Posts Tagged "Nice"

Analysis: The Roma and the Republic

The news from France is very bad.

Over the summer, President Sarkozy and the French Government have deported about 1,000 Roma people to Romania and Bulgaria. The mass expulsion of a community (based on ethnicity), the likes of which we have not seen in Europe since the Second World War, was duly met with widespread condemnation.

The European Parliament passed a non-binding resolution that Sarkozy put a stop to his expulsion of the Roma, calling the measures “discriminatory and contrary to Community law” and pointing out that that collective expulsions violate European law because they discriminate based on race.” So the question of whether this was a good or bad, legal or illegal is essentially over.

However, in an article on LabourList (here) Claude Moreas MEP made only the most superficial analysis of the political situation in France, which was callous at best and wrong at worst; so what I hope to do in this article is explain in detail the political reasons why Sarkozy ordered the Roma expulsion.

Part One : A Classic Power Struggle

Unsurprisingly, the motive for the Roma Expulsions can be traced to the beginning of summer between a minister and his contemporary, both of whom have their power bases where I live in Nice.

Christian Estrosi, the Mayor of Nice, an MP and Minister for Industry has always been a close friend of Nicolas Sarkozy. Estrosi, locally, has a friend called Eric Ciotti, who used to be his parliamentary aide until he was installed as President of the General Council (the Department of the Alpes-Maritimes) as a sort of deputy figure, and also became an MP.

Ciotti became the darling of his right-wing UMP party, earning the creative nickname “Monsieur Sécurité” thanks to his plans to punish the parents of troublesome teens. Meanwhile, Estrosi was involved in an expenses scandal over his daughters Parisian apartment. Appearing several times consecutively in Le Canard Enchainé (that’s like Private Eye) means the press smells blood.

So the apprentice began to eclipse the master. With a big reshuffle on the way, Estrosi was terrified that he would be kicked out and, even worse, that he would be made the junior partner to Ciotti. Even worse than that would be if Ciotti were to become Interior Minister – the classic springboard to the Presidency.

Estrosi had to catch up. He had to show that he could out-do Ciotti on security. He launched an attack way outside his brief with a plan to punish “laxist” mayors who didn’t do enough to protect their towns. It was born out of the Grenoble incident and at the same time a jab at the Socialist Party leader, Martine Aubry, the mayor of Lille who has no security cameras in the streets. (Crime dropped by 0.9% in Aubry’s Lille compared to 0.5% in Estrosi’s Nice, by the way.)

Part Two: The Big Red Security button

In his LabourList piece, Moreas claimed that Sarkozy was

“Playing politics with peoples’ lives, he has reinforced his centre right constituency, attracting votes from people who may otherwise have been happier with Jean-Marie Le Pen’s ‘Front National’. As a strategy it’s working.”

What the Labour MEP forgot to add is that in March there will be elections for the departments (Cantonales for the Conseil Général). More importantly, these elections will be the last electoral test before the Presidentials in 2012.

However, Moreas was wrong to think that the “Steal Front National votes” strategy is working. Think back to last March and the Regional Elections, it was the FN that was able to steal UMP votes after a disastrous debate on National Identity. The Socialists won 21 out of 22 Regions.

So on the one hand we have the upcoming elections, and on the other we have the ministerial financial scandal “l’Affaire Woerth” that Sarkozy has been desperate to get off the front pages. He needed an opportunity to change to a higher gear.

Part Three : The Roma scapegoat

I wrote about the Grenoble incident nearer the time (a Roma was killed by a policeman which provoked other Roma to commit acts of vandalism), remarking that I thought it was strange that the President would get so involved in a relatively minor event.

I hope it’s clear now that I have put it in the wider context. This was the spark that lit the bonfire. Sarkozy had everything he needed to push the debate away from corruption and economics to security and immigration. Suddenly the Roma were perfect targets.

I return to the piece from Claude Moreas MEP:

“In fact, I recently led a delegation to meet Eric Besson, the French Europe Minister. [...] Sarkozy will not worry too much – he sees his actions as popular amongst centre and far right voters in France. As with the burka ban, he knows too that French Socialists may not go out on a limb to make this a national election issue.”

Two embarrassing and worrying errors here. Most concerning is the simple error that Eric Besson is not the French Europe Minister, he is in fact the Minister for Immigration, Integration and National Identity. This is important to understand not just because the Labour MEP didn’t know to whom he was talking, but moreover the title of “Immigration and National Identity” deliberately implies that the first is a menace to the second.

The other error is the claim that the Socialists won’t oppose the expulsions very seriously. It’s wrong because they (we?) have done, last Saturday in Nice alone around 5,000 people from the Socialists to the Greens to the Trade Unions to Human Rights organisations protested in the streets. Nice, I remind you, is one of the most pro-Sarkozy places in the country, and the home of dear Christian Estrosi.

Conclusion

For the elections, it is likely that the Roma will not be a central issue though, largely due to the fact that it has backfired spectacularly against Sarkozy. I think the Socialists will be more likely to use it as an example to paint the government as anti-republican. In any case, the Socialists would be wise not to rise to the bait but keep attacking on the Economy and Pension Reform.

The events this summer have brought shame on the French Republic, and Sarkozy has assaulted its key values of Liberty, Equality and Fraternity for his own cynical purposes. Certainly, the March elections will make an exciting run up to the 2012 Presidentials.

Mayor decides to censor his own council

Everyone’s favourite mad-cap Mayor (of the people who read this blog) Christian Estrosi has made a final coup against freedom and democracy: he has banned the recording of council meetings, after censoring street performers it was the next logical step to censor his councillors.

The Mayor of Nice decided without warning that the recordings would be cut, claiming that it was necessary to make economies.

He said that the practice costs the local government 25,000 euros per year. He runs the Conseil Municipal (the town of Nice) which serves about 450,000 citizens.

Here’s a video for francophones:

Compare this to the Conseil Régional, that serves the entire region of Provence, the Alpes and the Cote d’Azur (including  Nice), that’s about 4,781,000 people, with a much bigger number of councillors and hence a bigger room and presumably more cameras. To broadcast a meeting, it costs the region 2,000 euros.

The Region meets 5 times a year, so broadcasting costs 10,000 euros per year. Estrosi holds 4 meetings per year, the legal minimum. To reach his figure, over double the cost despite fewer meetings, his cameras must be made out of gold. Note that 4 times a year is the legal minimum for the Conseil Municipal to meet.

Also note that the propaganda “magazine” that gets distributed to everybody’s letterbox, as well as “letters from the mayor” costs the town 450,000 a year.

Having dispelled the money myth, the real reason he was to censor the broadcast is because it is the only source of unbiased, unfiltered news left. The Mayor’s office buys “advertising space” in the local paper, to the extent it provides a third of the newspaper’s total revenue.

Estrosi is simply trying to hide the truth, and by preventing the  recording of the council meetings he does a disservice to democracy and his electors.

Why did you have to think about it?

I had quite a bizarre, rude and aggressive encounter with a bouncer this evening.

I was going into a bar with two friends of mine (both of them French) who are a bit older than myself. In the event that they read this and understand it, I’m going to say they are about 34.

As we walk into the bar (decisively not a club but still quite noisy), at around 2130 I add, I was suddenly stopped by the man on the door.

He asked me how old I was.

Now I’m 21 which is a significant way past the age of majority, but I accept I don’t always look it (particularly having shaven just a few hours previously), but I’m no longer used to the question. Especially because of the way I usually dress and behave; on the contrary, I am more often confused to being the manager of Marks & Spencer, Tesco, or Bristol Temple Meads railway station.

Surprised, I told the man I was 21. He asked for identity, which I didn’t have because a) I didn’t have my wallet with me and b) because I’m English and we don’t have identity cards.

After I said I don’t have ID with me, he asked (this is all in French, mind you)

What’s your date of birth?

The 10th of March, 89.

Again surprised at the question, I responded with the truth as I had no reason to lie. If you’re under-age and you have to lie, you say you’re 18 or 19, you don’t go the distance to 21.

Then came the most aggressive question:

Why did you have to think about it?

My reply:

Why did I have to think about it? Because I’m not used to people asking and French is not my maternal language!

I am thus more taken aback not by the fact that he thought I was a minor (it was dark and he has to be careful) but by the fact he thought I was French and didn’t believe me the first few times when I said I was English. This particular bar is well known in Nice (Chez Wayne) and particularly popular with ex-pats.

Normally this is the part where I would try to draw a conclusion on society or culture, but I think this guy was just an idiot. So here’s a punchline instead: having negotiated entry, we left immediately because it was too full, and went somewhere much better.

French Regional Elections 2010: First results Update

Here are theresults for the First Round of the Regional Elections;

Parti Socialiste: 29.5%
UMP: 27%
Europe Ecologie: 12.5%
Front National: 11.7%
Front de Gauche: 6.2%
Modem: 4%
Extreme Gauche: 3.7%

Participation: VERY LOW around 46.5%

Conclusions:

• This is the worst score the UMP has ever had. Sarkozy was nowhere to be seen the entire night, and typically the Prime Minister, Francois Fillon was left holding the bag.
• Segolene Royal won 39% of the vote, evidently that’s amazing strong.
• The Greens have been able to secure their place as the third force in French Politics though they are a long way behind the Socialists, the orange MoDem people have been confined to the dustbin.

Now for the results in my regon of Provence Alpes Cote D’azur, which make for interesting reading:

Parti Socialiste: 26%
UMP: 26%
Front National: 20%
Europe Ecologie: 11%
Front de Gauche: 6.5%

So the PS and the UMP are neck and neck, which is amazing for the Left in an area like this. The Greens are able to go to the second round but I think it will be more likely that they fuse lists with the Socialists, likewise the FDG.

The FN have struck big here. One the one side you have Toulon, the most fascist town in the country, and then on top of it you have Jean-Marie Le Pen, a brand by himself. I think he enjoyed an emotional vote as it is the last time he’ll be a candidate.

It just goes to show there is still a lot to play for; but overall it was an excellent night for the Parti Socialiste.

Mayor imposes authoritarian and unfeasible curfew on children

Christian Estrosi, Mayor of Nice (UMP), has imposed a curfew on children aged 13 and under.

The curfew forbids children from going out on the streets without an adult after 11pm on Wednesdays, Fridays and Saturdays.
In principle, there is no reason for a minor to be out on the streets alone at night. However, this curfew is nothing but an ineffective and impractical publicity stunt.

Estrosi: “I said go to your room.”

Estrosi is showing a deeply authoritarian side to his personality, as was shown when he decided to ban street performers that had not passed his quality exam. (See my piece on that.)

In addition, this stunt has been designed to help Estrosi and his right-wing UMP party to make a few headlines on security issues just a few months before the regional elections. (More on them here and here).

The curfew is also impossible to administer and totally irresponsible. There are at most a little more than a dozen police patrols at night for 360,000 inhabitants. Children on the streets is not only a tiny problem, the police have much more frequent and serious crime incidents to deal with. The fact that Estrosi himself has closed 17 préfectures (police stations) makes matters worse.

In a typical fashion, Estrosi will be using the right hand to punish “offenders” by cutting and removing benefits instead of investigating why parents are letting their children out at night.

This is another trademark Estrosi policy; mad, worrying, dangerous and completely impossible. It’s Sarkozyism applied on a local level.

We can look to Europe for ideas to reform our democracy

I have been working for our French colleagues in the Parti Socialiste for 6 months now, and though I don’t know what a Jedward is, I have been able to experience ‘continental democracy’.

The debate about electoral reform in Britain has always been “PR or not to PR”, with the third way of AV or AV+ and other complicated overhauls creeping in to the lexicon. The conclusion is always a very British paradox; FTPT is unfair, unrepresentative and needs reforming…but that’s the way we like it.

As a reaction, rather than a solution, to the expenses scandal when it broke a few months ago, there was a whole package of changes designed to restore a democracy in crisis. Fixed Term Parliaments were suggested and then forgotten about; meanwhile the Tories are determined to self-harm by reducing the number of MPs in the Commons as part of their ghoulish quest for cuts.

I have been looking at various democratic innovations we could import from other European countries, particularly France.

Both nations are suffering from a declining turnout, but for opposite reasons. The French tend to experience election fatigue, as they are required to vote for their MEP, the Président, their MP, then Regional, General and Municipal councillors, as well as their Mayor (no matter how small the town).

Britain, conversely, experiences election atrophy, creating the attitude “We only see you at election time” every four years, and there are generally only three levels of representation; the MEPs, MPs and Local Councillors, then depending on where you live there may be Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish Assembly members or the Mayor of London and the GLA.

Creating more levels of representation will not have any effect if it is impossible to justify introducing them. Regional Assemblies, for example, were piloted then abandoned, though there is still a vocal lobby for an English Parliament.

Instead, the main argument used against British First Past the Post is the fact we have ‘two horse races’ in a three party system, which leads to either tactical voting or ‘wasted’ votes.

To solve this, we could experiment with a two-round system. It’s quite simple to implement ‘two elections’; the French vote on a Sunday (weekend voting is something else we should consider) and the two candidates with the highest share of the vote go through to a second round the following week. Sometimes three candidates qualify, but it’s all in the detail.

The effect on Britain could be a great many more parties form, as well as more independent candidates standing (coalitions are very popular here) but voting for one of the weaker candidates wouldn’t necessarily exclude you from having a say in the final decision between the more successful candidates. In the local by-election we fought over the summer in Nice there were eleven different candidates, though predictably the PS and UMP (Labour and Conservative equivalents, broadly speaking) qualified. This also means that ‘the underdog’ can stage quite a miraculous recovery thanks to the ‘reserve votes’.

It could transform tactical voting and make safe seats less safe, but the downside is of course that it would make two-party constituencies even clearer. Currently, many constituencies are Labour/Conservative marginals with the Lib Dems trailing in third place, so Lib Dems have to choose whether to vote for their own party and ‘waste’ their vote or to vote for whichever party they see as the lesser of two evils. Under a two-round system, they would be free to show support for their party in the first instance but on the second round they could make a straight choice for whomever they prefer. Labour voters are in a similar situation in the south.

When the ‘left’ vote is split (this mainly depends on how you view the Lib Dems) the Tories get in. But voting twice will allow voters to keep to their principles and be realistic at the same time. This vote-splitting is prohibited and so safe seats become a lot less safe. It may even increase turnout because, in the second round at least, every vote will make a difference.

The time between first and second rounds could also be used effectively to sharpen and clarify dividing lines while having the advantage of making political events more practical. For the Leader’s debates, there is still the question of what to do with Nick Clegg. It seems silly to have him on between the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, but unfair not to invite him as he is after all a party leader.

Similarly, during the London Mayoral election campaign in May 2008, Newsnight had to invite Brian Paddick along, despite the fact the campaign was so evidently a Johnson/Livingstone affair. Second preference votes are obviously weaker than First preference, but if even the most dedicated Lib Dem voters were posed a straight choice between Ken and Boris, Ken might have made it (or Boris may have had a bigger majority).

A key argument against PR and AV is that they are more confusing and complex than one vote, one winner elections. So when it comes to Electoral Reform, all I propose is that Britain looks beyond the same debate we have had for decades and starts to think about real changes we can make. To that end, it may be worth looking to Europe for ideas.