As focus shifts to German coalition negotiations, who are the key players to watch?

After a surprisingly manic election night the focus in Germany now shifts to the tricky task of forming a government. As we noted yesterday, many options remain possible. Merkel looks unlikely to gain a majority on her own while the FDP and AfD are certainly out of the Bundestag.

This leaves a Grand Coalition, a CDU/CSU and Greens coalition or (as a very, very longshot) some form of SPD-Greens-Die Linke (Red-Red-Green) coalition or alliance which could still mathematically have a majority.

Little progress is expected before the end of the week, with the SPD holding a small party conference on Friday where it will determine its strategy for the negotiations. SPD Chancellor Candidate Peer Steinbrück has already said that the “ball is now in Merkel’s court”, suggesting he expects her to propose the terms of any Grand Coalition. Meanwhile, Greens leader Jürgen Trittin has said that, while open to negotiations over a coalition with Merkel, the chances of finding an agreement are “extremely limited”.

Who are the key players in the formation of the new government?

Angela Merkel (Chancellor – CDU/CSU): As Chancellor in her third term, Merkel will remain the key power player. Her slow and incremental approach will continue and set the tone for the whole government. Her term will be dominated by questions over her successor – for which there are few candidates. Rumours already abound that she may leave before the end of her term. She will need to identify and groom a successor, however, whether this will erode her own power base remains to be seen. Remains a key ally for Cameron and the key person he needs to convince for his reform agenda.

Wolfgang Schäuble (Finance Minister – CDU/CSU): Likely to remain Finance Minister, strong supporter of Merkel’s incremental approach to the eurozone crisis.

Peer Steinbrück (SPD Chancellor Candidate): Likely to lead the coalition negotiations for the SPD (although this could still change), but won’t take up any ministerial post in a grand coalition. Could well pay the price for the party’s poor electoral showing. 

Sigmar Gabriel (SPD Chairman): Likely to be Vice-Chancellor and take up ministerial post (either labour or defence) under a grand coalition. However, given the bad overall score for the SPD, the existing internal pressure on Gabriel might reach a tipping-point and leave him empty-handed. 

Frank-Walter Steinmeier (Leader of the Opposition in the Bundestag – SPD): Likely to become Foreign Minister under a grand coalition as in he was in 2005 - 2009. Had a reputation for undermining some of Merkel’s foreign policy goals in the previous coalition. Often seen as a Francophile and has previously suggested he believes the UK will leave the EU. Could hamper UK reform effort, although that said, much of the power on European decisions now lies in the Kanzleramt and Finance Ministry. Furthermore, the shift from current incumbent, Guido Westerwelle, may not be huge.

Thomas Oppermann (SPD): Likely to become Interior Minister given his expertise in this field.

Greens leadership: After the Greens slipped to 8.4% (compared to 10.7% in previous elections), a lot of internal movement is going on. The party’s Chief Whip, Volcker Beck, has already announced his resignation while the double party chairmanship, Claudia Roth and Cem Özdemir, offered their resignation this morning.

Both lead candidates, Katrin Göring-Eckar and Jürgen Trittin, seem to be dedicated to stay even though internal party pressure is increasing on the latter. Finally, the leader of the Green parliamentary group, Renate Künast, would need to be considered among the key players in a potential coalition with the CDU/CSU. What ministerial posts they could or would push for is unclear, but one would assume environmental and energy related posts would be top of the list

Results of the German Elections

See below for the preliminary results of the German elections in 2013. They'll be officially announced on 9 October, however no change is to be expected. More analysis and reactions will follow. 

German election exit polls suggest plenty of scenarios still in play

The first exit polls are in and it looks to be a very close run election. However, not at the top but at the bottom.

ARD: CDU/CSU 42%, SPD 26%, Greens 8%, Die Linke 8.5%, FDP 4.7%, AfD 4.9%. 

ZDF: CDU/CSU 42.5%, SPD 26.5%, Greens 8.0%, Die Linke 8.5%, FDP 4.5%, AfD 4.8%.

Both polls suggest German Chancellor Angela Merkel CDU/CSU is the clear winner. Well above expected. However the results of the others mean there is plenty of scenarios still open. Below we run through them.

Merkel gains her own majority: Unbelievably this could happen. If both AfD and the FDP miss out, with other small parties garnering around 5% of the vote but not entering the Bundestag, Merkel’s party could gain its own majority with around 42%. Currently they look to be around three seats short of this but after having been barely considered during the campaign, this is now a very real scenario.

CDU/CSU and FDP coalition continues: Despite exit polls suggesting FDP has missed out, they are so close to the threshold that they could easily still make it in. If the FDP gets in and the AfD still misses out then the current governing coalition could be maintained.

Grand Coalition: If the FDP and AfD sneak in above the 5% threshold, as is possible, then a grand coalition would likely ensue, albeit with some very complex negotiations. This could also happen if both the FDP and AfD miss out but Merkel fails to garner enough votes for her own majority.

Plenty of scenarios still possible then, even one which was barely considered. Stay tuned as we update this blog and tweet @OpenEurope throughout the evening.

Open Europe predictions for the German election

Despite presenting a ubiquitous front on our blog, our team does often have varying views on the issues we cover. As on twitter, there has been a debate going on within the office about the ins and outs of the German elections - everything from "Veggie Day" to whether the anti-euro AfD will make it into the Bundestag. And, of course, what type of coalition will be formed.

We all agree it will be a close run thing. But below we lay out each of our analysts predictions. Feel free to stick your own in the comments! (Click to enlarge)

Interestingly, it's five to four thinking the AfD will just fall short of the threshold, reflecting what we agree can be a case of AfD being underestimated in the polls. But six to three in terms of backing for a 'Grand Coalition' - which, in aggregate, must be considered a bit of a revision in favour of a grand coalition from what we laid out in our pre-election briefing. There's also one rogue analyst predicting FDP won't get in at all...

The top 10 'spiciest' moments of the German elections

How do we put this delicately...the Germans aren't exactly known for their sense of humour. Equally neither are politicians, other than attracting derisory chuckles at their attempts to seem cool or in touch with the common man. Combine the two and result is often enough to drive large swathes of people to watch the handwork of their decorator dry slowly. 

This round of German elections has been little different, not least because Angela Merkel has actively employed the tactic of trying to bore people into voting for her (see cartoon below). We haven't seen so many references to 'Safe Hands' since David Seaman's auto biography.

Fortunately, there have been a some spicier moments (though we refrain from call them "highlights"), here are the top 10:


The FDP, neo-nazis and a cream cheese discover they have something in common

An awkward moment for the FDP when someone spotted that a stock image of an all-German family used in one of their televised ads also featured in a campaign video for the far-right/neo-Nazi NPD party. Bizarrely, the same family also featured in an advert for a Finnish cream cheese. Unfortunately for the FDP, the moment has not proved as embarassing as being seen as a photocopy of the CDU.

The necklace that won the #tvduel

We all know Germans love gold but this takes the nugget. The only TV debate between Angela Merkel and Peer Steinbrück was considered so dull that it prompted many to proclaim Merkel's fetching patriotic necklace the real winner of the debate, and it quickly gained its own Twitter account with over 8,700 followers to date.

Peer's 'Stinkefinger'

After losing his only televised debate to a necklace, Peer felt the need to take drastic action. But what to do? Well, apparently, if your words aren't working, go 'wordless'. Peer Steinbrück signed up for a 'wordless interview' with Süddeutsche Magazin which ended up receiving widespread coverage in Germany and abroad after he responded to a question by unapologetically flipping the bird. Unfortunately, rather than inspiring the electorate they simply replied in kind...




Lucke's Greek toga party

If you thought Peer's wordless interview was bizarre, wait until you see this. AfD leader (and serious German professor) Bernd Lucke held an interview with German channel Tele 5 on why Greece should leave the euro, during most of which he wore a Greek flag as a toga. He then proceeded to sing a duet with the host, of the AfD's official song to the backing music of Take That's 'Back for good' (a song which Lucke had apparently never heard before). On top of all of this, as some of the papers noted, one of the producers of the show is Greek and proceeded to periodically alter Lucke's voice so that he sounded like Mickey Mouse. A truly bizarre election interview, which is well worth watching even if you don't speak German.

Don't mess with the Currywurst

While pushing for the humane treatment of animals, the Green party ironically managed to shoot themselves in the foot. In an almost inexplicable move, they proposed forcing all public canteens to make one day a week vegetarian day. Unsurprisingly, the suggestion did not go down well in a country famous for loving its meat. “How dare the Greens tell us what to eat!” thundered Germany’s mass circulation Bild newspaper, the day after the proposal was floated. What next? Banning nudism, autobahns or the Hoff...? You simply don't mess with the Currywurst or the Schweinshaxe. The Greens have recently slipped a couple of points in the polls - clearly no coincidence...

Beating the kids at their own game 

The new anti-euro party Alternative für Deutschland was widely derided as a party for old, white and grumpy men or alternatively as the 'Professor party' (if only it was true some would say). The contrast with the young, swinging and tech savvy Pirate party could hardly be greater. However, the AfD has proved it is no slouch when it comes to online campaigning with one of its election campaign videos getting over a million hits, while a Pirate video has received only just over 10,000 views.

Die Partei's whole election campaign

The brilliantly named Partei für Arbeit, Rechtsstaat, Tierschutz, Elitenförderung und basisdemokratische Initiative (Party for Work, Rule-of-Law, Protection of Animals, Advancement of Elites, and Grassroots-Democratic Initiative) - shortened to Die Partei - is a German satirical party akin to the UK's Monster Raving Loony Party, but much funnier. Set up by Martin Sonneborn, editor of the satirical Titanic magazine, its campaign pledges include razing the City of London to the ground and putting Angela Merkel on trial in a cage. Die Partei also released an election video on 'family policy' featuring (pixelated) scenes from an adult film with a soundtrack of "moaning and groaning, accompanied by light-hearted background music".

The hypnotic Chancellor 

We're not sure if it is her or her necklace, but Merkel has certainly lulled the electorate into a state of tepid contentedness. This cartoon perfectly captures the excitement of the CDU's election campaign. Merkel: "You are going to sleep. Everything is good. You are going out to vote..."





A rough ride for AfD

In their misguided attempts to stop the AfD expressing its alleged intolerant views the members of the Green youth decided to physically halt AfD activists from their right to freedom of speech and expression, with no sense of irony. Green with envy of the AfD's media coverage perhaps? In any case, as reported by Spiegel, this is likely to help the anti-euro party's chances, rather then hurt them.

Merkel drones on...

Just when the scandal surrounding the government's bungled purchase of the multi-million euro 'Euro Hawk' surveillance drone was beginning to fade, a CDU event with Angela Merkel and Defence Minister de Maizière in Dresden was interrupted by a miniature drone operated by remote control. The Pirate party claimed responsibility, saying that "The goal was to make Chancellor Merkel and Defence Minister de Maizière realise what it's like to be subjected to drone observation". Judging by the results above maybe they should just make her watch their election video...

David Hasselhof singing on the Berlin wall

Oh, sorry, that was in 1989...maybe it just seems like yesterday since we watch it on a daily basis...

Why Germany's 'boring' elections should still concern David Cameron

Our Nina Schick wrote this op-ed for today's City AM:

For a vote touted as decisive to the future of the Eurozone, the German election campaign – which reaches its climax on Sunday – has been lacklustre. With barely any talk of Europe, it’s been defined by domestic issues – from data protection, to rent control and taxation.

We Germans love a good debate on taxation. But while Germany’s main parties can differentiate on domestic policies, there is no substantial difference on the Eurozone. Long after the vote, and regardless of which coalition takes the helm in Berlin, Germany will remain a slow and deliberating player. No surprise, then, that commentators have dismissed the campaign as the “most boring” in recent memory.

Coalition dynamics may make the vote more interesting, however – and the UK, especially, should take heed. While most initially thought the likely outcome would be a continuation of the current centre-right coalition between Angela Merkel’s CDU/CSU and the liberal free market FDP, this may be changing. With as many as 30 per cent of voters undecided, this election will go down to the wire.

Recent polls show support for Merkel’s CDU/CSU dropping, while support for the centre-left Social Democrats (SPD) has risen. The latest figures predict that Merkel would not be able to form a parliamentary majority with the FDP. There is even a chance the FDP won’t make it past the 5 per cent threshold needed to win seats in the Bundestag. Last weekend, the party crashed out the Bavarian parliament after state elections.

We may see a backflip to the grand coalition of 2005: Merkel’s CDU/CSU and the SPD. While these dynamics won’t change much in the Eurozone, they are important to the UK.

It would be in Britain’s best interest to see a continuation of Merkel’s current coalition. She is a key ally for David Cameron, and will have a decisive influence in determining the success of his EU renegotiation strategy. Both Merkel and Cameron have a similar vision of the EU: based on free trade, reduced regulation, and improved competitiveness. It’s unlikely that anyone other than Merkel will become Chancellor. But if she enters a grand coalition with the SPD, things might not look so rosy for London.

First, in German politics, the foreign ministry usually goes to the junior coalition partner. While relations between Paris and Berlin have been strained since Francois Hollande took office (his spending rhetoric rubs Germans up the wrong way), a SPD foreign minister would be more likely to turn to Paris than London. Under the last grand coalition, the SPD’s foreign minister Frank Walter Steinmeier (also a contender for the post this time around) notably undermined some of Merkel’s foreign policy plans.

Second, the SPD is keen on further financial regulation. Only a few days ago, its parliamentary spokesman vowed that pushing forward delayed plans for a financial transactions tax would be a “high priority” for the SPD if they enter into a grand coalition. Not great news for the City of London.

In short, German coalition semantics may not mean much to the Eurozone – but they certainly will to the UK.

Germany's anti-euro party mobilises non-voters and FDP supporters

Three days ahead of the German election, Germany's anti-euro party, Alternative für Deutschland is polling at 5%, according to the latest INSA Poll.

If AfD actually wins 5% of the vote, it will enter the Bundestag. The poll  has caused a bit of a stir, as most commentators didn't think AfD would make it into parliament.

Now INSA head Hermann Binkert has broken down where the potential AfD voters come from for FAZ:

22% FDP

16% CDU

9% Linke

6% SPD

3% Greens

3% first-time voters

13% other parties

28% non-voters

- It's interesting that the largest share of the AfD vote comes from non-voters, so it has mobilised non-voters in a way that other parties have not been able to.

- The second largest share of the AfD vote comes from FDP supporters. The FDP haven't been doing too well in the polls (currently at 6%), so there is  the outside possibility that the AfD will make it into the Bundestag while the FDP won't.

Has the Dutch VVD moved further than the Tories on EU reform and return of EU powers?

In the Dutch Parliament earlier, the VVD (the party of the Dutch PM) EU spokesman Mark Verheijen said he thought EU treaty change was “inevitable” and what is more

"when we want less Brussels in several domains, return whole policy areas, then we should not shy away from the option of treaty change."

This is interesting for three reasons:

First, though stressing the need for the EU to do less, until now, the VVD hasn't really been calling for the return of 'EU powers' - this statement is a challenge to the current division of labour between member states and Brussels.

Secondly,  Dutch politicians - including those from the VVD - have been keen to point out they're not seeking EU treaty change, but want to roll back Brussels' interference within the existing structure.

Finally, together with the recent Dutch "subsidiarity review" - that called time on 'ever closer union' in all policy areas -  the VVD Party has moved into areas that David Cameron has so far not dared not go - explicitly looking forward to and advocating treaty change and outlining concrete areas where the EU shouldn't be involved.

Intriguingly, however, later in the same debate Prime Minister Mark Rutte stepped in to cool it all down a bit. Well, he explained, the Dutch government is not actually proactively in favour of EU treaty change "unless it has already become inevitable". In this scenario he would forward his own ideas but he would not take the initiative.

It's almost as if Europe is waiting for someone to take the initiative...

When it comes to Europe, Germany’s political elite and public are deeply divided

On the question of Europe, there is a painful gap between the German political elite and the public.

As our recent YouGov Deutschland poll on German voters’ sentiments on Europe showed, the German public is overwhelmingly against further financial support for the eurozone, and believes that the next Chancellor should back efforts to devolve powers back to the member states.

Now, German business-publication, Deutsche Wirtschafts Nachrichten, has conducted a similar poll among all 620 members of the German Bundestag. It’s interesting to compare the results:

• Our poll finds that two thirds of Germans reject any eurozone policies that involve putting any more German money on the line: whether it is further loans to the eurocrisis states, debt write downs or debt pooling.
• On the question of joint-liability, DWN finds that two thirds of MPs advocate precisely those measures that are rejected by two-thirds of citizens: bailouts, debt reduction and debt redemption funds.
• Our poll finds that by a margin of two to one (50% in favour, 26% against), the German public thinks the next Chancellor should back efforts to devolve EU powers back to the member states.
• DWN’s poll finds that only 9% of MPs want to devolve power back to the member-states, with 91% saying that more power should go to Brussels.

Unless the German government finds a way to address this imbalance, then it might have a lot more than disgruntled Southern Europeans to deal with post-election.

No quantum leap on eurozone integration after the German elections

Our Director Mats Persson has an op-ed in today's Wall Street Journal, where he argues,

A satirical cartoon in the Italian magazine L'Espresso, depicting a father and son, illustrated it best: "Papa," says the son, "I have to go to the toilet."

"Hush," answers the father. "Hold it until after the German elections."

By now most commentators have realized that there won't be a quantum leap toward more eurozone integration following the German elections. However, while most have focused on coalition dynamics, there are in fact three far more profound limitations that will continue to restrict Germany's ability to act in Europe long after the Sept. 22 elections, and will prevent any swift move toward a euro-zone banking union or fiscal union: One of these limitations is political, one is constitutional and one is economic.

First, German public support for the euro remains highly conditional. According to a recent Open Europe/Open Europe Berlin poll, a majority of Germans support more euro-zone integration if it means more central controls over other countries' taxation and spending. However, a clear majority remain opposed to any policy that involves putting German cash on the line, such as further loans to struggling euro-zone countries, write-downs of existing loans, a joint banking backstop or fiscal transfers.

This is neither surprising nor new. In the 1990s when the euro was forged, the gulf between public and elite opinion was already conspicuous. But despite mounting scepticism, the cost of saving the euro hasn't actually trickled through to people's wallets. If that ever changes, via a slow-down in the German economy, or if savers start to really feel the pinch from the European Central Bank's low interest rates or future possible money printing, we may quickly hit the limit of what the public is willing to endure.

Let's not forget that, given Germany's regional structure, there's almost always another election on the horizon. Between now and when Greece is supposed to exit its bailout program in June 2015, for example, there will be at least five state elections in Germany, as well as the European elections in 2014. German politicians cannot escape public opinion.

Second, the German republic was set up after World War II specifically to prevent hasty centralizations of power. Ironically, this was done at the behest of the Americans and the British—though both Washington and London have been vocal critics of Berlin's cautious approach in the euro-zone crisis. Systemic circuit-breakers such as Germany's Constitutional Court were put in place to counter rash decision-making, while the modern German constitution in 1949 got rid of the federal government's Weimar-era emergency powers.

Today, slowness and consensus are encoded in the very fabric of the German constitutional DNA. This will not change after the elections, nor should we wish it to. While it is unlikely to rule against the ECB's bond-buying program, the Constitutional Court will continue to lay down new red lines for what Germany can and cannot do. The Court has already said that before the euro zone moves to a transfer union, a change to the German constitution will be needed, which will first require a referendum.

It's constitutionally complicated, for example, to write down Greek debt, given that 75% of it is now owned by taxpayer-backed institutions in Germany and the rest of the euro zone. If those institutions take losses on what until now have been loan guarantees, that will in effect turn the euro zone into a transfer union for the first time, which the Constitutional Court has said is illegal. German politicians will continue to have one hand tied by the court in Karlsruhe for years to come.

Then there is the third and most fundamental limitation: Germany can't afford to underwrite the euro forever. If implicit debt, such as the liabilities of Germany's social-security system, are taken into account, the real level of German public debt would be 192% of GDP—much higher than Italy's 146%. Germany has also racked up an exposure to the struggling peripheral countries of around €1 trillion—equivalent to some 40% of its GDP. If Berlin were to begin accepting losses on this, the cost could snowball quickly, as all its sovereign debtors would look for equal treatment. Furthermore, Germany faces a demographic time bomb.

By 2050, the country's current population of 82 million is projected to have declined to around 70 million—less than in 1963. Far fewer workers will be around to finance the country's pay-as-you-go social-security system. This is worse than it looks. Germany, of course, already has its own deeply unpopular transfer union. In this system, out of 16 federal states, only three—Bavaria, Hesse and Baden-Wurttemburgh—are permanent net contributors, with Hamburg moving in and out of that status. Under a hypothetical euro-zone transfer union, these four German regions would proportionally carry a huge burden.

All of this means that there's a relatively stable trajectory to German's EU politics, which defies electoral cycles. So can we expect any movement after Sept. 22? Maybe a little. Particularly in a coalition government that included the center-left Social Democratic Party, we may see some easing of austerity in favor of structural reforms in countries such as Greece or Portugal. But Germans won't give up their deep-held belief in frugality overnight.

Almost any German government is also likely to continue to insist on strong controls over other countries' taxation and spending, most likely via the EU institutions, as quid pro quo for more cash. So the complicated sequencing that's pitting the Germans against the French will continue to dog the euro zone. Make no mistake, Germany will remain a slow, deliberating and frustrating actor for years to come.

Vice-President of Italian Senate has a go at 'Mr Nobody' Olli Rehn

Maurizio Gasparri, a senior member of Silvio Berlusconi's PdL party and a Vice-President of the Italian Senate, yesterday launched one of the toughest verbal attacks on a member of the European Commission we can think of over the past months, if not years. His target was EU Economic and Monetary Affairs Commissioner Olli Rehn, and here's what Mr Gasparri said,

It's time to stop it with the 'corporals of the day' such as this Olli Rehn, a Mr Nobody who comes to Italy acting as a supervisor. He should rather meditate on the disasters that people like him have caused by destroying Europe. Thick bureaucrats who kill the peoples [of Europe] and make the continent die because of China’s unfair competition and [their] ruinous economic policies. This Rehn is persona non grata. He should take a plane, go back home and pay as many taxes he likes.

But what prompted this rant? Very simple. During a hearing in the Italian parliament earlier in the day, Rehn had noted that the abolition of a controversial property tax on first homes – one of Berlusconi's flagship electoral pledges – was not in line with the European Commission's economic policy recommendations to Italy, and cast doubts over the country's ability to meet the deficit targets agreed with Brussels.

Interestingly, Mr Gasparri's critical reaction to Rehn's remarks was not the only one of the day either, though arguably the most colourful. Stefano Fassina, Italy's centre-left Deputy Economy Minister, also invited Rehn to "think about the mistakes the European Commission has made in all these years instead of continuing to give us lessons." Another sign that 'austerity fatigue' in Italy is also mounting among a number of top politicians, not just the citizens.   

Germany's anti euro party clashes with major pollster ahead of election

As we have noted in the past, it is possible that Germany’s anti-euro party, Alternative für Deutschland,  has a wider support base than polls suggest. 

Voters may still be embarrassed to admit support for AfD via telephone polling (popular in Germany), and because polls are weighted to include past vote recall, they are inherently biased in favour of the established parties.

Though polls usually put AfD  on about 2-3%, recent polls have put them as high as 4%: just one point short of the 5% threshold needed to enter the Bundestag.

And this issue has been stewing. Last month AfD leader Bernd Lucke claimed that employees of  the major German polling companies, Forsa and Allensbach,  had informed him that AfD was polling well above 5% in the pollsters' raw data, but that they were deliberately fudging AfD’s results.

Pretty sensational stuff if true.

But now the regional court in Cologne has slapped AfD on thewrist, ruling that it is not allowed to make such allegations against Forsa.

Forsa Chief Manfred Güllner (who has previously admitted that the AfD may do better than predicted by polls), called Lucke’s allegations “disgraceful,” adding that AfD hasn’t  “even come close to 5% -- let alone over.”

Güllner isn’t holding back his punches, saying of the Afd leader "I only call him liar Lucke...[he] is completely insane. We handle AfD just like every other party. What Mr Lucke is claming is utter rubbish, a complete conspiracy theory. None of our employees spoke to Mr Lucke, absolute nonsense.”

But with the federal election taking place in less than a week, we will soon know just how accurate the polls have been about AfD.

 

New OE/OEB poll: Significant support among German voters to slim down EU

There is no doubt that Germany is strongly wedded to the idea of ‘more Europe’ -- at least rhetorically. But when it is boiled down specific EU policies, as the new Open Europe, Open Europe Berlin and YouGov Deutschland poll shows, there is significant support amongst German voters to slim down the EU.

Key findings of our poll illustrate that the European Commission and the European Parliament are the least trusted of the 13 different national and European institutions tested. Only 33% and 30% of German voters trust the EP and EC respectively.

On the other hand, the highest ranking institution is the German Constitutional Court (trusted by a whopping 71% of Germans). Interestingly for Brussels, this is of course, the same Court which has been throwing up barriers to further eurozone integration based on its interpretation of the German Basic Law and the EU Treaties.

There is also significant support among German voters to devolve powers from the EU back to the member states: 50% agree that it’s a good idea, only 26% don’t. Similarly, 41% think that the EU should have less powers, 36% are content with the status quo – and only 23% think the EU should have more powers.

Moreover, a majority of Germans want less Brussels involvement in at least eight policy areas:

When it comes to the question of Britain in the EU, the Germans overwhelmingly want to keep Britain inside.  63% think the UK and Germany could be strong allies in reforming the EU.

  
France is by-and-far still seen as Germany’s most important ally in Europe. It is ranked first by 61% of respondents, being followed by Britain on 19%. However, David Cameron inspires more trust among Germans (ranked first by 30% of respondents) than French President Francois Hollande (ranked first by 26% of respondents.)

Germany is a conflicted country when it comes to Europe – while it is ‘pro Europe’ in temperament,  when it comes to the actual policies, German support for 'more Europe' is heavily caveated.

Ten years on, what Britain can learn from the Swedish euro referendum

Last Saturday was the tenth anniversary of the Swedish referendum on the euro, and our Director, Mats Persson, wrote this piece for the Guardian's Comment is Free:

"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter," Winston Churchill famously said. He could have added that the best argument against elite rule is a five-minute conversation with your average politician.

I used to be sceptical of referendums. They are populist instruments, I thought. Voters never vote on the actual issue. And what do voters know anyway? Then the euro happened. 

Saturday is the 10-year anniversary of the Swedish public voting no to joining the euro in a high-profile referendum, 56% to 42%. The Swedish elite was in shock. All the major parties, the national newspapers, the business organisations, including the Swedish CBI, and most of Stockholm's chattering classes favoured ditching the krona. According to some estimates, the yes campaign outspent the no campaign 10 to one. There were a lot of clever and genuine people on the yes side, making valid arguments such as eliminating exchange risk for business and replacing the flaky devaluation policies of the past.

However, it was obvious that something wasn't quite right. Yes, perhaps Sweden could benefit from sharing a currency with Germany, the destination of many of its exports. But the euro wasn't about liberal economics: stretching from the Arctic circle to Sicily, it locked vastly different countries, cultures and economic structures, into one monetary system, under a single interest rate – forever binding together the problems of all its members, large or small. It was a system based on the hopelessly flawed assumption that politicians and central bankers would make the right decisions all the time.

As with all referendums, there were various reasons why the Swedish public voted no, including an inherent bias in favour of the status quo. Fundamentally, though, most Swedes' gut instinct – bondförnuft as the Swedes say (literally "farmer's common sense") – told them that a serial defaulter with dubious finances, Greece, and a heavily industrialised exporter with an obsession with sound money, Germany, simply couldn't share the same currency. Swedes treated the exam question with the same kind of book-keepers' approach by which many of them run their own household economies. Whatever the experts told them, the arguments – and the numbers – simply didn't add up.

Ten years on, Europe is shrouded in uncertainty, but one thing is clear: the Swedish public got it right, the elite got it wrong. Though there may have been some politicians in Sweden and elsewhere who saw the single currency as the ultimate way to set the snowball rolling towards an EU superstate, the euro was far more a case of cock-up than conspiracy. Today, 80-90% of Swedes oppose the euro, and the political and business elites are wary too – save the odd isolated politician doing an impression of the Japanese soldiers found in the 1960s refusing to believe the second world war had ended.

However, referendums are by no means a magical potion. It's clear that there are cases where they're hijacked or misused – and where they lead to outcomes that no one intended or that settle nothing. Sweden itself has some less successful experiences with public votes. In 1980, a three-way referendum on whether to ditch nuclear power – arguably a populist kneejerk response to the Harrisburg disaster – generated a vote in favour of a vague plan to incrementally dismantle all nuclear plants. The result was totally inconclusive, leaving half the country embittered on the issue (Sweden still has nuclear power today).

Incidentally, there's a lesson for David Cameron here. He has promised to negotiate a new settlement in the EU and put that to an in/out referendum by 2017. If that indeed happens, the worst possible outcome is a 49-51% type result, too close to call in either direction. As in Sweden in 1980, much of the population would feel disenfranchised and the EU debate will continue just as before. This isn't in either the UK's or Europe's interest.

To avoid this scenario, there needs to be substantial and systemic changes, ideally rooted in EU-wide solutions so that they last (unilateral opt-outs tend to be eroded). That would allow a decisive vote in favour of the UK staying in a heavily reformed, slimmed-down EU.

One can have different views on Cameron's strategy, but given public and political discontent about the EU status quo, sooner or later there will probably have to be a referendum to settle the Europe question in this country. And as the Swedish euro vote shows – warts and all, the public can opt for perfectly rational and responsible outcomes that would not occur if politicians were left to their own devices.

A subtle shift in German policy on banking union?

With talk of the upcoming German elections dominating over the weekend, a potentially important yet subtle shift for post-German election policy on banking union may have received less coverage than it ought to have.

Reuters reported on Saturday that Germany is working on plans to create a single eurozone bank resolution mechanism (SRM) within the EU framework without the need for changing the EU’s treaties – something the German government had previously insisted was necessary because it deemed the Commission had no legal base for the proposal to give itself the power to order banks to be wound down. Bloomberg followed this up with a report suggesting a tentative agreement had been struck with the Commission which would see the new resolution fund cover only the largest eurozone banks, thereby exempting the German savings banks (and their large pool of deposits).

German Finance Ministry spokesman Martin Kotthaus has since played down any German proposal, but stressed that "very many other member states" have also raised similar concerns to those of Germany.

It remains early days then, with lots of negotiating still to go but this could have important implications for the eurozone and the UK which are worth exploring.

What could this mean for the eurozone?

• As we have noted, Germany essentially had two choices following its stark rebuke of the Commission’s SRM plan – either work within the framework to alter it or propose an intergovernmental alternative (a similar ad-hoc set up to the temporary bailout fund EFSF). Judging from these developments it seems to have gone for the former, on the surface this is positive for the eurozone since any SRM enshrined in EU law will look more lasting and solid.
• That said, the German plan (if there is one) would clearly involve further watering down a mechanism which already looked woefully short of what was needed to help shore up the eurozone banking sector.  The crisis has clearly shown that smaller parts of the banking sector can cause significant problems (see Spanish cajas).
• The Commission is likely to have less responsibility but it remains unclear where the power will lie. Creating a new institution is impossible without treaty change while using existing ones for eurozone-specific tasks creates serious questions about the single market. The fundamental question of who decides to wind down a bank in crisis remains unresolved.
• Even if the above issue is settled, oversight of the banking sector would still look fragmented with many different institutional layers including – national regulators and supervisors, the ECB and the new SRM as well as possibly the ESM. Furthermore, the Council of Ministers, European Parliament and national parliaments will all have a role in decision making and/or accountability.
• Other problems, including the size of any resolution fund, remain – as we have pointed out. Last week’s legal opinion from the Council of Minister's legal service noted that the national budgetary implications of an EU bank resolution mechanism meant that the Commission's proposed legal base might need to be rethought.

What does this mean for the UK and other non-eurozone countries?

• How the SRM is established could well set the tone for future eurozone integration, therefore ensuring it does not alter the dynamic of the EU to serve eurozone ends using a single market legal base is important for both the UK and other non-euro countries.
• That said, a purely intergovernmental legal arrangement, outside the EU treaty, could reduce the UK's ability to influence the outcome still further. The upshot being that there probably needs to be a treaty change to ensure eurozone crisis resolution is kept distinct from and yet compatible with the single market. 
• Despite this latest attempt to avoid treaty change, Finland has also voiced concerns about the legal base for the SRM, while Germany still has concerns about the separation between the single supervisor function and monetary policy at the ECB - suggesting treaty change as solution. So, both are still keen on shoring up the banking union via treaty change in the not too distant future.

Some interesting developments then, but a long way to go yet. In any case the time line for the banking union looks the same with the process being phased in over the coming years to 2018 – far from an immediate solution to the crisis.

Meanwhile, the whole discussion over the extent to which the treaties can be stretched to help solve the eurozone crisis once again reminds us of the inherent tensions and structural flaws in the current eurozone/EU setup. Even if not done through the banking union, this will have to be settled at some point.

What do the Bavarian election results tell us about next week's general elections?

Yesterday’s Bavarian state elections saw a clear victory for the CSU, Merkel’s CDU sister party at the federal level, securing 47.7% of votes in the 180-seat state legislature. That translates into 101 seats for the conservatives, 10 more than needed to form a majority government.

Results of the Bavarian state elections

So what could that mean for next week’s general elections?

• Could the results provide a boost to the CDU/CSU and push them an absolute majority at the federal level? This is very unlikely given that the CDU/CSU haven't won an absolute majority at the federal level since 1957 whereas an outright majority for the Conservatives in Bavaria is rather the status quo (except for the previous coalition with the FDP, the CSU has enjoyed an absolute majority for 56 years). 

• Furthermore, both the CSU and the SPD gained percentage points compared to the previous elections. This result was basically in line with the large majority of pre-election polls. So it won’t necessarily give either party an edge for the next week’s general elections.

• The FDP lost 4.7% compared to previous state elections and, with overall result of 3.3%, missed the threshold to enter the Bavarian state parliament. This could be seen as a bad omen for next week's general election and may raise the chances of a grand coalition. That said, tactical voting (from CDU/CSU) voters is an important part of FDP support. This result could prompt an increase of such voting at the general election, as CDU/CSU voters fear an FDP failure and the move towards a grand coalition. FDP leader, Philipp Rösler, called its party’s result in the Bavaria elections “a wake-up call”. It could end up being exactly what the party needed to secure its entry to the Bundestag.

• It's also worth noting that the FDP has traditionally faired badly in Bavaria and rarely makes it into the parliament - the last election then was an exception, rather than the rule. Furthermore, the CSU feared losing an absolute majority so many supporters voted tactically at the previous election, at this one the majority was essentially assured.

• The usefulness of the Bavarian elections as a bellwether for the general elections should not be overestimated either - the CSU dominates, while the Free voters also have a strong support base but the Greens traditionally struggle. It's also worth keeping in mind that Alternative fur Deutschland did not run in the elections.

The general reading seems to have been that this is a bad sign for the current coalition government with the FDP struggling. That could well be true, but it may just end up being the sign that supporters of the current coalition needed to vote in a way which ensures extra FDP support. All still to play for then next week.

Spotlight on Slovenia

Back in the spring, we looked at who might be next in the line of eurozone bailout requests. It's now looking increasingly likely that one of our predictions, Portugal, will require some form of further assistance to fully exit its current bailout. Now, suspicions are rising that our other tip, Slovenia, may need external aid in a not-too-distant future.

Today and yesterday, eurozone finance ministers have been meeting in Lithuania with aid for Slovenia (as well as Greece, Portugal and Ireland) top of the eurozone’s agenda.

Recap – What problems is Slovenia facing?

• The banking sector is nursing a possible €7.5bn (21% of GDP) capital shortfall. Although Slovenia’s government debt remains very manageable (at 54% of GDP) it could increase quickly due to a toxic combination of collapsing economic growth and spiralling costs of bailing out banks.

• As we noted back in the spring, provisions against this capital shortfall are far below the levels needed and covered at best half of the problematic loans. Since then, the level of bad loans has increased, while little progress has been made on recapitalising banks. The recent bailout of two small banks cost a combined €900m+, and included a bail-in of subordinated debtors. This could set the tone for the approach to the rest of the sector. Worryingly, this is also around the total amount previously estimated for the capital needs of the whole banking sector.

• The European Commission has pushed the independent bank stress test to be expanded to cover the whole banking sector. The results are expected at the start of next month, and could well reveal deeper holes in Slovenia banks. Filling these without external aid will be tricky.

• Non-financial corporations also continue to struggle under a mountain of debt, with a debt-to-equity ratio of around 200%. This will be a significant drag on the economy for some time as firms shrink and deleverage while many could well shutter for good. This of course has further knock on impacts for the level of bad loans at the banks and the level of unemployment.

• Austerity has been limited so far with the government deficit at around 8% of GDP (and possibly set to increase this year). Significant cuts will still have to happen and, as we have been at pains to point out before, the combination of bank deleveraging, fiscal consolidation and struggling domestic demand can create a very painful downward spiral.

• The privatisation programme has failed to get off the ground, with the only sizeable move so far being the €240m sale of retailer Mercator.

• Concerns also remain surrounding the significant amount of cronyism and corruption at play, particularly within state owned firms and within the financial sector. The government has recently moved to crack down on the shadow economy with wider taxes, although whether this will prove successful remains to be seen.

Despite these issues, German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schaüble struck a positive tone today, saying,

“I think if they stay strictly on course -- and they’ve said that want to do that; they’ve supplied two small banks with capital over the weekend -- then they’ll manage without it…So as long as Slovenia itself says they can manage it, we should encourage them in that.”

EU Economic and Monetary Affairs Commissioner Olli Rehn voiced similar sentiments. So far then, Slovenia seems to be happy to go it alone and (possibly with other things on their minds) Germany and others are happy to acquiesce. But with the ECB reportedly increasingly concerned about the state of the banking sector, the upcoming stress test results could be a turning point – assuming of course they are judged credible (far from a given). 

If any aid is eventually forthcoming, as we’ve argued before, it seems much more likely to take a similar form to that in Spain than in Cyprus or elsewhere.

How one finger livened-up the German election campaign

Peer Steinbrück, the SPD’s Chancellor Candidate graces the front cover of today’s Süddeutsche Magazine unapologetically flicking the bird.

Here's Steinbrück's picture interview in full, (quick fire questions, with 'wordless answers'):

" You’re called Mishap Peer, Problem Peer, Peerlusconi -- you’ve got no worries about being given nice nicknames?”

"Mr. Steinbrück, you and your wife have been married for 38 years. Your advice on a long and happy marriage?"

"Only 26% would vote currently for the SPD. Is that because of you?"

"The FDP leader Philipp Rösler says you don’t have capabilities to be Chancellor. Do you have a message for him?"

"Do you still wear a vest under your shirt?"

"On  scale of one-10: how good is Angela Merkel as a crisis manager? (1= terrible, 10= expert.)"

"How would you react if the Greens go into coalition with the CDU/CSU after the election due to a lack of alternatives?"

Could the decline in Spanish house prices be bottoming out? Not just yet...

A quick update on Spanish house prices, given that the latest quarterly statistics were released this morning.

As the graph highlights the second quarter of 2013 saw the smallest decrease in house prices quarter on quarter for some time. A few points to note here, though:

• Q1 2013 saw the largest decline for some time so the rebound could be impacted by the fact that the previous decline had been extraordinarily large. The rate of annual decline, at 12%, remains rapid.
• House prices, according to INE, have now fallen by 37% from their peak in Q3 2007. This is clearly a huge decline, but as we have pointed out before, a decline of up to 50% cannot be ruled out, meaning prices may still have some way to go before they bottom out.
• As with other statistics in Spain, there could be some seasonal impact which is yet to be accounted for.
  

• As the graph above shows there is also a wide range of regional variation with some of the richer areas beginning to fair better.
• The year-on-year decline, from Q2 2012 to Q2 2013 is seen to be around 8.8% by INE. However, recent statistics from Tinsa put the decline over the same period at 10.5%. It’s hard to say which is more accurate but this is a notoriously difficult area to accurately measure. There is some (fair) concern that the indices may fail to capture the true decline in house prices in Spain as they do not accurately reflect market transactions, so any data should be read with that in mind.
• Interestingly, it has also been suggested that that while domestic demand has continued to fall, 2013 Q2 saw a pick up in interest from foreign buyers. This could be a positive sign, although (as we have pointed out for the wider economy) foreign demand is not likely to be sufficient to offset a cratering in domestic demand.
• The growing difference between new and second-hand housing is also interesting, if not unexpected. The construction sector will likely continue to struggle as long as new buildings do. The slightly positive signs for second-hand housing could also be positive for the banks, since the majority of their mortgage portfolios will be linked to these properties – if they begin to show signs of recovery the mortgage books may begin to look less toxic (early days though yet). Clearly, as the decline continues and other factors (such as unemployment) continue to push up the level of bad loans that banks hold, they are likely to continue to struggle.
• All that said, the problems with prices of new houses do not bode well for the significant amount of unsold new housing stock floating around in Spain (though to be around 1 million properties) or the large swaths of un-developed land owned by the banks. Clearly these factors will drag on the economy for some time.

Housing, real estate and construction are likely to continue to be a drag on Spanish economy. The concerning point remains that the Spanish economy has been slow to adjust and rebalance towards new areas for growth. Meanwhile, with the ECB's asset quality review (aka 'stress tests') coming up at the start of next year, the attention to the state of bank balance sheets and their links to the housing crisis are likely to once again intensify.

Third EU legal opinion of the week, this time on banking union: bad news for Germany?

It seems to be a week for big legal opinions in the EU. We've had opinions on the FTT, the EU’s short selling regulation and now on the European Commission’s plan for a Single Bank Resolution Mechanism (SRM) – a key component of the banking union.

We have noted the importance and implications of the others, but this might turn out to be the most significant - although it is far less categorical in terms of ending the debate.

As we noted when the SRM proposal was published, the plan is based on a significant legal stretch where the 'single market article' (Article 114 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, TFEU) is used to justify transferring bank resolution powers to the Commission. In particular, Germany raised concerns regarding this legal base, suggesting treaty change may well be needed.

In the meantime, the EU Council of Ministers' Legal Service had been tasked (by the relevant working group for the proposal) with answering two key questions:

i) Whether Article 114 TFEU is the suitable legal basis for adopting the proposed Regulation;
ii) Whether the delegation of powers to the Board envisaged in the proposal is compatible with the EU Treaties and the general principles of EU law, as interpreted by the so-called 'Meroni' case law of the ECJ (see here for some background on the case).

Those who have followed our coverage of the other decisions will notice significant similarities with the short-selling case for example, given that the questions focus around the use of Article 114 and the 'Meroni case'.

However, in this instance the legal opinion seems to mostly side with the European Commission:

"The Council Legal Service has reached the conclusion that the centralised decision procedure described in the proposal cannot be regarded as an isolated regulatory measure with autonomous purposes, but is conceived as an element contributing to an on-going harmonisation process in the field of financial services, without which its establishment would have no sense."

Essentially, the Legal Service shares the Commission's view that the SRM proposal is needed to prevent fragmentation of the single market and that it will be applied uniformly. It also notes that the SRM is vital to the implementation of the Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive and the Capital Requirements Directive (the bank bail-in plans and the EU’s transposition  of the Basel III rules, essentially), while also arguing that, given the move to a single supervisor, a single resolution mechanism makes sense. Later on in the opinion, it is noted that the judgement on whether the necessity of an SRM set up in such a manner is ultimately a political decision – leaving it open to interpretation.

Furthermore, the opinion does contain an interesting caveat:

"The proposal does not contain a robust system to guarantee the budgetary sovereignty of Member States, notably throughout the transitional period during which the target funding level has to be achieved. Purportedly, during this period, the Fund will not have the necessary means to face conveniently resolution decisions and recourse to extraordinary means of funding might be needed…the Council Legal Service is of the view that the use of Article 114 TFEU as legal basis of the proposal would be contingent upon the introduction of an adequate system to safeguard the budgetary sovereignty of Member States."

This highlights that the creation of the single resolution fund could have financial implications for the budgets of member states (an issue which usually requires unanimous approval). This is especially true given that the funds built up from industry levies will not be ready for some time (up to ten years).

The FT notes that the German government has focused on this point and stressed the need to protect budgetary sovereignty. It has also suggested that the recent ruling on the UK short selling case actually backs up their position, given that it shows the limits of article 114 and highlights the limits to transferring new powers to EU institutions (we’re inclined to agree with them on this one). Today's legal opinion reinforces the German government "in its central legal concerns", says the German Finance Ministry.

It seems clear that this opinion is unlikely to settle the debate. Even if it is judged legally sound, the proposal remains hugely controversial from the political point of view. That said, with Germany still weighing up whether to try to renegotiate the proposal or push ahead with its own intergovernmental plan, this opinion could shift the balance.

ECJ legal opinion marks important preliminary victory for UK in short selling dispute

The UK has this morning been set on the path to an important victory at the European Court of Justice, after the Advocate General Niilo Jääskinen supported the UK’s claim that the EU's short selling Regulation transfers too much power to the European Securities Markets Authority (ESMA).

The opinion is not binding, but is followed in the majority of cases.

The UK objected to the EU's short selling regulation on a number of levels, but the main concern was that Article 28 of the Regulation - which allows ESMA to impose temporary short selling bans in emergency situations, overruling national financial supervisors - amounted to a significant transfer of power to an EU institution, and therefore Article 114 of the EU treaty (the single market article) was not a valid legal base for the Regulation.

The Advocate General did not side with the UK on all points, but on this key issue, he said:

"The outcome is not harmonisation but the replacement of national decision-making with EU level decision-making. This goes beyond the limits of Article 114."

Jääskinen went on to suggest that an alternative legal base for the regulation could be found and recommended Article 352 of the EU treaties. Although this may seem a technical point, it is extremely important. Article 352 (which sets out the so-called 'flexibility clause') requires unanimity, meaning the UK could veto the proposal.

If the ECJ were to follow the advice of its Advocate General, this could prove to be an important ruling for a number of reasons:

• First, it would halt the transfer of further powers (without national permission) to an EU agency and allow the UK to keep control over an important part of financial services regulation;
• Secondly, it would show that the UK government can have success using the right legal channels effectively. This could bode well for other cases, such as the on-going dispute on UK rules on EU migrants’ access to benefits, or ECB demands that transactions denominated in euros be cleared exclusively within the eurozone;
• It also highlights that the single market article, which, as we noted before, has been stretched significantly, cannot be a ubiquitous catch-all legal base for things the Commission believes fit with its view of the single market. This could become important in future negotiations, particularly over banking union.

State of the (same old) European Union

It’s that time of year again, when European Commission President José Manuel Barroso delivers his ‘State of the European Union’ speech, laying out all his hopes and dreams for the coming year – few of which make it through the decision making gauntlet.

This year’s speech seems little different and, frankly, was a bit all over the place.

Barroso talked up the prospect of greater national flexibility, but, as always, within the end-goal of ever closer "political union". He said:

"The EU needs to be big on big things and smaller on smaller things - something we may occasionally have neglected in the past. The EU needs to show it has the capacity to set both positive and negative priorities."

"I value subsidiarity highly. For me, subsidiarity is not a technical concept. It is a fundamental democratic principle. An ever closer union among the citizens of Europe demands that decisions are taken as openly as possible and as closely to the people as possible.

"The European Union must remain a project for all members, a community of equals."

"I believe a political union needs to be our political horizon, as I stressed in last year's State of the Union. This is not just the demand of a passionate European. This is the indispensable way forward to consolidate our progress and ensure the future."

Therefore, despite mentioning subsidiarity, Barroso's end goal remains clear – full political union. A feature of the eurozone crisis has been that Barroso and the Commission have been increasingly sidelined when setting the agenda (which member states now dominate). This is also due to the fact that there will be a new Commission in place soon.

The Q&A session revealed that, despite Barroso's professed desire to "find ways" to "make Europe stronger", he is rather less open in practice.

In response to Conservative MEP Martin Callanan (who had said he had no interest in being European Commission President) he said:

"Let me tell you very frankly, I think that even if you were interested you would not have a chance to be elected as President of the Commission. And do you know why? I’m not saying that happily. Because I think your party, and your group, is increasingly looking like UKIP and the eurosceptic, anti-European group. And I start to have some doubts that you’re going to be elected in Britain yourself, and if it’s not UKIP that is going to be the first force in the British [European] elections. Because when it comes to being against Europe, between the original and the copy, people prefer the original. That’s probably why they’re going to vote more for Mr Farage than for Mr Callanan. And I don’t say this with any kind of satisfaction, because even if we have some differences, we have worked very constructively with the Conservatives – the British Conservatives and the Conservative group – in many areas."

Once again, it seems the Commission would rather help UKIP rather than work for reformers who don't share a belief in 'ever closer union'.

Barroso's analysis of the crisis hinted at his on-going denial of the role of the euro in causing the crisis:

"We can remind people that Europe was not at the origin of this crisis. It resulted from mismanagement of public finances by national governments and irresponsible behaviour in financial markets."

"What I tell people is: when you are in the same boat, one cannot say: 'your end of the boat is sinking.' We were in the same boat when things went well, and we are in it together when things are difficult."

There is still a sign that Barroso believes that all eurozone woes were caused by the financial crisis – though it may have been a trigger and there is no doubt that national finances were mismanaged, there can (or should) also be no denying that the structural flaws of the euro are what have caused the crisis to be as long and deep as it has been.

The Commission's hope that banking union is the eurozone cure has already come up against resistance from Germany, which is deeply sceptical of the Commission's desire to increase its own power. Barroso's insistence that the proposal be implemented in full before next year's elections will not have helped much on this front and simply highlighted how out of touch he remains with the concerns of even core eurozone countries.

So, despite some lip-service to greater flexibility, reform and acceptance of the shortcomings in the EU and the eurozone, the solutions presented by Barroso remain the same – greater political integration. Fortunately, this is very likely to be Barroso's last 'State of the Union' speech, while member states such as Germany and the Netherlands have shown themselves more open to reform.