Balkanisation of European Politics

Today there are elections all over the UK but what everyone in these islands really is talking about is Scotland. The reason for this is that it is likely that the Scottish National Party takes most of the seats from Scotland in the House of Commons.

Now, the SNP has a left wing speech that appeals to many people in Scotland. But its programme in most areas is not that different from Labour's, for example. What makes the SNP different is very much its nationalist rhetoric. And that's what it has in common to so many regional parties in Europe, in countries like Spain, Italy or Belgium.

These regional parties, however, are not the only ones with such speech. Another main actor of today's elections is the UKIP: an anti-immigration, anti-EU and anti-foreigners party. (Ironically lead by a man married to a foreigner, a German) Sadly enough, like the SNP, UKIP is not alone in Europe, with similar parties in France, the Netherlands, Finland and, more worryingly, in the government of Hungary.

These two trends show that thousands of Europeans are giving preference to nationalism instead of ideas when casting their vote. I know that ideologies were as dangerous as nationalism in the XX century, but I really thought that we were over those ideologies and this nationalism.

Apparently we aren't and Europe is becoming increasingly Balkanised by its parties.

How to speak to foreigners

After almost three years in Scotland I still find some difficulties in understanding Scots when they decide to speak too... Scottish! Surely if I was living somewhere where that accent* was more common than in Edinburgh, I would probably have gotten used to it. Besides, being surrounded by other foreigners also doesn't make it easy...

However, Scots, before being angry at us, non-natives who live here, try to imagine what it would be like studying French and then moving to the countryside in Burgundy or learning Italian and moving to Palermo or something like that. Please indulge us and the next time you're speaking to a non-native, please imitate her:

There is nobody in the world who, after studying English for 2 or 3 years, would not understand this wonderful woman! Your Majesty, if you ever come across this humble blog, thank you for speaking like you do! And please, pleaaaaaase, make an effort to inspire your subjects from Scotland (most people in Edinburgh are quite "inspired, though, can't really complain). Oh, and also Manchester. And Liverpool. And some areas of London. And Northern Ireland... Well, Your Majesty, all of your subjects who don't speak like you, if you please.

*A "wee" warning for those reading this and not being British. There is no such thing as a Scottish accent. There is a Glaswegian accent / dialect, a Dundee accent, a Highlands accent, an Aberdeen accent... This country is a wee Tower of Babel!!! Edinburgh, however, has a very plain accent. One which is easy to understand.

We are living in the best of times

"It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to Heaven, we were all going direct the other way – in short, the period was so far like the present period, that some of its noisiest authorities insisted on its being received, for good or for evil, in the superlative degree of comparison only."
It's hard to believe we're living in the best of times... ISIS spreads its influence in the Middle East and Africa together with what already characterizes it: beheading, mass murders and genocides. Russia pretends there is no such thing as territorial integrity of states and invades, directly or through aliases, a huge part of Ukraine. Greece surely and steadily resumed its march towards bankruptcy dragging the Eurozone with it.
By reading these depressing news every day, we may be lead to forget that this is the best of times since the beginning of times. No generation ever lived better than our generation. To remind us of this, however, a nice and charitable soul made a page with 26 graphics that show everyone that we're so lucky to be living nowadays! And we are! And I'm happy to be living in the most literate of all ages. And I wanted to share this with you in the last day of winter of the year 2015. Enjoy this time! (and follow the link in Dickens' quote)

The ignorant fixer?

Yesterday the printer in the office wasn't working. It had some problem. I didn't really understand what the problem was but I fixed it.
Today my bicycle had a problem. I didn't really understand what the problem was but I fixed it.
My PhD has had a problem for the past few weeks. I understand perfectly well what it is but I can't fix it.
Blessed ignorance!

Democracy goes both ways

I've read quite a few comments in the last few weeks saying something like "how can the EU possibly refuse to respect the Greek people's decision of refusing austerity measures?" This, obviously, leads to: "EU is not respecting Democracy."
Now... To grant or no to grant a loan to one country inside the eurogroup is a decision taken by unanimity of its member states. All of them have democratic legitimacy and they may decide to use their taxpayers money in some other way. If they consider that the choices of the Greek government compromisse their taxpayers' money and will still not help Greece or the entire Eurozone, they have democratic legitimacy to say so.
They may be right or they may be wrong. But it's their choice to use their taxpayers' (and voters') money in the way they wish to. After all, a treaty is a commitment of two or more states and each state has to decide on whether they commit themselves or not. The Greek government, whose leaders have been very clear that they accept the EU only because at the moment they have no other choice, needs to consider that the other governments may also think that they accept to negotiate with them only because the Greeks elected them and they have no other choice.
My personal choice...? I would rather negotiate with the stuborn Schäuble than with his coleric and radical counterpart, Varoufakis.

Mist in Edinburgh

Today I went (for the third time) to the Castle of Edinburgh* to show it to my homonym friend from Aberdeen.** And what a perfect day to go. No, it wasn't clear blue sky allowing us to see all the way to Leith. Why speak of Leith if we couldn't even see Arthur's Seat? It was a perfect misty day... The sort of day that makes the city look intimate and in a way cosy. 

Find Carlton Hill. Impossible, right?

*Sponsored by my sister and my friend who left me two tickets in August. Thanks lassies!

** Author of these photos. Thanks lad!

Scotland in the UK

Some people have expressed to me their disappointment for my lack of comment on the report "Scotland in the United Kingdom: An enduring settlement". After all my campaign in this blog for Scotland to remain in the United Kingdom, that would have been only fair. However the excess of academic duties (aka "the cursed thesis") have not allowed me to read the report and I don't want to just echo what the media says. Probably when I finally do read the report, nobody will be interested in it anymore.
So please don't wait for me. Go the site on the future of the UK and Scotland because they have some very good posts about it.

Find the differences...

 He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named

Minister Varoufakis

United we stand, divided we fall

Reading the British news, it seems that Tsipras' election opens a war between Germany and Greece. Not that Tsipras himself and Lady Euro (aka Merkel) and her loyal Gentlemen of the Eurochamber don't enjoy the idea of a battle going on. That's also good for local electorates. Remembering Churchill, as so many have done in the last few weeks, "the best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." And a conversation with the German and Greek voters shows that they seem to enjoy this aggressive talk of their prime-ministers.
The problem is, an economic battle between Germany and Greece, like all battles, would just weaken both combatants. Yes, it would weaken Germany as well... It's already doing that. Besides, it's not like we're in the 1960s and the European economy is growing and promising to grow even more. This is the XXI century! The entire EU struggles not to have its economy slump even harder.
What about the UK? British should understand that this is not a problem for Greece and Germany or even a problem of the Eurozone. This is a problem for the entire EU, including the UK. If the economies in the Eurozone slump, so does the British economy.
It's obvious that Greece has a very serious economic problem which the troika recipe of budget cutting is not helping. It's also obvious that Greece is not the only country in EU with economic problems and that it can't expect other countries to help when it passes an image of being a spendthrift. At last, it's also obvious that having the Greek economy go back to growth is in the best interest of all other EU countries.
After the obvious, the less obvious: what to do with these obvious conclusions?
I'm not going to give an answer because I don't have one. But I do know that whatever the solution is, it will need to be given by all member states of the EU.
United we stand... Hopefully!

Panic in the office

Panic in the office... Fear... Horror... Tears...

There's no more coffee in the office and they only replace the stock at the end of the month!

Is there life beyond free coffee?

Good thing that my sister in law brought me a lot of green tea from China this last Christmas. This might help me survive in the next week. But if I don't post here in the next few days, something terrible might have happened to me. Who knows what caffeine deprivation can do to a PhD candidate? I'm almost sure there has never been a PhD about that. Almost...

If you insult my mother...

One week ago I wrote here "je ne suis pas Charlie" and the reason for that is that I can't identify myself with people whose idea of humor is to insult others. I can however identify with Pope Francis' joke: "if you insult my mother, I'll punch you". This is obviously a joke because the Christianity has been talking about forgiveness for two millenia, has been preaching on offering the other cheek and has presented examples of sainthood in humility. This Pope has been no different from all these and that is why his joke was funny.
However, as my ancestors would say, ridendo castigat mores. Pope Francis' joke tells us something. For religious people to make fun of one religion's is not funny, it's an insult just like the insult to one's mother. I understand Muslim's being insulted by Charlie because I am also offended when Charlie's "humorous" cartoons are on the Catholic Church, Jesus or anything related to my faith. I feel like punching them as well.
The difference between Pope Francis' or me and a terrorist is that we don't punch. We forgive. And with some pain offer the other cheek... But that is not to say that we don't feel insulted and grieved.

And this is how they win...

PM Cameron said he would pursue banning encrypted messaging services if Britain’s intelligence services were not given access to the communications. And this is how terrorists win the war. They make us all be presumed terrorists and make our states behave despotically. Well, as we all protested against the attacks in Paris, we'll protest against this attack to our liberties...

UK v the Tropics

I have a lot of friends from tropical regions of the world who complain of British weather and how long to be back home. However, they stay in Britain.

I have a lot of British (and other Northern European) friends who whenever they go to the tropics complain of British weather and say how much they would like to move there. However, they don't.

I have to conclude that weather, after all, is not that important. If all of them were really so troubled about the weather here, they would either go back home (the "Tropicals") or emigrate (the British / Northern). So why is it that everybody in this country speaks about it all the time?

Je ne suis pas Charlie, après tout...

Since I wrote my last post I received some emails with Charlie Hebdo's cartoons that made me change my mind. I have to apologize to that one reader who comes here every three months for this schizophrenic attitude of declaring I am someone one day and declaring that I am not that someone a few days later. I'll try to justify this change.
To start with, I stand for everything I wrote in that post, namely for the need for mutual respect. But precisely because I stand for that, I cannot say that I am Charlie Hebdo or that I am anything like Charlie Hebdo. After seeing their cartoons, I understood that what they did was not humor - they aren't even remotely funny. What they did was pure insult.
Far from being a politically correct person, even I was shocked at some of the cartoons. For me humor needs to be... Funny! But when it is so insulting it just becomes awkward. The kind of awkwardness you feel when you say something really wrong and don't know how to justify it.
I still stand for what I wrote before. I am still shocked about what happened in Paris. Nothing justifies violence. And yes, the people who died in Charlie Hebdo were victims of an irrational and absurd radicalism. But these are victims I don't want to be identified with. So, to make it quite clear: je ne suis pas Charlie!

Moi aussi, se juis Charlie!

There is a thin line between religion or philosophy and fanaticism. And in this clear the need to remember John 8:7: “he that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone.”
Christians raged religious wars against each others for most of the XVII century. Atheists found in ideas like socialism and the building of a pure race the excuse to commit the worst genocides in the history of mankind. And lest us forget it is good to remember about the millennium of wars between Muslims and Christians for the control of the (not so) "Holly Land", of the gold trade in Africa, of the spice trade to India... Any excuse was good to make a Jesus V Mohammed call for war.
So why are we so shocked about what happened in Paris with the slaughter of 12 people who worked for Charlie Hebdo? Or, by the way, about what is happening in Syria and all over the Middle East with the ISIS?
Basically because we thought we had found in mutual respect for each others' religious or philosophical convictions the tool to better develop them. Nowadays most atheists refuse the idea of sending Christians to gulags (unfortunately not yet in North Korea and China) and Christians refuse the expiation of sins of heresy through fire. We also refuse the idea that violence of any sort should be the mean to convince others of the righteousness of our ideas.
Now what happens with fanatic Muslims is that they are not only bad to non-Muslims, they are bad to the really God-fearing Muslims. To start with the obvious, the majority of the people killed so far by the so called "Islamic Caliphate" have been Muslims. Of course hundreds of thousands of Christians and others were also killed and had to leave their houses, but they are still outnumbered by Muslims.
Besides being killed, the real Muslims also have to fear their reputation tarnished. A bad minority is always much more visible than the invisible good majority. In the same way, as a Catholic I know many truly good priests but all I see in the news of Catholic priests is about the pedophiles. So now all the Muslims have to bear the shame of the fanaticism of some of their brethren.
Having said this, there is one more parallel one can draw between pedophile Catholic priests and terrorist Muslims and that is the silence complicity of their peers. There was in the history of pedophilia in the Church many priests and bishops who, although disapproving the actions of the pedophile few, did nothing to stop them. In the same way there must be around Europe many good Muslims who would never shoot at a cartoonist (or anyone else) but who, knowing of the fanaticism of those few brethren, keep silent. How could the Kouachi brothers buy shotguns and nobody in their inner circle know about it, for example?
Muslim fanaticism can only be vanquished from the inside. It must be the majority of good Muslims going to the mosques around Europe who actively do something to stop the fanatic minority. They must both try to convince them of their wrong ideas and at the same time denounce them to the authorities so they can keep an eye on them. 
Hopefully this good majority will also be Charlies now...

Vincent Lambert and euthanasia

I've read in more than one newspaper (for example in Le Figaro and The Independent) and that the case of Vincent Lambert which will now be decided by the European Court of Human Rights is a case of euthanasia. Well, in my humble opinion it is not...
Vincent Lambert suffered an accident in 2008, is in vegetative state and only lives artificially through medical support. If the machines supporting his artificial life were turned off, as his (natural) widow requested, his artificial life would cease.
The press sees the struggle of Vincent's parents for keeping their son artificially alive as based on their Catholic faith. Well, I am Catholic as well and I can recognize the immense diversity of opinions on many issues within a Church of more than one billion people. However, one practical advantage of the Catholic Church in relation to many other faiths is that it has a hierarchy of people who can clarify matters of faith and morality about these dissenting opinions. This hierarchy consults on not only renown theologians but also philosophers and scientists to make its decisions. And this is precisely what the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith did when it issued a Declaration on Euthanasia. In this declaration, the Church considers that euthanasia may be understood as "an action or an omission which of itself or by intention causes death, in order that all suffering may in this way be eliminated."
This is clearly not the case of Vincent Lambert. He is not suffering because he is already naturally dead in a vegetative state. As such, his widow is not fighting to put an end to his suffering but merely to stop providing his body with artificial life.
Vincent Lambert's case is not about euthanasia. It is about the distinction between natural life, that should be protected, and artificial life, that may cause, as in this case it does, suffering to other people. Mrs. Lambert is suffering not only because of the death of her husband but because his present state does not let her overcome his death. I hope Vincent's parents have this in mind in their prayers...

Starting the year with a provocation

Everyone is faced from the beginning of their lives with questions of identity. These questions tend to be formed by opposition to those surrounding each individual. As such, in the first human community, the family, one will identify oneself as a child as opposing to the role of parents. In school one will alternatively be identified as part of a certain class or year of study, as part of a team of sports or other hobbies, as students in relation to teachers and staff, etc.. Outside the school, however, one may even choose the entire school as its identity, the entire city, the entire country or even an entire continent.
I could go on and on about different forms of identity in different contexts. However the point here is that it becomes almost impossible to find anyone on earth with whom someone else would not find at least one identity point in common. In the worst case scenario, if one happens to meet someone with whom no common identity seems to exist, there will still be the obvious common feature: being human.
Now, to be human may seem as the minimum common denominator but it is a huge minimum common denominator. It is the single most important characteristic of any human… This brings a lot of La Palice truth in it. This truth is so obvious that one may question any other form of identity but one may not question humanity. One may mistake a Briton for a Norwegian, a man for a woman and a lawyer for an architect. However, only as an insult can one mistake a human being for a dog, an ostrich or even a monkey.
Being human serves not only as a common minimum denominator between all humans (La Palice again) but as their most important characteristic. But why on earth am I writing this? Should this not be obvious? So obvious that it should even not be mentioned? Well, it should, but apparently it isn't. I realize this whenever I read about supposedly human rights based on different identifications such as “indigenous rights”, “women’s rights”, “minorities’ rights”… Quite frankly, if they are not applicable to all humans, they are not human rights. If any human right is denied to any group based on their identity, than it’s not a human right. In those cases we’re talking about a privilege (from the Latin “privata lex” because it is applicable only to a group).
So, a request to all those who write about these subjects: learn to distinguish between a right and a privilege. After learning this distinction, start using the latter term whenever that is only applicable to a group: indigenous privileges, women’s privileges, minority’s privileges, etc.. If for some reason you have a prejudice against the word privilege, than you should rethink your choice to write about the protection conferred to only parts of humanity.