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:
Weekend Edition
July 29, 2016
Friday - Sunday
Michael Hudson
Obama Said Hillary will Continue His Legacy and Indeed She Will!
Jeffrey St. Clair
She Stoops to Conquer: Notes From the Democratic Convention
Rob Urie
Long Live the Queen of Chaos
Ismael Hossein-Zadeh
Evolution of Capitalism, Escalation of Imperialism
Margot Kidder
My Fellow Americans: We Are Fools
Lewis Evans
Executing Children Won’t Save the Tiger or the Rhino
Vijay Prashad
The Iraq War: a Story of Deceit
Chris Odinet
It Wasn’t Just the Baton Rouge Police Who Killed Alton Sterling
Brian Cloughley
Could Trump be Good for Peace?
Patrick Timmons
Racism, Freedom of Expression and the Prohibition of Guns at Universities in Texas
Gary Leupp
The Coming Crisis in U.S.-Turkey Relations
Pepe Escobar
Is War Inevitable in the South China Sea?
Norman Pollack
Clinton Incorruptible: An Ideological Contrivance
Robert Fantina
The Time for Third Parties is Now!
Andre Vltchek
Like Trump, Hitler Also Liked His “Small People”
Serge Halimi
Provoking Russia
David Rovics
The Republicans and Democrats Have Now Switched Places
Andrew Stewart
Countering The Nader Baiter Mythology
Rev. William Alberts
“Law and Order:” Code words for White Lives Matter Most
Ron Jacobs
Something Besides Politics for Summer’s End
David Swanson
It’s Not the Economy, Stupid
Erwan Castel
A Faith that Lifts Barricades: The Ukraine Government Bows and the Ultra-Nationalists are Furious
Steve Horn
Did Industry Ties Lead Democratic Party Platform Committee to Nix Fracking Ban?
Robert Fisk
How to Understand the Beheading of a French Priest
Colin Todhunter
Sugar-Coated Lies: How The Food Lobby Destroys Health In The EU
Franklin Lamb
“Don’t Cry For Us Syria … The Truth is We Shall Never Leave You!”
Caoimhghin Ó Croidheáin
The Artistic Representation of War and Peace, Politics and the Global Crisis
Frederick B. Hudson
Well Fed, Bill?
Harvey Wasserman
NY Times Pushes Nukes While Claiming Renewables Fail to Fight Climate Change
Elliot Sperber
Pseudo-Democracy, Reparations, and Actual Democracy
Uri Avnery
The Orange Man: Trump and the Middle East
Marjorie Cohn
The Content of Trump’s Character
Missy Comley Beattie
Pick Your Poison
Kathleen Wallace
Feel the About Turn
Joseph Grosso
Serving The Grid: Urban Planning in New York
John Repp
Real Cooperation with Nations Is the Best Survival Tactic
Binoy Kampmark
The Scourge of Youth Detention: The Northern Territory, Torture, and Australia’s Detention Disease
Kim Nicolini
Rain the Color Blue with a Little Red In It
Cesar Chelala
Gang Violence Rages Across Central America
Phillip Kim et al.
Open Letter to Bernie Sanders from Former Campaign Staffers
Tom H. Hastings
Africa/America
Robert Koehler
Slavery, War and Presidential Politics
Charles R. Larson
Review: B. George’s “The Death of Rex Ndongo”
July 28, 2016
Paul Street
Politician Speak at the DNC
Jeffrey St. Clair
Night of the Hollow Men: Notes From the Democratic Convention
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail