Dear readers,
I have listened with disgust to many of the comments made in the UK and in the Netherlands about the so-called Icesave deal. This is a nasty piece of chauvinistic bullshit if there is one. Let's go back to the facts. In 2007 and 2008, many Dutch and British citizens (as well as most Icelandic people) subscribed to Landbanski saving accounts which were proposing extraordinary returns, far above the (then already quite high) market interest rates. Unfortunately for them, such rates could only be achieved through a semi-pyramidal scheme, part of the returns being funded by capital being invested by the new customers. Please note that each national group of citizens was also relying on guarantees from their respective national finance regulators. This lasted until the now infamous credit crisis burst, leaving thousands of people with virtually nothing left of their savings.
Obviously, these customers turned back to their state and activated the refund requests linked to the national guarantee. Some of them, however, had invested amounts in the Landbanski scheme that were higher than the national guarantee limit. They lost a lot of money, on top of the promised interests. Understandably, these citizens and the public organisations that had imitated them (regional councils, towns and other districts) were quite angry at the Icelandic banks for having failed them, despite the fact that they should probably have known better. There is indeed no such thing as a saving system which can deliver twice the market interest rate.
However, things became uglier. Hit by a triple bank failure (aggravated by the UK uncompromising attitude), the Icelandic currency lost most of its value and the Icelandic economy collapsed. Iceland new government and its citizens, understanding for the first time that their previous go-it-alone policy was not protecting them in times of crisis, decided to apply for EU membership. The reasoning is that the European Union, particularly its monetary aspects (the Euro), could protect them in the future from similar disasters. This was favourably seen by most EU member states (in normal times, Iceland would be a net contributor to the EU budget). But the UK and Netherlands, were both governments are in difficult electoral situations, facing strong populist criticisms, vocally requested that Iceland first reimburse the sums they had advanced themselves to their duped citizens. This is called the Icesave package deal and is currently being discussed by the Iceland Parliament, the Athling (the oldest Parliament in the world).
This is unfortunately probably going to derail the whole process. EU membership negotiations were already going to be difficult, due to a understandable worries from the Icelandic fishery sector. But the new British and Dutch exigences are enraging an already touchy Icelandic public opinion. And I can only give my support to the unfortunate Icelandic citizens. Why on Earth, when they are already down, highly indebted and suffering from a terrible crisis, should they be forced to support the costs of guarantees that were passed by other governments. Why should they pay for the misdeeds of a private bank which only happens to share a geographic situation with them. Why should they be asked to cover on their own money the risks taken by other people? Why should they in other words, pay for the greed of fellow Europeans? I see no ethical basis for this. I don't see any legal reason for this either. On the contrary, I believe that we should rather give a shoulder to fellow Europeans, especially at a time when everyone is suffering. That's what solidarity is for. That's what the EU is for: being stronger together, not screwing the weakest link...
Showing posts with label UK. Show all posts
Showing posts with label UK. Show all posts
21 August 2009
24 October 2008
European marine defence
Dear readers,
As you probably know, Europe has no defence forces, stricto sensu, and of course even less of a navy. Of course, the European Union website will tell you otherwise, and I am aware of the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CSFP). But such a policy is very deceptive in its name as well as its definition. First, it is not really as common as it says it is, and, second, it is more an intention of a policy than a real policy by itself. Let me explain.
The CFSP, or PESC in the French EU jargon, is primarily a voluntary coordination effort by member states who are not militarily neutral. It is also a prevention system and an anti-terrorism information exchange forum. But it is not a common army, and though multinational units do exist, they can not be engaged on an order from Brussels, even if it was backed by the EU Parliament. In other words, it is a nice beginning but not a real policy. There is also a generally agreed guideline on military purchase contracts, but I dare say that it does not prevent or discourage EU countries to buy military equipment without coordination with their neighbours nor does it prevent them from buying equipment outside of the Union, even if the price tag is higher.
The result we all know. While the EU has some powers in terms of economic and monetary policies, and while it certainly has a strong common environmental policy, it is looked upon with derision by other major powers. And with good reasons. There is no "big stick" to paraphrase Roosevelt, to back up the European soft words. OK, I'll give you one or two successful common missions in the Balkans and a half success in solving the Russo-Georgian war. But let's face it, the Eurocorps is a sad joke (no offence intended to its brave members, but I am sure they are as disappointed as myself about their forces), there is no EU navy or Air Force and countries like the Netherlands, Poland or the UK have absolutely no European solidarity when it comes to military spendings. They simply buy what the USA tell them to, regardless of the price or the actual need for such equipment.
Recently, I have to admit, some light seemed to show at the end of the dark tunnel of the CFSP. France led initiatives seem to be pushing in a better direction. First, under Jacques Chirac presidency, France and the UK decided to develop a new generation of aircraft carrier together. This was a major decision for both countries and the result was a common design platform for modular ships (three to be exact). Unfortunately, while the UK kept their end of the bargain and ordered their two units to host their future JSF aircrafts, France is still mulling over its decision to buy a replacement for the already shelved Clemenceau. Though it is for budget reasons, the decision of delaying the decision might in the end cost a lot more to France. This is one of the miracles of the National Accountancy system that France uses for its budget. It is a system which, unlike normal accountancy principles, counts only the current year for expenses and revenues, ignoring future expenses for the next year. It means that, technically, a measure can be taken which actually will cost more to the tax payer, but, in the short term, will weight less on the yearly budget. It's completely stupid, but, let's face it, French civil servants and politicians are not the brightest lot.
Anyway, to come back to the topic, there is one area where France is pushing in the right direction, and it is the navy. Just yesterday, France hosted an initiative aimed at gathering an EU rapid reaction force of naval units. France has allegedly the biggest navy of the EU (at least until the UK carriers are build) and would probably contribute the most to it, hence the location of the meeting. But interestingly enough, the real reason behind such an interest is the usual one: EU countries have a common enemy. It is not Russia, not Iran, not China or Syria. The common enemy disrupting vital marine supply lines is a bunch of African pirates, operating from the war torn area of Eyl, between Puntland and Somalia proper.
These strange mix of Punt mafia and Somali Islamists is motivated by greed and power and raids everything moving between the Somali barren coast and the Seychelles islands. They are disrupting a major oil and gas tanker route, as well as a container route from Asia to Europe and from the Middle-East to Europe (not counting several secondary routes to Africa). So French navy units and other EU ships have began policing the area, first as secondary operation zone for the NATO forces protecting the entrance of the Persian Gulf, and now as an operation by itself (FR). The operation had yesterday its first success, with the arrest of a dozen pirates on a boutre loaded with RPG launchers and assault riffles. They were duly delivered to Puntland coast guards who are also beginning to show their own teeth lately. We will see where all this leads. But I hope that we will see more of these operations in the future.
I also hope that European countries will eventually begin to purchase weapons, ships and vehicles together, even if I know that it is not for tomorrow...
As you probably know, Europe has no defence forces, stricto sensu, and of course even less of a navy. Of course, the European Union website will tell you otherwise, and I am aware of the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CSFP). But such a policy is very deceptive in its name as well as its definition. First, it is not really as common as it says it is, and, second, it is more an intention of a policy than a real policy by itself. Let me explain.
The CFSP, or PESC in the French EU jargon, is primarily a voluntary coordination effort by member states who are not militarily neutral. It is also a prevention system and an anti-terrorism information exchange forum. But it is not a common army, and though multinational units do exist, they can not be engaged on an order from Brussels, even if it was backed by the EU Parliament. In other words, it is a nice beginning but not a real policy. There is also a generally agreed guideline on military purchase contracts, but I dare say that it does not prevent or discourage EU countries to buy military equipment without coordination with their neighbours nor does it prevent them from buying equipment outside of the Union, even if the price tag is higher.
The result we all know. While the EU has some powers in terms of economic and monetary policies, and while it certainly has a strong common environmental policy, it is looked upon with derision by other major powers. And with good reasons. There is no "big stick" to paraphrase Roosevelt, to back up the European soft words. OK, I'll give you one or two successful common missions in the Balkans and a half success in solving the Russo-Georgian war. But let's face it, the Eurocorps is a sad joke (no offence intended to its brave members, but I am sure they are as disappointed as myself about their forces), there is no EU navy or Air Force and countries like the Netherlands, Poland or the UK have absolutely no European solidarity when it comes to military spendings. They simply buy what the USA tell them to, regardless of the price or the actual need for such equipment.
Recently, I have to admit, some light seemed to show at the end of the dark tunnel of the CFSP. France led initiatives seem to be pushing in a better direction. First, under Jacques Chirac presidency, France and the UK decided to develop a new generation of aircraft carrier together. This was a major decision for both countries and the result was a common design platform for modular ships (three to be exact). Unfortunately, while the UK kept their end of the bargain and ordered their two units to host their future JSF aircrafts, France is still mulling over its decision to buy a replacement for the already shelved Clemenceau. Though it is for budget reasons, the decision of delaying the decision might in the end cost a lot more to France. This is one of the miracles of the National Accountancy system that France uses for its budget. It is a system which, unlike normal accountancy principles, counts only the current year for expenses and revenues, ignoring future expenses for the next year. It means that, technically, a measure can be taken which actually will cost more to the tax payer, but, in the short term, will weight less on the yearly budget. It's completely stupid, but, let's face it, French civil servants and politicians are not the brightest lot.
Anyway, to come back to the topic, there is one area where France is pushing in the right direction, and it is the navy. Just yesterday, France hosted an initiative aimed at gathering an EU rapid reaction force of naval units. France has allegedly the biggest navy of the EU (at least until the UK carriers are build) and would probably contribute the most to it, hence the location of the meeting. But interestingly enough, the real reason behind such an interest is the usual one: EU countries have a common enemy. It is not Russia, not Iran, not China or Syria. The common enemy disrupting vital marine supply lines is a bunch of African pirates, operating from the war torn area of Eyl, between Puntland and Somalia proper.
These strange mix of Punt mafia and Somali Islamists is motivated by greed and power and raids everything moving between the Somali barren coast and the Seychelles islands. They are disrupting a major oil and gas tanker route, as well as a container route from Asia to Europe and from the Middle-East to Europe (not counting several secondary routes to Africa). So French navy units and other EU ships have began policing the area, first as secondary operation zone for the NATO forces protecting the entrance of the Persian Gulf, and now as an operation by itself (FR). The operation had yesterday its first success, with the arrest of a dozen pirates on a boutre loaded with RPG launchers and assault riffles. They were duly delivered to Puntland coast guards who are also beginning to show their own teeth lately. We will see where all this leads. But I hope that we will see more of these operations in the future.
I also hope that European countries will eventually begin to purchase weapons, ships and vehicles together, even if I know that it is not for tomorrow...
26 June 2007
An Amended Treaty for the the EU
Dear readers,
The conference presided by Germany and which was supposed to relaunch the EU construction, stalled by France and the Netherlands, has been presented by Angela Merkel as a success. My first reaction would be to say: we should be preserved from such success in the future, because I don't see what a failure would have had worse. But let's analyze a bit what happened.
The intergovernmental conference in Brussels lasted a bit longer than foreseen, but that is a very usual feature with these negotiations. What actually happened behind the doors of the conference rooms was unfortunately not worth the time spent on it (paid, may I remind you, with our hard won euros). It was one of the worse pieces of haggling and bitter bickering that the EU has seen. Everyone was ready to take concessions from others but none was ready to offer something for the common good. The result is up to the lack of good will. Even Poland managed to get its way, despite its ridiculous claims (opposed by all the 26 other members). Somebody was so frightened to see them walk out that they actually managed to impose a point on the voting system that wasn't even in the list of items at the conference.
Thanks to the twin "jerk" brothers in Warsaw, the completely inefficient voting system from the Nice Treaty will be kept until 2014 and, for some areas deemed "important" by member states (understand Poland or future other jerks discretionary decision) until 2017. This is sad enough already, but it isn't the end of it. Most of the items in the Constitution project which were trying to put some spirit in the Union, some visibility (and by it some democracy) in its functioning, have been scrapped or badly damaged. Gone is the official adoption of its flag, anthem, motto and other symbols. Like such things could harm the petty nationalism of some member states? This is ridiculous, sad, but ridiculous. I don't know who asked for this, but you can bet the UK is behind. It's typically the type of decision which would (temporarily) please the readers of The Sun. Gone is also (and at the request of the same country) the EU Foreign Minister, replaced by a High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. How can anyone take such a title seriously?
But more important maybe than the symbolic aspects, everybody has bitten chunks of a text which should have remained simple and readable. The only serious flaw of the late Constitution was its lack of readability, and that flaw has been actually made worse. On top of this, countries have won the right to opt out from the common justice and security policy. The UK have asked for this and obtained it. But it means again that they are not showing any kind of commitment to Europe. Everybody can see, even, I am sure, Her Majesty's police forces, that a common policy in this domain is vital to fight international crime, terrorism or illegal immigration. But the UK will prefer endanger its own citizens rather than bow to the EU. The stupidity of politicians, their lack of vision will be paid dearly in the future. But hey, they don't care, they will get reelected because they will have gotten a "victory" in Brussels last week-end.
Poor Europe and poor Europeans. Do we deserve this? I guess yes. After all, we have got the politicians we have voted for. And French and Dutch citizens bear even more responsibility. It's after all their fault if all this happened. By voting no, they have killed a great project and made all this possible. It is saddening but true. The two countries which were maybe the most willing builders of the European ideas have betrayed it in the most stupid way.
I don't see what the future will get us. But I am not optimistic (one used to say that I was a cynic and that one was right). The only way of rebuilding what's left of the EU, with all its opt-out clauses, temporary systems and impaired institutions, would be I think to go it alone with a group of countries whose citizens and politicians have a bit more vision than the others. I don't even know for sure that these countries exist. But I guess Belgium, Italy, Germany, Spain and Luxembourg are the most obvious ones. They should invite the historical ones to follow them (us French and Dutch, for instance) and hopefully we will see our mistakes. But I believe they should simply drop out (instead of opting out) the ones that don't really want to participate. Then we will see who owns the future. The old nation states like the UK or Poland or the new humanist European dream?
The conference presided by Germany and which was supposed to relaunch the EU construction, stalled by France and the Netherlands, has been presented by Angela Merkel as a success. My first reaction would be to say: we should be preserved from such success in the future, because I don't see what a failure would have had worse. But let's analyze a bit what happened.
The intergovernmental conference in Brussels lasted a bit longer than foreseen, but that is a very usual feature with these negotiations. What actually happened behind the doors of the conference rooms was unfortunately not worth the time spent on it (paid, may I remind you, with our hard won euros). It was one of the worse pieces of haggling and bitter bickering that the EU has seen. Everyone was ready to take concessions from others but none was ready to offer something for the common good. The result is up to the lack of good will. Even Poland managed to get its way, despite its ridiculous claims (opposed by all the 26 other members). Somebody was so frightened to see them walk out that they actually managed to impose a point on the voting system that wasn't even in the list of items at the conference.
Thanks to the twin "jerk" brothers in Warsaw, the completely inefficient voting system from the Nice Treaty will be kept until 2014 and, for some areas deemed "important" by member states (understand Poland or future other jerks discretionary decision) until 2017. This is sad enough already, but it isn't the end of it. Most of the items in the Constitution project which were trying to put some spirit in the Union, some visibility (and by it some democracy) in its functioning, have been scrapped or badly damaged. Gone is the official adoption of its flag, anthem, motto and other symbols. Like such things could harm the petty nationalism of some member states? This is ridiculous, sad, but ridiculous. I don't know who asked for this, but you can bet the UK is behind. It's typically the type of decision which would (temporarily) please the readers of The Sun. Gone is also (and at the request of the same country) the EU Foreign Minister, replaced by a High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. How can anyone take such a title seriously?
But more important maybe than the symbolic aspects, everybody has bitten chunks of a text which should have remained simple and readable. The only serious flaw of the late Constitution was its lack of readability, and that flaw has been actually made worse. On top of this, countries have won the right to opt out from the common justice and security policy. The UK have asked for this and obtained it. But it means again that they are not showing any kind of commitment to Europe. Everybody can see, even, I am sure, Her Majesty's police forces, that a common policy in this domain is vital to fight international crime, terrorism or illegal immigration. But the UK will prefer endanger its own citizens rather than bow to the EU. The stupidity of politicians, their lack of vision will be paid dearly in the future. But hey, they don't care, they will get reelected because they will have gotten a "victory" in Brussels last week-end.
Poor Europe and poor Europeans. Do we deserve this? I guess yes. After all, we have got the politicians we have voted for. And French and Dutch citizens bear even more responsibility. It's after all their fault if all this happened. By voting no, they have killed a great project and made all this possible. It is saddening but true. The two countries which were maybe the most willing builders of the European ideas have betrayed it in the most stupid way.
I don't see what the future will get us. But I am not optimistic (one used to say that I was a cynic and that one was right). The only way of rebuilding what's left of the EU, with all its opt-out clauses, temporary systems and impaired institutions, would be I think to go it alone with a group of countries whose citizens and politicians have a bit more vision than the others. I don't even know for sure that these countries exist. But I guess Belgium, Italy, Germany, Spain and Luxembourg are the most obvious ones. They should invite the historical ones to follow them (us French and Dutch, for instance) and hopefully we will see our mistakes. But I believe they should simply drop out (instead of opting out) the ones that don't really want to participate. Then we will see who owns the future. The old nation states like the UK or Poland or the new humanist European dream?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)