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 Images.
Show Hide image

Why Theresa May won't exclude students from the net migration target

The Prime Minister believes the public would view the move as "a fix". 

In a letter to David Cameron shortly after the last general election, Philip Hammond demanded that students be excluded from the net migration target. The then foreign secretary, who was backed by George Osborne and Sajid Javid, wrote: "From a foreign policy point of view, Britain's role as a world class destination for international students is a highly significant element of our soft power offer. It's an issue that's consistently raised with me by our foreign counterparts." Universities and businesses have long argued that it is economically harmful to limit student numbers. But David Cameron, supported by Theresa May, refused to relent. 

Appearing before the Treasury select committee yesterday, Hammond reignited the issue. "As we approach the challenge of getting net migration figures down, it is in my view essential that we look at how we do this in a way that protects the vital interests of our economy," he said. He added that "It's not whether politicians think one thing or another, it's what the public believe and I think it would be useful to explore that quesrtion." A YouGov poll published earlier this year found that 57 per cent of the public support excluding students from the "tens of thousands" target.

Amber Rudd, the Home Secretary, has also pressured May to do so. But the Prime Minister not only rejected the proposal - she demanded a stricter regime. Rudd later announced in her conference speech that there would be "tougher rules for students on lower quality courses". 

The economic case for reform is that students aid growth. The political case is that it would make the net migration target (which has been missed for six years) easier to meet (long-term immigration for study was 164,000 in the most recent period). But in May's view, excluding students from the target would be regarded by the public as a "fix" and would harm the drive to reduce numbers. If an exemption is made for one group, others will inevitably demand similar treatment. 

Universities complain that their lobbying power has been reduced by the decision to transfer ministerial responsibility from the business department to education. Bill Rammell, the former higher education minister and the vice-chancellor of Bedfordshire, said in July: “We shouldn’t assume that Theresa May as prime minister will have the same restrictive view on overseas students that Theresa May the home secretary had”. Some Tory MPs hoped that the net migration target would be abolished altogether in a "Nixon goes to China" moment.

But rather than retreating, May has doubled-down. The Prime Minister regards permanently reduced migration as essential to her vision of a more ordered society. She believes the economic benefits of high immigration are both too negligible and too narrow. 

Her ambition is a forbidding one. Net migration has not been in the "tens of thousands" since 1997: when the EU had just 15 member states and the term "BRICS" had not even been coined. But as prime minister, May is determined to achieve what she could not as home secretary. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.