The Tory euro myth Saturday 26 May 2012  Today, we see one of the core myths sustaining the grouping currently masquerading as the Conservative Party, gloriously articulated by Bruce Anderson in Conservative Home. Responding to the calls for an EU referendum, Anderson has this to offer: … there is only one sensible response: to move forward with care and to trust the leadership. Since 1975, although mistakes have been made, the Tory Party has been the Eurosceptics' principal asset and the federasts' main obstacle. … the Tory Party is the Euro-fanatics' main adversary.Never mind that the ground for our entry to the EEC was paved by Conservative prime minister Harold Macmillan. Forget completely that we joined the EEC under the aegis of another Conservative prime minister, Ted Heath. Then ignore the fact that the core treaty establish the European Union was agreed by Conservative prime minister Margaret Thatcher (part 1 – the Single European Act) – who also led the "yes" campaign for the Tories in the '75 referendum - and Conservative prime minister John Major (part 2 – Maastricht). And one must also skirt round the fact that the writ of the Lisbon Treaty (aka European Constitution) holds only because a current quasi-prime minister, David Cameron, allowed it - a man with a long history of euro-compliance. Of course, says Anderson, "mistakes have been made". But the greatest mistake of all would be to trust the Tory leadership. Throughout our association with the benighted political construct that has become the European Union, it has always been Tory leaders who have blazed the trail. The oddest thing, though, about the whole of the Anderson piece - devoted to Tory strategy on the EU - is that he doesn't mention the European Union once. That has to tell you something - the love that dare not speak its name? COMMENT THREAD Richard North 26/05/2012 |
Ebb tide for multilateralism? Saturday 26 May 2012  One is heartened to learn, however, that the talks, held in Bonn, the home city of the UNFCCC, ended in "discord and disappointment", with some participants "concerned that important progress made last year was being unpicked". Much beyond that, one struggles to develop any more interest, other than to questions, in passing, whether the problems are specific to the climate change movement or whether we are seeing the tide of multilateralism turn. It is possible to advance a thesis that, in times of stress and uncertainty, people revert to looking closer to home for their salvation, whence nationalism begins to reassert itself. I am not sure how valid that might be, though. After all, the United Nations was forged in times of great stress. Despite that – and for whatever reason – this conference marks another stage in the slow decline of the climate change cult. However, it would be wrong to believe, or even assert, that the underlying pressure has diminished. At the heart of this, as always, is Agenda 21. Its objectives have not changed since the Earth Summit of June 1992. That same year saw the signing of the Maastricht Treaty. Perhaps, those twenty years ago, we were seeing the hopes and ambitions for multilateralism – as a form of government – at their height. One can only hope in turn that, over the next twenty years, the current concern of the Bonn participants is realised, and we are able to unpick some of the damage. Now, it seems, is as good a time as any to reassert the value of nationalism as the true platform for democracy. Otherwise, it gets linked with "populism". Then the "multilats" – or "tranzies" - are able to claw back some of their lost momentum. It is easy to link nationalism with extremist movements when, in fact, it is cults such as the climate change movement that represent the true face of extremism. Properly to defeat them, it may be that the way forward is to reclaim nationalism as a force for good. COMMENT THREAD Richard North 26/05/2012 |
The obsession with youth Saturday 26 May 2012  As is evident from title of his piece Massie (born in 1938) is complaining that politicians are too young and inexperienced to do their jobs properly: David Cameron was only forty-three when he became prime minister. More remarkably he was elected Leader of the Conservative Party in 2005, only four years after entering Parliament. The chancellor of the exchequer, George Osborne, was born in 1971. Neither had held office before; nor of course had the deputy prime minister, Nick Clegg (born 1967) nor the fourth member of the so-called Quad, the chief secretary to the treasury, Danny Alexander (born 1972). The government of the country is in the hands of political novices.As he is writing for the Failygraph, though, Massie does not complete the job and remark that much of the newspaper is written by children – boys and girls who look like teenagers and, mostly, write like they are teenagers. To all generalisations, though, there are exceptions. And age in itself is no guarantee of competence. One gets the feeling that most of the present crew would be incompetent, whatever their ages. With some people, age simply magnifies pre-existing defects. However, in human affairs, there is such thing as the archetype. Most successful societies accept, in general form, the role of the "elder", and acknowledge that with age comes wisdom. A society than does not value and respect its elders, nor value experience, is doomed. Therein lie much of our problems. COMMENT THREAD Richard North 26/05/2012 |
Election fever Friday 25 May 2012  This is not exactly headline news in the British media, but the fact that the French are in the middle of an election campaign easily explains the game-playing that we're getting from Hollande, who is pitching for an outright victory from the 577 seats up for grabs. Failing that, he will be seeking a coalition with the Radicals and Greens. At worse, Hollande will seek to form a minority government with the support from either the Left Front or Centrists. On the other hand, the incumbent majority, currently made up from the UMP, NC and Alliance, will be looking, if not to spark the famous "cohabitation" or a minority government, to stay as the right-wing's only parliamentary force. I am not going to pretend that I understand French politics - I'm not even sure I understand my own – but Reuters is saying that the shock of Sarkozy's failure to win re-election has triggered a power struggle in his centre-right UMP party which could affect its standing in the parliamentary elections. This seems to be confirmed by a recent opinion poll suggesting that the UMP will struggle to keep the majority it has held in parliament since 2002. It found 46 percent first-round support for the left, against just 33 percent for the UMP, which has no obvious coalition partner. Hollande clearly is leaving nothing to chance with his surprise visit to Afghanistan, reaffirming his pre-election pledge to close down the French military operation there, ahead of the coordinated Nato pull-out. Typically, Hollande is putting national (or party political) interest first, over and above multilateralism, saying, "It's a sovereign decision. Only France can decide what France does". This will play well with his electorate, although his Nato partners will be less pleased. And what does that say for Anglo-French military co-operation, much less the CSDP? In the nature of things though, we can expect a more communautaire outlook once the election results are in which will coincide with the results from the Greek general election Then we might see a different, more emollient Hollande, and a closer working relationship with Germany. And, while the British media seems to be ignoring this dynamic, the New York Times seems up to speed on the implications of great events being caught up in domestic elections. It is puzzling, though, why more is not being made of this by British analysts, or am I missing something? COMMENT: "THAT'S ENOUGH EUROPE" THREAD Richard North 25/05/2012 |
That's enough Europe – ed Friday 25 May 2012  That leaves us with a good piece from Ambrose, whose masters will insist on calling it a summit. It was an "informal dinner" of the European Council, at which decisions could not be made, and where there was no intention that they should be made. Largely, it seems to have served the function of a "get-to-know-you" benefit for Hollande. At least Ambose has the decency to admit that the affair was theatre, with the arch reference to a "Kabuki" summit, comparing it with a highly stylised from of Japanese drama. I wish I could do culture like that – I had to look it up on Wiki. Why he should complain that this non-summit "falls short" though is a mystery. It was never going to come to anything exciting – in public at least. It was very obvious from the start that we were to be treated to a dose of political theatre, and it is something of an insult to our intelligence that the media insist on pretending otherwise. All the hacks on the spot know it – why do we have to go through these charades? In this case, even the picture tells its story (above) with the caption telling us: French president Francois Hollande achieved his coup de theatre. The French media gently accused him of staging a choreographed spat with chancellor Angela Merkel over eurobonds, knowing that Germany will not share its credit card with the debtor states until there is a fully-fledged United States of Europe – anathema to France.I hate to say this, but "theatre" is exactly what I was writing two weeks ago, with a much better analysis than anything the media has to offer, delivered two days ago. But since eurobonds were never going to happen, that makes the comments by ECB president Mario Draghi all the more interesting. The EU, he says, is at a "crucial moment" in its history. "We have reached a point in which the process of European integration needs a courageous leap of political imagination in order to survive," he says. Yet no such leap is in evidence. The eurozone is no closer to equipping itself with federal debt machinery and a genuine lender of last resort. That is not quite a statement of the bleedin' obvious – more a summary of the current state of play. But what Draghi doesn't say is that to make this "courageous leap" will require a very substantial new treaty, going far beyond Lisbon, amounting to a commitment to full political integration, the outcome being a United States of Europe in all but name. Draghi is right, therefore, to say that no such leap is in evidence. Even to open the members to an IGC with this on the table would ensure a fracture of the European Union. The UK could not accept further integration – none of the non-eurozone countries could go for it, and even Germany and France would have serious problems getting it past their legislatures. In essence, therefore, the one thing that could drag the EU back from the abyss cannot be done. Politically, it is no more achievable than it was in 2002 when the notes and coins were introduced. Even the eurozone counties are not prepared to pay the price. The magic of the "beneficial crisis" has not worked. This is a crisis too far. In such times the very fundamentals of the European Union come under stress. Ambrose says they have changed, reflected in German headlines denouncing the French leader. But then Ambrose does have a habit of jumping the gun. In March he was forecasting the end of Merkel's Europe and the awakening of the Latin Bloc. Nevertheless, via Ambrose, we have Bild Zeitung accused Hollande of "arrogance" and lamenting the end of Franco-German condominium. "We once had the Merkzoy. Merkollande does not exist," it says. Hollande, says Ambrose, vowed to end the tradition of Franco-German stitch-ups and was true to his word. He plotted with Italy's Mario Monti and Spain's Mariano Rajoy before the gathering, relishing the revival of French leadership in a new guise. Germany's Handelsblatt says he was acting as the "lawyer" of debt-stricken states, the champion of the Latin Bloc. That the Franco-German "motor of integration" is creaking has been evident for some time, henceBooker's piece in February. The EU is splitting at its very core, he wrote. Nothing really has changed since that piece was published, and there was a lot of good analysis there. Ambrose currently relies on banking sources such as Julian Callow, from Barclays Capital, but frankly, I would not give their thoughts tuppence. These people constantly and consistently misread the situation. The things we must be careful of is that the Franco-German alliance has proved both resilient and durable, and while Merkel is allowing Hollande room to play his games – establishing his political territory, largely for domestic consumption, when the chips are down, he will most likely come into line. This time, though, the odds are stacked against holding the status quo. Greece is going to have to leave the eurozone, and that is going to change the European dynamics forever. It will be the end of the long march of political integration. This retreat from Moscow starts in Athens. Desperate as always to "plant a flag" on the story, The Times, via Reuters and the Daily Wail, is saying that "David Cameron will face demands from Tory MPs to redraw Britain’s relationship with Europe in the event of a Greek exit from the eurozone". This comes from "senior government sources", and is typical of the shallow reportage that we get in this country, and the almost complete lack of thinking we get from the political establishment. Yes, the Greek exit is going to change things. But it is the start of the retreat, not the end. By the time it is over, the political map of Europe will have changed irrevocably – although it could be a decade or more before the dust has settled. And as in 1957, the UK is on the sidelines. We can only watch, wait and respond. If we had any sense, we would be working on a new paradigm for our international relations (time to dust off "Plan G"?), so that Europe can again rise from the ashes of a failed political experiment. But that is probably too much to hope for. COMMENT THREAD Richard North 25/05/2012 |
One eurobond to rule them all Friday 25 May 2012  "One Bond to rule them all; One Bond to find them; One Bond to bring them all; and in the darkness bind them". When the septics start taking the mick, you just know the end must be nigh. But even more sinister – if you are in that frame of mind – is the case of Clegg and the missing eurobond. There he was, off to Berlin to breathe hell fire and fury about Merkel's refusal to do the deed yet, when he got there, not a word about eurobonds did escape his lips. The obedient little euroslime had been "warned off" by the avenging Angela herself, leaving a nonplussed Clegg with nothing else to do but express his admiration for the effciency (sic) of the German economy, chirping that the lessons to be derived were essential for the "re-wiring" of Britain – whatever that means. Meanwhile, Clive Crook – the appropriately named former chief Washington commentator of theFinancial Times - has been writing for Bloomberg, telling us that the seeds of the EU's crisis were sown sixty years ago. This is a man who hasn't the first idea what he's talking about, demonstrating yet again that, when it comes to politics, financial journalists are so often out of their depths. Largely, Crook is also following the same hagiography followed by Peston, which also goes to show that, when it comes to the analysis of historical events, the majority can easily be wrong. Crook, like Peston, makes as the turning point the Maastricht Treaty, completely oblivious that to the roles of Spinelli and then Delors and the fact that Maastricht was part two of a two-part treaty, following on from the Single European Act. Does it really matter, you might ask, and the answer is of course in the affirmative. The sequence and the narrative behind them coming into being proves without doubt that the single currency (and economic and monetary union) was a political project, engineered entirely to promote the cause of political union. We set this out in The Great Decpetion, recording that there were two British MEPs involved in the process, Stanley Johnson (Boris's dad) and Richard Balfe. The basic narrative came from an account in French, by Jean Marie Playret director of the department of historical archives of the European Union. It doesn't get much better than that. I translated the document – all 35 pages of it – and on the back of several interviews with Richard Balfe, wrote up the story which appears in the book. I sent Richard the draft as a check, and the man who had been intimately involved in events as Spinelli's political advisor affirmed that the account was essentially correct. When Booker and I published, we thought that our revelations might provoke some interest, but it was not to be. The book was scarcely reviewed, and the real background to the single currency has been largely ignored. But the remedy, such as there is one, lies in the understanding that it is a political project. There is no economic solution – politics got us into this mess, and only politics will get us out, and even then it is going to be very messy. But only when the politicians recognise that the euro is part of a failed experiment, and decide to unravel it, will the torture begin to end.  Meanwhile, the play acting goes on with Citigroup economist Michael Saunders assuming that the Greeks will exit the euro on 1 January 2013. It is unlikely that this date has been plucked at random, but it is not what it seems. Saunders is actually saying that the exit will not occur before the end of this year, which is undoubtedly a blind, to clear the decks for an earlier exit without the markets pre-empting it. Greece's exit will not, of course, solve any problems for the euro. The "colleagues" are not yet ready to admit that their experiment has failed, and are still playing games, pretending there is a fix. But the time must come, or they will drag the whole of the global economy down with them. Perhaps if a few more people knew their history, there might be more pressure for a swift political resolution, and less pretence that there is an economic solution to this crisis. In time, we will find out, but the longer it takes, the more damage it will do, and the more it is going to cost us. COMMENT THREAD Richard North 25/05/2012 |
Posts
