hold referendums on the constitutional treaty, which was given a resounding thumbs-down by voters in France and the Netherlands in 2005.

But Mr Blair insisted that it was not simply a question of removing the word "constitution" from the document's title. An amending treaty should contain only those elements needed to make the EU work better and not measures which led to fears of a Brussels-run superstate. "It is important we go back to the idea of a conventional treaty where the idea is to make Europe more effective, work more effectively, because we now have a Europe of 27 countries rather than 15," said Mr Blair.

This is a positive development as it recognizes that the EU is essentially an alliance of independent nation states that seek to achieve efficiencies, not create bureaucracies.

In the wake of my column on Dutch emigration some suggested that it could be a unique case, not necessarily applicable to other European nations. Well, Iain Murray picks up on a very similar trend, in Britain.

UPDATE: And French emigration too:

The simple fact is that, in the past few years, young people have been leaving France in unprecedented numbers. More worrying still is that although depopulation was a worry in the French countryside in the Sixties, it now has become a specifically urban phenomenon. Nor is it confined to Paris: Lyon, Lille, Bordeaux and Marseille can all report an exodus of young people towards les pays Anglo-Saxons (the United States and the UK). This fact was acknowledged by politician Nicolas Sarkozy when he made his flying visit to London last month to visit the French community there - at 400,000 people this is (as the newspaper Le Parisien helpfully pointed out) equivalent to one of the largest French cities.

The French Presidential election campaign got underway today with the first vote scheduled for April 22, and a run-off between the top two of round one on May 6. Michael Stickings has a good primer.

I have not been paying an awful lot of attention to this so I consulted with one of my French friends over the weekend. While not being able to give me some tangible guidance he pointed out that he had a hard time seeing Ségolène Royal making it to the Élysée. The reason? "She doesn't like people" and that confirmed my suspicion that the Socialist Party's candidate is too frosty and career-driven to connect with the French electorate. Sarkozy is far better positioned to capitalize on populist sentiments that currently exist across the political spectrum. For now my money is on a Sarkozy-Royal final, with the former the clear favorite to win.

The worst passenger air disaster ever, today thirty years ago gets its monument.

The Pope weighs in on Europe's dark future:

Europe seems to be losing faith in its future, Pope Benedict XVI said Saturday, citing the continent's population trends, which include generally low birth rates.

"One must unfortunately note that Europe seems to be going down a road which could lead it to take its leave from history," the pontiff told a gathering of the continent's bishops.

What we should note of course is that low birth rates can not simply be attributed to Europe abandoning its Christian roots. The pursuit of economic success enabled by individual freedom and a level of pessimism that affects future expectations has created a total focus on the here and now, and thus, less breeding. The Pope cleverly ventures beyond his social and spiritual terrain to note that these developments in the end will also affect Europe's economic growth prospects:

Benedict said Europe's population trends, "besides putting economic growth at risk, can also cause enormous difficulties for social cohesion, and, above all, favor dangerous individualism, careless about the consequences for the future."

Considered highly controversial by some, Benedict XVI has an unusual ability to get a debate going about some of the most fundmental issues facing the West today.

Yes, I have noted that the EU is celebrating this week and so has the Independent which has kindly listed not less than 50 reasons to love the European Union. Donal Blaney at 18 Doughty Street examines them and comments as only a Brit can, here are some of my favourites:

# 13 Small EU bureaucracy (24,000 employees, fewer than the BBC) – that’s like saying I am a better person because I only beat my wife once a week as opposed to someone who beats his wife every day. The EU bureaucracy is growing, not shrinking.

# 15 Minority languages, such as Irish, Welsh and Catalan recognised and protected – they were protected anyway! They managed to survive centuries without the help of the EU!

# 18 Europe-wide travel bans on tyrants such as Zimbabwe's Robert Mugabe – which he is ignoring and he remains in power terrorizing his fellow Zimbabweans.

# 36 Britons now feel a lot less insular – yes, the nation that conquered a quarter of the globe and which trades with every corner of the earth is such an insular little country, isn’t it?

#47 British restaurants now much more cosmopolitan – with smaller portions, menu items no one can pronounce and waiters with attitude problems.

Read the other 45 here.

Are Europeans overtaxed? Depends on where you live. Eurostat has put together a very useful summary of the percentage of GDP that Europeans fork out to the taxman. The differences are quite revealing, but it won't surprise anyone that with 52.1% the Swedes are carrying a heavy burden. And while the Dutch are thumping their chest over their 39.2% Tax/GDP ratio, you get to keep more of your hard earned cash in Ireland where the ratio stands at a decent 32.2%. The new and emerging economies of Eastern Europe score lowest, but that translates into far lower welfare handouts and a sub-standard infrastructure if we consider that Romania with 28.8% is at the bottom (or top) of the list.

By abandoning 65 as the retirment age, and lifting it to 67:

German lawmakers voted to lift the retirement age to 67 from 65, shrugging off union protests over the government's record on cutting unemployment for the over-50s.

Chancellor Angela Merkel's coalition pushed the provision through the lower house of parliament in Berlin today, meaning anyone born after 1964 -- just under half Germany's 82 million population -- will have to wait up to two years more before they qualify for the national pension. The changes come in from 2012, raising the retirement age in stages.

``We have to act,'' Labor Minister Franz Muentefering, the architect of the plan, told lawmakers today before the vote, saying that Germany had to counter the impact of an ageing population on the compulsory pension. ``We have to secure the financial viability of the plan.''

This increase will be phased in over time between 2012 and 2029.

In a way it is not surprising that Germany has been able to tackle this controversial issue: Merkel heads a broad coalition government that includes both Germany's right and left. Without a broad consensus such material changes to the social-economic framework are very hard to accomplish. Their political toxicity has ensured that most mainstream parties in Europe have so far not dared to touch them, despite the necessity to address them. Good for Germany, good for Merkel.

The EU constitution has momentum again:

The early conclusion from behind-closed-doors talks on the future of the European Union's proposed constitution is that referendums on the subject are to be avoided at all costs.

Senior diplomats from member states have begun negotiations to try to find a way forward after French and Dutch referendum rejections wrecked the EU constitution in 2005.

Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany is hoping to set out a "road map" towards a new European treaty in June and some early ideas will be discussed in the wings of the EU's 50th anniversary celebrations in Berlin on March 25.

"Constitution Lite" as it is now called is not just a top-down Barroso move, it can equally be seen as Angela Merkel's swift entry into the existing Euro-void, although it appears she is working behind the scenes with French presidential frontrunner Nicholas Sarkozy to put this controversial issue to bed. It remains unclear what the new draft will look like, but a compromise version may not be all that 'lite' after all.

The other thing that raises a few alarm bells is the assumption that the resounding 'no' from both France and The Netherlands two years ago is interpreted as a 'no' to content rather than a rejection of the constitution in principle, and that a backroom compromise can somehow negate the will of the voters without engaging them again. This not only highlights the problems with these plebiscites in general, but also the lack of consistency in Euro-decisionmaking as well as how a revised document can make its way back to the ratifcation table without any further popular input from member states. That said, most 'no' voters have never been all that bothered by trying to debate a credible alternative so the lack of democratic input can not be blamed on the ambitious Euro-elites alone.

Yet in an odd way the French and Dutch rejections did their work and bought the critics some time: we can take comfort from the fact that we may end up with a piece of paper vetted by Europe's new conservatives. A Merkel-Sarkozy constitution is no doubt preferable to a Schroeder-Chirac version drafted by Giscard d'Estaing.

Related Post
Reanimating the Constitution

Another thought provoking piece from 2006 Nobel Laureate Edmund S. Phelps in the WSJ, arguing that differences in economic dynamism are not just instititutional, but to a large extent cultural:

The values that might impact dynamism are of special interest here. Relatively few in the Big Three report that they want jobs offering opportunities for achievement (42% in France and 54% in Italy, versus an average of 73% in Canada and the U.S.); chances for initiative in the job (38% in France and 47% in Italy, as against an average of 53% in Canada and the U.S.), and even interesting work (59% in France and Italy, versus an average of 71.5% in Canada and the U.K). Relatively few are keen on taking responsibility, or freedom (57% in Germany and 58% in France as against 61% in the U.S. and 65% in Canada), and relatively few are happy about taking orders (Italy 1.03, of a possible 3.0, and Germany 1.13, as against 1.34 in Canada and 1.47 in the U.S.).

Phelps should dig further and may care to bring in religion and history as Italy, France and to some extent Germany are all Catholic and all came late to empire building as opposed to the nations that rejected papal primacy and set out to conquer the world. Max Weber was one of the first sociologists to pioneer this theme. Of course, these factors have been overcome by time and dynamic capitalism as Phelps describes it has now made successful inroads in Catholic underperformers such as Ireland and for instance Poland.

The Dutch, together with the Brits and Nordic countries are very different from their big continental brothers, but I would still suspect that their entrepreneurialism comes in below the levels measured in North America. That however is probably more a function of institutions rather than values.

There is a saying that every people deserve the government they get and I think that principle would equally apply to constitutions. The Dutch firmly rejected the Euro-constitution, but failed to debate the next steps or come up with a credible alternative. Both the politcal parties and the voters decided to further ignore the issue and did so at their peril. That inherent weakness was not lost on the European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso who visited The Hague last week and made it very clear what the next steps should be:

"The Dutch government signed the constitutional treaty and must also do everything it can to have it ratified by parliament," Mr Barroso told journalists on the eve of his visit.

[ … ]

Mr Barroso believes it would be unwise to resubmit an amended agreement to voters in a referendum, as this would probably lead to a second rejection … ”

Barroso’s arrogance in this matter is stunning as it manages to go well beyond the usual EU-attitude that argues that you should run enough referenda until you get the result you want. According to the EU chief the Dutch can do without any further direct consultations with the electorate and ratify the document without further ado.

The new center-left coalition which will be inaugurated in the next week or so has also avoided a clear stance and decided to refer the entire constitutional matter to the Council of State, a governmental advisory body. Barroso’s performance is an indication from which direction the wind is currently blowing and it would not be all that surprising to see the Dutch cave in, step by step. A mix of inaction and a need to re-establish some of their lost status and influence in Brussels may yet do the trick.

The draft EU Constitution is gradually making its way back into the headlines now that a number of efforts are underway to revive the dead document following the decisive French and Dutch rejections in 2005. Yesterday, I attended a presentation by Professor Alfred Pijpers, senior research fellow at the Netherlands Institute of International Relations Clingendael, who had an insider's perspective on the European constitutional debate.

Pijpers began to outline what in his opinion had contributed to the failure of European political integration. An interesting start as it presupposed that such failure needed to be rectified; it established political integration as a worthy goal. National diversity was the obvious one, but the success of economic integration among EU members has actually strengthened the nation state (think of wealthier nations), and thus paradoxically weakened European political integration. Other factors continued to be the expectation that NATO remains the vehicle of choice for European defense matters rather than an EU force, while the current institutional set-up was according to Pijpers not exactly designed for ‘collective strength’.

All these points, negatives in the eyes of some, serve to underline the original intent and purposes with which the European project was designed, and which in Lady Thatcher found one of its last strong promoters: a free-trading Europe of independent nation states. The draft constitution is therefore exactly the key vehicle for those who want to undo this loosely arranged integration, take it to a political level and satisfy the needs of this new and stronger Europe. How is this justified?

First and foremost there is a need for a unifying instrument that aggregates all the various pieces of Euro-legislation into one comprehensive document, which in and by itself is not an altogether unworthy objective. More contentious however is the attempt to restructure the presidency and unify foreign policy and create two powerful positions that would take care of these rather than continue the current arrangements that rotate power among nations on a semi-annual basis. In order to justify this Pijpers went as far as arguing that a presidency by Slovenia, a nation of some two million souls, could hardly be representative for a union representing some five hundred million inhabitants. One can argue in response that many Euroskeptics would feel much more at ease if European relations with for instance Washington would be conducted from Ljubljana rather than from Paris or Madrid. Lastly, there was the issue of ‘separation of competence’ which required a clear definition of where national jurisdictions ended and European ones started.

All in all these arguments make it abundantly clear that an EU constitution in whatever format is designed precisely to weaken the nation states and strengthen an ever centralizing union. Judging from the reasons as to why political integration has so far failed it would seem that this forced effort to let it succeed could potentially sow the seeds of its own destruction.

It was all strong stuff for the free trading Fraser Institute crowd who judging from some of the questions were not all that confident about this process in a world where regions are increasingly pulling away from political centers rather than veering towards them. I asked the question why there is hardly any debate during general elections about Europe, since the collective vents of anger in France and The Netherlands ended as soon as the ‘no’ ballot was cast. It would have graced these nations if they would have engaged in a constructive debate about what they would want Europe to look like, rather than reject it and let the matter be handled by the very elites that had brought European integration so perilously close in the first place. The answer from Pijpers was that voters could not get all that excited about European issues in national contests and that other pressing issues – pensions, mortgage rate deductibility, crime, you name it – were far more compelling for parties to campaign on and get voter attention.

Somehow that answer left me unsatisfied as it begs another question. Why could the French and Dutch - and the Brits who would surely vote ‘no’ – remain so disengaged about something that they do when directly asked, care about? Are the political parties indeed representative of certain elitist attitudes that prefer not to engage their constituents into a real hard debate about sovereignty? Or are Europeans themselves to self-absorbed to prefer short-term economic questions over long-term political ones? Most likely both and although my question wasn’t answered Pijpers’ lecture made it very clear that the forces that want to see a ratified EU constitution have a very good chance at prevailing, with or without voter input.

While Bruce Bawer is impressed with Tony Judt's Postwar: A History of Europe Since 1945 he has some reasonable doubts about the objectivity in the work of New York University's well-known historian. There is much to be learned from Bawer's critique written for the Hudson Review and you would have to read it all to fully appreciate it, this quote is one of my favorites:

Judt expresses the hope that the European public will develop a “patriotism for Europe”; but given how the EU works, with key decisions made not by the European Parliament but by unelected technocrats, the “patriotism” he longs for would have to be founded not (like American patriotism) on a devotion to liberty but on a deference not unlike that of a serf toward his feudal lord. Judt even goes so far as to say that the disorganized, unpremeditated way in which the EU took form was a good thing because

very few lawyers or legislators in even the most pro-European states of the European “core” would have been willing to relinquish local legal supremacy had they been asked to do so at the outset. Similarly, if a clearly articulated “European project,” describing the goals and institutions of the Union as they later evolved, had ever been put to the separate voters of the states of western Europe it would surely have been rejected.

In other words, the undemocratic way in which Western Europeans’ democratic rights were gradually siphoned away from them is something to celebrate.

And there are more gems to be had in this lengthy review, so I recommend that you read the whole thing.

"Harriet the cow had 22 officers out to kill her". So what triggered the hunt for Harriet? The threat of EU court action.

Johann Hari reviews the recent avalanche of books on Europe and Islam and is able to muster some optimism:

It is a long, slow process, but it has already begun. Amidst the sound of suicide-murders and screaming on European streets, it is possible to hear the slow creaking of those gates – and the low rumble of the Islamic Enlightenment.

While I do not as yet share Hari's confidence about Europe being the cradle of true Muslim reform, I have noted the signs of progress that he refers to in the past: here and here. Not so much a 'cracking of the gates' but rather some sparks of hope. And note that these examples revolve around progress effected by Muslim women who have grasped the opportunities that are on offer in the free west. Any Islamic enlightenment will start with a redefinition of the role of the sexes and in that Europe is probably one of the better places to get this process started.

Here's another great example of balancing moral clarity and political expediency:

France’s interior minister, Nicolas Sarkozy, overwhelmingly captured the governing party’s nomination for president on Sunday, pledging to enforce laws, respect tradition, restore morality to public life and make the French work longer and harder.

In an 80-minute acceptance speech in a conference hall packed with 80,000 cheering supporters, Mr. Sarkozy also struggled to shake his reputation as the country’s unforgiving and divisive enforcer of law and order, portraying himself as a man of compassion.

“I have understood that humanity is a strength, not a weakness,” Mr. Sarkozy said from a vast stage bearing the colors of the nation’s tricolor flag. “I have changed.”

Remember, 2007 will be a crucial year for Europe. In France we can expect a lively battle between Blairite socialist Ségolène Royal and the McCainesque Sarkozy, both of whom appear to be determined to break with the political traditions of their respective parties. It has already earned Sarkozy the non-support of incumbent Jacques Chirac. Around the same time - we're talking May here - we will likely see Gordon Brown moving into Downing Street 10, replacing the man whose tenure is already being described as tragic.

At the same time Germany - not exactly under firm political control either - will hold the rotating chair of the EU presidency and try and reinvigorate the dead EU constitution. Interesting times and possibly a defining year for Europe's future.

This year was - without a doubt - the year of the books about Europe and Islam. Berlinski, Bawer, Buruma, Phillips, they have all become must-reads in order to get a better understanding of what ails the old continent. Mary Eberstadt of the Hoover Institution has brought these writers together to illustrate how their common topic is now channelling the west's penchant for scapegoating America. Eberstadt argues that:

In sum, given the information now assembling about just what is going on in Europe, about how accomodationist European politicians already are, and about how much more they are being called upon to do to appease restive Muslims both Islamist and otherwise, a new, unorthodox answer to the puzzle of anti-Americanism suggests itself. Perhaps these days, on the Continent, the widespread, all-explaining urge to lay everything at the door of the U.S. has little to do with America proper. Perhaps it does not have much to do either with the post-Cold War unipolar world. Perhaps it is not even really about Iraq.

No, perhaps the anti-Americanism of today is best understood instead as a way of being furious in public with somebody for the insecurities and anxieties wrought by Islamist terrorism in this world, including in increasingly Muslim Europe -- an option made even more attractive by the safe bet that Americans, unlike some other people, are unlikely to respond to this rhetoric, let alone to editorial cartoons, by burning cars, slitting throats, or issuing death threats in places like Paris and Amsterdam and Regensburg and London.

It is a bit of a roundabout way to explain anti-Americanism i think, but the piece has so many worthwhile passages that I would still recommend it. Especially since it also looks at the US and how the West in general in characterized by "the refusal to acknowledge painful realities, thoughts, or feelings".

Amid tight security and an ongoing debate, the opera Idomeneo finally took the stage in Berlin last night. Still, a bitter taste lingers:

Director Hans Neuenfels did not attend Monday's performance and publicly ridiculed the Deutsche Oper's performance.

Although Neuenfels complained that the rehearsals hadn't gone well, he also said he was still sore over the Oper's original decision to cancel the show.

In this case the absurd act of self-censorship sparked a debate and an eventual reversal, but Neuenfels is right in pointing to the stain of stifling free speech which will forever be associated with this opera.

Related Post
Merkel, Mozart & Muslims

Here's an interesting podcast over at PJM by the Sanity Squad, discussing Europe and the latest from Iraq. There is quite a bit that needs to be added to the discussion I think, but for now suffice it to say that there are limits to explain the continent's future from a perspective of 'demographic dogmatism'. There is for instance also a trend reported by Dutch statistics that immigrants over time adapt to European birth rates as economic pressures force women to start working – after all we’re debating burqa bans not because Muslim women are all confined to their homes.

What I do believe is that Europeans will disengage and adapt rather than fight. Most of my family and friends are right-of-center in ideology, but they don’t hesitate to vote for parties on the left as a way of preserving the status quo. Many did so in last week’s Dutch general election. Peace and stability above all.

The Peters-model of radical ethnic cleansing is more likely in Eastern Europe where the population has a materially different economic and social history, but also less immigrants – at least at the moment – to contend with. Again, this also brings home the point to start making the clear distinction between the three tiers of Europe (Old/EU, New/Eastern and Russia) and bring in economics as one of the key drivers for social and cultural change.

The debate gets more complicated, but it is getting better too.

You have read most of them before here on these pages, but it is still worthwhile to see the Times listing the factors that have an impact on present day politics in a number of European countries:

First, the extreme Left and Right are on the rise across most of the Continent.

Secondly, the weak centre is losing authority.

Thirdly, the social democratic Left is splintering.

As The Times correctly notes, these trends are all contributing to a vacuum in which few if any decisions will be made. And at a time when most European nations desperately need a clearly defined direction that will become a phenomenal hindrance. Next up is the presidential election in France and the last instalment of the Tony and Gordon show and neither event is expected to bring either clarity or stability.

Europe Looks Inward, Tilts to the Right, according to Sylvia Poggioli at NPR. It seems Poggioli is struggling to understand what exactly is going on in Europe while at the same time not quite getting that the European Left - albeit in a state of some confusion - is still doing surprisingly well.

In The Netherlands, the case study par excellence for foreign media studying the 'Weimarization of Europe', the left is in reasonable good shape. Although a grand-left coalition is unlikely to materialize, a new center-left government is according to the latest polls the most likely outcome. The Dutch right has not been able to live up to Poggioli's simplified version of Europe, proving how fickle European electorates are in their current behaviour.

Weimarization? Possibly yes. More on that in the days ahead and when the final Dutch numbers are in on Wednesday.

As I mentioned yesterday, this old-new analogy will be part of the Rumsfeld lexicon and stay with us for a long time. It was one of the things he was absolutely right about. There is a distinction between the tired, careful, economically moribund and static part of Europe personified by especially Chirac’s France and Schroeder’s Germany and the dynamic and pragmatic youngsters that are building something new on the rubble of the former Soviet Empire. Poland, the Czech Republic, the Baltic states: they know exactly what they missed out on for some fifty years and are in a serious hurry to reclaim it, unhindered by strife-inducing immigration, regulation and deep complacency.

And that is also a reason to be not all that negative about Europe, although personally I would not like to be sandwiched in between Old Europe and Putin’s Russia. But some readers see the opportunity and here is an e-mail I got from a Dane last week after linking to quotes from Steyn’s new book:

Since I am planning to follow your example and leave Western Europe, we probably have a similar outlook, although I plan to move to Estonia.

Mark Steyn's idea of "Europe" seems to come from the British and American intelligentsia. He ignores the fact that there is a New Europe which is fast-growing (economically), pro-American, and almost Muslim-free.

In addition, there are vast distinctions among various Old European and New European countries. There is no easy analysis, but the Rumsfeld distinction is quite helpful in understanding a very underreported phenomenon.

Glenn Reynolds provides a few interesting links today. It seems Europe-in-decline watch is turning into a nice little industry all by itself and there is lots to be found here on this site. Two qualifications though: (a) there are regional differences within Europe, so the 'decline-template' should be used carefully and (b) whatever comes to Europe will reach North America's shores, eventually.

Dan Gardner from the Ottawa Citizen traveled to Europe to see whether all the alarmist rhetoric about Europe had a basis in reality. He visited Denmark for a lengthy assessment of the roots of the cartoon crisis and to Holland where he came away with a relatively positive feeling.

Gardner is right in pointing out that things aren’t as bad as they are sometimes made out to be, something which I have pointed out before. Yet, there are too many variables at play to settle on either a positive or negative outcome. Blindly banking on the repeat of historic accomplishments - like the 19th century integration of Jews into Dutch society – is probably not the best approach to guarantee future success in a situation that is materially different. It requires clearly defined policies and action from visionary politicians, something that is in short supply at the moment.

Gardner gives us a time estimate for integration success:

The usual theory on immigration holds that three generations are necessary for full integration into the larger society. There aren't many third-generation immigrants in countries like the Netherlands and they are mainly to be found in playgrounds and primary schools. It's simply too early to declare Europe's experience with immigration a failure.

And that's if the generations are measured from the arrival of the first guest workers. Arguably, it should not be. The better baseline is the moment when both newcomers and governments realized and accepted that immigration is a reality. And that wasn't until the 1990s.

So, that is somewhere between three or four generations depending on when you start counting. A projection not that different from Ahmed Marcouch, a Moroccan who did manage to integrate successfully and who as a politician has first hand experience in managing the process in some of Amsterdam's most notorious neighborhoods.

UPDATE: This Dutch media personality argues that negative attitudes of the native Dutch about themselves, have contibuted to the current malaise in the lowlands. He's written a book about it, Long Live the Netherlands:

Coming back after 10 years in America, I discovered that there's a terrible lot amount of grumbling and moaning in the Netherlands. We even talk a lot about our 'growling' culture, and this leads to a negative self-image. At the same time, I noticed that there are so terribly many Dutch people who are trying things a different way and are saying, "Enough of that moaning, enough of the grumbling. Let's deal with the problems'."

Long Live the Netherlands contains a number of elements which might best be described as 'right wing'. For example, the author describes the Netherlands' regulations on sacking employees for having a 'stifling effect' on enterprise; he says that some people who live below the poverty line only have themselves to blame, and he believes more Dutch women should be working a full week instead of part time.

This is the sort of language that is hardly new to longtime Peaktalk readers and Groenhuijsen's instincts are generally correct. The fact that he has kept his primary residence in Washington, DC however is not exactly a vote of confidence for a new Dutch miracle.

Richard Fernandez at the Belmont Club makes an excellent observation about the French riots:

Some may deride Chirac or de Villepin as appeasers. However the probable truth is that no one has yet figured out how to stop a vigorous ideology in its tracks. The West's own experience with Nazism and Communism shows that both accommodation and confrontation can fuel, rather than retard their growth. There is no magic formula; and perhaps there is no formula.

And that explains why politicians from both sides of the aisle struggle to find the right message, especially when it is election time. The intractability of violence fueled by cultural disconnects and social breakdown – a void nicely filled by religion – calls for a pragmatic diversion to ‘easier’ topics. And that is not just a European phenomenon:

With his party facing a difficult midterm election, President Bush is focusing on the positive this week: a growing economy he is using to try to persuade voters to keep Republicans in power in Congress.

White House advisers say Bush is not trying to change the subject from a deteriorating situation in Iraq, and that he will continue to talk about Iraq and the war on terrorism as the Nov. 7 election nears. But Bush advisers said they think the president should get more credit for recent positive economic news.

It all depends on how you look at it. But I see some eerie parallels in the ways in which both American and European politicians steer away from the hard issues and try to lull the electorate back into a sense of oblivious complacency. In the meantime we have a fully fledged civil war in Iraq and a nascent one in the streets of Paris.

Meet Sweden's new immigration minister: Nyamko Sabuni. It appears she is off to an interesting start:

" ... has caused a storm as Sweden’s new integration and equality minister by arguing that all girls should be checked for evidence of female circumcision; arranged marriages should be criminalised; religious schools should receive no state funding; and immigrants should learn Swedish and find a job.

Supporters of the centre-right government that came to power last month believe that her bold rejection of cultural diversity may make her a force for change across Europe. Her critics are calling her a hardliner and even an Islamophobe.

“I am neither,” she said in an interview. “My aim is to integrate immigrants. One is to ensure they grow up just as any other child in Sweden would.”

Again it is very often immigrants from outside Europe (Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Afshin Ellian) who are able to identify much better than native Europeans what is wrong and that drastic measures are needed to benefit both immigrants and their host nations. And somehow I am also beginning to sense that women are far better in delivering these blunt messages (witness Dutch immigration czar Rita Verdonk) than men. Let's see how Nyamko fares, it would be good if she succeeds and is not prematurely shipped off to a US-based think tank, fearful of her life knowing that there is a limited market for her ideas in Europe.