More seriously, the question isn’t whether Italy is closer to Russia or Norway, it’s which direction it’s going in.

One can surely talk about flaws in Norwegian democracy, but if you’re not willing to agree that Norway is a democracy without adding a qualifier, you’re not on the side of the angels.

In the case of Russia, if you’d object to a qualifier, you’re not on the side of angels.

Italy, less clearcut, but I’d add a a qualifier. “Berlusconi mostly controls television, and he’s not fully committed to the rule of law.”

But I don’t want to sound too shrill, I think Italy is defititely closer to Norway than Russia.

Most of us would. The thing is, I am conjecturing that the two may be interconnected, ie that a severe financial crisis that saw a lot of people losing their life savings might produce a situation where many people may not be pre-occupied about the nicetees of democracy.

But lets do a little test. If we say, following the rating agencies, that Germany say has a AAA democratic rating. And that 11 of the old EU 12 shared this. Where would we put Italy? AAA-,
AAB, ABB or where? Just how serious are the deficiencies on your view?

And what would we give Greece and Spain AAA-?

And what about the 10 new accession members ABB?

Or Turkey BBB?

And Iraq CCC?

Russia BCC or BBC?

Ukraine BBB?

Argentina BBB?

Chile ABB?

China BBC?

And then, aha, what about the US. Do you still give them an AAA rating?

Interesting test this one I think. It tells us something about ourselves as well as about the countries in question.

I’m very glad to hear that, the subject probably calls for blog posts rather than a stray comments.

I wonder if you use Lisbon as a shorthand for “vital needed reform according to Edward”, encompassing more than the actual lisbon agenda, which would invite confusion.

Oh, of course, and I welcome that: the arrival of the new developing countries I mean. But I still think Europe has something to offer the world. something that won’t be there if we break up into squabbling go-it-alone nations (neo-protectionism) or go into permanent economic stagnation (the danger signals are already there in Germany and Italy). Just look how Japanese influnece has waned in Asia after 15 lean years. I will try and define a bit better what I mean about Lisbon in another post.

“it’s not the kind of stuff that by themselves will bring about - or heed off - revolutionary change.”

Yep, but maybe what we are most in need of David is a quiet revolution, not a noisy one.

A very strange turn of phrase. If developing nations catch up to us, the relative importance of Europe will inevitably decline, regardless of our economic policies. That shouldn’t be seen as a threat, indeed it’s highly desirable, and casting the discussion in term of survival would be ill-advised.

But I’m not sure that’s what you meant. I can’t tell at all what you mean.

Also: the suggestions that is the lisbon agenda, is somewhat ambitious, but it’s not the kind of stuff that by themselves will bring about - or heed off - revolutionary change.

“your support to prodi would be much less conditional”.

No. My support for Prodi is not conditional on anything about Berlusconi, it is conditioned by my appreciation of Prodi himself and his coalition, and on how likely I think they are (or aren’t) to really get to grips with the problems.

Here comes the paste:

“Of course there are many who hate Berlusconi”

On the hating Berlusconi thing, I certainly don’t hate him (I’m not sure I hate anybody actually, I think these kind of emotional responses only make bad problems worse).I do, however, hold him directly responsible for the fact that Italy’s already serious problems have now reached crisis proportions.

Basically I would sign the open letter the Economist wrote to him in 2003:

http://www.berluscastop.it/__artic/econ_eng.htm

and would very much go along with their “Fit To Run Italy” piece:

http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=593654

Which means I logically have to endorse the CdS editorial. There are only two real possibilities, and one of them has already ruled himself out.

>Bias, what bias? I genuinely don’t
>understand what you are referring to. Do you
>mean that I am biased because I give
>conditional support to Prodi?
no, i mean that if you had listened to more reports about those dozens of terrible italian laws passed by berlusconi’s majority (most of them being laws only conceived with the purpose of saving berlusconi, or his brother, or his lawyers, or his friends, or his company, or… from harm) your support to prodi would be much less conditional.

Look, I think the difficulty I’m having with this argument Alex, and that which David was putting earlier, is that it really does ignore the EU anchor type argument. Belonging to the EU and staying in the euro really do place institutional limits on what can and can’t happen in Italy (or Poland).

Now I am arguing that at some stage Italy may be forced to exit the euro. At this point virtually anything can happen. But we may not get to this point. That is why there is a political argument about what to do now, and that is the argument about the next legislature. If none of that works then we may get to your point, but only then. At the risk of repeating myself I’d be worried about what a future Berlusconi government might do if Prodi was forced out by popular pressure in the streets following a financial debacle. But this is just idle speculation at this stage, and it isn’t, I repeat isn’t, what Eco is referring to.