Well worth reading

Allister Heath produces some figures in City AM about taxes and who pays more. Hint: they do not support the arguments of the faux-anarchist UK Uncut.

As expected ...

... the German Constitutional Court in Karlsruhe denied that the existing bail-outs are unconstitutional but decreed that in future the Bundestag budgetary committee must give a prior agreement "before any further German financial guarantees for loans to its 16 partners in the eurozone". The decision does not seem to have made anyone particularly happy, though as the Financial Times, a fervent supporter of the continuation of the eurozone, says

The judgment amounts to an important victory for the German government, although it could complicate negotiations over future crisis measures by reinforcing the parliamentary control of the Bundestag.

It lifts a cloud over the €110bn rescue package agreed last year for Greece, and the €440bn European Financial Stability Facility (EFSF) used to provide further financial assistance for both Ireland and Portugal. It should also clear the way for German parliamentary approval for further crisis measures to extend the powers of the EFSF.

What could be worse than reinforcing parliamentary control over an unaccountable procedure that will be the EFSF?

So the relief that the reforms to the EFSF, i.e. more powers to control financial measures and transfer of funds, will probably be approved of is tempered by the thought, as expressed by Carsten Brzeski, senior economist at ING Belgium,

"A bigger say for German parliament in future bailouts could easily find copycats in other eurozone countries, undermining the clout of the beefed-up EFSF,” as well as the permanent European Stability Mechanism to be established from 2014.

Meanwhile, Chancellor Merkel, whose joy over this decision must be severely qualified by the thought of her own government possibly not supporting her over those reforms, said in a speech to the Bundestag that serious reforms of the eurozone were needed.

"I'm convinced that this crisis, if a great crisis of the western world is to be avoided, cannot be fought with a 'carry on' attitude. We need a fundamental rethink," Merkel said.

"We must make it very clear to people that the current problem, namely of excessive debt built up over decades, cannot be solved in one blow, with things like euro bonds or debt restructurings that will suddenly make everything okay. No, this will be a long, hard path, but one that is right for the future of Europe."

Quite so, Chancellor.

While her opponents, the SPD cannot claim any credit, being in government when Greece was allowed into the eurozone, the handling of the crisis is ever more unpopular in Germany and that includes Chancellor Merkel's own party and supporters.

Merkel has also come under fire from some members of her own party for going too far in rescuing countries like Greece, Ireland and Portugal.

Horst Seehofer, the head of her Bavarian sister party, told the Bild newspaper on Wednesday morning that a Greek exit from the euro zone could not be ruled out.

Some of Merkel's traditional allies are threatening to oppose new powers for the euro zone's rescue fund in a parliamentary vote later this month, in what is developing into the biggest threat to her leadership since she first took power in 2005.

Meanwhile, the coverage of the Karlsruhe decision is divided between those who think this has given the Bundestag more powers (or, perhaps, returned powers) and those who think that this has really salvaged the whole operation temporarily as nobody really dares to think too far ahead. Daniel Hannan seems to be the only one who raises another aspect of the case, the EU's blatant violation of its own rules, to wit, Article 125, which specifically states

1. The Union shall not be liable for or assume the commitments of central governments, regional, local or other public authorities, other bodies governed by public law, or public undertakings of any Member State, without prejudice to mutual financial guarantees for the joint execution of a specific project. A Member State shall not be liable for or assume the commitments of central governments, regional, local or other public authorities, other bodies governed by public law, or public undertakings of another Member State, without prejudice to mutual financial guarantees for the joint execution of a specific project.

Well, we all know how they got round that: by using or, rather, misusing Article 122:

1. Without prejudice to any other procedures provided for in the Treaties, the Council, on a proposal from the Commission, may decide, in a spirit of solidarity between Member States, upon the measures appropriate to the economic situation, in particular if severe difficulties arise in the supply of certain products, notably in the area of energy.

2. Where a Member State is in difficulties or is seriously threatened with severe difficulties caused by natural disasters or exceptional occurrences beyond its control, the Council, on a proposal from the Commission, may grant, under certain conditions, Union financial assistance to the Member State concerned. The President of the Council shall inform the European Parliament of the decision taken.

On with the motley!

Karlsruhe court's decision is to be published tomorrow

Well, actually, later today as it is past midnight. Here is Reuters preliminary report of what will be in that decision.

Germany's top court is expected to grant parliament more say over future aid payments to crisis-hit euro zone countries in a landmark ruling on Wednesday, but stop short of blocking Berlin's contributions to a series of multi-billion euro bailout packages.

I have written about the case before, here and here. Undoubtedly, I shall write again tomorrow morning.

A somewhat different view of Turkey's foreign policy

The ongoing row between Turkey and Israel, which has prompted the former to expel the latter's ambassador and to downgrade diplomatic relations between the two countries has prompted some analysts to describe Turkish foreign policy as a complete disaster.

Israel’s decision not to abide by the Turkish ultimatum about the need to apologize for the May 2010 Mavi Marmara flotilla incident brought the promised “Plan B” punishment: Turkey has decided to expel Israel’s ambassador to Ankara, downgrade its diplomatic ties to the lowest possible level, to hold on all military agreements and to halt trade between Turkey and Israel.

Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu said his government would now provide full support to the families of those killed to pursue prosecution of any Israeli military or government members responsible for the deaths.

Moreover, President Abdullah Gul strongly condemned the United Nations Palmer Report, because it considered Israel’s naval blockade of Gaza “a legitimate security measure” and stated that Turkey could have done more to dissuade the Turkish flotilla participants from their actions. He deemed it “null and void” and sent a veiled threat to Israel: “Turkey, as the most powerful country in the region, will not only protect its own rights but also those of all the people in need.”

Davutoglu declared that “Turkey would take measures to ensure free maritime movement in the eastern Mediterranean.”

Until several months ago Turkey’s policy of “zero problems” with all its neighbors, a “bridge between East and West,” and Middle Eastern activism, devised by Davutoglu, seemed successful.

The publicized incident of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan viciously attacking President Shimon Peres at the World Economic Forum in Davos in January 2009 and the May 2010 international flotilla incident led by the Turkish Islamist organization IHH brought Erdogan’s and Turkey’s standing in the Arab world to its peak.

The Mavi Marmara incident and the ensuing crisis with Israel mark also the beginning of the failure of this policy.

The attempt to mediate a peace agreement between Israel and Syria faded away; the excessive support to Hamas led to frosty relations with the then Mubarak regime in Egypt and even with the Palestinian Authority; Turkey appeared more and more as a potential Islamist threat rather than an asset to the West and NATO.

It is fair to say that during this year Turkey called it wrong several times about the Arab countries and developments in them but so have many Western countries and leaders. As for Cyprus, that remains a long-standing problem and to talk of the Turkish invasion without mentioning what prompted it is futile. Turks and Turkish Cypriots have long memories: they remember Greek ambitions of the early seventies and of the more recent past. Nor do they feel that the EU played entirely fairly by Northern Cyprus.

The question is really why is Turkey finding it so hard to finesse the issue of Gaza and the flotilla, to the point of violently opposing the UN report on the subject. Why, for example, is Prime Minister Erdogan discussing the possibility of visiting Gaza during his trip to Egypt? After all, given the situation in that country and the tense relationship between Turkey and various Arab states, there is enough to discuss without antagonizing Israel even further. Or so one would think.

Misleading titles

Even though my knowledge of German is shaky, I could understand this title in Die Welt: "Die Deutschen wollen mehr Europa". The Germans, I read, want more Europa. But not, I noticed, more European Union. My reading of the title and my stuttering through the article was confirmed by Open Europe and its team of translators:

According to a series of Deutschlandtrend polls conducted by ARD, only 35% of Germans accept “limited” versions of Eurobonds, with 55% opposing them. 66% do not support stronger eurozone countries providing credit guarantees for weaker ones, while 80% believe that “the worst of the euro– anddebt – crisis is yet to come.” 64% support “more common policy making in Europe over the next few years” (mehr gemeinsame Politik in Europa). However, the question does not mention the EU and does not ask whether respondents agree that powers should be transferred to the EU institutions. Answering a separate question, 53% of respondents said they were opposed to the idea of “United States of Europe”, with only 42% in favour.

Then Open Europe makes something of a boo-boo of its own. They quote from the Finnish business magazine Talouselämä (goodness, do they have Finnish translators in Open Europe?) and say in the heading: "47% of Finns think euro has done more harm than good, down from 71% a year ago". What?

Ahem, no. As you were. The translated and summarized text says:

Meanwhile, a poll conducted last week by Taloustutkimus Oy for Finnish business magazine Talouselämä shows that 49% of Finns are opposed to Finnish participation in EU emergency aid to Greece, while only 34% support the EU bailout. The same poll showed that 47% of Finns think the euro has done more good than harm, down from 71% in a Eurobarometer poll a year ago.

Exactly, the opposite to what the title says. Here are the figures on the opposition to the bail-out on Reuters. And here is the full story in English on YLE. Maybe there are no Finnish translators in Open Europe, after all. That might explain the perplexing heading.

Finland, meanwhile, refuses to budge on the question of the collateral agreement with Greece and the Prime Minister has been threatened with a meeting with Council President Van Rompuy on Monday morning. There's a threat to bring terror into any politician's heart.

More news from Turkey

The developments in Turkey are extremely interesting. Definitely, a country worth watching as this blog tries to do, most recently in this posting. Today the Telegraph tells us that

The Turkish Foreign Ministry said on Friday that negotiations over the Alliance’s anti-missile shield had reached “their final stages.”

“It is anticipated that the early warning radar system allocated by the US for Nato will be deployed in our country,” said a statement.

During the Cold War Turkey was one of the crucial members of NATO both because of her geographic position and because of her determination to play an important part in the struggle. A number of senior British officers (mostly retired now) have spoken highly of Turkey's contribution in my hearing.

In the present situation Turkey is once again the lynchpin and it looks like the government is determined to make the most of that.

We don't give in ... except when we do

This evening I ambled along to the two rallies outside the Royal Albert Hall and got there towards the end. There were two groups, one anti the Israel Philharmonic, brandishing Palestinian flags and the usual slogans; one in support with Israeli flags, Union flags and even a St George's flag as well as some Irish symbols. But it was all quiet. So I went on to do some shopping and got home to find that the concert had been disrupted by people shouting abuse in the first half during the violin solo when Radio 3 had interrupted its live broadcast. Then Radio 3 went back and, it seems, the protesters were not weeded out as they started screaming abuse again. Radio 3, once again interrupted its broadcast and decided not to continue with it, but to play the same pieces on music in recordings but not ones made by the Israel Philharmonic. In essence, the BBC gave in to the thugs. Something to be proud of?

Oh, and may one point out to the BBC and to the Evening Standard that bags are not searched in order to wean out political protesters. That can't be done. Bags are searched because anti-Israeli protesters have been known to blow themselves up, taking many other people with them. Is there some problem these people have with telling the truth?

The Telegraph reports that the concert went on in the Hall, that some members of the audience tweeted back to the BBC to say that the "protesters" were shouted at to stop and that part of the concert will be broadcast on Wednesday, September 7 at 2.30 pm. Will they have it on iPlayer as usual? We don't know.