As some may have noticed, I am not blogging much, and for good reason. Colleagues, friends and my family have told me to take a rest for a week, and for once I'm vaguely complying.
Today's news from the Eurozone forces me to break my silence.
On a day when the UK has celebrated the power of the City of London, and the Queen acknowledged their power by attending at their celebrations in St Paul's Cathedral across Europe another threat is clearly emerging. That is a threat to democracy at least as serious as that posed by the City itself, and to which no doubt they are a more than willing party.
Is it any surprise that the call for a closer political union for the Eurozone is called a banking union? And is it also any surprise that this would result in a loss of budgetary and fiscal powers for the nation states of Europe to be subject to this plan? A state without its own currency, budgetary or fiscal powers is no state at all. The bankers, and the Germans will have won.
As Dani Rodrik has argued, it is not possible to have the nation state, democracy and economic globalisation all at the same time. What is extraordinary is seems that not only is the nation state to be sacrificed to maintain the banker's order, so too is democracy.
Have no doubt whatsoever what is in threat at this moment: it is democracy and even freedom itself. Both are to be sacrifice - as will for all practical purposes be the lives of millions of Europeans - to the task of making sure that the values of the meaningless assets that bankers created must be maintained and be paid for, whatever the cost in terms of human misery. For that is what this struggle is about. It is about the right of a tiny minority to be paid, whatever their folly, and the right of the rest to live lives in which they have choice, opportunity and freedom.
I note that even German politicians are warning that this choice is under threat and that the Germans - with their insane, wrong headed and utterly illogical dedication to an economic programme as absurd in its own way as George Osborne's austerity programme for the UK (from which it differs little) - are imperilling the safety of Europe for the third time in a century
I wish I did not share that view
But I do.
There are banks at the end of the democratic road, and right now it looks like they're in sight. We're facing truly troubling times.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
UK banks are now said to be holding back on £40bn of undeclared losses with the Royal Bank of Scotland the worst offender with £18bn of obscured losses that would wipe out more than a third of its capital buffer and force the state-owned lender to seek more taxpayer’s money. But these £bns are only what the accountants can find – real losses could be nearing a £trillion – all concealed offshore in tax havens.
There can be only ONE solution. Close every tax haven starting with those directly under UK control including The City of London; and then submit every bank to a comprehensive forensic audit.
Only then will the mind numbing numbers of this fraud be revealed – together with the criminal collusion of these secretive, devious and iniquitous centres called tax havens. And Richard’s campaign will be vindicated.
4 economies, above all others, had absurd property booms – US, UK, Spain & Ireland.
3 of them have seen property prices tumble to sensible, affordable levels VERY quickly.
One is desperarately juggling all the balls in the air. I have mixed feelings because I’d like UK property prices to become sane, sooner than later, but I’m also aware that only Richard’s Keynesian approach has a hope of saving us from a crash that will make 2009 seem like a tiny blip.
The sad truth is that, whatever Angela Knight may say, if property prices head down towards”sane” then most of the British banking sector is $$$$ed beyond recognition. I mean properly $$$$ed boy.
And I thought the conspiracy theorists were cranks when they talk about “Illuminati ” and “New World Order”. Now I’m not so sure!!
Ha-Joon Chang published a good article about “Austerity” in the Guardian yesterday.
Keep up the good work, Richard.
I’m not so sure either. Ken Clarke is on Bilderberg’s steering committee and attended their Virginia conference last weekend. I wonder who pays for the over-the-top security for such a secret and ‘innocuous’ meeting.
I think the time to believe in conspiracies has arrived
Those conspiracues may not be the Bilderberg variety and they may equally be so
What they definitely are is backed by money
“Is it any surprise that the call for a closer political union for the Eurozone is called a banking union? And is it also any surprise that this would result in a loss of budgetary and fiscal powers for the nation states of Europe to be subject to this plan? ” Richard I believe this has been the goal all along; from the moment the second world war ended and they began talking about a common market.
Was this pushed by the people of Europe? No it was pushed by the elite. The “European experiment” has always been the child of the elite, not the broader population. Who are the elite? Yes the top Banking CEOs are in that picture, but it’s more than that. Don’t forget that the ultimate owners of banks control far more than banking – they are into manufacturing, food production, pharmaceuticals, defence, you name it. And yes, these ‘aristocrats’ are no democrats – they use democracy as a cover. They want one market, one currency and one state. And perhaps at the end of that, a new feudalism.
Is this a conspiracy? Of course it is. When David Rockefeller was confronted with this question, that he was a world government globalist, he happily admitted that he was proud to be. So maybe there is no conspiracy. After all a conspiracy is hidden and unknown to the greater mass of the people. Perhaps the real problem is that people have stuck their heads in the sand and refused to admit to what even people like Rockefeller happily admit to.
The hospitality costs of Bilderberg meetings are the responsibility of the steering committee members of the host country.
See http://www.bilderbergmeetings.org/index.html for full information, including the full list of this year’s attendees. Interesting to try to decipher a common link amongst them.
@ Anthony Zappia.
I do not agree with your analysis. I think there was a great deal of goodwill and positive support for the european project from ordinary people. Unfotunately the goals of those people were not the same as the goals of the plutocrats who captured the institutions of europe just as they captured institutions elsewhere in the world.
That is not a necessary outcome. For now I am opposed to europe because of that capture: but it was not always so and it need not be so in the future. If we can overturn the hegemony of neoliberals then we can build a europe I could be pleased to be part of. If it ends in a world government then I can live with that so long as that government is truly democratic. I am not especially enamoured of the nation state per se: only as it exists as an expression of a democratic will in the service of all the people. At risk of a bad pun, size really does not matter …
@Fiona
I’m sure there were a lot of people of good will and support for the European project, but the driving force behind this movement has come from the elite; it hasn’t been a grass-roots movement from the bottom. I can’t claim to speak for all Europeans, but of the hundreds I’ve met over the years, I have yet to meet one who has told me that the visions and goals of the Eurocrats are what they’ve desired or wanted from their governments; or that has said to me “rah rah rah! Europe all the way! ” I’ve met none who have wanted the Euro. And certainly none who want one European state or federation a la United States.
The plutocrats always cloak their goals and ambitions in euphemisms and warm fuzzy language that are bound to garner support from many unsuspecting people. One such example is Big Society. Why didn’t they simply call it Small Government?
The same techniques are used at the global level to garner support for supra-national organizations and structures. Globalization was touted as being necessary to “bring nations together and so bring about world peace”. And World government is being hoisted up as the solution to the world’s problems, when often those problems are being created by those suggesting the solutions. It’s a classic strategy – create the problem and then offer the solution.
Who created the European debt crisis? Who is offering the solution? And who stands to benefit? I will certainly not be the people of Europe.
@ Anthony Zappia
Certainly it has been captured by plutocrats: and certainly I cannot support it while that is true. I do not think we disagree about that
Where we part company is in our perception of what else is in play. Naturally your experience is valid and so is mine: which is a little different. I have met many people who see themselves as europeans as well as whatever their own nationality is: and who see that european identity as positive. Many who do like the single currency and were very happy with its introduction. They are mostly not british, though 😉
The aspirations of ordinary people for a closer union seem obvious to me: and certainly the plutocrats have exploited those aspirations for their own goals. But those goals are not european integration or a european federation: they want a global financial system which serves the rich and powerful, and to get that they must subvert all institutions. Some of those are in europe but that is because they have to be somewhere:
You are correct in identifying some of the mechanisms of subversion: but just because the devil can quote scripture it does not follow that the scripture is evil. I think it is really important to keep the distinction
Could you provide a link / links for the source of this news, please?
“As Dani Rodrik has argued, it is not possible to have the nation state, democracy and economic globalisation all at the same time.” I have reached the same conclusion but I think it begs a significant question. Protection looks like part of the answer but seems to make a war likelier. Perhaps less likely than slash and burn austerity.
You cite three elements and it is my understanding that Rodrik has argued you can have any two of those three: I may be wrong, and if I am please correct me. If that is the position then I infer that you would wish to preserve the nation state and democracy so you conclude globalisation has to go? I am not terribly clear what is meant by globalisation in this contex,t but it seems to me to have very little to do with international trade of goods and services; and if that is correct then I do not see that protectionism is the alternative. You did not use the word “protectionism”however, and you may mean something else.
Globalisation to me means the free movement of money/capital, and since money is not a commodity “protectionism”, as normally understood, will not affect it one way or the other. Protection of the people from the plutocrats is perhaps a different matter and it is certainly my view that the wealthy will fight to preserve their position no matter the cost. But if that is true then we damned if we do and damned if we don’t oppose them
For myself I think that war is likely precisely because of the neoliberal project and this terrifies me
http://thosebigwords.forumcommunity.net/?t=51205936#lastpost
You are right re Rodrik. He says we can’t simultaneously pursue democracy, national self determination and economic globalisation.
So, which goes? Well, globalisation, obviously.
But that does not mean an end to trade. Or international banking. But it does mean there is serious cooperation to ensure regulation.
And what has to go are the boltholes – tax havens.
As for war: it would be stupid to deny the possibility now; it is real
I have no faith in the regulation of plutocracy, for I think the capture of our institutions in near to complete. I agree about the tax: but nothing short of nationalisation of the banks and financial institutions will come close to achieving fair taxation.
Without a clear purpose for banks and finance to serve the people they will ensure that it is the other way around. That cannot continue and war is the outcome, there we agree
It might seem as if the current direction of European Union policy is preservation of “globalism” at the expense of democracy and national self-determination. Democracy, because the European Parliament – the only democratic institution in Brussels – is being systematically sidelined: national self-determination, because one nation state after another is being subjugated to “oversight” by the Brussels cabal.
But the supporters of a United States of Europe have always wanted complete monetary and fiscal union. The present crisis is being used, “shock doctrine”-style, to push forward the cause of European unification. Elimination of the nation state as an independent entity is a necessary and even desirable part of this process. Subjugation of nation states to Brussels doesn’t therefore indicate a threat to democracy itself, only to the present order in Europe.
Sidelining of the European Parliament is a much more serious issue. This could indeed be seen as an attack on democracy. I was very surprised when Jack Straw, of all people, suggested abolishing it because it was “useless”. Useless it may be, but that is a powerful indicator of the democratic deficit in Europe. Cynically, I suspect that the reason it is sidelined is because it might force the European Union down a path that the present elites don’t like.
We are largely in agreement – including on Straw
I agree that globalisation is the one that has to go but you will have to recognize that effects of such a change would go well beyond the financial and taxation spheres. It won’t work if it doesn’t also mean an end to the mass movement of work and employment.
We cannot go on turning a blind eye to the fact that workers in Asia are paid in and treated like shit by their employers or the impact this has on employment and social conditions in the West.
It would mean people in Europe saving more and borrowing less and paying more for perhaps lower quality goods made by workers in states with high social standards.
What we need is a simple plan that voters can relate to and some money to get us there. My “starter for 10” is:
– Introduce tariffs to equalize the social and productive costs of good and services moved between economic areas.
– Invest in education and infrastructure.
– Pay for it by “taxing” the tax havens over 5 years. In the first year 15% of all assets held at 1 April 2012 and 10% per year for the ext 4 years.
The last bit won’t be nice and it may require some strong arming of tax haven governments. The alterative will be worse.
Thank you Frances for your lucid contribution which expresses very clearly something I have been feeling needed to be said.
I worry about the increasing propogation of the idea that a more unified Europe is in and of itself necessarily anti-democratic. There is surely nothing sacrosanct about the concept of a ‘nation state’, which can so easily slide into dangerous and destructive nationalism. Rather than defending come what may the nation state, should we not be fighting for a truly democratic European Union?
I have no probelm with Europe
But the EU we have is buiilt on the basis of the free movement of capital
That is not compatible with democracy
It puts the wrong thing first
People woulod have to be number 1
And there is a problem with ign oring the nation state – they exist for a reason – let’s not ignore it
So what’s new? Put “Steelyard” into Wikipedia for the part of the City that was the base for the old Hanseatic League. Its role and influence has been seriously under estimated by historians of the period, more interested in wars, politics and religion. Queen Elizabeth I shut it down, now it seems to be back in business in another form.
I often listen to the “Still Report,” and I have found that Bill Still’s last report on Greece, so clearly and succinctly describes how borrowing currency into existence destroys democracy and impoverishes nations.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOUIexPG5Ws&feature=plcp
This is especially true when the currency is not your own and you have no central bank to engage in internal money creation. I think that getting out of the Euro and the Maastricht treaty is the answer. The only other answer is for the European Central Bank to issue debt free money to each nation according to their population and GDP. I doubt that would ever be agreed with the present politicians.
And in the spirit of the times:
http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/2012-06-07/criminal-banking-cartels-end-game-100-digital-monetary-system
I might not agree with everything you write but this was an excellent post – I cannot share your relative optimism regarding the likely outcome. It seems that a cosy alliance of certain politicians and the finance industry are willing to sacrifice more than just failing Eurozone members to protect themselves.