Over the past few years, as the combination of recession and government debt has crippled many European economies, much scorn in those hardest-hit countries has been directed at Germany. Widely credited as the motor keeping the Eurozone moving, as a consequence of its fundamental economic contribution to the Eurozone, parallels have been drawn between the economic power Germany wields in Europe today; and its military power in the continent 70 years ago during the Second World War. These comparisons, in my opinion, are deeply unfair.
Firstly, although we know that the choice of member states for the Eurozone, and how it functions, were reckless and irresponsible (particularly with hindsight): tying too-diverse economies together, which, depending on how you look at it, seem either too closely integrated or not close enough for their own good. However, as far as I understand, all those countries that joined the Eurozone did so through their own choice, so the governments of these countries were as reckless and irresponsible as those who established the Eurozone, by not anticipating the potential problems they could face. Moreover, in the cases where governments accumulated debts far exceeding the recommended European Union levels, they left a very dangerous legacy that their people would inevitably have to endure in the foreseeable future. Although the UK faces great problems in terms of debt, the hardest-hit countries in the Eurozone have had a far worse experience due to their membership of this project. The price for some economic protection from other Eurozone members has been very high, as measures to resolve economic problems have been dictated to them. But this is not done out of malice, and to punish the public. Stronger Eurozone countries, like Germany, understandably do not want to be used as a cash-machine, and a means to instant economic support and recovery whenever governments recklessly overspend. Because the economies of the EU are tied together, they all have a stake in each others' successes and failures; hence why the stronger economies are obliged to support the weaker ones in times of crisis. But for this to be a fair process, it makes sense for "terms and conditions" to be imposed in exchange for substantial support, as well as reassuring measures to try and reduce the risk of this happening again. So, really and truly, there should be gratitude for economic support to prevent economic collapse: otherwise, they should seek to withdraw from the Eurozone until they are fiscally-prepared for the realities of a common currency (as outlined in another blog entry). Already, the British public are resentful towards the transfer of billions of pounds to elsewhere in Europe, where there is the chance of these billions being spent unwisely, and with the British having relatively little say over how their money, which could otherwise be used to alleviate current problems in the UK, is being distributed and spent across Europe. Therefore, imagine if Britain was also part of the Eurozone, and sending even more money across the continent to prop up irresponsible governments: with those who are irresponsible receiving money; and those who have spent wisely are transferring it elsewhere, for an indirect benefit, as is the case with Germany. The British would be furious, and potentially demanding their in-out referendum from the EU to be even sooner!
Secondly, Germany is not only the primary contributor to propping up the Eurozone- but it is demonised for doing so! Germany is associated with imposing austerity, but it is doing so for perfectly fair and rational reasons, as explained above. But what is particularly unfair is how so many are comparing today's democratic and peaceful Germany under Chancellor Angela Merkel, to the undemocratic and belligerent Germanys of Bismarck, Kaiser Wilhelm and particularly Hitler. Germany is indeed highly influential in Europe today, with its longest, most sustainable, dominating influence in the continent in history. But, unlike the aforementioned historic leaders of Germany, this increased power and influence has been achieved through hard work, sensible leadership, responsible economic development combined with the willing, ongoing voluntary concessions of sovereignty of other European countries to a federal Europe; as opposed to the military coercion, adopted by these historic leaders, in an attempt to achieve their goals. Germany is a great success, and deserves to be, for doing the right things and making the right decisions. Whether out of jealousy, desperation, an eagerness to find a scapegoat, or a combination of all these factors; unfair criticisms are being directed at Germany today, undermining her with her somewhat controversial history- when really the Germanophobes of today across Europe should consider the logic behind Germany's actions; attempt to empathise with the German government and the German people; and take a closer look at the actions of their own governments before demonising others.
Sunday, 21 April 2013
Sunday, 14 April 2013
Tribute to Margaret Thatcher
At this time, it would be fitting to pay a tribute to a woman I feel was one of the greatest Prime Ministers in British history: Margaret Thatcher. Undoubtedly a controversial leader, following the former Prime Minister's recent death I thought that it would be worth adding my opinion to the many other opinions shared about the Iron Lady- or Marmite Lady as I also consider her, as she seems to be the sort of leader that you either "love or hate" like Marmite- and you are rarely indifferent too.
I don't agree with everything she did: the poll tax was an unfair tax for demanding equal amounts from the richest and poorest in the country; meanwhile, particularly with the aid of hindsight, I wonder if more could have been done to bolster manufacturing during her premiership, rather than shifting focus so dramatically from manufacturing to the services sector. In most ways, I agree with the policies of current Prime Minister David Cameron more than those of Margaret Thatcher. However, I lament the fact that Cameron seems to lack the same level of vision, passion and determination that Mrs Thatcher displayed during her terms of office. Now, I was not even 10 months old when Mrs Thatcher was forced to resign as Prime Minister, so I cannot speak of personal experience during her premiership, although I did undoubtedly grow up at a time when MT's shadow loomed large over British politics...
To understand Mrs Thatcher's impact, it seems best to compare the 1980s (the decade which saw MT as Prime Minister for every single day) with the 1970s. On the one hand, the 1970s are sometimes looked back on nostalgically for the music (ranging from Led Zeppelin to the Rubettes) as well as the TV, which included the family-friendly comedy of Morecambe & Wise; the cheeky sitcom Are You Being Served?; and the witty Fawlty Towers. Meanwhile, there was a spread of jobs in the public and private sector- with those in the public sector seeming to be quite safe, so long as the unions loomed large and deterred governments, whether Conservative or Labour, from even dreaming of ditching their jobs. This was the last decade of what was the Post-War, "Consensus" Britain, where the political mainstream was left-of-centre, and neither of the main parties seemed willing to rock the boat by overtly challenging the welfare state, NHS and nationalisation established by Labour under Clement Attlee in the wake of the Second World War. Whether vehemently opposed or supportive of Mrs Thatcher, few deny that she drastically challenged this vision of Britain; ended much of Consensus Britain; and established the model of Britain which largely remains ever since her premiership.
Despite the positive aspects of the compromising, easy-going Consensus Britain, steering Britain down a road of "managed decline", as the memory of the Empire faded and Britain evolved into a new status as a run-of-the-mill state within the European Community- in some ways it was arguably an unsustainable path, and it's difficult to predict what have happened to Britain were it not for Mrs Thatcher. But Consensus Britain was expensive for the government to maintain, with a large state sector, which would support industries, from British Steel and British Leyland automobiles to the famous coal mines, that was willing to subsidize all industries- regardless of whether they could survive alone on their profits, for the sake of preserving jobs. Whilst a seemingly kind and considerate approach, in practice it empowered potentially militant unions, such as the National Union of Mineworkers under Arthur Scargill, to threaten strikes to bring the country to a standstill if the government even considered curbing their income or numbers. Moreover, funding this was proving increasingly difficult- even raising income tax to unprecedented highs, provoking a flight of many wealthy individuals to less punitive tax regimes (celebrities were the most high profile cases, though there were many others, who took their wealth (and revenue/spending-power) with them from the British economy to another). And yet, Consensus Britain ended with that hallmark of economic failure: a loan from the IMF. To meet the terms of this loan, cuts would have been necessary anyway, as we see across Europe today to meet their bailout conditions.
But with Mrs Thatcher's government, regardless of the IMF loan, there was a determination to sort the nation's finances. The Consensus Britain of the past was economically unsustainable because it was unaffordable, hence why the size of the public sector was cut dramatically; subsidies to unprofitable industries were halted, left to sink or swim naturally; and ultimately, unprofitable mines were closed. This would bring state finances into order, and hopefully bring greater economic stability and sustainability. MT believed in a reduced public sector anyway, taking the view that the state should only provide the essentials and that to create jobs for jobs' sake was impractical. She also considered the state a necessary evil, and disapproved of a state that reached into all spheres of life. She once also said that the state should be the public's servant, not its master- hence why she was motivated to reduce its interference in people's lives. She was a believer in meritocracy: everyone should succeed through their own efforts and abilities, with the government only providing the foundations and a safety net if required.
Moreover, closing unprofitable mines also brought her government directly into confrontation with Mr Scargill's NUM. Though thousands relied on the mines for their livelihood, I can sympathies with a desire to replace them with a more economically-sustainable means than an unprofitable, subsidised industry. Also be mindful that, during the 1970s (and to a lesser extent in the 1960s and 1980s), Mr Scargill led a militant, blackmailing campaign against the governments of the day: keep our jobs and boost our wages, or we'll strike; limit energy supplies; and consequently prevent heat and light entering the homes, workplaces, hospitals and schools across the country. So what was essentially a conflict between the government and a trade union, actually victimised and punished the public more than anyone else. They were the ones who had to endure a "three day week" in the early 70s, due to restrictions of energy supplies. So, understandably, this was not a practice that could be allowed to continue. However, whilst the end of unprofitable mines made sense, more probably should have been provided to fill the inevitable gaps in employment.
As I have said in earlier posts, British involvement in the Falklands War WAS justified: defending the rights of the Falkland Islanders to remain in their homes, under their own government. I also agree with MT's support for European cooperation and common market, yet critical stance on federal European interference in member states' politics.
Her vision was to create a sustainable meritocracy in place of an unsustainable, declining class-bond state; she passionately defended the logic and benefits of her economic model and the rights of Britons' internationally; and she determinedly achieved these goals, though with many victims (including herself) left as a result. Like it or not, Mrs Thatcher transformed Britain from the declining, post-imperial, more modest European state of the Consensus years; to an assertive Britain, doggedly defending seats at the top tables of international diplomacy, challenging European intervention in British governance, and (most controversially of all) willingly sending British troops around the world for international causes: starting with the Falklands War, military activism was continued with the Gulf War, Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as involvement in Libya and elsewhere.
Mrs Thatcher brought many opportunities to Britons from a range of backgrounds; my hope is that the success she brought to the South-East of England will be replicated by her successors elsewhere in the UK as well over coming the years.
I don't agree with everything she did: the poll tax was an unfair tax for demanding equal amounts from the richest and poorest in the country; meanwhile, particularly with the aid of hindsight, I wonder if more could have been done to bolster manufacturing during her premiership, rather than shifting focus so dramatically from manufacturing to the services sector. In most ways, I agree with the policies of current Prime Minister David Cameron more than those of Margaret Thatcher. However, I lament the fact that Cameron seems to lack the same level of vision, passion and determination that Mrs Thatcher displayed during her terms of office. Now, I was not even 10 months old when Mrs Thatcher was forced to resign as Prime Minister, so I cannot speak of personal experience during her premiership, although I did undoubtedly grow up at a time when MT's shadow loomed large over British politics...
To understand Mrs Thatcher's impact, it seems best to compare the 1980s (the decade which saw MT as Prime Minister for every single day) with the 1970s. On the one hand, the 1970s are sometimes looked back on nostalgically for the music (ranging from Led Zeppelin to the Rubettes) as well as the TV, which included the family-friendly comedy of Morecambe & Wise; the cheeky sitcom Are You Being Served?; and the witty Fawlty Towers. Meanwhile, there was a spread of jobs in the public and private sector- with those in the public sector seeming to be quite safe, so long as the unions loomed large and deterred governments, whether Conservative or Labour, from even dreaming of ditching their jobs. This was the last decade of what was the Post-War, "Consensus" Britain, where the political mainstream was left-of-centre, and neither of the main parties seemed willing to rock the boat by overtly challenging the welfare state, NHS and nationalisation established by Labour under Clement Attlee in the wake of the Second World War. Whether vehemently opposed or supportive of Mrs Thatcher, few deny that she drastically challenged this vision of Britain; ended much of Consensus Britain; and established the model of Britain which largely remains ever since her premiership.
Despite the positive aspects of the compromising, easy-going Consensus Britain, steering Britain down a road of "managed decline", as the memory of the Empire faded and Britain evolved into a new status as a run-of-the-mill state within the European Community- in some ways it was arguably an unsustainable path, and it's difficult to predict what have happened to Britain were it not for Mrs Thatcher. But Consensus Britain was expensive for the government to maintain, with a large state sector, which would support industries, from British Steel and British Leyland automobiles to the famous coal mines, that was willing to subsidize all industries- regardless of whether they could survive alone on their profits, for the sake of preserving jobs. Whilst a seemingly kind and considerate approach, in practice it empowered potentially militant unions, such as the National Union of Mineworkers under Arthur Scargill, to threaten strikes to bring the country to a standstill if the government even considered curbing their income or numbers. Moreover, funding this was proving increasingly difficult- even raising income tax to unprecedented highs, provoking a flight of many wealthy individuals to less punitive tax regimes (celebrities were the most high profile cases, though there were many others, who took their wealth (and revenue/spending-power) with them from the British economy to another). And yet, Consensus Britain ended with that hallmark of economic failure: a loan from the IMF. To meet the terms of this loan, cuts would have been necessary anyway, as we see across Europe today to meet their bailout conditions.
But with Mrs Thatcher's government, regardless of the IMF loan, there was a determination to sort the nation's finances. The Consensus Britain of the past was economically unsustainable because it was unaffordable, hence why the size of the public sector was cut dramatically; subsidies to unprofitable industries were halted, left to sink or swim naturally; and ultimately, unprofitable mines were closed. This would bring state finances into order, and hopefully bring greater economic stability and sustainability. MT believed in a reduced public sector anyway, taking the view that the state should only provide the essentials and that to create jobs for jobs' sake was impractical. She also considered the state a necessary evil, and disapproved of a state that reached into all spheres of life. She once also said that the state should be the public's servant, not its master- hence why she was motivated to reduce its interference in people's lives. She was a believer in meritocracy: everyone should succeed through their own efforts and abilities, with the government only providing the foundations and a safety net if required.
Moreover, closing unprofitable mines also brought her government directly into confrontation with Mr Scargill's NUM. Though thousands relied on the mines for their livelihood, I can sympathies with a desire to replace them with a more economically-sustainable means than an unprofitable, subsidised industry. Also be mindful that, during the 1970s (and to a lesser extent in the 1960s and 1980s), Mr Scargill led a militant, blackmailing campaign against the governments of the day: keep our jobs and boost our wages, or we'll strike; limit energy supplies; and consequently prevent heat and light entering the homes, workplaces, hospitals and schools across the country. So what was essentially a conflict between the government and a trade union, actually victimised and punished the public more than anyone else. They were the ones who had to endure a "three day week" in the early 70s, due to restrictions of energy supplies. So, understandably, this was not a practice that could be allowed to continue. However, whilst the end of unprofitable mines made sense, more probably should have been provided to fill the inevitable gaps in employment.
As I have said in earlier posts, British involvement in the Falklands War WAS justified: defending the rights of the Falkland Islanders to remain in their homes, under their own government. I also agree with MT's support for European cooperation and common market, yet critical stance on federal European interference in member states' politics.
Her vision was to create a sustainable meritocracy in place of an unsustainable, declining class-bond state; she passionately defended the logic and benefits of her economic model and the rights of Britons' internationally; and she determinedly achieved these goals, though with many victims (including herself) left as a result. Like it or not, Mrs Thatcher transformed Britain from the declining, post-imperial, more modest European state of the Consensus years; to an assertive Britain, doggedly defending seats at the top tables of international diplomacy, challenging European intervention in British governance, and (most controversially of all) willingly sending British troops around the world for international causes: starting with the Falklands War, military activism was continued with the Gulf War, Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as involvement in Libya and elsewhere.
Mrs Thatcher brought many opportunities to Britons from a range of backgrounds; my hope is that the success she brought to the South-East of England will be replicated by her successors elsewhere in the UK as well over coming the years.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)