"Fog in Channel - Continent Cut Off"
The phrase "Fog in Channel - Continent Cut Off" was allegedly a newspaper headline in Britain in the 1930s.
Prime Minister Cameron decided not to join measures the European Union is trying to implement to consolidate budgets and to get better control of the banks:
Arguing he had to protect the City of London, Cameron demanded that any transfer of power from national regulators to an EU regulator on financial services be subject to a veto; the UK be free to place higher capital requirements on banks; that the European Banking Authority remain in London; and the European Central Bank be rebuffed in its attempts to rule that euro-denominated transactions take place within the eurozone.He also argued that non-EU institutions operating in the City but not in the eurozone, such as American banks, should be exempt from EU regulation.
The banks who own the City of London, a medieval and unaccountable corporation, are obviously more important to Britain than the project of a united and fiscally sound Europe. (Bagehot at the Economist has a good background piece on the British and European politics behind this.)
I do not agree with the austerity policies the ECB, Merkel and Sarkozy are pushing onto the smaller European countries in financial troubles. Their debt should be erased and a big Keynesian program should be set up to help them to regain competitiveness.
But I do agree to better control and stronger regulations for the financial sector. It is obvious that it was the fraud and greed of this sector that brought us the second world depression we are now living through. It is also obvious that mostly British and American financial firms are currently causing a lot of trouble and pain by speculating on European bonds.
If Britain does not want stronger regulation of its financial sector it should have no further role in the European project. Unlike some individual leaders Europe as a whole is not into watersports.
This was the second time Cameron snubbed Europe in recent days. After the IAEA released its strongly politicized report, Britain defied common European foreign policy and was the only country to announce and implement a boycott of the Iranian Central Bank. The southern European countries who buy a lot and depend on Iranian oil were not amused.
A third strike and Britain will be out.
It obviously never liked the European project. It never paid its full share and in European conflicts with the United States often sided with its former colony.
So there will be fog in the channel and the continent will be cut off. But the continent, with its hinterlands ranging up the pacific, will survive that much better than the British island.
Posted by b on December 10, 2011 at 17:29 UTC | Permalink
@claudio - the current austerity and IMF policies will fail. The policies in Europe will then again turn Keynesian. It will take two or three years but it is already obvious that the supply side austerity policies in Britain, Greece and elsewhere a huge mistake.
While these will be a few bad years, maybe even a decade, the European project is much more historic and important than that. I am confident that it can withstand this.
Europe's as dead as the U.S......albeit a slow death....much slower than many here would want. However, that doesn't mean Classism is dead. The Elite are not attached to the U.S or Europe.....they have no allegiance to any Nation-State. Yes, the Nation-State model has been useful for control of the Masses, but its time has passed and we are entering a new era of Global Control.
So, buy, buy Europe. Good Riddance. Prepare yourselves for wiping asses and serving as human urinals.
Posted by: Morocco Bama | Dec 10 2011 19:10 utc | 3
no doubt that the Imf policies are wrong, the problem is that Imf loans carry conditions on them; the Ecb could have printed the money it needed; going to the Imf means that politicians are still committed to the principle of using the crisis as an excuse (an "opportunity") to force Imf policies down the nations' throats; this is the part where I see all European politicans clearly taking orders from banks
Greece (and now Hungary) has been pushed by its European partners, bound and gagged, in the hands of the Imf torturers, others will follow
"... these will be a few bad years, maybe even a decade ..."
for many, these few years will be a disaster; and entire economies will be predated before some enlightened politician comes up and states: "Enough of this bulls**t"; but I wouldn't count on it, after all it's 30 years now that neoliberal policies have shown their failure, but there isn't a significant political opposition to them in any western country
I'm afraid that as Europeans we'll have to wait for permission from the Us, if and when a political change occurs there, to think outside the current paradigm
Posted by: claudio | Dec 10 2011 19:26 utc | 4
Lets call it what it is. Britain is the Judas of Europe. This is not just one policy or one Prime Minister, it is a well established pattern of working against Europe and for the US Anglo-Saxon Empire as a junior partner.
Just look at the history. Britain hands the remains of its Empire over to the US in the 1950's. Margerat Thatcher allies with Reagan in the 80's to birth "free market captialist" ideologogy. Tony Blair becomes the poodle of the US Empire during the Iraq war, against the will of European peoples and states. Now David Cameron tries to derail the Euro deal in order to save the Anglo-Centric banking interests.
French presidents have historically taken the lead against this cultural, military and economic hegemony by the US-UK. Luckily however now Germany, after a prolonged reunification is in a position to back France up against these interests. It began with Gerhard Schroeder and his opposition to the Iraq war and now moves into the economic sphere with Merkal checkmating the UK. Also look at the voting of the deal. It is clear that all the smaller states of the EU side with Germany and France. Not one was willing to go along with the British.
It is now time to move on towards a united independent Europe. If Britain wants to become the North Korean Hermit Kingdom of Europe then let it. I propose the EU moves away from the US and towards Russia-China, the rising powers.
Posted by: Colm O' Toole | Dec 10 2011 19:40 utc | 5
A very apt unattributed remark I saw yesterday-
UK "like a man who wants to go to a wife-swapping party without taking his own wife" says French diplomat.
Posted by: jaundist | Dec 10 2011 19:51 utc | 6
nyaah, Europe is the continent, that's the first thing I learnt in Britain.
In fairness, Europe never worked for Britain, they were better off with the Commonwealth
- they had cheap food prices by importing food without tariffs and highly industrialized agriculture,
- therefore had to pay lower wages for same living standards which would have been a competitive advantage had they managed to invest in new machinery despite profits by cheap workforce
whilst Germany and France and the rest of Europe funded small farmers and protected their markets to the point where they dropped food on the third world ruining their markets or alternatively burning surplus food.
there is huge competition between the Frankfurt and London stock exchanges
http://www.citytv.com/toronto/citynews/news/international/article/113903--new-york-frankfurt-stock-exchanges-announce-merger
and whilst the financial industry is not Europe's main business, it probably is for Britain
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_United_Kingdom#Financial_and_business_services
so being forced to follow European financial policies and being tied to the Euro could be fatal
just checked the price for whiskey at Harrod's plus Euro to Pound Sterling
http://www.harrods.com/search?for=glenfiddich
I would say they are inflating the pound against the Euro - maybe I should go Christmas shopping in London ...
Posted by: somebody | Dec 10 2011 19:57 utc | 7
Good riddance. It took way too long.
Now if we could only say goodbye to Sarkozy (which is an Anglo-Saxon stooge that sold the French independent stance and promotes the same neocolonial wars, but he has no other options with his non-reelection looming, no wonder his bad feelings after the 'treason' from his 'friend') and Merkel (who doesn't believe in Europe) before half of the EU burns ...
Posted by: ThePaper | Dec 10 2011 20:13 utc | 8
Most of the British media are agreed that something decisive in Britain's relationship to the EU happened with that veto. A Rubicon was crossed, they say. It was done far too unsubtlely. Cameron gave in to his right-wing 'Eurosceptic' supporters. There's quite a possibility that UK will be obliged to leave the EU, or be sidelined.
That said, I'm not sure that a fiscally sound Eurozone with oversight of national budgets is going to work. That's the German plan, and I quite appreciate, b, why you support that sort of line. But the Greeks and Italians (apologies to Claudio), for example, have spent many centuries on financial astuces and concealment. And in the Greek case, not paying their taxes. Putting northern European observers into finance ministries is not going to change much, or, if it does, it will provoke resistance.
Keynesian investment I entirely admire as a policy. But things have moved on since Keynes' time. The economy is more and more globalised, rather than belonging to individual countries, such as Keynes saw in his time. Investing in infrastructure projects, and putting money in people's pockets, may only lead to increased imports from the Far East.
Germany is exceptional here, in retaining a large industrial base, and consumer loyalty. I've always put it down to the consensual nature of the German industrial revolution. Workers cooperate with their companies, absolutely the opposite of what happens in Britain. France is between the two. Thatcher beat down the workers (the unions) by destroying British industry, and Cameron follows her. It is an inheritance of the bosses' policies in the 19th century.
The other part of the Keynesian problem is: where is the money to come from for investment? Borrow? It is borrowing for current expenditure that has led to the present crisis, and it is going to be more and more expensive, if the credit rating is downgraded. Print more money? Probably the only solution. But that implies a devaluation of the Euro. Germany and France have always pursued a policy of a strong Euro, as with their individual currencies before. With all this crisis, you will remark, the exchange rate of the Euro has not declined.
Well Germany is not going to like a devaluation of the Euro. It implies a transfer of wealth to southern Europe. It's either that, or European economic unification, followed by political.
Britain, by the way, is f**ked. They can't join in with Europe (re Cameron's veto), but they're also almost completely de-industrialised. We'll depend on our financial industry, says Cameron. That could disappear tomorrow, if circumstances change.
To summarise for American readers, Europe is a powerful unit. With globalisation, you can't go back to individual economies. There won't be a split. But the revolution will be rough. I fully expect to end my life on a pension of bread and water.
Posted by: alexno | Dec 10 2011 21:36 utc | 9
re 8
So what is your solution, ThePaper?
Sarkozy and Merkel seem to me to have followed their countries' policies faithfully. We need an alternative policy.
Posted by: alexno | Dec 10 2011 21:45 utc | 10
re 5
Lets call it what it is. Britain is the Judas of Europe.
Every European country follows the policy that seems best, based on its historical experience. Britain has done best in the past in the periods when it was most detached from continental Europe, and addressed most the overseas empire. Particularly the post-Napoleonic 19th century. Equally the character of uninvadable island, separated from continental Europe by the Channel, plays a big role.
It is now time to move on towards a united independent Europe.
True, but as I said above, it's going to be rough. Getting Greeks and Italians, and no doubt many others, to conform to German rules is going to be difficult.
It's more likely that they will find a way of adapting to the German system at the same time as the Mediterranean
Posted by: alexno | Dec 10 2011 22:18 utc | 11
Is what's been agreed on essentially dictatorship by banksters? (Will newly "selected" technocratic leaders all come through Goldman Sachs?
(I am way behind of getting up to speed on this....)
Posted by: jawbone | Dec 10 2011 22:51 utc | 12
Does all this really matter? How long will the Euro currency survive in it's present form?
Posted by: ab initio | Dec 10 2011 22:55 utc | 13
I worked on several technical / specification /compliance committees in Europe. The British delegation stated many times that their only purpose in attending as a team was to make it as difficult as possible to get any agreement to work. They are afraid of a strong Europe. Europeans are trying to build a Europe for the better of its peoples. The USA, and their client states ,Britain, Israel and a few more try their best to destroy it. Any of their comments must be seen in this light. As Europeans we can survive without them. De Gaul was correct in saying that Britain is only in Europe in order to ensure that it dosent work. A war would be far worse. The media also hype this irresponsibly as usual
Posted by: boindub | Dec 10 2011 23:34 utc | 14
The EU leadership are eagerly seizing upon a crisis, largely of their own invention, not only to lower living standards all over the Continent but also to remove fiscal policy (and all that that entails) from democratic control.
If Merkel and Sarkozy have their way the bankruptcy trustees installed in Greece and Italy will have their permanent counterparts throughout the EU. In these circumstances the British veto, regardless of the motives behind it, is to be welcomed; anything which slows down this attempt to impose an undemocratic constitution gives people a chance to reflect and to organise.
b suggests that austerity won't work. But, from the point of view of the financiers imposing it, who will get masses of public property at fire sale prices and have their loans underwritten without the inconvenience of seeking Parliamentary approval, and reduce the masses to absolute dependence, by torpedoing the welfare state, it will work very well, thank you.
As Morocco says the European ruling class has no interest at all in building a vibrant, prosperous and secure society. They are quite content, indeed would greatly prefer, to live among desperate, impoverished and demoralised people. And if they can manage to secure their political objectives without risking populist uprisings at the ballot box, all the better.
There are many unpleasant aspects to the British political tradition, xenophobia being one of them, but the same can be said about every country in Europe; in this case it just so happens that, for the worst of reasons, Cameron has put an obstacle in the way of a con job.
Ireland came very close to doing the same thing when it rejected the Treaty which is now being made even worse; no doubt many of those urging the Irish to vote NO, were reactionaries and ultra nationalists.The same was true of France's No vote and The Netherlands' but in every case the net result was beneficial.
European unity without democracy, on the terms of neo-liberal globalisers has always been on offer. Anything that prevents the deal from being sealed is good.
Posted by: bevin | Dec 10 2011 23:44 utc | 15
re 13 ab initio
Does all this really matter? How long will the Euro currency survive in it's present form?
That's a typically simplistic approach, as one would expect from an American (I don't know whether you are). For Europeans, the issues are more complex and profound. The US will see them in the future.
Posted by: alexno | Dec 10 2011 23:54 utc | 16
capitalism in collapse is a comic affair
cameron, acting on behalf of the corrupt city of london only makes that more so. finally the pretensions, delusions & lies that seem to constitute that island will be revealed for what it is in a week or two. private school cretins pissing their pants out of fear when they know that their excue for exisiting will be managed from franfurt
it is the delusion & pomposity of that isle that has always led it into disaster whether suez, the falklands or now this little contretemps between the capitalist crew. they are as dumb as each other. they bring stupidity into a sphere only the great dante could actually describe
their supposed special relationship with the empire has always been master slave - only this time both the master & slave have no clothes, soon that will be true, literally
the nation state as a concept has been brought into ridicule by england, its disappearance from the map, no great loss
Posted by: remembereringgiap | Dec 11 2011 0:04 utc | 17
#12
"Is what's been agreed on essentially dictatorship by banksters? (Will newly "selected" technocratic leaders all come through Goldman Sachs?"
Hit. Nail. On. Head. That's exactly what this is. Having a common currency controlled by central bankers unbeholden to any particular country is a bankocracy of the worst sort. At least other central banks have to be (very mildly) accountable to an elected government.
If Europe wants a single currency, let it be gold. It can't be printed or manipulated, favors no country over another (though it does favor savers over spenders and consumers) imposes strict financial discipline, and disallows "devaluation trade wars" which are a loosing game for everyone.
For the moment, Greece, Spain, Italy, Ireland, etc should either all default or form a debtors cartel, squeezing the bond market for every last dime with a threat of simultaneous default.
P.S. A united Europe that is essentially an annex of US foreign policy is a disaster for the planet. And I don't foresee a US of E that is it's own independent strategic actor. I would not trust such an entity but by creating another center of power (USA, USE, China Russia, Etc) at least it gives smaller nations room to maneuver in between.
Posted by: Lysander | Dec 11 2011 0:21 utc | 18
re 16 alexno
"That's a typically simplistic approach, as one would expect from an American"
Love the condescension. Ah-ha - the nuance and complexity that only those with "superior intellect" and "culture" and "history" can handle. Not the simpleton and naive American. That's why the EFSF and ESM will work! yeah - when those that guarantee the fund also are those that need bailouts. Circularity at it's apogee of hilarity!!
And even more laughable - fines for those addicted to perma-neo-keynesianism - chronic deficits from unrestrained spending at all times - no matter boom or bust. Like the 3% deficit limits were adhered to consistently by even the Weimar phobic Germans.
When dreams of a central planner shangri-la start disintegrating what is left but condescension.
Posted by: ab initio | Dec 11 2011 1:09 utc | 19
The relationship between Britain and the US is more fiduciary than "special". It's hard to watch, to know just how sordid it has become, for these partners in crime. It is where war crimes and corporate crimes are blurred together in the FED and the City of London. I believe the proportion of the UK's debt to GDP is even more horrid than the US example; and the Brit ruling class has managed to hollow out their economy to an even more extraordinary degree. US & UK are Siamese twins of imperialism; and they are as likely, as not, to jump into the Lake of Fire, conjoined.
And Cameron's inner circle are prepared to enter into a new hell, just as Blair's were. Even at this moment, the midnight oil is being burned in London, at the Defense Ministry, as they contemplate linking arms with the Pentagon, putting the finishing touches on Iraq Monstrosity, Part II, for an unprovoked aggressive war on Iran. It doesn't matter what the bastards say for public consumption, because when it comes down to it, they are ready to jump together into that Gehenna.
copeland, it's about time for us to go back to rereading our beloved wm blake because he understood these demonic shits down to a t
Posted by: remembereringgiap | Dec 11 2011 1:28 utc | 21
MofA: "But the continent [Europe], with its hinterlands ranging up the pacific, will survive that much better than the British island."
pacific? Pacific? hinterlands ranging up? Help me out here, please. I don't get it.
r'giap,
Yes. Blake understood those demonic hands and how they work. "A fool sees not the same tree a wise man sees."
Not sure what all the fuss is about. The UK has the right to prevent the Eurozone countries from commandeering the EU as a mechanism to impose their approach on everyone in the EU and draw the UK into helping fund the debts of Southern European eurozone countries. The euro was ill thought out and no enforceable mechanisms were provided to ensure fiscal alignment. They can now do that but without taking over the whole EU.
The UK will not have to leave the EU and EU treaty obligations will prevail over the Eurozone requirements. Any attempt by Germany and France to use the EU to bully the UK to help bail out their mess will not be possible and if the eurozone tries to sideline UK business then the EU courts can be used to enforce the common market agreements of the EU.
If the Eurozone wants to completely go their own way then they will all have to abrogate the EU treaties and start again.
Posted by: Ian | Dec 11 2011 5:01 utc | 24
the fuss is about Britain becoming the "cayman islands without the weather"
it will be very hard for Britain to compete with the Euro-Zone when they have no influence on financial policy. That will not matter for British financial industries as they are globalized anyways, it will matter for people who are stuck in the country and need jobs.
Britain was run on North Sea Oil, the past decade, they used it for consumption not investment
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/edmundconway/6505670/North-Sea-oil-is-dragging-us-into-the-red.html
the oil is running out.
Posted by: somebody | Dec 11 2011 9:32 utc | 25
@Don Bacon - MofA: "But the continent [Europe], with its hinterlands ranging up the pacific, will survive that much better than the British island."
pacific? Pacific? hinterlands ranging up? Help me out here, please. I don't get it.
Well, consult a map. One day we will build the highspeed beer railway (one of my Keynesian programs) - connecting the Holsten brewery in Hamburg with the Tsingtao brewery in Qingdao (they do have a common history) in a four days/nights ride. Shipping from Shanghai to New York will then take 15 days through Hamburg instead of 25 days through LA.
disaster! I spent at least half an hour preparing a response to alexno @9, then posted it, nothing, so I reposted-it and checked the response: "your comment has been send", nothing;
b, you should really look into this
(unless you did it on purpose, which might have been a wise decision after all, I don't know ...)
Posted by: claudio | Dec 11 2011 13:48 utc | 27
"But the continent, with its hinterlands ranging up the pacific, will survive that much better than the British island."
Not so sure about that last part, b.
My reading of history is that traditionally Britian has always formented wars in the European mainland whenever any one particualr nation gets, in British eyes (or more correctly in the eyes of the City of London), 'too-big-for-it's-boots' and looks like it might threaten 'British Interests' (in reality the interests of the financial sector: The City of London once again)
It came as a bit of a surprise to me to learn a few years ago that:
immediately prior to WW1 the Berlin-Baghdad railway link was nearing completion at the outbreak of hostilities.
I guess the Anglo-American Axis was determined not to allow that to happen.
Imagine the effect that would have had on the British oil monopoly . . .
f it had been completed the Berlin-Baghdad (and, ultimately, Basra) railway linkages would have enabled transport and trade from Germany through a port on the Persian Gulf, from which trade goods and supplies could be exchanged directly with the farthest of the German colonies, and the world. The journey home to Germany would give German industry direct supply of oil. This access to resources, with trade less affected by British control of shipping would have been beneficial to German economic interests in industry and trade, and threatening to British economic dominance in colonial trade. Source:Wikipedia
Funnily enough BASRA was the very first place that British troops were deployed to in the First World War.
and equally Funnily enough (funny-peculiar not funny-haha) the Berlin-Bhagdad rail link was not finally completed until . . . . . . . . . 1940.
Talk about coincidence!! ;-)
Posted by: Hu Bris | Dec 11 2011 14:47 utc | 28
Here's some beautiful, and appropriate music for this most momentous occasion. Let us celebrate Europe's long-awaited death.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XXWJvYLeBs
I'm sure Merkel will continue to masturbate to photos, film and memories of Hitler and his Henchmen until the bitter end. Maybe she, and her girl friend Eva Braun, will shoot herself in an underground bunker when the time comes....it would be fitting.
Posted by: Morocco Bama | Dec 11 2011 14:59 utc | 29
"But I do agree to better control and stronger regulations for the financial sector. It is obvious that it was the fraud and greed of this sector that brought us the second world depression we are now living through. It is also obvious that mostly British and American financial firms are currently causing a lot of trouble and pain by speculating on European bonds."
True b, this battle being fought in Europe against the financial weapons of mass destruction must be won. The 1%ers are on the march to implement their globalized wet dream of a new world order. Best of luck Europe.
Posted by: ben | Dec 11 2011 15:04 utc | 30
On a related note is this:
Basically Scotland will be voting on whether to declare independence from the United Kingdom around 2014 or 2015. Polls so far show a slim majority in favour of the move. This would have huge effects since it would basically split the island of Britain in two, with a Scottish Northern half and a English southern half.
Now the ruling Scottish National Party has made a policy paper talking about Scotland joining the Euro and moving closer to the Scandinavian states. Part of this is due to the fact that Scotland is very left-wing (only 12% voted conservative last election) while England is the opposite.
But certainly Scottish Independence would hugely weaken the UK. The army would lose all its Scottish regiments and bases, the NHS would only span England, the UK population would lose over 5 Million people and half the island would be using the Euro. All in all it could leave England alot smaller and given the EU climate it is already looking more isolated.
Posted by: Colm O' Toole | Dec 11 2011 15:05 utc | 31
@ Colm O' Toole
So I think we can expect some sort of 'terrorism' to take root in Scotland as Independence approaches
Posted by: Hu Bris | Dec 11 2011 15:30 utc | 32
@b -- re: beer railway -- considering shipping from Shanghai to Hamburg and New York the prospect of an ice-free Arctic is interesting as seen on this map.
So much for Keynes. :-)
from 'The Graduate', updated:
Mr. McGuire: I just want to say one word to you - just one word.
Ben: Yes sir.
Mr. McGuire: Are you listening?
Ben: Yes I am.
Mr. McGuire: 'Asia.'
So this Western business is simply re-arranging the lifeboat assignments (forgetting deckchairs). UK wants its own lifeboat, rather than piling into an overcrowded Europe one with some passengers that refuse to row. They'd rather that financial decisions be made by bankers in London rather than by technocrats in Brussels. Who can blame them?
@claudio - I didn't delete any comment. After posting a comment please scroll down to see if there is a challenge, fill out the number and everything should be fine.
b, of course I was kidding;
but really, at the second attempt I scrolled down, there was no challenge, it said "your comment has been posted", but it wasn't; you should look into this
Posted by: claudio | Dec 11 2011 17:27 utc | 36
If Scotland secedes, where does that leave Wales and Northern Ireland?
Posted by: lysias | Dec 11 2011 17:55 utc | 37
britain has for over a century made 'own goal' its geo political & military strategy.
it reminds me of the rabid baltic states in its sense of disproportion & its capacity for self delusion.
their dangerous madness is there for all to see in the levenson inquiry (which like all the others will do absolutely nothing) where the real malignancy of power is absent & so reality passes like some 60's television drama where good will come to pass.
it never did & it never will.
their day is done.
their only hope lies in insurrection
Posted by: remembererringgiap | Dec 11 2011 17:58 utc | 38
Keynesian economics assumes that there is or will be a government actor inclined to and capable of providing beneficial regulation/oversight of the private economic actors.
But our ‘competition’ consists of big fish eating little fish, resulting in a relative handful of whales and sharks whose economic power allows them to ‘capture’ the political and regulatory process.
Thus the need for the ‘commanding heights’ of the economy, particularly the financial sector, to be democratically, not privately, controlled.
Posted by: Watson | Dec 11 2011 22:37 utc | 39
Michael Hudson's take on the European move to "technocratic" oligarchy.
One Percenters' wet dreams come true: Give the power to the banksters and do away with the social safety nets and social democracies. If the populations won't accept the banksters' terms, well, do away with the effects of elections. Pretty amazing to me.
Will the people stand for this?
Posted by: jawbone | Dec 11 2011 23:18 utc | 40
From Michael Hudson's piece:
To call the administrators of so anti-democratic a policy “technocrats” seems to be a cynical scientific-sounding euphemism for financial lobbyists or bureaucrats deemed suitably tunnel-visioned to act as useful idiots on behalf of their sponsors. Their ideology is the same austerity philosophy that the IMF imposed on Third World debtors from the 1960s through the 1980s. Claiming to stabilize the balance of payments while introducing free markets, these officials sold off export sectors and basic infrastructure to creditor-nation buyers. The effect was to drive austerity-ridden economies even deeper into debt – to foreign bankers and their own domestic oligarchies.This is the treadmill on which Eurozone social democracies are now being placed. Under the political umbrella of financial emergency, wages and living standards are to be scaled back and political power shifted from elected government to technocrats governing on behalf of large banks and financial institutions. Public-sector labor is to be privatized – and de-unionized, while Social Security, pension plans and health insurance are scaled back. (My emphasis, although everything should be emphasized.
Posted by: jawbone | Dec 11 2011 23:22 utc | 41
@ lysias "If Scotland secedes, where does that leave Wales and Northern Ireland?"
I think Wales is alot more culturally and economically routed into the UK than Scotland so can't imagine much changes there. The future of Northern Ireland is hard to predict even for an Irishman like myself. I think alot will depend on the Economy of Britain and Ireland.
Sinn Fein, the political wing of the IRA, are gaining ground fast in Ireland (an example in 2007 election they got 7% of the vote, 2011 they polling 18-20% making them the second most popular party) if the crisis gets worse and goes double dip their message that capitalism is failing will resonate (with the multi-party system they would only need around 28-30% of the vote to win). Sinn Fein would then be in power in both North and South Ireland and probably push for unification. Already alot of British feel Northern Ireland (which they subsidise hugely) is an economic drain certainly a different view from the 1980's when they fought to keep it. I think now alot of political leaders in Britain would be willing to let reunification happen.
Posted by: Colm O' Toole | Dec 11 2011 23:31 utc | 42
OECD report says income inequality in developed world is eroding the social constract in those nations.
The report recommends the Tippy Top of the Top One Percent be taxed substantially more, that they can well afford it.
Posted by: jawbone | Dec 11 2011 23:53 utc | 43
Dr. Heiner Flassbeck (Director, Division on Globalization and Development Strategies, UNCTAD): German policy of low wages and beggar thy neighbor is root of euro crisis
he's from the former left of Social Democrats
http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=7694
nice slides - thought I think, the ECB will have to print Euros, and as there is very little unemployment in Germany now, wages will rise ...
Of course Germany's economic policy is export driven, and whilst inflation against other currencies means your products are comparatively cheap, that advantage is set off by expensive raw materials Germany has to import. And the "Suebian housewife" will not be pleased, when her savings melt under the sun.
Posted by: somebody | Dec 12 2011 1:24 utc | 44
The comments to this entry are closed.
b, why do you think was the IMF resurrected? was it necessary? my opinion is that this was a way to make sure that eurozone aid will never be used to implement Keynesian policies
Posted by: claudio | Dec 10 2011 17:57 utc | 1