There's nothing like frustrating the French

It's official - London won the 2012 Olympic bid. I was in a pub with the Roving Alcoholic. The place was packed. When they announced it, people went nuts. Jumping up and down, cheering, shouting, ordering more pints, and hugging each other. London wanted this bad and they're ecstatic now that they have it. Me, being somewhat of a detached observer, even if I do gleefully enjoy sticking it to the French, have undertaken a rudimentary task of pure speculation as to why Paris lost the bid. I think there are a variety of reasons:

1. The French were, shockingly, extremely arrogant about their chances of winning. They even went as far as to place placards and billboards around Paris that essentially said, "We've already won." That's never a good sign. Modesty is critical to winning the votes and the French never even came close to that. All the while, the London committee did what they were supposed to do. They sold London as a great site, generally refrained from criticizing other sites, and certainly never acted like it was a done deal.

2. Politics. The French have been on the receiving end of a series of abysmal failures. They lost the first vote on the EU Constitution, something that French President Chirac had staked his "reputation" on.

Then, they refused to even begin to negotiate over the Common Agricultural Policy (EU subsidies on farming) even going as far as to say that the "CAP is the future of the EU." I can't understate how significant that is. In terms of development, it's trade not aid that matter most. One of the primary, if not the primary reason why the world's developing countries can't get out of the poverty trap is because they never compete fairly against developed economies in agriculture. Agriculture is always the first rung on the ladder to development. Countries in Africa and Asia absolutely require sustainable agriculture industries if they hope to progress economically and without removal of first world subsidies, it's impossible. I'm sure that played a role in the vote as many of the voters are from less developed countries.

(Oversimplified primer on subsidies: Country A produces grain and sells it on the open market. Country B produces grain and sells it on the open market. Because country B can grow it cheaper due to low labor costs, country B has an advantage and reaps more profits. Country A, being from the developed world, doesn't like that, thus gives farmers in country A money to offset the costs of lowering prices so that their grain products are now suddenly competitive. A is EU/US, B is Ghana, et. al. End result: our tax dollars sustain uncompetitive agricultural industries at the expense of millions, if not billions, of lives in Africa and Asia.)

3. Poor statesmanship. Chirac is in the death throes of his presidency and has reverted to an old tactic. "Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel," or something like that, and Chirac is no exception. Earlier this week, he was caught on tape saying extremely derogatory things about British and Scottish food. Now, I'm not a huge fare of the cuisine here and I've been heard making similar comments, but I'm not a leader of an important nation either. The fact that Chirac would say those things is no surprise, but the fact that he would be caught on tape doing so to other foreign leaders is shocking. I imagine that the latest event further tarnished the French image which ultimately is important.

4. I believe Chirac's final statement to the voters says it all: "You can put your trust and faith in France, you can trust the French, you can trust us."

At any rate, good for London, good for England. At the least, it will subject the French to more of that fine British cuisine in 7 years.