Recent events in the Eurozone have led a number of commentators to suggest that we are nearing some repeat of the financial crisis that followed the nationalisation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in August 2008 and the subsequent (and consequent) bankruptcy of Lehman's. In my view, the current situation is rather different from that in 2008, but matters could turn out much worse.
Point six of ten on the Conservative-Liberal agreement reads as follows: “We will work to promote stability in the Western Balkans.” William Hague will get a chance to show what this means when he joins fellow European foreign ministers at a summit in Sarajevo on 2 June. As I argue in a new brief about Balkan policy, the meeting could not come at a better time. The region is beginning to look dicey once again. Though Balkan countries were asked by the West to proceed along the reform-laden route towards EU accession, which entails reforming their economies, making friends with erstwhile enemies and adjusting their constitutions, there is now uncertainty whether the EU actually wants them to join the club.
Several months ago, European leaders went to Copenhagen to save the planet. China, India and Brazil on the other hand went to the climate negotiations in Denmark to showcase the changed distribution of power in the world. Unsurprisingly, the Europeans came home empty-handed, shut out of the key negotiations and powerless despite what was meant to be a standard-setting promise of 20 percent cut in the EU's greenhouse gas emissions. The US and the rising powers struck a non-binding deal, the value of which is still being determined.
I would like to defend the coalition from allegations that there has been a deplorable Tory concession on the Human Rights Act. Tearing it up was never in the Tory manifesto. Dominic Grieve, who drafted the Tory plan, is one of those lawyers who is rather passionate about the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) and praised it in his maiden speech. I had many conversations with him about this: for Britain to pull out of it, he said, would send an “odd” signal to the countries on the fringes of Europe whom we were trying to pull into our orbit. Grieve’s plan was to propose a Bill of Rights which would look and sound like something that would supplant the ECHR (put into British law by the Human Rights Act).
"The biggest shake up of our democracy since 1832." That's how Nick Clegg is describing the legislative package that he's announcing today. And, even if that's pure bravado, there's certainly plenty of encouraging stuff in it. Scrapping ID cards; restricting the storage of innocent people's DNA; and the government is even set to ask the public which laws they'd like to see repealed. Sign me up. But it's one omission which is really ruffling Tory feathers today. There will not, it seems, be an immediate move to supplant or even dilute the European Convention on Human Rights with a British Bill of Rights. Speaking on Radio 4 this morning, Theresa May stressed that this is still a matter for negotiation within the coalition.
One of the things that critics of the LibCon coalition keep coming back to is the question of what will happen in European, local and other elections. Will the two governing parties stand against each other? And how can they differentiate themselves when they support the same policies? To many, it seems like David Cameron and Nick Clegg are suggesting that we all walk backwards – odd, uncomfortable and unlikely to ensure progress. But why is this so odd? This kind of electioneering happens in many other countries. Take Denmark. There, a Liberal-Conservative government has been in power for almost a decade and across several elections, yet the two governing parties have gone to elections as separate parties, each with their own platform.
Those who hate the new Conservative-led government and those who love it seem to be united in one expectation: that Europe policy may be the coalition's downfall. David Lidington, the able new Europe minister, certainly has his work cut out for him. In the latest of the Brussels journal Europe's World, Foreign Secretary William Hague lays out the government's Europe policy, a policy best described as "pragmatic scepticism": "The EU is an institution of enormous importance to the United Kingdom and to British foreign policy.
A week in, and I am loving the Conservative-led government. The new line-up of Secretaries of State is very impressive and, though a few solid Tory politicians missed out on Cabinet posts, the inclusion of the Liberal Democrat bench has swelled the government’s talent quota. David Cameron has infused No 10 with energy and purpose. You can just feel the umpf. As the former MP John Gummer said, there is now “smile on the face of Britain”. Foreign Secretary William Hague’s trip to the US set the right tone by calling the UK-US link “an unbreakable alliance”.
Faisal Islam has the story that the EU has revised Britain’s economic prospects up to 1.2 percent in 2010 from 0.9 percent. Next year, the EU predict to 2.1 percent, the highest of major European nations. Is this a crumb of comfort for Brown? Well yes, but the EU’s predictions are still someway off Alistair Darling’s forecasts. His growth prediction for 2010 is in the region of 1 percent to 1.5 percent, which is closer than his predictions for 2011, when he expects GDP to increase by 3 percent to 3.5 percent. In any event, the upgraded figures are probably too small to shift the polls at this stage.
I have just visited the two countries that are making the headlines in the European newspapers – Germany and Greece. During my trip, I met officials, journalists, and key advisers to both Prime Minister Papandréou and Chancellor Merkel. Sitting on the flight back to London I have regrettably come to the conclusion that the Euro is probably done for – or that Greece will default inside the Eurozone. Until now, I have dismissed the pessimists, thinking that the Euro would be saved. But after my trip I have changed my view for a number of reasons. Nothing I saw in Greece has convinced me that the Greek government is able, ready and willing to oversee the kind of austerity programme required to restore faith in its economy.
Post-election deals are tough for those on the wings of political parties - the activists, the die-hards, the idealists. Those in the middle, by definition the pragmatists, find it easier to prioritise aims or to compromise in the short-term in order to win over the long-term. Any Con-Lib deal will be tough for the left-wing of the Lib Dems and the right-wing of the Conservative party. But both will have to accept that power is better than opposition and that being able to implement part of your party programme is better than carping on the sidelines, your manifesto languishing on never-visited websites.
One of Labour’s talking points during the election has been that even the US administration is worried about Conservative Europe policy and how a government led by David Cameron may marginalise Britain in Europe and hobble Europe in the world. Until now, there has been very little to prove the concern. US Secretary of State Hilary Clinton has said nothing, nor has anyone in the White House. But two days ago came the clearest sign that the US administration may indeed be worried.
Europe is likely to play a big role in tonight’s debate. It is probably the one issue that divides the Liberal Democrats and the Tories as much as electoral reform. Nick Clegg, a former MEP and adviser to then-EU Commissioner Leon Brittan, is a euro-enthusiast who would like Britain to join the Euro, even if it takes time. David Cameron is a euro-skeptic (though not, to the chagrin of many CoffeHouse readers, obsessed about the issue). But neither wants a confrontation with the EU and other European governments over the next four years - and the Liberal Democrats have become quieter over time about their pro-EU tendencies.
Since the Lib Dems starting surging there has been no shortage of speculation about the possible coalitions that may emerge after the election - Lab-Lib, Lib-Lab, Con-Lib. There has also been breathless speculation about what posts Nick Clegg might demand, including by yours truly. But none have been as cleverly-written as Hugo Brady’s. A think-tanker for CER, Brady is predicting the rise of "Clameronism": 'Buoyed by a huge increase in the Liberal vote, Clegg at first opted for opposition. He bet that a swift second election was likely and that the Liberal Democrats would again double their seats. But the threat of a new financial crisis later that year spelt an end to normal politics.
The FT’s Jim Pickard writes: ‘Cameron will be cursing the order of the debates. He’d much prefer to be attacking Nick Clegg on domestic issues than foreign affairs on Thursday.’ I’m not so sure. Foreign Policy is the arena where the Tories are concrete, populist and accessible. The same is not true for the Lib Dems. Along with Iain Martin and John Rentoul, Pete noted that Ed Davey is vague on the Lib Dem Trident replacement policy. Davey's vague with good reason: the policy is hopelessly confused. The manifesto says: ‘Rule out the like-for-like replacement of the Trident nuclear weapons system.
Only defuse. That seemed to be the approach of all three participants in the Daily Politics' foreign affairs debate this afternoon. The frequent questions from Andrew Neil and Mark Urban put David Miliband, William Hague and the Lib Dems' Ed Davey on the collective back foot. It was all they could do to take some of the sting out of proceedings. In Miliband's case, that meant Iraq and defence spending. On the former, he started with one of the bluntest statements we've heard from any government minister on the issue: "If we knew then what we know now," he said, "we wouldn't have gone into Iraq." You can see the thinking: distance the Brown Government from Blair's War.
In the book a World Without the West, the authors invite the reader to imagine the non-Western world where South-to-South grow so strong that they bypass the traditional Euro-Atlantic powers. Stuck in southern Europe because of Eyjafjallajokull's eruption, I have begun thinking about life without airplane travel. The last 15 years have not only seen an explosion in cheap airline travel - spawning new tourist industries in once-forgotten European cities - but there has been an increase in the use of air transport for goods, mail, soldiers and much else besides. What would happen if this is ground to a halt in Europe not for a weekend or weeks but months?
I am sitting in a busy café in Athens’s fancy Kolonaki district, watching the city’s elite stroll by in their well-fitting couture jeans, as the afternoon sun shimmers off the dusty streets. The women are weighed down by that most delightful of burdens -- shopping bags from the local FENDI shop -- and the latte I have just ordered comes at the recession-defying price of five euros. The regular demonstrations, which block the city centre and bring the police out in force, are now greeted with resignation rather than concern. It may take a little longer to travel home when the shops close -– which they do mid-day on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Saturdays (on Sundays they are closed all day) -- but summer is on its way.
The Conservative Party’s departure from the European People's Party came down to a choice of expediency over principle. If you are inclined to accept that Britain will stay in the EU and that membership helps this country - even if it requires some compromises - you will likely find the move unfortunate. If you are more concerned about the principles at stake – and feel that Britain’s loss of sovereignty has gone too far – and do not care about the loss of influence on the legislative process, you are likely to be in favor of the Tory move. David Cameron is keen to keep the issue of Europe away from the campaign - and he is likely to succeed.
Polish President Lech Kaczynski, his wife and a number of top Polish officials, including the Central Bank president, the Polish ambassador to Moscow and an Army chief, were killed when the presidential plane crashed near an airport in western Russia. The tragedy – the worst in modern Polish history – ends an extraordinary career for the actor-turned-politician who, alongside his twin brother Jaroslaw Kaczynski, upended Poland’s political system when they founded the conservative party Law and Justice, and in 2006 controlled both the presidency and the government. The brothers first found fame as child actors, with angelic faces in a film version of the popular children's book The Two That Stole The Moon.
