Airstrip One

Free Life Commentary
Issue Number 110
Monday, 25 August 2003
http://www.seangabb.co.uk/flcomm/flc110.htm
This article and many replies to it will be published in the next issue of Free Life Magazine:
http://www.seangabb.co.uk/freelife/

“Nej till Euron”
Fighting the Evil Empire in Another Province
By Sean Gabb

Adlon Hotel, Stockholm, Monday 25th August 2003

With Mrs Gabb, I am in Sweden for two reasons. The first is to address the summer conference of one of the main libertarian movements in Scandinavia. The second is to help strengthen the no campaign in the closing stages of the Swedish referendum on the Euro. It was my intention to write a long account of the things seen and done during this past week, together with observations on the Swedish people and their architecture and language. But I am presently short of time, and the glare of the television lights has dimmed all else but the events they illuminated. I will write at more length when back in England. For the moment, though, I will concentrate on the second reason for my visit.

Late last year, the Swedish Prime Minister - some vain creature whose name escapes me, but who likes to get himself photographed in company with Tony Blair - decided to try pushing his country into the Euro. He announced a referendum, and doubtless imagined that a year of campaigning would so wear out everyone else that he would have his way in the end. Sadly for him, though most of the parties and media and most of the Swedish establishment in general were in favour of giving up the Crown, the Swedish people have so far shown unwilling. With three weeks to go before the vote, the opinion polls continue to report strong opposition. The yes campaign seems to have more money and a better co-ordination of effort than the diverse coalition of movements against joining. But truth and greater commitment have so far been decisive.

Not surprisingly, the campaigners for a yes vote have descended from vague generalities - peace in Europe, more investment and jobs in Sweden, and so forth - to specific falsehoods. The claim at present is that Sweden cannot escape the Euro, since just about every country in Europe either is a member already or is about to become one. Even Britain, they insist, will join within the next few years. This being so, Sweden has no choice.

It was with these claims in mind that one of the more vigorous groups campaigning against the Euro - Medborgare Mot EMU, which is Citizens Against Economic and Monetary Union - decided to bring over some British Eurosceptics to explain that Britain was in fact very unlikely ever to join. This group is led by Margit Gennser, a former Conservative Member of Parliament in Sweden, and has Erik Lakomaa as its Campaigns Director. Together, they chose to invite me, Madsen Pirie of the Adam Smith Institute, and Bernard Connolly, former civil servant with the European Commission and author of The Rotten Heart of Europe. We made our presentations this morning at the Swedish Academy of Engineering Sciences, before an audience of bankers and politicians and virtually all the main Swedish media.

We began at 10:00 am. After a brief introduction by Professor Kurt Wickman, who was chairing the meeting, Madsen Pirie went first. What I like most about listening to Madsen is that beneath the entertaining surface of what he says is a logical structure of argument that lets whatever he says be reconstructed from memory days or even months after the event. I first noticed this at a conference in 1988, when I was able to sit down two days after he had introduced us to the concepts of an internal market and diversity of funding in the National Health Service - dull stuff now, but exciting when explained by one of the people who had just helped think of it - and write three pages without a single note. Today was no exception. Madsen began thus:

“I was first in Sweden 35 years ago. While I was here, you changed from driving on the left of the road to driving on the right. I well remember the endless confusion during the weekend of the change - the traffic jams, the young men and women with their yellow jackets and flags, and the general excitement of the change.

“In retrospect, all Sweden got was to put itself at a disadvantage in a car market that still includes, Britain, Japan, India, and various other important places. I am here again during what may be a process of change, and I can tell you this with pretty near certainty - whatever you may decide in the next few weeks, British driving will continue to be on the left and its politics on the right.”

He now moved to explaining the “five tests” set by Gordon Brown - that is, the political device for ruling out British membership of the Euro until it could be shown not to be bad for the economy. This had not been shown. He dwelt on the considerable differences between the British and European financial economies. For example, 70 per cent of British families owned their homes. 80 per cent of mortgages were advanced under variable rate agreements - that is, payments rose and fell with changes in the lending rate set by the bank of England. This was often very unlike the rest of Europe, where people either rented or bought on fixed rate mortgages. In Europe, a change of interest rates could take 18 months to have an effect on consumer spending. In Britain, the change was almost immediate. This made the activities of whoever is in charge of monetary policy far more important in Britain that elsewhere.

Again, he said, the British economy was far more open and flexible than those on the Continent. Even after six years of Gordon Brown, Britain remained by European standards a country of low taxes and light regulation. This had allowed the country to attract up to 40 per cent of all direct inward investment to the European Union as a whole. “In terms of geography” he said, “Britain is just off the coast of Europe. In economic terms, it is somewhere in the mid-Atlantic - half way between Europe and America.” Nothing that might seriously damage these facts could be considered.

From this, Madsen passed to the political consequences of joining the Euro - how it would increase the regulatory pressures from Brussels. He concluded:

“At the moment, let me assure you, there is an 80 per cent probability that Britain will not join the Euro. If you vote no to the Euro next month, that probability will rise to 100 per cent. Voting no will not leave you isolated in Europe.”

Madsen spoke for about 15 minutes, which was just right for the audience. I saw two campaigners for the Euro looking concerned as they discussed his speech. Next, I spoke. For those who are interested, a recording of my speech will soon be somewhere on the Internet. For those who cannot wait, or do not care to endure my loud, flat voice, what I said went roughly as follows:

“Dr Pirie has explained very convincingly the reasons why, on both micro and macroeconomic grounds, Britain will not join the Euro. I will now explain why, on political grounds, this will not happen.

“You can never under-estimate the vanity and stupidity of politicians - look, for example, at your own Prime Minister. However, what politicians usually want above all is a quiet life. It is perfectly obvious that trying to get Britain into the Euro will give no one in government anything but trouble.

“As in Sweden, there must be a referendum before Britain can join the Euro. The first difficulty with this will be the question. This will inevitably cause an argument. No matter how fair the questions seems to one side, the other will claim bias. Probably, the matter will end up in court, and there is no certainty of what the Judges will rule. The politicians may well find themselves going into a referendum with a question not of their choosing.

“Then there is the matter of funding. The State will give money to both sides, but this will be greatly supplemented by wealthy activists. The result will be a disadvantage for one side. This might also end in court.

“Though the Government might win all cases brought against it, the mere fact of being taken to court would make many of the electors suspect they were being tricked - and this would incline them to vote against joining even if they could think of no other reason.

“Then there is the matter of public opinion. For years now, there has been an overwhelming majority against joining the Euro. No campaign is likely to change this. Most likely, the Government would lose. In theory, it could stay in office having lost a referendum. But the moral damage would be immense, and it might destroy the Government.

“Even assuming a victory, there would be trouble. In the first place, the opponents of entry would not just go away. They would make loud accusations of cheating. Many would turn out to even louder street demonstrations. Some might even start campaigns of civil resistance. In the second, whatever government took us into the Euro would be made to accept the full blame for the next recession. At present, we all know there will be a recession, but no one seems much inclined to blame Gordon Brown. After all, the Conservatives won elections in 1983 and 1992 as the country was bottoming out in very deep recessions. They lost an election in 1997 about half way through one of the most spectacular booms in British history. Since Margaret Thatcher retaught us our economics, we have learnt to regard politics and economics as largely separate matters. In the Euro, we would blame the politicians for any recession. They took us in, we would insist. The Euro caused the recession, we would assert. We would crucify them.

“So what is in it for the Government? The answer is nothing. Tony Blair might look for some reward in Europe - the Presidency, perhaps - but what about Gordon Brown and Jack Straw and David Blunkett, and all the others who would expect to stay behind and live with any resulting mess?

“One should never say never. But assuming some understanding of their self-interest, the various members of the British Government have no reason to lift a finger to get the country into the Euro. It will not happen.

Now, I was warned before giving this speech that - to quote John Cleese - I should not mention the War. I do not think I have. But if I have, I do not think you noticed.

I put in this rather odd final point because some other British Eurosceptics had recently visited and had given credibility to the yes campaign by insisting that the European Union was exactly the same as the Europe intended by the German National Socialists. It seems that most Swedes know the scripts of Fawlty Towers by heart, and we decided to throw in the reference so we could head off the usual boring questions about paranoid xenophobia and whatever. It got a big laugh and a round of applause.

Next came Bernard Connolly. He spoke at much greater length - nearly an hour - and concentrated on the details of which he was a master and Madsen and I were not. He spelt out the corruption and incompetence at the heart of European decision making, giving examples of how economic decisions are made for political ends, and how these are made to work no matter at what cost to productive and allocative efficiency. It was a speech worth hearing, but was too long and involved for me to retain the full threads.

Then there was questioning from the floor, but this produced nothing new and is not something I feel any duty to report.

I will not report the comments I received. But I know I did a good job. I looked smart in my suit. I spoke clearly and fluently. I conformed closely to the Madsen Pirie school of public speaking - “stand up, speak up, shut up”. I also handled a long interview for the television rather well. I had been willing to bet money that no one in the Swedish media would have bothered to find our who I was. But the researchers had been set to work, and I faced a polite grilling about the Candidlist, about the Libertarian Alliance, and about my reasons for not wanting laws against drinking and driving. I answered all questions honestly and dully - that is, I killed any story that might have been under construction. My experience is that straight answers are always the best. This was no exception.

The efforts today of the three British visitors - and mine were less than a third of the whole - have tended to help the no campaign in Sweden. We have not in ourselves made a great difference. But we have helped to knock down the claims that Britain is about the join the Euro, and that Sweden ought to hurry to avoid being left out.

I would normally be dubious about getting involved in the internal politics of another country. But referenda on the Euro are a different matter. The European Union is a threat to all the peoples of Europe. In the face of this common threat, we help ourselves by helping each other. I am sure the Swedish politicians do not intend to take no for an answer in this referendum. As in Denmark and the Irish Republic, their intention, if they lose, is simply to keep holding new referenda until they get the answer they want. However, this may not work. The Euro is an economic disaster. All the promises made in its favour have come to nothing. If the Swedes vote against joining, the British will not even be asked. If Britain stays out, the whole project may begin to unravel.

The Europhiles often call people like me “narrow little nationalists”. We are encouraged to visit other member states of the Europe Union, and to get involved in issues of common importance. We are told to learn that our fellow citizens of the European Union are people just like ourselves, with similar problems and similar hopes. Well, I have taken that advice - and I hope its results will not be pleasing.

==========================
Free Life Commentary is an independent journal of comment, published on the Internet. To receive regular issues, send an e-mail
To: sean@libertarian.co.uk
Body: Subscribe “Free Life Commentary” Your Name
Clickable version: Subscribe -
mailto:sean@libertarian.co.uk?body=Subscribe%20FL-Commentary

Issues are archived at http://www.seangabb.co.uk

Associated websites:
http://www.seangabb.co.uk http://www.samizdata.net
http://www.libertarian.co.uk http://www.hampdenpress.co.uk
http://www.liberalia.com http://www.libertarian.to

This article is being discussed on:
libertarian-alliance-forum@yahoogroups.com
and replies will be published in the next issue of Free Life:
http://www.seangabb.co.uk/freelife/

Replies to Sean Gabb , Mobile Number: 07956 472199

Sean Gabb, author of the above article, declares that it may be reproduced in any form, on condition that it is reproduced in full, accurately and without any distortions of meaning; and on condition that if he would under normal circumstances have been paid a fee, he shall be paid the full going rate for the work, whenever it is reproduced.

Zimwatch: Client State - 27th August 2003, 6.56

The South African Development Community agreed to intervene in its members to maintain internal peace, up to and including the use of force. Under a veneer of regional communalism, the Republic of South Africa has managed to persuade its neighbours to adopt a de facto status as client states.

With their call for sanctions on Zimbabwe to be lifted, it is not difficult to see troops entering the former Rhodesia to preserve the regime of ZANU-PF, if internal resistance were to prove too burdensome for the governing authorities.

The Seychelles have wisely decided to leave this 'empire' before it gets started.

The Silly Season Is Over - 26th August 2003, 22.15

One could argue that the 'silly season', that staple of August holidays, was sadly truncated this year with the ongoing focus upon the Hutton Inquiry. Nevertheless, the rest of Europe has decided to enjoy the heatwave and take their traditional four week siesta, even if it means that they provide no support for the weak and infirm. However, the European Constitution has begun to twitch the antennae of Europe's pols as they attempt to stop the wheels following off their unwieldy trolley.

Joschka Fischer, the German Foreign Minister, was providing this line in Prague. A strong Europe and a strong America woudl stand together. Unravelling the "success" of the European Constitution would be absolutely "terrible". This rather camp performance didn't put off the Czechs who noted that if you didn't want to negotiate any further, then why bother having an inter-governmental conference. They obviously still haven't got used to their new position as a rubber stamp. The same position formed the crux of Berlusconi's meeting with Gerhard Schroeder and the opening salvo of the European MPs.

The strategies for defending the present draft were also in evidence. Berlusconi envisaged no more than two to three major amendments to the Constitution and the Constitutional Committee of the European Parliament suggested that referenda should be held on the same day as the European elections in 2004.

The European parliamentarians recognised that referenda could prove the Achilles heel of this process. The European political class desperately wishes that their efforts could be given a veneer of democracy, especially if a majority of Member States voted in favour. However, the economic and political winds are not blowing in their favour as Euroland suffers from a slowdown that can be blamed, in part, on monetary union. Denmark is always a special case, but Germany has turned more Eurosceptic in the last few months and the French public can never be relied upon.

Only in Britain is the Constitution seen as a final step that closes the Euro debate. This has highlighted the trust that the public place in Tony Blair and has proved a constant reminder of his unwillingness to yield to his own rhetoric and allow the People to make their choice. If the Constitution is passed, the Telegraph argues that this will no longer matter:

Yet sincere euro-fanatics need not despair entirely, for the proposed European constitution would make the question of euro membership largely redundant. Under its terms, Brussels would "coordinate the economic and employment policies of the member states", gaining control of everything from maximum working hours to permissible budget deficits.

In such circumstances, the right to mint our own currency would be like Scotland's right to print its own banknotes today: symbolically important, but no guarantee of economic independence. Perhaps Mr Blair is playing a longer game than we think.

This autumn will prove decisive for the future of Britain and Europe.

Are we building a funeral pyre?

Sorry to use the Enoch quote, but this post from Gene Expression should make the blood run cold. I simply cannot understand why we are going on counterproductive missions in the Middle East to counter Islamic terrorism, and yet we not only do not deport dodgy Muslim preachers (such as the one behind this group) but we actually still have a sizeable Muslim influx.

Shutting the borders to Muslim immigration would be a step that could seriously reduce terrorism in this country, unlike invading half the Muslim world.

Supping with the Devil - 23rd August 2003, 22.36

David Clark produces a strong article in the Grauniad on the current fissures in the Left over foreign policy. His assertion that this is the strongest division yet seen on the Left with mainstream figures lining up in the antiwar lobby is an arguable reading of recent political history.

However, his analysis that the Left has split between the Blairites who support a doctrine of humanitarian intervention versus the fetishists who idealise international law is spot on.

Before Sept. 11, there was substantial agreement between them about the principles that ought to underpin a progressive foreign policy. There was consensus on the need to move beyond narrow realism by accepting wider humanitarian obligations as part of a responsible global citizenship. There was a belief that it was time to act on the promises contained in the universal declaration of human rights. And there was a willingness to use military force, in extremis, to achieve these objectives.

The rights and wrongs of this [intervention in Kosovo] have been hotly debated, but the interventionists were at one in maintaining that the values of the UN charter should be upheld even if it meant bypassing its institutions, and they were right to do so. Those who opposed them indulged in a form of procedural fetishism by which the sanctity of a discredited veto system was considered more important than the prevention of crimes against humanity. They also relied on a narrow and static interpretation of international law that ignored its tendency to evolve in accordance with custom and practice.

Clark stated that the opposition to Blair arose from his alliance with the neoconservatives. Howver, the neoconservatives are painted as geopolitical sculptors who wish to remodel other states with the face of the United States. This places great emphasis upon their ideology at the expense of the strands of realism that suffuse their political responses to events. That is why Bush can outflank opponents on the Left and support the establishment of a Palestinian state. The neoconservatives surprise their critics because they are more flexible than their ideology would suggest.

Opponents of the war did not attack Blair because of his alliance with the Americans. They attacked the war as it did not meet their perception of what international law demanded and the Coalition was willing to attack Iraq without gathering a necessary consensus to justify bypassing the UN.

Of course, with the Hutton inquiry and the 'nation building' in Iraq, neoconservatism and its wartime allies are foundering, both here and abroad. It can only triumph if its original aims in the war on terror are pursued: the 'regime change' in states that support terror - Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Libya, and their replacement by US sponsored democracies. That is unlikely to be the case now.