Disorder abroad, opportunism at home -- the euro crisis keeps getting worse

Balls' hostile position on UK money going towards an IMF bailout is clearly aimed at destabilising t

So it looks as if the G20 has failed to agree concrete, immediate measures to prop up struggling eurozone economies. President Sarkozy has said the details of a collective boost to IMF resources will be discussed at a finance ministers' meeting in February. Yes, February. In other words, those leaders gathered in Cannes who don't front eurozone governments are not mobilising (or indeed reaching into their pockets) today to stop bond market pressure on Greece and Italy.

It is officially branded a eurozone-only problem. In fact David Cameron has said it in exactly those terms: 

The primary responsibility of sorting out the problems of the eurozone lies with eurozone countries themselves.

What this means more specifically is that a heavy burden now falls on the European Central Bank where short-to-medium term market intervention is concerned. Meanwhile, France and Germany must now really get to grips with the medium-to-long term questions of political will, institutional structures, treaty changes and general revision of the EU project to make the single currency work.

There is no money left in Europe and no-one wants to lend anymore. I'd say we are getting pretty close to a "game over" moment for Greece in the eurozone.

But would a process to ease Greece out of the single currency make contagion to Italy more or less likely? Would a Greek exit suggest that eurozone discipline is real -- i.e. if you can't cut it in the club, you're out -- and thereby reassure markets that the crisis is being dealt with in a rigorous fashion, or would it just suggest that the whole thing is unravelling chaotically and lead to another panicky flight from all southern European debt? The latter seems more probable (but then I am neither an economist nor a bond trader.)

From a domestic point of view, Cameron is spared an immediate battle with his party over Britain's contribution to the IMF. That is a small consolation though, as the general lack of commitment to a consolidated global euro rescue means continued instability and insecurity and, by extension, a weaker economic outlook.

Meanwhile, on that IMF point, an aside on Labour's role (bearing in mind that the UK opposition party's position is on the margin of the real conversation): Ed Balls has come out with a pretty hostile position regarding UK money going towards a euro bailout via the IMF. The argument -- made also, it must be said, by most Tories -- is that the Fund is meant to administer loans and set technical conditions for reform to nations only (something along those lines is planned for Italy). It is emphatically not meant to be absorbed into some wider European single-currency political rescue machine. The problem is, of course, that it is very hard to ringfence UK money once it has been paid to the IMF, so any decision to contribute more can -- as I argued yesterday -- look like participation in a euro bailout. That is certainly how Tory eurosceptics will present it.

I have a suspicion Balls was less pernickety about the IMF's constitutional obligations when Gordon Brown was corralling the G20 into a global economic rescue package. No doubt he has found it easier to arrive at his current position knowing it paves the way for a parliamentary alliance against the government, should there be a vote on increasing the UK's IMF contributions.

The last time that happened, Labour sided with the sceptics but the Tory rebellion wasn't big enough and the opposition whips not firm enough to get sufficient MPs through the lobby to defeat the government.

Feelings would certainly be stronger and turnout higher in a repeat fixture. The idea of Labour abetting Tory eurosceptics represents a victory of sorts for the shadow Treasury team over the shadow Foreign Office team. Douglas Alexander has generally been of the view that Labour should be playing the part of would-be responsible global citizens, exposing Tory recklessness. As one person familiar with Alexander's thinking on the matter put it to me recently: "it isn't as if Labour's problem is not being opportunistic enough."

Ed Balls clearly thinks the opportunity to destabilise the coalition with a parliamentary defeat is too good to waste.

Rafael Behr is political columnist at the Guardian and former political editor of the New Statesman

GETTY
Show Hide image

Cabinet audit: what does the appointment of Andrea Leadsom as Environment Secretary mean for policy?

The political and policy-based implications of the new Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

A little over a week into Andrea Leadsom’s new role as Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), and senior industry figures are already questioning her credentials. A growing list of campaigners have called for her resignation, and even the Cabinet Office implied that her department's responsibilities will be downgraded.

So far, so bad.

The appointment would appear to be something of a consolation prize, coming just days after Leadsom pulled out of the Conservative leadership race and allowed Theresa May to enter No 10 unopposed.

Yet while Leadsom may have been able to twist the truth on her CV in the City, no amount of tampering will improve the agriculture-related side to her record: one barely exists. In fact, recent statements made on the subject have only added to her reputation for vacuous opinion: “It would make so much more sense if those with the big fields do the sheep, and those with the hill farms do the butterflies,” she told an audience assembled for a referendum debate. No matter the livelihoods of thousands of the UK’s hilltop sheep farmers, then? No need for butterflies outside of national parks?

Normally such a lack of experience is unsurprising. The department has gained a reputation as something of a ministerial backwater; a useful place to send problematic colleagues for some sobering time-out.

But these are not normal times.

As Brexit negotiations unfold, Defra will be central to establishing new, domestic policies for UK food and farming; sectors worth around £108bn to the economy and responsible for employing one in eight of the population.

In this context, Leadsom’s appointment seems, at best, a misguided attempt to make the architects of Brexit either live up to their promises or be seen to fail in the attempt.

At worst, May might actually think she is a good fit for the job. Leadsom’s one, water-tight credential – her commitment to opposing restraints on industry – certainly has its upsides for a Prime Minister in need of an alternative to the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP); a policy responsible for around 40 per cent the entire EU budget.

Why not leave such a daunting task in the hands of someone with an instinct for “abolishing” subsidies  thus freeing up money to spend elsewhere?

As with most things to do with the EU, CAP has some major cons and some equally compelling pros. Take the fact that 80 per cent of CAP aid is paid out to the richest 25 per cent of farmers (most of whom are either landed gentry or vast, industrialised, mega-farmers). But then offset this against the provision of vital lifelines for some of the UK’s most conscientious, local and insecure of food producers.

The NFU told the New Statesman that there are many issues in need of urgent attention; from an improved Basic Payment Scheme, to guarantees for agri-environment funding, and a commitment to the 25-year TB eradication strategy. But that they also hope, above all, “that Mrs Leadsom will champion British food and farming. Our industry has a great story to tell”.

The construction of a new domestic agricultural policy is a once-in-a-generation opportunity for Britain to truly decide where its priorities for food and environment lie, as well as to which kind of farmers (as well as which countries) it wants to delegate their delivery.

In the context of so much uncertainty and such great opportunity, Leadsom has a tough job ahead of her. And no amount of “speaking as a mother” will change that.

India Bourke is the New Statesman's editorial assistant.