War!

Imagine Yugoslavia as an example. A federation of republics bound together largely by autocracy - dictators tend to get their way - and then by a rotating presidency; that last bit sounds familiar, I’ll bet they even had a single currency. Then they had civil war.

War - what is it good for, apart from (as Harry Hill reminded us on the weekend) ITV drama serials? German chancellor Angela Merkel raised the danger in a speech to the Bundestag yesterday, strong arming them into approving measures to improve the Euro bailout fund. “Nobody”, she pointed out “should take for granted another 50 years of peace and prosperity in Europe”; which sounded remarkably similar to my father’s response to a query on the purpose of the EEC. My Dad - and I’ll grant, the chancellor - have a point. 25 years ago I had to concede there were advantages to a common market; bringing nations closer together in a way that is to the benefit of all, reduces the chance of conflict.

Merkel however would go further. “If the Euro fails, Europe fails” she tells us. And because she had the courage to raise the bloody history of our continent, no-one has the nerve to question whether the medicine will avoid a repeat, or achieve the opposite - well, she started it! There must be far gentler ways to bring the people of Europe together - and I’d question whether it requires government. It’s usually governments that cause these things in the first place.

Opportunism knocks

Given the perilous state of the European economy, I’m finding it difficult to be enthused by a referendum on EU membership. Euro-sceptics see this as a best chance in a generation to ditch an unloved institution, so I can imagine how it might make sense to push the issue now, but I can also see problems in this approach. Though it’s a crisis largely of the Euro’s making, there is a problem with the world economy too; in such times people are as likely to develop a herd mentality as they are to strike out with confidence on their own.

This is the wrong time to decide. There are economic advantages and there are regulatory pitfalls - I’m being polite - we don't yet know how these will be changed by the closer financial integration that will form part of the Eurozone recovery. The “loss” of the AV referendum earlier this year was seen as putting the issue of “electoral reform” on the backburner for a generation. Imagine a narrow vote for maintaining membership, used as an excuse for doing the same. Let’s wait until people know what it is they’re voting for - or against - rather than have them base it on a guess.

Any man's death

Society was up in arms about Murdoch being pied, but torturing and murdering Gaddafi is ok, something wrong with that picture.

Well quite, there would be something wrong with that picture if I thought it accurate. However, I’ll pass on this straw man and note the rather disturbing inference that for many, trial and execution by the state would have been preferable. There were three possible outcomes:

1. Gadaffi executed on the spot.
2. Gadaffi put on trial and then executed.
3. Gadaffi put on trial at an international criminal court.

It would seem strange to intervene for the sake of one, when unwilling to do so for the thousands of Benghazi; so I’m assuming the non-interventionists - those who objected to NATO involvement - would continue to proclaim the need for Libyans to handle their own affairs. That leaves two possibilities, both with the same result, and though both are objectionable, in the light of last Friday’s indignation I ask myself which is worse - the blood lust captured for all the world to see, or the quiet rational heart that would deliberate - and then kill.

Am I not Conservative?

Against my better judgement I queried “those who want to stay in [the EU], are not Tories”, describing it as “an extraordinarily narrow perception of what it means to be Conservative”. I could have phrased that better, but was still surprised with “no, sonny, it's MY interpretation - or do you want to control that, as well as my ability to vote on the EU?” to which another added “...it's actually not as narrow as you might want to believe, if you're a TRUE conservative”.

Ignoring the “TRUE conservative” - how do you respond to that - I described to the first how I saw it as “the rights of the individual over the state - that'd mean accepting (not necessarily agreeing with) alternate views”. To which he replied “try as I might, I cannot even attach any parts of your reply to the topic”. Mine was a poor description. What I’d have liked to say was that to decide who’s in and who’s out based on that criteria - one that in my experience has very little to do with Conservatism - seems a little prescriptive, and not unlike the actions of the European body he would decry. However there didn’t seem much point in pursuing this, so explained my reply had been my interpretation - in response to his - and apologised for any offence.

I am ambivalent about the EU, as I am the referendum. I preferred the EEC; that is I could appreciate the idea. There are euro-enthusiasts, euro-sceptics and those who are certain of their dislike. I’ve always thought of the Conservative party as the broad church eschewing narrow dogmatic expressions. I’m aware that won’t chime with some, certainly not the “other side”; yet if we do believe in the individual then it seems logical to expect a wider range of views. And since, unlike one of my correspondents, I lived - and voted - through the Thatcher years, I feel as qualified as any to stake a claim.

Nonplussed one

I can’t believe I’m spending so much time on this; it’s a little bit obsessive. I noticed recently that the “share” part of “Recommend on Search, Share on Google+” had stopped working on the blog. What am I talking about? Why the Google +1 button of course!  For a while I assumed it was tinkering by the people at Mountain View, and then took a look yesterday because, even if it’s never used, you want to know it would work in the unlikely event of a click.

It was tinkering - at least, I think it was - though not in the way I’d thought. I assumed the code behind the button had changed whereas I discovered a run-time error in the JavaScript, and only because I happened to look using IE. How can I get Chrome to indicate there’s been a JavaScript error without spitting all over me; an extension no doubt?

Cue a bit of tinkering, moving the script to the bottom of the HTML before the </body> tag - where I realised it should be, but to no avail. Then out of curiosity I removed the script altogether. I expected to lose the button since without the script how would it be generated, but there it was. What’s more, the “share” part of the button’s function was now working. So all I have are the <g:plusone> elements and Blogger, a Google property after all, does the rest; until they change it back again. Stay tuned for more exciting adventures.

No borders

There’s so much happening, so much I could write about or get “off my chest”, yet by the time I find myself at a keyboard the moment has escaped and I can’t quite remember what, only that I was, excited by something or other. Am I mellowing in my golden years or is this senility; I think we know the answer. I feel I should write it down before anything else slips away.

Liam Fox spent last week hogging the headlines, resigns, and lingers on. The opposition saw a chance to stick in the boot - I grant, it is their job - and suggested amongst other things a mandatory register for lobbyists. This would be the register that Ed Miliband and his friends voted against whilst in power, never mind the dubious assertion that a lobbyist is a clearly identifiable entity. I saw one over the top comment demanding a ban, but at what point does a constituent asking for help become an evil lobbyist asking for the same? The difference between help and lobbying for favourable treatment is entirely subjective. One suspects a continuation of the bad business meme warping so many minds.

Writing of which, how are my Occupy chums doing in London? I shall afford them the honour of capitalisation. I commented on their counterparts - the inspiration for across the world “life isn’t fair” protests - in Wall Street not so long ago. This lot seem equally cluttered in thought, though I should credit them for a limited nine-point statement. Mercifully brief, unsurprisingly vague, it’s full of the usual anti-capitalist nonsense neatly tying in various other complaints - well you might as well let it all out. There are those on the left who want banks to fail, and those on the right, strict free market capitalists who want the same; albeit for different reasons, unlikely bedfellows, neither persuaded by the lessons of Lehmans.

You’d have thought all this would be enough to occupy my mind - see what I did there - but no; the end of capitalism as we know it has been eclipsed by something far more exciting. I removed the border on images, this after a brief flirtation with shadows - though I haven’t entirely forsaken that guilty pleasure. I’m all grown up, the blog feels more mature, except for the content, but you can’t have everything.

A time of pestilence

...to state quite simply what we learn in a time of pestilence: that there are more things to admire in men than to despise.

In-between the usual weekend tasks - the shopping, the exercise, trying to find something to fill the empty hours - I conceded a need to finish The Plague, which seems an odd thing to say about a book I liked so much. I was curious as to whether a work of fiction from a key philosopher of the last century would manage to be more than intellectual exercise. I found it written with that same intelligence, clarity and genuine compassion for the trials of man I found in Sisyphus, with not a drop of wasted sentiment. Two observations: The by now familiar non-judgemental nature as evidenced by a refusal to condemn Cottard, a black marketeer who most would portray as villain, but of whom Tarrou is moved to describe as “that man, who had an ignorant, that is to say lonely, heart”. Second is the character Tarrou, who might be described as hero, though I can imagine much discussion over who fills this role best, or even whether - given this is Camus - such a role can be filled. He appears to embody some of the themes for which Camus would eventually find himself estranged from his contemporaries. In confiding to Rieux, Tarrou describes a changing relationship with his revolutionary friends:

...once I admitted the arguments of necessity and force majeure put forward by the less eminent, I couldn’t reject those of the eminent. To which they retorted that the surest way of playing the game of the red robes was to leave to them the monopoly of the death penalty. My reply to this was that if you gave in once, there was no reason for not continuing to give in. It seems to me that history has borne me out; today there’s a sort of competition who will kill the most. They’re all mad over murder and they couldn’t stop killing men even if they wanted to.

Obstinately humanist, what a superb writer Albert Camus was. I look forward to The Rebel.