Sarkozy Egged - But for Breton not Irish Independence

The egg thrower arrested at Government Buildings during yesterday's Sarkozy visit turns out to have been a Breton separatist, resident in Ireland. The trend to unravelling of nation states is strong, with Spain, Belgium, Serbia and the UK all suffering from various kinds of fractures and potential fractures. Is a federal EU the only way to hold Europe together in any kind of coherence? I wonder what an EU of many small states would be like ?

http://www.chez.com/emgann/lang/anglais.htm?

cactus flower wrote:

I wonder what an EU of many small states would be like ?

Bit of a nightmare I would imagine. Don't forget that Czechslovakia broke up as well.

Why are these Breton Nationalists coming here? RTE's programme on Ireland;s Nazis last year featured another one didn't it.

Belgium appears to be in deep trouble.

Quote :

Belgium's deep linguistic divide overshadows political dialogue

EUROPEAN DIARY: Francophone and Flemish parties cannot agree on forming a new government, writes Jamie Smyth


THE CROWDS turned out on Belgian national day yesterday but the political mood was as gloomy as the wet weather with little sign of compromise between the two linguistic communities. For the second year in a row the annual celebration of the formation of Belgium on July 21st, 1831, was overshadowed by squabbling between Flemish and Francophone political parties over the amount of power that should be devolved to each region.
Once again Belgium's King Albert II issued a televised plea for unity on the eve of the national day telling the six million Flemish speakers in Flanders and the four and a half million French speakers in Wallonia that they must "invent new ways to live together".
"Our country is going through serious political difficulties, but I would like to observe that difficulties and crises are also a time to rally and rebound," said King Albert, who last week refused to accept the resignation of standing prime minister Yves Leterme.
Leterme tendered his resignation just four months after cobbling together a five-party coalition government, which under the terms of the Belgian constitution has to straddle the linguistic divide. It took a record nine months to form the coalition and the parties only agreed to come together when the issue of devolution was shelved until July 15th.
Leterme's Flemish Christian Democrat party had promised voters it would deliver constitutional reform to devolve more powers over taxes, labour market policy and healthcare spending from the federal to the regional level. But these plans have been frustrated by the Francophone parties in the coalition, which fear that any further devolution of power could threaten the flow of subsidies from the richer, Flemish-speaking north of the country, to the poorer region of Wallonia. A bitter dispute over how to split the Brussels-Halle-Vilvoorde voting district between French and Flemish-speaking parties has also complicated the political landscape since Leterme won federal elections in June 2007.
King Albert has appointed three politicians - two Francophones and the leader of Belgium's tiny German-speaking region - to try to broker a compromise. But analysts in Belgium do not hold out much hope for success given the failure of talks up until now.
"I think compromise is unlikely before the June 2009 regional and European elections in Belgium," says Carl Devos, a political scientist at Ghent University. "Leterme must now choose whether to call new elections, where we are likely to see a radicalisation of the electorate, or break his coalition agreement with the Flemish nationalist NVA party."
Both routes are unpalatable and the intransigence shown by politicians on both sides threatens to further strain tensions between French and Flemish speakers, who lead separate lives unless they live in bilingual Brussels. The concept of a distinct Belgian identity is often viewed differently by people from Flanders and Wallonia.
Danielle, a Flemish mother from Antwerp attending the national celebrations in Brussels, said she came to the event because it was a day out for her children, not out of any nationalistic pride. "I don't feel Belgian, I feel European. This is a day out for the children with fireworks and a military parade," she told The Irish Times.
But for 20-year-old Denis Taillandier from the small town of Bouillon in Wallonia, who waved the Belgian flag, celebrating national day is an important tradition.
"I do feel Belgian and I do have some hope for Belgium. Language should not be part of the problem," said Taillandier, who comes from a mixed marriage with his mother speaking Flemish as her first language and his father speaking French.
The joke at the national celebrations was that yesterday's event could end up being the last one with Belgium splitting apart along linguistic lines. For the moment such predictions seem far-fetched if only because the capital, Brussels, is rooted in Flanders yet has a clear majority Francophone population. But if the political deadlock drags on for much longer at a time when inflation is running at 5.8 per cent and the Belgian economy is grinding to a halt, who knows where the current impasse will lead the country?
"We're facing the worst financial and economic crisis since the end of the second World War and nobody in Belgium seems to care," said Mark Eyskens, a member of Leterme's Christian Democratic Party who served in Belgian governments from 1976 to 1992 and was prime minister in 1981-82, last week. "We need a government."
Yet given the tortuous pace of negotiations between the Francophone and Flemish parties over the past 12 months few people would bet against a political crisis wrecking next year's national celebrations too.
© 2008 The Irish Times

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2008/0722/1216627319739.html

Quote :

"We're facing the worst financial and economic crisis since the end of the second World War and nobody in Belgium seems to care," said Mark Eyskens, a member of Leterme's Christian Democratic Party who served in Belgian governments from 1976 to 1992 and was prime minister in 1981-82, last week. "We need a government."

If national governments are knocked back by the recession anyone with a bit of energy can make a dash for power - even if only for half the country. But it must also be the case that the stronger the EU 'centre', the more national governments appear powerless, the more these schisms will happen.

Ye're worser than youngdan. Nation-states are not in any imminent danger. France and Sapin and Belgium have been dealing with their inter-ethnic problems for centuries now. The EU provides the oppertunity for some regions to behave more autonomously in some senses but it remains a collection of nation-states. And no amount of doomsaying from the conspiracy theorists is going to change that.

It's not often I start laying down the reality, so take me seriously on this one.

Well one thing for sure we are likely to see developments sooner rather than later. The smaller the political unit the better in my mind. The movement to be rid of the overbearing cost of the state is gaining strenght. Did I see a thread that the EU gave 1 billion to Africa. Whats up with that. Presently the cost of the Irish State is 49 billion a year. Sane people are asking what do they get in return. What exactly do they get in return. A crap health system and a justice system which is a laughing stock. You can kill a man with a headbutt and get 4 years but if you get caught with a few pints too many as you drive up a botherreen you get the same if it happens a few times.

The state is like a milking machine and it is contrary to nature that I be an udder.

The Breton was right to fire an egg. In what way is it to the benefit of Bretons that they have t pay for thid French Midget to come to Ireland telling the Irish people what is best for them. When the Irish, bless them, were smart enough not to listen to it's own toads why did he think they would listen to them.

905 wrote:

Ye're worser than youngdan. Nation-states are not in any imminent danger. France and Sapin and Belgium have been dealing with their inter-ethnic problems for centuries now. The EU provides the oppertunity for some regions to behave more autonomously in some senses but it remains a collection of nation-states. And no amount of doomsaying from the conspiracy theorists is going to change that.

It's not often I start laying down the reality, so take me seriously on this one.

I think you underestimate the extent to which things have changed over the last ten years. Scotland is rapidly devolving and the more powers are centralised in the EU the less its relationship to Westminster will matter. Spain is getting pulled at both ends by Basque and Catalan separatism. A child can't easily get an education in Spanish in Catalonia. The Basques will be having a local referendum next year of secession and the prospect of UDI opens up. Spain opposed recognition of Kosova precisely because the prospect of break up of Spain is very real.

The divisions in Belgium are getting more and more intractable and there have been regular mass demonstrations for and against breaking the country up over the last year.

To the above I would add Ireland, where the N.I. Agreement effectively drove back any prospect of unification of Ireland into the margins of improbability, and there seems to be a de facto treatment of the North as a mini-State, increasingly devolved.

The danger of Balkanisation of Europe is not a conspiracy theory, its recognised by the governments of all the countries I've mentioned.

So that is my reality check.

So the EU is the Centre now, not Westminister (nor Dublin, scowled the Munsterman) ? So even if little Republics were to break away then they would still subject themselves to a central authority on certain matters.

There is a lot of sentiment in many of the Autonomias in Spain but you'd wonder really. What's the meaning of independence to any crowd anyway? Autonomy over lawmaking or taxes? We need that here in Munster too if we don't have it already in a way.

Cactus. That might be one of the best posts that not only you but anyone else either has written on this site. The thinking behind Spains reluctance to recognise devolution elsewhere was the icing on the cake.

I have so many things to say on this topic that I suffer from short-circuit. It was my thesis subject back in the University. Please go on I'll read.

Who better to fill us in than you and I am looking forward to your opinion

cactus flower wrote:

I think you underestimate the extent to which things have changed over the last ten years. Scotland is rapidly devolving and the more powers are centralised in the EU the less its relationship to Westminster will matter. Spain is getting pulled at both ends by Basque and Catalan separatism. A child can't easily get an education in Spanish in Catalonia. The Basques will be having a local referendum next year of secession and the prospect of UDI opens up. Spain opposed recognition of Kosova precisely because the prospect of break up of Spain is very real.

The divisions in Belgium are getting more and more intractable and there have been regular mass demonstrations for and against breaking the country up over the last year.

To the above I would add Ireland, where the N.I. Agreement effectively drove back any prospect of unification of Ireland into the margins of improbability, and there seems to be a de facto treatment of the North as a mini-State, increasingly devolved.

The danger of Balkanisation of Europe is not a conspiracy theory, its recognised by the governments of all the countries I've mentioned.

So that is my reality check.

First of all, I've only been around for twenty years so the last ten years are all I know. Scotland has no immediate prospect of independence; the SNP might be in charge but they haven't the figures for an independence referendum. And when you add in things like their removal form the UN security council and any other fora of power and influence, Scotland will, in my opinion, decide that full independence is less preferable to what they have now.

Spain has held it together for centuries, as I have said. They have never been too fierce on minority matters, unlike the French, so it doesn't surprise me if a child can get an education in Catalan. The Basque region has started their annual terrorist campaign, which is sinking support for the socialist PM even further. He was the best chance they had for autonomy. The Spannish opposed the recognition of Kosovo because they didn't want to set a precedent. When Ireland supported the re-unification of Germany it wasn't because we thought that, by some sort of sympathetic magic, the same would soon happen to us. We did it because we supported the principle.

Northern Ireland was afforded the same amount of independence as the South back in the twenties. Any mini-state status they have would still represent a setback compared to thier old standards.

The Belgians had bigger autonomous movements in the eighties and eary nineties. I suspectb things have gotten quieter in the past ten years.

I never said the Balkanisation of Europe was a conspiracy theory. The regionalistaion of Europe is a well-observed phenomenon, one that I mentioned myself on numerous occassions. I just think there is an important difference between regionalisation and the break-up of nation-states.

youngdan wrote:

Who better to fill us in than you and I am looking forward to your opinion

Ok I will try, by short messages. But I have less time than before because I just heard my work contract will not be renewed, so I have to spend time renewing my CV, making contacts, and so on. But that is also my first answer about regions in Europe: my Breton identity doesn't help me find a job. If you think about it, that implies a lot of things.

arnaudherve wrote:

youngdan wrote:

Who better to fill us in than you and I am looking forward to your opinion

Ok I will try, by short messages. But I have less time than before because I just heard my work contract will not be renewed, so I have to spend time renewing my CV, making contacts, and so on. But that is also my first answer about regions in Europe: my Breton identity doesn't help me find a job. If you think about it, that implies a lot of things.

Sorry to hear about your work contract arnaudherve. These are unreliable times from the work point of view. I hope you get fixed up soone with something that suits you well. In the meantime, we hope you find time to drop in for quick posts - even a little brandy of a night in the Sibin...

I've only been to Brittany once, but rural depopulation was very noticeable. We went to a Celtic rock concert with much flag waving. Do most Bretons live in Paris now? And how serious is Breton separatism? There seem to be a number of different groups and parties.

Does you Breton identity hinder your job seeking? I mean, being from Meathy doesn't really affect my job prospects one or the other. I just don't see it's relevance.

Bretons don't have any recognised terrorist groups that I can think of, compared to Corsica, so I'm guessing seperatism isn't enormously strong there?

In case arnaud is busy...

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940CE2D71238F93BA35756C0A9669C8B63
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/mar/01/france.jonhenley?commentpage=1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breton_nationalism

200,000 speak the language daily.

905 wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

I think you underestimate the extent to which things have changed over the last ten years. Scotland is rapidly devolving and the more powers are centralised in the EU the less its relationship to Westminster will matter. Spain is getting pulled at both ends by Basque and Catalan separatism. A child can't easily get an education in Spanish in Catalonia. The Basques will be having a local referendum next year of secession and the prospect of UDI opens up. Spain opposed recognition of Kosova precisely because the prospect of break up of Spain is very real.

The divisions in Belgium are getting more and more intractable and there have been regular mass demonstrations for and against breaking the country up over the last year.

To the above I would add Ireland, where the N.I. Agreement effectively drove back any prospect of unification of Ireland into the margins of improbability, and there seems to be a de facto treatment of the North as a mini-State, increasingly devolved.

The danger of Balkanisation of Europe is not a conspiracy theory, its recognised by the governments of all the countries I've mentioned.

So that is my reality check.

First of all, I've only been around for twenty years so the last ten years are all I know. Scotland has no immediate prospect of independence; the SNP might be in charge but they haven't the figures for an independence referendum. And when you add in things like their removal form the UN security council and any other fora of power and influence, Scotland will, in my opinion, decide that full independence is less preferable to what they have now.

Spain has held it together for centuries, as I have said. They have never been too fierce on minority matters, unlike the French, so it doesn't surprise me if a child can get an education in Catalan. The Basque region has started their annual terrorist campaign, which is sinking support for the socialist PM even further. He was the best chance they had for autonomy. The Spannish opposed the recognition of Kosovo because they didn't want to set a precedent. When Ireland supported the re-unification of Germany it wasn't because we thought that, by some sort of sympathetic magic, the same would soon happen to us. We did it because we supported the principle.

Northern Ireland was afforded the same amount of independence as the South back in the twenties. Any mini-state status they have would still represent a setback compared to thier old standards.

The Belgians had bigger autonomous movements in the eighties and eary nineties. I suspectb things have gotten quieter in the past ten years.

I never said the Balkanisation of Europe was a conspiracy theory. The regionalistaion of Europe is a well-observed phenomenon, one that I mentioned myself on numerous occassions. I just think there is an important difference between regionalisation and the break-up of nation-states.

The trend for weakening of nation states and agglomeration of new agglomerations seems inevitable

It is one of the most widely discussed geopolitical trends.

There is an interesting piece here on the "Death of the Nation State" in europe and why.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/theneweurope/wk18.htm

Globalism is removing relevance from the Nation State and new alliances are being lashed together every day of the week to try to form civil power bases strong enough to deal with global financial and economic movements. That goes for the Americas, for Europe, for Africa. China and Russia at the moment may feel big enough to be self reliant, but I don't see that lasting.

I agree with the link in so far as Nation States are of the past and sprang out of a phase of economic development that has been overtaken by globalism. The long trend is for weakening of Nation States, growth of agglomerations like the EU and fissures and separatism within the agglomerations.

There are many types of local authorities and local identities. Among them, the region is what challenges the state. A town doesn't challenge the authority of the state.

In history, the development of regions has often been linked to the development of a foreign power, that also wished to challenge the state.

The worst outcome would be for say the Bretons to leave France and stay in the EU. This is what the globalists want. They need their own state without the wto or anyone else dictating to them

cactus flower wrote:

The trend for weakening of nation states and agglomeration of new agglomerations seems inevitable

It is one of the most widely discussed geopolitical trends.

There is an interesting piece here on the "Death of the Nation State" in europe and why.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/theneweurope/wk18.htm

Globalism is removing relevance from the Nation State and new alliances are being lashed together every day of the week to try to form civil power bases strong enough to deal with global financial and economic movements. That goes for the Americas, for Europe, for Africa. China and Russia at the moment may feel big enough to be self reliant, but I don't see that lasting.

I agree with the link in so far as Nation States are of the past and sprang out of a phase of economic development that has been overtaken by globalism. The long trend is for weakening of Nation States, growth of agglomerations like the EU and fissures and separatism within the agglomerations.

Cactus are you mad? That link you gave reinforced my opinion that while nation-states continue to face pressures they will persist. It wasn't entitled "Death of the Nation State" it was "The Nation State: Is it dead?"

The expectation that things will continue as they are is not in general borne out by history.
As we disagree about this and as I am talking about a long term historical trend we may have to wait a while to see which of us is right.

Ok, I'm gonna try something that can be relevant to all European regions I think.

There are two ways to look at regional identity, one ethnic-emotional, one technocratic-legal.

I live in a place with a distinct identity from the nation state, and furthermore this place is far away from the main prosperity centers of the nation state. So why not getting autonomy?

You could say it is absurd to revive things that date back from the early middle ages, but you could also say it is absurd to remain faithful to a state that was developed by the temperamental wars of kings from an earlier period. Both are arbitrary.

Now, if you look at it with the eyes of an expert in public law, you understand that in Europe we live in an intricate maze of local to European authorities, and that each level has its own thematic jurisdictions.

What happens in fact nowadays, when you transfer political power from one level to another, is that the jurisdictions of the diminished level are not always fully transfered to the gaining level.

For example, let's suppose it is the county that caters for public swimming pools. If in the process of shifting to a more powerful region, I suppress the county, I am not totally sure I will keep my swimming pools. Emotionally, I will have a brighter, more renowned, more respected flag, but in terms of public services, I will have no swimming pools.

This is in contrast with national independence as it was in the beginning of the 20th century. When Ireland and Norway got independent, they became full fledge states. If my region becomes "autonomous" in present Europe, I will still remain in an intricate maze of local to European authorities.

To be more precise, supposing Scotland gets more devolution and the British state fades into an English region, sure the Scots will be proud, but in terms of legal jurisdictions, what will they gain, what will they lose?

905 wrote:

I never said the Balkanisation of Europe was a conspiracy theory. The regionalistaion of Europe is a well-observed phenomenon, one that I mentioned myself on numerous occassions. I just think there is an important difference between regionalisation and the break-up of nation-states.

A century ago if you told most people in Ireland that they wouldn't be part of the UK within 20 years they would have laughed at you. 25 years ago if you told someone from Yugoslavia their country's future they would have called you a madman.

I don't see France or Spain breaking up anytime soon. But Belgium and the UK are another matter. Devolution has been proceeding in both countries. In Belgium it has been ongoing for 40 years and 15 years ago the country evolved into a federation. Belgium is a recently formed, made-up country, like Yugoslavia and Iraq. It's demise is probably inevitable.

More technically, "devolution" is only a sort of loan by the state. It can be removed at any moment without constitutional change.

"Deconcentration" is installing agencies of the central government in regions.

'Decentralization" is permanently granting local authorities jurisdictions in the constitution.

arnaudherve wrote:

More technically, "devolution" is only a sort of loan by the state. It can be removed at any moment without constitutional change.

"Deconcentration" is installing agencies of the central government in regions.

'Decentralization" is permanently granting local authorities jurisdictions in the constitution.

Clucking Bell.

Lestat wrote:

A century ago if you told most people in Ireland that they wouldn't be part of the UK within 20 years they would have laughed at you. 25 years ago if you told someone from Yugoslavia their country's future they would have called you a madman.

I don't see France or Spain breaking up anytime soon. But Belgium and the UK are another matter. Devolution has been proceeding in both countries. In Belgium it has been ongoing for 40 years and 15 years ago the country evolved into a federation. Belgium is a recently formed, made-up country, like Yugoslavia and Iraq. It's demise is probably inevitable.

A century ago, Ireland was pushing successfully for Home Rule, so they wouldn't have been surprised at all. You're bang on about Yugoslavia though.

If you told a French person that in twenty years their country would have split they would think you are mad. But the same is not true of Belgium or the UK. They have been going on about splits since they joined. And it hasn't happened yet. I think the momentum for both movements has been in the past, not in the present. The EU can absorb much of the autonomous sentiment with it's focus on regions, while maintaining the nation-state as the key block, the state bit at least.