What Price Subsidiarity Now?

[steepholm]

Regular readers of this LJ will know that I hold no brief for Cameron or the bankers. In fact, I'd love to see the bankers taxed and regulated more. On the other hand, I'd want those taxes being put to effective use. I'm not necessarily talking about schools and hospitals, here: if the money were used to boost manufacturing, infrastructure, training and apprenticeships, and generally to rebalance the economy (doing something to redress the North/South divide in the process) I'd be delighted. If Cameron had signed Merkel and Sarkozy's take-it-or-leave-it deal, however, that's not what would have happened: we all know that the City would have been sucked dry in order to support the Euro. This is what's known in the world of high finance as throwing good money after bad.

There's a lot of emotive talk around at the moment about being left outside the room, missing the boat (or train), being bystanders or stragglers. These metaphors can of course be turned on their heads: as someone said, when the boat is the Titanic, it's better to miss it, while at the scene of a motorway pile-up the role of bystander is preferable to that of full participant. In neither form are metaphors such as these very helpful: their appeal - like that of high-pressure salesmen - is purely to an atavistic fear of being "left out". As an example of how they can distort judgements, witness the prime minister of Lithuania (I think it was), who yesterday claimed that his country was now more influential than Britain because it was part of the new fiscal union. Really? Just how much say did Lithuania have in the content of the deal? Perhaps it was allowed to choose which colour ink to use when rubber stamping it? While acknowledging the power of the human desire to be an insider rather than an outsider - even during a housefire - I admit I'm surprised that all the other nine non-Euro using EU nations have rushed to put their wrists and ankles into Merkel-forged manacles when they didn't need to. Were they suddenly convinced of their incompetence to run their own affairs? Or were they just afraid of not being part of the club? Will their populations feel the same way? Will we ever find out?

Which brings us to the other main reason for caution about the deal on offer yesterday, other than the fact that it's very likely not to succeed in its primary aim of preserving the Eurozone. This is that it makes the already precariously-democratic institutions of Europe (in its various configurations) still more remote from the people they were created to serve. As of March 2012, when Angela Merkel wants an urgent meeting with the finance ministers of Spain, Ireland, Greece or Italy, she need only look in the mirror. Surely that can't be good?

Meanwhile, the Lib Dems look set to implode, and Labour is busy arguing that they definitely wouldn't have signed either, but they also definitely wouldn't have not signed - just as they did and didn't support the public sector worker strikes last month. I'm sorry to say that, under Ed Miliband, that kind of decisive lead is par for the course.

Comments

[nightspore.livejournal.com]

"Merkel-forged manacles" is great.

[mount-oregano.livejournal.com]

Since Great Britain doesn't use the euro, it seems logical to me that it wouldn't want to be in the agreement. Here in Spain, though, the reason being given for staying out is so that Berlin couldn't dictate the rules for the City, not just take its money. In either case, Cameron did the right thing for Britain, I think.

But I'm in Spain, I use the euro, and I'm sad to say I agree with you, too, that the agreement won't preserve the euro and is very bad for democracy. So sad.

And Merkel is blocking simple reforms that could save the euro. But if it falls, we will all be hurt. Badly.

[steepholm.livejournal.com]

But if it falls, we will all be hurt. Badly.

This is too true, alas.

[calimac.livejournal.com]

For once, I think Cameron did the right thing. But for the wrong reasons.

[steepholm.livejournal.com]

Like Gordon Brown before him, in keeping us out of the Euro primarily because Blair wanted to take us in (as someone pointed out on R4 this morning). It's often the way.

[calimac.livejournal.com]

I see now that, after all the horribly illiberal things that Cameron and his team have done in the past year and a half that Clegg swallowed without a murmur, this one is finally too much for him. And what is the charge? That Britain will be "without influence." Apparently the only way to have "influence" is to be bullied into going along with what everybody else is doing because they say so. It's like a kid in a gang bent on mugging an old lady thinking he ought to say "Let's mug the old lady!" because then he can feel he had influence in persuading them to do what they were going to do anyway. Whereas, in fact, if Cameron's veto actually stopped the action, and didn't just pull Britain out of it (which I gather may be the case), that strikes me as about as influential as you can get.