Welcome to the New Statesman website. Please sign in or register to participate in the conversation.

The Staggers

The New Statesman’s rolling politics blog

Syndicate contentRSS

Is this the end of the world as we know it?

It's certainly the end of the eurozone as we know it.

If there was ever a time for apocalyptic titles, well, this is it. Politicians, journalists, market participants, commentators, academics and pretty much everybody under the sun have engaged in an unofficial competition for who is going to come up with the most depressing prediction of what the not-so-distant-future holds for the eurozone and Europe at large.

If these doomsday predictions are anything to go by, our world will come crashing before our eyes very soon. Maybe, but it is not all that bad. This is indeed the end of the eurozone as we know but I believe we should all feel fine.

What is about to end is the perverse system of guarding a monetary union with peer pressure alone. The Stability and Growth Pack was an inadequate tool for governance, based on intergovernmentalism. Supranational institutions like the European Commission and Eurostat were left powerless to enforce discipline (or even question Member States' statistics).

Proposals are already on the table to strengthen the governance of the eurozone and empower the Commission to scrutinise national budgets, warn about the build-up of imbalances and challenge Member States that break the rules. But more needs to be done; not least the creation of a European treasury with the appropriate authority, know-how and firepower to make fiscal and economic policy common for the eurozone as a whole.

The intergovernmental model of governance has taken focus away from the collective good of the Union and put the emphasis on EU Member States' competing national interests. What we need is independent and supranational institutions, taking decisions beyond narrow national interests, with the good of the EU as a whole in mind.

In a similar vein, the idea that monetary union can prosper without fiscal union has run its course.

The emergence of imbalances and the loss of competitiveness are features of all monetary unions, including the US or the UK. To reduce the chance that these imbalances occur, scrutiny of fiscal policies and national budgets must be accompanied by the integration of labour, social and tax policies in an effort to form not just common economic policies but also a truly common European economy.

But when imbalances do emerge a system of transfers must be put in place to afford the embattled part of the union time and space to implement the necessary policies that will allow it to regain competitiveness. Those transfers will be conditional to the applications of the appropriate policies and can only happen in the context of a comprehensive fiscal union, with the rights and responsibilities that implies.

Furthermore, the European Central Bank must be liberated from its purely price stability remit. A strong and stable eurozone requires an central bank that monitors the build-up of imbalances across the economy and the financial services sector and is able -- and willing -- to function as lender of last resort when solvent member states and financial institutions find themselves in liquidity problems due to a systemic shock in the markets.

The creation of a fiscal union and the strengthening of the central bank will allow for the issuance of common bonds without the risk of moral hazard. Member Sates won't need to rely purely on the discipline of markets when they have to abide to the discipline of eurozone institutions. At the same time, the eurozone will not run the risk of constantly falling pray to the un-picking of its weakest link by the markets.

Last, but certainly not least, this Huxleyian Brave New World should have at its core democratically legitimate and accountable institutions. If we are to move closer to fiscal and economic federalism, governed by the independent and supranational institutions mentioned above, EU citizens must be at the heart of the process. Those charged with making decision -- be it the President of the European Commission, the President of the European Council, a European Finance Minister or the Members of the European Parliament -- must be directly accountable to the people.

Direct election for the three former, and a more representative voting system for the latter, will ensure a direct link between the electorate and the elected, and legitimise the process of economic integration needed to safeguard the future of the eurozone. This is not pro-European fantasy: it is a necessary building block in the architecture of the new governance structure of the Eurozone. And for that we need a new, grand, pan-EU Social Contract between EU citizens and their elected representatives.

The sooner we start drafting that contract the quicker we will be able to take EU citizens on board the process of closer European integration, bidding farewell to the world as we know it while greeting a new, brave one.

Petros Fassoulas is the Chairman of the European Movement UK

Tags: debt crisis  Eurozone

11 comments

Tom's picture

Here's a question for all of you EU bashers. If you got rid of the EU, what would replace it with that's viable in this global depression?

praha7's picture

Tom,
Here's a question for you.
Which of the commenters above advocates getting rid of the E.U.?

Adam's picture

"Huxleyian Brave New World" is redundant, and - as pointed out before - a totally bizarre sales pitch for your EUtopia.

I would call this plan a Schwarzennegerian Total Recall vacation...

Herbert's picture

Tom writes, 'Here's a question for all of you EU bashers. If you got rid of the EU, what would replace it with that's viable in this global depression?'

Here's a question for you - Why would you want to replace it? The Eu is going to collapse because of - in that old expression - its own internal contradictions. The global depression has simply exposed them in the same way a heavy storm exposes holes in the roof.

CrISpY DuCk's picture

Tom writes, 'Here's a question for all of you EU basher's. If you got rid of the EU, what would replace it with that's viable in this global depression?'

The nasty party running rough shod over employment law in order to make sure the poorest in society pay for this as well.

FRONT BENCH Chris Grayling, the Employment Minister, has denied claims this morning that the Government has abandoned demands for the repatriation of powers because of the Eurozone crisis.

BILL CASH Bill Cash, the Tory chairman of the Commons European scrutiny committee, insisted that the question of repatriating powers was an “absolute necessity”.

“We cannot achieve growth with the £8 billion cost of EU regulations (the minimum wage etc)strangling business,” he said.

Fergus Pickering's picture

Go go go the Nasty Party!

Rico's picture

But MEPs ARE elected (by proportional representation), the President of the Commission will in future (Lisbon treaty reform) be elected by Parliament (just as Prime Ministers are in most countries) and all Commissioners (including the Finance one) already need approval by the EP. Given that almost all European countries are parliamentary democracies, not US style Presidential ones, that seems apprpriate.

Des Demona's picture

'for the good of the EU as a whole'

I can see no way that an elected representative from any member state is going to vote in favour of a EU proposal which goes against their national interest. A utopian nationality of 'Europeans' is a pipe dream, nationalistic imperatives and politics will always hold precedent - hence the German's reluctance to press the button and bail out Italy.

The only way that is going to happen is to abolish all countries, create a Federal Republic of Europe and convince the respective populations that their culture, history and automony must now take second place to the good of Europe.
That ain't going to happen any time soon, thank goodness.

An all powerful EU would be too unweildy to recognise or make allowances for Eurowide economic policy effects on individual nations.

Steve's picture

I don't know why Petros you keep using the first person plural "we" in your piece. We in the UK will never be a part of this full monetary and fiscal union. It wouldn't get past a UK referendum.

How many eurozone countries will ballot their citizens on this I wonder?

If we had joined the euro we'd have bust it with our deficit. So be glad we never joined. :D

praha7's picture

@steve

The last paragraph gives you the clue to who"we"are.
"The sooner we start drafting that contract the quicker we will be able to take EU citizens on board the process of European integration,bidding farewell to the world as we know it while greeting a brave new one."

He clearly sees himself and others of like mind as some kind of enlightened elite who are charged with bringing the truth to the poor benighted masses.

The fact that he sees Huxley's Brave new world as a good societal model to aim for says it all really.

super huey's picture

erm... WW3 would be the end of the world as we know it... we're not too far off if we're not careful...

I mean all it takes is for the US to not pay their debt to China and boom... WW3 to clear the slate... start afresh...

Post new comment

By submitting this form, you accept the Mollom privacy policy.

Latest tweets