Nothing to report Thursday 24 May 2012  Thousands of pieces will be written – most of them based on the same agency copy. Much has already been written. But the "summit", as the hacks insist on calling it, is not going to deliver anything substantive for public consumption. That much was acknowledged by Angela Merkel on her way into the meeting, when she said that no decisions were expected. Whatever is actually going to be decided is going to stay behind closed doors. All the rest is theatre. The same can also be said of the latest Farage escapade. According to a well-known political magazine, he has said he would be ready to consider approaches from eurosceptic Tories to run joint candidates in some constituencies in future elections. This is picked up by a Failygraph clogger who tells us that it's an opportunity and a pitfall for the Miliban. Actually, it isn't. Like Hollande's eurobonds, absolutely nothing is going to happen. And in Farage's case, it's another hardy perennial that he drags out of the political morgue every six months or so. The evening thus closed with an anodyne statement from the "summit". It turns out it isn't even a proper Council meeting, as such. It is an "informal dinner". "If we have a common understanding on the main elements of a growth agenda at the end of our dinner, we can move things forward so that we can take decisions in June", says President Van Rompuy. So, today, everything is the same as it was yesterday. There is nothing to report. COMMENT THREAD Richard North 24/05/2012 |
Beware of semi-sceptics Wednesday 23 May 2012  Everywhere you look, he observes, it seems the same observers who once railed against the thick "Europhobic" masses who dared to say "no" to the EU in referendums are now coming out as Europhobic themselves, or at least as disappointed with Brussels. Addressing this Johnny-Come-Lately tendency, O'Neill then suggests there are five problems with their new-found dislike of Brussels, not least of which is their profound misunderstanding of the nature of the EU. In this, we are told that the "semi-sceptical lobby" believes a handful of individuals around Brussels, led by the demonic Merkel, are forcing European nations to dance to their tune. In Greece, Merkel is depicted as a Hitlerian figure. Others rail against the troika (the EU, the IMF and the European Central Bank) which is enforcing bailout packages, believing it is holding all of Europe to ransom. Interesting though the article is, however, I would not confine it to the "new clique of infantile Brussels-bashers". The old-established clique is easily recognisable from the list of beliefs that O'Neill sets out, and causes just as many problems. Casting Merkel in a Hitlerian role, for instance, is but one of many similar ways that the established eurosceptics choose to project their antipathy to the EU. Most often , they will seek to project the entire European Union as a Hitlerian construct, frequently giving it the label "Fifth Reich", plating a swastika in the ring of stars. When they are not equating it with Fascism, Communism becomes a handy model, with references to EUSSR, the swastika being replaced by the hammer and sickle, in a tasteful shade of yellow to match the stars. And, if the EU wasn't set up by the Nazis or the Soviets, it was the Bilderbergers, the Trilaterals, the Fabians, or combinations of all of them. There may even be shape-shifting lizards in there somewhere. Invariably, though, Germany is cast in the role of the demon – either that or German leaders. And it is most often suggested that the eventual United States of Europe will become a German empire, ruled from Berlin. Rarely do these eurosceptics even begin to consider the role of France, as doesRaedwald in a recent post. When it comes to the UK, Heath – as the man who took as in – is described as a "traitor". His act was a "betrayal" and the poor, freedom-loving British people were "deceived". They were deceived again in the 1975 referendum although, strangely, Wilson is never seen as a traitor – even if he was, as has been strongly rumoured, working for the Soviets. Little do these established eurosceptics realise that most uncommitted people take one look at the language, the mantras and the rhetoric – and run. For some, the "swivel-eyed" epithet is not entirely unmerited. Well-meaning and often dedicated they may be, they do more harm to the eurosceptic cause than enough. O'Neill has some advice for the "semi-sceptical lobby" – they must grow up. But that advice could apply more widely. If we're going to oppose the EU, he says, then let's do it for the right reasons. Not because it is an evil entity fashioned by German neoliberals and it would be better to hide behind our national borders rather than engage with it, but because it is a profoundly anti-democratic creation of Europe's aloof modern élites which actually prevents proper European unity. Bringing the peoples of Europe closer together is a wonderful idea, O'Neill thinks. And if we challenge both the oligarchical EU and its infantile protectionist critics, we might just start to bring that about. COMMENT THREAD Richard North 23/05/2012 |
Forum registration Wednesday 23 May 2012  Before you start, please read these instructions. If you have any problems, do not hesitate to e-mail me, which can be done via the "contact" button above.  And, to illustrate the scale of the problem I am dealing with, the above shows the spam applications within minutes of opening up the forum. By tomorrow, there will be over a thousand. Unless you tell me who you are, I can't find you and activate the account. COMMENT THREAD Richard North 23/05/2012 |
Fluff of the day – Germany "isolated" Wednesday 23 May 2012  On the European front, game of the week for the witless hacks is to push the "Germany isolated" meme, over the issue of eurobonds. It gives a nice "bif-bam" flavour to the reporting, where conflict must be invented to sustain the simplicity of the narrative, even if it does not exist. The "isolated" meme is very prominent in the comic, the story highlighted by the reportage: "Germany again stressed its deep opposition to the idea of pooling eurozone sovereign debt through the introduction of eurobonds, which are supported by those in the pro-growth camp and Britain". In other words – any sensible words – it ain't going to happen. This is a non-story which serves only to divert attention from the more substantive issues. And the reason it isn't going to happen is because it can't happen. Delving into this issue, the blockages are fairly evident and fatal to the proposition. Firstly, as thispolicy brief makes clear, their introduction would require fundamental changes to EU treaties. Even if there was the political willingness for this to happen – and there isn't – there is no time. If anything is going to happen, it must happen soon. Secondly, as if this was not enough, the adoption of eurobonds would breach Germany's basic law. For Merkel to get them through, she would need to change the constitution, requiring a two-thirds majority in parliament. In her currently weakened position, with a general election next year, she would not get it. But nothing of this is new. The general issues were explored in some depth by the EU commission late last year on another of those infamous "communications" - COM(2011) 818 final. I remember the days when we would spend days poring over such documents, and more days writing a considered analysis. Nowadays, we have to take them on the fly, such is the pressure of events and the volume of material. However, from its 38 pages, one learns that the idea of "stability bonds", and the COM calls them, were first discussed by member states in the 1990s when the Giovannini Group (which has advised the Commission on capital-market developments related to the euro) published a report presenting a range of possible options for co-ordinating the issuance of euro-area sovereign debt. In September 2008, interest in common issuance was revived among market participants, when the European Primary Dealers Association (EPDA) published a discussion paper "A Common European Government Bond". This paper confirmed that euro-area government bond markets remained highly fragmented almost 10 years after the introduction of the euro and discussed the pros and cons of common issuance. In 2009, the Commission services again discussed the matter of "common issuance" in the EMU@10 report. COM(2011) 818 final, therefore, was the latest of a series of attempts over the course of more than a decade to resolve this issue. Crucially, it was one in which the commission remarked that many of the implications went well beyond the technical domain and involved issues relating to national sovereignty and the process of economic and political integration. These issues, said the commission, included reinforced economic policy coordination and governance, and a higher degree of economic convergence, and, under some options, the need for treaty changes. There we have it again – treaty change. And is certainly the case that the option over which the media are currently braying would require treaty changes. And, of course, "any type of Stability Bond would have to be accompanied by a substantially reinforced fiscal surveillance and policy coordination as an essential counterpart, so as to avoid moral hazard and ensure sustainable public finances and to support competitiveness and reduction of harmful macroeconomic imbalances". Essentially, eurobonds would require the full and final degree of economic and political integration, which is what the Delors report was getting at more than 20 years ago, and the Werner Report was telling us in 1970 (below).  The idea that this is a quick fix that is going to resolved all in a rush in Brussels during today's European Council meeting is, frankly, laughable. As always, though, there is a strong element of political theatre, with Hollande marking his territory, but there is something ultimately juvenile in a press report that tells you, "There is no sign that Germany is ready to soften its position … ". This is not adult reporting. It is the stuff of comic book politics – but even tales of superheroes cavorting have more credibility. Of much more interest is the dark game being played by the EU Commission. As reported by AFP, Germany's EU Commissioner Gunther Ottinger has "insisted" that eurobonds should not be ruled outper se. "My advice to everyone involved would be not to rule out eurobonds fundamentally", he has told the business daily Handelsblatt, adding with delphic ambiguity that it was "a matter of timing". Eurobonds could be the "keystone" to a new financial architecture, he says, but only once all eurozone countries had ratified a fiscal accord and were firmly on the path to consolidation, the commissioner said. Reading between those lines, we can see the commission going for the main chance – the economic governance that it has always hankered after. But even he is not looking at an immediate solution. But then Schäuble has it in one: "as long as each country is responsible for its own fiscal policy, it is out of the question that the entire bloc should shoulder the liability for a country's bonds", he says. Without economic governance, the eurobond is an absolute non-starter. There really is no more to add. The rest is fluff. COMMENT THREAD Richard North 23/05/2012 |
Fantasy politics Wednesday 23 May 2012  This is the continuing saga of the Beecroft report and the reform of what the paper quaintly terms: "Britain's archaic employment laws". The game is to engineer a spat between the Cameroons and the Cleggies, giving the political journalists endless entertainment as they chart the ebb and flow of the "controversy" they have invented. Thus do they fill the spaces between adverts, which is of course their primary objective. That is why they really do not want to know anything about the EU dimension – the fact that employment law is: (a) not archaic; and (b) not British. It comes almost entirely from Brussels (below).  To admit that, though, would spoil the game – hence it must be ignored. This week, the paper is selling a "Clegg versus Cameron" narrative, not a "Cameron hamstrung by EU law" story. Inconvenient facts cannot be allowed to intrude, or it will spoil the fun. What we have here is fantasy politics. The lightweight claque of political journalists who move effortlessly through the British media are bored with the reality of a third-rate power eking out an existence as a vassal of the Brussels empire. Thus, they immerse themselves in court gossip and manufactured spats, focusing on personality politics. The game has a huge number of fans, but it is not real. It is a retreat from the hard world of serious politics, which has long departed these shores. These pretty men and their readers can't cope with that reality. They don't understand it, and the players carry no weight in the foreign fields where the power lies. So they retreat to their familiar stamping grounds and play their silly games. Just don't confuse this with news – it is entertainment. COMMENT THREAD |
Posts
