Rape in Calais

Le Figaro has a brief, dated August 28, about a young Canadian girl who was raped in Calais:

A Canadian student studying journalism in London was raped Tuesday evening in Calais while researching a report on migrants hoping to obtain exile in Great Britain, it was learned today from several sources.

"Around 7:30 p.m. a Canadian student journalist went into the wooded area known as 'the jungle', in Calais, to take pictures. She was the victim of a rape perpetrated by an individual currently at large," announced the assistant district attorney of Boulogne-sur-Mer, Philippe Muller, in a communiqué.

"The jungle", an isolated wooded area near the Calais passenger port is a notorious meeting place for people smugglers and migrants trying to cross the Channel illegally.

Readers of Le Figaro were quick to bemoan the naïveté of the girl and what must be called criminal negligence on the part of her teachers in London (assuming she was given this assignment, or at least that she had informed them of her intent). One Figaro reader associated her sublime foolishness with her chosen profession:

- In view of her intellectual level, since she was preparing for a career in journalism... Her professors surely warned her that one does not do anything, anyplace. Or she is naïve, unaware, or certain that the word PRESS protects her. Another victim of certain inhabitants of lost territories of the Republic. Left or Right - the same failures. (...)

Another had pity:

- "a notorious meeting place," hence well-known to the authorities who accept lawlessness. All my sympathy to the girl who came to do a report on France, "land of human rights" (even the right to rape).

Le Conservateur notes with irony:

(...) I find the implications simply scandalous. To link immigration with the explosion of crime is obviously racism! Moreover, it is clearly reality that is racist in this case. Where are all the anti-racist militants armed with nails and clubs and bicycle chains? (...)

The newly formed nationalist party Nouvelle Droite Populaire (NDP) reminds us that the Sangatte immigration shelter in Calais was closed in 2002 by Minister of the Interior Nicolas Sarkozy:

The rape of a young Canadian journalist in Calais is a reminder to those who pretend not to know that, amidst the general indifference of the authorities, thousands of foreign zombies wander the streets of a city that for years has been in the throes of permanent insecurity and disorder. The highly publicized closing of the Sangatte center in 2002, by then Minister of the Interior Nicolas Sarkozy, obviously has served no purpose. It is not a question of whether it is preferable to gather the illegals in some central location, or to let them free to haunt the streets of our cities; it is about sealing off access to our territory and banning all stays on our soil through forceful and immediate measures.

Confronted with such an invasion, feel-good attitudes of "humanitarian" associations are quite simply a manifestation of high treason.

Here are Sarkozy's words, from his book Témoignage, published shortly before the election, and that I included in a post from August 2006. He speaks of his visit to Sangatte:

"I will never forget my first visit to the shelter. Three thousand pair of eyes fixed on me, pleading and threatening. Almost men. Not one spoke a word of French. They expected everything. I had so little to give. They were calm and yet this silence was violent. That day I decided to get them all out of this situation. The solution proposed by the authorities was clearly not feasible because it was unfair. They would allow into England those who could prove they had a close relation already settled there and ship the others back to their homeland if it were possible. I could not see us making such a selection: on what grounds, what procedure, based on what evidence, and in the name of what, since all of them had suffered to get there and paid the high price to unscrupulous traffickers. We welcomed them, humanity dictated that we keep all of them..."

"Rampant Islamization"

German journalist and critic of Islam Udo Ulfkotte has written an article published in the August 28 edition of Die Welt. Le Salon Beige summarizes some excerpts:

(...) Udo Ulfkotte criticizes severely the lack of a reaction in Europe to what he terms a "rampant Islamization". He cites the behavior of States that avoid the issue the moment they sense a risk of offending Islam. Behavior that comes down to the denial of their own values. To deny "our" identity, this is the problem: thus certain countries now agree to Islamic tribunals applying Sharia.

"It is clear that we no longer find anything wrong with the practice of Muslim polygamy; and that women "caged inside" their clothing have now become evident signs on our streets of a cultural enrichment!"

In Sweden there is even talk about decriminalizing "honor" killings (...)

"In Denmark, we saw for the first time a church pay a tribute to Muslims to protect the Christian faithful from possible attacks on their way to church."

Moreover, just about everywhere in Europe, we find newly constructed mosques bearing the names of the greatest opponents of Christianity in the history of Islam. The author cites as an example the Sultan Fatih mosque, inaugurated this month in Ingelheim-am-Rhein amidst the euphoric enthusiasm of politicians and Church officials. But do they know that the Turkish Sultan Mohammed II, nicknamed Fatih (the Conquerer) invaded Christian Constantinople in 1453, and proceeded to decapitate and pillory all the Christians of the city? According to Ulfkotte, this "rampant Islamization" is now spreading to all of Europe: there probably won't be what some call "a clash of cultures", because the Christian side will have abandoned all of our values. But when, one day, our children start asking embarrassing questions, it will be too late reverse the trend.

Concerned for his own safety because of his ideas, Ulfkotte now lives in a secret place under police protection. His book Die schleichende Islamisierung Europas (the rampant Islamization of Europe) is scheduled to come out on September 1.

Read more about Ulfkotte at Gates of Vienna.

I first mentioned Udo Ulfkotte in a post from December 2006. The link to his article is still online.

Taxation Frenzy

The French websites have been announcing with regularity a bewildering array of new taxes levied by the government on everything from fish to cell phones.

Here is the text of an article, dated May 1, from a British website called French Property that keeps up with news of the French economy for its readers who are contemplating a move to France. It describes in language that is probably clearer than anything I could translate the taxation frenzy that is currently underway:

Six new taxes have been introduced in France in the past year, with new taxes currently under discussion.

In the main they are marginal taxes, unlikely to make a big dent in the household budget but they do provide an interesting insight into the psyche of French bureaucrats and politicians, who seem to have an instinctive propensity to propose a new tax whenever new objectives are announced.
The idea that the general system of taxation should be used to achieve policy objectives seems a far too obvious solution.

In order to make them more palatable to the French public, a number of these new taxes have been promoted as ‘environmental’ taxes, although their positive impact on the environment is by no means clear.

One such case is that of the 'fish tax', a tax of 2% on the sale of all fish, introduced in 2007 in response to protests by French fishermen against the rising price of fuel. The tax produces around €70m a year, none of which goes to preserving or developing fish stocks.

A similar tax has been the tax imposed on the super-profits of the petrol companies, which is being used to pay for a fuel rebate for low-income households using oil based heating. The tax raises around €150m a year, only around half of which goes towards individual fuel grants of €150 a year, with the rest going straight into the general coffers of the French Treasury.

Another tax that can be more genuinely claim to have 'green' objectives is that of the new carbon tax on high polluting vehicles, with a tax credit to the more virtuous who buy a car with low CO2 emissions.

Note: A carbon tax is a tax on CO2 and other greenhouse gases. There have been warnings about the difficulty in implementing such a tax since carbon constitutes only about 27% of CO2.

This tax is in addition to the vehicle registration tax the Government introduced in 2006 for high polluting vehicles, a tax that was modest in the level of the imposition and, consequently, in its impact.

Although not a carbon tax as such, the Government have also introduced a tax on airline tickets, the proceeds of which are being used to fight Aids in the developing world. The tax varies from €1 to €40, depending on the ticket class and destination.

To these taxes can also be added a pollution tax, which is imposed upon all non-solicited literature that is sent through the post, and a tax on the award of stock-options, following growing criticism of 'fat-cat' remuneration packages being granted to industry bosses.

Other new taxes are also under discussion. As we reported recently in our Newsletter, the Government is proposing to abolish private advertising on French public television channels, and to replace it with a tax on home electrical equipment, internet and mobile telephone providers.

There are also discussions taking place about a genuine carbon tax on air travel, and the Minister of Culture has also floated the idea of a new ‘four star’ hotel tax to fund work to historic monuments.

Of course, in truth what all of this demonstrates is the impossible situation in which the Government finds itself in trying to balance its budget.

The Government dare not risk increasing the level of direct taxation or social security contributions, so is having to resort to do all sorts of fiscal contortions to raise revenues to deal with problems, and fund its programmes. (...)

Le Salon Beige also mentions the possibility of a "fat tax" on food that causes obesity. However one online report indicates such a tax would have no tangible effect on the economy or on the eating habits of the French.

And some websites have mentioned still another pollution tax on non-recyclable oils and lubricants. It isn't clear if this is a separate tax or part of a general anti-pollution package.

More recently, an article dated July 29 from Le Salon Beige, using Le Figaro as its source, describes measures to tax the private companies that provide additional health insurance as a supplement to Social Security (French National Health). The goal is to raise 2 billion euros in taxes in 2009. Moreover the government is going to levy a 1% - 2% tax on optional profit-sharing ("intéressement"), on participation (a mandatory profit-sharing scheme to force workers to save, instituted by de Gaulle, that applies to companies with 50 or more employees), and on group insurance plans ("contrats de prévoyance") The overall purpose of these taxes is to avoid the huge deficit of 6 billion euros predicted for Social Security by 2009. Le Figaro wonders what is to prevent the private insurance companies from raising their premiums in retaliation.

Now many websites are talking about Sarkozy's plan to finance the RSA ("revenu de solidarité active", roughly translated as "active solidarity income"), a measure designed to favor the return to the workforce of the poorest. The idea seems to be to levy a 1% tax on revenues from land assets and dividends. The IHT has an article dated August 27, but does not go into great detail. Here is an excerpt:

President Nicolas Sarkozy of France is considering a new capital gains tax on dividends and rental income to raise minimum wages and finance incentives for unemployed people to go back to work, undercutting his previous pledges to cut levies.

The new tax should raise €1.4 billion, or $2.1 billion, to help the lowest earners and provide incentives for jobless people to accept work that pay less than unemployment benefits, Claude Guéant, chief of staff for Sarkozy, told the Les Echoes newspaper. The tax would apply to capital gains on dividends, rental income and life insurance plans, Guéant said. Sarkozy's press office declined to comment.

"Sarkozy's economic policy seems to lack a backbone; it's less and less coherent," said Jean-Christophe Caffet, an economist at Natixis in Paris. "He first promised to cut the tax burden and he gave fiscal incentives to richer people. This measure reverses course, helps poorer people. It's symbolic."

The RSA, according to La Provence is meant to replace two other social programs: the RMI (minimum revenue for insertion, i.e. integration into the workforce) and the API (allocation for single parents), thus combining into one measure revenues for work and "solidarité", i.e., welfare. Originally Sarkozy was going to tax certain workers' bonuses to finance his RSA, including the Christmas bonus. This aroused such anger that he changed his mind. The RSA has been tried on an experimental basis in 34 departments, and is controversial even within the UMP party. In an article dated August 28, independent deputy Nicolas Dupont-Aignan weighs in:

By creating a 1.1% tax on capital gains to finance the RSA, Nicolas Sarkozy wants to appear as Robin Hood, but is in truth playing the role of the Sheriff of Nottingham.

Because, on the pretext of "taxing capital", the government is in reality preparing a fiscal assault on tens of millions of people with savings accounts many of whom - especially retirees, supplement their inadequate resources with income from land assets (i.e. rental income).

Protected by the fiscal shield of the TEPA law, the wealthiest households will escape from this new tax that will, once again, strike the middle classes like a whiplash.

Note: TEPA ("Travail, Emploi, Pouvoir d'Achat" i.e. work, employment, buying power) was passed by Minister of the Economy Christine Lagarde, about a year ago. I am not familiar with the details, but the law deals essentially with tax exemptions. French readers can check the government website.

After the broken promise of more buying power, now it is the promise to reduce mandatory contributions that has fallen through the cracks.

Now, all the economists are saying it: France is suffering from a lack of competitiveness and any supplementary deductions will turn against wage and employment stability.

The photo shows Sarkozy with Martin Hirsch, the High Commissioner for Active Solidarity against Poverty, and sponsor of the RSA.

Note: This post is far from complete. There are other taxes worthy of discussion, and there is much more complex technical information about the French economy. Some of the taxes named in this post as virtual have now become reality. I'll try to keep up with the topic, insofar as I understand it.

Rivers of Tears

The Democrats have completed their extravaganza. Next week in St. Paul the Republicans must try to demolish any good impressions people may have taken away from the gaudy event. There were highs and lows. Many lows. The high points were the big names, their speeches and the clever way some of them managed to paint McCain as a confused man torn between his liberalism and his claims to being a conservative. This was especially true of John Kerry, who enumerated the differences between Candidate McCain who says one thing and Senator McCain who votes the opposite (shades of Sarkozy?). For the first time ever, Bill Clinton gave a speech that was short and somewhat coherent. On the first night Caroline Kennedy was an elegant and poised figure, and her uncle Ted was in fine form, though we all know it might be the last time we see him. I feel no hatred or contempt for him, even though, theoretically, I should. Dislike of what he stands for, his deeds, his policies, yes. But hatred no. Michelle Obama came across as rather appealing. It's only when you realize the resentments and grudges she harbors, that were completely concealed beneath the teary, patriotic, grateful-to-America, loving wife and mother we saw this week, do you shudder at the prospect of her being First Lady. The first major high point was the appearance of Hillary Clinton, totally in command, sure of herself, looking great and every inch a viable candidate for the presidency. It is hard to imagine that the Democrats actually abandoned her after all that. Apparently the intoxicating idea of having a black candidate took precedence over an experienced white woman. Her well thought-out speech was flawlessly delivered. I never thought I would say anything good about Hillary, but Tuesday night I actually liked her, despite her policies and her extraordinary ambitions. And Chelsea looked great too with her Veronica Lake hair-do. Joe Biden was impossible - ranting, smiling too much, flippant at times, laughing inappropriately. I don't remember a thing he said and my impression is that he would be a terrible president. The HERO appeared twice: unexpectedly on Wednesday and then tonight, when he delivered a rather good speech, stressing the common ground between Republicans and Democrats. Obama has imitated JFK - first by speaking in Berlin earlier this summer, then by addressing the crowd tonight in a sports stadium. Caroline Kennedy compared the hopes her father aroused in people to the hopes Obama has aroused in her. Let us hope that this comparison stops there. If (God forbid) anything should happen to Obama, white America would never be allowed to live it down, no amount of social legislation or handouts would ever suffice, and the country would never recover from its guilty complex.

The low points were too numerous to discuss in detail but they all boil down to an endless litany of deadly-dull sob stories, praise for "single moms", desire for change change change, love - so much love for America, praise for our servicemen because we are still the home of the brave, concern for our children - you know, they are our future, all expressed in amateurish, strident sometimes screeching tones and lower than grade-school level vocabulary, by "concerned" citizens (primarily women) who really should have stayed home and left the speeches to the pros.

It was a star-studded revival meeting, not really a political convention in the old-fashioned sense of the term with (sorely missed) humor, suspense and spontaneity, but a kind of ritual revolving first around a hypocritical homage to the loser - Hillary (the biggest hypocrite was her husband who cried buckets and mouthed the words "I love you" after her speech - rather disgusting) - and then adulation, tears flowing like rivers, unctious, mindless, endless praise for a young man who comes across as a nice guy with some interesting ideas, not a statesman of depth, and certainly not the Messiah that Democrats seem to be awaiting with religious fervor and almost insane irrational expectation. Clearly, their hatred of George Bush's politics (a hatred that is not without some justification), and their need to be redeemed by a black man with a "single mom", could not have been more obvious. Beaming PBS reporters could not hide their ecstasy on this occasion that they labeled a thousand times as "historic".

Unfortunately, we know that the Republicans will have their own parade of sob stories, their praise of single moms, their tribute to our soldiers, their raving speeches about how the country needs McCain, etc... The Democratic convention did not upset me the way I'm sure the Republican convention will, because I expect so much more from them and I will not get it. If I can bear to watch it...

I will get back to posting about France this weekend. There are some interesting stories, though nothing earth-shattering right now.

Rachida Pregnant???

What next? It seems Minister of Justice Rachida Dati is pregnant. The news is not official, but the rumor is all over the web. For now, the father is not known. According to Yahoo:

Rachida Dati did not try to hide her new plumpness on Thursday, in front of Elysée Palace (...) For the 42-year-old minister of justice, second of 11 brothers and sisters, this happy event will be a first.

The first personality of an immigrant family to occupy such a high office in the French government, the pretty brunette is also mayor of the 7th arrondissement of Paris.

According to our information she will give birth in January.

Congratulations to the future mother.

No comment.

Resistance and Sacrifice

Yann Baly writing at Bernard Antony's blog does not think the French soldiers died in vain, although he recognizes the uncertainty of the cause:

Regarding the sacrifice of the 10 young French soldiers killed in combat in Afghanistan, we have heard many voices, including those of the families of the young parachutists, saying that they died for nothing.

Politicians are duty-bound to question the timeliness of our engagement in Afghanistan under NATO command, in a war desired by the United States. We cannot remain silent when France, and French youth have, in the past, paid too heavy a price because of "sacred" unions in wars that diplomacy and sensible politics could have avoided. Yesterday, in the majestic courtyard of les Invalides (photo), the French people were able to recall that certain political errors are paid for in blood. It is therefore legitimate to wonder if Jacques Chirac (who was not present yesterday) and Lionel Jospin were right to send the French army into Afghanistan in 2001 and if Nicolas Sarkozy was not wrong to reenforce the contingent with the inadequate means we are all aware of. As Bernard Antony has reminded us, the United States has committed so many errors of foreign policy, so many criminal mistakes in its diplomatic and military actions, that one can doubt the need to be present in Afghanistan. History shows us that economic and oil interests have often been a decisive element in the American involvement in military conflicts. Fight efficiently against terrorism? There too, there are questions to be asked.

Nonetheless, it is false to say that our young parachutists died for nothing. First of all, the French people have become conscious once again that they had an army. A month and a half after the tragedy in Carcassonne, the blood of these soldiers has washed away the lies, insults and spite, some of it coming from the head of State himself, heaped on the French army. But most of all, in our society where egoism and individualism are the rule, for a people who seem to have forgotten the meaning of sacrifice, their death in combat, at the age of 20 for most of them, is no doubt a sign of an imminent resurrection of the spirit of French resistance. In the current international and national context, this dimension is not insignificant. France, like the rest of the world, is entering into a period of uncertainties and grave risks. To be conscious of that and to prepare for it is not nothing. (...)

The Religion Du Jour

The meeting between the Dalai Lama and Carla Bruni-Sarkozy, Rama Yade and Bernard Kouchner (Friday of last week) has aroused anger of both Left and Right. The left-leaning Libération reports the words of Faouzi Lamdaoui, Socialist Party spokesman:

"I denounce the laughable communications operation surrounding Carla Bruni-Sarkozy (...) The staging of this meeting marks a serious slide into the Hollywood-ization of political life, and an unfortunate mixing together of private and public spheres. Mme Carla Bruni-Sarkozy certainly has a beautiful voice but it isn't the voice of France. Above all, it is intolerable to see ministers of State relegated to the background like bit players. Bernard Kouchner and Rama Yade are not appearing in the dignity of their functions", protested Lamdaoui. (...) "French diplomacy emerges weakened from the deplorable way in which the Chinese issue was managed by the government," he concludes.

And Le Salon Beige reports a comment from the Catholic website Homme Nouveau:

"Several photos in our papers are showing, for example, Rama Yade, Carla Bruni or Bernard Kouchner with their hands in prayer position like the Dalai Lama on the occasion of the inauguration of the largest Buddhist temple in Europe. What would be the reaction of our papers if our ministers of State were to attend the inauguration of a cathedral, make the sign of the cross, and kneel during the consecration? A simple question."

Note: LSB readers, however, point out that Sarkozy and several ministers did make the sign of the cross during the ceremonies for the French soldiers killed in Afghanistan. One reader pointed out that he noticed François Hollande, the former head of the Socialist Party and ex of Ségolène Royal, laughing so hard his face turned turned red.

I did not see the ceremonies, so I cannot verify his comment, but it calls to mind the day of the so-called demonstration in memory of Ilan Halimi, when the socialists and all the left-wing groups seized control of what was supposed to be a solemn commemoration. Someone snapped a photo of three prominent socialists laughing: Mayor of Paris Bertrand Delanoë, former Prime Minister Lionel Jospin, and François Hollande. No one ever knew what they were laughing at, and it isn't entirely fair to judge them without knowledge, but maybe Hollande makes a habit of it?

Finally, Ségolène Royal was seen smiling ecstatically at the side of the Dalai Lama, and sporting the khata, the white scarf offered by Tibetan monks as a sign of welcome. Apparently she was thrilled to be photographed in this way, although earlier in the year she had become furious over another incident. LSB reported on May 13:

Ségolène Royal has decided to sue Paris Match. On grounds that the weekly published a photo of her kneeling and praying in a church in Italy. No question that this is much more scandalous than if Paris Match had published a photo of the madonna of the Socialist Party partying in a transvestite club.

At any rate, we hope that it isn't because of this photo that (former Prime Minister) Michel Rocard declared: "I don't think Ségolène Royal can be first secretary of the Socialist Party."

Note: The khata, though a sign of welcome, is considered a religious symbol and is distributed during the ceremonies in the temple.

Why the Irish Rejected the Treaty

Here's a post from the Irish Times that gives ample excerpts from an address by Cardinal Seán Brady in which he explains why the Irish people rejected the Lisbon Treaty and why he feels the EU should be more tolerant of the Christian faith:

The “loss of Christian memory” and the undermining of traditional values by the institutions of the EU has made it difficult for Christians to maintain their “instinctive commitment” to Europe and may have been a factor in the rejection of the Lisbon Treaty, Cardinal Seán Brady said today. (...)

He said he did not know whether the Irish electorate would reject a second vote on Lisbon but said he was raising the issues to have them debated a "cooler, calmer atmosphere" and he hoped that people would recognise the advantages, but also note the reservations, in the future debate on the matter. (...)

Read more.

64 Years Later

Le Salon Beige notes with irony the sudden interest shown by Nicolas Sarkozy in a massacre that took place 64 years ago in the French city of Maillé, when 124 men, women and children were killed by German soldiers, on August 25, 1944, the day of the Liberation of Paris. LSB writers feel that Sarkozy needed an occasion to justify his involvement in Afghanistan. But it seems to me he was also fulfilling a long overdue debt to the residents, even if he had ulterior motives. Google reports:

(...) It was the first time that a French President responded to the invitation of the villagers to commemorate with them the terrible event. "I had written to the presidential candidates, then I wrote again to the president after his election," said Mayor Bernard Eliaume, pleased with the outcome.

Hundreds of people gathered on the village square, in the presence of the German Ambassador to France, Reinhard Schafers. The atmosphere was laden as the bell tolled for the dead, followed by a minute of silence and the Marseillaise, before a serious reverential president.

Seated in the front row were the survivors, whose family members and friends were massacred, shot at close range or knifed.

"When they burned our house, with my parents, we jumped out the window. Lying on our stomachs in the fields, we heard them shoot everything that moved, men and animals," recalled a sobbing Charlette Bernard who was 14 at the time. "I think about it every day. We don't live like other people," whispered Serge Martin who, at the age of 10, lost his whole family.

They all listened as the president denounced "the murderous madness" that led to "one of the most terrible tragedies of the Second World War" in France, two and a half months after another massacre at Oradour-sur-Glane.

"By ignoring for such a long time the tragedy of Maillé, by remaining indifferent to the pain of the survivors, by allowing the memory of the victims to vanish, France committed a moral error. It is this error that I have come to recognize and correct today, in the name of the whole Nation," he proclaimed.

If we measure what happened here, "we can better understand what civilization means and why it is necessary to defend it when it is faced with the most total barbarity," said the president, bringing up "the sacrifice" last Monday in Afghanistan "of ten of our young soldiers in battle with medieval barbarians, with terrorists." (...)

"Our children will know what misfortunes the eternal European civil war has created through the centuries before Europe decides to unite so that it never happens again. This is why I am so attached to the European ideal."

The article goes on to say that despite a book written about the event by the village priest in 1945, most Frenchmen had never heard about it. It was the Germans who opened an inquiry. Last July the attorney general of Dortmund, Ulrich Maass came to the village and plans to return there in November.

"I have lived in Tours for 30 years", about 18 miles from Maillé, "and it's the first I've heard of the massacre", confides a 50-year-old man visibly shocked. "The presence of Nicolas Sarkozy here, is a recognition."

Le Salon Beige readers take issue with many of Sarkozy's remarks, notably his frequent association of "barbarity" with the Middle Ages. They also point to other massacres more devastating than this one. (But they are not always convincing. Yes there were worse massacres, but this is a village in France. For the villagers it was the worst thing they ever saw.)

At Gaelle Mann's blog she goes even further accusing him of sullying France and exploiting the victims of Maillé on behalf of Afghanistan. And she pities the villagers of Maillé who don't realize they have been used.

In the final analysis I don't know what to say. Sarkozy certainly took advantage of the situation to plug Europe and defend his military decisions, but isn't it better that he went to Maillé? Why did the French government constantly refuse to go there? Are there some facts we don't know?

Words, Words, Words...

There is still so much discussion about Afghanistan at the French websites, it's hard to know what to choose as a post. At Yves Daoudal's blog I found this short excerpt from an interview between Nicolas Sarkozy and television journalist Arlette Chabot from April 2007, before the second round of the presidential election:

A.C. - Do you think that French troops still have a role in Afghanistan, or is it time to prepare for an eventual departure?

N.S. - It was certainly useful to send them, insofar as there was a fight against terrorism. But a long term presence of French troops in this part of the world does not appear to me to be decisive.

A.C. - Even if, say, a presence is needed to prevent the Taliban from returning to power?

N.S. - I have given you my answer. There was a given moment when, to help the government of Mr. Karzai, it was necessary to make certain choices. Moreover, the President of the Republic (Chirac) made the decision to bring home our special forces and a certain number of units. I will continue that policy. And at any rate if you look at world history, no foreign army has succeeded in a country that was not its own. Not one... Not even China over Vietnam, the Japanese... Not one, at no time, in no place. (...)

Apparently he changed his mind.

False Rupture, False Reforms

A long article in Le Monde by Jean Peyrelevade, former CEO of Crédit Lyonnais and one-time adviser to socialist Prime Minister Pierre Mauroy in 1983, offers an interesting assessment of the flaws in Nicolas Sarkozy's economic policies, flaws that may derive from the personality of the man himself. The article is quite long and I'm extracting only those remarks relevant to Sarkozy's style, omitting the actual economics.

The author begins by relating a dinner he attended in 2006 at the home of Michel Rocard, another former socialist prime minister, where the guest of honor was the late Raymond Barre, economist and former prime minister of the center-right under Valéry Giscard d'Estaing:

(...) We moved on quite naturally to current politics. We felt disillusioned, concerned about the health of the nation and the incapacity of political leaders to resist the temptation of demagoguery. No recovery would be possible without a language of truth which very few seem to have the courage to employ. I interrupted him briefly: "But frankly, Monsieur, for how long will France continue to sink before reacting?" His voice went lower and lower, syllable by syllable, from the highest tone to the gravest, with a sort of rest on the final vowel: "Monsieur Peyrelevade, five more years." The table burst out laughing.

Note: Even though the dinner took place in 2006, before Sarkozy's election, Barre was predicting an economic quagmire. It isn't clear if he knew Sarkozy would win or if it didn't matter who won, the outcome would be the same. Five years represents one presidential term.

I couldn't help asking what event would finally trigger the awakening he so desired, after a long period of government mediocrities: "The French will wake up," he answered seriously, "when they can observe that their purchasing power has diminished." I admit that I didn't completely understand, at the time, the meaning of this statement. After a few months of the Sarkozy presidency, I admire his prescience. Did the French think they had elected a reformer? They chose an agitator of ideas who hides the immobility of demagoguery and Chiraquian laxness under a rhetoric of rupture and a pulsating multiplicity of activities. I just hope that the people will become conscious of this before their purchasing power really diminishes. Or am I being too optimistic? Was Raymond Barre right after all?

This man (Nicolas Sarkozy), acting in a sort of perpetual state of emergency, compresses time, above all the time needed to make an effort. Engulfed by immediate concerns, espousing every cause in his playing field in a sort of permanent vibration, he tries to convince the French that every reform will instantly bring them some advantage: the economy, in his words, cannot be "sacrificial". Any reshuffling of policies must immediately be, he says, a "win-win" situation.

It's a curious convergence of rhetoric with that of Ségolène Royal. For a long time the Left was incapable of changing profoundly the country because it strongly believed in the existence of a hidden treasure (the wall of money, the two hundred families, profits from financial speculation, from monopolies, capital gains...) the uncovering and distribution of which would suddenly improve everyone's fate, with no other effort being required (thus relieving the Socialists of any obligation to think further, and leading them so often to failure).

Here we have a more sophisticated, hence more pernicious version of the demagogic illusion: it is enough to move around the pieces, to change the combinations, of the simple elements that constitute an economy, for each person to receive some benefit from these changes, without delay and without sacrifice. A terrible diagnostic error that prevents us from escaping easy solutions. As if the recovery of a profoundly imbalanced economy were possible other than with time, other than through the return to rigor in the management of public affairs, other than through an explicit renunciation of the dubious pleasure of living beyond one's means.

The president was elected because he claimed he had the ability to solve problems that he accused his predecessors of having created through their immobility, their lack of courage, their inability to act! Endowed with a great gift for action, unhappily, he uses it wrongly. His supporters praise him for putting France into motion. However, in his desire to symbolize change, he is unfailingly prolonging the errors of the past. He makes thousands of gestures without leaving for one second the corridor where his error in judgment has enclosed him. A hero of peripheral reforms, he fails on the one most critical: that of reestablishing the competitiveness of our productive apparatus. Far from resolving our problems, he will aggravate them. Far from strengthening the little potential growth we have left, he will snuff it out. Far from increasing our buying power, he is leading us to stagnation of our standard of living. In this sense his error is historic as his election by a duped people will be sadly historic. In this sense, as a symbol of false rupture, false reform, he is an illusion ("leurre"), the last illusion, I hope, before the recovery of France at long last can begin. (...)

The article then goes into a more detailed analysis of the French economy, and what needs to be done to achieve recovery. One interesting point he makes is that by adopting the euro, by renouncing the national currency and the sovereign management of its finances, France can shield herself from the truth about her economy, and nourish the illusion that external pressures to reform have disappeared.

The Games End

The Olympics are over, but the American political Olympics begin tomorrow, and I suppose that despite my better judgment I will look in on the proceedings in Denver. Unlike the sports event, in this year's American presidential election it won't be the best who win but the worst. Leave it to us to reverse the values we claim we live by.

As of now, I am not voting in the election. It is hard to imagine, especially in view of everything we have been through these last eight years, in spite of all the knowledge disseminated on the Internet, that our country cannot come up two valid candidates.

A few last comments about the Games. The Chinese won 51 gold medals, while we won only 36. But we won the most overall medals (110 vs China's 100). Le Monde did not report accurately when it said that China had beat the US in the medal count, careful to omit the gold part: "For the first time, China was raised to the top position in the medal count, relegating the United States to second place," dixit Le Monde. For its part the IHT praised the organization of the Games, the spectacular appearance of the structures, the immense interest the Chinese people showed in every aspect of their duties as hosts. However it noted, "Aside from one disturbed man killing an American visitor at random, there was little violence at these Games..." That unfortunate man now becomes barely a statistic amidst the razzle-dazzle and the hoopla. And how do they know it was a random attack, since the "disturbed" killer killed himself? Out of all the people in China that day he picked a foreigner, a Westerner as his target. My thoughts still turn to the man's family and his wife who was severely injured. The team he was connected to - indoor men's volleyball - through his son-in-law Hugh McCutcheon who was the team's coach, won the gold despite the murder, possibly spurred on to overcome the trauma.

One female German fencer, Imke Duplitzer, was very critical of the Chinese government: "These Games have no flavor, there are two worlds, the Olympic world, impeccable, but far from there, there is another world we don't see."

China's teams were outstanding, but besides the issue of the age of little girls with no breasts, they cheated in girl's gymnastics when two Americans Nastia Liukin and Shawn Johnson were accorded silver medals instead of the gold they deserved. Shawn lost to a girl who fell, Nastia to a girl who made multiple visible errors. It was an obvious rip-off according to the analysts Bela Karoli and Bob Costas. While there were no Chinese judges for this event, it was clearly a gift to China.

The French did very well, winning 40 medals overall, 7 of them gold. Their gold was in cycling (BMX), cycling (mountain bike), fencing (both épée and sabre), handball, swimming, and greco-roman wrestling.

The NYT has the story of a French fencing coach, Christian Bauer, who trained Man Zhong of China, leading him to a gold medal win over Frenchman Nicolas Lopez who had to settle for silver. Asked if he will be considered a deserter to the French fencing cause, Bauer's reply was a stern "No comment."

I think this sort of thing is very common at the Olympics, though. There was also a Chinese ex-pat coaching our gymnastics team.

If you saw the ear-splitting, mind-boggling closing ceremonies, a pagan circus of colossal proportions, you probably saw too the very multi-culti presentation by the British, in anticipation of the 2012 Games. The youngsters who sang "God Save the Queen" were full of enthusiasm, but it ain't your grandfather's Britain (or even your father's, depending on your age).

Why Are They in Afghanistan?

There's a great deal of commentary about Afghanistan, and the pros and cons of France's involvement. One issue that keeps cropping up is the inadequacy of the French army, especially since a few weeks ago Nicolas Sarkozy announced serious cutbacks in military spending, the closing of bases and a reduction in the number of soldiers in the active army. Now he has to face the consequences of a reduced military engaged in a real war with a very well-equipped enemy.

This interview with Jean-Marc Balencie, former analyst with the General Office of National Defense (Secrétariat général de la défense nationale), and currently a consultant on questions of security, appeared in Le Figaro on August 19:

- Will the murderous ambush on Monday raise questions about France's commitment in Afghanistan?

From the way it appears, no, not after this first battle. The problem is that, at the beginning of the engagement, the French forces had to face serious losses. If it turns out that new murderous ambushes were to take place in the months to come, which is probable, we can foresee that part of public opinion, already hesitant on the French presence, will become more and more critical. In the long run, that could weigh heavily on the government's decisions. But for now, the declarations of President Sarkozy are firm. We are not withdrawing from Afghanistan.

- Why do you think more battles will take place?

These serious losses were unfortunately expected. We have been witnessing, since early spring, a deterioration of the situation. Besides the intensification of the Taliban's actions, we have noticed a change in the scale, an significant improvement in their operational capacity. The spectacular ambush against French troops takes us back to another attack, just as spectacular, in July, against an isolated post held by the American army, that caused 9 deaths and left 15 wounded from among the American parachutists. The Taliban are capable of engaging several dozen combatants with operational procedures that are quite advanced. These are fundamental to any insurrection that functions well.

- Is the Taliban winning the war?

It's much too soon to say. The most likely scenario is that of a quagmire, punctuated every month approximately, by a serious incident, with important losses. The question is to find out how this improvement in the Taliban's operational capacities is possible. Some analysts see in this the work of Pakistani secret services, in the context of a strategy to destabilize Afghanistan.

- Must NATO change strategy?

The crux of the Afghan equation is that we are in a real war, but we're no doubt using bad solutions. One of the most important aspects is the air strikes - they cause mishaps to the civilian population and the Taliban retaliates. Moreover, it would be more accurate today to speak of the insurrection of a part of the Pashtun population that contains the Taliban, but also war lords, drug traffickers and a population no longer willing to put up with a Western presence.

The Cercle National des Combattants (National Circle of Combatants) presided over by Roger Holeindre, is a branch of the Front National. They issued this communiqué:

France has just lost, in Afghanistan, a great number of soldiers from among the best who, we are sure, did their duty to the end. The Cercle National des Combattants which is behind its army, that it admires and supports, would like nonetheless to ask the following question. If a soldier can give his life for his country, it must be justified by the higher interests of that country.

What then are the interests of France in Afghanistan?

For the first time in a long time, in a foreign conflict, one of our elite units is facing a real war. It would be nice for the politicians in power to draw a lesson from this event and stop the drastic reductions in the number of soldiers...

Real war kills... It's a lesson we must never forget.

Similar sentiments from the MNR, Bruno Mégret's party, that asks:

Do our soldiers have at their disposal the best available means, which they have every right to expect, especially in the fields of intelligence and support, to accomplish the mission that is given to them and that they accomplish at the risk of their lives?

The photo shows the ten coffins of the soldiers killed in the ambush at Les Invalides.

An Essential Educational Issue

Many websites have commented on the latest educational goals of Minister of Education Xavier Darcos, goals that should not really surprise anyone, yet, every time I read such things I am shocked despite myself.

Here is Yves Daoudal's report. I especially like the last line.

"Within the framework of our role as educators, the fight against homophobia is in my opinion an essential issue," declared Xavier Darcos in the September edition of the gay magazine Têtu.

The Minister of "Education" points out that in his back-to-school circular he included an explicit mention of "homophobia" among the discriminations to be fought.

The intention is to launch a hunt for "homophobics" in the high-schools: the principals are "encouraged" to "keep us well-informed", so that we may have a "precise idea of the magnitude of incidents" of a homophobic nature, he said.

And he stresses that in September a publicity campaign will be launched in all high-schools for the purpose of disseminating information about the Azure Line ("Ligne Azur"), created to respond to "questions about sexual identity", in other words, to spread homosexual propaganda to adolescents who might resort to it for help.

Note: He is saying that if a teen has questions he can turn to the Azure Line for a solution. The Azure Line is a phone service that dispenses information about sexuality. For those of you who aren't sure what sex you belong to, call 0810 20 30 40 and wonder no more. (We have similar hot lines in America.)

The Azure Line is needed, says the minister, because "there is no guarantee that all our teachers and all our supervisors will be able to give useful information."

Indeed. They aren't all homosexuals, and some are even suspected of being secretly homophobic. Hence the call for denunciation, and we can assume that this targets teachers as well as pupils.

Asked why similar measures are not being used in the middle schools, Xavier Darcos replied that it was "a little difficult" since they are "younger children."

But they will be taken care of also: "The solution requires a person they can consult (...) the school nurses do a good job. We must put our trust in them, rather than on standardized prescriptives ("obligation normative"). Not everybody knows how to speak directly to a child of 13 about the awakening of sexuality, or the sexual choices that he has."

Sic.

There are days when one could say that with Ségolène things would have been less bad.

On this page of the Azure Line website there is a link to the Ministry of Education's document in PDF format entitled "Homophobie savoir et réagir" (Homophobia: be informed and react). French readers may be interested in reading it. Unfortunately, I do not have the software required to edit or modify PDF documents, otherwise I would print the cartoon on page 4 that shows a schoolyard full of terrified children. Two little boys one white, one black (or brown) are holding hands while three thugs denounce them as "pédés". I am interested in your reaction to the three thugs. Am I paranoid, or do I perceive a hidden message in their clothing? You may have to enlarge the cartoon. If anyone is able to print the cartoon separately, send it to me.

Mission Impossible

Ten French soldiers were killed in an ambush in Afghanistan. Nicolas Sarkozy, Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner and Defense Minister Hervé Morin arrived on Wednesday morning in Kabul where they stood before the coffins of the ten parachutists. It was the worst attack on the French Army since 1983 when the barracks known as Drakkar in Beirut, Lebanon was blown up, killing 58.

There will no doubt be much to say about this devastating loss for the French. Here are some impressions from Catholic writer and activist Bernard Antony:

I've learned with great sadness of the deaths of 10 parachutists from the 8th Regiment of Marine Parachutists, the Regiment from my hometown of Castres, where I have many friends of all ranks. Less than a month ago, I expressed in the weekly Journal d'Ici my opposition to our commitment in a conflict that Nicolas Sarkozy insisted was not a war. I was worried about the inadequate equipment of our soldiers, but above all I called their mission impossible, cut off from any political strategy.

It is inadmissible to make our soldiers assistants to the American Army, when on all accounts, the policies of the United States in the Middle East, from the abandonment of the Shah of Iran (by Jimmy Carter) to the war in Iraq have been nothing but a succession of terrible mistakes that can truly be qualified as criminal, with irreversible consequences that have encouraged everywhere the strengthening of Islamism.

French interests, the interest of the countries of Europe, beyond the politics of the European Union, should be first to stop the Islamist gangrene and to conduct policies which are as independent of Washington as they are of Moscow.

Unfortunately, his assessment of recent American politics is accurate. And things here will only worsen after the election, no matter who enters the White House.

Shunning the Dalai Lama

The Dalai Lama has been in France since August 11, but so far no government official, least of all Sarkozy, has met with him, for fear of ruffling some Chinese feathers. After much waffling it appears now that Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner and his secretary of State for Human Rights Rama Yade will meet the Buddhist leader on Friday, the eve of his departure from France. Here are highlights from a longer article at Marianne2:

Kouchner and Mme Yade will hold talks, together or separately, with the spiritual and temporal leader of Tibetan Buddhism on August 22, on the occasion of the inauguration of a temple near Lodève (Hérault). Until Monday no meeting between the Dalai Lama and a government official had been announced, to the scorn of the socialists who accused the government of acting like a "doormat" to please China during the Olympic Games. (...)

At least publicly, the Nobel Peace Prize winner who is ordinarily greeted by heads of State seemed willing to get on with this minimal reception. "What kind of support can the government give? I don't know. I feel that popular support is more important," he declared Monday in Nantes, where he taught a series of seminars, attracting thousands of persons. It was here that he met Ségolène Royal who said she would like to journey to Tibet, and the socialist deputy Mayor Jean-Marc Ayrault.

After explaining he had a heavy schedule - the Georgian crisis and his upcoming trip to the Middle East - Foreign Minister Kouchner finally announced on Monday night that he would meet the Dalai Lama, in the company of Carla Bruni-Sarkozy. Rama Yade, in turn, announced she would express to him her solidarity with his "courageous struggle", noting that the president had given the green light to the meeting. (...)

Note: It isn't clear at this time if the Dalai Lama will receive a free CD from Carla.

For the moment Sarkozy appeared eager to erase the "misunderstandings" with Beijing and to calm the emotions after months of tensions resulting primarily from demonstrations in Paris when the Olympic torch arrived.

The Socialist Party denounced the "waltz of hesitation" around the Dalai Lama and declared that Elysée is conducting a "foreign policy without a compass."

For some Catholics, the visit of the Dalai Lama to Paris illustrates once again that laïcité applies only to Catholicism. Writer Jeanne Smits is quoted by Le Salon Beige:

(...) media coverage of the visit of the Dalai Lama to France almost leads one to believe that today religiosity is a hot item. The public is enraptured by this "spiritual leader" who is also a temporal leader. (...) Where is the usual mockery of religious authorities, when they are Catholic of course, and when they remind us to remember the truths of the Faith or the demands of natural law?

Here is a man that any respectable believer in laïcité should be taunting for his outdated garments, his perpetual smile, his smooth speech (...) What did he say? Hundreds of persons came to hear his words, but it appears that there was nothing substantial to be drawn from them. The Dalai Lama spoke - not surprisingly - of tolerance, of harmony between religions, of altruism, of man's suffering. A religious lesson that reflects this religion with no God and no dogma.

That's probably it. That explains the infatuation for this man who leaves each one to his own conscience: what could be better for a world that has forgotten God than a spirituality of emptiness?

The French Plan

Here's a great cartoon posted at Marianne2. It shows Sarkozy between Russia and Georgia, explaining his peace plan: Each side will stop hostilities, retract its positions, and receive an autographed CD from Carla.

The Strength of Islam

This is an interview conducted by the Catholic website La Nef (The Nave) with Jean-Pierre Péroncel-Hugoz, a publisher based in Morocco since 1996, a star reporter for Le Monde from 1969 to 2004, and the author of numerous essays.

- In your opinion is Islam intrinsically bad and dangerous? Is it totalitarian?

First I must know if you are speaking in theological terms or in social and political terms... At any rate, in either case, the question is out of date, unless an unlikely Reconquista comes along to stop the demographic and religious expansion of Islam, which is already well underway in Europe... And furthermore, why not expand, since on the one hand, the right to conquest (for which only Christians or ex-Christians feel guilty) has been from the dawn of time the universal motor of History; on the other hand, numerous are the Europeans who out of a desire to be in vogue, or bleeding-heart humanitarianism, or blindness, are ideologically and physically facilitating the Islamization of their continent - with the notable exception, however, of the Slavs. Like any great religion-civilization, Islam is of course total, or totalitarian if you will, and part of its strength derives precisely from the fact that it suffers no pangs of conscience whatsoever, quite the contrary.

- Has Islam replaced Communism as a major danger for Europe?

The famous "Communist eternity" turned out to be temporary after all, while the "Islamic eternity" runs the risk of being durable - but I refuse nonetheless to lump together in the same basket the Marxist system, which is integrally negative since it functions without God, without humanity, without the art of living and without economic success, and Islam, which, it is true, is rising at our expense and may reduce us to the sad fate of dhimmis, but at least knows God, Art, Poetry, etc...

- Can we live side by side peacefully with Islam? Can we conduct a dialogue with Islam?

If we survive the Islamization of Europe, we will be second-class citizens, with fewer political and personal rights than the Muslims; we will be like the Copts of Egypt or the Chaldeans of Mesopotamia, at the mercy of the good or bad will of the authorities of the Islamic people. On that score, there can be no doubt: never, nowhere, has a dominant Islam treated local Christians as equals. As far as a dialogue is concerned, it is necessary for the technical and material sides of coexistence, but spiritually it would be useless, as the so-called modern "Islamo-Christian dialogue" that has been going on for for half a century has shown. It has become a veritable dialogue between two deaf parties, where the Catholics smile and say "cheese" to look good in the eyes of the Mohammedans, who in turn laugh under their burnous, and are quite right to do so...

H/T: Islamisation

"Europe Was There"

Nicolas Sarkozy has written an article, published at Le Figaro, in which he reviews and defends France's role in the negotiations to end the conflict in Georgia, re-iterates the need to apply the terms of the cease-fire, and praises Europe for taking its responsibilities. He also uses the occasion to reprimand those opposed to the Treaty of Lisbon:

(...) But there is already a lesson that can be drawn from this crisis: the European Union was there. Europe placed itself on the front line as soon as hostilities began to resolve this new conflict on European soil, the third since the fall of the Berlin Wall, after the former Yugoslavia at the beginning of the 1990's and Kosovo, at the end of the decade. In this first phase of solving the current crisis, the commitment of Europe was decisive: it was the EU, through France, that opened a window for diplomacy by quickly proposing reasonable terms for a cease-fire, making the political cost for any continuation of the war exorbitant. If our efforts produced the first results, it was because Europe, despite some differences in tone, did not confine itself to condemnation. By preferring action and negotiations to the litany of denunciation, Europe was able to re-establish a positive relationship of strength with Russia and to make itself heard. When the house is burning the main thing is to put out the fire. Europe thus proved that it could do a great deal when it was motivated by a strong political will.

Note: His words are both true and ironic. He doesn't realize that if the nations of Europe really had a strong political will, there wouldn't be an EU, at least not the bureaucratic behemoth they have today.

A second lesson needs to be pointed out: if the Treaty of Lisbon, which is in the process of being ratified, were already in effect, the European Union would have been endowed with the institutions it needed to face an international crisis: a stable president of the European Council acting in concert with those heads of State most concerned: a high representative in possession of veritable diplomatic powers and financial means to ensure, in cooperation with the member States, the implementation of any decisions. (...)

Another slap at Ireland?

An Army of Workers

Open Europe, based in the UK, defines itself as an "independent think tank calling for radical reform of the EU." It has released a long report on the number of people working for the EU:

A study released by Open Europe today finds that the EU now employs an "army" of bureaucrats.

- 170,000 people now work for the EU institutions. As well as those who work for the EU directly, the study finds that there are many more officials working for the EU indirectly. For example: working for the EU agencies; working for the EU overseas; sitting on EU policy committees; or working in the member states' representations to the EU. In total there are far more people working for the EU (170,000) than in the UK army (107,000).

- The Commission claims that the EU's bureaucratic employees are "fewer than the number of staff employed by a typical medium-sized city council in Europe." But when the full picture is revealed, in fact, the EU employs the equivalent of the entire population of a medium-sized European city. Swansea, for instance, has roughly the same number of inhabitants as the EU employs.

- In fact, the study finds that the EU now employs more people than the combined total of staff working for the Treasury (1,451), the Home Office (25,299), the Department for Work and Pensions (107,998), the Department for Health (3,467), the Foreign Office (16,169), the Department for International Development (1,612), the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills (809), and the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (7,854).

Open Europe analyst Nick Cosgrove said:

"The Commission desperately tries to play down just how many people are now working for the EU. They are extremely secretive about the number of people who are working to churn out regulations."

"These people are not elected, and cannot be held accountable by ordinary citizens. But they have a huge effect on our lives, affecting everything from the price of electricity and food to the way we run the NHS."

"The huge number of people now working for the EU reflects its huge influence. The difficulty of finding out how many officials are working there reflects the EU's wider problem with a lack of transparency. It is a complicated and opaque institution, which leaves it wide open to influence from lobbyists and vested interests." (...)

- Finding out how many people work for the EU is not straightforward. Figures cited by the European Commission and the pro-euro press are misleading, as they refer only to civil servants working in the Commission, neglecting to acknowledge the thousands of other officials who work in other institutions, agencies and committees to help make the EU function.

- On its website, the Commission suggests that the number of people required to run the EU is 32,000 - the number of people working in the Commission. Some of its publications, including "How the European Union works - your guide to the EU institutions", even claim the number of "European civil servants" is 23,000.

- A further dig into the Commission's figures - which are not readily accessible on the website - shows that its official calculation of the number of staff working for the EU as a whole is actually 43,564.

- But research by Open Europe shows that even this is a huge understatement. The actual number of individuals required to run the EU is in fact closer to 170,000 - more than 7 times the 23,000 figure sometimes cited by the Commission. (...)

- While it is the biggest employer, the Commission is only one of many EU institutions. Other major institutions include: the European Parliament, the European Council and the Court of Justice, which are all integral to the functioning of the EU. According to the EU's 2008 General Budget these three bodies alone employ an additional 13,988 people.

- On top of this, the other institutions, including the Court of Auditors, the European Economic and Social Committee, the Committee of the Regions, the European Ombudsman the European Data Protection Supervisor, the European Central Bank and the European Investment Group and the European Administration School, employ an additional 5,100 people.

- Taken as a whole, the EU institutions employ some 53,423 people as core staff.

- However, on top of these, the EU also employs thousands of other bureaucrats. In fact, the core institutions represent less than a third of all EU bureaucrats, since most of the EU's work takes place elsewhere: policies are drawn up and co-ordinated by committees whose memberships until recently remained secret, while much of the EU's executive power depends on devolved agencies and bureaucracies. It is in these unaccountable, unpublicised and, for many Europeans, unheard of groups that the bulk of the EU bureaucracy can be found. (...)

- The legislative process of the EU is an extremely complex and opaque system, making it very difficult to identify how many people are actually involved in formulating, implementing and overseeing legislation.

H/T: François Desouche