A LETTER writer to the London Times put his finger on it. "Can anybody explain to me," he asked, "what is the difference between democracy in Zimbabwe and democracy in the European Union?" In Zimbabwe, back in March, Robert Mugabe called an election which he was sure he would win. But despite widespread intimidation and vote rigging, he lost. His Zanu-PF party lost its majority in parliament, and Mugabe himself was defeated by Morgan Tsvangirai in the presidential race. But Mugabe refused to accept the result and organised a rerun. This time he made sure the result would be the right one. The point the letter writer was making is that something similar keeps happening in European Union referendums. Whenever voters reject a proposal put forward by Europe's political elite, they either get ignored, or they are told to vote again until they get it right. It happened to the Danes in 2000 when they rejected the Maastricht Treaty and a second referendum was called. The Irish then rejected the Nice Treaty in 2001 and had to have a rerun. And now it's happening again after French, Dutch and Irish voters have rejected the Lisbon Treaty. This latest democratic charade began in 2005, when the European Commission published plans for a new constitution creating the structure for a European federal superstate.
A LETTER writer to the London Times put his finger on it. "Can anybody explain to me," he asked, "what is the difference between democracy in Zimbabwe and democracy in the European Union?"
In Zimbabwe, back in March, Robert Mugabe called an election which he was sure he would win. But despite widespread intimidation and vote rigging, he lost. His Zanu-PF party lost its majority in parliament, and Mugabe himself was defeated by Morgan Tsvangirai in the presidential race.
But Mugabe refused to accept the result and organised a rerun. This time he made sure the result would be the right one.
The point the letter writer was making is that something similar keeps happening in European Union referendums. Whenever voters reject a proposal put forward by Europe's political elite, they either get ignored, or they are told to vote again until they get it right. It happened to the Danes in 2000 when they rejected the Maastricht Treaty and a second referendum was called. The Irish then rejected the Nice Treaty in 2001 and had to have a rerun. And now it's happening again after French, Dutch and Irish voters have rejected the Lisbon Treaty.
This latest democratic charade began in 2005, when the European Commission published plans for a new constitution creating the structure for a European federal superstate.
"Can anybody explain to me," he asked, "what is the difference between democracy in Zimbabwe and democracy in the European Union?"
No one sets your family on fire if you vote the wrong way?
I know it's a small point, but it could be somewhat relevant.
I am neither a Russia-basher nor a China-basher. But there was something truly filthy about Russia's and China's vetoes of the American-led U.N. Security Council effort to impose targeted sanctions on Robert Mugabe's ruling clique in Zimbabwe. The U.S. put forward a simple Security Council resolution, calling for an arms embargo on Zimbabwe, the appointment of a U.N. mediator, plus travel and financial restrictions on the dictator Mugabe and 13 top military and government officials for stealing the Zimbabwe election and essentially mugging an entire country in broad daylight. <...> Perfect we are not, but America still has some moral backbone. There are travesties we will not tolerate. The U.N. vote on Zimbabwe demonstrates that this is not true for these "popular" countries -- called Russia or China or South Africa -- that have no problem siding with a man who is pulverizing his own people. So, yes, we're not so popular in Europe and Asia anymore. I guess they would prefer a world in which America was weaker, where leaders with the values of Vladimir Putin and Thabo Mbeki had a greater say, and where the desperate voices for change in Zimbabwe would, well, just shut up.
I am neither a Russia-basher nor a China-basher. But there was something truly filthy about Russia's and China's vetoes of the American-led U.N. Security Council effort to impose targeted sanctions on Robert Mugabe's ruling clique in Zimbabwe.
The U.S. put forward a simple Security Council resolution, calling for an arms embargo on Zimbabwe, the appointment of a U.N. mediator, plus travel and financial restrictions on the dictator Mugabe and 13 top military and government officials for stealing the Zimbabwe election and essentially mugging an entire country in broad daylight. <...>
Perfect we are not, but America still has some moral backbone. There are travesties we will not tolerate. The U.N. vote on Zimbabwe demonstrates that this is not true for these "popular" countries -- called Russia or China or South Africa -- that have no problem siding with a man who is pulverizing his own people.
So, yes, we're not so popular in Europe and Asia anymore. I guess they would prefer a world in which America was weaker, where leaders with the values of Vladimir Putin and Thabo Mbeki had a greater say, and where the desperate voices for change in Zimbabwe would, well, just shut up.
Creidibility and popularity are not a zero-sum game.
Oh, it's Friedman. Why do I even bother? In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
Oh, it's Friedman. Why do I even bother?
Because he makes a lot of sense at other times, such as on the environment and green industry.
And because he raises a good example of what the world may start to look like as the Western influence on the world begins to cede to non-Western powers. ... all progress depends on the unreasonable mensch.(apologies to G.B. Shaw)
