European Presidents

So Rompuy is the new president of the European Council, I'll be honest I don't really know anything about him apart from the fact he has a funny surname and was a prime minister. I'm sure I'll have to learn a lot about him but nobody really knows what he's going to do. It has brought up a lot of friction within the local populations about our lack of say in firstly having an EU president and who that should be. The undemocratic nature of it all does seem a little unnatural but when you think about it, it's probably for the best and his role is not really a new one. We had a rotating president before hand (each countries prime minister) so to have a neutral longer (but still short) term leader makes sense.

Winston Churchill summed up pretty much my views on democracy in November 1947 in a speech to the House of Commons. He said

'Many forms of Government have been tried and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time'

How can democracy be bad? Well defining democracy is difficult but I think it's pretty fair to say that it's being governed by the people. We the people choose somebody or some people to take charge and we decide (in theory) about what changes should be made in society. Now you can go down the path that democracy will lead to populism which is how many fascist regimes managed to take power in their countries. For me the problem is how society decides what is popular and what direction we should take. This is defined by our freedom, freedom of speech, freedom of political ideals and freedom of press. When these freedoms are manipulated that is when problems occur. I promise I won't start ranting about the press again but needless to say when major newspapers start declaring who they are supporting (The Sun) then freedom is being manipulated.

I've kind of lost track, so going back to the original topic. Should we have had a vote on the EU treaty? Forget everything about promises of votes on constitutions and referendums. If you believe everything a politician says when there are technicalities involved then you are more silly than you look. The problem with having a vote on the treaty is the simple fact that not many people know anything about the treaty, it is virtually impossible to have a neutral public consultation on anything without people dictating their opinions at us (yes i do see the irony of me saying that on my blog). I know plenty of twentysomethings that can't name any of the cabinet, let alone know the details of a treaty. One example of this was the potential Tony Blair nomination, reading the newspapers and talking to people he seems like the most hated candidate for this post. Now I don't think he would have been a good EU president but how has our opinion of him turned so dramatically bearing in mind he won 3 elections, one of them post-Iraq. I hazard a guess that our view of his popularity and downfall is the result not of our own opinion but what we are believed should be our opinion.

So when choosing an EU president it becomes just a populist race (much like how our national elections are becoming) and no longer a question of people choosing the best option. In likelihood a vote would lead to a high profile candidate rather than the best candidate. High profile candidates also have the problem that they leave half the people elated and half in despair, not ideal for someone trying to find consensus. Personally I feel the general concept of the treaty is good but it needs a low profile leader to gather consensus rather than strive for policy, even if I could vote I honestly couldn't say was the best candidate for the role.

We forget as well that there are far more influential people that can effect our day to day life's, the Chancellor, Some Secretary, Justice Minister, Foreign Secretary, Head of the Civil Service, Leader of the UN, World Bank, IMF would are all unelected by the populations they effect. There is a good reason for this.

As for elections in general, the last European election in the UK got a 34% turnout (Less than X Factor) compared to 61% in the general elections, I think this shows that European policy is not of great importance to the general public. As for the debate on Catherine Ashton being an unknown on the top of your head name me another G20 foreign minister other than our own, David Milliband and the former US presidents wife Hillary Clinton. The person should not be bigger than the institution they represent.

So I guess when it comes down to whether I want Joe Bloggs from the pub choosing our leader or the Swedish PM then I would probably go for the latter.

From 204 to 32; South Africa here we come

The qualification for the 2010 World Cup is over, 32 teams will now fight it out in June and July to become the World Champions. There are a few surprises but most the big teams made it through, just. In July, I made my predictions for who would qualify (Here) and I was pretty accurate getting 28 of the 32 (Costa Rica, Russia, Saudi Arabia and Croatia were my guesses that missed out)

For me, Russia going out to Slovenia was the biggest upset of the whole qualification period followed closely by the African Champions Egypt going out to Algeria. Obviously most of the talk will be about France and Ireland. It was a hand ball, nobody doubts that, the game should of gone to penalties. Looking at it, the referee couldn't see it because of the amount of players in the way, I'm surprised the linesmen didn't see it. It's easy to blame Thierry Henry but if it was the other way round would the Irish players have owned up. We see it week in week out in the premiership by all nationalities and only once or twice have you ever seen a player own up (Arshavin and Fowler I think). Not that I'm saying it's acceptable. Should there be a replay? No. It would create a situation that whenever someone is unhappy about a decision we would have replays. It would be farcical. I am though on the video replay bandwagon in it's support. I think you could allow managers to challenge a decision at the cost of a substitution, if they are wrong.

The whole 'should they be seeded' argument is something I have mixed views about in one hand the seeded system is what ensured Ireland had Georgia, Cyprus and Montenegro in their group rather than England, Spain and Germany. I do think though that seeding gives the bigger teams an unfair advantage. Ireland can have few complaints about getting France in the playoff, out of the second place teams they were last. So you either let the top 4 qualify without a playoff (Russia finished top but yet didn't qualify, is that fair?) or you give the better teams an advantage. Robbie Keane suggesting FIFA is against Ireland is sour grapes I feel, was is bias that helped Slovenia beat Russia or Croatia knock England out in 2008.

Anyway back to the world cup. I'm really looking forward to it. I think there are a handful of teams that think they can win Brazil, Spain, Italy, Germany, England, Portugal, Argentina (they won't) and France. I'm looking forward to seeing Ivory Coast, Ghana and Australia. The underdogs North Korea, Honduras and Algeria I think will all struggle although I think Honduras may surprise a few.

The draw for the world cup is in a couple of weeks and I'll write more then.