To this point, the European crisis has been a case of France and Germany dictating decisions to everyone else in Euro union. But there’s another potential player in all of this mess. The Merkozy preferred plan for tighter fiscal consolidation, with sanctions for member nations that fail to reach budget targets, requires a change to the Treaty of Lisbon, which covers not just the 17 countries in the Eurozone, but all 27 member countries in the EU. If that route is pursued, any country that vetoes the treaty change would effectively block it. And that brings Britain into the picture. David Cameron wants his pound of flesh for accepting the treaty changes, and it has to do with the financial sector:
David Cameron has threatened to wield Britain’s veto to block a revision of the Lisbon treaty if fellow European leaders refuse to protect the position of the City of London at the EU summit in Brussels .
In a marked hardening of his rhetoric, as Eurosceptic Tories called for a recasting of Britain’s relationship with the EU, the prime minister said he would not sign any treaty that failed to provide safeguards for Britain’s financial services.
The prime minister spoke out as Kenneth Clarke, the veteran pro-European justice secretary, told Eurosceptic Tories that they should abandon any hope of repatriating powers to Britain at this week’s EU summit. “No, we’re not going to renegotiate any transfers of powers, in my opinion,” Clarke told the FT [...]
The prime minister echoed Clarke’s view, though he used tougher language as he sought to reassure Tory Eurosceptics who were alarmed after Downing Street indicated on Monday that Cameron would not use the summit to demand the repatriation of social and employment laws. The prime minister said he would focus on protecting the position of the city and would be prepared to use Britain’s veto.
“I will not sign a treaty that does not have those safeguards in it, around things like the importance of the single market and financial services,” he told the BBC.
This is a naked play to protect British bankers, probably from the financial speculation tax, which the City of London opposes.
Even if those changes were secured, it’s not clear Britain would agree to the treaty alteration. A substantial segment of the Tory coalition in Parliament wants to break from the EU entirely. It’s likely they would push for a referendum, to put the treaty changes in the hands of a skeptical public.
Merkozy can get around this by just negotiating a side treaty with the Eurozone members, bypassing the likes of Britain and the other non-euro EU states. But that’s not their first preference. And Cameron needs to watch his threats, too, because if Merkozy pulls off the maneuver and goes around him, he will have problems at home for failing to use his leverage.
These political games are mildly diverting, but they don’t get to the core of the issue: that tighter fiscal consolidation, absent real steps to boost growth in the peripheral countries is, as Martin Wolf notes in the Financial Times, doomed to fail.
If the most powerful country in the eurozone refuses to recognise the nature of the crisis, the eurozone has no chance of either remedying it or preventing a recurrence. Yes, the ECB might paper over the cracks. In the short run, such intervention is even indispensable, since time is needed for external adjustments. Ultimately, however, external adjustment is crucial. That is far more important than fiscal austerity.
In the absence of external adjustment, the fiscal cuts imposed on fragile members will just cause prolonged and deep recessions. Once the role of external adjustment is recognised, the core issue becomes not fiscal austerity but needed shifts in competitiveness. If one rules out exits, this requires a buoyant eurozone economy, higher inflation and vigorous credit expansion in surplus countries. All of this now seems inconceivable. That is why markets are right to be so cautious.
Indeed.




17 Comments

Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
Actually, it ALL is about protecting the banks at the expense of the citzenry.
It occurred to me today that all these useless delaying tactics move the next financial meltdown closer to the U.S. election, with consequences for O.
You just beat me to it!
Forced austerity will cause collapse of all the nations and they know it!
I can’t believe our whole world is one big dancing puppet to this absurdist criminal “financial sector.” Willing to suffer and starve and die for it.
Okay, that didn’t sound right. Yes, it will become a major campaign issue as if it isn’t already.
This NeoCon One World plan is painfully coming to fruition.
Yeah, well the Finance Gurus have not only taken over the United States, but the entire WORLD!
Unlike their stateside cousins, various European peoples will revolt given austerity and ‘government’ without consent.
The EEC had some point. Brussels and a centralised, technocratic EU/Euro is beyond life support. And good thing too.
Why does this swamp smell like the war reparation debacle of WWI, that precipitated WWII?
Speculation without taxation.
Has a nice ring to it. Wonder how it translates into Greek, Spanish, and Italian.
Yes, it seems the British banksters are circling like vultures now.
But British hostility to the EZ goes back to when the EU and EZ were initially being negotiated. The Brit Foreign Minister then, William Hague, claimed the proposed EZ would become a house on fire without any exits. He guessed correctly, if by accident.
It’s hard to say if that stance was all in the service of British banks or if other factors were in play as well. Hague is a right wing Tory, but he might have had other agendas besides banksters then.
At least there was a referendum to sort out among the citizenry. The pro and con campaigns claimed whatever they could get away with. Lots of threats and hard feelings there. Now it’s hard to imagine the Brits aren’t at least slightly relieved they didn’t adopt the Euro.
About Euroskeptics. . .
http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/right-repulsive_598453.html
It’s not just the banksters. It’s conventional wisdom, as Keynes repeatedly pointed out. Somehow we have returned to the conventional wisdom of 1929-30. One of my colleagues, who is generally pretty sensible, gave a talk to our faculty association the other day on the need for austerity now to protect the generation to come. This is total horse shit, but he has been working at the Bank of Canada and now believes it. It is all confidence fairy stuff. These guys have drunk the cool-aid. They think they are doing the ‘responsible’ thing. It’s not a conspiracy. It is incredible stupidity. The model they learned in grad school has become their God. Let’s not let evidence stand in the way of faith.
Keynes also pointed out that the British government in the 1920s was sacrificing the whole economy to the interests of an extremely small sector (finance). That’s still true today.
Yep and thanks
These guys have drunk the cool-aid.
Do you mean there is an actual body of thought behind this austerity thing? Who are the proponents?
I suppose the geniuses could imagine that lower spending means fewer captial projects (more debt) and therefore better chance to collect the existing debt.
Or more sinister, it seems to me it is just the oligarchs forming up to take over the infrastruture and then lease it back. Or maybe it is another form of warfare to gain an advAntage over your neighbors? I don’t unnerstand this stuff.
Not sure how this would become a campaign issue, other then another drag on our economy. Both parties want the same thing.
The NYT http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/08/world/europe/britain-suffers-as-a-bystander-to-europes-crisis.html?_r=1&pagewanted=2 says Britain has no power to demand anything – and indeed the speeches about protecting Brit “exceptionalism” – sounds like our GOP doesn’t it? – are all that they can do
A veto on a EU treaty will be ignored as the 17 nation Eurozone writes a treaty just for itself.
“. . .Britain has no power to demand anything. . .”
——————–
Perhaps that’s correct, but I’m not convinced it’s the right question going forward.
Britain’s own leverage to “do something” to the EU may not ultimately be necessary to the Brits. That is, I’m supposing there would be passive resistance by way of a referendum “No” on EU Treaty changes, but the EZ would collapse on its own anyway, regardless, and then we don’t know enough about the impacts on the EU Treaty as a whole by a loss of the Euro.
WSJ this morning has a lead story that EZ countries are urgently studying printing their own currencies — contingency plans, which sound like self fulfulling prophesies. That process could take a couple of years or more considering that same timeframe for getting the Euro in place and functioning a decade ago. It would be even more complicated going the other way, no?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203413304577084483874422516.html
There needs to be a closer look at what powers the British Euroskeptics have wanted to claw back from Brussels, and what damage to Brussels would occur on its own simply by loss of or reorganization of the EZ. There are a lot of moving parts in any scenario, no?