Gender Equality

Apparently we in Europe live in modern societies. Except women still earn almost 20% less than men for the same job (35% less for part time jobs) (link). Women make up only 20% of the House of Commons in the UK.

In the last few years Britain has invaded two countries, Afghanistan and Iraq (one of which I agreed with, the other not). We have promoted democracy in both these countries and we insisted that 25% of the seats in parliament were guaranteed for women. In Afghanistan it transpired that 28% of the seats went to women. Compare that to the House of Commons with 20% women and you have to wonder which is the more socially advanced country. In Spain, Zapatero's cabinet is now 50% women. In Norway and other Scandinavian countries a similar trend towards gender equality has taken place.

The Lib Dems have campaigned for years for proportional representation in Parliament. It is clearly unfair that one person's vote in one constituency is worth less than another person's vote in a different constituency. In the 1980s the Liberal Party gained 25% of the popular vote, but only 23 seats (out of over 600). But even with PR, how can Parliament be representative with only 20% women? Society is made up of 50% women, not 20%.

Across Europe and beyond, gender equality is much more advanced than in Britain. In Scandinavia especially they have made huge steps, with Norway recently introducing a law was made forcing large companies to adhere to a 40% quota of women on their boards (link). This includes the cabinet.

Positive discrimination is controversial, partly because it's a contradiction in terms; a better or equally qualified man can lose out if there's a quota for women and no woman wants to feel that they got their job just because they're a woman. But one of the main arguments against positive discrimination is that with equal opportunity in effect, there is no problem. This is a false argument. In parliament, if there isn't 50% women, I feel the system is wrong. In business, there are equal numbers of male and female graduates coming out of university, so it is false to say that there aren't enough female candidates or that there aren't enough women with experience; the system is wrong. This is what needs to change. Positive discrimination should be used as a temporary measure to change people's way of thinking. Until there is real gender equality, I will not call Britain a modern society, in fact, in many ways it's quite backward.

Reasons not to vote for Berlusconi

Living in Italy in the run-up to this election is slightly confusing. A man who is so clearly unfit to lead a country is ahead in the polls. Why? Two main reasons: lack of adequate criticism from the media and the electorate's collective short memory. Astonishingly, Berlusconi has managed to blame the country's economic problems on the present government, which is like the Tories in Britain blaming Labour for Black Wednesday (and the people accepting it!).

So, for anyone who reads this before voting today or tomorrow, here are some reasons not to vote Berlusconi:

1. He's a criminal

This is not an opinion, this is a fact. He was found guilty in two trials, one for illegal financing of a political party, the other for bribing financial police. Why is he not in jail? Because, by the time the appeal came to court, Berlusconi had passed a law which imposed a time limit on this kind of trial. Does this change the fact that he was found guilty? No. He's a criminal. There are also several other trials for similar crimes which have had to be abandoned because of this law. The Economist wrote a good article several years ago detailing these trials (link).

2. He's economically incompetent

Berlusconi was in power from 2001-2006. What was his economic legacy? Over those five years, Italy's GDP growth was on average 0.7%. Taking inflation into account, this means that Italy got poorer over this period. At the end of his term, the budget deficit was 4.4% (the maximum for eurozone countries is 3%) and the national debt was 150% of GDP (the maximum for eurozone countries is 60%). After Prodi's government raised taxes to pay this debt, it is now down to 107%. The interest on this debt costs each Italian €1,200 a year. Is this the man to save Italy from its economic troubles? I don't think so. Would Berlusconi's government have done anything different to Prodi's? Unlikely.

3. He's a bad image for the country

Abroad, Berlusconi is seen for what he is, due to a more critical press. Ask a foreigner what they think about him and the answer is likely to include the words "mafia" and "corrupt". I'm not suggesting that Berlusconi is involved with the mafia, it's mainly his looks that give that impression. However, you only have to think back to his numerous gaffes to realise that he's a bad image for the country. Comparing a respected German MEP to a Nazi concentration camp guard; boiling babies for fertiliser in China; comparing himself to Jesus Christ; calling a thrice-convicted murderer a "hero"; the list goes on. Is this the behaviour of a world leader?

4. His party is a far right party

The People of Freedom party includes unrepented fascists, people who want to rewrite Italy's history, Mussolini's granddaughter and his coalition includes a man who has threatened to take up arms against the state unless Padania (Northern Italy) becomes independent (or at least devolved). These are the people who will be running the country if Berlusconi wins. People tell me that the two main parties' manifestos are the same. I disagree, but beyond that, one has to look at the parties. A few years into government the manifesto is meaningless, so one has to decide on the candidates being presented. I know what my choice would be.

5. He is anti-democratic

It was only about a year after the 2006 election that Berlusconi accepted that he had lost it. Before (and after) that, he was constantly claiming electoral fraud and seemingly, like a parrot, only knew one word: "elections, elections, elections!" He has recently attacked the President of the Republic and claimed that he should resign because he's left wing (he is a former communist, but the post is supposed to be impartial, and there has been general praise for his tenure so far). Add in to that the fact that he changed the electoral law to suit himself - the ultimate irony may be that this law is so bad that no one can win under it. In January, when Prodi's government fell, he resisted all calls for a unity government to change the electoral law, basically because he thought he could win an election. A referendum on the electoral law was planned for the spring, called for by petition, and now because of the elections is cancelled. In addition, Berlusconi has consistently undermined the judiciary. Are these the actions of a democrat?

There. Five reasons not to vote Berlusconi. Do you need more? I hope not, but I have more. I could speak for hours about why he is completely unfit even to have a seat on a local council. But if those reasons aren't enough then I don't think I'm going to convince you.

The constitution and the Lisbon Treaty

The constitution was a good idea, executed badly. It went too far, was too big and completely impossible to explain to the electorate. The Lisbon Treaty is a bad idea, but a necessary one. The reforms contained in the constitution were necessary, but the process is not democratic. The problem is that institutional reform is never complete, and as the EU expands, it will become nigh on impossible to pass new treaties in this way.

What's the answer? A constitution with a logical process for amending it.

A constitution should be written. It should be as short and as legible as possible. It should do nothing more than restate the previous treaties, except for one addition: the process for amending it. This should then be put to a referendum, held on the same day across Europe. Any country voting against will have to seriously consider its future in the EU, since there is nothing new in the document. This will be good for everyone, especially Britain, which needs a kick up the arse to realise that it no longer has an empire and the US is not our biggest trading partner or natural political partner.

And for amending this constitution? It doesn't really matter how it's done, as long as the process is clear. My preference would be for the commission/council/parliament to propose amendments and then decide whether a referendum is necessary or not. There should be a way to allow citizens to force a referendum; with the internet it should be possible to get 5% of the population to petition for it. Amendments going to a vote should be limited to 3 per parliament to avoid excessive amendments and confusing people. The votes should take place at the same time as European parliamentary elections.

The only difficulty is what happens when a country rejects an amendment. I'm against an outright veto, because I can imagine eurosceptics targeting small countries like Malta or Cyprus, just to defeat "the superstate", but this is minor point.

Referenda only make sense when their about one issue: in/out, gay marriage/no gay marriage, prohibition/no prohibition etc. This is the way it works in the USA - 1st amendment: free speech; 13th amendment: abolition of slavery; 18th amendment: prohibition... If all of the US constitutional amendments were put to a vote at once, do you think it would pass? I doubt it.

Will this new consitution happen? Of course not, Europe works on a lowest-common-denominator system, not on a common-sense one. In 10 years' time we'll go through the torturous process of passing another treaty, this time with 30 or more countries having votes/referenda. It's not very good for anyone really is it?

The Church: Good or Evil?

I'm sorry to be so aggressive, but I have come to the conclusion that the catholic church is evil. I'm not saying that Christians are evil, far from it, the ones I have met have for the most part been tolerant and kind people. It's a shame that the church is the opposite. It has shocked me how much power the church has here in Italy, and how ruthlessly it uses it. There were rumours that the church had a hand in the fall of Romano Prodi's government in January - Clemente Mastella's small party which caused the crisis is highly religious and was unhappy with a law giving rights to homosexual and unmarried couples - and now the electoral campaign is under way there are daily proclamations from the Pope and other members of the church. A row over abortion has also erupted, partly due to a conservative nurse calling the police in for a murder when what was actually taking place was a legal abortion; and partly because a 'new' (it's been legal in other countries for almost 20 years) abortion drug is undergoing clinical trials.

The church is supposed to give spiritual guidance to its followers and defend the poor and weak. What it does is the opposite, and always has done. The church regularly denounces contraception, family planning and abortion in an attempt to keep women and poor, uneducated people under control. In the third world, abortions are mostly illegal due to the church's influence. It is also the place were most abortions occur, often causing death, infertility or other internal injuries [link]. The debate over abortion has two camps, pro-choice and pro-life. What people assume, wrongly, is that the choice is between aborting and not aborting, and that the lives are those of the unborn child and the mother. The choice is between aborting safely and aborting unsafely. Women who want to abort will abort, this is a fact. Abortion existed before its legalisation, it was just very unsafe. And if the child in question is severely disabled, or the result of incest or rape, or a danger to the mother's health, whose life is worth more, the mother's or the child's? Because that is often the choice.

The church's position on contraception is also strange and hypocritical. It is "permissible" to have sex without the intention of procreating "when there is a reason", but "[the menstrual cycle] cannot be 'violated' by artificial interference". Contraception "denies the sovereign role of God in the transmission of human life" [link]. Apparently a piece of latex is more powerful than the being that created the universe. If anyone can explain this to me logically I'd love to hear it.

In contrast, one rarely hears, if ever, denunciations of organised crime, corruption and tax evasion, despite the fact that Jesus himself spoke on these matters directly ("Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's" springs to mind). The church is more closely aligned with Silvio Berlusconi's Forza Italia Party, which has several members under investigation for corruption, and Berlusconi himself is only a free man due to the laws he made exempting himself (he was found guilty several times on charges of corruption, only for the the trials to be scrapped because of his exemption).

So the church subjugates the poor, suppressed and weak and protects criminals and paedophiles (remember the countless accusations of abuse across the world by catholic priests and the subsequent cover-ups by the church?). Is this really the right behaviour for a holy institution?

As for politics, if the church wants a role, then it should stop trying to pull the strings behind closed doors and should come out and stand for election. Then maybe we'd see how much support there is for these "policies".

On protectionism....

Despite being anti-protectionism, I am in support of this kind of "soft" protectionism (article). Protectionism helps special interest groups, not the populace in general, as it discourages competition and keeps prices high. However, it is not right that a government-subsidised company should be able to invest in a liberalised market; it's simply unfair competition. Notice, however, that I didn't say "non-European" government-subsidised company. The issue applies within the common market as well. Britain has fully liberalised its energy markets; France, Italy and Germany have not.

Companies like EdF (Electricité de France) are part-owned by national governments and Spain has been subject to EU investigation about illegal state aid, but in the meantime has been allowed to continue its practices, meaning that some Spanish companies have been effectively state-subsidised. Italy is also well known for trying to deter foreign investors. These "national champions" have an unfair advantage in fully liberalised markets. Although there is a deadline in some sectors for liberalisation, national champions can take advantage of countries that have liberalised early in order to become dominant in the future EU-wide market. So, EdF can take over SWEB in the UK, but British Gas (a private company) cannot have any of the French market unless it can take over the whole of Gaz de France. The same goes for the Postal Services market. Britain is now almost fully liberalised for all types of mail, France and Italy are not. Where's the reciprocation here? Britain and other like-minded countries should not be "punished" for liberalising earlier than others.

What is needed is a ban on government-owned/part-owned companies from investing in liberalised markets while their own markets are not liberalised. After all, it's only fair.

Burma

I hope Burma changes for the better, the military regime there needs to go, it is clear that the people want freedom. Any government that attacks Buddhist monks protesting peacefully brings about its own downfall.

It's a shame that the EU is not being more vocal about this. If it wants a bigger role in the world, this is where it will find it. No-one has anything to lose from speaking out against the regime, but I find European politicians (except, laudably, British ones) strangely silent.

I'm for Sarko

It pains me to have to say this, but I think Nicolas Sarkozy would be the best candidate for France and Europe. He has a very bad side in his attitudes towards immigration and his tendency towards confrontation rather than dialogue, but Ségolène Royal's "pacte présidentiel" clinched it for me. I was reading through, thinking, "oh, that's nice, she's going to improve pensions and try to cure AIDS," etc., and then I thought, "how's she going to pay for all this?". You can't increase the mininum wage, increase unemployment benefits and do it all on the same budget (without decreasing spending on something else of course).

Then came the thing that clinched it for me.

"68- Promouvoir l’idée d’une « PAC mondiale »"
[68- Promote the idea of a "world Common Agricultural Policy"]

If she means that the world policy should be "not giving ridiculous amounts of money to large agricultural businesses and allow market forces to work as they should" then I would agree with that. But I don't think she does mean that.

You might think that this is just one bad policy (or you might like the policy), but it will not be good for Europe, or for France. It will also be impossible to implement. EU politics at the government level has revolved around France accepting the gradual erosion of the CAP in return for the things it wants, e.g. more integration, more regulation etc. The UK will never allow the CAP to increase, and it will continue to push for its abolition altogether. This puts France and Britain on opposite sides once again and Ms Royal will not succeed.

I believe Nicolas Sarkozy will be a better partner in Europe, both for Britain and for the rest of Europe, and also I believe he will do better for France, even though some of his policies may be distasteful. Compare 2000s France with 1970s Britain and there are many similarities. France needs its Margaret Thatcher, just as Britain did. She was not a messiah, many of the things she did were plain wrong, many we are still paying for (underinvestment in public transport, for example). However, some things had to be done, and Britain is now enjoying the benefits of that with low unemployment and sustained growth.