The ever fragrant Margot blogs again. You do have to admire her fortitude in the face of the rebellious, near blasphemous, barracking she is getting from us private sector oiks. Then again, her ideas on certain matters make that sort of jeering almost inevitable, things like economics, innovation, promotion of…

The discussion on the revised “Lisbon Strategy“ in the European
Parliament went in all directions, partly because many of the Members
had not been given the time to read the Commission proposal (or to see
the action plan).

A quite remarkable demonstration of the way the Project works. The democratic bit of the monster has debates, votes even, on things which the unappointed executive will not let them see the basic source documents about. How very, erm, Continental, not just the practice, but the public acknowledgement of it. A recent similar experience in the UK Parliament (Mental Incapicity Bill I think?) will shortly end the Ministerial career of the buffoon who cocked it up (after a face saving delay of course).

But it became clear that the debate on the balance
between the three pillars of sustainable development will continue. At
a dinner the same night, I heard an example of the potential for Europe
if some of the ideas in the Lisbon Strategy were transformed into
concrete actions. “Let‘s create an “innovation pole“ on security,
covering everything from passenger safety or container security to
moneyhandling. A number of Swedish companies are already very advanced
on the technology side of it”, said people from Göteborg and Volvo. The
application of such technology involves for example technical devices
that aim to prevent drivers from falling asleep behind the steering
wheel. A sensor in the driver‘s seat monitors the breathing and eye
patterns of the driver. Amazing!

I begin to understand a little more of how we get what we do. Somewhere half way through the second case of wine someone mutters "Good l’il wine this, give fella’ shome money in the mornin’" and by Friday the Common Agricultural Policy is up and running.

This is what is truly amazing, that an adult woman, presumably possessed of a modicum of intellect (well, she’s managed to get married, have children, hold down a job, she can’t be completely stupid), seriously thinks that a bureaucratic reorganisation will ever have anything, whether positive or negative, to do with an innovative economy. Rather than create an "ïnnovation pole" (what precisely would this be?  Something like a maypole, where virgins prance about a phallic symbol? The Good Commissioner seems to have a similar grasp of the difference between theory and practice here.) she might want to just get out of the way.

What happens in an innovative economy is that someone invents a gadget then tries to sell it to people. If people like it then they will buy it. If they don’t then they won’t. No bureaucrats required.