eurealist.co.uk

The road to EU Serfdom has a post about the Guardians article by Max Hastings about the EU’s droit de suite directive which is described as a typical tale of incompetence and ignorance of the market, and the way in which the worse examples are chosen as the harmonised standards. The measure will give artists, and their descendants for 70 years after their deaths, claims upon a levy imposed every time one of their works is resold. Very fair, some will say. Yet in practice, it will simply cause owners of contemporary art to send works for sale in markets where the levy is not applied, notably Switzerland and the US. It chiefly benefits not impoverished living artists, but the relations of rich dead ones.

Richard North has a new Myth of the week on EU Referendum this time exploding the myth that The EU is good for the environment

In “feel-good” terms, the “environment” often comes up number one in the approval ratings for EU action, where the majority of those responding believe that, overall, the EU is beneficial to the environment. This reflects in part the assiduous propaganda campaign undertaken by the EU so, in this new “myth”, we look at the EU actual contribution to improving our environment, but also take a look at how their propaganda machine works.

In a letter to the Times D.W Pond suggests a re-think in the way aid is conducted.

D. W. POND

Sir, My partner and I were two of the fortunate people who escaped the tsunami whilst holidaying in Sri Lanka. We had just left the beach and returned to our third-floor hotel room when the disaster struck. We watched with horror as the water engulfed the whole of the ground floor, smashing its way through the plate glass windows of bars and the restaurant where we had breakfasted earlier.

The horror of the scene was eclipsed by the impact the tsunami had on the local people who occupied makeshift beach dwellings, eking a meagre living by selling bracelets, sarongs, puppets and beads to tourists. Their homes disappeared into the ocean, and in many cases so did they. Those who did survive demonstrated a remarkable generosity of spirit in coming forward to help tourists in distress, sharing what little clothes, food and water they had and taking visitors to safer ground.

We were taken by a young Sri Lankan man to the Buddhist temple where he regularly worshipped. Here were gathered many other holidaymakers. The monks offered simple food, water and a sense of security to those feeling dazed by the events.

It is a joy to see that same sense of human solidarity in the response to the disaster by the people of this country. Why is it, though, that this is not translated into a more general determination by the international community to address what can now only be described as an obscene difference in living standards between the West and the developing world?

I hope our Prime Minister proposes to use Britain’s presidency of the G8 not just to tackle global poverty, but to deliver the prospect of a better life for our fellow human beings.
Yours faithfully,
D. W. POND,

Letter to the Times
From BARBARA STOCKING,the Director of Oxfam

“Sir, Rosemary Righter (Comment, December 31) does not address the point that if something is vital, and yet not working well enough, it might be better to fix it rather than abandon it. The UN, as co-ordinator of the world’s humanitarian aid, is just such a thing.
Yes, the UN must now rise to the challenge. It must immediately map out how governments and aid agencies can best help the terrible tsunami’s survivors. For without that map, life-saving aid will not be as effective as it must be.
But without the UN, who else will do it? Experience has shown us that the alternatives lead to more, not less confusion.”

The special pleading misses the point that so far the UN is not on the ground, actually doing anything this, more than a week after the tsunami struck, should we wait until the UN gets its house in order, and holds its meetings so that it might create its map. Should those individual countries who are already there helping with their military the USA India Japan Australia and the others, be still at home waiting for instructions from the UN in order to meet the requirements of certain people that nothing can be done by any country on the world stage without the backing of the UN, and anything that is done is ether illegal, immoral or will lead to confusion. I am sure that those countries that are already there are quite capable of coordinating their actions when and where they are found to be necessary.

Perhaps Barbara Stockings organisation is there on the ground, but does Oxfam have the facilities to get their relief where it is needed in a timely manner or is being piled up on landing strips waiting for the outcome of the UN meetings or EU donors meeting later this week so that eventually in about two or three weeks time Oxfam can have their coordinated life saving exercise, and another EU coordinated life saving exercise, so that Oxfam will not have to dirty its hands by working with “politically incorrect systems”.

If this disaster has shown anything it is that nation states are quicker to react to any problem because they are an organised unit with already existing lines of command, within hours of the disaster the USA had diverted two naval battle groups to the area, which are already delivering much needed aid to the survivors.