Throughout the Greek crisis, I've been trying to work out what the impact might be of any given outcome on Britain's forthcoming referendum (and by extension on Scotland's constitutional future). But it's been almost impossible, because it's like trying to think several moves ahead in a game of chess. For example, in the immediate sense, a Greek exit from the Eurozone might look like a calamity for the European project, and something that can only embolden the 'Out' camp. But if it actually helped to stabilise the Greek economy, the crisis might be a distant memory for most voters by the time the referendum comes around. Even as it is, many people don't see any direct relevance to our situation, due to the UK being firmly outside the Eurozone.
It could be, however, that the alternative to Grexit that now seems to be unfolding is the real nightmare scenario for the pro-EU camp, because the humiliation of Syriza is thoroughly alienating the British radical left, and even parts of the mainstream left. I'm not sure that will feed into opinion polls any time soon, but it could make a big difference once the campaign gets underway in earnest. A successful drive for a Yes will depend on enthusiastic footsoldiers from across the political spectrum, and they're going to be in shorter supply as a result of the events of the last 24 hours.
This isn't the first time that an EU country has been subjected to a Brussels/Berlin-sponsored "coup" attempt - a few years ago, Italy was effectively forced to replace its democratically-elected government with a technocratic administration under Mario Monti. But that didn't cause so much disquiet among the British left, simply because it was Berlusconi that was displaced.
* * *
I've noticed an intriguing pattern since the general election. On the rare occasions that the DUP have joined forces with Labour and the SNP to oppose a government policy, it's sent the Tories into headlong retreat. It happened over repeal of the Human Rights Act, and it happened again last week over EVEL. If you think about it, there's a good reason for that. The DUP are very much in tune with the instincts of many Tory backbenchers, so whenever the DUP are opposed to a government decision, it's likely there will be a number of Tory rebels as well - certainly enough to overturn the wafer-thin government majority of 16 (it's officially 12, but 16 in practice).
The pre-election speculation that the DUP could end up holding the balance of power might not be so wide of the mark after all.
I think it hurts Yes.
ReplyDeleteOne of the big attack lines for No is going to be that the EU is run by unaccountable, faceless technocrats who are out of touch and don't care about you (the punter).
While the EU has won this battle with Greece fairly convincingly, I think they've only reinforced that stereotype. It's more ammo for No, and gives them another line of attack to boot.
"Next time, that could be you. Maybe it'll be your pension they think is too generous. Look what they did to the Greeks. Do you want to risk that? Do you trust them to care about you?"
A tactical win, but a strategic defeat, I feel.
I was a stuck on Yes, but I’m thinking seriously of voting No now. TTIP (Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership), forcing of tendering process in estentially nationalised industries (the Ferries) and now the humiliation of Greece have tipped me over from supporting Yes.
ReplyDeleteIf you are on the left, what you have seen over the last few weeks is a full-scale attack on the democratically elected Greek government, not to help Greece or the Greek people but to ensure that the banks who caused the whole problem in the first place - along with rich Greeks who would not pay their taxes - got their money back. So much for solidarity among the different people's of Europe. Greeks now face years more misery, but the financial markets get some reassurance. Why would you campaign in favour of that?
ReplyDeleteWhat it also shows is that there is no collective control in a currency union. The dominant partner (in this case Germany) decides what happens. There can be no properly functioning monetary union without political union. It's time for the SNP to start working out how to develop an independent Scottish currency without damaging trade with what is by far Scotland's most important export market.
Jeff, I am inclined to agree with you in regards currency union in relation to the independence debate. I reckon to be an independent state it is far better to have a central bank, and your own currency (whether pegged to another or separate). The SNP choose the most conservative policy for currency. I think they did so with the knowledge that a Yes vote last year was distinctly unlikely. It is very difficult to go from support for independence at around 25 per cent to over 50 per cent in just a few years. I suspect the SNP leadership were well aware of this.
DeleteI've long been leaning towards Yes, but very warily. I've never really liked the direction things are heading in Europe, nor their methods, but felt on balance that Yes was the lesser of two evils.
ReplyDeleteNow I've swung to No. I might consider a Yes if it looked like it was going to be a close thing for a UK No but a Scotland Yes, but most likely I will vote with my conscience and vote No.
"It could be, however, that the alternative to Grexit that now seems to be unfolding is the real nightmare scenario for the pro-EU camp, because the humiliation of Syriza is thoroughly alienating the British radical left, and even parts of the mainstream left."
ReplyDeleteIf the EU is such a threat to democracy, which I believe it is, why would it be a 'nightmare' to leave it?
Any humilation Syriza has suffered is to a large extent self-inflicted. They held a referendum last week, in which the Greek people strongly supported it in rejecting the previous deal, but then they agreed a much more draconian package this week!
"This isn't the first time that an EU country has been subjected to a Brussels/Berlin-sponsored "coup" attempt - a few years ago, Italy was effectively forced to replace its democratically-elected government with a technocratic administration under Mario Monti. But that didn't cause so much disquiet among the British left, simply because it was Berlusconi that was displaced."
I am a confirmed Eurosceptic, but when countries join a project like the Euro then they cede a significant amount of economic (and therefore also democratic) sovereignty. In the case of the Euro, they lose control of their monetary policy and put themselves, as the Greeks have done, at the mercy of the EU, ECB and IMF. (For this reason, it always seemed strange that so many SNP supporters were cheerleaders for the Euro when that meant Scottish interest rates being set by the ECB in Frankfurt rather than the BofE in London. You can make a perfectly strong case for the BofE not acting in Scotland's best interests, but why would the ECB, overseeing monetary policy for the whole Eurozone be any better?)
In this sense, I actually have sympathy with the views of federalists who argue that the only way that the Euro can be a success is to have a full fiscal and monetary union. But this is unlikely to work because, as we have seen, the Finnish and German people are not keen on the taxes being used to support Greece and the Greeks are not keen on being asked to implement difficult reforms in return.
What we have at the moment is a project that was designed to foster European unity actually leading to bitterness and dissent within the EU with, very broadly, Northern Europe being pitted against Southern Europe.
"If the EU is such a threat to democracy, which I believe it is, why would it be a 'nightmare' to leave it?"
DeleteSigh. Read the post. That's not what it said.
"I am a confirmed Eurosceptic, but when countries join a project like the Euro then they cede a significant amount of economic (and therefore also democratic) sovereignty."
They don't (or at least they shouldn't) cede the right to choose their own government.
In a currency union, though, choosing your own government is little more than a symbolic act. Monetary policy and, therefore, the extent to which the elected government can implememt its programme, are decided externally by those who control the currency in use.
Delete"In a currency union, though, choosing your own government is little more than a symbolic act."
DeleteThat's self-evidently garbage, but even if anyone actually believes that, the calls for a technocratic or "national unity" government in Greece would rob the country of the right to make even that "symbolic" act.
I'll rephrase - as long as the government implements a programme approved by those who control the currency it can do whatever it likes.
DeleteYou are truly insane.
DeleteI've been fairly indifferent to the EU, could take it or leave it. But I've felt for a while that, with a bit of good luck and timing for the No campaigners, the Greek crisis could do wonders for those arguing for Brexit. It's quite striking just how quickly many left wingers have turned against the EU. Many them have been making the same sort of arguments on the EU that could easily have come from hard right Tory Eurosceptics. The Greek crisis hasn't gone away, either. The EU have just kicked the can down the road, yet again.
ReplyDeleteI was a strong yes to the EU, but recent events - Greece, TTIP, the Migrants from North Africa and the EU involvement in supporting yankee imperialism in Ukraine are making me think seriously about no. You sometimes have to stand for principles, something sadly lacking in politics these days.
ReplyDeleteAnon. every one of the things you mention, the UK is the same x10. Scotland IN, rUK OUT, gives a fabulous opportunity at Indyref2 and the chance to leave all those repugnant policies behind. Scotland will have the right as an Independent country to have it's own referendum on EU membership, once we actually know the terms on offer.
DeleteWe need to start thinking strategically again, instead of emoting over universal injustices (which the UK is at the forefront of) and which until independent, we in Scotland will always be mere spectators to.
braco
This episode has been disastrous for the EU, and the single currency imo. Germany is too powerful in the EU, Merkel almost personifies the Conservative right wing agenda at work at its very heart. As has been said above, TTIP should never have been given the time of day. I am afraid the European project is in deep trouble. The EU's elites essentially have been captured by corporate interests over the last few decades, and they are in thrall to Neo-Liberalism. I can scarcely think of a worse episode to occur before trying to get a Yes vote in the EU referendum.
ReplyDeleteIf asked whether the UK should remain in the EU, I remain steadfastly Yes. After all, it's the swivel-eyed Tories and UKIPers who want me to vote No. Reason enough to do the opposite.
ReplyDeleteFor an iScotland? Well, let's say I'm looking at the Norway model much more favourably now. The Greece thing has just added to the unhappiness I felt with the EU in the Scottish iref.
I guess my point is I'd rather be in an EU which is currently right leaning to being in an unconstrained extreme loony right-wing UK outside the EU.
DeleteI will probably vote Yes, but you have to admit S_S it is hardly an enticing choice now...
DeleteAnd when we hear Celia Malstrom, European Commissioner for Trade, say 'I don't take my mandate from the European people', when being quizzed on TTIP, we begin to realise how removed the Commission are from the democratic process.
ReplyDeleteTechnically she was right, but saying that gives an insight into how the thinking goes.
I was an enthusiastic EU supporter until the TTIP campaign started. Even our MEPs didn't think they needed to answer, at least at the beginning.
If we all took the same stance on other issues there might be a democratisation of the EU Commission.
It's the 'powers' working on the Commission behind the scenes and even in front of the scenes, that are the big issue.
I'm in two minds. How long would it take and how many people are aware enough to take on the 'money'. it would need to be done but how much damage could be done in the meantime.
Of course I have no faith at all in the UK Government, so in or out of the EU there would be serious problems with them.
"I was an enthusiastic EU supporter until the TTIP campaign started. Even our MEPs didn't think they needed to answer, at least at the beginning."
DeleteI find the opposition to TTIP pretty mystifying in all honesty. Take the "TTIP will privatise the NHS" line: the EU are on record as saying they're not going to allow that to happen so the argument essentially amounts to complaining that a treaty which hasn't even been written yet isn't going to do what the EU says it's going to do. Do we want governments to be careful in how they negotiate TTIP? Absolutely. But why are we out on the streets protesting on the basis of something that the EU has no intention of doing and which all EU governments would have to agree to if it were to happen.
The debate about ISDS is similar: it focuses on a kind of pie in the sky interpretation of what ISDS means in which governments will effectively lose all ability to regulate overnight. It also seems to operate from the perspective that the very governments who would lose out in this scenario are completely oblivious to the threat and won't simply address it in the treaty (which is precisely what the EU has said it will do on countless occasions).
There are real concerns about the impact of TTIP given its scale. All large changes to how the economy is regulated will help some people and hinder others. But this kind of knee-jerk opposition to it, built on a series of implausible scarestories and basic misunderstandings of what TTIP is, just completely baffles me. What Europe needs at the moment is growth and job creation and nixing TTIP on the basis of frankly very flimsy reasoning isn't going to help anyone in my view.
The problem is that 'ever-closer unity' was never really sold to the European peoples. The EU remained a technocratic arrangement at one remove from the public and the supposedly democratic institutions (eg the European parliament) were never taken seriously to the extent that people are far more likely to vote for parties they would never trust to decide on 'real' issues. This has meant that we still don't really feel enough commonality with European neighbours, don't feel any loyalty to the idea of a federation, and certainly don't want to sanction fiscal transfers from Northern to Southern Europe, for example.
ReplyDeleteI am loathe to vote to exit the EU because I don't want the UK to try and reheat the Commonwealth or any of the other right-wing delusions. I could be persuaded to support a federation but only one founded on very different basic assumptions from those the EU is founded on.
Re your last post, James.
ReplyDeleteThe comment section has been well and truly concern trolled by 'Jeff' and his friends. It is a professional attempt to kill your blog.
It now reads like a UKIP blog.
It's simply in the practicalities. Leaving one Union at a time, under the current scenario seems much more achievable. If Scotland votes IN and rUK votes OUT we leave the first Union. We then see what the actual European offer and attitude toward a newly Independent Scotland will be and then decide on our second Union membership by referendum, same as the first.
ReplyDeleteQuestion is, which of the UK or EU is currently the biggest democratic threat to the people of Scotland? There is only one answer to that question and it's not the EU. I will be voting accordingly and I will be urging every Indy supporter I know to do the same. It's far from a difficult argument to make. It's a simple pragmatic one.
braco