Eurocrash: Oh yes he will!
Thursday 6 September 2012
Not so much a crisis as a pantomime turn. First he will, then he won't, then he will, then he won't, and now he will buy bonds. The Draghi show has been going on for over a month now, and we're none the wiser.
The likes of this, though, is all over the press – UK as well - after Bloomberg claimed two ECB officials had leaked the plan.However, it is for the ECB board later today to decide – or not. Either which way, though, the pantomime will go on, and there will be some very unhappy bunnies if the bonds do flow. COMMENT THREAD Richard North 06/09/2012 |
The Harrogate Agenda: a wrong turning
Wednesday 5 September 2012
 His preferred method is for a large group of like-minded citizens to stand for Parliament for one term only with a view to gaining a majority at the next election. Their task, assuming they were returned in sufficiently large numbers, would then be "single-mindedly to put right as many things as possible that governments formed by the traditional parties had failed to resolve". And once their single term was finished, they would stand down. Sadly – much as I wish him well - I think Mr Andreas Whittam Smith needs to raid Barroso's cliché store, and try out the following for size: "There is no magic wand, no silver bullet". And without either, there isn't even a chance in a million that Mr Andreas Whittam Smith's plan will succeed. It simply isn't going to happen. The worst of it is that even if by some miracle the idea succeeded in getting enough people to parliament, it would make very little difference. Mr Andreas Whittam Smith thinks these "non-politicians" would somehow get together, set themselves up as a coherent body, elect from their number a prime minister, appoint ministers and then establish a government? Presumably, they would then storm the ramparts of Whitehall, setting out dozens, maybe hundreds of Bills, which they would then shepherd through the two Houses and all their procedural stages, bringing them to fruition as fully-fledged Acts of Parliament, ready for implementation. In reality, though, as Witterings from Witney points out - all their legislation would have to be be compatible with EU (and other) treaties. That would leave them with relatively little do, and even then they would have considerable problems. What seems to escape Mr Andreas Whittam Smith is that the process of legislating is actually quite complex. From the basic idea stage, going through the initial consultations, drafting, costing and presentation as a draft Bill, one major piece of legislation could take years just to get to the printing stage. Then, your proposed legislation goes in the queue for parliamentary time and, as it filters through the system, in one full term of five years, you would be lucky to get more than about a dozen major Acts to Royal Assent. And that, of course, assumes you have professional politicians – people who know the procedures, who know how to manage the legislative process, who know the pitfalls and can marshal their resources to get their Bills through all their stages. But Mr Andreas Whittam Smith doesn't want experienced, "professional" politicians. He wants rank amateurs, people who are supposedly going to pick up the threads of the arcane procedures of law making – on top of all the other business of government – without so much as pausing for breath. Never mind taking the time out to learn the job. They have to hit the ground running, and achieve more than any government in history. We would have expected more of Mr Andreas Whittam Smith. As a long-time newspaper editor, he should know that law-making is a complex procedure. It is not something that people off the streets could pick up and deal with successfully. The idea is crass. But then, just supposing that these newly elected "non-politicians" got into power, why would they suddenly become democratic. They would take their places in a parliament, and form a government from amongst their numbers, with exactly the same defects in the system that we have now. The people would not be sovereign – we would still rely on MPs, over whom we had no direct control. There would still be far too much central power, with no independent local government, under the control of the people. There would be no proper separation of powers, no control over laws passed, and no control over taxes and spending. And we would still lack a proper constitution. Given these manifest defects, it would be hard to argue that we actually have a democracy. And indeed we do not. We have an elective dictatorship – and even then, our government is not elected – whether at regional or EU level. When did we last elect a prime minister, much less an EU commissioner? Thus Mr Whittam Smith's ideas fall at the first hurdle – they could not give us a democracy even if he could get his people in place. And how can you "save" our democracy, when we don't have one in the first place. And that is why, with the Harrogate Agenda, we have chosen a different route. Before we can deal with specific issues, we need to sort out the structural defects in our system, which will bring us closer to being a democracy. And that is why we have framed six demands, rather than try to take over parliament. Then, in terms of getting these accepted, we need to look at how political change is achieved in this country. Initially, it is through the process of a political movement that we see ideas gather force, and then usually over decades. As UKIP and many others (such as Sir James Goldsmith) can attest, challenging the two-party system is not a workable option. Not even with millions in cash at his disposal can Mr Whittam Smith take parliament by storm at the next election. His volunteers are wasting their time. As for us, with our Harrogate Agenda, we have not been idle. The small group that were behind the first meeting is to have a planning meeting next week, when we will come up with our ideas for an autumn programme. We are in this for long haul – and we intend to win. Mr Whittam Smith's ideas we can do without. They are a wrong turning. COMMENT THREAD Richard North 05/09/2012 |
Eurocrash: Barroso – a game at many levels
Wednesday 5 September 2012
While the markets are waiting for the Draghi show tomorrow, and Zerohedge, after earlierhyperventilation, now reveals that which we pointed out two days ago - that the nearest thing Drahgi has to a bazooka is a cap pistol.
Ambrose, on the other hand, is still confused about the ECB, asserting that the support of Germany's ECB board member, Jorg Asmussen, for Mario Draghi signifies the support of Germany, when game, set and match goes to the Bundesbank. Actually, it doesn't really matter one way or the other. Spain will play its l games, the markets will play theirs – most computer assisted. The indices will go down, and up and down again, while thecommentators pontificate often, but rarely at great length and in any depth. Meanwhile, almost completely unrecognised, the eurocrisis game is being played at altogether different levels, including the long game, some of which we saw yesterday, from the German perspective, with Merkel's plan laid bare. But another massively important player in this game is EU commission president José Manuel Barroso, who yesterday gave a long, detailed speech to the EU Heads of Delegation at their annual conference in Brussels (pictured above). Speaking of the eurocrisis, he set out what amounts to one of the clearest statements yet of the commission position, prefacing his address with the obligatory clichés, such as: "There is no magic wand, no silver bullet that will in an instant lead the European economy to recovery". We rather suspect that the EU gets a discount for volume Cutting to the chase, Barroso tells us that the June European Council was a decisive meeting; "a meeting which has opened up the prospect of a more united, more integrated, European Union and Euro area". We have, he says, "a monetary union, but the crisis has demonstrated that there is a cumulative logic to the integration process: monetary union cannot function without a banking union, and without further fiscal and economic union". He then tells us that the "quartet" is hard at work preparing for the next steps, but: Of course the logic of integration cannot be purely economic. Banking union requires a single European supervisor, further economic union too requires supervision of the member states economic policies, joint supervision. Not supervision made by them in Brussels over our economies but our joint supervision over our economies because it is clear that in a currency, in a monetary union one country should not have the right to do harm to others as it is happening today.It is therefore logical, but also right and just, Barroso says, "that there is further political or institutional integration as well". This, he says, "is needed to ensure democratic oversight of the process and to reassure the citizens of Europe that they are a part of the process". Thus does the man set out his stall: "More integration, more democracy, more accountability. We should not be afraid of the words. We should move forward in our project to consolidate a truly political union". He then goes on: The European Commission will shortly, in fact it will be on the 12th of this month, table proposals to create a European banking union, namely a single supervisor for our banks, but we must be under no illusions that deepening economic integration and especially political integration are long term projects. Yes, they provide a vision which is needed to generate confidence in the long term future of Europe, but Europe also needs action now.Therein, we see the multi-level game – the short game buying time for the full agenda to be rolled out. The key, Barroso says, is to combine ambition with a proper sequencing. It would, he tells us, be a complete mistake to suggest that Europe can only get out of the crisis by Treaty change. Thus, he says: We know that Treaty change takes time so we need to have short term responses to financial instability we are now feeling in the Euro area. But short term is not enough because the so called markets know very well that in the longer term the stability of the currency depends also on the political construct and on the solidity of the institutions that are behind it. That is why as the same time we are giving short term answers to the instability we need to have a horizon for the medium and long term. So these issues – short, medium and longer term – should not be seen as incompatible and we have to act on the several areas.That is the game plan. There are no secrets here, no dark conspiracy. Barroso is being totally open. The trouble is, though, that so few are listening. The commission president says he is "fully confident about the willingness of our member states and their leadership to integrate further". Merkel has attested to that many times, and that is the declared end game. And if that is what ends up happening, we should not be in the least bit surprised. The "colleagues" could not have been clearer in stating their intentions. All we have to do is read their words and listen to their speeches. COMMENT THREAD Richard North 05/09/2012 |
Regional politics: it's not all bad
Wednesday 5 September 2012
Dellers has the news about Owen Paterson. Mr Lean is very cwoss and the greenies are scweaming(look at the comments).
As Dellers says, what could there possibly be not to like? COMMENT THREAD Richard North 05/09/2012 |
Eurocrash: crocodile eats man
Wednesday 5 September 2012
 You can see their point, but the snappers do have the easier end of it. They should try following the acres of prose in an attempt to make some sense of it. And the problem there is that, the moment you take your eye off the ball, you can bet something vital will happen. Back to the treadmill, methinks. COMMENT THREAD Richard North 05/09/2012 |
Posts
