The Gift Horse: The Euro crisis

Beware of Greeks bearing gifts. The advice has endured for many centuries. Far more recent is the advice to the Greeks to beware of Europeans bearing gifts, such as that which slashes what they owe by 50%. The Greeks, though, know a thing or two about deceptive gifts. They invented them. Or it. The European Trojan Horse that the Greeks are expected to admit into their walls comes stuffed with an army-load of more austerity. Ingrates they may be, sending the markets back into further turmoil, but when presented with a dubious gift, they do the only sensible thing – and that’s to call a referendum.

When the Greeks say no and send the Trojan Horse packing, they’ll be waving it goodbye from a dock side in Piraeus with banners proclaiming the default it was meant to avoid and their fond adieus to the Eurozone. Why bother waiting? Let them default now and get on with it.

Of course there is another way of looking at it. The referendum ruse is a way of extracting more gifts. 50%? Why not make it 25%? Or one can also see it as the Greeks wanting to get a bit of pride back. They have spent the last few months being portrayed as tax-swindling, idle ne’er-do-wells and now have to put up with Sarkozy saying that they made their numbers up on the back of a fag packet after a good night on the retsina.

Well, they probably did make up their numbers, pre-Euro admission, but then most European countries have played fast and loose to different degrees with “the rules”. The French, for example.

In the days – when were they, as they seem like centuries ago – when Gordon Brown was arriving at his tests for the UK’s entry into Euroland, a key measure was the ability to comply with the stability pact, the one that the French (and the Germans) regularly flouted. In fact, everyone did with the probable exception of the powerhouse that is Luxembourg.

Anyway, let’s not worry too much about who made up what figures, more pressing is what happens when Greece goes totally belly-up, as in Papandreou loses the referendum, Greece exits the euro, total chaos ensues and hyperinflation takes over with the printers pumping out so many notes that it will require pantechnicons to carry the money and not the wheelbarrows of the Weimar Republic.

Hmm, ah yes, Weimar Republic, economic and political chaos, hyperinflation. The Germans should know all about what follows from such circumstances. Indeed the Greeks should have a shrewd idea what can happen as well.

But then it is only Greece. Except of course it isn’t. There is always, well, Spain for instance. So just hypothesise for a moment. Poor old Mariano Rajoy, some time into his tenure as prime minister, finds himself in dire need of a bail-out, Europe comes along bearing gifts (assuming any of the trillion or so is left or the Chinese keep pumping money in) and effectively takes over the government, which, more or less, is what would happen in Greece. Referendum follows. Chaos ensues.

Leaving the Eurozone doesn’t mean leaving the European Union, but much would depend on how the political chaos is handled. The Greeks, and the Spanish, have, when all said and done, some form. It wouldn’t be a case of choosing to leave the European Union but of possibly being booted out. Idiotic concerns about having an identity residence card or not would be supplanted by rather different concerns.

The Spanish hypothesis might remain just that – an hypothesis. Much though a Greek no could create the long-anticipated domino effect that brings Spain to its financial knees, the possibility exists that Europe would still support Greece. It is also just possible that the Greeks would vote yes. Faced with more European-imposed austerity or leaving the Eurozone, they may decide to err in favour of the Euro.

Much might rest, however, on what voices come to the fore in the meantime. As this is as much a political as it is an economic issue, chuck some highly populist mouthpiece into the equation, one that damns Europe and anyone or anything else, and who knows what might happen. This might be the worry, either before or after a Greek referendum, and so it might also be for other countries, Spain included.

Whither the European Odyssey now? Who can predict with certainty, just as who could have predicted how the journey would unfold before the adventure was embarked upon. Whether the Greeks prefer to look a gift horse in the mouth will depend upon what they understand by “gift”. In German the word means poison.

Any comments to andrew@thealcudiaguide.com please.

Voting Rights?: Go to New Zealand

One of the dangers with “burning issues” for the expatriate community is that we end up repeating ourselves, myself included. If not winter flights and tourism or all-inclusives, then voting rights. In addition to repetition, we might also not get a wholly accurate or complete picture.

“Brussels thinks Spain’s stance on non-Spanish voters is undemocratic.” (“The Bulletin”, 15 October.) I’m not sure Brussels does think this. Brussels, or some bureaucrats or politicians lurking within its labyrinths may think, just possibly, that a new decree should be issued regarding voting rights for expatriates in national elections, but if they do, then they would have the whole of the EU in mind. The issue is not a Spanish one but a European one.

Just to remind you. Under terms of the Single Market, provision was made for expatriates (of whatever nationality within the EU) to be able to vote in European and local elections in the country in which they are resident. No provision was made for national elections. That was the agreement, and it still is.

The agreement doesn’t prevent countries from granting a vote in general elections, if they so wish. But only two EU countries – Ireland and Portugal – have come anywhere near to doing so. In Ireland, a proposal to permit voting for the Dáil and for the President has been around for three years, but it remains only a proposal.

There are anomalies with voting rights for foreign nationals, such as Irish citizens (and Commonwealth subjects) being permitted to vote in a British general election and, in parts of the UK, a Spanish or any other EU resident being able to vote for a devolved parliament or assembly, while a Brit in Spain cannot vote in a regional election.

Anomalies aside, the undemocratic aspect of voting rights in the EU lies not with the current restrictions on foreign residents but with disenfranchisement from any national election. The UK 15-year rule is not the only such rule. If you are Danish and have permanently lived outside of Denmark for two years, you lose your right to vote.

Such disenfranchisement, unbalanced by a right to vote in the country of residence (i.e. Spain, for our purposes), is undemocratic, or appears to be, as it goes against the principle of universal suffrage. But suffrage itself is wrapped up in concepts of citizenship and national sovereignty. Limited suffrage can be granted, as with the provisions of the Single Market, but in the most important manifestation of suffrage – that of voting for national parliaments – unless you are a citizen of a country, you cannot vote.

There are countries in which foreigners can vote in national elections. Permanent residents in New Zealand can. In Uruguay, there is a fifteen-year qualification rule. But these are very much the exception. The principle is, overwhelmingly, citizenship equals the right to vote for a national parliament; a national parliament is a supreme expression of sovereignty; and sovereignty is enshrined in national constitutions.

The limited rights to voting within the EU have required constitutional amendments. To extend rights to national elections would require further changes and thus a huge political debate. In Spain, any constitutional amendment does, strictly speaking, require a referendum. The EU might mandate voting rights for foreigners in national elections (though I would personally doubt that it would, certainly not in the current climate with the problems with the Euro), but this would still necessitate constitutional changes.

Just think about it for a moment. Would the British Government go along with such a directive from Europe? Well, would it? Apart from anything else, the right-wing press would be in uproar. The same in Spain. While British residents might press their claims to vote, has anyone asked the Spanish what they would think? Politically, it would be a step too far, and for the EU to mandate such a move would probably signal its own collapse. And were it to, then the whole burning issue of voting rights would cease to be an issue.

I have no disagreement with citizenship being paramount in determining who should be allowed to vote (and please, let’s not have any we’re all Europeans speciousness). Where a change might be made is with respect to the length of time one has been resident, as in Uruguay, but there should also be strings attached, as contemplated by the Irish, one being to pass a language test. After all, if you can’t command the language, how can you have true command of the issues, always assuming of course that you are interested? But that is a different matter entirely.

Any comments to andrew@thealcudiaguide.com please.

Banking Mad: We’re Europeans Whether We Like It Or Not

Some time back in the nineties, I think it was 1995, I was invited to meet a founder of an organisation that was to be some sort of lobby group for European integration. He was looking for someone to be its director of communications. We met in a London club, and I suppose I poured out my good “European” credentials.

I never heard again from him and nor did I ever hear more of the organisation. Perhaps it was all a pipe dream, like much of the European “project” – as it is turning out.

You can get things wrong. You are permitted to change your mind. Even in the mid-90s when the project seemed as exciting as it was, there was a nagging doubt in the back of my mind. How was it all supposed to work?

Around the same time, I met Gerry Malone, the former Conservative MP. It was to discuss a publication in which he had an interest along with Andrew Neil. Once more nothing came of it, but perhaps because of bigger fish to fry – Neil became editor of “The European” and Malone went on to succeed him before the newspaper (by then in magazine format) folded at the end of 1998.

Wind forward to around 2005, and I am inventing the idea of a story that has yet to be written but which is threatening to be played out. The story’s premise was the descent of Europe into war, not a military war but an economic war, the background being the collapse of the economic system. I claim no foresight, it just seemed like a good and imaginary apocalyptic vision to provide the context for a story.

All these things were coming to mind as I listened to Andrew Neil giving Ken Clarke the run around on radio the other evening. Clarke was that rare beast, a Conservative beast of a politician for whom I have had any time. Was. He has come to sound like a parody of himself, not just in how he speaks but also what he speaks. The sheer arrogant insouciance was staggering. At one point, as Ken droned on, I’m sure I detected the sound of someone sarcastically snoring, and it presumably wasn’t the presenter John Pienaar.

This was a discussion about the state of the Euro, the EU and Ireland and its descent into what is now also political turmoil. It’s not an issue about the Euro, so Clarke was saying, but one of out-of-control bankers. Right but also wrong as the Euro was and is the currency.

Sitting in Spain listening to this, you know full well what’s coming next. The fire storm is heading southwards. Perhaps. The Spanish economy slipping back again, more austerity measures to be handed out in a desperate attempt to stave off the inevitable. Zapatero might yet face his own early elections when the flames start to encroach upon Madrid’s city limits.

You are permitted to admit that you were wrong, to admit that you were sold a pup. Or this at least is how the “project” is panning out: the with-hindsight pretentious notion of being “Europeans”, an entirely specious concept that sought to graft a nationhood onto enduring diversity. Why did “The European” fail? Apart from the original idea of the highly pro-European Robert Maxwell being “barking mad” according to Gerry Malone, it was because it was – as has been said elsewhere – a paper for a nation which didn’t exist; which doesn’t exist and is never likely to exist.

The flaws with the Euro are not for me to go into, but fundamentally a currency unsupported by a harmonised political structure and harmonised institutions and financial and fiscal policies was always going to be a tough call. It was a massive experiment which may now be unravelling along with the political conceit that brought it about but at the same time the laudable political motives behind integration. What was created in order to overcome division is generating it – economic war but also sociopolitical war, one predicated on migration that has inflamed old prejudices and, more seriously, precisely the extremism that it was meant to stamp out.

We know the arguments in favour. Of course we do. Don’t we? And one is to avoid economic war, which is why Ireland will not be allowed to go to the wall, which is only right. But how often can this be repeated and remain politically acceptable if other countries are to be bailed out? Who next? Well, we know who next. Or at least we think we do. An unsettling idea is that one can sit in Spain and listen to Andrew Neil versus Ken Clarke, be uncomfortable with views that have shifted a considerable distance from the days of a meeting in a London club and be further uncomfortable with the ease of movement that brought one to be sitting in Spain. It’s simply not good enough to rail against the Euro and the European Union, because to do so would be hypocritical.

But, but, but … . The dire predictions regarding Spain may not be accurate. For starters, the Spanish banking system is not in the same mess as Ireland’s. This stems from much tighter regulation on lending and the insistence on banks’ securing debts laid down by the Bank of Spain. Yes, there has been much cash flowing into what are now all but worthless property development and speculation, but the level of lending is not at Irish levels.

So maybe Ken Clarke is right. It isn’t about the Euro, but just about banks. Perhaps so, but sentiment goes a long way, and the sentiment against the Euro and countries perceived as weak within the monetary system goes as far, which is why worries about Spain will remain and why the Euro and the whole European project will attract such anxiety.

But hold on, what would be the alternative? Something potentially altogether worse. To borrow from an Irishman, things may be falling apart, the centre may not be holding, but I, for one, hope to God it does hold. We are Europeans whether we like it or not.

Any comments to andrew@thealcudiaguide.com please.

Mobile Homes: Residency and Spanish voting

Go on then, you’re a British citizen, resident in Mallorca and therefore in Spain. National elections in Spain are looming. Would you vote, if you had the right? Would you know for whom to vote? Would you actually care or be interested?

The absence of voting rights for non-Spanish citizens, for our purposes those from the UK, is a matter that can stick in the craw with some. Tax me and let me vote. But you can’t. Paying tax does not confer rights to participate in a political process. End of story.

Setting aside the apparent contradiction of being disenfranchised when it comes to electing parties which might, you hope, be less inclined to burden you with more tax, the issue of voting rights is a far broader subject, one that embraces nationhood, mobility, integration and whether you can actually be bothered.

An editorial in “The Bulletin” yesterday made a plea for the right to vote in national election. I pay tax, therefore I vote. Turn it around. You’re Mallorcan, a Spanish citizen, resident in the UK, paying UK taxes. Can you vote in a general election? No you cannot. The right to vote at national level, as opposed to local or European elections, is an expression of nationhood, the domain of citizens of the individual country. If you are not a citizen, then you are not a national. Thus, you cannot vote. I find no contradiction in this.

Where the issue has become complicated, however, is through freedom of movement and rights to residency within the European community. The theoretical breakdown of discrimination against foreign nationals, enshrined in European law, has led to a wish to push the barriers back further – to exercise ever more practical applications, such as national voting.

European citizenship bestows rights to vote for a European parliament, not a national one, save for the parliament of your own country. For British citizens, this means Westminster; it doesn’t mean Madrid. Where this does become discriminatory is a British matter, the fifteen-year rule effectively breaking European treaties that allow for voting in British general elections. This in itself isn’t an argument for conferring rights to vote in Spanish elections; the national citizenship rule remains fundamental.

A quirk of the British voting system is that there are indeed those from other countries who can vote in a general election – those from Ireland and the Commonwealth. This, though, brings with it the whole baggage of integration and assimilation, one that applies just as much to expatriates in Spain.

Integration is a largely mythical state. It is a word bandied about without an appreciation as to what it might actually mean. Having a few “Spanish friends”, eating tapas or knowing some of the lingo do not equate to integration. It’s ludicrous to suggest otherwise. Mobility, and its convenient modern-day fellow-travellers, ease of communication and exposure to media, ironically militate against integration. Language and the nuance of language, culture, and, yes, politics remain the stuff of “back home”. In the same issue of “The Bulletin” there was a yes-no interlude regarding Ed Miliband. Would there be a similar one regarding Mariano Rajoy and a pretender to his leadership? If you don’t know who Rajoy is, you’ve probably answered the question. British politics 1, Spanish politics 0; for most expats anyway.

The editorial concluded by asking: “could it be that central government simply does not credit non-Spaniards with the intelligence to understand the issues at stake in a general election?” It isn’t so much a question of intelligence as, for the most part, interest in or even inclination to understand the issues. Making non-Spaniard Brits part of the political process, i.e. granting them the right to vote, might spark an interest, but you might equally encounter a double whammy of apathy: a natural apathy to vote in whatever circumstances combined with an apathy to come to terms with political issues that aren’t those of Britain. This is hypothetical though; the situation doesn’t apply.

Nevertheless, freedom of movement within the European Union does raise an issue in respect of citizenship, in a broad sense as brought about by residency, just as European laws have raised issues regarding absolute parliamentary sovereignty. It is the mobility encouraged by the single market that has inspired demands for national voting. The European Union has created the situation, only it can resolve the voting issue, which it partly addressed in the Maastricht treaty when making provision for voting in local and European elections. But the right for non-nationals to vote in a general election would be a political pill that would be hard to swallow, and it would be unlikely to happen. Or would it?

Any comments to andrew@thealcudiaguide.com please.