It seems that the Vatican is more responsive and timely than I had anticipated. In response to my question in this article asking when the Church would involve itself the answer can only now be “Pretty damn quickly.”

Now I doubt the editor of their affiliate accelerated the Pope, or perhaps worked at his instruction, but it is pleasing that the Italian government has found an enemy in the Church. The Vatican wields considerably more clout when dealing with the Italian right than our own Anglican bishops could ever hope to hold over the Labour party.

The news that Famiglia Cristiana’s editor is to be sued by a leader of the far-right coalition who hold power over Italy suggests that they feel especially vulnerable. We must hope that this measure is doomed to the failure which is richly deserves, but regardless it demonstrates that the instinctive authoritarian instinct to close down debate is in evidence here.

The article contains a worrying aside, however:

So far, church leaders have been far more outspoken in their criticism of the government’s policies than Italy’s main, centre-left opposition party.

Which simply pleads for the question: if the Italian left can’t even muster the guts to call finger-printing innocent children for being gypsies “Indecent” then what the hell are they for?

Signs that the Italian government has not embraced the ideology it is not most easily associated with. Or at least that it does not take kindly to criticism levelled at it from one of the few outlets not controlled by Berlusconi’s ownership (criticism of Berlusconi by those newspapers he does own is of course as common as the Murdoch press scrutinising BSkyB’s tax conduct). In this case a feature upon the unnerving right-swing was published in a newspaper with strong Papal ties. Although this is clearly not representative of the Vatican (instead representing the author and editor’s views) the attacks seem damning and authoritarians always struggle to evade being held to account for their excesses when the press is free. Which is why their immediate impulse is to stamp down or, in Berlusconi’s case, buy out.

This does raise an interesting issue, however: if the Vatican has not spoken out then was has it not and when does it intend to? As foul an organisation as it in many ways is the strength of the Church in Italy renders all true totalitarianism an impossibility, unless there rises to power a leader both bold and mad enough to march on the Vatican. The Church holds a substantial powerbase and if willing to speak out against the government’s draconianism and outright racism could have a substantial impact. Any making pretence that this would somehow be out of line for a religious organisation has clearly failed to grasp the innately political nature of the Church’s structure, intent and behaviour. This is the Church that attempted to prevent distribution of condoms at a Valentine’s Day festival in Brazil, not one which has any qualms about immersing itself in matters of public policy.

On a broader note, we can but hope that the criticism against the government results in a suitable backlash. Perhaps it could even trigger the form of examination and condemnation of Italy’s fascist past which it largely failed to embrace after the downfall of Mussolini. Douglas’ references to pro-fascist Italians are telling: “Mussolini had his positive side. The streets were safe in his day” is by no means a rare sentiment in Italy. Those who were not from the “weak” groups targeted enjoyed the fruits of the social democratic policies Mussolini failed to abandon while forging corporatism after the abandonment of his former comrades on the left. Consequentially the impression is positive, the only partially correct cliche that “Mussolini made the trains run on time” having substantial weight in a nation with as precarious infrastructure and unreliable services. Italians appear to struggle with the notion of the objective historian, seeing the origins and ideology of the writer as something which must be borne foremost in mind while reading, so perhaps the vileness of the past being alluded to in the present will cause many to recall the horrors and others who have never experienced the original power seizure of the fascists to relish the sensation first hand. This is merely my optimism talking, however. For the time being Italy is set for a grim few years. Whether Berlusconi shall have entrenched himself by the end of this time, empowered the left or both remains to be seen.

Italy isn’t a pleasant place at present; Berlusconi recently put 3000 troops on the streets of Rome. This, he claims, is part of an attempt to crush an alleged wave of crime by Roma gypsies.

But who really believes that from a government that placed gypsies on an ethnic register? The move smacks of a barely closeted racism; it assumes a moral panic sparked by the single murder in November is fully justified, and that gypsies are solely to blame for all Italian crime. Pandering, in short, to prejudice.

And that prejudice certainly exists:

On the streets of northern Rome such reservations are hard to find. “All our problems come from foreigners getting drunk, smashing windows and stealing,” said Anna Maria Mercure, who at 80 is old enough to remember an earlier era of Italian discipline. “Mussolini had his positive side. The streets were safe in his day.”

Fascism is fine so long as they don’t arrest me, she means. I direct readers to a rather famous poem, the sentiment of which is entirely sound.

Others want their xenophobic authoritarianism laid out in simple steps, though:

“I would kill them all,” said Virginia Cristell, a mother in her 40s. “Send them to the country – or send them somewhere. They are dirty and there are lots of problems with burglary and thieving. They make toxic smoke.”

Deport them, and then exterminate them - sound familiar to anyone?

The gypsies certainly feel victimised:

That, however, is not the view of Goffredo Bezzecchi, 69, an Italian gipsy who came close to death after Italian Fascists tried to send his family to the death camps. They escaped before they could be deported. Mr Bezzecchi, who was fingerprinted at his home near Milan last month, feels history is at risk of repeating itself. “These things were done in the Fascist days when gipsies were killed or sent to concentration camps,” he said. “The politicians should remember that we are human, not garbage.”

To summarise; ethnic profiling, ethnically targetted policing enacted by the army, and plans to move people around the country on the grounds they belong to an ethnic group. Berlusconi’s government has, in effect, denied that the Roma can be defined by anything but their ethnicity, and so their individual humanity. Very 1930s.

Today, Tory MEPs confirmed their party’s civil libertarian credentials - by voting not to condemn the finger-printing of Roma children in Italy. All but one of the party’s MEPs has voted against a resolution condemning ethnic profiling by Berlusconi’s government. One said:

“Fingerprinting is the only way to ensure the children are sent to school” - Charles Tannock MEP

So, to summarise - the Conservative MEPs have refused to condemn a racist and authoritarian measure which effectively dscriminates against a vulnerable minority. That hardly fits in with their current narrative of the party of civil liberties, valiantly struggling against a tide of CCTV cameras and police forms.

Unless, of course, Cameron sends an internal memo condemning the MEPs as fascist fellow-travellers. Which seems unlikely. Perhaps David Davis should resign his membership in the hope of raising public attention…

(Hat-tip: Question That)

I hate to fearmonger, but:

Could Europe be drafting a new law to disconnect suspected filesharers from the internet? MEPs have already signalled their condemnation of this approach. But last-minute amendments to telecommunications legislation could bring the so-called “3 strikes” approach in by the backdoor. If you want your MEP to stick to their guns on 3 strikes, write to them today to voice your concerns.

The legislation would oblige ISPs to disconnect (suspected) filesharers from the internet after two warnings. It wouldn’t matter who’d done the sharing; it wouldn’t matter if it was someone else in the house; it wouldn’t matter if your machine had been assaulted by malware and used without your knowledge. It wouldn’t even matter if filesharing hadn’t taken place - note suspected filesharers.

And that wouldn’t be all, would it? A vague section of the legislation might give rightsholders the right (hah…) to demand personal information about subscribers from ISPs without reference to a court. Other amendments give rightsholders similar powers to leech information retained to fight terrorism.

Now, let’s summarise. A sweeping assault on all filesharing; complete disregard for users’ privacy; an arbitrary system whereby users’ can be struck off as suspects; and a blatant ignorance of what the public actually wants, as evidenced by their continued filesharing. And all this contained in a document as long and obscurantist as most EU legislation, tucked away as a few amendments few were likely to read. In short; a vile piece of legislation which threatens to tip me into outright euroscepticism, and whose sponsors deserve to be torn apart on the vicious rocks of electoral catastrophe.

Oh, and did I mention the vote was tomorrow? Get writing.

(Hat-tips: Jennie at Yorksher Gob, whence the story came to my attention; and panGloss for a highly informative post on the matter)

Is the EU trying to put me off altogether? First the arrogance of the official reaction to the Irish referendum, and now this:

Speaking about her report, Ms Mikko told us “the blogosphere has so far been a haven of good intentions and relatively honest dealing. However, with blogs becoming commonplace, less principled people will want to use them”.

Asked if she considered bloggers to be “a threat”, she said “we do not see the bloggers as a threat. They are in position, however, to considerably pollute cyberspace. We already have too much spam, misinformation and malicious intent in cyberspace”. She added, “I think the public is still very trusting towards blogs, it is still seen as sincere. And it should remain sincere. For that we need a quality mark, a disclosure of who is really writing and why.”

Let’s translate that into a language people will actually understand, shall we? Here’s what Ms Mikko really means:

Speaking about her report, Ms Mikko launched what constitutes an attack on freedom of speech. She feels it’s unfortunate that more people are blogging these days.

It’s her view that there’s too much on the internet that she doesn’t like. This includes criticism of the EU. Much of this “spam” comes from anonymous blogs. She’d seek to challenge this by insisting on a “disclosure of who is really writing and why” - in short, by insisting that people revealed their name and purpose.

So - Mikko wants to protect people from us horrible, horrible bloggers. That the ability to publish anonymously is one of the internet’s great virtues has apparently escaped her; it allows those who’d otherwise fear to speak to speak. It’s liberating, and valuable for that.

Oh, and that the ability to publish anonymously represents a fundamental element of the freedom of speech apparently esconsed in the European Declaration on Human Rights also seems to have eluded her.

Mikko’s proposals would require a blog to gain the seal of approval from the Commission. Blogging would be subject to state censure from the platform down to the posts; a wonderful way to challenge the lack of, “pluralism” in the press that Mikko claims to be so worried about.

This isn’t anything more than a resolution - the European Parliament’s weak equivalent to an EDM. It won’t become law. But the very fact that MEPs are willing to discuss such attacks to the blogosphere worries me. What’s the point in a totally open platform if it’s no longer totally open?

The reaction of politicians across Europe to Ireland’s rejection of the Lisbon Treaty smacks of astounding arrogance. Take Andrew Duff MEP, leader of the Liberal Democrats in Europe:

“We cannot accept this result.”

Yes, and why not Mr. Duff? Never mind that, in a democratic vote with a relatively high turnout, the only population given a direct say in the Treaty told the government to take said Treaty and insert it in an orifice. Never mind that whole democracy thing. After all, the Treaty is all about shifting power from elected to unelected bodies, so we shouldn’t be surprised…

Perhaps our own dear Foreign Secretary was in the mood for a little respect:

“I believe it is right that we continue with our process.”

So, that’s a no, then. Everywhere you look, you get the same reaction from pro-Treaty politicians: “Oh, come on, you can’t be serious can you? Those fucking peasants owe us. We lifted those ungrateful little shits out of the bogs, and we expect a return of service. All we’re asking for is for their permission to snatch yet more power from national legislatures and hand it to unelected committees. Just because they’ve actually got something to do with the freedom we helped them achieve doesn’t mean they should use it…”

The Irish reaction to the Lisbon Treaty is clear: the country that’s benefited most from Europe doesn’t want it. The commissioners in Brussles need to learn from that. In the only country where the government allowed the people a say, that people rejected the Treaty. These people are some of the most pro-EU in Western Europe; even the opposition leaflets carried the slogan “Ireland’s Place is in Europe.” When that happens, EU leaders should look around, question how welcome their proposals will be in less europhilic parts of the world - and quietly drop them.

And yet we see them squeal. Monumental buttocks continue to flap even as I write. Can’t they see how this damages the very idea of European unity that they love so much? They haven’t accepted defeat - but simply propose to move on regardless. The public don’t want an EU in the form the Lisbon Treaty sets out. That its authors reject this clear rejection adds fuel to the fires of discontent and the arguments of those who call the new EU undemocratic. Their behaviour is undemocratic - and so the whole institution becomes tainted with that poisonous charge. They become the bloated Eurocrats of stereotype, and the public begin to hate them.

You cannot impose a nation - or a supra-nation - from above. As Vamp points out here, only a public belief in international unity will make an imagined community real. That belief does not exist at present. Arrogant attempts to force it into life through words on paper won’t create that. They might even halt it.

The Irish Rejection of the Lisbon Treaty didn’t represent a rejection of the EU. All it demonstrated was their resistance to the imposition of an as yet unpopular form and idea from above. If the Eurocrats press on regardless, that might well change - into an active rejection of Europe itself. And they’d only have themselves to blame.

Miliband seems to think it is worthwhile ratifying the Lisbon treaty despite it having been vetoed by Ireland.  Why?

1. The EU bigwigs have demanded 26 ratifications.
If everyone else signs up, it is easier to see the Ireland vote as a hiccough rather than a final breath.  They will likely ignore the fact that 100% of the countries given the chance to decide to sign up decided to reject it.

2. It keeps the Tories in a sticky spot.
Cameron clearly opposed the Treaty, and gambled that the country would reject it in a referendum.  He was denied the opportunity by the Labour and LibDem promise-breaking, so Ireland’s decision seemed like a gift.  Labour hope to milk this for what it’s worth, though.  Cameron avoided ripping his party up over Europe again, but he will soon find that sweeping difficult issues under the carpet is no alternative for tackling rebels.  The damage this does Labour is nothing to the damage it does the Tories - at least Labour have an (almost) consistent policy on Europe, referenda aside.

What should Miliband do?  If he won’t do as I suggested earlier, he should at least accept that the decision to break his referendum promise was wrong.

One of the main beneficiaries of the EU over the last few decades has, it seems, rejected the Lisbon Treaty.  The only country given the chance to vote on the rehash constitution (after France and the Netherlands blew the original out of the water) has sent a fairly clear message.  Three of the most typically pro-European countries in the Union have rejected the bureaucracy’s advances.  The message must be learned.

1. Europeans citizens do not want a mega-country.
The economic and political benefits of a union of European nations are undeniable.  We have to co-operate as a continent, and a union body is the best possible way to achieve it.  But most people in Europe rather like being national citizens, not international ones.  They like national elections, not international ones.  They like the closeness and accountability of national decision-making, not the faceless international superbody of the EU.  The Constitution, Lisbon Treaty, or whatever you want to call it was an attempt to formalise this continuing development into a superstate and those countries which would most benefit have rejected it.

2. The EU is governed by the bureaucracy, not politicians.
The EU is constructed to channel power to the bureaucracy, not not the pseudo-politicians elected to the Parliament.  The recent Tory MEP expenses farce demonstrates how MEPs are encouraged to exploit the system to their advantage while sitting back from decision-making.  Little legislation is crafted in the European Parliament, but is rather dreamed up by the bureaucrats and waved through with little consideration in the Parliament.  There is next to no accountability for MEPs, with party lists promoting those who would not otherwise be elected and no public knowledge of what MEPs are doing with their time in the Parliament.  It is telling that the media do not cover debates or votes in Europe, and we know nothing of our MEPs - if their work is unimportant, it should stop, and if it is important, it should be made far more accountable than it currently is.  The Constitution was pushed by the bureaucracy, not the politicians, and the dirty tricks employed to replace it with the Lisbon Treaty were the work of deceptive cynics with no belief in accountable politics whatsoever.

3. If this is how the bureaucracy works, we should resist its advances.
The EU is designed to make nations insignificant.  It functions as if it knows best, but lacks the courage to test its convictions in the minds of the people of Europe.  We should resist the whole EU mentality.  We should seek a European Union which promotes economic and political co-operation in a way similar to the UN, which stops far short of trying to dominate nations.  We should defend national self-determination, not allow nations to be subsumed by the giant machine of Brussels.  We ought to reform the EU into a United Nations of Europe, functioning on very different lines to those it currently does.  In short, the failings of the EU should prompt a desire to reform it, not to walk further in - we will only encourage them.

The EU has no respect for nations - indeed tries to promote itself as one.  The longer we take to seek reform, the harder it will become.  There need not be any showdown or hostility, just a new focus in halting the EU’s growth while we reassess its direction.  I hope that Ireland’s rejection of the Constitution / Lisbon Treaty gives the opportunity for this to take place.

I don’t like writing posts like this, as they feel lazy. That, and most that was said today was very predictable. Nonetheless, a few comments do stand out:

It (a 2003 newspaper article in which Nick Clegg said not holding a referendum would show “that we do not have the cojones” to take the argument to the people) may be an explanation of why the Liberal Democrat leadership protests over the course of these debates have become ever more shrill…. At some point in recent months they have become separated from their cojones. These unfortunate objects are to be found impaled on a distant fence. - William Hague

I don’t like to give Hague any real credit, as he irritates me. Here, though his much vaunted wit is at its best - it raised a laugh with me, at least. More importantly, I suspect it sums up perfectly what the public perception of the Lib Dems will become now. They’ll appear cowardly middle-roaders whose inability to chose sides has cost them their credibility.

The Tories will spin that for all its worth, certainly. They’ve no desire to lose any votes to Clegg’s declared economic liberalism, and will happily destroy them.  If they don’t do it themselves.

I’m likely to be voting with you [Mr Miliband] tonight but I’m not sure I’m going to be able to agree with any of the arguments you are using in favour of that proposition… Will you stop all this nonsense about it being different from the constitution, because it is plainly the same in substance, and explain why it is better not to have a referendum but have it decided in parliament. You are getting into trouble because of the deviousness and, at times, ridiculousness, of the arguments you are using. - Ken Clarke

This is one of the most dangerous attacks on Labour. Coming from one of the strongest Europhiles in the Tory party, it yet roundly condemns Labour for this. Even if what Clarke was saying was completely false, it would still do damage. A supporter says it’s the constitution, people see this and say, “Look, a supporter says it’s the constitution,” and from thence on opponents have carte blanche to call it the Constitution. Labour suffer.

I suspect Clarke had that all thought out fairly carefully.

 The Treaty of Lisbon is essentially a repackaging of the old Constitution. I don’t oppose the principle of a constitution. But I oppose this particular one (and the treaty which reproduces it) because EU citizens deserve better. While the Treaty of Lisbon includes some positive measures, in my view these are outweighed by negative ones - the further militarisation of the EU, for example, as well as measures to promote greater economic liberalisation and privatisation. - Caroline Lucas, Green Party Co-Principal Speaker

Not to mention the damage to accountability and the democratic structuresof the EU…

Nonetheless, isn’t it really very depressing that the Greens have the most accurate view of the Treaty (rather than the referendum) itself? None of the mainstream parties have openly picked up on the fact that, while an EU Constitution is possibly desirable, this one’s really a poor deal.

And finally, another example of where Clegg went wrong:

The prime minister once said that he would build a wider pro-European movement in Britain. How does he think he’s going to achieve that? By colluding with the anti-European Conservatives to block the in-out-referendum that the British people really want?

Let’s get this straight: the government is, in fact, colluding with the opposition to deny the public the opportunity of buying into Clegg’s currently niche policy. That’s quite the conspiracy theory he has there. Never mind the fact that they were at each others’ throats today - that’s clearly a disguise for their anti-democratic denial of the Lib Dems. Devious of them don’t you see?

Either he’s very deluded, or very bad at picking his scripts.  Possibly both.