Arthur Doohan: In chess, the quality that separates the 'grandmaster' from the 'talented amateur' is the number of moves ahead that each player can mentally keep in mind and manipulate. Something similar is said to be true for champion tennis and snooker players.
I am not one for conspiracy theories as experience has to date shown me far more evidence supporting the 'Murphy's Law' theory of management of human affairs.
None the less, there are in all realms, whether jurisdictional or professional, at any given time a handful of competent persons with both a breadth of vision and a depth of ability.
The 'European Project' was built by men widely adjudged to be 'political grandmasters'. Adenauer, de Gaulle, Brandt, Mitterand, Delors; none of these were, or are, regarded as vain or shortsighted or incompetent. Patiently and with great care and at considerable cost and in the face of much dissent, the various layers of the EU have been put together.
Yes, there have been many compromises and the 'project' is far from complete and the final form is not clear to anyone. But there was a vision behind the efforts of these men and there was, most certainly, a bitter awareness of what the possible costs of failure could be and what the outcome of failure would look like.
In the context of all that wisdom, ability and effort we now have to re-examine the crisis that envelopes the 'European Project'. The 'design flaws' in the single currency were clearly enunciated before its adoption. The bumpy evolution of the ERM gave ample warning of how tough life might be for some members of the monetary union.
The driving ambition of the proponents was not merely to enhance European trade or reduce the profits of foreign exchange traders. They did not seek some empty token of pseudo-unity for Europe.
What they wanted was a means of preventing a repetition of the abuse of power and the greedy expropriation of financial wealth that the US imposed on the rest of the world when it unilaterally and without warning or dialogue abandoned the Bretton Woods agreement in 1971.
The only way to achieve this would be to build a currency with the strength and depth of the 'mighty dollar'.
That level of integration has always been regarded as politically impossible to achieve and, in many ways, has been 'tabu' to both those who would propose it, as well as to its instinctive opponents.
Nobody 'walks the plank' out of choice. Standing at the end of the plank, one jumps into the water because certain death awaits at the other end and there is some hope, however slight, amongst the fish and the sharks.
The designers were well aware of the risks and the flaws of the design of the Euro. They had knowledge of, and personal experience of, financial disasters of national and supra-national scale and impact. A crisis of the type we are currently dealing with was inevitable with only its timing as a matter of debate. Almost certainly it has come sooner than most observers expected and has probably been brought on and exacerbated by the US debt crisis.
We are now hearing calls for the 'federalization' of problem debts from predictable, and from most unlikely, sources. Of course, no one mentions the corollary of this federalization which would have to be federal tax raising powers. At which point the EU project would be complete.
This is an alternative to the disintegration of the Euro and the EU as a solution to the unviability of the debt mountain that has been piled high in the storehouses of Europe. And as solutions go, while unpalatable to many, it looks less painful than the alternative.
So I leave you with this thought and a quote.
Did the designers of the Euro hope to achieve, through a crisis, a level of European integration that would never be possible by normal negotiations?
“And whether or not it is clear to you, no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should.”
- Desiderata by Max Ehrmann
5 comments:
"What they wanted was a means of preventing a repetition of the abuse of power and the greedy expropriation of financial wealth that the US imposed on the rest of the world when it unilaterally and without warning or dialogue abandoned the Bretton Woods agreement in 1971."
Are you serious with this stuff? This reads like an article you'd find in the FT.
"In the context of all that wisdom, ability and effort...."
Have you completely missed the subtext of this crisis? That effective solutions are not being found because the peoples throughout Europe are p£$%^d. That they've had games been played on them by their political elites, illusions peddled, promises broken and then denied, contracts reneged on, democracy subverted.
Throughout history, wars have been fought in Europe due to these so called chess masters, who seeing five moves ahead got too smart for themselves. They say, and may even think, they're doing something good, but just as in the past they're playing power games.
"That level of integration has always been regarded as politically impossible to achieve and, in many ways, has been 'tabu' to both those who would propose it, as well as to its instinctive opponents."
It's instinctive opponents are the European people. Seriously, what do the elites of Europe have against democracy???
You know, I used to be an instinctive Europhile. I’ve supported the role of Europe as I could see the tremendous social benefits in this country since we joined. I’ve also had the privilege of living in more than one European country. But I turned my back on it after the Nice Treaty, and became implacably opposed after Lisbon. These so called elites that you either identify with or applaud are no friends of the people of Europe, no friend of democracy, and no friend of mine.
I leave you with a quote:
But within hours of Saturday's decision, Eurogroup chairman Jean-Claude Juncker warned Greeks that help from the EU and International Monetary Fund would have unpleasant consequences.
"The sovereignty of Greece will be massively limited," he told Germany's Focus magazine in the interview released on Sunday, adding that teams of experts from around the euro zone would be heading to Athens....
Well, if this is the best that Ireland's progressive economists can come up with, it's no wonder that nobody listens to them.
Absolute rubbish. Nothing but assumptions and cliches.
Really, terrible stuff.
Arthur, you ignore the simple point that most people in Europe used to support the European project. Some people in some countries did so enthusiastically, more generally people tolerated it because it appeared to bring some real if small benefits. Those days are past. For most ordinary people the EU means the undermining of their national welfare states through 'competition' policy, the erosion of the limited protection that national states have given them against the uncertainties of the market. Only a 'social Europe' can counteract this, but our current leaders are determined to make 'Europe' and 'market' synonyms. Consequently any attempt to strengthen European decision-making and to 'federalise' Greek (or Irish) debt will only further mobilise anti-European populism.
The article also fails to distinguish between the eurozone & the EU. It ignores the fact that the EU's second largest net contributor (and Ireland's largest trading parter) is stubbornly sticking to its national currency. The Euro crisis is more likely to cause greater and deeper fragmentation at a fundamental level than tighter integration.
To all of my 'comment-ers' (& esp to my 'Ballintleva' friend, could I just point out that my 'blog post' does not endorse the idea or suggest that the benighted peoples of Europe, who are currently 'carrying the can' for the excesses of their bankers, would or should welcome the prospect.
The blog post merely points out that there is an alternative solution to the crisis that does not involve either more debt or the dissolution of the Euro or the EU.
That solution, which is not yet being canvassed widely but which is starting to 'bubble up'...(viz http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-07-21/france-sees-little-room-for-euro-bond-without-integration.html) might well have been something that the 'founding fathers' intended for us to find, in the fullness of time, to be lesser of two evils.
Post a Comment