Is Germany falling prey to the eurocrisis?

Signs emerge that the German economy is faltering

After months of Germany playing reluctant parent to Europe through its financial woes, there are emerging signs that the German economy may be taking a hit itself.

Business Insider has reported that the latest manufacturing Purchasing Manager's Index (PMI), which measures major orders of goods and services by firms in manufacturing and non-manufacturing industries in the private sector, is showing a 36 month low, having fallen by 1.6 per cent this month.

This fall in Germany's PMI measure has been accompanied by an increase in the Spanish Exchange Traded Fund (ETF), the EWP against the German ETF, the EWG. These measures show that Spain's EWP has increased by 1 per cent whilst Germany's has fallen by 1 per cent.

Joe Weisenthal also points out that the Ifo Business Climate Index, a key measure of business confidence in the country, fell:

The Index fell to 105.3, below the 105.6 that was expected, and well below last month's 106.9.

Weisenthal explained this data as showing:

First of all, Germany's economy, as we've been writing about is cracking (finally) as all of its export markets are deteriorating.

More importantly, there's a growing sense that Germany is going to be on the hook, in some way or another, for the debts of its peers.

So even if the economy deteriorates, the Spanish market benefits from the fact that it may not go completely bust.

With the German economy begining to falter, he offers one final note of optimism:

An optimist might say that this is the best thing that could happen to Europe. After all, until Germany's economy weakens, it really has no incentive to see any kind of change, let alone economic stimulus, in Europe.

That said, Matt Yglesias at Slate has doubts:

The fact that a nation specializing in capital goods exports is vulnerable to shocks from abroad was eminently predictable so I'm not super-keen on the theory that German prosperity accounts for its political class' attitude toward the situation.

However the German public responds to the slow-down in its economy, these signs suggest that they may not be in a position to act as sole parent to Europe for much longer.

The German economy falters. Photograph: Getty Image

Helen Robb reads PPE at Oxford University where she is deputy editor of ISIS magazine.

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

How the shadow cabinet forced Jeremy Corbyn not to change Labour policy on Syria air strikes

Frontbenchers made it clear that they "would not leave the room" until the leader backed down. 

Jeremy Corbyn had been forced to back down once before the start of today's shadow cabinet meeting on Syria, offering Labour MPs a free vote on air strikes against Isis. By the end of the two-hour gathering, he had backed down twice.

At the start of the meeting, Corbyn's office briefed the Guardian that while a free would be held, party policy would be changed to oppose military action - an attempt to claim partial victory. But shadow cabinet members, led by Andy Burnham, argued that this was "unacceptable" and an attempt to divide MPs from members. Burnham, who is not persuaded by the case for air strikes, warned that colleagues who voted against the party's proposed position would become targets for abuse, undermining the principle of a free vote.

Jon Ashworth, the shadow minister without portfolio and NEC member, said that Labour's policy remained the motion passed by this year's conference, which was open to competing interpretations (though most believe the tests it set for military action have been met). Party policy could not be changed without going through a similarly formal process, he argued. In advance of the meeting, Labour released a poll of members (based on an "initial sample" of 1,900) showing that 75 per cent opposed intervention. 

When Corbyn's team suggested that the issue be resolved after the meeting, those present made it clear that they "would not leave the room" until the Labour leader had backed down. By the end, only Corbyn ally Diane Abbott argued that party policy should be changed to oppose military action. John McDonnell, who has long argued for a free vote, took a more "conciliatory" approach, I'm told. It was when Hilary Benn said that he would be prepared to speak from the backbenches in the Syria debate, in order to avoid opposing party policy, that Corbyn realised he would have to give way. The Labour leader and the shadow foreign secretary will now advocate opposing positions from the frontbench when MPs meet, with Corbyn opening and Benn closing. 

The meeting had begun with members, including some who reject military action, complaining about the "discorteous" and "deplorable" manner in which the issue had been handled. As I reported last week, there was outrage when Corbyn wrote to MPs opposing air strikes without first informing the shadow cabinet (I'm told that my account of that meeting was also raised). There was anger today when, at 2:07pm, seven minutes after the meeting began, some members received an update on their phones from the Guardian revealing that a free vote would be held but that party policy would be changed to oppose military action. This "farcical moment", in the words of one present (Corbyn is said to have been unaware of the briefing), only hardened shadow cabinet members' resolve to force their leader to back down - and he did. 

In a statement released following the meeting, a Corbyn spokesperson confirmed that a free vote would be held but made no reference to party policy: 

"Today's Shadow Cabinet agreed to back Jeremy Corbyn's recommendation of a free vote on the Government's proposal to authorise UK bombing in Syria.   

"The Shadow Cabinet decided to support the call for David Cameron to step back from the rush to war and hold a full two day debate in the House of Commons on such a crucial national decision.  

"Shadow Cabinet members agreed to call David Cameron to account on the unanswered questions raised by his case for bombing: including how it would accelerate a negotiated settlement of the Syrian civil war; what ground troops would take territory evacuated by ISIS; military co-ordination and strategy; the refugee crisis and the imperative to cut-off of supplies to ISIS."

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.