FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Freezing Out Britain

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

More articles by:

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

September 18, 2018
Conn Hallinan
Britain: the Anti-Semitism Debate
Tamara Pearson
Why Mexico’s Next President is No Friend of Migrants
Richard Moser
Both the Commune and Revolution
Nick Pemberton
Serena 15, Tennis Love
Binoy Kampmark
Inconvenient Realities: Climate Change and the South Pacific
Martin Billheimer
La Grand’Route: Waiting for the Bus
John Kendall Hawkins
Seymour Hersh: a Life of Adversarial Democracy at Work
Faisal Khan
Is Israel a Democracy?
John Feffer
The GOP Wants Trumpism…Without Trump
Kim Ives
The Roots of Haiti’s Movement for PetroCaribe Transparency
Dave Lindorff
We Already Have a Fake Billionaire President; Why Would We want a Real One Running in 2020?
Gerry Brown
Is China Springing Debt Traps or Throwing a Lifeline to Countries in Distress?
Pete Tucker
The Washington Post Really Wants to Stop Ben Jealous
Dean Baker
Getting It Wrong Again: Consumer Spending and the Great Recession
September 17, 2018
Melvin Goodman
What is to be Done?
Rob Urie
American Fascism
Patrick Cockburn
The Adults in the White House Trying to Save the US From Trump Are Just as Dangerous as He Is
Jeffrey St. Clair - Alexander Cockburn
The Long Fall of Bob Woodward: From Nixon’s Nemesis to Cheney’s Savior
Mairead Maguire
Demonization of Russia in a New Cold War Era
Dean Baker
The Bank Bailout of 2008 was Unnecessary
Wim Laven
Hurricane Trump, Season 2
Yves Engler
Smearing Dimitri Lascaris
Ron Jacobs
From ROTC to Revolution and Beyond
Clark T. Scott
The Cannibals of Horsepower
Binoy Kampmark
A Traditional Right: Jimmie Åkesson and the Sweden Democrats
Laura Flanders
History Markers
Weekend Edition
September 14, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Carl Boggs
Obama’s Imperial Presidency
Joshua Frank
From CO2 to Methane, Trump’s Hurricane of Destruction
Jeffrey St. Clair
Maria’s Missing Dead
Andrew Levine
A Bulwark Against the Idiocy of Conservatives Like Brett Kavanaugh
T.J. Coles
Neil deGrasse Tyson: A Celebrity Salesman for the Military-Industrial-Complex
Jeff Ballinger
Nike and Colin Kaepernick: Fronting the Bigots’ Team
David Rosen
Why Stop at Roe? How “Settled Law” Can be Overturned
Gary Olson
Pope Francis and the Battle Over Cultural Terrain
Nick Pemberton
Donald The Victim: A Product of Post-9/11 America
Ramzy Baroud
The Veiled Danger of the ‘Dead’ Oslo Accords
Kevin Martin
U.S. Support for the Bombing of Yemen to Continue
Robert Fisk
A Murder in Aleppo
Robert Hunziker
The Elite World Order in Jitters
Ben Dangl
After 9/11: The Staggering Economic and Human Cost of the War on Terror
Charles Pierson
Invade The Hague! Bolton vs. the ICC
Robert Fantina
Trump and Palestine
Daniel Warner
Hubris on and Off the Court
John Kendall Hawkins
Boning Up on Eternal Recurrence, Kubrick-style: “2001,” Revisited
Haydar Khan
Set Theory of the Left
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail