Snails, Salmon and Cheese

Once upon a time, in a small nearby and very old Duchy, three apparent wise men from the West came toghether.

The first one was from the Duchy itself, Luxembourg, the second came across from England and the third man from nearby France.

The only three things all three men had in common was that they were professional politicians, never elected in their present roles by universal suffrage and their lust for food.

So they decided to share a meal at lunchtime and each was allowed to order one plate for their three course luncheon.

The Luxemburgian ordered snails.  "They may be slow moving slimy and - for some - disgusting looking animals, hiding their heads iwhen threatened and carrying their own feces on their backs, but for whom is open minded and patient enough, as long as we soak them in garlic at the appropriate temparature, with the right tools, they eventually become delicious, easy to swallow and extremely nutritious", he justified.

The Englishman voted for salmon.  "An aminal naturally keen to go against the tides, which only makes it stronger and more delicious over time, whether they are swimming in Scotland agains the will of the British Union or in Norway against the influences of the European Union", he explained. "Furthermore, science has proven that salmons always inevitably return to their origin, the place where they first spawned".

The Frenchman voted for cheese. "It is the only possible choice", he said.  "Only the French have been able to turn an excess of sour milk into one of the world's most refined amuse bouches, demonstrating our early vision towards an environmentally sustainable society".  He also admitted that "it allows us to fill our bellies and restaure ourselves, just in case we will not be able to digest the previous platters".

What Juncker, Johnson and Barnier had for lunch in their meeting yesterday is pretty much the only news the world received and that itself should tell us something on what was communciated, suspected, but not made formally known.

So after three years of hectic popular debate in streets and in parliaments (preceded by decades of less noisy and intense arrangements on surrounding matters), and all the corridor and backstage wishpering we sort of accept to be inevitalby associated with politics, matters get resolved over a face to face meal in less than three hours.

And that's how it has been for most of human history, hasn´t it ?

The only difference in today's 21st century is that words travel much faster and in much more directions than the intended recipients, cultivating a wide perception of power to the people.

But, for now, that is all it is, a perception.

What this will come to mean for the Union in Britain is a totally different matter.

Waterloo oh oh oh oh

There is nothing like a nostalgic night on the couch in front of the television to watch the Eurovision song contest to regain that good old Euro-feeling for a couple of hours.

Things change or evolve and TV antenna disturbances and microfone and camara wires on stage gave way to top technology and robotisation, but the sense of gathering in front of the TV for a live broadcast of sing-a-long songs, simultaneously with millions of households, is still part of the present thrill.

The semi-political shadowing which surround the contest is equally part of the tradition and the less appealing performances allow for internal TV room debate on why Israel hosts this years event, where Europe borders Asia in the east, the origin of (new) country names, why certain generally geographically larger countries are automatically qualified over the rest and googling on the rules as to what would happen next year should Australia win.  Popular diversity at its finest.

But above all, it is a night of pure entertainment where we can practice our sense of nationalism in an indeed entertaining manner.  Three nationalities in the family do allow to mitigate any risk of serious embarrasment towards the end of the night, although that too is part of the competion (but we did win in the end this year...and two years ago ..).

Nationalism, flag, country .... the representation of a nation with borders, portraying its own present culture and sense of sovereignty are all such a delight if it can be weighted and measured equally against others in an healthy fashion.

Something to be treasured, nurtured and passed on to future generations, to always be there.

This would imply defending it, when threathened.  And I would add at any cost.

With the risk of sounding like an old Eurovison song, if all nations would be sovereign and diversity celebrated, peace will prevail and I do believe it must be in this sequence and not the other way around, as EU institutions claim to portray, more so ahead of EU Parliamentary elections.

European territory, including the EU, has never been further away from a threat of outright warfare as we came to experience or learn about it up to well into the 20th century.  Whether this state of peace can be credited to the work of politicians or be attributable to the natural evolution of free populations no longer willing to take up arms and uniforms and shoot their way into neighbouring countries is fortunately a non-issue today.

However, any hint from present EU instiutional politicians that voting for conservative or far right political parties would be an act of stupidity which could reverse that status, I regard as fake news, to say the least.

History has taught us there are many ways to unify sovereign states and in today's world there are many - arguably too many - methods for country leaders, businesses or civic movements to maintain constant and open communciation on cross border issues that are deemed to be of invidual or common interest.

Populating Brussels and Strassbourg with EU politicians piling up papers and pencelling tax bills to pay for this self fulfilling prophecy is proving not to be the most pragmatic or sustainable path, any longer.

I can appreciate that in 1979 there was purpose in relocating civil servants into one spot to accelarate debate and resolve for the benefit of European cohesion.  Like any project, there must be an end date somewhere along the line, however and democracy dictates that power vests with the electorate.

It is time for 751 MEP's and all the surrounding staff to return home to continue working for their flag and country, physically and financially closer to the populations they asked to vote for them.  Then, we will al be happy to pay our fair share for time and communcation expenses to keep a constant open line towards their colleagues in other Member States, in similar vein as we do to promote the otherwise international relations countries seek and maintain, be it in public or private office.

We the taxpayers will even throw in a couple of EU face to face gatherings every year, with no questions asked, but not the other way around.

Waterloo, couldn't escape if I wanted to, no, no ,no, no ....

To back or not to back .... 650 shades of May

So 17 days and a couple of hours away from a much earlier reasonably and apparent easily democratically wide constented deadline, we arrive at the morning after at GMT+1 for Mr Juncker and GMT +0  for Mrs May following a short night of back scratching, all in the name of the legal relevance of the back stop.

In all my skepticism towards politicians - emphasising the very definition this does not just include public servants - I have become an absolute fan of Theresa May.  Perhaps there is a twist of a "in the land of the blind ..." into my favoritism but I must admit it is extremely refreshing to observe a politician stand up again and again, confronting the vivid indecisive debates in the House of Commons.

Mrs May is perfectly aware on which days to appear in her EU blue matching skirt and jacket or a combination with Saint George's red.  She knows the Westminster debates are scrutinised by whom inevitably is the opposite negotiating party on the other side of the Strait of Dover and thus all she can and cannot say for sake of Crown and Country.

As Prime Minister she is one of the exceptional few that does know what Queen Elizabeth II meant in her New Year's speech on what she would expect from the English, Welsh, Scots and Irish.  But above all, she is the privileged position to be able to have private bilateral talks behind the backs of Mr Tusk with heads of EU member states and is thus equipped with a much more practical awareness of how really divided all of Europe is.

Today we will see the most turbulent debate ever in the Brexit endavours.  It'll not be hectic because of an attorney general's interpretation of politically drafted and driven legal documents. Franctisism will set the stage in Westminster because individual members of a parliament in a very democratic situation are simply forced to make a decision on the basis of what their constituents asked them to.

Populations are divided in democracies everywhere and thus certianly in Europe's geographies. That is a good some thing to embrace and cultivate is it not?

The fundamentals of international cooperation, compromise, consensus and dialogue within Europe have been working for 75 years, containing any desparate war times, succeeding centuries of violated treaties and frankly I would think Mrs May qualifies much more for a Charlemagne prize in seeking to uphold a common sense of unity and diversity, than some of the award receivers in the past decade.

Then again, possibly the ever evolving individual mindsets of 510 million people have done more for avoiding war than than the 40000 on the payroll of EU institutions.

Theresa May has been the messenger in what will go into history as a post wartime political crises in Europe, not only in the UK.  In a few months time the general public will get to see how divided the EU electorate is, how undetached future EU MP's are and how much this 2 year long wake up call will continue ringing before someone picks up.

.... and a prosperous 2019

Like UK citizens and businesses or any other entity with (intended) interests in the UK, I too have been breaking my head over finding a meaningful occasion to write something meaningful over what the UK Parliament has come to call meaningful voting.  Certainly, Sir Winston Churchill would see purpose in outweighing sovereignty against the position of the moon and the tides along with scraps of spy information from the other side, before deciding upon turning any given day into a historic one.

I wonder what the response rates would be if the world population were to be asked to identify who Theresa May and Michel Barnier are (and what both have in common with potentially meaningless referenda ...).  And we have pretty much forgotten Dave Cameron, haven't we?  Then we are still to unfold how unified EU institutions are with continuing individual member states on the other side of the negotiating table.

So far EU politicians have done a tremendous job in isolating Brexit as indeed a mere UK domestic issue.  But it is not, is it?

I cannot think of any other sizeable country in the world where modern democracy is practiced as genuine, as necessarily courteous and as swift as in the UK, as balanced as one could expect in today's world, representing the impatiently impulsed characterised constituents while mandating matters of state.  How Victorian.  In Italy we would have seen 3 general elections already, in Germany the creation of new political parties, in Greece MP's would have started hitting each other and in the EU parliament, its members would just stop showing up.

The cross-party campaigning ahead of the referendum was probably the first significant political event which became shadowed by the fake news and cyber espionage questioning which all relative democratic and transparent nations are yet to come to terms with, while we still choose to leave choice with every constituent - not to mention the even older and nearly traditional personal agendas any person in power will inevitably hold - so we should not really be surprised with the amount of yea's and nay's and booh's across Westminster at present and for the time to come.

With all the attention the UK Parliament is getting, perhaps we are getting a peek of how much or rather how little significance a member of a parliament really can bear in name of whom she or he represents.

Two and half years of negotiations and debates involving thousands of taxpayer paid workers are driving an increasing number of politicians in and outside governments on all sides to once again relay the question of what to do and decide back with the people, whether by means of organizing another referendum (how continental that would be) or by calling upon pride, unity, thrive, belief, creativity and all those other human characteristics that appear so basic yet so absent amongst governing powers.

We are not (just) getting impatient with the uncertainty of if, how and when a country is to cease to be an EU Member State, we are wondering what the purpose of so many politicians is if serious matters meet so much indecision amongst whom we chose to intermediate on our behalf.

And that is another issue still to come in every other (aspiring) democracy.

Ooorderrrr !!!