Cameron goes hard on the euro – but is this a sensible strategy?

Blame-shifting may be politically expedient, but burning bridges with the eurozone is not going to h

It all started with PMQs on Wednesday, when David Cameron said that the eurozone should “make up or it is looking at a potential break up”. In a speech yesterday, he reiterated the message, telling business leaders that “the return of a crisis that never really went away” should end the current dithering. Now, for the third time in 24 hours, the Prime Minister has pushed the issue of a eurozone break up, this time during a conference call with EU leaders.

Speaking to Angela Merkel, Francois Hollande, Mario Monti, Herman Van Rompuy (president of the European Council), and Jose Manuel Barroso (president of the European Commission), the Prime Minister said that Germany should do more to prevent the single currency from unravelling.

It’s unlikely that this will go down well with Merkel, the German chancellor. Indeed, it’s unlikely that any of it will go down well with EU power-brokers. The fact that Cameron is repeatedly stoking fears of a eurozone break up will probably sour relations ahead of this weekend’s G8 summit. Cameron has defended his aggressive approach on the grounds that Britain’s future is so tied up in the eurozone that it is necessary to put diplomatic niceties to one side. Yet given his unwillingness to help broker a deal, this seems counter-productive.

As the Labour MEP Mary Honeyball put it in a strongly worded blog yesterday:

Cameron’s arrogance and unwillingness to engage with European leaders does not even come from a position of strength. Britain is struggling with a double-dip recession thanks to the Tory-led coalition. What is it that makes Cameron believe he can attack the Eurozone when his own and Chancellor George Osborne’s economic competence is so severely lacking?

. . .

It is becoming ever clearer that the UK   cannot go it alone. Our economy is well and truly tied up with the Eurozone. To believe anything else is to regress to some kind of post imperial cloud-cuckoo land when the EU did not exist and Britain was great.

Of course, it is obvious what the Prime Minister is doing. The country is back in recession and Labour are now neck and neck with the Conservatives on economic competence for the first time in this government, even overtaking them in some polls. No 10 has decided to go big on the single currency. The reasons for this are two-fold. Firstly, it detracts attention from their own floundering economic policy, and a show of strength over Europe may give Cameron a short term popularity boost with his own backbenchers and the public. Secondly, it is an attempt to redefine the debate on the economy – a debate which the government has lost control of in recent weeks – by casting the eurozone as the main factor in Britain’s continued economic woes. It is not a new approach – the first two years of coalition have been defined by an emphasis on the “mess left by Labour” – but it is a shifting of the blame.

There is some logic to this strategy – there is certainly no shortage of struggling foreign economies at which to point the finger. But ultimately, it is unhelpful. As a Guardian editorial argues today:

Britain is not uniquely virtuous in the face of global economic downturn and institutional failure. In fact, Britain is not particularly virtuous at all. We are in recession again because that is the logical outcome of the policies followed by this, not any other, government.

Blame-shifting may be politically expedient, but burning bridges with the eurozone is not going to help find solutions.
 

Angela Merkel and David Cameron, Berlin, Germany, November 2011. Photograph: Getty Images

Samira Shackle is a freelance journalist, who tweets @samirashackle. She was formerly a staff writer for the New Statesman.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

The Prevent strategy needs a rethink, not a rebrand

A bad policy by any other name is still a bad policy.

Yesterday the Home Affairs Select Committee published its report on radicalization in the UK. While the focus of the coverage has been on its claim that social media companies like Facebook, Twitter and YouTube are “consciously failing” to combat the promotion of terrorism and extremism, it also reported on Prevent. The report rightly engages with criticism of Prevent, acknowledging how it has affected the Muslim community and calling for it to become more transparent:

“The concerns about Prevent amongst the communities most affected by it must be addressed. Otherwise it will continue to be viewed with suspicion by many, and by some as “toxic”… The government must be more transparent about what it is doing on the Prevent strategy, including by publicising its engagement activities, and providing updates on outcomes, through an easily accessible online portal.”

While this acknowledgement is good news, it is hard to see how real change will occur. As I have written previously, as Prevent has become more entrenched in British society, it has also become more secretive. For example, in August 2013, I lodged FOI requests to designated Prevent priority areas, asking for the most up-to-date Prevent funding information, including what projects received funding and details of any project engaging specifically with far-right extremism. I lodged almost identical requests between 2008 and 2009, all of which were successful. All but one of the 2013 requests were denied.

This denial is significant. Before the 2011 review, the Prevent strategy distributed money to help local authorities fight violent extremism and in doing so identified priority areas based solely on demographics. Any local authority with a Muslim population of at least five per cent was automatically given Prevent funding. The 2011 review pledged to end this. It further promised to expand Prevent to include far-right extremism and stop its use in community cohesion projects. Through these FOI requests I was trying to find out whether or not the 2011 pledges had been met. But with the blanket denial of information, I was left in the dark.

It is telling that the report’s concerns with Prevent are not new and have in fact been highlighted in several reports by the same Home Affairs Select Committee, as well as numerous reports by NGOs. But nothing has changed. In fact, the only change proposed by the report is to give Prevent a new name: Engage. But the problem was never the name. Prevent relies on the premise that terrorism and extremism are inherently connected with Islam, and until this is changed, it will continue to be at best counter-productive, and at worst, deeply discriminatory.

In his evidence to the committee, David Anderson, the independent ombudsman of terrorism legislation, has called for an independent review of the Prevent strategy. This would be a start. However, more is required. What is needed is a radical new approach to counter-terrorism and counter-extremism, one that targets all forms of extremism and that does not stigmatise or stereotype those affected.

Such an approach has been pioneered in the Danish town of Aarhus. Faced with increased numbers of youngsters leaving Aarhus for Syria, police officers made it clear that those who had travelled to Syria were welcome to come home, where they would receive help with going back to school, finding a place to live and whatever else was necessary for them to find their way back to Danish society.  Known as the ‘Aarhus model’, this approach focuses on inclusion, mentorship and non-criminalisation. It is the opposite of Prevent, which has from its very start framed British Muslims as a particularly deviant suspect community.

We need to change the narrative of counter-terrorism in the UK, but a narrative is not changed by a new title. Just as a rose by any other name would smell as sweet, a bad policy by any other name is still a bad policy. While the Home Affairs Select Committee concern about Prevent is welcomed, real action is needed. This will involve actually engaging with the Muslim community, listening to their concerns and not dismissing them as misunderstandings. It will require serious investigation of the damages caused by new Prevent statutory duty, something which the report does acknowledge as a concern.  Finally, real action on Prevent in particular, but extremism in general, will require developing a wide-ranging counter-extremism strategy that directly engages with far-right extremism. This has been notably absent from today’s report, even though far-right extremism is on the rise. After all, far-right extremists make up half of all counter-radicalization referrals in Yorkshire, and 30 per cent of the caseload in the east Midlands.

It will also require changing the way we think about those who are radicalized. The Aarhus model proves that such a change is possible. Radicalization is indeed a real problem, one imagines it will be even more so considering the country’s flagship counter-radicalization strategy remains problematic and ineffective. In the end, Prevent may be renamed a thousand times, but unless real effort is put in actually changing the strategy, it will remain toxic. 

Dr Maria Norris works at London School of Economics and Political Science. She tweets as @MariaWNorris.