In the wake of Cyprus, the euro can survive

Everyone hold your breath... and then chill out and have a Easter egg.

This weekend you should spend as much time as possible holding your breath or crossing your fingers. Storm clouds are gathering throughout Europe and the downpour could begin as early as Tuesday. First of all there is the ongoing Cypriot tragi-comedy; tragic for innocent islanders and retirees who just saw the island as a nice place to keep their savings and see out their days, comedy with regard to the performance of the Troika; judge, jury and executioner in the form of the European Central Bank, (ECB), the International Monetary Fund and European Commission.

Secondly, there is the Italian political imbroglio, which this week descended into chaos as Grillo, the leader of the neo-anarchist Five Star Movement, called M. Bersani and Berlusconi something almost unprintable and Bersani said, “only an insane person would want to govern this country, which is in a mess and faces a difficult year ahead”, following his failed attempt to comply with the President’s request to form a government, raising the likelihood of months of uncertainty and new elections. Rumours abound of a possible credit rating downgrade over the weekend.

Thirdly, Slovenia is quietly imploding and nudging its way onto traders’ screens. The political situation is not much better than Italy’s and the banking system has bad loans equal to 20 per cent of GDP. These resonances caused its government bond yields to soar this week, following the Cypriot "solution".

Along with these near-term, possibly explosive threats, the Eurozone has to continue to cope with the slow-burn problems of Spain, which is failing to meet deficit reduction targets and, perhaps most frighteningly, France’s slowdown. Throw in the chasm opening up between President Hollande and Chancellor Markel and the Euro’s prospects may seem dire.

Notwithstanding all of the above, I remain cautiously, but resolutely certain that the Euro can survive, at least for the foreseeable future - meaning the next three years, say.

If we have learnt nothing else over the last few years it should be that the political will to ensure its survival is enormous and that the ECB is prepared to almost totally divorce itself from its Bundesbank heritage to play its part. Witness the protest resignations of two senior Bundesbankers from the ECB since the crisis broke. Merkel will masterfully persuade the German people to provide just enough largesse to southern Europe, without enraging her populace beyond breaking point, she will probably bend just enough on austerity to satisfy Hollande’s calls for growth, and after the elections she will probably even support the issuance of joint and several Eurobonds, which put all nations on the hook to the same degree. Finally, this Thursday, Draghi will give a masterful performance at the post-ECB meeting press conference, in an echo of his famous "whatever it takes" speech last year.

Cyprus can become a tragic memory, Italy is rich and will survive, Slovenia is small, and Spain and France will slowly respond to growth enhancement. Meanwhile, the US will surprise us all with its outperformance this year, once again acting as an economic locomotive.

So, let your breath out and have an Easter egg, if that is your fancy.

Look at these lambs. They're not worried about Cyprus. Photograph: Getty Images

Chairman of  Saxo Capital Markets Board

An Honours Graduate from Oxford University, Nick Beecroft has over 30 years of international trading experience within the financial industry, including senior Global Markets roles at Standard Chartered Bank, Deutsche Bank and Citibank. Nick was a member of the Bank of England's Foreign Exchange Joint Standing Committee.

More of his work can be found here.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Mass surveillance doesn’t work – it’s time to go back to the drawing board

Lacking an answer to the problem of radicalisation, the government has confused tactics with strategy.

This week saw the release of not one but two parliamentary reports on the government’s proposed new spying law, the first from the Intelligence and Security Committee and the second from the Joint Committee on the Draft Investigatory Powers Bill.

Both reports suggested the government hasn’t fully made the case for some elements of mass surveillance put forward in the Bill. But neither went so far as to ask the most important question in this debate – does mass surveillance actually work?

The proposed law, known as the Investigatory Powers Bill, looks set to enshrine almost all the government’s mass surveillance powers and capabilities in a single law for the first time. It has been touted by the Prime Minister as a vital weapon in the UK’s fight against Islamic State.

Most of the noise about mass surveillance since the Snowden revelations has predictably come from civil liberties groups. But the privacy and safeguards debate skips over the highly dubious assumption underpinning the Investigatory Powers Bill – that mass surveillance will stop terrorists.

In fact, mass surveillance is not only ineffective but downright counter-productive.

A 2009 report by the US government found that only 1.2 per cent of tips provided to the FBI by mass surveillance techniques made a significant contribution to counter-terrorism efforts. Another recent study by the New America Foundation found that National Security Agency mass data collection played a role in, at most, 1.8 per cent of terrorism cases examined. By contrast, traditional investigative methods initiated 60 per cent of investigations. Suddenly mass surveillance doesn’t seem so vital.

This is because the technology is far from perfect. As computer scientist Ray Corrigan has written, “Even if your magic terrorist-catching machine has a false positive rate of 1 in 1,000—and no security technology comes anywhere near this—every time you asked it for suspects in the UK it would flag 60,000 innocent people.”

Perversely, this lack of precision means mass surveillance can actually frustrate counter-terrorism efforts. Michael Adebolajo, who brutally murdered Fusilier Lee Rigby in 2013, was so well known to the security services prior to the attack they had even tried to recruit him as an informant. Yet insufficient monitoring later on let him slip through the net. The same thing happened with the Hebdo killers. Mass surveillance means intelligence analysts are forced to spend their time fruitlessly sifting through endless reams of data rather than carrying out the targeted monitoring and detection that’s really needed.

Counter-radicalisation experts have meanwhile argued that mass surveillance may alienate Muslim communities, making them distrustful of the police and possibly even contributing to radicalisation. In 2014, Jonathan Russell from the counter-extremism group Quilliam wrote that the “introduction of a sweeping [mass surveillance] law…will be exploited by extremists to show that the government wants to spy on its own citizens [and] that all Muslims are suspected of being terrorists.” This will set alarm bells ringing for those who know the fight against terrorism will ultimately be won only by preventing radicalisation in the first place.

And therein lies the real problem with this Bill. It’s tactics, not strategy. If we stop for a second and think about what the problem is – namely that thousands of young Britons are at risk of radicalisation – we’d never prescribe mass surveillance as the answer. It would be nonsensical to propose something that risks making alienation worse.

The trouble is we don’t have a convincing answer to the actual problem. The government’s counter-radicalisation strategy is mired in controversy. So instead a different question is being posed. Not how do we stop people from signing up to join Islamic State, but how do we gather as much communications data as possible? GCHQ have an answer for that. It’s a classic case of confusing a tactic – and a highly unreliable one at that – with a strategy actually designed to tackle the root of the problem.

Never mind our privacy for a moment. For the sake of our security, it’s time to go back to the drawing board and think of something better.

 

Andrew Noakes is Senior Advocacy Officer at the Remote Control Project. He writes about covert and unconventional methods of warfare, counter-terrorism, and human rights.