FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Freezing Out Britain

by BINOY KAMPMARK

There is much more in the way of European chatter taking place in that troubled part of the world.  Discussions held at the Brussels summit on Friday saw the 27 countries of the EU attempting to forge an agreement in an effort to create what would effectively amount to a new financial arrangement.  It ended with an agreement being hammered out that involved all but one member – Britain.

Of those, the 17 euro countries have agreed on a rather stern set of measures.  And on the surface, they seem revolutionary.  A ‘fiscal compact’ is on offer, binding members to abide by budget rules and suffer penalties if in breach.  A few points too note: regulations involve a 0.5 percent of GDP on countries’ annual structural deficits, and ‘automatic consequences’ for countries whose public deficit exceeds 3 percent of GDP.[1]  While there will be no EU treaty as such, there will be a treaty between participating governments.  The European Stability Mechanism would also be put into place as a permanent arrangement by July 2012.  The fiscal policemen are well and truly in place.

Of those who were involved, troubling issues will remain about the issue of Franco-German control.  Where will the ‘outer’ powers figure in this re-arrangement of European power?  What will be the association between member states and other bodies in the EU, including the European Commission?  These are questions that will only be answered in the long term.

The sole dissentient here was Britain.  Prime Minister David Cameron came up with a rather feeble explanation. ‘We were offered a treaty that didn’t have proper safeguards for Britain, and I decided it was not right to sign that treaty.’[2]  The safeguard sought was a protocol allowing Britain a veto on financial-services regulation.  It was refused.  Charlemagne, the ever perceptive commentator in The Economist, described Cameron’s response as affecting ‘Europe’s great divorce’. ‘So two decades to the day after the Maastricht Treaty was concluded, launching the process towards the single European currency, the EU’s tectonic plates have slipped momentously along the same fault line that has always divided it – the English Channel.’[3]

Steven Erlanger and Stephen Castle reiterated the use of the plates metaphor in the New York Times, calling Friday ‘a day of historic, seemingly tectonic shifts in the architecture of Europe’.[4]  The putative victim in all of this is Britain. Germany and France become the central figures, with Britannia shut out.  Labour leader Ed Miliband described the move as ‘the catastrophic decision to walk away.’[5]  What Britain had done was abdicate from relevance, allowing ‘the 26 countries to make crucial decisions without us.’

There are two aspects of this Cameron’s decision.  On the one hand, Cameron is right to be have reservations – most of the countries, both inside and outside the eurozone, have them.   Britain, however, wishes to be special, having a special affinity with euro-skepticism.  A valid point can be made about the erosion of member sovereignty.  The emergence of a new style of ‘dictator’ – the technocrat – is not something to be cheery about.  In the era of the Roman Republic, before the term ‘dictator’ went to seed at the hands of Julius Caesar and Lucius Cornelius Sulla, individuals like Cincinnatus were appointed by the Senate for brief periods to steer the state in times of emergency within a strict time frame, then retire back to the plough.  One wonders how these current financial arrangements of financial imperialism will work.

There are also domestic hurdles to overcome in specific countries before the agreement will take effect.  The Republic of Ireland requires a constitutionally mandated referendum over a transfer of powers to the EU.  The Czech Republic, Sweden and Hungary have qualified their support by having to seek parliamentary approval.  Nor does the arrangement say much on the stabilizing of the euro, generating money or cover the issue of joint-issued bonds.

The other aspect of Cameron’s decision is that it is potentially weakening.  If one is in the mess, one can at least have a role in righting it.  Britain, given its heavy involvement in finance, can hardly claim to be an immune and virtuous island separate from the chaos of the continent which is its greatest export market.  A claim might well be made, as it has been by financial analyst Max Keiser, that London ‘is the world’s capital of fraud’, having been the conduit for the AIG, Lehman Brothers and Jon Corzine multi-billion dollar scandals.[6]  It is hard to see how not being part of a ‘European solution’, however problematic, can be in its interest.  Europe’s problems will not go away, and Britain risks become an outvoted power, an appendage rather than a participant.

Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge.  He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne.  Email: bkampmark@gmail.com

Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email: bkampmark@gmail.com

More articles by:

CounterPunch Magazine

minimag-edit

bernie-the-sandernistas-cover-344x550

zen economics

Weekend Edition
April 21, 2017
Friday - Sunday
Diana Johnstone
The Main Issue in the French Presidential Election: National Sovereignty
Paul Street
Donald Trump: Ruling Class President
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Dude, Where’s My War?
Andrew Levine
If You Can’t Beat ‘Em, Join ‘Em
Paul Atwood
Why Does North Korea Want Nukes?
Robert Hunziker
Trump and Global Warming Destroy Rivers
Vijay Prashad
Turkey, After the Referendum
Binoy Kampmark
Trump, the DOJ and Julian Assange
CJ Hopkins
The President Formerly Known as Hitler
Steve Reyna
Replacing Lady Liberty: Trump and the American Way
Lucy Steigerwald
Stop Suggesting Mandatory National Service as a Fix for America’s Problems
Robert Fisk
It is Not Just Assad Who is “Responsible” for the Rise of ISIS
John Laforge
“Strike Two” Against Canadian Radioactive Waste Dumpsite Proposal
Norman Solomon
The Democratic Party’s Anti-Bernie Elites Have a Huge Stake in Blaming Russia
Andrew Stewart
Can We Finally Get Over Bernie Sanders?
Susan Babbitt
Don’t Raise Liberalism From the Dead (If It is Dead, Which It’s Not)
Uri Avnery
Palestine’s Nelson Mandela
Fred Nagel
It’s “Deep State” Time Again
John Feffer
The Hunger President
Stephen Cooper
Nothing is Fair About Alabama’s “Fair Justice Act”
Jack Swallow
Why Science Should Be Political
Chuck Collins
Congrats, Graduates! Here’s Your Diploma and Debt
Aidan O'Brien
While God Blesses America, Prometheus Protects Syria, Russia and North Korea 
Patrick Hiller
Get Real About Preventing War
David Rosen
Fiction, Fake News and Trump’s Sexual Politics
Evan Jones
Macron of France: Chauncey Gardiner for President!
David Macaray
Adventures in Labor Contract Language
Ron Jacobs
The Music Never Stopped
Kim Scipes
Black Subjugation in America
Sean Stinson
MOAB: More Obama and Bush
Miguel A. Cruz-Díaz
Minute Musings: On Why the United States Should Launch a Tomahawk Strike on Puerto Rico
Tom Clifford
The Return of “Mein Kampf” … in Japan
Todd Larsen
Concerned About Climate Change? Change Where You Bank!
Thomas Hon Wing Polin
Brexit: Britain’s Opening to China?
John Hutchison
Everything Old is New Again: a Brief Retrospectus on Korea and the Cold War
Michael Brenner
The Ghost in the Dream Machine
Yves Engler
The Military Occupation of Haiti
Christopher Brauchli
Guardians of Lies
James Preece
How Labour Can Win the Snap Elections
Cesar Chelala
Preventing Disabilities in the Elderly
Sam Gordon
From We Shall Overcome to Where Have all the Flowers Gone?
Charles Thomson
It’s Still Not Too Late to Deserve Your CBE, Chris Ofili
Louis Proyect
Documentaries That Punch
Charles R. Larson
Review: Vivek Shanbhag’s “Ghachar Ghochar”
David Yearsley
Raiding the Tomb of Lubitsch
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail