Courtesy is a welcome thing, but you can have too much of it.
The climate change conference president was formally appointed on Monday but Connie Hedegaard, the Danish environment minister and European Commissioner Designate, is still getting the plaudits.
Every national spokesman felt the need to preface their first comments with congratulations on her ‘ascension’ to the role, an assurance that there was great confidence in her abilities, and some words of thanks to Denmark for hosting the event. After the first dozen they must have driven her mad! Time slips away.
I whiled away my time reflecting on the nations represented. I have never heard of Burkina Faso. Does it exist, or are its polite representatives perpetrating a giant fraud?
Wednesday, 9 December 2009
BLOGGING FROM COPENHAGEN - WHO IS AT COPENHAGEN?
There are people here from across the world, but China has one sixth of the global population and they certainly don’t have that level of representation. It’s a rich world’s conference. Lots of Europeans, and Americans, and Australians (many of them drafted in to speak on behalf of small island states). Taking part in these events costs a lot of money and requires domestic political support. You don’t see many environmental activists from Russia here. Poorer countries cannot afford the huge numbers sent by wealthy blocs like the European Union, and do not have a hope of following every development in all the sub-groups and drafting sessions.
It’s also a young conference. The national negotiators may be a bit older but, looking around, I reckon the average age of the people here is in the upper 30s. By my standards (55) that’s young.
And it’s mostly an English language conference. There is interpretation available into Spanish, Russian, French, Chinese, and Arabic but I have heard Chinese, Japanese, and many other spokesmen speaking publicly in English. The Saudi negotiator emphasised a point with the words: “I speak in English to make it absolutely clear that....”
It’s also a young conference. The national negotiators may be a bit older but, looking around, I reckon the average age of the people here is in the upper 30s. By my standards (55) that’s young.
And it’s mostly an English language conference. There is interpretation available into Spanish, Russian, French, Chinese, and Arabic but I have heard Chinese, Japanese, and many other spokesmen speaking publicly in English. The Saudi negotiator emphasised a point with the words: “I speak in English to make it absolutely clear that....”
Friday, 4 December 2009
DEFENDING NICK GRIFFIN
The team leaders (‘coordinators’) of the political groups on the European Parliament’s environment committee gathered for one of our regular business planning meetings.
The chairman, a German socialist who had perhaps been nobbled by one of his British Labour colleagues, started the session by referring to the fact that the Parliament’s delegation to the Copenhagen conference would include a climate change ‘denier’ who would hardly represent the majority view in meetings with other parliamentarians.
The arrangement is that every group gets representation in proportion to its size, but was there anything we should do?
I spoke first. “I know who you are referring to. I disagree strongly with his views. But this Parliament represents all shades of opinion, and there are many people who are not convinced by the scientific evidence on climate change. I must support the right of free speech.”
One by one the spokesman for the other groups – left, right and green, Austrian, Danish and Finnish – all expressed the same view.
So that was that.
Which will no doubt upset Nick Griffin greatly. How he would have loved to have been able to criticise the “Establishment’s” conspiracy to silence him.
The chairman, a German socialist who had perhaps been nobbled by one of his British Labour colleagues, started the session by referring to the fact that the Parliament’s delegation to the Copenhagen conference would include a climate change ‘denier’ who would hardly represent the majority view in meetings with other parliamentarians.
The arrangement is that every group gets representation in proportion to its size, but was there anything we should do?
I spoke first. “I know who you are referring to. I disagree strongly with his views. But this Parliament represents all shades of opinion, and there are many people who are not convinced by the scientific evidence on climate change. I must support the right of free speech.”
One by one the spokesman for the other groups – left, right and green, Austrian, Danish and Finnish – all expressed the same view.
So that was that.
Which will no doubt upset Nick Griffin greatly. How he would have loved to have been able to criticise the “Establishment’s” conspiracy to silence him.
Wednesday, 2 December 2009
SAVING OUR SEAS
We are overfishing and killing our seas. You think the EU’s common fisheries policy is responsible? You should hear the enlightened views of some of those calling for its reform.
A public hearing on outline proposals to reform the policy has just taken place in the European Parliament. Consider these thoughts:
From the representative of the Italian fishing cooperatives: “We want to safeguard jobs. The policy of decommissioning fishing vessels has been a failure.”
What does that mean - more boats, more overfishing?
From the representative of fishermen in Sicily: Control of fishing policy should be devolved to local fishermen practising “self limitation taking into account the needs of the market.” Fish stocks should be scientifically assessed “in ways shared and approved by local fishermen."
Oh please, so when the price goes up let's forget about limitations, and whatever happened to objective, independent, impartial scientific advice?
Or best of all, most tragic of all, from the representative of fishermen’s trade unions in Portugal: “Protecting fish stocks should not be the main priority of the common fisheries policy. Instead the priorities should be: (a) to meet the needs of the market, and; (b) to maintain jobs.”
What does no fish stocks mean? No fishermen. No food. No future.
STUPID. STUPID. STUPID.
A public hearing on outline proposals to reform the policy has just taken place in the European Parliament. Consider these thoughts:
From the representative of the Italian fishing cooperatives: “We want to safeguard jobs. The policy of decommissioning fishing vessels has been a failure.”
What does that mean - more boats, more overfishing?
From the representative of fishermen in Sicily: Control of fishing policy should be devolved to local fishermen practising “self limitation taking into account the needs of the market.” Fish stocks should be scientifically assessed “in ways shared and approved by local fishermen."
Oh please, so when the price goes up let's forget about limitations, and whatever happened to objective, independent, impartial scientific advice?
Or best of all, most tragic of all, from the representative of fishermen’s trade unions in Portugal: “Protecting fish stocks should not be the main priority of the common fisheries policy. Instead the priorities should be: (a) to meet the needs of the market, and; (b) to maintain jobs.”
What does no fish stocks mean? No fishermen. No food. No future.
STUPID. STUPID. STUPID.
Wednesday, 11 November 2009
PULL OUT OUR TROOPS
Our troops should be pulled off the front line in Afghanistan. I am not convinced by any of the explanations given to explain their continuing presence, and I don't know how we would recognise a "victory."
We are an occupying force, fighting for one side in a civil war and too easily portrayed, even if we "win", as crusading imperialists seeking to impose our cultural and religious beliefs on others. Radical Muslim men rally to the cause of our opponents in consequence. This does not help make Britain safer.
I bow to no-one in my detestation of the Taliban and the perversion of Islam they use to justify the subjugation of women. I would love to see the country transformed into a benevolent liberal democracy, free from corruption and a champion of liberty. But the recent elections demonstrated how removed that vision is from reality.
We can continue to train Afghan soldiers, but the Taliban have a role to play in the country's future and we should talk with them; can that be so much worse than dealing with our current "allies", the warlords? Our money at least buys us some influence with them, perhaps it can also be used to curb the worst of Taliban abuses.
Let us not have more soldiers killed and maimed because politicians here are unwilling to lose face, accept that lives have been lost in vain, or weaken our links to the USA.
Afghanistan has defeated the British in the past. It has defeated the Russians. The present campaign is not going to result in a triumph for America or its British and European allies.
Our troops should not be there.
We are an occupying force, fighting for one side in a civil war and too easily portrayed, even if we "win", as crusading imperialists seeking to impose our cultural and religious beliefs on others. Radical Muslim men rally to the cause of our opponents in consequence. This does not help make Britain safer.
I bow to no-one in my detestation of the Taliban and the perversion of Islam they use to justify the subjugation of women. I would love to see the country transformed into a benevolent liberal democracy, free from corruption and a champion of liberty. But the recent elections demonstrated how removed that vision is from reality.
We can continue to train Afghan soldiers, but the Taliban have a role to play in the country's future and we should talk with them; can that be so much worse than dealing with our current "allies", the warlords? Our money at least buys us some influence with them, perhaps it can also be used to curb the worst of Taliban abuses.
Let us not have more soldiers killed and maimed because politicians here are unwilling to lose face, accept that lives have been lost in vain, or weaken our links to the USA.
Afghanistan has defeated the British in the past. It has defeated the Russians. The present campaign is not going to result in a triumph for America or its British and European allies.
Our troops should not be there.
Wednesday, 4 November 2009
A MISSED CALL
What a time to lose my phone charger!
Klaus signs the Lisbon Treaty. The appointment of a President of the European Council leaps to the top of the agenda. The phone lines will be busy, and every Prime Minister in Europe knows that I am available for interview.
But my phone has run out of power. It is inoperable for many hours. When I am able to charge it once again a missed call is indicated, but no number has been left.
I keep the phone close to me now, but have I missed the vital call? Has the boat sailed by?
Klaus signs the Lisbon Treaty. The appointment of a President of the European Council leaps to the top of the agenda. The phone lines will be busy, and every Prime Minister in Europe knows that I am available for interview.
But my phone has run out of power. It is inoperable for many hours. When I am able to charge it once again a missed call is indicated, but no number has been left.
I keep the phone close to me now, but have I missed the vital call? Has the boat sailed by?
Monday, 2 November 2009
MEP ADMITS TO SUPPLYING DRUGS
I have just become a supplier of illegal drugs. Given the mindset of our government I suppose this means that I might expect to feel the heavy hand of the law on my shoulder at any moment. After all, I have form.
In 2002 I was convicted of possession of cannabis, an offence under the 1971 Misuse of Drugs Act. My crime had been to stand outside Stockport police station and to make a speech about the need for a policy that separated ‘soft’ and ‘hard’ drugs. I held up a postage stamp with a gramme of cannabis stuck to it, was arrested, and imprisoned for all of 25 minutes. All the police officers I dealt with face to face were very polite: "it makes a change, Mr Davies."
I escaped the notional maximum sentence of 5 years’ imprisonment and was fined £100. To this was added about £3,000 of extraordinary costs because my arrest had apparently required the involvement of about 18 police officers, a sergeant and an inspector – though I can't remember seeing most of them.
The sacking of David Nutt, chair of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, for daring to tell the scientific truth about cannabis (“unlike most other drugs and alcohol it is never lethal” – The Observer, 1 Nov), shows how little progress has been made since then. A succession of European countries have effectively decriminalised cannabis possession, but the government and opposition here are competing to demonise it once again.
None of this was in my mind when I stepped into the Amsterdam coffee shop last week and purchased a good slab of cannabis cake, wrapped it, and put it in the post to the UK.
There’s a 91-year old lady of my acquaintance who has suffered for years from discomfort and sometimes chronic pain in her legs. Nothing the doctor gives her provides sufficient relief, so maybe a nice cup of coffee and a slice of Amsterdam cake will help. It’s worth a try anyway.
And if the Director of Public Prosecutions thinks that it will be in the public interest to find an excuse for prosecuting me for trying to relieve an old lady’s pain then so be it. Make my day. I will welcome the publicity and the opportunity to speak out against Britain’s ludicrous drug laws.
Just one problem. There’s a postal strike. My 'priority' package is probably sitting in a mountainous pile of undelivered mail, never to be seen again.
In 2002 I was convicted of possession of cannabis, an offence under the 1971 Misuse of Drugs Act. My crime had been to stand outside Stockport police station and to make a speech about the need for a policy that separated ‘soft’ and ‘hard’ drugs. I held up a postage stamp with a gramme of cannabis stuck to it, was arrested, and imprisoned for all of 25 minutes. All the police officers I dealt with face to face were very polite: "it makes a change, Mr Davies."
I escaped the notional maximum sentence of 5 years’ imprisonment and was fined £100. To this was added about £3,000 of extraordinary costs because my arrest had apparently required the involvement of about 18 police officers, a sergeant and an inspector – though I can't remember seeing most of them.
The sacking of David Nutt, chair of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, for daring to tell the scientific truth about cannabis (“unlike most other drugs and alcohol it is never lethal” – The Observer, 1 Nov), shows how little progress has been made since then. A succession of European countries have effectively decriminalised cannabis possession, but the government and opposition here are competing to demonise it once again.
None of this was in my mind when I stepped into the Amsterdam coffee shop last week and purchased a good slab of cannabis cake, wrapped it, and put it in the post to the UK.
There’s a 91-year old lady of my acquaintance who has suffered for years from discomfort and sometimes chronic pain in her legs. Nothing the doctor gives her provides sufficient relief, so maybe a nice cup of coffee and a slice of Amsterdam cake will help. It’s worth a try anyway.
And if the Director of Public Prosecutions thinks that it will be in the public interest to find an excuse for prosecuting me for trying to relieve an old lady’s pain then so be it. Make my day. I will welcome the publicity and the opportunity to speak out against Britain’s ludicrous drug laws.
Just one problem. There’s a postal strike. My 'priority' package is probably sitting in a mountainous pile of undelivered mail, never to be seen again.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
