Main Edition
US
FR
February 5, 2021 - 7:15am
As the EU vaccine crisis continues, the dismay from British Remainia is palpable. It is eloquently expressed by Jeremy Cliffe in this week’s New Statesman: “The bare facts of the EU’s vaccine roll-out require no Eurosceptic spin to be damning,” he declares.
He goes on to argue that staying silent about the EU’s failures will only undermine the federalist cause: “Stonewalling and obfuscation now will delegitimise valid pro-European arguments…”
And yet any call for the EU’s leaders to be held to account for what they got wrong presupposes that they had a chance to get it right. But did they?
According to Cliffe, this is what the correct course of action would have looked like:
There’s a difference between ‘should have’ and ‘could have’. The Commission cannot just “demand” money and power from the member states. It can propose increases to its budget and its decision-making authority, but these take a long time to negotiate — just look at the painfully drawn-out process by which the Covid rescue package was agreed last year. The extra funding agreed (to be borrowed by the Commission) is substantial — €750 billion — but it is not a blank cheque. Furthermore, the precise distribution of that money is constrained by prior agreement.
So while the Commission is capable of moving at “lightning speed” and of undertaking major projects, it can’t, unlike a real government, do both at the same time — which is what you want in a crisis. On vaccines, one can’t imagine a continental Kate Bingham being told to just get the job done, money no object.
There is, however, one part of the EU that does have the means and authority to act quickly and bigly: the European Central Bank. During the sovereign debt crisis, Mario Draghi famously promised to do “whatever it takes”. And he did. The price was horrific, but the Eurozone was saved.
Jeremy Cliffe exhorts the EU to move “forwards to federal structures that can master common problems” — which would, of course, extinguish national sovereignty in the policy areas at stake. But even if the EU nations were willing to make that sacrifice, we return to the question of time.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeOne important point that columnists might be making more of is that mere days after the UK’s final departure from the EU, we have a very public EU crisis – the vaccine debacle – in which it is plain to see that the UK, by going it alone, has been able to act far more effectively, and yet without any undue risk-taking or corner-cutting – none of the much-talked-of ‘race to the bottom’.
The gloves are off and the EU has resorted to Trumpian disinformation – spread by its fellow travellers over here – about the AZ vaccine ‘not working’ and Britain ‘stealing’ or ‘hoarding’ vaccines. But it hasn’t fooled the majority, certainly not the German public.
The point is that if we had still been in the EU, we’d certainly have gone along with the EU procurement plan and there would be nothing with which to compare the EU’s performance. No one would even have noticed how rubbish it was. Certainly the EU-friendly media would not have called attention to it.
There will now be frequent episodes of this kind in which the UK will pull ahead, despite the best efforts of the EU to keep kicking it, and the people of Europe will be able to see quite clearly how necessary decisions are disappearing down the cracks of responsibility between the Commission and the member states, and how they are being let down. This may well nudge the EU towards the crisis that it has been fending off ever since 2008 at least. But first we will see an awful lot more aggression and disinformation from them.
And herein is the concern that most eurosceptics have long felt. The crisis will be used to increase Federal EU power over its member states. However the democratic deficit at the heart of the organisation will remain unchanged.
I hope more Europeans see this for what it is – for their own sake.
The Italians have just had Draghi imposed upon them as PM in order to guarantee their fealty to the EU monster that is destroying their country, despite having voted for EU-sceptic parties in their last election.
Draghi is, of course, totally unelected and totally illegitimate. He exists to spit on the lives of ordinary Italians.As such, he perfectly embodies the EU.
Does the impostion of an unelected PM, demonstrate the difficulties in proportional voting in elections?
No, it demonstrates the difficulties of aligning the tyrannical objectives of Brussels with the needs and aspirations of normal people.
48% of the population voted remain are not Normal People?
It’s very normal to vote for the devil you know, don’t rock the boat, etc. It’s also very normal to vote where you and your family and friends have material interests involved.
Lucky that the majority could see further and were braver.
So those people are Normal?
I wouldn’t myself have chosen the word ‘normal’ – I will leave Fraser to elucidate it himself. But I think what he may have meant is that ultimately normal people are going to want something different from what Brussels wants to give them, even if they don’t realise it yet.
But you know better, right?
Oh, it’s not just me (blushes modestly)
Yes, those beacons of innovation and competition. Sunderland, Blackpool, Clacton. The geriatrics of Turnbridge Wells. They all know better
I think that comment says more about you than them to be blunt, sorry.
What Fraser alluded to with “normal people” is that most people don’t care much for politics and want to get on with their lives with minimal hassle from government.
There is a brutally simple common sense to euroscepticim that completely evades the supposedly more educated remainer clan.
That is if people are disenfranchised and disengaged with a governing class in Westminster that they have little say over, why the hell wouldn’t they want shot of an even more distant and bureaucratic institution that they have no say over?
They do, they elected Westminster which is/was responsible for c99% of issues that affect the normal people.
Dominic Cummings (his blog) constantly railed against Brexiter MPs, ERG for not doing their job. (going hunting instead of campaigning, not reading papers/documents, etc.) Did EU do that ?
Hang on. The fact is that with FPTP and the darkness that surrounds the funding of political parties, most constituencies in the UK change hands about as often as we have a World War – I lived in Poplar for twenty years (Lab since about 1920) and now live in E Suffolk (Tory since 1951), and my vote has been worthless in each. Most constituency MPs care more about Twitter than their constituents, as I am sure you are aware. And that 99% figure must include the matters covered by all those waved-through SIs?
Perhaps, but undeniably people feel disconnected from their elected representatives. Even you cannot deny that.
So it’s natural they will care even less for the EU and their unknown (unknowable?) methods. This is the point.
Keep talking to a remainer long enough and sooner or later his true motivations spill out: ageism and oik-o-phobia, in other words good old-fashioned snobbery.
It is called the truth.
Draghi was imposed by Brussels?
Previous PM, Conte, was unelected. was he illegitimate?
the Italian PM is not an elected post. He is appointed by the elected president. That’s the rules.
The comment on Draghi is yet another failure to understand the Italian system. There have been quite a few Italian leaders who were not elected as such but were chosen by the president to try to form a government. Conte was the last of these–he was pulled out of the hat to stitch together the unworkable marriage of two populist parties. Such candidates only become prime minister if they have the numbers to win a parliamentary vote (la fiducia).
For that matter, there have been quite a few leaders in the UK who became leader while a legislature was under way, and who derived their legitimacy from having a parliamentary majority only. Are you saying that only prime ministers who are leaders of their party when an election is held are legitimate?
Draghi’s legitimacy (assuming that he does manage to form a government) will come from being voted by parliament. In a parliamentary democracy, that is how most officials derive their legitimacy.
As to Italians being Euro-money-sceptic or Euro-Brussels-sceptic, many of those who remember the good old days before the Euro are not so convinced. The costs of inflation then were really quite significant. A new lira would probably halve in value in its first year, so everyone who has put apart a bit of money has a strong incentive to leave things as they are, even if they like huffing and puffing about Europe in public. And Italy is an old country …
I noted that too and that it is a contradiction in terms. Most of Europe’s common problems are caused by its federal structures, not solved by them.
“…Mario Draghi famously promised to do “whatever it takes”. And he did. The price was horrific, but the Eurozone was saved…”
The price *was* horrific – since the 2008 crash, the Chinese economy is about 150% larger and the US around 40% bigger. And the EU as a whole? Flatlined. That represents half a billion people significantly poorer than they should be. And for what? To save the Euro. Shocking.
500 million people poorer?
Germans are richer as are the Dutch. So are the Slovenes, Slovaks, French and Finns and Belgians and Austrians
So those growth figures are not my invention, there are variations quoted but ballpark the figures are accepted. However, I find it difficult to believe that growth in the northern countries has basically been canceled out by the downturn in med countries plus France. Germany is the biggie, so if it was growing significantly, it would have dwarfed out the negatives in the other countries. I will investigate. I suspect part of the answer will be the UK growth figures which were counted in the EU figures till this year. It essentially means, if you exclude the UK and Germany figures, the rest of the EU nations figures must be utterly dire.
It is craftsmanship. Northern Europe had iron, forests to make charcoal, coal, limestone, leather, jute and wool. Milan was making top quality armour from the 1300s. Venice because of her trade developed silk weaving, the most lucrative type and glass manufacture which needs vast amount of charcoal
The countries around the Med have marble, olive oil, wine, citrus fruits and little else. Once we moved into the Industrial Society post 1660s, proximity to the raw materials was important. To produce woollen cloth is complex. It was the development of large scale sheep rearing by Cistercians , largely in N and W England which produced the wool for the low countries.
Cloth manufacture created a series of industries, one of which was banking. Brewing beer in towns needs charcoal and then coal was used.
The development of industry from 1660 onwards was based upon well developed woollen industry, apprenticeships, banking, insurance and stock exchange.
Industry requires patience which one needs to be become a craftsman while developing mathematical, drawing( perspective0, language and legal skills.
Industry in Italy exists north of Florence and largely in Germanic Lombardy, not Palermo. It is cultural.
The vast amounts of wealth which came into Spain after conquering South America removed the incentive to modernise industry. Where grapes are made into wine and olives into oil, the landowning class can earn considerable amounts of money but the rural people remain poor.
The EU unites rural agricultural societies( 19th century at that ) and ones comprising Computer Aided Design and Manufacture so there are economic problems.
Cui Bono? Germany until they have to bail out the Euro and Spain or Italy.
Less hubris and more common sense would have created a trading block with low tariffs, with countries keeping their currencies and being able to move along at a pace which suits them. People driven by dogma, arrogance and ignorance who believe they have absolute knowledge, with no test in reality, cause problems. When people aspire to the knowledge of gods(- J Bronowski p 374 ) hubris is followed by nemesis.
Some like to use EU figures if it helps their case but when it doesn’t they revert to nationalism. Suddenly it’s only countries that matter.
Draghi saved the euro – but only for the time being. None of the currency’s deep structural problems have been addressed, leaving it incomplete, unstable and thus ill-prepared for the next crisis.
A great example of something the EU does expertly: kicking the can down the road. One might say that Draghi acted with “lightening speed”, but he didn’t solve the problem, just postponed it.
With regard to the ECB, one also shouldn’t forget the financial and institutional repercussions of its expansive action. See the landmark decision of the German Constitutional Court in 2020 which deemed the actions of the ECB to be ultra vires with regard to the PSPP.
I should also add that one should never forget the financial and institutional repercussions of the ECB’s expansive action.
See the German Constitutional Court’s landmark decision in 2020, which deemed the ECB’s actions with regard to the PSPP to have been ultra vires (thereby refusing to follow the ECJ’s ruling, a very rare occurrence).
The issue of course is that Europe is a diverse and varied place albeit with a shared history (mainly of conflict for petty, personal or political establishment class reasons). European ordinary people are now more difficult to persuade that we should kill each other because of communication and travel. We , Europeans, seem to be moving towards almost a UK relationship where we have great fun with tribal substitutes like sport and Irish jokes (which were , pre woke, prevalent in Europe but not Irish, Belgian, French ,Austrian etc etc every nation has a joke butt target). So a common trade without crazy regulation and free movement but working rights set nationally and maybe military sharing like NATO would seem to be a good step. Then let it evolve. Funny that looks a bit like the EEC without the “scared of the Germans and French bureaucracy overtones. New/OLD plan needed.
Brilliant
If you really want a laugh, read some of the below-the-line comments on any vaccine- or EU-related opinion piece in the Grauniad. The level of contortion and pained writhing engaged in by swivel-eyed remainers is a joy to behold.
The Graun is very entertaining. Some of it has to be satire though don’t you think? It seems quite similar to the Babylon Bee in content.
I think it is accidental… I don’t think they have the sense of humour for deliberate satire. Sometimes, they are so lacking in awareness they even self-satirise.
Switzerland, Japan, Korea, Taiwan all are behind in vaccination, Is EU responsible for that?
Is EU responsible for the much higher rate of Danish vaccination vs. France?
is EU membership that Denmark is a well run country but Greece is corrupt?
Yes, EU program was late. Welcome to the world when bureaucracies screw up (or not).
Feeble deflection, Jeremy. Don’t pretend you don’t know the facts.
I do
Yes, EU program was late. Welcome to the world when bureaucracies screw up (or not).
What I have always found bizarre about the EU is that its Parliament contains no Opposition. At no time has there ever been a situation where its Parliament saw debates between rival views of how it should go forward – eg supranational versus intergovernmental, federated behemoth versus trade bloc, etc. All MEPs of all stripes are signed up to the federast agenda (with the obvious exception of certain of Britain’s ex-MEPs). There’s one EU and one set of doctrine and that’s it.
In that respect it reminds me very much of the Soviet era parliaments of the Warsaw Pact, where all the candidates were Communists. If you had tried to stand for Poland’s parliament as a Conservative it would simply have been impossible / illegal because there was one Parliament and it was for Communists.
Yes, I have often said that the EU’s governing structures mirror those of the USSR. Moreover, its Parliament has no power. It cannot propose or prevent legislation. The only opposition was provided by Farage, although one or two others have started to say some sensible things.
Thus the EU combines the governing structures of the USSR with an economic system run for the benefits of big business and finance.
Two great evils for the price of one.
The EU was a political project from the outset. The politicians were certainly warned that the Euro would be problematical. They also knew that whatever difficulties emerged the solution would always be ‘ever closer union’. They were right. It may – federal Europe – happen. It may succeed. I hope it does. But whether the peoples of Europe will go along peacefully knowing that they can’t turn out the Government must be questionable.
Remoaners and Brexiteers are as bad as each other. Pantomime correspondence: the EU is wonderful, oh no it isn’t; the EU is a disaster, oh no it isn’t. Brexiteers are idiots, oh no we’re not. Europhiles are clowns….how dare you.
Truth is, we don’t know how the European project is going to turn out, and we don’t know how the UK will fare having resigned from the club. Uncertainty. We have to live with it, like Covid.
Indeed we don’t, Graeme, but there have been several previous attempts at monetary union in Yerp and we do know how those turned out (eg the Latin Monetary Union of 1865 to 1927).
For me the questions are when it collapses, and whether when that happens it happens violently; i.e. Germany in 1989 or Romania.
The vaccine debacle on the Continent has moved, quite a distance, the needle of general public perception.
That the EU is a preposterous undemocratic unwieldy white elephant is now highly visible to all except its entrenched vested interests, which will go on inventing ever more implausible reasons for its existence.
Several of the poor member states – e.g. Bulgaria, Romania – still want to belong in the hope of getting dollops of Brussels cash which they otherwise would have few means to acquire.
Lands not quite so semi-third-worldy will be rethinking their positions.
On the one hand escaping from the Single Currency is a Houdini-trick no-one yet has tried, looks fiercely difficult to bring off without big collateral damage ensuing; and so to a large extent they feel, and are, trapped.
On the other hand, the damage of REMAINING in the Euro can become so big and painful, that any issue out of it is worth attempting. Italy is now on the verge of that very tipping-point.
The body as a whole has lately made big strides to the phase at which it will have tested iself to destruction: as all malign constructs, put together with unreason, on silly principles or bad motives, always do.
Let’s hope that the EU states are never threatened by a dictator such as Putin, or for that matter, any other who might arise and attack their interests. The prospect of them negotiating endlessly among themselves and squabbling about costs and risks would see their defences, such as they are, totally overwhelmed in ways which would make the German overwhelming of their defences in 1940 look positively sluggardly.