In the Critics this week

Evans on history lessons, Foreman on the Mediterranean and Gray on American diplomacy.

In the history special in the Critics section of this week's New Statesman, Richard J Evans addresses Michael Gove's argument that the current National Curriculum in history should be replaced with a British-focused narrative. Evans replies that "blaming the curriculum is wrong" and "far from being in a state of terminal decay ... history in schools is actually a success story". He notes that there is a strong smell of "Tory Euro-scepticism" in the view that too little British history is taught in schools and argues that forcing children to learn about British kings and queens is "a quack remedy for a misdiagnosed complaint" that would end up putting students off studying the subject altogether.

In Books, Amanda Foreman reviews Robert Holland's Blue Water Empire: the British in the Mediterranean since 1800, noting the irony in the fact that "the country that has had the greatest influence on Mediterranean affairs for the past two centuries is now seeking immunity from the region". According to Foreman, the book, while heavy going, is "an important corrective to current historical amnesia" and one that will "remain the definitive account of Anglo-Mediterranean history for years to come".

In the Books interview, Jonathan Derbyshire talks to historian Sir David Cannadine about his new book The Right Kind of History, which examines the teaching of history in English schools in the 20th century. Cannadine argues that the teaching of history is more controversial than the teaching of other subjects because there is no set global syllabus that people can follow. Of Michael Gove, Cannadine says: "I certainly hope that he thinks this book offers a lot of useful advice ... I am hoping it will persuade him that the major problem is that [history] needs to be made compulsory to the age of 16."

Also in the history special: John Gray reviews John Lewis Gaddis's new biography of George F Kennan and praises the book's ability to capture the complexity of Kennan's character, as well as his ultimate disillusionment with US foreign policy. Richard Overy is left disappointed byh Piers Paul Read's The Dreyfus Affair and David Herman reviews David Cesarani and Eric J Sundquist's new book Afterthe Holocaust.

Elsewhere in the Critics: Ryan Gilbey looks at the latest political biopics; Rachel Cooke shares her thoughts on BBC4's Jonathan Meades on France and Antonia Quirke discusses a new radio programme on the World Service. Plus: Sophie Elmhirst explains why a death festival is well worth a visit and Will Self on pizza.

Getty
Show Hide image

Leader: The unresolved Eurozone crisis

The continent that once aspired to be a rival superpower to the US is now a byword for decline, and ethnic nationalism and right-wing populism are thriving.

The eurozone crisis was never resolved. It was merely conveniently forgotten. The vote for Brexit, the terrible war in Syria and Donald Trump’s election as US president all distracted from the single currency’s woes. Yet its contradictions endure, a permanent threat to continental European stability and the future cohesion of the European Union.

The resignation of the Italian prime minister Matteo Renzi, following defeat in a constitutional referendum on 4 December, was the moment at which some believed that Europe would be overwhelmed. Among the champions of the No campaign were the anti-euro Five Star Movement (which has led in some recent opinion polls) and the separatist Lega Nord. Opponents of the EU, such as Nigel Farage, hailed the result as a rejection of the single currency.

An Italian exit, if not unthinkable, is far from inevitable, however. The No campaign comprised not only Eurosceptics but pro-Europeans such as the former prime minister Mario Monti and members of Mr Renzi’s liberal-centrist Democratic Party. Few voters treated the referendum as a judgement on the monetary union.

To achieve withdrawal from the euro, the populist Five Star Movement would need first to form a government (no easy task under Italy’s complex multiparty system), then amend the constitution to allow a public vote on Italy’s membership of the currency. Opinion polls continue to show a majority opposed to the return of the lira.

But Europe faces far more immediate dangers. Italy’s fragile banking system has been imperilled by the referendum result and the accompanying fall in investor confidence. In the absence of state aid, the Banca Monte dei Paschi di Siena, the world’s oldest bank, could soon face ruin. Italy’s national debt stands at 132 per cent of GDP, severely limiting its firepower, and its financial sector has amassed $360bn of bad loans. The risk is of a new financial crisis that spreads across the eurozone.

EU leaders’ record to date does not encourage optimism. Seven years after the Greek crisis began, the German government is continuing to advocate the failed path of austerity. On 4 December, Germany’s finance minister, Wolfgang Schäuble, declared that Greece must choose between unpopular “structural reforms” (a euphemism for austerity) or withdrawal from the euro. He insisted that debt relief “would not help” the immiserated country.

Yet the argument that austerity is unsustainable is now heard far beyond the Syriza government. The International Monetary Fund is among those that have demanded “unconditional” debt relief. Under the current bailout terms, Greece’s interest payments on its debt (roughly €330bn) will continually rise, consuming 60 per cent of its budget by 2060. The IMF has rightly proposed an extended repayment period and a fixed interest rate of 1.5 per cent. Faced with German intransigence, it is refusing to provide further funding.

Ever since the European Central Bank president, Mario Draghi, declared in 2012 that he was prepared to do “whatever it takes” to preserve the single currency, EU member states have relied on monetary policy to contain the crisis. This complacent approach could unravel. From the euro’s inception, economists have warned of the dangers of a monetary union that is unmatched by fiscal and political union. The UK, partly for these reasons, wisely rejected membership, but other states have been condemned to stagnation. As Felix Martin writes on page 15, “Italy today is worse off than it was not just in 2007, but in 1997. National output per head has stagnated for 20 years – an astonishing . . . statistic.”

Germany’s refusal to support demand (having benefited from a fixed exchange rate) undermined the principles of European solidarity and shared prosperity. German unemployment has fallen to 4.1 per cent, the lowest level since 1981, but joblessness is at 23.4 per cent in Greece, 19 per cent in Spain and 11.6 per cent in Italy. The youngest have suffered most. Youth unemployment is 46.5 per cent in Greece, 42.6 per cent in Spain and 36.4 per cent in Italy. No social model should tolerate such waste.

“If the euro fails, then Europe fails,” the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, has often asserted. Yet it does not follow that Europe will succeed if the euro survives. The continent that once aspired to be a rival superpower to the US is now a byword for decline, and ethnic nationalism and right-wing populism are thriving. In these circumstances, the surprise has been not voters’ intemperance, but their patience.

This article first appeared in the 08 December 2016 issue of the New Statesman, Brexit to Trump