Of all the reactions from Europe, there is one that is infinitely more important than all others…

Update - 14.10 23/01/13:

Further reactions from Germany. DPA reports that German Chancellor Angela Merkel said Germany will:

"Talk intensively with the United Kingdom about their visions in detail”

German government spokesperson Steffen Seibert added that:

"The EU need the UK and the other way round" and that changes to the UK position will need to be "discussed in Brussels together".

 ************************************************

The good thing about the debate about the UK's role in the EU - and Cameron's fever pitch speech - is that UK journalists are now forced to really read the foreign press. Hence, several of the news outlets are now running "Europe says nein, non, nej, nie" (guess the last two) etc.

The reactions from around Europe have been mixed, with a lot of predictable, and in parts understandable, muttering about "cherry-picking."

Of all the hundreds of reactions (in itself interesting), there's one that stands out. This one. From Angela Merkel (via DPA), who said she's ready to listen to the UK's wishes, if they're "fair":

"Europe also means that one should find fair compromises...Germany and me personally wishes Great Britain to remain an important part and active member of the EU".

German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle was slightly less positive but still accommodating saying:

"Not everything has to regulated in Brussels and by Brussels, but a policy of raisin-picking will not work"

Though German MEPs were pretty red-faced, others were more understanding. Germany’s Europe Minister for Hessen, Jörg Uwe Hahn warned against bashing Cameron, saying:

“Cameron doesn’t make this statement out of nothing…he reflects the prevalent sentiment in the UK, but also in many other countries of the European Union...the UK is the conscience that we are a decentral confederation of sovereign states based on subsidiarity, and not central federal state…the demand – that competences should not only shift unilaterally from member states to the union, but if necessary should flow back to the member states – is basically not wrong.”

Chair of Germany’s European affairs committee, Gunther Krichbaum, who has form, wasn't entirely pleased:

“I'm a bit surprised that Great Britain wants to renegotiate the rules. Britain is not a new member state, it did not just join the European Union. It had a say in negotiating all the rules and treaties. If we opened that Pandora's Box, all the pulling and hauling would start again and we would probably end up in the same spot."

Other Triple A countries also put forward interesting reactions. From the Netherlands (a country which the UK hopes will follow its lead):

Dutch MP Mark Verheijen, EU spokesman for governing VVD party highlighted some points of agreement between the UK and the Netherlands:

“We are also in favour of a lower budget and less intervention by Brussels [Cameron's speech] "showed that he wants to tackle this debate with an open attitude". 

MEP Bas Eickhout (GreenLeft) said on Twitter:

“The positive thing about Cameron’s speech: hopefully there will finally be room for Treaty change: is very much needed, only not in Cameron’s way”

And Finnish Europe Minister Alexander Stubb (who has previously warned that the UK was sidelining itself in Europe) said on Twitter:

"Cameron speech more constructive than expected. Like most of the economic principles. Disagree on deepening". Adding later, "Cameron speech clarifies things. At least we know what the Conservatives want. They want to stay in the EU. #thespeech #reluctantbride".

We'll update with reactions from the Mediterranean - which, as you might expect, have been far less receptive. 

Doom, Gloom and a dash of slapstick: Commentariat responds to EU summit

And it is said that the British press is exceptionally cynical…

On his Coulisses de Bruxelles blog, French journalist Jean Quatremer argues, “The eurozone makes one think of that cartoon where Wile E. Coyote chases Road Runner: it continues to run above the vacuum and it’s only when it realises it, that it will fall down.”

In the New York Times, Paul Krugman writes: “If it weren't so tragic, the current European crisis would be funny, in a gallows-humor sort of way. For as one rescue plan after another falls flat, Europe's Very Serious People - who are, if such a thing is possible, even more pompous and self-regarding than their American counterparts - just keep looking more and more ridiculous… at this point, Greece, where the crisis began, is no more than a grim sideshow. The clear and present danger comes instead from a sort of bank run on Italy, the euro area's third-largest economy. Investors, fearing a possible default, are demanding high interest rates on Italian debt. And these high interest rates, by raising the burden of debt service, make default more likely. It's a vicious circle, with fears of default threatening to become a self-fulfilling prophecy.”

In the FT, Wolfgang Münchau writes, “It is time to prepare for the unthinkable: there is now a significant probability the euro will not survive in its current form. This is not because I am predicting the failure by European leaders to agree a deal. In fact, I believe they will. My concern is not about failure to agree, but the consequences of an agreement.”

Writing in La Repubblica, Italian economist Tito Boeri notes, “It was supposed to be the weekend of the rescue of the euro and the entire European construction. Instead, it will be remembered for Sarkozy’s sarcastic smiles during the closing press conference, when he was asked about the commitments made by our Prime Minister.”

Italian daily La Stampa’s Editor in Chief Mario Calabresi argues, “It’s annoying to be put under tutelage, to be citizens of a state whose sovereignty is limited and whose agenda for reform is dictated by foreign leaders who allow us three days to give answers…It’s humiliating to hear that Europe puts us on the same level as Greece.”

On the frontpage of FAZ, Holger Steltzner argues that: “Italian industry is strong, but politicians are weak. Italy could quickly gain international competitiveness and economic growth, if it only wanted to."

In Süuddeutsche, Cerstin Gammelin writes that this weekend, European leaders had “for the first time risked looking into the mirror of truth, and that what they saw exceeded all negative expectations…regardless of how much money will be mobilised [by the EFSF], it will not save the euro. It will just be a matter of buying time to solve the fundamental problems.”

German lessons

Simon Heffer's piece in the Daily Mail on how "Germany is using the financial crisis to conquer Europe” has made the news in Germany, with Handelsblatt noting yesterday:

"Although the Second World War is over 66 years ago, Europe's fear for the Germans is older…at crucial turning points in European history, Europe's fear of a supposedly all-powerful people at its centre always flares up again"

The article goes on to quote Margaret Thatcher saying, "We've beaten the Germans twice. Now they're back!", a comment that Germany's former Chancellor, Helmut Kohl, claims she made to him in reference to Germany's reunification in 1989. The article alos makes a reference to a recent piece in Italian newspaper Libero featuring a cartoon of Angela Merkel looking like Adolf Hitler, in an SS costume, with the title "Heil Merkel".

To take issue with how important national economic decisions are now increasingly being taken by multilateral institutions controlled by bigger members, such as Germany, is one thing. However, to claim that anyone in Germany actually has an an interest in "colonising" other countries in any way just isn't correct.

Quite the contrary, Germany’s default position is to take a non-interventionist stance in regards to other countries. Just have a look at its approach to the Libyan and Afghanistan interventions. One of the reasons that Germany decided to abstain on the UN vote on Libya, is precisely because its public are hesitant about mixing in other countries’ affairs. The ongoing political fights about its intervention in Afghanistan also prove this.

The German government is desperately trying to find a solution to the eurozone crisis, stuck between their voters, the bundesbank, exporting industries, the economic elite, and the Constitutional Court. The country's position is far too complex to lend itself to stereotypes or a single explanation.

The German government still believes that the eurozone crisis is simply a matter of budget discipline - or rather lack thereof. As we've argued many times before, the eurozone crisis is fundamentally about the loss of competitiveness in the periphery and the the inevitable tensions created by having one monetary policy for a whole set of very different economies (though excessive spending and debt clearly is a key driving force as well). But the point here is that the Germans genuinely feel that replicating its rules-based model at the European level, is the best way to the get eurozone economies back on track. We may disagree with that but there's nothing sinister about it. And seriously, who can blame the Germans - who at the moment provide €120bn+ in loan guarantees in addition to underwriting a huge share of the wobbly ECB - for asking other countries to make a bit of an effort?

For all those who are still suspicious that Germany is secretly trying to take over Europe, it's worth taking a look at some privately-made comments by Germany’s Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle, which featured on the front page of yesterday’s Financial Times Deutschland. He said that any member states that don’t implement the Franco-German plans "shouldn't be allowed to stop the rest" from doing so, adding that "there should be more differentiated cooperation", highlighting the possibility of a two-speed EU.

Incidentally, the idea that some countries could go-it-alone with others opting out, within a more flexible European framework, fits pretty well with British thinking on the EU. In fact, the Franco-German deal was inter-governmental rather than federal, sidelining the Commission in favour of Council President Herman Van Rompuy (increasingly emerging as a Franco-German vessel). An intergovernmental Europe broken up in smaller units, which on key issues operates outside the reach of the EU's centralising tripod (the European Parliament, European Court of Justice and European Commission) - isn't that sort of what the UK should be pushing for?

Just a thought.

Fact check: the EU and the ECHR

It's always interesting to observe instances when those who try to occupy the high ground on Europe, claiming to know the facts about the EU, get the facts wrong. Here's an example:

Over on his Guardian blog, Roy Greenslade - a professor of journalism at City University who occasionally, it appears, takes umbrage at the coverage of the EU in British media - looks at the Daily Express campaign for a referendum on the UK's EU membership.

Nothing wrong with that - it's a perfectly legitimate issue to look at and Greenslade seems like a decent chap. The Express campaign acts as a barometer of public opinion on the EU (a public which, it seems, is increasingly sceptical of EU membership), and there are a number of questions that should be asked about that and similar campaigns, most importantly, what, exactly, is the alternative to EU membership (that's not even close to as straightforward as it sounds and poses a proper intellectual challenge for those who want to leave the EU altogether).

But instead of focussing on this question, Greenslade instead takes aim at what he apparently thinks is an easy target, and says thus:

"There are absurdities to the current campaign too. For example, the final paragraph of today's article states that 'opponents of the EU... complain that our law and order system - and basic common sense - are being undermined by the European convention on human rights.'

Memo to [the editor of the Express]: inform your readers, don't confuse them still further. To aid you in that task, note these facts..."

He then goes on to inform us:

"The European Union has nothing to do with the European convention of human rights...The EU is not a party to the convention and has no role in the administration of the court of human rights."

Problem is: this isn't quite correct (unless Greenslade takes a very presentist view of the matter).

It's true, as we've pointed out before, that the ECHR and the EU are two completely separate organisations and the UK could hypothetically withdraw from the ECHR without having to leave the EU.

However, the EU actually does have quite a bit to do with the ECHR - or at least it will have very soon. If we wish to develop an understanding of the future of European human rights legislation - and how it can impact in the UK and other countries - we need to understand how this works (the recent car insurance ruling - a ruling by the European Court of Justice but with numerous influences - shows why this matters).

So note to Greenslade: the EU and the Council of Europe have actually just agreed a draft agreement which would see the EU signing up to the ECHR, once all 47 member countries of the Council of Europe and the EU itself have ratified the deal - which most likely will happen though it might take some time, given the very technical nature of the agreement (confusingly in the UK, as we understand it, the CoE side of the ratification can be done by the Government unless the House of Commons passes a resolution against it, whereas the EU side of the agreement is covered by the EU Act, requiring a supportive resolution in both Houses of Parliament before the UK can give its agreement).

If ratified, this would indeed make the EU a party to the ECHR and would give the EU its own judge at the European Court of Human Rrights (ECtHR).

In effect, it would make the ECtHR the supreme court of the EU for human rights law, with individuals able to challenge EU laws - and the interpretation of them - at the ECtHR. It would also mean the UK could not withdraw from the jurisdiction of the ECtHR, within the scope of EU law, while remaining a member of the EU. We can agree or disagree that this is a good thing, but if we wish to, say, make a fair assessment of UK media coverage of European human rights laws, we need to understand the increasingly interconnected relationship between the ECHR and the EU (which we have covered here and here for example).

The blogger in question seems to be a keen proponent of media correcting itself when getting things wrong, or when not telling the full story. Curiously, he just gave himself a chance to set a positive example.

When those who claim to know get it wrong

Last June, we published a pamphlet titled "They Said It: how the EU elite got it wrong on the euro", in which we compared what politicians, central bankers, journalists and opinion makers said about the Single Currency before the eurozone crisis erupted - to what they say now. It's a pretty shocking read, and should make people think twice before making the argument against EU-related referenda on the grounds that 'average people are too stupid to understand such complex issues'. On the euro, by far the most important issue relating to the European project, it was the elite (in politics, in media and elsewhere) who got it spectacularly wrong - for whatever reason: political vanity, ideology, short-term thinking, ignorance or plain incompetence.

Take the FT's Wolfgang Munchau, for example. For years, the guy churned out columns praising the euro, sometimes with caveats, but nothing like the stuff we're seeing now.

Back in 2006, Munchau argued:

"There is not the slightest danger of a break-up of the Eurozone. On the contrary, I expect the Eurozone to be exceptionally stable in the long run. Make no mistake, the Eurozone is here to stay".

And in 2008,

"The world's two large reserve currencies, the dollar and the euro, offer more protection from speculative attack than a free-floating offshore currency unit. The UK will at some point have to make a choice whether it wants to be in the Eurozone or whether it wants to seek an alternative use for those rather tall buildings in the heart of London".

We're not saying that he's not making many valid and interesting points in his columns. But seriously, these are painfully inaccurate predictions. And compare to what he's been saying over the last few months:

“The probability of scenario four [eurozone break-up] cannot be zero or even close to zero. When the eurozone crisis broke out, the probability of failure was considered as small, but non-trivially positive. It is higher now despite the ‘whatever it takes’ pledge…My point is that if Germany is serious about limited liability – and I believe it is – the probability of a break-up is anything but tiny.”

Trust us, we can make the list of contradictory quotes from Munchau very very long. In fact, we could write a new "They said it" every single month, and wouldn't have any difficulty filling it with material, as established figures continue to contradict themselves on the euro.

Take this from the BBC's economics editor Robert Peston - who clearly is a clever and nice chap - but on potential UK liabilities in a Portugal bail-out he was just plain wrong, as we noted at the time. Two weeks ago - when it was becoming obvious that Portugal would had to seek a bail-out -he noted on his blog and on the Today Programme (and contrary to what we said):

“Only in the event that the Portuguese financial crisis exhausted the available money in the eurozone's bail out fund - which it won't - would the UK become liable.”

Last week, when the Treasury had confirmed that the UK will be partly liable, Peston did a U-turn:

“First of all, it does now look as though the implied UK contribution to the Portuguese bailout will be around 4.8bn euros or £4.2bn (in line with what I've been saying).”

Excuse us?

Okay, so the eurozone crisis is a moving target and we all get stuff wrong from time to time, but this is pretty bad. It's also interesting that those complaining about the poor coverage of EU issues in UK media never quite seem to look at the flip side of the coin.

Waking up to 'Europe'

Parliament’s stance against the ruling by the European Court of Human Rights to give prisoners a vote has again inspired UK commentators to take a closer look at ‘Europe’.

The right of prisoners to vote is an ECHR issue – not an EU one (the ECHR is not an EU institution as we're always keen to point out). However, it’s right to consider the influence and mission creep of the ECHR in the same discussion as the influence of the EU itself - for a whole range of reasons. As we’ve argued before, on rights legislation the two are now linked and both suffer from an inherent tendency to expand their own powers into new areas. And in terms of the politics and perception of it all, for most people in Westminster and beyond, there’s little difference between the EU and the ECHR, making it extremely difficult to unbundle the issues in media and political discussions (and given that even senior judges have a difficult time unpicking the patchwork of human rights legislation that exists in Europe today, the blurring of the ECHR and the EU in public perception is more rational than what EU communication-types and others realise).

And there has been no shortage of hard-hitting commentary.

Here’s James Forsyth in the Mail on Sunday:

The Tories try to keep their newly hardened Euroscepticism under wraps when dealing with their Lib Dem colleagues, who remain committed to the European project. But even the Lib Dems have been shocked at how much influence Brussels has on decisions that should be taken at a national level. Nick Clegg was appalled when officials told him that the EU wouldn’t allow VAT to be set at a local level.

And here’s Fraser Nelson in a strong post on the Spectator’s coffee house blog:

Europe was easier to characterise as a fringe issue, not so now….Cameron thought he’d have to play along, even though it made him “physically sick”. But in perhaps the most useful thing the House of Commons has done for two decades, it decided otherwise last week in a free vote. And what are the judges of Strasbourg going to do? Invade?

A healthy precedent was established last week. Britain has rejected that old argument that we have no choice. We do. Parliament is sovereign. We can reject as many Euro laws as we like: from Brussels, Strasbourg or both.

Meanwhile, Tim Montgomerie takes a swipe at Ken Clarke on Conservative Home:

The fact is the Conservative Party is largely united on Europe. The vast majority of Tory MPs and activists, from the Prime Minister down, believe that unelected European judges and bureaucrats have too much power. Given the nature of the Coalition and the economic priorities, significant repatriation of powers may not be possible in this Parliament but we must prepare a manifesto for the next General Election that attempts to address that. So long as Ken Clarke is a significant player in the Conservative Party there is little chance of that happening. I sometimes wonder if he stays in government to prevent the party fulfilling its Eurosceptic instincts

Inevitably, there will be more court rulings from the ECHR and the ECJ (one coming up on pensions for example) - in addition to new Directives and Regulations from the Commission - which will be percieved as interfering in national areas where they don't belong. This isn't the last clash we'll see, but it's a signifcant one.

And hats off to Parliament. This time, MPs did their job.

The two-lane Europe fallacy

Assumptions in the British media are funny sometimes (though other countries' suffer from this too) - not least amongst those who claim to take the intellectual high-ground on the European Union.

Consider this quote from the Guardian, for example, in a piece about the EU summit last week:

The Chancellor Angela Merkel is to ditch years of opposition to common economic policymaking among Europe's single currency countries today, in a major shift that will widen the gulf between Britain and the EU mainstream (emphasis added)

Or this one, from David Rennie, the brainy Political Editor of the Economist:

If 2011 does see a leap towards a two-speed Europe, securing a place in the slow lane will only mark the start of Britain's worries (emphasis added)

Or Philip Stephens in today's FT,

The German chancellor and French president want to couple only 17 of the Union’s 27 carriages to their refurbished train. David Cameron’s British government is perfectly content to wave goodbye from the platform. (emphasis added)

Note the expressions "mainstream", "slow lane" and waving "goodbye from the platform" - without any definition or further explanation - to present an underlying assumption as if it was a matter of fact. The assumption is that, looking ahead, not being in the eurozone is synonomous with being left on the periphery, in the ‘slow lane’ or even standing still - an assumption which arbitrarily puts further integration in and of itself above, for example, economic growth as the main determinant of what constitutes the EU's "fast lane".

This borders on thought-terminating cliché - trying to end a debate with a commonly used phrase which is actually meaningless without some sort of definition, but that tends to discourage further reflection from the reader or listener. Or perhaps we can call this appeal to process. Circular reasoning which sees the process of EU integration, in and of itself, as determining the speed at which a country travels - by virtue of being, well, EU integration. The actual outcome is secondary. (To avoid bashing British media too much, here's an example of a non-British paper, which consistently commits this fallacy without realising it)

To illustrate: Under the definitions in the articles that are cited above, countries such as Poland, Denmark and Sweden are confined to a life in the EU's "slow lane", while Greece, Spain and Italy, for example, can freely enjoy the "fast lane".

Really?

So nothing on growth, employment rates, demographics - factors that seem pretty important to consider in any discussion about "fast" and "slow" in Europe...?

Let's consider the division into a fast lane and slow lane, as defined by the cited articles (particularly the second one) in light of economic growth - just to illustrate how intellectually lazy the two-lane assumption is:



Not quite the same picture, is it?

Now, the articles are of course correct in that there are challenges for the UK, and other non-euro states, arising from the eurozone crisis and the drive for more economic integration in its wake - including the risk that the centre of gravity in EU-17 now moves in the protectionist direction. This is a valid discussion.

But these challenges (and opportunities) are far more interesting than what can captured by a simplified - and arbitrary - reduction of the issue into 'fast' and 'slow' lanes.

And to continue the illustration, look at how Sweden - a non-euro member who, for instance, has also vetoed moves towards common EU family law (=the slow lane presumably) - has strenghtened its position in Europe over recent years. Why? Hint: the economy.

Without rehersing the pros and cons of the Single Currency, the question is also how being part of what increasingly looks like a debt union automatically puts you in the fast lane.

Throwing around assumptions and reducing multi-facetted discussions into oversimplified cliches is lazy journalism.

Hysterical and one-sided

It's always amusing to witness journalists and politicians with euro-enthusiastic tendencies having a go at parts of the British press for being biased on Europe, while at the same time being guilty themselves of some seriously one-sided and dubious reporting.

One of the most conspicous examples is when we caught the Independent - at the height of the debate about a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty - reprinting a Foreign Office briefing note on the Treaty almost word-for-word, but without any attribution that the FCO was the source. (Compare the Foreign Office briefing here to the Independent article here). A newspaper simply printing what the government tells it word for word is not considered quality journalism in most places.

On Friday, the Independent’s John Lichfield got a bit over excited about the prospect of a Conservative government 'spooking' Europe. Quoting a couple of French politicians, a Spanish MEP and a second-hand “source in Ms Merkel's Christian Democratic Party” he predictably got stuck on the idea that Europeans these days live in perpetual fear of the Conservatives coming to power. A potential Conservative government is now up there with global warming and terrorism as the greatest threats to humanity (we made up that last part).

The discussion about the Tories in Europe has always verged on the hysterical – and few people outside the bubbles in Brussels, Paris and Westminster pay much attention to it. But what’s arguably worse, at times it comes across as outright ignorant – despite all the lofty talk amongst commentators for the need to increase the quality of the discussion on the EU.

For example, Lichfield makes a song and a dance over the Tories’ manifesto, which spells out that the EU should be an “association of states”. In mainstream European politics, Lichfield claims, to talk about the EU in this way is “unhelpful” and is “reopening an argument that Britain lost more than 50 years ago.”

Er, say what?

That argument is alive and well around Europe – in fact, it is increasingly moving back to the fore. The German Constitutional Court used this exact phrase in its explosive ruling on the Lisbon Treaty to make clear its view on what the EU is and what it should remain (Verbindung souverän bleibender Staaten). Also the Swedish governing Moderate Party – which is at the mainstream of the mainstream of European centre-right politics – is using very similar wording to describe its vision of the EU (mellanstatligt samarbete).

It does take knowing a couple of languages, but the information is quite clearly there for anyone interested in a quality report. But then again, the need for such reporting only applies to one side of the argument, doesn't it?