Bloggressive...

...is apparently the new word for when you get angry while you're blogging. I'm angry, well, I was already before I started on this post. I'm not angry with the French result as such; they are allowed to vote in any way they want, though I had hoped people would have voted on the issue at stake instead of expressing disatisfaction with the people in power due to high unemployment levels or what have you. But that's always going to happen to some extent.

No, I'm angry with the Swedish Left Party (aka the former communists). This is a party that's usually against the EU and the supranationality and transnationalism it entails. They want Sweden to remain sovereign and don't want to secede power to the EU and its member states. However, today the Left Party is saying that the French result means that Sweden can and should abandon its ratification process. To me, that, if anything, is saying that Sweden doesn't have its own say and to let France decide instead for us. Granted, the constitutional treaty may fall in the end but we're not there yet. Until that day we should let each member state have its say, irrespective of whether it's ratification (or rejection) through a parliamentary vote or a referendum. So the Left is contradicting itself by saying that today we accept supranationality (at least as a means, if not an end). "Listen to France when it suits us."

To make matters worse, the Left had threatened to leave the Government as a results of the French vote. The Left party is not actually a coalition partner and accordingly doesn't hold any ministerial posts, but in effect, together with the Greens, it functions as a partner to the minority Social Democratic government. They threaten not to agree to the budget which is scheduled for September unless Sweden opts out of ratification. Not sure whether they are serious or whether they are in the position to demand such actions, but the whole thing just pisses me off! It's perfectly understandable that France is in a crisis but Sweden??

The French didn't even reject the constitution for the reasons the Swedish Left Party would. Not even the French Left has the same opinions. Many voted no because they don't think the EU does enough on social issues (the European social model) and think they can amend the Treaty (in effect add) and have a new vote. I.e. they want Europe to do more (even common taxation in the future). The Swedish Left would cringe if they really understood this (which they don't seem to do) because they want to move power back to the nation state, not add to the European level. Oh well.

At least these nay-sayers voted on the basis of a conviction and had actually read the constitutional treaty. I heard one guy on the news who said "I haven't read it so I'm going to vote no." Sigh.

I will end with a thought that was voiced at the seminar I attended this morning on the topic: perhaps the positive thing that will come out of today's results is that the UK will vote yes to spite the French!

Non Constitution

The first results are in and it looks like France has voted non to the EU constitution. Sadly so, in my opinion. However, this does not need to be 'the end of the EU', as some people seem to think.

A few weeks back I attended a seminar on the EU organised by the Swedish government, where Magnus Rohback from the (Swedish) Prime Minister's Office presented his thoughts on the future of the EU in the light of the French referendum.

He identified the following points as the main issues right now:
1) The ratification of the Constitution
2) The 2007-13 budget negotiations
3) Further development and realisation of the internal market (the Services Directive, common rules for financial markets, state aid, consumer protection, etc.)
4) Common actions for sustainable growth, employment, environment, etc.
5) Enlargement
6) The implementation of the Hague Programme, i.e. asylum, migration, judicial cooperation, mainly combatting organised cross-border crime and terrorism)
7) The EU's international role (cooperation with Russia, Iraq, the Middle East, the WTO Doha round, the UN Millenium conference, etc.)

Mr Rohback mentioned that one of the reasons for the Constitution was that it was seen as a way to manage and make functionable, an enlarged Union (remember that behind the Constitution Treaty is three years of work). However, enlargement (+10) has taken place and so far it has not affected the EU negatively. On the contrary, it has made procedures more austere, disciplined and effective.

Even so, the political significance of a French rejection is huge:
- the legislative process will lose pace or even stop;
- it will become increasingly difficult to reach hard compromises;
- the process of further enlargement will be increasingly complicated (enlargement being one of the reasons for French refusal);
- there is risk that the Union become introverted, affecting its international role.

But even with a French no, the process will go on (and should go on, I believe). The EU has gone through periods of sclerosis before, which doesn't necessarily need to be a bad thing. It is a time of consolidation, of catching up. The work (see points 2-7 above) will continue even if the bigger visions have been momentarily lost. Throughout the history of the EU there has been a constant pull between visions and the every-day work of implementing EU policy. In the 1970s and early 1980s there was a period of stagnation, which originated in a questioning of the identity and purpose of the EU, partly due to the accession of the UK to the Union. Today we may be in a similar downturn; however, it is NOT the end.

Oxford Wants My Money

The University of Oxford is trying to deal with the hot issue of its future at the moment, boiling down to whether it should stick to the present system or go independent (i.e. free itself from the government's reigns).

However, what caught my attention in the Economist article was that they are expecting me to pay for it!

"If Oxford declared independence, it would lose the £52m undergraduate subsidy at least. Could it fill the hole? Certainly. America's top universities charge around £20,000 per student per year. The difficult issue would not be money alone: it would be balancing numbers of not-so-brilliant rich people paying top whack with the cleverer poorer ones they were cross-subsidising. America's top universities manage it: high fees mean better teaching, which keeps competition hot and academic standards high, while luring enough donations to provide bursaries for the poor. It should be easier to extract money from alumni if Oxford were no longer state-funded."

Well, one day I might make enough money to be able to share it... So far I've chosen to hold onto it tight. When I was reimbursed for water problems while staying in college accommodation I was asked to donate the grand total sum of £250. I greedily rejected the "offer".

Swedish Lesson

I want to introduce you to How to learn Swedish in 1000 difficult lessons. Thought it would be a good way for you, my international friends (and other foreign visitors to my blog), to learn Swedish. Here's the author's intro:

"Francis Strand is a 44-year-old American magazine editor living in Stockholm. He is married to a Swedish man, which is legal in Sweden, more or less. The two met in Barcelona in July 1998 and were married in June 2000. Strand has 'a high opinion of Swedes'. Although he loves the country and people, his attempts to become fluent in Swedish have been less than successful."

I especially find the "more or less" comment intriguing...

Sick Time TV

I was down with flu-like symptoms this week and only managed to go to work today. Since watching telly is almost the only thing one can do to pass the time, I'm now fully up-to-date with the latest developments on everything from McLeod's Daughters to According to Jim, and the theme song from 7th Heaven is stuck in my head. Luckily I was able to avoid the likes of "The Bold and the Beautiful" (don't even deserve a direct link!).

And tonight I installed digital TV... but I promise just to watch high quality evening series!

Gossip

Nah, I don't have any juicy stories to tell you myself but I can point you to a good site that does. A little introduction:

"In so far as a city ever needed a gossip rag, Los Angeles is crying out for a Defamer. For a city that’s in many ways the cultural capital of the world, it’s woefully under-gossiped. Sure, the celebrity weeklies give the latest tittle-tattle on the reality TV romance of the week. But the real stars of Hollywood are the producers, the agents, the PR flacks, the studio execs, and the screenwriters. They’re usually behind the scenes. No longer—since May 2004, there’s Defamer, putting them front and center. "

Not necessarily agreeing with L.A. being the cultural capital of the world...but I sure enjoy all the inside info and especially the humour! Defamer won the 2005 bloggie award for best entertainment weblog!

Ikea Saves the Day...

...or marriage rather. At least according to the new book "Great Ikea! A Brand for all the People". Apparently Ikea is the place to go if you want to find romance or harmony.

The author, Elen Lewis, claims that Ikea lets the men be men and confirms their manhood. Likewise the already married man's "hunting instincts" are satisfied when he "hunts" furniture for his home and gets to spend money in front of wife and kids, which in turn arouses the woman. According to Lewis, Ikea is one of the few brands that can actually change your life.

The book doesn't enlighten us as to which instincts, except the "natural" housewife ones, women satisfy by going to Ikea.

7 reasons why Ikea saves married bliss:
1. Non-assembled furniture. When the man succeeds at assembling shelves and tables, his manhood is confirmed.
2. The hunting instinct. Treat your marriage to a trip to Ikea so the husband can "hunt and gather" for the home. Will bring happiness.
3. The feeling of creating a home together creates harmony in the marriage.
4. Sex. Women are turned on when the assembling goes smoothly. What happens when there are screws missing (which is often) is not clear. Nor how men react to handy woman.
5. The beds. It is estimated that at least every ten babies in Europe were made in a bed from Ikea.
6. The food. Many couples allegedly choose Ikea's meatballs as their first choice for a romantic Valentine's Day dinner. What??!!
7. Wedding. A Canadian couple chose to get married at Ikea.

Elephant On the Loose in Stockholm

The newspaper Dagens Nyheter tells the story (translated):

"An elephant is on the loose in Stockholm. The news came from our tippers, who had heard on the police radio that two patrolling cars were on their way to Enskedefältet to attend to an elephant that had escaped from a circus.

There is no time to lose. We have to get a picture of the escaped elephant before it is caught.

Quickly heading to the photographer's car. On our way towards Årsta we hear the news on the radio. 'We're breaking for traffic information. We have an elephant warning, yes, you heard it correctly, elephant warning by Huddinge Road.'

We start looking into the bushes and on the golf course, but no elephant.

The informer said that it could be in a residential area. The photographer curses the fact that the camera is in the trunk of the car and wonder if it's okay to stop on the highway.

I wonder if we dare leave the car if we see the elephant. And we discuss whether it is an African or an Indian elephant. The African is bigger, but what about agressiveness? Even a small Indian one can probably be as terrifying if it's stressed. It was safari mood in the Spring sun in Enskede.

But it was a story which was too good to be true. A simple check with the circus shows it is false alarm.

Later the police tells us that somebody called in about the escaped elephant after having seen an elephant when it was being exercised. According to the circus the elephant Lubli is so good that she is allowed to walk around freely.

Always check a good story, that is the conclusion. But some adrenalinfilled elephant hunt on a regular, boring no news Thursday was still not wrong."

For pictures, click here.