A burning building with no exits? Photo: Getty Images
Show Hide image

The Euro has become a prison. There needs to be a way out

I've long opposed the single currency for Britain. But a middle way has to be found between leaving the European Union and being trapped by the single currency, and not just for the UK, argues Molly Scott Cato.

Eurosceptics will no doubt seek to capitalise on the misfortunes of the Greek people to further their own Brexit agenda. Indeed, it would be somewhat surprising if the Greek crisis and the way it has been handled by European leaders and institutions had not sown doubts in people’s minds. But as we enter the process of debating our place within the continent, and deciding whether this will include our membership of the European Union, it is important to draw a clear distinction between the European Union and the European currency of the Eurozone.

I must confess that the Eurozone is the issue where I have felt most isolated from other members of the Green group in the European Parliament. My colleagues are prepared to hear the serious reservations I have about the viability of a single currency, but do not sympathise with them. This in spite of the fact that nine other EU members have made the same decision as the UK, including Poland, Sweden, Denmark and the Czech Republic. By doing so, I believe they have also kept hold of vitally important economic powers.  

Perhaps we have forgotten just what a live issue the Euro was in the UK until relatively recently. Labour and the Liberal Democrats were keen for us to join the single currency. That we did not is, I think, credit to Jimmy Goldsmith, who poured money into a single-issue party to prevent this from happening. In 1997 the party stood candidates in every UK constituency to force this sole issue into the political debate and gave the Tories the courage to stand against the single currency.

 At that time I represented the UK on the steering group of the No Euro campaign. As Greens we broadened the campaign's base and provided political cover for the Little Englanders and their uncomfortable left wing allies.

I was also involved in the publication of a collection of essays that reflected a progressive case against the Euro. This outlined the extreme stretch of solidarity required by a functioning single currency area as well as critiquing the lack of democratic control over Eurozone institutions. It was a left wing argument for the preservation of national sovereignty, and for linking control of currency to where we vote, to match similar concerns on the political right.

Studying as I was for a PhD on employment policy at the time, I was party to the near unanimity of UK economists on the issue. It was a fairly easy question theoretically: with such a diverse range of economies requiring such wildly different interest rates, it was nearly impossible to conceive of the Eurozone as a single currency area. The success of the currency was always going to depend on the willingness of countries with more successful economies being prepared to transfer wealth to the weaker economies. A generation of European politicians decided to force that issue and the rise of Euroscepticism across the continent is the consequence. What was designed as a project to enhance solidarity and encourage federalism has done precisely the reverse.

Greece chose the loss of sovereignty that comes with joining a single currency. That has led to the appalling situation it faces today of losing control of its economic policy and its national assets, just as Portugal, Spain and Ireland did in their turn. But we should not allow the siren song of the anti-Europeans to blind us to the fact that it was the Euro and not the EU that gave the financiers this power. We do not face any similar loss of control precisely because we rejected the Euro and its flawed design.

Ever closer union is the logic of the European project and of the single currency area. This forced Union, brought about by the design of the Euro, is now undermining the whole EU. Those countries that are part of the single currency area will inevitably develop political and democratic institutions to guide how their currency is governed. Indeed, it is an urgent necessity that they do so. But there must also be a way out for countries for whom the Euro is now destructive and a way forward for countries that choose not to join but still want to be part of the European partnership.

 

Molly Scott Cato is Green MEP for the southwest of England, elected in May 2014. She has published widely, particularly on issues related to green economics. Molly was formerly Professor of Strategy and Sustainability at the University of Roehampton.

Getty
Show Hide image

The most terrifying thing about Donald Trump's speech? What he didn't say

No politician uses official speeches to put across their most controversial ideas. But Donald Trump's are not hard to find. 

As Donald Trump took the podium on a cold Washington day to deliver his inauguration speech, the world held its breath. Viewers hunched over televisions or internet streaming services watched Trump mouth “thank you” to the camera, no doubt wondering how he could possibly live up to his deranged late-night Twitter persona. In newsrooms across America, reporters unsure when they might next get access to a president who seems to delight in denying them the right to ask questions got ready to parse his words for any clue as to what was to come. Some, deciding they couldn’t bear to watch, studiously busied themselves with other things.

But when the moment came, Trump’s speech was uncharacteristically professional – at least compared to his previous performances. The fractured, repetitive grammar that marks many of his off-the-cuff statements was missing, and so, too, were most of his most controversial policy ideas.

Trump told the crowd that his presidency would “determine the course of America, and the world, for many, many years to come” before expressing his gratefulness to President Barack Obama and Michelle Obama for their “gracious aid” during the transition. “They have been magnificent," Trump said, before leading applause of thanks from the crowd.

If this opening was innocent enough, however, it all changed in the next breath. The new president moved quickly to the “historic movement”, “the likes of which the world has never seen before”, that elected him President. Following the small-state rhetoric of his campaign, Trump promised to take power from the “establishment” and restore it to the American people. “This moment," he told them, “Is your moment. It belongs to you.”

A good deal of the speech was given over to re-iterating his nationalist positions while also making repeated references to the key issues – “Islamic terrorism” and families – that remain points of commonality within the fractured Republican GOP.

The loss of business to overseas producers was blamed for “destroying our jobs”. “Protection," Trump said, “Will lead to great strength." He promised to end what he called the “American carnage” caused by drugs and crime.

“From this day forward," Trump said, “It’s going to be only America first."

There was plenty in the speech, then, that should worry viewers, particularly if you read Trump’s promises to make America “unstoppable” so it can “win” again in light of his recent tweets about China

But it was the things Trump didn't mention that should worry us most. Trump, we know, doesn’t use official channels to communicate his most troubling ideas. From bizarre television interviews to his upsetting and offensive rallies and, of course, the infamous tweets, the new President is inclined to fling his thoughts into the world as and when he sees fit, not on the occasions when he’s required to address the nation (see, also, his anodyne acceptance speech).

It’s important to remember that Trump’s administration wins when it makes itself seem as innocent as possible. During the speech, I was reminded of my colleague Helen Lewis’ recent thoughts on the “gaslighter-in-chief”, reflecting on Trump’s lying claim that he never mocked a disabled reporter. “Now we can see," she wrote, “A false narrative being built in real time, tweet by tweet."

Saying things that are untrue isn’t the only way of lying – it is also possible to lie by omission.

There has been much discussion as to whether Trump will soften after he becomes president. All the things this speech did not mention were designed to keep us guessing about many of the President’s most controversial promises.

Trump did not mention his proposed ban on Muslims entering the US, nor the wall he insists he will erect between America and Mexico (which he maintains the latter will pay for). He maintained a polite coolness towards the former President and avoiding any discussion of alleged cuts to anti-domestic violence programs and abortion regulations. Why? Trump wanted to leave viewers unsure as to whether he actually intends to carry through on his election rhetoric.

To understand what Trump is capable of, therefore, it is best not to look to his speeches on a global stage, but to the promises he makes to his allies. So when the President’s personal website still insists he will build a wall, end catch-and-release, suspend immigration from “terror-prone regions” “where adequate screening cannot occur”; when, despite saying he understands only 3 per cent of Planned Parenthood services relate to abortion and that “millions” of women are helped by their cancer screening, he plans to defund Planned Parenthood; when the president says he will remove gun-free zones around schools “on his first day” - believe him.  

Stephanie Boland is digital assistant at the New Statesman. She tweets at @stephanieboland