Credit markets don't trust Greece to stay in the euro

Could be a mechanical grexit? A mecha-grexit?

Via Pragmatic Capitalism comes this mildly alarming note from research group Capital Economics:

Recently, the problem of tight credit conditions have been exacerbated by domestic and foreign firms becoming more unwilling to sell goods to Greek customers unless they are paid for up front. In other words, credit risk is stopping some transactions from taking place. What’s more, some foreign buyers of Greek goods and services are delaying payment, in case Greece exits and the size of their bill (in euro-terms) drops.

Meanwhile, the bank jog continues. And Capital Economics predict 2012's contraction to be three points worse than the EU's forecast, and 2013's to be seven points worse.

All of which is to say that the political aspect of the situation is getting less and less relevent. If investors, trade partners, and, yes, Greek citizens themselves carry on behaving as if Greece has already confirmed it is exiting the euro, there is every chance that a they may create a self-fulfilling prophecy. Earlier this month, Paul Mason explained how bank withdrawals can force such an event, and its not hard to see how entirely cutting Greece off from credit or international trade would do the same thing (although slightly less mechanically).

The difference for the Greek people between a politically motivated exit and a economically forced one is likely to be small, of course. But for the broader continent, particularly the rest of the periphery, the latter presents a much higher chance of contagion. Because if a country can end up outside the eurozone despite its leaders, then there doesn't seem much that, for example, Rajoy could say to save Spain at all. Actions must speak louder than words.

Alexis Tsipras, head of SYRIZA, leaves the presidential palace in Athens. Photograph: Getty Images

Alex Hern is a technology reporter for the Guardian. He was formerly staff writer at the New Statesman. You should follow Alex on Twitter.

Show Hide image

No, David Cameron’s speech was not “left wing”

Come on, guys.

There is a strange journalistic phenomenon that occurs when a party leader makes a speech. It is a blend of groupthink, relief, utter certainty, and online backslapping. It happened particularly quickly after David Cameron’s speech to Tory party conference today. A few pundits decided that – because he mentioned, like, diversity and social mobility – this was a centre-left speech. A leftwing speech, even. Or at least a clear grab for the liberal centre ground. And so that’s what everyone now believes. The analysis is decided. The commentary is written. Thank God for that.

Really? It’s quite easy, even as one of those nasty, wicked Tories, to mention that you actually don’t much like racism, and point out that you’d quite like poor children to get jobs, without moving onto Labour's "territory". Which normal person is in favour of discriminating against someone on the basis of race, or blocking opportunity on the basis of class? Of course he’s against that. He’s a politician operating in a liberal democracy. And this isn’t Ukip conference.

Looking at the whole package, it was actually quite a rightwing speech. It was a paean to defence – championing drones, protecting Britain from the evils of the world, and getting all excited about “launching the biggest aircraft carriers in our history”.

It was a festival of flagwaving guff about the British “character”, a celebration of shoehorning our history chronologically onto the curriculum, looking towards a “Greater Britain”, asking for more “national pride”. There was even a Bake Off pun.

He also deployed the illiberal device of inculcating a divide-and-rule fear of the “shadow of extremism – hanging over every single one of us”, informing us that children in UK madrassas are having their “heads filled with poison and their hearts filled with hate”, and saying Britain shouldn’t be “overwhelmed” with refugees, before quickly changing the subject to ousting Assad. How unashamedly centrist, of you, Mr Prime Minister.

Benefit cuts and a reduction of tax credits will mean the Prime Minister’s enthusiasm for “equality of opportunity, as opposed to equality of outcome” will be just that – with the outcome pretty bleak for those who end up losing any opportunity that comes with state support. And his excitement about diversity in his cabinet rings a little hollow the day following a tubthumping anti-immigration speech from his Home Secretary.

If this year's Tory conference wins the party votes, it’ll be because of its conservative commitment – not lefty love bombing.

Anoosh Chakelian is deputy web editor at the New Statesman.