Here we go again

Apparently, David Cameron and his party are on a collision course over Europe. So says the great Ben Brogan so it must be true. Or not.

Does crisis bring opportunity? This is the question that is dividing the Conservative Party on Europe. On one side, there are those who see the slow implosion of Greece and the turmoil across the Channel as a heaven-sent chance to achieve a grand renegotiation of Britain’s membership. On the other, are those for whom the crisis is, above all, a threat to our economy that needs to be managed. For them, the idea that in any circumstance – let alone the present mess – the EU would contemplate indulging British fantasies of partial withdrawal is laughable.

The debate is potentially explosive, as it pits David Cameron against a new breed of hard-headed Tory MP, most of whom are members of the vast new intake that poured into Parliament last year. Yet few will have noticed that this discussion is under way, so desperate is the party to avoid being discovered having an argument over Europe. Indeed, one of the features of the Tories in coalition has been their silence on a matter that once defined them. A brave few, veterans of past battles, carry the standard of defiance against the relentless advance of European rule, but they are marginalised, derided by the leadership as barmy and shunned by their newer colleagues who want nothing to do with the toxic arguments of previous generations of parliamentarians.

The truth is that reorganizing the EU would be so difficult and complicated that it is probably not worth attempting, especially, as its aim is a long way from what most Conservatives think it is.

It is my experience, acquired over many years of discussions and debates, both public and private, with Conservatives that the overwhelming majority of them (say, 98 per cent) have absolutlely no understanding of how the European Union is structured, how it legislates and how that legislation and regulations are implemented in the member states. They, therefore, produce all sorts of comments along the lines quoted by Mr Brogan, all of which have just one aim: the presentation of the Conservative Party as the one and only truly eurosceptic political organization in this country, for which all "true" eurosceptics should vote. Sadly, ever more people find this notion ludicrous but not hacks on the Telegraph, including the great Mr Brogan (and, dare I say it, the great Mr Hannan.

Let me add, in case, I have not made my opinions on the subject crystal clear, that, in my view and in the view of many real opponents of the European Union, the same notion is the real purpose of the two (so far) campaigns for an In/Out referendum. By fudging the two ideas, withdrawal and a referendum, the campaigns will, it is hoped by various supporters, convince potential voters that they should rally round the "eurosceptic" politicians in the main parties, most of whom just happen to be in the Conservative one though one or two are Labour.

Which brings me to this hint-hint-nudge-nudge piece in the Express (a firm supporter of that referendum) that tells us on the basis of another wink-wink-know-what-I-mean-know-what-I-mean piece in the Spectator, that there are Cabinet members who end all discussions allegedly in the manner of Cato the Elder, with the words "well, the only solution is to leave the EU".

Well, now, how convenient. Of course, we do not know whether this is true or, even if true, serious and not a half-hearted joke. But it does show, does it not, that the only way real eurosceptics can achieve their aims is by supporting the Tories. And if you believe that, I have a bridge you might be interested in buying.

Let me say it again ...

.... because it cannot be said often enough: those who strike, demonstrate or riot for more state control and more redistribution of wealth by the state, whether in Athens or in London (where the inevitable Socialist Worker posters are much in evidence) are NOT anarchists. They are not anarchists of any kind, not even Bakuninites (and those are close to socialists); they are not anarcho-syndicalists, let alone anarcho-capitalists. One reader of this blog has suggested that they should be called anarcho-statists. Said reader is right but Prince Kropotkin is spinning in his grave.

My first reaction was a groan

Really, I thought, as I looked at the front page of City AM, this is not what I expect from a more or less reasonable newspaper. The Evening Standard has long given up any pretence of being one and its purpose seems to be to run endless campaigns to help or save somebody who is having a bad time. Furthermore, as I have pointed out before, people seem to support all these campaigns with great vigour without ever asking themselves whether the previous similar one had achieved anything worth writing home about. But City AM?

It has proudly announced that Michael Gove is backing their campaign "to improve financial literacy by boosting the number of students who study further maths at A-Level". In fact, this campaign makes some sense in that the drive is to ensure that there are more teachers teaching Further Maths to A level, thus ensuring that more people study Maths or related subjects at the better universities whose Maths departments are filled with foreign rather than British students.

Moving on from there, says Allister Heath, editor of said publication (and a friend), we must eliminate or, at least, greatly diminish the innumeracy and fiscal illiteracy that is "rife in this country". At least, unlike the Evening Standard, City AM does not scruple to lay the blame where it belongs: the educational system, the schools and the teachers.

As outlined by Mr Heath the campaign is targeted and focused as well as hard-hitting. One can support it with ease and I hope businesses do. I am a little less impressed by what, according to the BBC, Mr Gove actually said. It seems that, instead of concentrating on the quality of maths teaching and the need for better school and university qualifications in the subject, regardless of the pupils' background, Mr Gove once again waffled about making Maths compulsory up to the age of 18 and lamented, as he frequently does, the low level of maths teaching in this country as compared with that in East Asian countries.

The problem is, Mr Gove, that if the standard of maths teaching is low up to the age of 16 and not very high at A level, making something that is not good enough compulsor for more pupils is not the answer.

Nothing much has been solved

The Greek Parliament has voted narrowly for a, so far unspecified, austerity package, the details of which will be voted on tomorrow and after that the main problem, that of implementation will come to the fore. Meanwhile, the 48 hour general strike with some attendant violence is continuing. The people of Greece or those of them who can be bothered to turn out on a demonstration when the weather is nice and the beaches call, say that they owe nothing and will pay nothing and the government has no right to sell anything or, indeed, introduce measures to control the debt. In fact, the funders of the Greek several decades long jamboree have no right to demand any conditions on heaving more money over.

This blog takes slightly different views from other eurosceptic outlets. In the first place, the idea of a general collapse across Europe or, even, just the eurozone (not that riots in Greece will cause that as they are historically too common) does not appeal, possibly because of a somewhat wider knowledge and experience of what that sort of collapse entails. People should not assume that the nastiness they see whenever there is a riot somewhere is somehow limited to other people - riots are riots, revolutions are revolutions and real poverty, unknown in this country for many decades, are not pleasant occurrences.

Secondly, this blog has limited sympathy for people who think that the world owes them a living, whether they are school leavers in Britain, people who borrow money from banks with no real intention of repaying it, or the population of Greece. As it happens, they do owe the money and when you owe money you have to pay it back; if you want to borrow more, you must abide by conditions lenders will impose. This should apply to Greece as much as it applies to Sub-Saharan and other developing countries, with the difference that, by and large, the people of Greece have had more of the bonanza that has been pouring into their country than the people of many developing countries.

Those who think that the Greek Parliament should not be imposing austerity measures or selling those extensive state possessions might like to produce some real alternatives. (Just saying we ought never have got to this situation is not good enough. I, too, have been saying that and am one of those who were abused in the late nineties for insisting that the eurozone was unsustainable. The Greeks did not listen, the East Europeans did not listen and our own establishment did not listen. Well, we told you so, but the situation exists and something needs to be done.)

In the meantime City AM has an article that is, unfortunately a little sloppily written. A Legal Battle Could Yet Sink The Greek Bail-Out says Craig Drake.

ALTHOUGH the Greeks will vote today on the adoption of austerity measures, that vote could mean nothing if a court case launched by a group of five German citizens derails Germany’s financial contribution to the bailout. The group, led by Peter Gauweiler, a member of parliament for the Christian Social Union (CSU) party, includes legal academics led by Nuremberg constitutional law professor Karl Albrecht Schachtschneider. They argue that the bailout is unconstitutional both in German and European law.

It goes through the various Articles in the German Constitution that make German funding of the Greek bail-out essentially unconstitutional and, above all, Article 125 of the Lisbon Treaty that specifically prohibits any bail-out of an EU member states either by the EU or other member states. Though, as we know, Article 122.2 can, with a little fudging, be said to allow just that.

Mr Drake thinks that the legal challenge will fail but in the worst traditions of British journalism, omits to mention certain key facts, such as where exactly is the challenge mounted: the German courts, the German Constitutional Court or the ECJ. It makes a lot of difference.

Bloomberg answers the question as well as explaining some of the background in a far more pithy fashion. The case is in the German Constitutional Court in Karlsruhe and it is, in fact, not a new case at all but, just as I suspected as I read the article on the tube, one that has been around for some time and was mentioned on this blog almost a year ago.

As the Bloomberg piece says:

The Federal Constitutional Court in Karlsruhe will hear oral arguments in three cases over the issue on July 5, the court said in an e-mailed statement today. The cases were brought by a group of academics and lawmaker Peter Gauweiler.

“In this lead case, the court for the first time decides in the main proceedings on constitutional questions relating to the Greece aid and the Euro-rescue package,” the court said. “There are many additional cases pending over the issues which will be ruled on subsequently.”

The German high court has drawn criticism for not acting on the suits swiftly on the suits, which were filed in the first half of 2010. The judges declined to issue emergency orders blocking the aid package for Greece in May 2010 and the euro- area rescue fund in June 2010 and didn’t schedule a hearing on the main legal questions in the cases until today.

The likelihood is that the case will fail but one cannot be too certain. Craig Drake's comparison with the badly argued challenge mounted by Stuart Wheeler in 2008 against the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty does not stand. I am sorry to have to say this because, on the whole, I like City AM.

She DID get the job

IMF appoints France's Lagarde as IMF Managing Director.

Another brief comment about the House of Lords

Readers of this blog will know, firstly that I work for various peers in the House of Lords and, secondly, that I do not think the progressive undermining of that institution's position and activity by various governments is in this country's interest.

It always astonishes me that people who ought to know better call for a fully elected Upper House, arguing that somehow, miraculously, that will solve all our problems, make governance more democratic and improve the work of the House of Lords (or Senators as they would be called).

The most obvious response to that is a question about the elected House of Commons. Is it really more democratic, transparent, efficient than the House of Lords? It is elected but, strangely enough, it appears not to know what its constitutional role is. Why would a fully elected House of Lords be any different?

Then there is a question of the peers' independence, particularly those on the Cross-Benches, something that seems not to be well known to the vociferous critics. This morning I attended the Service of Thanksgiving for the life of Lord Monson, where one of the eulogies was spoken by Lord Montgomery, who told us with great delight about Ivan Monson's continuing battle as a Cross-Bench peer, often though not always supported by others, for the various causes, all to do with individual freedom, throughout his stay there.

In a fully elected House of Lords there will be no Cross-Benches, no independent peers, no independent thinking, voting or behaviour at all. There will be no detailed analysis of legislation (done without any salary being received, something else that will change) as all peers will behave just as MPs and the more political members of the Upper House do now: they will obey the Whips and the Leaders.

What matters is the role of an institution and the activity of its members, not the shibboleth of whether they are elected or not. Obviously, the main House has to be elected if we want to preserve any illusion of political accountability. But the necessity for two elected Houses, especially if other reforms do not follow, remains unproven, except for those who think political life has to be controlled by the main parties and their organizations.

Probably she will get the job

As this blog has pointed out before, whenever there is a sex scandal in high places, the job subsequently goes to a woman. Therefore, it seems very likely that Christine Lagarde will get the job at the top of the IMF. Now we get news that the US backs her candidacy against potential challengers from other countries, some of which are developing. I think she'll get it.