Spanish life is not always likeable but it is compellingly loveable.
- Christopher Howse: A Pilgrim in Spain.
If you've arrived here because of an interest in Galicia or Pontevedra, see my web pagehere. Garish but informative.
Matters Spanish
- I said this story had legs. So, what now? Will it die a death? Or will plagiarism be proved and Sánchez forced out?
- A granddaughter of Franco has been fined €525,000 for tax evasion, arising from the sale of shares worth a vast amount. The wages of sin. Sins upon sins, in fact.
- Which reminds me . . . The Spanish parliament has approved the removal of her grandfather's remains from its place of honour in the mausoleum in the Valley of the Fallen. Quite right too.
- The blasphemous artist has been released for the moment, while the judge decides whether or not to send him to trial. As the article says: The affair is one of a string of cases of artists being probed or jailed in Spain which have raised concerns about freedom of expression. But things will surely be different under the current left-of-centre administration.
Matters European
- Thanks to populist pressures, says the author of the article below . . . Look carefully and you can see the European Union changing. . . you can see a Europe in flux: border controls in Denmark, Germany and France. We hear arguments, in the least likely quarters, that it’s time for national governments to have more power over immigration and policy in general. That the people should, in other words, take back control. . . . The same trends can be seen at work over Europe: established parties changing their priorities, emphasising the nation state and control over immigration.
- It occurred to me last night that on the 2 things which have caused the EU project most trouble – the politically-driven euro and the ideology-driven freedom of movement – the UK was ahead of the game. Because of the famous British pragmatism? Anyway, the author concludes that: Britain and the EU find themselves moving in the same way: towards greater sovereignty, liberty and democracy. Not a bad basis for a new partnership. Indeed. Who'd have thought it? But will it happen? Depends on who succeeds the imbecilic Juncker, perhaps.
Matters Global
- Here's an interesting article from Bernie Sanders, with comments from Yanis Varoufakis. This will seem eminently sensible - or at least worthy of consideration - to most Europeans but not to those (North) Americans who view the openly socialist Sanders as a dangerous communist. Of which there are rather a lot. The majority of Americans, in fact. US exceptionalism.
Matters Galician and Pontevedran
- Here's something on the upcoming charges for viewing the wonderful Portico de Gloria of Santiago's cathedral. You'd think the Catholic Church was impoverished.
- Thursday's lunch traffic was heavy in the tapas bars near mine. Friday's very much wasn't. The explanation of one owner - On Fridays, they know they're going out to eat in the evening. I guess this is a national, not just local, phenomenon.
- The Pontevedra provincial government is going to invest a considerable sum in the development of 'intelligent tourism'. I wonder what existing tourists think of being labelled thick.
Finally . . .
- Google Analytics is widely said to give the most accurate stats about readership. Strange, then, that their reports show only one of the 5 or 6 cities where I know I have friends who read my blog every day. Out of a total of more than 80 worldwide. So, I'm not convinced of GA's accuracy. But I am convinced that no one will care except me . . .
- Something is causing my Safari browser to crash regularly. It looks like it might be accessing The Local's site. So, it'll be interesting to see what happens when I no longer do that. Again, for me, at least.
© [David] Colin Davies, Pontevedra: 15.9.18
THE ARTICLE
Europe's populists don't want to leave the EU. The real danger for Brussels is that they want to stay: Fraser Nelson, The Daily Telegraph.
By now, even the most ardent Brexiteer would have to admit that Michel Barnier is doing rather well. His job is not just to negotiate a deal but to make the whole Brexit process look so agonising that no other country would want to go through it. So far, so good: there is no clamour to join Britain in the queue for the exit. There is no shortage of European political parties who resent Brussels and its immigration policy, but they wish to stay in the EU and reform it. Two years ago, that might have sounded hopelessly naïve. Less so now.
It’s hard to keep pace with the changes on the continent. Not so long ago the Eurosceptic populists were seen as headbangers, howling outside the gates of the European citadel but having no chance of getting in. Then they started winning elections: in Hungary, Poland, the Czech Republic and Slovakia. They were written off as political vandals, relative newcomers to this whole democracy business. This argument became harder to sustain when populists entered government in Austria. Then things changed utterly when Italy became the first major European nation to have supposed crazies actually in charge.
Look carefully and you can see the European Union also changing. When David Cameron came along seeking his renegotiation he was sent away with almost nothing because the EU thought its rules were unmovable. This led to Brexit, and demonstrated the price of EU intransigence. The rise of populism underlined this point. Now you can see a Europe in flux: border controls in Denmark, Germany and France. We hear arguments, in the least likely quarters, that it’s time for national governments to have more power over immigration and policy in general. That the people should, in other words, take back control.
Perhaps the biggest change has been the implosion of Angela Merkel. A year ago, she was the power behind the European throne: today, she’s on political life support. Her disastrous decision to admit a million refugees to Germany led to its own political harvest, with the Alternative für Deutschland now the official opposition. To buy them off – and stop Merkel’s ministers from resigning – the EU has had to draw up plans for asylum seekers to be processed in Africa, rather than Europe. Not so long ago, the very idea would have been denounced as heartless populism. Now, it’s EU policy.
When Cameron tried to change minds in Brussels, using argument, he failed abysmally. Times have changed, he said: free movement of people was agreed in the 1990s when migration levels were a fraction of what they had become. To cling to this now, as a matter of ideology, would surely threaten the European project itself. Cameron even brought a slide show, prepared for his European counterparts, showing that support for Brexit plunges if he would be given concessions on curtailing free movement. He was met with a point-blank and pig-headed refusal.
Only now, with authoritarians or populists in power in several European countries, does Brussels pay attention. And only at the last minute, to save Merkel’s government from collapse, in a desperate and belated attempt to beat back the populist fire.
In Brussels, what reforms there have been are deeply controversial. Eurocrats tend to see popular pressure as something to be resisted, rather than assuaged. When Donald Tusk, president of the European Council, proposed a tougher EU-wide immigration policy a few months ago, he was attacked for being “anti-European” by the EU Commissioner on migration. A bizarre accusation but still one that gets to the heart of it: the battle over what it means to be European. What needs to be done to keep the EU project together.
Emmanuel Macron, itching to take the European throne vacated by Mrs Merkel, has proposed his own agenda: that Brussels should have even more control, with harmonised tax rates, a Eurozone finance minister and budget. But this is proving too much even for the Germans. Ever the drama queen, Macron said he’s delighted to do battle with Matteo Salvini of Italy and Viktor Orban of Hungary. He envisages himself as the great liberal hero, fighting off Orban’s “illiberal democracy” – but for that he’d need an army. None is likely to arrive.
The man than Macron is more likely to contend with is a younger, shrewder politician: Sebastian Kurz, the 32-year-old Austrian Chancellor. Earlier this year he proposed an “axis of the willing” on migration with Germany and Italy – rather than wait for the EU to act. He’s a conservative who co-opts populists when it suits him (he’s in coalition with the anti-migrant Freedom Party) but drops them when it does not, as he demonstrated this week by agreeing to censure Orban for various constitutional violations. Kurz says he is liberal and pro-EU. And for these reasons, he seeks greater control over borders – and, quite possibly, a new European model.
The same trends can be seen at work over Europe: established parties changing their priorities, emphasising the nation state and control over immigration. By the end of the Swedish election campaign last week we heard the Liberal Party talking about the danger of Islamist free schools, the conservatives decrying immigrant gangland murders and Christian Democrats discussing “honour repression” of Muslim girls in Sweden. Not so long ago, politicians talking in such ways would be accused of pandering to xenophobes. It’s a tougher form of debate, but it succeeded in keeping populist Sweden Democrats at bay.
It’s odd to hear Mrs Merkel touted as contender for European Commission president. Her model of running Europe has collapsed, and it’s not yet clear what will replace it. Over the next few years, elections (starting with Bavaria’s next month) are more likely to support Kurz’s view of the world than that of Macron. It’s not that the populists will club together and take over the EU: they’re still a rabble, and struggle to agree on anything. But as other parties move to crush them, they’re more likely underline the importance of the nation state, which will mean demanding a new European model.
This will mean plenty more upheaval, with populism causing more chaos, before things start to calm down on the continent. Britain and the EU find themselves moving in the same way: towards greater sovereignty, liberty and democracy. Not a bad basis for a new partnership.
By now, even the most ardent Brexiteer would have to admit that Michel Barnier is doing rather well. His job is not just to negotiate a deal but to make the whole Brexit process look so agonising that no other country would want to go through it. So far, so good: there is no clamour to join Britain in the queue for the exit. There is no shortage of European political parties who resent Brussels and its immigration policy, but they wish to stay in the EU and reform it. Two years ago, that might have sounded hopelessly naïve. Less so now.
It’s hard to keep pace with the changes on the continent. Not so long ago the Eurosceptic populists were seen as headbangers, howling outside the gates of the European citadel but having no chance of getting in. Then they started winning elections: in Hungary, Poland, the Czech Republic and Slovakia. They were written off as political vandals, relative newcomers to this whole democracy business. This argument became harder to sustain when populists entered government in Austria. Then things changed utterly when Italy became the first major European nation to have supposed crazies actually in charge.
Look carefully and you can see the European Union also changing. When David Cameron came along seeking his renegotiation he was sent away with almost nothing because the EU thought its rules were unmovable. This led to Brexit, and demonstrated the price of EU intransigence. The rise of populism underlined this point. Now you can see a Europe in flux: border controls in Denmark, Germany and France. We hear arguments, in the least likely quarters, that it’s time for national governments to have more power over immigration and policy in general. That the people should, in other words, take back control.
Perhaps the biggest change has been the implosion of Angela Merkel. A year ago, she was the power behind the European throne: today, she’s on political life support. Her disastrous decision to admit a million refugees to Germany led to its own political harvest, with the Alternative für Deutschland now the official opposition. To buy them off – and stop Merkel’s ministers from resigning – the EU has had to draw up plans for asylum seekers to be processed in Africa, rather than Europe. Not so long ago, the very idea would have been denounced as heartless populism. Now, it’s EU policy.
When Cameron tried to change minds in Brussels, using argument, he failed abysmally. Times have changed, he said: free movement of people was agreed in the 1990s when migration levels were a fraction of what they had become. To cling to this now, as a matter of ideology, would surely threaten the European project itself. Cameron even brought a slide show, prepared for his European counterparts, showing that support for Brexit plunges if he would be given concessions on curtailing free movement. He was met with a point-blank and pig-headed refusal.
Only now, with authoritarians or populists in power in several European countries, does Brussels pay attention. And only at the last minute, to save Merkel’s government from collapse, in a desperate and belated attempt to beat back the populist fire.
In Brussels, what reforms there have been are deeply controversial. Eurocrats tend to see popular pressure as something to be resisted, rather than assuaged. When Donald Tusk, president of the European Council, proposed a tougher EU-wide immigration policy a few months ago, he was attacked for being “anti-European” by the EU Commissioner on migration. A bizarre accusation but still one that gets to the heart of it: the battle over what it means to be European. What needs to be done to keep the EU project together.
Emmanuel Macron, itching to take the European throne vacated by Mrs Merkel, has proposed his own agenda: that Brussels should have even more control, with harmonised tax rates, a Eurozone finance minister and budget. But this is proving too much even for the Germans. Ever the drama queen, Macron said he’s delighted to do battle with Matteo Salvini of Italy and Viktor Orban of Hungary. He envisages himself as the great liberal hero, fighting off Orban’s “illiberal democracy” – but for that he’d need an army. None is likely to arrive.
The man than Macron is more likely to contend with is a younger, shrewder politician: Sebastian Kurz, the 32-year-old Austrian Chancellor. Earlier this year he proposed an “axis of the willing” on migration with Germany and Italy – rather than wait for the EU to act. He’s a conservative who co-opts populists when it suits him (he’s in coalition with the anti-migrant Freedom Party) but drops them when it does not, as he demonstrated this week by agreeing to censure Orban for various constitutional violations. Kurz says he is liberal and pro-EU. And for these reasons, he seeks greater control over borders – and, quite possibly, a new European model.
The same trends can be seen at work over Europe: established parties changing their priorities, emphasising the nation state and control over immigration. By the end of the Swedish election campaign last week we heard the Liberal Party talking about the danger of Islamist free schools, the conservatives decrying immigrant gangland murders and Christian Democrats discussing “honour repression” of Muslim girls in Sweden. Not so long ago, politicians talking in such ways would be accused of pandering to xenophobes. It’s a tougher form of debate, but it succeeded in keeping populist Sweden Democrats at bay.
It’s odd to hear Mrs Merkel touted as contender for European Commission president. Her model of running Europe has collapsed, and it’s not yet clear what will replace it. Over the next few years, elections (starting with Bavaria’s next month) are more likely to support Kurz’s view of the world than that of Macron. It’s not that the populists will club together and take over the EU: they’re still a rabble, and struggle to agree on anything. But as other parties move to crush them, they’re more likely underline the importance of the nation state, which will mean demanding a new European model.
This will mean plenty more upheaval, with populism causing more chaos, before things start to calm down on the continent. Britain and the EU find themselves moving in the same way: towards greater sovereignty, liberty and democracy. Not a bad basis for a new partnership.
No comments:
Post a Comment