Upside down Europe

With politics heating up in the frigid Swedish winter we can’t help but get the sense that Europe is turning itself on its head a bit…

North becoming South?

• We warned yesterday that the Swedish government was on the brink of collapse. So it has proved. The Swedish Prime Minister Stefan Löfven today announced snap elections for the 22 March 2015 after the Swedish Parliament refused to back the government’s budget and instead voted for the opposition’s budget. This was largely down to the Sweden Democrats who are playing king-makers in the current parliament. Such political turmoil is alien to the usually placid Swedish political scene and rings more of happenings in struggling Eurozone countries unable to agree on an austerity budget in the midst of a severe economic crisis.

• Similarly, at the start of the year, the Danish coalition government was weakened by the departure of the Socialist People’s Party (SF) – which was not happy about the sale of part of state energy firm Dong to Goldman Sachs. However, the party said it would continue to support the government from the opposition benches. The move forced Prime Minister Helle Thorning-Schmidt into the seventh cabinet reshuffle since she took office in October 2011. The next general election is due in September 2015, and we wouldn’t be surprised to see the Danish People’s Party become the effective powerbroker – similar to the SD in Sweden – especially after they became the largest party at the European elections earlier this year.

• We have also noted numerous times (see here and here) that the Finnish economy is struggling and posting some of the worst growth figures in the EU. While it is stabilising now it is finding it hard to source new drivers of economic growth following the decline of Nokia, the tech sector more broadly and the paper industry. The long term economic malaise is surprising in a country which continuously ranks high in measures of competitiveness (4th globally according to the World Economic Forum) and ease of doing business (9th globally according to the World Bank).

South becoming North?

• In the third quarter of this year two of the strongest growing economies in the Eurozone were Spain and Greece. While countries such as Germany, the Netherlands and Belgium barely pulling themselves into positive growth territory the two periphery stalwarts posted some strong figures.

• Throughout this year we’ve also seen numerous periphery countries getting close to record low borrowing costs, including Ireland, Italy, Spain and Portugal.

• Discussion over the US-EU free trade deal TTIP have exposed some unusual fault lines. With countries such as Portugal and Italy pushing strongly for the deal to be struck and talking in very free trade terms, Germany and France have been raising concerns and taking a more protectionist stance.

Although thinking about it, we still have a looming economic and political crisis in Greece, economic malaise in Portugal and Italy and the rise of numerous populist parties. Maybe rather than the North and the South switching, the whole of Europe is just becoming more Southern…

What’s wrong with Finland? Part 2

Since our last post on this issue things seem to have only got worse for Finland.

The European Commission’s latest economic forecast (see table below, click to enlarge) made pretty dire reading with Finland expected to be one of the worst performers in terms of economic growth over the next two years.

Furthermore, it seems that the credit rating agency S&P has finally caught up with our analysis of Finland, putting its AAA rating on negative outlook, suggesting that it may lose it in the next couple of years. Similar to our concerns about the rebalancing of the Finnish economy, the demographic problems and a stubborn lack of competitiveness, S&P noted:

“Finland’s persistent subpar growth rate reflects deep structural demographic and economic imbalances that hamper the government’s efforts to achieve fiscal consolidation. We consider that there are downside risks to growth and policy implementation.”

“We believe that the economy remains vulnerable to any slowdown of economic activity in the euro area or among other major trading partners, such as Russia.”

As the second part of the quote suggests, the situation in Ukraine and the potential sanctions on Russia are also likely to worsen the outlook for Finland.

The graphs above (data from Bank of Finland) highlight that Russia accounts for a decent chunk of Finnish trade and given the dwindling sources of growth any hit to this could certainly hamper the rebalancing of the economy and the reform/recovery process.

Furthermore, as we have flagged up before, Finland is one of the many countries heavily reliant on Russia for gas and energy more generally. With Putin’s threat to cut off gas to Ukraine the situation has potentially escalated another step, at least in economic terms, Finland is one (of the many countries, including Russia) which is on the front line.

Once again, all this is not to say that Finland is an economic basket case, far from it, but that even the healthy economies in Europe are undergoing some serious overhauls and reforms, further complicating the crisis response and, now, dealing with issues such as the Ukraine-Russia crisis.

What’s wrong with Finland?

That seems a strange question to ask. The country is a paid-up member of the eurozone core and is one of the few countries in the world to have a triple A credit rating from all three top agencies (S&P, Moody's & Fitch) and a stable outlook from all.

However, as the chart to the left shows (taken from the most recent Finnish Central Bank Macroeconomic bulletin) and today’s GDP data confirm (the Finnish economy contracted by 0.8% in Q4 2013) suggests all might not be well.

GDP growth has stagnated and is now teetering on the edge of slipping into its third recession in six years. But what has been causing this? The chart below on the right provides some insight.

The first point to note is the collapse in the electrical and electronics industry. This has been largely down to the struggles of Nokia. Formerly a dominant player in the telecoms market the firm has failed to adapt to the changing nature of the market, in particular the smart phone phenomenon, and has seen its market share, profits and share value eroded. The sector has also suffered knock on effects of the reduced global demand in the wake of the financial crisis, the threat of low cost emerging markets and the struggling domestic demand due to falling confidence.

Similarly the large metals industry has also been hit by the global downturn and has struggled with price competitiveness. In particular the ship building industry would have been doubly hit by the struggles in global trade and is yet to truly recover.

It was previously said that Finland lived off its forests. This is no longer true, or at least it is no longer able to fully. The forest industry and the related wood, textiles and paper industry have struggled with changing technologies. Demand for paper and related products has fallen substantially as digital replacements grow and environmental concerns take hold. Again cheap emerging market products may also threaten in this area.

The combination of all this has been falling employment and an accompanied fall in domestic demand, keeping downward pressure on the economy. At the same time Finland is also beginning to run into the same demographic problem facing much of the developed world – the decline of the working age population and the increase in the number of dependants.

It’s clear that Finland remains a very strong and healthy economy. However, it is clearly undergoing some serious structural changes and may continue to post low growth figures for some time to come. Fortunately, public debt remains low at around 59% of GDP, while the deficit continues to be under control at 2.4% of GDP, and unemployment remains at just 8.1% despite recent increases. This should give the country plenty of space to conduct the structural changes needed.

That said, the case of Finland provides further evidence (as we have pointed out for Germany) that the peripheral eurozone countries aren’t the only ones undergoing significant changes.

Are the Irish more optimistic about an austerity cure for Europe than the Germans?

A new Gallup poll for Debating Europe has asked peple all over the EU, except Luxembourg for some reason, about their views on austerity.

Now, of course, 'austerity' is rather a nebulous concept, particularly as different member states have had different experiences, while deficit cutting and structural reform all fall under the same term. Nevertheless, there are some interesting results.

The table above (click to enlarge) shows that across Europe as a whole, 51% said austerity is not working, while 34% said it is working but will take time, and 5% were sure it is already working.

Clearly, there are differences across the member states. No surprises that Greeks (80%) and Cypriots (64%) are the most sceptical about the merits of austerity. Portugal and Spain are also towards the right hand, anti-austerity side of the scale.

But look at Ireland. According to this poll, more Irish respondents (53%) think that austerity is working than Germans (42%), Finns (40%), or Dutch (39%)  - whose governments are considered to be the eurozone's most hawkish.

It is also striking that people from the new member states in central and eastern Europe, albeit outside the eurozone, have the most trust in austerity policies. The Baltics (Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia) in particular were subjected to significant austerity in the aftermath of the financial crisis yet many in these countries still support such an approach.

It is not clear what exlpains Irish optimism about austerity. It is likely to be a mixture of the fact that, so far, the Irish economy has made relatively good progress (although fears about the banks and property market still remain) and a general cultural disposition - as we noted in a paper last year, of all the struggling eurozone countries Ireland has the economic and social setup and history most likely to fit with the austerity approach.

But taken as a whole, this poll highlights the political and social scale of the challenge the eurozone faces with its current policy approach, particularly among the populations of Southern Europe.

Meanwhile, in the Far North

One of the consequences of the eurozone crisis is that media, pundits and market analysts have been forced to become experts of what previously would have been seen as the most obscure political events. Thus, the Finnish local elections now have international significance (although they are still not making any headlines) as they serve as a barometer for the extent to which "Europe" as an election issue can trickle through to the local level. The theory being that the closer the issue gets to citizens, the harder for EU leaders to sell more integration.

An opinion poll for Finnish public broadcaster Yle puts the anti-bailout (True) Finns party at 17.2% - three times higher than in local election in 2008. Compared to 2008, all parties except for the Green party and the (True) Finns party would lose voters.

With a majority of voters from all Finnish parties - apart from the small Swedish People's Party - seemingly opposing more eurozone bailouts, expect Finland to remain assertive. Starting with the rumoured leveraging of the ESM.

They may have the cup...

It's election campaign season in the Netherlands, with Dutch voters due to choose their next government on 12 September. Caretaker Prime Minister Mark Rutte's VVD party has come up with a rather original way of planting the eurozone crisis into domestic political debate.

On 29 June, the party published the following campaign poster on its Facebook page:

The two players on the right - Andrea Pirlo of Italy and Xavi Hernández of Spain - need no introduction. However, the slogan on the left is quite interesting, as it says,

They may have the cup, not our creditworthiness.

The picture also had a short description above, saying,

Italy or Spain will become European football champions [as we mentioned, the post is from 29 June, two days before the Euro 2012 final]. Now they also need to become champions in cutting their budgets, because if we get things our way, there will be no arrangement through which they can benefit from our financial discipline while not putting their own things in order. Please like if you agree!

To date, the VVD post has 864 'Likes'.

As the elections get closer, tough rhetoric on the eurozone crisis, such as this, is likely to become a feature as Dutch politicians bid to 'steal' votes from Geert Wilders' far-right, notoriously anti-euro (and anti-EU), PVV.

Today, Dutch magazine Elsevier also reported that, at last week’s meeting of the ‘Future of Europe’ group, organised by German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle, Dutch Foreign Minister Uri Rosenthal warned that it was not the time to discuss any further transfer of national powers to the EU, especially in areas such as pensions, labour market and social security.

In light of what we have seen, for instance, in Finland ahead of the latest presidential elections, the picture above is another example of how further fiscal integration and eurozone bailouts are now at the forefront of election campaigns in the Triple-A countries.

Surprisingly little collateral damage as Spain and Finland reach a deal

Spain and Finland last night reached a deal on the provision of collateral for the Finnish share of the Spanish rescue package. This is the second collateral deal which Finland has struck, following the one on the second Greek bailout, although thankfully this one seems slightly simpler and much more transparent.

The full presentation on the deal is here, unfortunately in Finnish, (an English summary can be found here), but we’ll outline the key points for you and also add some of our reactions in bold:

• Finland will receive €770m from Spain’s deposit guarantee fund which will be invested in Triple-A eurozone government debt and held in an escrow account. The idea here is that the deposit guarantee fund isn’t part of the state therefore no issues will arise in terms of subordinating existing debt holders (see here for a fuller discussion on this issue of ‘negative pledge clauses’). A technicality but it should hold and at least it allows more transparency since the deposit fund is still a somewhat public institution (rather than private commercial one as in the case of the Greek banks which provided the collateral for the previous deal). 
• The amount covers only 40% of Finland’s contribution to the Spanish bailout, based on the largest expected losses under a default. Logically this may seem to be enough given the size of the Spanish economy and historical recovery values from defaults. Unfortunately, if it gets to the stage of a Spanish default (a very unlikely scenario), the implications for the eurozone are likely to be huge (possibly a full break up) meaning 40% collateral would be of little value. Although in that scenario Finland would have a lot more problems to worry about that just recovering the bailout loans. 
• The collateral will stay in place even if the loans are transferred from the EFSF to ESM. This is a result of the transferred loans not having seniority, if they did we’re sure the collateral deal would be unwound once the ESM was in control. 
• Finland has also agreed to forgo any potential profits form the loans and pay in its capital to the ESM, the eurozone’s permanent bailout fund, in one instalment rather than five. The forgoing of profits is an interesting precedent, although given the incredibly low premium charged on the Spanish loans (as we discussed here) it is unlikely much will be made in this instance. The paying in of capital will force Finland to stump up cash quicker than expected but will amount to only €1.44bn, which should not be a problem given the strong state of the Finnish economy. 
• The Finnish parliament will debate the deal on Thursday and likely vote on it on Friday. Any euro debate in the Finnish parliament is always heated but this one seems likely to pass without incident. It also means the deal will be ready for the eurozone finance ministers’ discussion on Friday afternoon where the Spanish deal is expected to be finalised. 

All in all, it’s fairly similar to the Greek deal and despite being more public still fairly limited on precise details. One further point to note is the speed and relative ease at which the deal has progressed – particularly in that objections from other member states have been muted. This is to be expected, the rubicon had already been crossed with the Greek deal, but we also think the points which Finland gave in on (profits and speeding up ESM payments) may have played a role - both points which countries with higher debt levels may have been keen to avoid.

Finland and Netherlands raise doubts over summit conclusions

As we expected, doubts are already arising over the package agreed at last week’s summit. In particular, Finland and the Netherlands have today expressed strong reservations about the plans to allow the EFSF and ESM to purchase the debt of struggling countries.

Finland suggested today that it will not support any bond purchases by the bailout funds, while the Netherlands took a less stringent line simply saying that it would assess each purchase on a case by case basis (although behind the scenes it is widely thought not to be keen on the idea).

However, as has been noted, the countries may have backed themselves into a corner here with one of the previous summit amendments to the ESM treaty, which says:

“An emergency voting procedure shall be used where the Commission and the ECB both conclude that a failure to urgently adopt a decision to grant or implement financial assistance, as defined in Articles 13 to 18, would threaten the economic and financial sustainability of the euro area. The adoption of a decision by mutual agreement by the Board of Governors referred to in points (f) and (g) of Article 5(6) and the Board of Directors under that emergency procedure requires a qualified majority of 85% of the votes cast.”

It is worth remembering though that under the EFSF unanimity is still needed so in the short term they can block any attempt to purchase bonds. However, once the ESM comes into force, in around a week’s time if done on schedule, the countries could well be outvoted, since they control less than 8% of the votes combined. It is obviously not completely clear cut, the ‘emergency procedure’ would need support from the ECB and/or the Commission, although it is unlikely that the purchases would be started up in a non-emergency situation. At the very least it should make for an interesting vote on the ESM in the upper house of the Dutch parliament tomorrow and even though ratification is likely (especially since the lower house has already approved it) we’d hazard a guess that this isn’t the last we’ve seen of this issue.

Malteaser

A tasty development coming out of tiny Malta today – the Maltese government plans to ask for collateral on its loans to Greece.

Maltese Finance Minister Tonio Fenech said:

“I can confirm that at a recent meeting of the Eurogroup in Poland, Malta officially requested to be treated like Finland where it comes to collateral. All member states should be treated the same and we are insisting on this.”

So, also Malta is now echoing recent calls for equality in the eurozone as well. Many involved in the negotiations might be irked by this late call from a country with such a small contribution. However, in all fairness to Malta their contribution does amount to around 6.5% of their GDP, so clearly not a pittance to them. That more countries are coming out of the woodwork against this collateral deal just highlights how rushed and poorly thought out the second Greek bailout is.

As for what form the collateral deal will take – shockingly – no new developments. This, despite eurozone leaders saying we would have an agreement in one week, two weeks ago. Currently, it looks as if some collateral arrangement will be made available to all but it is likely to be so complex and costly that only those who have to accept it due to domestic constraints (Finland because of a deal with its parliament, Austria and Netherlands because of the growing Eurosceptic parties and Malta for, well, possibly for actual economic reasons) will choose to.

More meetings to come for sure - although it seems that this issue has taken a backseat to the topics of looming Greek default and financial market meltdown. Not that we can blame the eurozone leaders for that, it’s just, when you have so many balls in the air, one is bound to drop. Unfortunately if unexpected, that would mean disaster for the global economy.

Actually, come to think of it, we can and do blame eurozone leaders for that since they should have dealt with this problem head on a long time ago.

Another day, another poll

While the eurozone crisis rumbles on, the mis-match between what the eurozone needs to survive (probably a full-blown fiscal union) and what citizens accept, is growing ever more conspicuous.

Therefore, we were a bit surprised when the we read the following headline in Friday's Die Welt: "Die Deutschen wollen mehr Europa" (Germans want more Europe). This was apparently the most eye-catching finding in a new opinion poll carried out by DeutschlandTREND for German TV station ARD. Some in the twittospehere and elsewhere interpreted this as endorsement by German citizens for more powers being transferred to the EU institutions.

Really?

As it turns out, the question didn't even mention the EU. Instead, respondents were asked whether they supported “more common policy making in Europe over the next few years” ("mehr gemeinsame Politik in Europa"), which can mean a whole range of things, including more inter-governmental cooperation for example. On this question , 64% answered "yes". It's still an interesting finding, but clearly not one that can be taken as a strong indicator of German public support for the transferral of more power to EU's institutions.

(We're not suggesting that there's anything sinister about the Die Welt's write-up of the poll - just a normal case of seeking to spice up a headline. Not like when the European Commission tried to have us believe that just because a majority of respondents to a Eurobarometer poll said that "stronger coordination of economic and financial policies among all EU member states" would be effective or fairly effective to combat the ongoing crisis, that therefore meant that a majority of EU citizens favoured "stronger European economic governance").

However, the DeutschlandTREND poll provides a number of other very interesting findings, which which seem to suggest that, if the eurozone moves towards fiscal union, it will probably do so with German citizens kicking and screaming. According to the poll, only 35% of Germans would accept even “limited” versions of Eurobonds, while 55% oppose them.


As in previous polls, the bailouts aren't popular either: 66% of Germans are opposed to the Bundestag approving an extended bailout fund:


At the same time, 53% of respondents say they oppose a “United States of Europe”, with only 42% in favour, which clearly qualifies the conclusion that Germans are in favour of "more Europe".

However, the most conspicuous expression of changing public sentiments over recent weeks comes from Finland. A poll out last week shows that 47% of Finns think the euro has done more good than harm. When that same question was asked in a Eurobarometer poll only one year ago, 71% said the euro had done more good than harm. Meanwhile, 49% of Finns are opposed to the Greek bailout, with 34% supporting it. It's hard to find a clearer illustration of the political cost of the bailouts and the eurozone crisis.

If it wasn't for that annoying thing called democracy...

Regling goes loopy

This Greco-Finnish collateral deal is turning out to be quite the thorn in the side of eurozone leaders. As with all such problems, it has begun to attract all manners of solutions. One of the more interesting and outlandish ones was covered by Handelsblatt yesterday, reportedly put forward by none other than Klaus Regling, Head of the European Financial Stability Facility.

According to the German daily (although without citing sources) Regling has suggested to eurozone Finance ministers that Greece partly nationalise its banking sector and then use these bank shares as collateral with Finland in exchange for the Finnish share of the bailout loans. Sounds simple enough, although it has one slight snag – the collateral offered would be worthless in the event that the Greek state failed to repay the bailout loans.

It’s been noted that there is a significant sovereign-bank loop going on in Greece. Greek banks have almost solely survived on using Greek bonds and state backed bank debt to obtain loans from the ECB. If the state fails to repay its bailout loans, which would mean Greece had defaulted, these huge amounts of state debt and guarantees which help support the banking sector would unwind and the banking sector would collapse. Not to mention the fact that it would already have been partly nationalised and so would be directly state backed to some extent. (There's also the small issue of the banks being recapitalised with bailout funds and possibly by the EFSF in the future - presenting even more of a conflict).

The long and short of it is, Greek state defaults, Greek banks go under, therefore their shares are worthless as collateral.

Seems obvious enough but the reports suggest this plan will be the starting point for the discussions at 16 September meeting of eurozone finance ministers, at which a deal is expected to be finalised. If the plan does follow this proposal in some form it will be the mother of all sovereign-bank loops, with eurozone governments propping up Greece with a bailout, which is propping up Greek banks, the shares of which are being used as collateral to prop up the bailout.

In any case, we’re sure Finland is smart enough to figure all this out (and more) for themselves making this proposal, as with so many others, look dead on arrival.

Collateral Thinking

The eurozone's embarrassing collateral-for-loans spat continues, with member states disagreeing over whether Finland should be allowed to get collateral from Greece in return for giving Athens fresh loans. Who should guarantee the guarantees remains the thorny question.

To re-cap: Under a special deal with Greece, agreed on the sidelines of the 21st July summit, Finland would get collateral of some form, in a bid to appease taxpayers at home. The exact nature of the collateral wasn't agreed, and as it turned out, the creditor countries had very different interpretations of the exact meaning of the deal. It was almost as if they hadn't thought it through properly (shock horror!)...

Unfortunately for the Finns, the deal between Athens and Helsinki now has to be ratified by all eurozone governments. The reason is simple: since the collateral that Greece will post with Finland will probably come from the bailout funds (Athens is a bit short of cash) it will be other eurozone countries that actually underwrite the collateral that Finland has demanded. Hardly surprising, not everyone is happy - Austria, the Netherlands, Slovakia, Slovenia and also Germany have all rejected the collateral agreement, calling it unfair.

This has left the eurozone in yet another tricky situation. If everyone asks for collateral, the second Greek bailout will go down the tube, as Greece won't be left with enough cash. But if the Finnish deal isn't approved, Helsinki has threatened not to participate in the bailout - or it may be forced to go back on its word to taxpayers, in turn leading to a political backlash at home.

So now what? Here's the latest from the five main protagonists.

Finland

With the anti-euro "True Finns" party (which continue to lead in the polls) breathing down its neck, the Finnish government is sticking to its guns, with Prime Minister Jyrki Katainen unequivocally answering "yes" when asked if Finland would pull out altogether of the second Greek bailout if it were denied the requested collateral, adding,

"It is our parliament's decision that we demand it as a condition for us joining in."

Finnish government representatives have repeated the “no collateral, no loans” mantra - at least when speaking to a home audience (internationally, the tone has been more accommodating). And with the Finnish Presidential elections coming up - in January 2012 - no candidate is keen on explaining to voters why the government has 'sold out' to Europe (sounds familiar?). That would be a gift for the True Finns.

However, the Finnish are also pragmatists and derailing international agreements doesn't come naturally to them. As Katainen has pointed out,

"Of course the Finland-Greece collateral deal cannot block the [bailout] package, but in any case we demand that collateral."

In fact, in recent days, he has stressed that he's flexible on the nature of the collateral (gold, cash, land, etc). But there needs to be some sort of collateral nonetheless, begging the question whether the eurozone can reach a minimalist deal that will allow Katainen to save face.

Netherlands

In a letter to the Dutch Parliament, Dutch Finance Minister Jan Kees de Jager insisted that the Greco-Finnish agreement needs to be ratified by all eurozone member states and the IMF - signalling that it would veto it:

"Finland has unilaterally announced the bilateral agreement. Because of that, the incorrect image has emerged that there would be a legal agreement between Finland and Greece...To execute the current proposal is unworkable."

The Dutch Social-Democrats, whose support is needed for the second Greek bailout to go through the Dutch Parliament, added,

"It can't be the case that the Finns obtain guarantees at the expense of the Netherlands. That's not acceptable and if it comes that far, the Netherlands should veto it."

Austria

And there's not much love from Vienna either. The Austrians don't necessarily consider collateral a precondition for lending more money to Athens, but if Helsinki obtains it, then everyone should get it. Austrian Finance Minister Maria Fekter said,

"It's not a viable option when Finland makes a deal with Greece to receive 20% collateral and all the other euro countries should pay."

Last week, Austria put forward an alternative plan, under which the amount of collateral would be inversely proportional to each country’s private banking sector exposure to Greece. Countries (including Austria) whose banks have little exposure to Greek debt would be allowed to get collateral from Greece, while countries whose banks are heavily exposed (Germany and France spring to mind) would not get any collateral at all. A bit cheeky, but not entirely unreasonable.

Slovakia

Slovakian Finance Minister Ivan Miklos - clearly not a fan of the eurozone bailouts in the first place - has made it clear that he considers it

"unacceptable for any country to not have the collateral if other countries have it. Because if this is a loan, and that is what everyone is calling it, the debtor should have no problem offering collateral for the loan."

Incidentally, Prime Minister Iveta Radičová said on Monday that Slovakia will be the "last country" to ratify changes to the EFSF - the eurozone's temporary bailout fund - and to agree to the establishment of its permanent successor, the ESM. The Freedom and Solidarity (SaS) party - a junior partner in the Coaliton government - doesn't support expansion of the EFSF. Negotiations between the parties are ongoing. Speaker of the Slovakian Parliament and SaS leader Richard Sulík said,

"I'm not aware of any reason why Slovakia ought to rush to be the first to put itself in a position that's not good for us. Let the rest of the EU reach agreement or not, we'll follow up with discussion then."

Germany

German Labour Minister Ursula von der Leyden - who is also a prominent leader of German Chancellor Angela Merkel's CDU party (see picture) - broke ranks yesterday when she suggested that Greece should post either gold or stakes in state-owned companies as collateral in return for further loans. However, her proposal was quickly dismissed by the German government. Also, in a meeting with CDU MPs, Merkel voiced her opposition to the Greco-Finnish agreement, reportedly saying,

"It can't be that one country gets extra collateral."

So, in short, eurozone leaders have landed themselves in a right old mess. You have to wonder why no one saw this coming on July 21st.

Collateral damage

This week saw another twist in the ongoing soap opera which is the eurozone bailouts. The Finnish government - no doubt feeling the anti-bailout True Finns (currently the largest party in the polls) breathing down its neck - has for some time demanded that Greece puts up some sort of collateral in return for coughing up the cash for the fresh rescue package.

On Tuesday, the Finnish media reported that a deal had been reached between the two countries, which would see Greece provide €1bn in cash as collateral, deposited with the Finnish government in the eventuality that Athens is unable to pay back the loans. Bizarrely, the amount would effectively cancel out the Finnish share of the bailout. In other words, Helsinki lends €1bn to Athens, while Athens sends €1bn to Helsinki, begging the question: who guarantees the collateral?

The Greek and Finnish governments have since said that it's a bit more complicated than that. As reported today by Ekathimerini:

"Greece will deposit cash equivalent to a large chunk of the money it is to receive from Helsinki in a state account that Finland will use to invest in AAA-rated bonds. The interest generated will raise the amount to match the required collateral. Finland will return the money, plus interest, once the bailout loan is repaid"

The problem is that others countries now want this too, with Slovakia, Slovenia, Austria and the Netherlands all demanding collateral in return for their participation in a second Greek bailout.

“If there is a model for collateral, Austria would also make a claim,” said Austrian Finance Ministry spokesman Harald Waiglein. Slovakian Finance Minister Ivan Miklos chimed in,“I consider it unacceptable for any country to not have the collateral if other countries have it.Because if this is a loan, and that is what everyone is calling it, the debtor should have no problem offering collateral for the loan.”

Eurozone leaders are already balancing on a knife's edge over the second Greek bailout deal with approval from increasingly restless national parliaments still pending (expected in the autumn). The original target of having the new deal in place before the next bailout installment (from the first deal) due in September, could now potentially be at risk. Not to mention the continuing problems in raising the targeted amounts from private sector involvement.

Also, Greece doesn't exactly have cash to spare (and they're reluctant to put up state assets as collateral). The demands - while fully understandable from the creditors' point of view - could put further strains on Greek public finances.

Fundamentally, this shows how complex - and unsustainable - the politics of cross-border bailouts are. And how, at the end of the day, eurozone leaders are politicians who are elected by voters (taxpayers) and who answer to national parliaments. They're acting within a democratically defined mandate. While you can stretch that mandate when it comes to complex EU treaties, regulations or the role of obscure EU judges, for example - taxpayers' cash is too close to home for this to work.

The Great Euro Gamble

In today's Wall Street Journal we argue,

"When European Union leaders forged their monetary union without a full political and economic merger, they gambled on two vital factors: That economic forces could be kept in check, and that national democracies could be managed.

Over the past 16 months, we have been reminded time and again exactly how big and how irresponsible those gambles were. Sunday's was arguably the strongest reminder yet, courtesy of the anti-euro True Finns party that may hold the balance of power in the next Finnish government. Paris, Berlin and Brussels seem not to have factored Nordic populism into their grand plans for the euro. But ultimately the euro zone is about politics, and politics remain as local as they ever were."

We go on,

"The True Finns' success will not change European politics overnight, and the party may not even succeed in blocking Finland's participation in future bailouts. But, irrespective of what we think of the True Finns, the election does highlight how powerfully a euro-zone crisis can contribute to shaping national politics. Euro bailouts were also an important issue in Slovakia's elections last year, and helped to deliver a new governing coalition that refused to take part in Europe's Greek bailout. That government only reluctantly kicked in later to help create the temporary bailout fund that euro leaders are now looking to replace after 2013.

This year the True Finns asked voters to consider the same question that Slovaks did last year: Why should they work harder and retire later to pay for the mistakes and wasteful habits of southern European governments? This "triple-A populism" has proven a powerful force in a number of countries with sparkling credit ratings, including Germany. Writ large, this weekend's Finnish elections are a rebuke of one of the euro zone's central, and fatal, conceits: that political ambition can trump economic and democratic realities."

Looking at EU leaders' gamble on being able to keep economic forces in check, we note,

"Markets have now finally woken up to the fact that Greece and Germany are poles apart; it is time for EU leaders to do so as well. Ireland, Greece and Portugal have made all too clear that economic forces can rarely be predicted, let alone contained.

Some particularly federal-minded EU leaders took this as a pretext to push even harder for a full-fledged fiscal union. Former European Commission President Romano Prodi wrote in an op-ed in the Financial Times last May that "When the euro was born everyone knew that sooner or later a crisis would occur. . . . I was warning years ago that, through no one's fault in particular, extraordinary events could occur that would force joint co-ordination of fiscal policies."

That sentiment spurred EU leaders to take their next major gamble, which was even riskier than the first: They bet that once they did start to effect robust economic and political union, national voters and parliaments would play along and vote the "right" way. So last year, when the EU elites decided to break their own treaties and turn the euro zone into a de facto debt union, they forced taxpayers in some countries to take on the liabilities of foreign governments in other countries—without the possibility of voting these governments out of office. But taxpayers are now showing signs of revolt. "

We conclude,

"Will EU politicians' second gamble turn out as ill-judged as their first? Time will tell. But one thing is clear. The political price that European leaders are paying to keep their flawed project afloat continues to rise."

The EU's walls of Jericho moment?

The exact consequences for the eurozone of the True Finns' success in yesterday's Finnish elections remain unclear. The result makes it the third largest party, securing 39 seats in the 200-strong parliament with 19% of the votes, close behind the National Coalition Party (NCP), which received 20.5% of the votes (44 seats in Parliament) and the Social Democrats which won 19.1% of the votes (42 seats). To put this into context, they polled only 4% in the last national elections.

With performance better than the 15 or so percent expected on Friday, a seat within the new coalition government is now a distinct possibility. Finnish television Yle quotes the party secretary of the victorious National Coalition Party saying that a government consisting of the three major parties is a "strong possibility", with the NCP’s Jyrki Katainen as Prime Minister.

Formal coalition negotiations are due to start on 27 April, which could make it very difficult for Finland to sign up to a bail-out package for Portugal, as that requires the approval of Finnish Parliament. True Finns leader Timo Soini has re-stated his opposition to the Portuguese bail-out package following last night’s election results. “I don’t believe that the package that is there will remain”, he told Yle last night. The Social Democrats want Portugal to restructure its debt rather than seek a bail-out, which is an additional factor in all of this. However, let's not also forget as with all politicians, Mr. Soini wants to be in government - he wants powers - so it's possible that he might compromise on the party's tough 'no more bailouts' position. What's clear is that when it comes to the EU Soini and Katainen occupy two different planets.

Regardless, it's clear that a new brand of "triple A" populism has emerged in the creditor eurozone countries, whose voters are voicing strong opposition to the "we'll keep the euro together at any price" doctrine that they have been fed by EU elites up to now. As we've noted before, such anti-euro sentiments are now picked up by nationalist parties from Vienna to Paris, feeding into the mix of anti-incumbency, pro-independence and most often, strong anti-immigration sentiments.

As we also noted before, the "far-right" label is inappropriate as a generalised term to describe the various parties currently occupying this space around Europe - they're all different in their make-up, roots and emphasis with some a lot nastier than others - and the True Finns simply isn't a "far right" party. What's clear though, is that they all push a heavily nationalist agenda, and they all fish in more or less murky, anti-immigration waters.

But in relation to the eurozone specifically, what's so significant about this election is that it's changing the parameters of the debate. In Austria, Netherlands, Germany and France, the established parties have managed to keep strong anti-euro, anti-bail-out forces outside the realm of government. The Dutch government rely on the opposition parties to circumvent Gert Wilders' Freedom Party, for example. If the True Finns make it into government - and chances are that they will - 'triple A populism' will have become part of the mainstream conversation, in a mainstream European country.

The guiding principle of European integration has always been 'build the institutions and the facts of life will follow'. In the realms of eurozone bail-outs, as well as in the contentious domain of immigration, this guiding principle is now being tested to its limits.

As Gideon Rachman points out on his blog today, the EU is in "deep trouble". Someone (a certain Mr T. Blair), in a speech to the European Parliament, said in 2005:

"It is time to give ourselves a reality check. To receive the wake-up call. The people are blowing the trumpets round the city walls. Are we listening? Have we the political will to go out and meet them so that they regard our leadership as part of the solution not the problem?"

That was six years ago. It's a most unfortunate irony that EU leaders, in their misguided efforts to stamp out 'nationalism' via over-building institutions and attempting to superimpose an artificial identity from above, are now contributing to the rise of the very currents they were professing to fight.

First to the Finnish line

This is a graph showing the support for the different parties, according to a poll published last night, ahead of the Finnish national elections on Sunday. All international eyes are on the True Finns (fourth from the left) - the party that has said it opposes a bail-out deal for Portugal and putting any more cash on the table for struggling eurozone economies. In fact, the party doesn't want to be in the euro at all.

A lot has been said about the True Finns, with the European media all of a sudden forced to become experts on Finnish national politics - it has to be said with varying degrees of success. That many still refer to the True Finns as a "right wing" party indicates the need for a bit more analysis and a bit less reliance on labels that are flying around. The party is pretty skilfully moving along the right-left scale. It's effectively social democratic on economic and welfare issues, favouring a big state, combined with a pretty clear socially conservative flavour. It's definitely populist and not exactly enthusiastic about immigration (and this in a country which accepts some of the fewest migrants in Europe).

So what will happen on Sunday? We wouldn't bet our money on any player. The True Finns have seen a drop in support recently - 15.4% in the poll published yesterday, down from 17.2% a month ago. The National Coalition Party extended its lead to 21.2% in yesterday's poll, while the Centre Party was the second largest party at 18.6%. The Social Democrats were at 18%. The Nordic bookies don't think the True Finns will make it into government and will give you 2.10 times your money for a bet on them winning ministerial seats, while a bet on them not making it only gives you 1.65 times your money.

Regardless, the True Finns are likely to make huge gains compared to the last elections in which they scored just over 4% (see the rise of the True Finns here, in yellow). And a second thing to remember, the Social Democrats - currently at 18% - have also expressed pretty clear opposition to a Portuguese bail-out, instead arguing for a restructuring. Between them, the two parties could well reach above 30% - that's a pretty powerful anti-bail-out bloc. As we've noted before, this could potentially hugely complicate a Portuguese bail-out, as well as efforts to top up the temporary bail-out fund (EFSM) and cash injections in to the permanent rescue mechanism (EFM).

The elections in Finland have made people - not least many opinion formers - start to realise that, shock horror, ultimately the eurozone is about politics. And as we know all politics is local.

In fact, it's difficult to find a more conspicuous example of the inherent flaws of the eurozone - the idea that political ambition can stamp out both economic and democratic realities - coming up against the full force of national democracy.

What's the truth about the True Finns?

We have received a couple of comments in regards to our blog post below on the rise of populist parties in the wake of the eurozone bail-outs. Some have been unhappy about our assertion that the Front National is gaining ground in French politics, whereas others have taken issue with us mentioning the True Finns in the same breath as the Front National and FPÖ (the expression "not as bad as FPÖ" has caused particular offence).

But on the point about the True Finns, a clarification might be appropriate. The True Finns party, or Perussuomalaiset in Finnish, has its roots in an anti-incumbency, rural protest movement from the 1950s, leading to the formation of a political party, eventually named the Finnish Rural Party. The party's dissolution in 1995 led to the creation of the True Finns (one of the party's slogans, "Crush the power hold of the old parties", is testament to its heritage). More than anything else, its euroscepticism seems to flow out of this tradition (which also explains its opposition to providing more cash to the temporary eurozone bail-out fund, the EFSF, for more bail-outs - bail-outs which we agree aren't really working).

So clearly, the party has very different roots compared to other Scandinavian populist parties, such as the Sweden Democrats and the Danish People's Party (for Swedish speakers, here's an article breaking it down). The Front National, Geert Wilder's Freedom Party etc are much farther away again from the True Finns.

In other words, the party cannot be described as "far right", as some non-Finnish media insist on so doing. However, it cannot be described as "centre-right" either, as it draws heavily from an old school, social democratic agenda (i.e. high taxes and a big welfare state). Kind of like a social democratic tea party, with a lot of emphasis on national sovereignty and independence.

According to an opinion poll published today, the party has lost some ground over the last few days, and are now fourth in the race (compared to second in a poll published the other week) - a race that is still wide open it has to be said.

What makes this interesting for the EU and the eurozone is that Finland is the first Triple A eurozone country in which euro bail-outs have become a national election issue. As the leader of the True Finns, Timo Soini, put it, the election might evolve into the referendum which the Finnish people were refused when the euro was first introduced.

We shall see.

A populist warning light?

A new opinion poll shows that Austrian, anti-immigrant, populist party FPÖ would end up on top if elections were held today, beating both the social democratic SPÖ and conservative ÖVP. There are of course multiple reasons for the party's rise, but we note that FPÖ leader Heinz-Christian Strachewhich last week slammed Austria's participation in, and the cost of, eurozone bail-outs. "Thank you, [Austrian Chancellor] Werner Faymannm," he said sarcastically.

In Finland, the "True Finns" party, under the leadership of Timo Soini (pictured), has seemingly come from nowhere and transformed itself into a full-scale political force. A recent opinion poll put it second, ahead of this month's national elections. Though not nearly as bad as FPÖ, it does run on a highly populist platform with a strong anti-euro flavour. The party was almost single-handedly responsible for derailing the EU deal on how to increase the size of the eurozone's bailout fund, the EFSF. The decision is now postponed until June, after the Finnish elections. And as Jan Sundberg, Professor at University of Helisnki puts it, "Portugal crashing would be a gift to the True Finns".

In the Netherlands, the government does not have a majority in Parliament, but has to rely on Geert Wilders' Party for Freedom, which is the third largest party in the country. Wilders has also spoken out against the euro-bailouts. So far, the Dutch government has relied on the other Dutch opposition parties to get its EU measures though parliament.

In France, far-right Front National leader Marine Le Pen is gaining popularity, and one poll even showed her ahead of all other candidates ahead of next year's Presidential elections. Le Pen has called for France to leave the eurozone, along with Spain, Greece and Portugal, saying:

"They promised us that this currency would bring growth and welfare, and what happened? People were destroyed, we are talking about a real tragedy. Look at what happened to Greece."

Again, there are numerous factors at work here - and we should be careful to over-simplify or generalise - but it's hard not to detect a worrying trend: four of the eurozone's main creditor countries (and incidentally net contributors to the EU budget), which are underwriting struggling euro governments' debt to the tune of hundreds of billions, are experiencing a dramatic surge in support for populist parties. These parties would not only reject the bail-outs and the Single Currency but also, in all likelihood, the EU itself.

So what about the big kid on the block: Germany?

Germany doesn't really have its own version of the populist parties we see in other parts of Europe - on the left, Die Linke might fit part of the bill, but it's still not quite the same. Therefore, there's no real political platform for the kind of aggressive anti-euro sentiments that we see in Austria for example (which also plays on anti-immigration and anti-incumbency) - and there's unlikely to be one in the immediate future.

It's clear, however, that German public opinion is growing increasingly wary of the direction of the euro. Slowly, these sentiments are beginning to trickle through to party politics. The motion which was passed by a near-unanimous German Parliament asking Merkel to backtrack on an agreement between eurozone leaders, is one example (though it shouldn't be overstated either). But there clearly is a vacuum in EU politics in terms of voicing alternative visions for the direction of the Single Currency and the EU - and a mismatch between public opinion and the political class.

Writing in FTD last week, Wolfgang Münchau - who, until recently, was the arch-optimist amongst eurozone commentators - argued that "a right-wing spot is free" in Germany. He suggested that the liberal FDP will fill the vacuum and turn into a 'eurosceptic' party. Perhaps. If so, the hope is that the FDP could transform itself into a sensible, EU reformist party, pushing for the revolutionary idea (yes, sarcasm) that the single currency and the EU should be based on sound economics and democracy. Such an outcome would benefit both Germany and Europe.

The fear, as ever, is that the vacuum will be filled by other, nastier political forces.

A Europe in which populist, anti-immigrant parties hold strong positions in creditor (or triple A countries), while far-left parties gain prominence in debtor nations such as Greece or Portugal, would really be the worst of all worlds.

But if Europe's mainstream politicians continue to stick their heads in the sand, and refuse to speak about the problems facing the eurozone - they should not be surprised if voters turn to the parties that do engage in some straight talking, however flawed or nasty such talk may be.

Mainstream political parties and their leaders got it spectacularly wrong on the euro in the past. Perhaps it's time to think about some more fundamental solutions to the eurozone's problems?

The EU should impose sanctions on Gaddafi

Over on the Spectator's Coffee House blog, we set out the case for imposing sanctions on Gaddfi's regime (while also looking at the difficulties EU member states are facing in coming up with a common policy on Libya, in what is a painfully familar story).

We argue,

The EU spends €460 million a year in operational costs alone on its new foreign policy department, the External Action Service, headed up by Catherine Ashton. This body - created by the Lisbon Treaty - was Europe’s ‘great white hope’ for the global stage, finally allowing it to speak with one voice and therefore giving it leverage where it previously had none.

It hasn’t quite worked out that way. Caught between Cairo and Tripoli, the EU has received yet another reminder that its bureaucracies and institutions cannot magically replace 27 individual foreign policies, as EU leaders continue their bickering over what to do.

The EU’s response to the turbulence in Libya has been fragmented at best, and contradictory at worst. Italian PM Silvio Berlusconi – one of the few EU leaders with some clout in Libya – initially said that he didn’t wish to “disturb” Colonel Gaddafi since the situation was “evolving”. Czech Foreign Minister Karel Schwarzenberg maintained that the EU should not "get involved too much" because, "If Gaddafi falls, then there will be bigger catastrophes in the world”, though he later said he had meant something else.

In stark contrast, Finland, France – and in more careful language also Germany – have called for sanctions to be imposed on Gaddafi, including a travel ban and a freeze on his and his family’s assets, something categorically rejected by Italy and a few other countries. Still others have spoken in terms of general condemnation but proposed no concrete action, a group including Britain so far. Meanwhile, no one is paying much attention to the EU’s alleged foreign policy chief, Catherine Ashton. It all feels awfully familiar.

Does the absence of a common EU stance matter? I believe it does. While it’s true that the EU’s leverage in Libya and some other parts of Northern Africa and the Middle East is very limited, when Europe does pull together it can actually exert influence in its backyard. Enlargement remains the EU’s greatest foreign policy achievement made possible through a mix of aid and trade incentives.

So what should be done?

The UK should throw its full weight behind German, French and Finnish calls for sanctions, including an EU-wide travel ban on Gaddafi and his family, as well as a freezing of their assets across the bloc. Other possible responses, such as imposing a no-fly zone over Libya, should also be explored. The Colonel’s delirious speech yesterday – and his son’s comments that the family will fight “to the last bullet” – have confirmed that Gaddafi ranks amongst the Mugabes of this world (if anyone for a second thought otherwise).

Finnish Foreign Minister Alexander Stubb put it best when he said that "How can we on one side look at what's going on in Libya, with almost 300 people shot dead, and not talk about sanctions or travel bans, and at the same time put travel bans and sanctions in Belarus?". EU-wide sanctions could hurt Gaddafi – financially and politically – but waiting for too long will lessen their impact.

In terms of responding to the challenges in the wider region, David Cameron is absolutely correct in calling for radical reform of the EU’s neighbourhood policy, which together with other European programmes (such as the European Investment Bank), has dished out billions to the region, with few strings attached. In future, no reform on the human rights front should mean no cash.

At the same time, the EU needs to use other incentives and tools to promote long-term democratic and economic transformation in the region. For example, the EU should consider opening up its markets to more goods from North African countries on the path towards democracy. This should include agricultural products, which at the moment face a patchwork of tariffs in various guises before they can enter Europe. These barriers are contributing to rural poverty in North Africa and therefore instability. The UK is in a strong position to spearhead such trade reforms.

To give with aid on the one hand and take away through trade restrictions with the other makes no sense. Alas, it’s symptomatic of the inconsistency that too often characterises the EU’s relations with the outside world.

The Libyan protesters’ push for change presents an opportunity for Europe to put this right.

Finnish reservations

[Financial] aid isn't sufficient if a country's own correcting measures aren't tough enough. That's why Finland wants to introduce guarantees. This would ensure discipline in the borrowing countries. It would also send a strong signal to the citizens that it's not the EU but the country's own measures that are saving them.

Finnish Finance Minister Jyrki Katainen continues to insist that any eurozone loan to Ireland should come with strong guarantees to ensure that the money is paid back. According to Finnish media it's still possible that Finland will oppose loans to Ireland unless such guarantees are attached.