The Strange Death of Liberal Europe

June 21, 2012 by

John Curran

Image © BrotherMagneto

The Greek electorate have spoken and, borrowing a phrase from former US President Clinton, it is not clear what they have said. Although we have a decision, can it be described as a mandate? New Democracy winning by a mere 3% ahead of anti austerity socialist party Syriza, the majority party automatically gaining fifty extra seats thus placing them in the driving seat of a coalition government.

 As in the UK after the 2010 election, conservative politicians in open necked shirts make electoral agreements with minority parties with phoney liberal credentials. The political horse-trading in Athens was conducted in the Greek language but the narrative is one shaped by London, Berlin, and Brussels.

There has always been a liberal dilemma at the core of the European project. This is evident in the decision making process which is undemocratic and dominated by the Council of Ministers and the Commission. However, since 1979 the Parliament has grown in authority via the ballot box and the Single European Act. Despite this there is a problem in the governance of the EU, a quandary now thought key to understanding the crisis.  A predictable debate has begun with calls to abandon the EU project or establish a Federalist system.

The unprecedented interference from external influences in the Greek election is a worrying intrusion into the democratic workings of a sovereign state, justified by the ‘memorandum of understanding’ made on the cusp of the first Greek election this year. A document that binds future administrations to adhere to cuts of billions of Euros.

The interference in the Greek election are numerous, springing from comments made by European leaders such as Angela Merkel in Germany and George Osborne in the UK. Larry Elliott in the Guardian on 16 of June reported on comments made by Jean-Claude Juncker:

If the radical left wins [in Greece] – which cannot be ruled out – the consequences for the currency union are unforeseeable.

Read more of this post

Filed under Democracy, Economy, Europe, Parties, Tax and spend Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Greece and the euro

June 13, 2012 by

Osmi Anannya

Image © Yiannis Baboulias

Greece has been entangled with large-scale debt, for many months now. Off late, prominent voices in the European Union have stated that it’s looking increasingly likely that Greece will leave the Euro zone. Some have added that it’s probably in the best interest of the country to in fact do so. This is because all those in favour of the exit believe there is a possibility Greece could reach a time when long-term of interdependency on foreign nations and banks is widely active; significant shares of the nation’s finances and economy are already under the reign of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), European Commission, and the European Central Bank [3].

If Greece does choose to exit the Euro zone, it could then start the journey of recovery by having its own currency, the drachma, once more. The currency could then be devalued to make way for cheap exports and high rates favouring imports [1]. It is quite difficult to grasp, however, how expensive imports are going to be beneficial for the country, because an increase in the rate of import stands to most likely increase the prices of goods, merchandise or commodities available in the country.

In an economic crisis it would be an unwelcome request to ask people in Greece to spend more on their daily purchases. Widespread problems in the Greek political system have already left the nation’s people frustrated about daily life, about the lack of jobs available tailored to their skills, about the inefficiency of many public services, for months on end now. This has given rise to a growing lack of faith in the government, cumulating to the recent riots and revolts and protests in Greece, one after another in a locomotive fashion.

Read more of this post

Filed under Culture, Economy, Europe, Parties, Tax and spend Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Greece: Shades of Weimar?

February 28, 2012 by

Nikhil Venkatesh

After the Treaty of Versailles, an unstable, war-wearied and poor Germany (with a new government based in Weimar) was made to pay £284 billion (in today’s money) to the Allied powers. Germany was humiliated; throughout the next decade its economy was run not in the interests of the German people, but in the interests of paying back its foreign creditors. This led to crippling hyper-inflation, an economy vulnerable to the Wall Street Crash (1929), an upsurge in nationalism and communism, and ultimately the rise of Hitler. Amazing as it may be, some people predicted that the harsh financial terms of the treaty would mutilate the German economy, endanger its fledgling democracy, and lead to another war in about 1940. JM Keynes wrote about it in The Economic Consequences of the Peace, and even the cartoonist in The Daily Herald had an inkling of a ‘second world war’ (see picture) – he was a year out.

The moral of the story is that if a country’s economy isn’t run in the interests of the people (what Chomsky calls ‘economic sovereignty’), the people will not be happy. They will revolt, riot, and go to war.

The most terrible thing about the bail-out agreement with Greece is that the Greek people do not feature in it. The policies are designed to stop (mainly French, German and British) banks from losing the money they rashly lent to the Greek government. Greece will be forced to impose austerity measures that may well make their citizens’ lives worse – but this is secondary to keeping the bankers afloat. Any money the Greek government has will have to go into paying off debt ahead of being spent on public services. Foreign economists, like the French troops occupying Germany’s Ruhr valley in 1923, will remain until the debtor country can be trusted to uphold its side of the bargain. The Greek people don’t get a choice; Greek economic policy is unaccountable to its own taxpayers; money will be transferred from some of Europe’s poorest people to some of its wealthiest. Read more of this post

Filed under Democracy, Economy, Europe, Foreign policy, Liberty Tagged with , , ,

London or Brussels? Ça ne fait rien

December 17, 2011 by 5 Comments

Dominic Turner

Image © harry_nl


In the week that David Cameron returned from Brussels, posturing as the protector of Britain, what is most distressing, albeit predictable, is the reaction of the establishment ‘left.’



Make no mistake, the binary calculus in David Cameron’s mind was: who controls Britain’s economic policy? Bankers in Frankfurt or the bankers in London who bankroll his party? He chose the neighbourhood bully.



But there does exist a Pan-European Austerity agenda. An insane, centralising elite in the death throes of Europe’s most right wing regimes, striking whilst the iron is hot, before the voters of their respective countries throw them out of office. The brazen arrogance of the plutocratic elite of Europe is exhibited in countries like Italy and Greece who are no longer just practically run by the banks (like the UK) but literally governed by ex-bankers who are exacting savage cuts on ordinary people, the receipt for their own bail out. 

 Read more of this post

Filed under Democracy, Economy, Europe, Parties, Tax and spend Tagged with , , , , ,

Ten international relationships the UK must develop

December 13, 2011 by

Mike Morgan-Giles

Image © Foreign and Commonwealth Office

Following the Prime Minister’s decision to veto the proposed EU Treaty last week, which has put the UK in the slow lane within a two speed Europe, it’s important the Government looks to develop our other international relationships. Here are ten they should move forward:

  1. BRIC nations – Brazil, Russia, India and China are vast growing markets that we must look to enhance our ties with. Each can be approached in a different way, with perhaps closer links to Brazil on sustainability, energy cooperation with Russia, major trade links with India and offering cash-rich China unbeatable investment opportunities.
  1. Scandinavia – They share some of the euro-scepticism often cited in the UK; Norway isn’t an EU member, whilst Sweden and Denmark stand outside the eurozone. Ties can be strengthened over issues such as fishing and energy policy – for instance by creating a shared super grid. A more ambitious move would be to create an informal Northern European group, including all of the Nordic countries. Read more of this post

Filed under Africa, America, China, Europe, Foreign policy, Middle East Tagged with , , , , , ,

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,266 other followers