We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
A tough secession clause in the new European constitution would make it illegal for Britain to leave the European Union without permission.
Article 46 of the secret draft text, obtained by The Telegraph, says the terms of departure for any country wanting to leave must be approved by two thirds of member states.
The draft is to be presented this week to the 105-strong Convention on the Future of Europe by the praesidium, headed by the former French president Valery Giscard d’Estaing. It is releasing the Europe’s first constitution piece by piece over the next few months.
The text, still subject to last-minute changes today, would allow a minority bloc of states to impose conditions, offering no guarantee that a departing country could keep its trading rights or reclaim currency reserves held by the European Central Bank.
David Heathcoat-Amory, a Tory MP on the convention, called the text outrageous.
It’s a prison clause, not a secession clause. We thought we could repeal the 1972 European Communities Act if the worst came to the worst, but this shows we’re no longer talking about a voluntary union you can leave whenever you want. It is the final extinction of parliamentary sovereignty.
Mr Heathcoat-Amory said the two European commissioners on the praesidium, France’s Michel Barnier and Portugal’s Antonio Vitorino, had pushed through a highly integrationist text.
Addendum:
for Matt Owen
Regular readers of this blog will know that I have, thus far, refrained from engaging in the billious rounds of reflexive anti-French bashing that pepper the blogosphere.
This is because I appreciate that, despite the odious example set by their political classes, France is a very complex and varied country that is not always fairly represented by the mephitic emanations of its ‘intellectuals’.
Also, as I have said before, not everyone who opposes the war is dishonourable or idiotic. However, some manifestations of anti-war sentiment in France plumb such depths of perversity that they serve only to drag that once-great country’s reputation into the sewer.
For example, according to a French opinion poll published in the UK Times:
Relations will be further rent by a second poll, in Le Monde, showing that only a third of the French felt that they were on the same side as the Americans and British, and that another third desired outright Iraqi victory over “les anglo-saxons”.
A THIRD!!?? Thirty-three per cent!!?? One out of every three people want Saddam Hussein to win?
Having given some careful consideration to the various social and cultural factors which necessarily play a part in such political dynamics and giving due weight to the nuances that ought properly to be examined to the extent that they shape the fabric of public debate in that demos, I have just one little question which arises out of this important article of statistical data:
What the f*cking hell is going in that country??!!
A trifling distraction in the scheme of things, but this is so hilarious that I just had to flag it up here.
It appears that a small group of British ‘indymedia’ squirts tried to halt a convoy of munitions by chaining themselves to the trucks. Turned out to be a very bad idea:
The convoy was successfully halted on the west bound slip road at Chievely junction (M4/A34) north of Newbury. One group blocked the lead vehicals [sic], whilst others attempted to lock on to the bomb transporters. Police and lorry drivers seem to be under orders to keep the convoy moving at all costs. Activists were forced to unlock as the lorries kept moving despite the drivers being told that there were people under their vehicals [sic].
Kumbaya, My Lord, Kumbayyyaaaaaa…stop…stop….aaaahhh…….
[My thanks to Little Green Footballs for the link]
Pentagon planners must have been grinding their teeth with irritation when the Turkish parliament refused to allow a US division to unload in a Turkish port and move into Northern Iraq. Clearly having major US assets approach from an entirely different strategic direction would have enormously complicated the Iraqi military’s defensive dilemmas. In the event, the Iraqi army has been able to concentrate its the majority of its efforts against the allied moves in the south. Although it seems that allied special forces have run riot in the west of the country, that is really just desert of little real strategic importance to Iraq’s national cohesion. So far so good for the bad guys (well, sort of).
And yet…
The army which has attacked Iraq is much smaller than the one which ejected Saddam from Kuwait in 1991. The thinking here was clearly that the advances in technology and war fighting generally meant that a much smaller but ‘smarter’ force was all that was required to defeat Saddam’s armies in the field. The down side to this is that the sheer size of Iraq means that lines of communications are far longer than was the case in 1991 and in addition are running through enemy territory almost entirely… and there are far less troops to keep them secure.
If the allies have made any miscalculations, it is not with regard to the Iraqi army or Republican Guard: although both have resisted, they have been signally unable to prevent the overrunning of nearly half of Iraq and in every major battle so far against US and UK forces, their formations have been smashed and the survivors thrown back.
No, the unknown and more importantly, the unplanned for factor is the Fedayeen Saddam and sundry Ba’athist militias. These irregular forces, like all, irregular forces, have little real combat power but are able to disrupt logistics, cause irritation out of all proportion to their numbers and equipment, and most importantly for Saddam’s cause, maintain Ba’athist authority and political presence in areas nominally under the control of the allies. I lost track of how many times the allies reported that “The US Marines have taken Umm Qasr” day after day. What, again?
In reality it was only in the last two days that the Fedayeen and Ba’athist infrastructure in Umm Qasr had been sufficiently crushed by Royal Marines doing painstaking house to house clearances that Iraqi civilians felt safe enough to openly apply for jobs with the allied forces in the port city.
Similarly, the roads north to the bulk of the US forces are being called ‘ambush ally’ by the rear echelon troops tasked with the essential logistic task of keeping the heavy divisions rolling and shooting around Karabala and Nasiriyah.
And so if the tank, artillery and AFV heavy Iraqi units around Baghdad are not really what is causing the allies difficulties, then the fact irregular forces are able to attack overstretched supply lines is the thing that should be worrying us, give the lack of absolute numbers of infantry the attacking allied armies.
Well, the forces that would have moved into Northern Iraq are about to arrive in Southern Iraq. If my guestimates are correct, their ships should be reaching the appropriate Gulf ports any time now.
In Northern Iraq, they would have faced much the same problems as their colleagues in the south… but deployed in the south, they will increase the feet-on-the-ground per square mile considerably, which can only be very bad news indeed for the Fedayeen.
Perhaps this cloud has a silver lining.
British troops are getting fed up with ‘blue on blue’ fire by the trigger happy ‘cowboys’ in the USAF.
There does not seem to be anything about this in the US media and some threads on US forums are noting that. I have a problem with the way this incident has been handled and responded to by the US audience. Most apologies are suffixed with mumble mumble “fog of war”, “fighting conditions”, “it’s war, shit happens” mumble, mumble. And then there is the abusive variety of commenters or warbloggers who will assault anyone suggesting that the US military is anything short of orgasmic. Most ‘attacks’ on British frustration with FF by the US reach the same level of intelligence the media have about Iraq. And that’s pretty low.
Given the absence of the debate in the US media (and I do not care how many official channel it has to go through before the various spokepersons are allowed to comment), I checked the situation on a military forum which was linked on ARRSE (Army Rumour Service). Here are a few comments that put the point better than I could:
To our US collegues. I have served many times with the US but one thing you lack is your ability to look at how you do things. You think its your way or the highway! Do not take this as an insult but you do have a terrible history of blue on blue and it needs addressing. My dad was in Korea as a Brit Soldier he said that the Brits were terrified of US Artillery. An old Sgt Maj of mine who is Australian said that his unit also lost more to US “friendly” fire than enemy during Vietnam.
Again in GW1, more Brits lost to US forces than Iraqi, then the Canadians in Afghanistan, now its happening again! My dad is genuinely more concerned about me being hit by US Forces than Iraqi when I deploy as are most of the UK public about our servicemen. These occurences can change public opinion and the consequences of this can be terrible. What gets us is that you appear to just say “Fog of war” or something similar, which just piss*es us of even more.
PS – when I go, I will be the one with the giant UK flag flying above my head
And another one:
A really pissed Brit. Firstly, I’m amazed that I can’t find reference ONE to this incident in the American Press. Who says your media is free. Let me make this plain, we are ALL very angry, and the standard American reply of “It’s war, sh1t happens, is NOT good enough” The fact this story hasn’t even run in the American press, as far as I can see, speaks volumes.
I remember vividly, the last time an A10 killed a British AFV. It was from my Regiments battlegroup in GW1. 2 Warriors killed, in spite of the fact, both IFV’s were displaying Big Union Jacks and Orange recognition panels. Were the pilots court-martialled? Bullsh1t were they.
This is the early report, which as you can imagine, has circulated the British Armed Forces very fast indeed: - The AFVs were in the location they were supposed to be in at the time they were supposed to be there.
- They were flying the Union Flag
- They had orange ID markers
- They displayed Allied Cheverons
- The pilot took 2 passes, shooting on both with civilians close by
- After the 1st pass British soldiers in British uniforms waved and tried to warn the pilot
- The optical scope on an A10 can id a target at 1500m. The pilot was flying at no more than 50m on each pass. Visibility has been described as “excellent”.
- The tank crews adjacent fired the colour of the day smoke marker to warn the A10 pilot
- The pilot had not been engaged or shot at by either British forces, or Iraqis.
- The pilot was out of his designated Limits of Exploitation.
In spite of all of this, the pilot still engaged, not once, but twice. There is a stong feeling amongst us, that he won’t get prosecuted, there won’t be any action taken, there never is. He gunned that column down, because as he dived in, he had the soundtrack going in his head, and he wanted a kill
Could I have recognised a Scimitar or a BMP2 at 200 knots, in broad daylight? Yes I could…
And just to make matters worse, I remember one RAF veteran telling me about how during the WWII when the Germans were firing, the British and the Americans ducked, when the British were firing the Germans ducked and when the Americans were firing, everybody ducked…
Come on, guys, we are supposed to be on the same side, so don’t get uppity when we start asking questions why are our soldiers being killed by yours…
During my search for breaking news for fast & furious warblogging on the Command Post, I came across this precious announcement:
The fledgling Euro-army launched its first military operation yesterday, picking the Balkan state of Macedonia as a trial run for future missions in Bosnia, Africa and the Caucasus.
A force of 320 soldiers wearing “Eufor” badges with the European Union’s blue and gold stars on their right shoulders took over peacekeeping duties at a ceremony in Skopje, replacing Nato troops who have already done the hard work of pacifying Macedonia over the past two years.
EU officials cite the mission as proof that joint defence plans agreed by France and Britain in 1998, and further honed by the EU a year later, remain on track despite the bitter differences over Iraq. While volleys of insults go back and forth across the Channel, British and French officials are meeting twice a week to lay the groundwork for a joint aircraft carrier battle group designed to project EU power around the world.
“You might not believe it, but Franco-British defence is going great guns”, said a senior diplomat. The general assumption in Brussels is that Tony Blair will commit Britain deeper to EU defence once the Iraq conflict is over.
Somebody please tell me that this is a joke…
Also posted on the Command Post
I have been taking a break from blogging, writing about Iraq and All That this past week in exchange for a much more enjoyable time working for a sailing examination off the south coast of the UK. But a few incidents and conversations with my fellow yachties got me thinking about some connections to this wonderful pastime and political stuff.
For starters, many nautical enthusiasts like me get into sailing because it embodies a form of freedom. For sure, there are thousands of complex rules operating at sea, many of which have accumulated like barnacles on the underside of a ship over the centuries, rather like the evolution of the rule of the English common law. And while they appear to be initially baffling, the rules of the High Seas make sense and actually liberate those who follow them. (Rules such as avoiding collisions and the use of navigation beacons, etc.)
Beyond such rules, what I like about sailing is that you have to obey and respect nature to master it. You are reliant on your own skills and knowledge and the voluntary co-operation of others in the same vessel. A skipper of a boat has and requires authority to operate a boat efficiently, but he or she cannot compel folk to be on the same boat in the first place.
Drawing big cultural implications out of all this has its limits, of course, but I cannot help feeling that those cultures most infected with the spirit of liberty have strong seafaring traditions. Sailing over long distances requires a natural spirit of enterprise. It requires skills and knowledge not best acquired at the point of a gun. It encourages the spread of language, particularly flexible languages like English. And seafaring folk have, in my experience, a robust, independent attitude towards life which sits well with the liberal outlook.
I spent a fair amount of money, not to mention a lot of energy, getting my sailing qualification ticket. I feel mighty pleased to know that I can now charter out a yacht in any part of the world’s oceans. That’s freedom.
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
