Triumph or tragedy?
For those who want the European Union to walk with power and purpose on the world stage this summit is both triumph and tragedy. Remember, the EU values two things almost above anything else: looking united; and looking relevant, giving a lead to the rest of the world.
Triumph, because all 27 countries have agreed to a bank rescue plan based on the plan agreed in Paris last weekend. At its heart is a plan to encourage banks to lend to each other by underwriting their loans. There were under the surface squabbles between the British, French and Irish about whose idea it was first. But they are clear it was a plan born in Europe. The European countries of the G8, the G4 if you like, back the summit to design new financial rules for the whole world, and could fairly be said to be in the lead here too.
There were a few wobbles, as the eastern countries were concerned that money would run from their banks to the now more secure ones in the West. But the Czech prime minister said before the meeting began: "Our house is on fire: you don't ask the firemen to change their boots on the way in". Whether the firemen, boots or not, will put out the blaze is quite another question.
Tragedy, because of what has happened to the climate change plans. This was, inspired by Tony Blair, the commission's big idea. Something, it's obvious, that individual countries can't do on their own, something popular with the public, something where there was a vacancy for world leaders, showing the way to laggards and doubters.
But the financial crisis has, as far as I can see, left the plan in tatters. Eight Eastern European countries led by Poland says it's too expensive for them. They could be looking for more money, but in the current climate the richer countries will be reluctant to dig deep in their pockets. More serious still, one of the richer countries, Italy, has fundamental objections. Silvio Berlusconi wasn't Italian prime minister when the deal was signed and now he says he'll veto it. The general behind-the-scenes view is "that's Silvio for you".
But amused smiles at eccentric grandstanding may not be enough. As I understand it, the target of a 20% reduction in CO2 remains, but it is a shell, and the detailed paper on how to achieve it has been withdrawn. Here the EU is not leading the world but reflecting it: poor countries protesting they shouldn't take the brunt of change, one big country doubtful about the science and more worried about short-term economic consequences. More details when I get them.
I’m Mark Mardell, the BBC's North America editor. These are my reflections on American politics, some thoughts on being a Brit living in the USA, and who knows what else? My 
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~02~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
The only pity about the environmental agreement is that it was ever created.
While there was a bit of money around, too many people threw it at frivolous ideas.
Now there is no money, the ideas come to nothing, and we have no savings.
Only a very successful capitalist society can afford socialism -- and even then only until it destoys that successful capitailist society and then you have to start all over again.
Complain about this comment
The fact that the EU is showing signs of disagreement over climate change measures shows that this colossus has grown into something that is beyond a realistic remit.
As a basic trading block, the EU works quite well. But as a unified 'superstate' (as envisaged by some) it's a non starter.
Mark is quite right to say it's a tragedy if climate change plans are delayed, or worse still, shelved. But even in this important area, there is little agreement about what needs to be done. Here in the UK, our government is obsessed with wind farms. Wind farms at best can only provide a 'top up' due to the unpredictability of the weather. Biofuels have also been something of a disaster - causing a shortage of crops for food.
Individual countries cannot solve these problems alone, yet each must play their part.
Perhaps the current economic problems will encourage countries to act collectively in the future. This could, in the long run, help with dealing with climate change. But for now, it's everyone for themselves.
The real tragedy is that the EU has totally lost the plot. Instead of trying to create a de facto superstate, it should be looking at ways to encourage individual sovereign countries to cooperate more effectively.
Complain about this comment
I have a simple observation to make on the general tone of reporting by the BBC on this topic.
The rescue plan was not especially innovative. Its bones were already in the Fed's $700bn package and it has been clear for some time that most UK banks were systematically undercapitalised. The need for liquidity speaks for itself.
My criticism of the BBC's reporting on this is that there seems to be a concerted attempt to flatter Gordon Brown.
The motives for this are unclear, but the overall tone of news features (and even some straightforward news reports) seems to be deliberately biased and intended to be complimentary to Mr Brown. Mark Mardell's piece on the 10pm News last night was a particularly bad example - Nick Robinson has recently adopted a similar tone.
Quite apart from the fact that this ignores the fact that a large number of people (mostly outside the government and most not even politicians) have done most of this work and driven the process forward.
More seriously, it gives the impression that the BBC's reporting is not impartial - that you are toadying for favours.
You owe it to us to be an independent and critical voice (especially in the field of politics where rewards and favours are commonplace but well hidden) not a framer of glozing speeches.
Complain about this comment
I saw your piece on the news last night Mark.
Where on earth did you get the "mild mannered" bit from in relation to Gordon?
I'm not suggesting that not being mild mannered is necessarily a problem in a Prime Minister (or Chancellor).
But what you said goes against all the available evidence.
Complain about this comment
"the-real- truth"
Even if you insist on ignoring the scientific proof for manmade climate change, you cannot surely deny that much of the action taken to reduce emissions would be overwhelmingly positive for the economy.
Increasing energy efficiency (whether of vehicles, industrial production through the ETS, power generation, buildings etc.) will save money, improve profitability and, together with an increase in non-fossil energies, reduce our dependence on energy imports and the massive economic instability that this brings. Our economy is at the mercy of instable oil producing states, which couldn't care less about us. At the same time we waste phenomenal amounts of resources - this is not just bad for the environment, it is clearly bad for the economy.
So, surely, even for climate sceptics, it is a 'tragedy' that these measures will now be put on the back-burner. We are going to remain in the same energy time warp. Climate policy offered an opportunity to shift our ecomomies away from the bust-boom groundhog day of an over-exploitative, speculative oil economy.
I for one hope this is not derailed by shortsighted populists...again.
Complain about this comment
Mark your almost right there is a Triumph and a Tragedy but you've got it the wrong way round.
The Tradedy is that Browns plan will fail and that History will remember him as the unelected PM who finished off British Nation.
The Man who spent his way to power in the good times and now is putting us in what must be near record debt to spend his way out of the recession. It woun't work the Debt is just moved it hasn't gone.
Just wait for the backlash when inflation kicks in. pensions worth peanuts and savings wiped out.
Now for the good news
The Trumph is that we won't be put at an ecconomical disadvantage by these silly Green Plans. They would only make more business pull out of Europe and relocate to China etc where they wouldn't have to put up with the 'Green tape' (if that hasn't been used before I'm baggin it)
This would further damage the developing ecconomies of the Eastern E.U block. If this credit cruch shows anthing it shows that have a almost compleete reliance on the retail, finace and comerical sector can only damage and ecconomy in the long run.
We need to start making things again and unfortunately that causes polution.
Complain about this comment
scientific proof for manmade climate change.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
It still makes me laugh, your proof is non-sense. Are you seriouly telling me we are doing more damage now that when everyone in the world was burning wood every night.
If you really want to do something about climate change you'll go hug a tree in the rainforest. There being cut down for your precious bio-fuel. Wally
Complain about this comment
Like Mark highlights in this post, once more we have seen during this crisis the need of a united and leading Europe.
I understand that discussions over EU should focus on HOW to do it, and never again on WHAT, WHERE, WHY or WHO. It seems very pertinent, for instance, to push through ever more democratic procedures mainly based on elected power by 1 EU citizen=1 vote and accountability of all EU institutions.
This is of course bad news for total eurosceptics whose "reasons" are not defended by anyone relevant in the European scene, nor in the internal British politics. I'd suggest them to refrain from losing their temper when Europe is moving on. It's simply not nice.
Finally, the EU project hasn't been created against anyone, on the contrary. Our friends from the other side of the Atlantic should share our determination for having a stong and unique voice in the world. They will also be benefited.
Complain about this comment
Neither - but an opportunity to dump the pointless and expensive costs of 'combating' climate change.
And - Bravo Silvio!!! I hereby grant you the Order of the Bandana and the Implant - and agree that Italian women are very good looking.
Complain about this comment
The triumph comes when 27 nations can put aside their differences and act in a unified way over something in which they are competent. Economic and fiscal policy is clearly something which they can, albeit in an emergency, address. It is the best possible rebuttal to the sometimes shrill voices of Euro scepticism which are such a common feature here.
The tragedy is that the EU seeks to stamp it's authority on areas in which they are plainly not competent. Energy policy is plainly one such. It is absolutely absurd to try a 'one size fits all' solution in a situation where some countries have thousands of miles of coastline with all the potential for renewables that offers, while others have none. There are countries with tremendous geothermal possibilities and others with substantial coal reserves. The EU should content itself with setting targets, inviting members to submit propsals according to the resources available to them and price their proposals. There is absolutely no reason why Germany and Poland cannot focus on clean coal for example. But these are technical questions, not political ones. All the EU needs to do is set the agenda and leave it to the experts.
It is, however, abundantly clear that the one source which is applicable throughout the EU and must be developed urgently is nuclear generation. The arguments against it are dropping away in the face of high demand and ecological considerations. Germany has set its face against it in spite of the evidence and it is to be hoped that their clean coal technology is affordable.
Complain about this comment
Judging by the reports on the BBC and Yahoo at the moment it would seem that calling the financial rescue plan a triumph is proving a bit premature. The stock exchanges and oil are continuing to drop and the confidence that was created is said to have been short lived. I suppose it has been a first that the 27 can actually agree on anything other than the menu for the beano afterwards so we should be thankful about that at least.
Threnodio, I quite agree about your 'one size fits all' comment in #10, it is a solution fraught with disaster is most areas that it is being proposed, and energy is most certainly one of them. there are many 'clean' solutions but almost all depend on the climate and topology as to which is best for which region. The only solution which really seems to fit all parts of Europe is nuclear and as you say one of the main power (blocking) countries Germany is against that due to their powerful green (aka stupid) lobby.
Complain about this comment
I'll take the EU more seriously on green issues when they stop the wasteful monthly shuttling of the EU Parliament between Brussles and Strasbourg.
Complain about this comment
#12 I'll take the EU more seriously ...
... and when they've reduced their bloated Brussels entourage to no more than 100 reps per country - the rest should be relocated back to the relevant states (we could dream up a name for this process - like "subsidiarity").
Complain about this comment
"The sky is falling, the sky is falling." That's been Europe's hew and cry for the last 15 years and that if we don't do something to stop it now, we are all doomed. The US said that the evidence was not entirely convincing and that drastic reductions those who advocated Kyoto and beyond would have dire economic consequences. Now 15 years later it has become clear that the sky really is falling or as one TV ad for a program on climate change has it, if we don't do something drastic like reducing GHGs by 60% to 80% by mid century, we're going to "cook the planet." In fact the US has begun taking its first serious steps. But Europe seeing its economies in dire straits has thown the engine in full reverse and is now parked in the same space America just pulled out of. If that isn't one more evidence of Europe's hypocricy then what is? And of course China and India are to be let off the hook because even though they are among the top producers of GHGs, they are "developing" countries who didn't create the problem so they should be allowed to exascerbate it with impunity. And Indonesia and Brazil can hold the world hostage for ransom by demanding payment for not burning down their rain forests for the sake of a relative handful of slash and burn farmers and exotic wood for fine furniture for millionaires who don't put up with particle board furniture like the rest of us.
How smug these bankers and politicians are (including those in the US) having possibly saved the world from the imminent freeze up of the entire world's economy having been the very ones who created the conditions and taken advantage of them which bankrupted it in the first place. Looking at the numbers, it strikes me that the crisis seems to me to be much closer to the beginning than the end. Based on my calculations, we aren't quite halfway into it yet and it may be another two years before markets begin to recover. There is still enormous downside risk IMO.
Santyana said those who do not learn the lessons of history are condemned to repeat them. That is what our governments and financial "experts" have done, forgotten the lessons of the great depression, removed all of the safeguards put in place to prevent another one, and now we face what will seem in retrospect like the inevitable.
Perhaps we won't need to worry about treaties to cutback on our economies to reduced CO2 emissions. The impact of our folly in economics may mitigate our folly in the way we abused the environment for us.
BTW, I don't know what they are saying on the other side of the pond but what the "economic experts" on this side are saying is that Europe's banks are in even worse shape than America's. They are also more highly leveraged. Before these midgets crow about their coup, they might do well to wait awhile and see if it actually works. Judging by the way the markets continue to fall, it would seem investors are not so impressed with them as they are with themselves.
Complain about this comment
#11 - Buzet23
Yes - the jury's out on the plan itself. In fact it is look decidedly shaky. The triumph - maybe miracle is nearer the mark - is that these people can get their fingers out and do something together when needs must.
Complain about this comment
This comment has been referred to the moderators. Explain.
@richmof (5)
climate change is and always has been a natural phenomenon. It is no surprise that those who back the antidemocratic EU, also back the ludicrous suggestion that climate change suddenly stopped being a natural phenomenon.
The EU, as always and obviously, is looking for a way to grab even more powers, and get its foot in the door concerning taxation. And climate change is the chance they've been waiting for. By their reckoning, it's easy to fool the people. All you have to do is wait for some climate changes (which will come guaranteed, it being a natural phenomenon after all). And then you start the scaremongering. When people get scared, you tell them you can do something about it, all you need is power and money.
I cannot believe this ridiculous hysteria about a natural phenomenon.
What should we do then, concerning this natural phenomenon of climate change. Well, adapt of course, there's no other solution.
And as for more energy efficiency, and less waste, and less polution? Those are important too, but they are a different matter altogether.
Climate change = natural phenomenon, pollution = manmade, do not be fooled folks!
Complain about this comment
Mark Mardell makes a false linkage when he says that a plan devised by one or other European governments is a triumph for the EU. The Brown-Darling plan has been used by governments as far away as Australia and Korea so it is clear it could have been implemented anywhere in Europe without the EU institutions. The action today of the Swiss government in bailing out some of its very large banks shows that even a small government of a country famed for its global banks can be effective in this crisis without any EU involvement at all.
The reality is that the EU floundered badly during this crisis, first being clueless, then tempted to ape the Paulson plan and then jumping on the Brown-Darling bandwagon instead. The only concrete proposal agreed to at last week's meeting of EU finance ministers was for the finance ministers to exchange their personal mobile numbers.
We need to get away from the Brussels mentality that all global problems can be addressed by the EU. The reality of the 21st century is that problems are either global, national or local, but are very rarely defined by the tectonic plates that separate continents. If there are changes in the world requiring global solutions, it must never be forgotten that the need for sensitive political decisions to have democratic legitimacy remains permanent. The range of real-world problems suitable for resolution outside the democratic process by a limited regional body like the EU is actually getting smaller as globalisation proceeds, which is why the EU is increasingly a solution in ever more desperate search for a problem.
Europeanisation of the economy was an early phase of globalisation which is now well behind us. Gordon Brown is correct to say that markets, especially in financial capital, are truly global such that their related problems must be addressed by reformed global institutions and not a limited regional body like the EU. Global institutions already work much better than the EU and have retained their democratic legitimacy (despite far larger membership) by not abandoning the rule of unanimity. They therefore are a better starting point for regulation of global finance than the discredited self-aggrandizing institutions of Brussels.
Complain about this comment
We do need cooperation in Europe. We just don't need the "EU" to achieve it. We don't need the megalomaniac attempt to create a greater European Reich.
The "EU" makes cooperation suspect as it is usually linked to an attempt to move power to "Brussels".
At one particular FE college, foreign languages almost died out except Spanish. The Head of Department (pro-"EU") was of the opinion that the constant bickering about the "EU" was the cause. Spanish survived because of holiday homes.
Complain about this comment
"Triumph, because all 27 countries have agreed to a bank rescue plan based on the plan agreed in Paris last weekend."
Plan? Paris? Agreed?
But, but, but... I thought it was all Chancellor Brown's doing? He saved the day. He is Superman. He wears his pants on the outside. I know this because that is the line the taxpayer funded BBC have taken for nearly a week.
Or perhaps not. Crashing back into reality the banking nationalisation was guided by the clammy hand of the undemocratic, unaccountable and accounts-held-in-secret-lair-because-they-don't-add-up, EU. Which in itself is a copy of the Swedish nationalisation of the 70s.
Complain about this comment
I have completely changed my mind about the EU. I have for a long time been expressing my view in this column that the EU is not only a fundamentally sound institution but of great benefit to both its members and the wider world. I have also been arguing that it is flawed in the area of democratic accountability, openness and clarity and requires reform from within. I have also made the point that, as there is no political party with any hope of power in the UK, withdrawal is an option which exists only in the minds of the reactionary sceptics.
I have now come to the conclusion that there should be a referendum, not about Lisbon but the whole question of Britain's continued membership. I truly believe that the majority of British people understand the importance of the EU to the economic and cultural well being of the UK and that an overwhelming 'stay in' vote would be the outcome. The change of heart has come about because the more I view the eurosceptic posts here and elsewhere, the more I am convinced that there is a strong 'spoiler' element in it's midst. People who are willing to object on principle to anything proposed by the EU simply because of their dislike of the institution itself.
I believe this is a negative and dangerous tendency and I believe that a referendum might serve to pull the teeth of those who argue - quite wrongly in my view - that the majority of Britons want out. So let's sort it out once and for all. Bring it on!
If I am wrong, I will gladly acknowledge my fault and wave the old country goodbye (from the European mainland) and she drifts serenely into splendid isolation. But if I am right, it will be all hands to the deck to turn the EU into a modern, open and accountable institution from which the gainsayers will no longer have an excuse to walk away.
Complain about this comment
threnodio @ #21
I agree with you for the most part but I would be concerned that the UK media frenzy would be such that the electorate would be driven to distraction with the typical newspaper garbage of the "Them Europeans and Us" syndrome - xenophobia would be let loose and rampant. I am only comforted by the fact that 75% of the UK electorate did vote for membership of the EEC in 1973 so there is a groundswell of the UK citizens being pro-European!
I actually think that the British are very keen to be part of Europe, my fear is that their dislike of the current EU setup/configuration is such that they may be persuaded to say "No" to working with Europe simply because there is this dislike of the EU "as it exists today".
I more than wholeheartedly agree that the British electorate should have a referendum on membership of the EU as that is (and has always been) my contention - it should have been held at the time of Maastrict and the move from EEC to EC and then EU.
Doing it now would right that wrong, legitimise the relationship of the UK with the EU and strengthen both the EU and the UK - but only if there was a definitive "Yes" to being part of Europe!
If it is a "No" can you throw me a lifebelt to swim across the English Channel with before they lock the doors and throw away the key!
Complain about this comment
threnodio (21): I disagree with you about the UK being isolated outside the EU. Indeed if the recent crisis demonstrates anything it is that all the old arguments of the pro-EU folks about the UK 'losing influence' outside the eurozone were totally bogus. Recent events have shown that the UK is actually the 'pilot fish' leading Europe by its good example in a way that would not have been possible had we been trapped inside the Euro. Our influence is actually increased outside the Euro. Furthermore the UK downturn would now be much more severe had the Brown boom been propelled to even greater heights by inappropriate eurozone interest rates.
There is reason to hope that your wish for referendums on EU issues will come true after 2010, though the first will either be to reject Lisbon or to give a new British government the mandate to negotiate the return of powers from Brussels. I disagree with you though that EU membership is compatible with economic well-being because the cost savings of being outside the EU would actually be very significant. The direct costs of EU membership are only the tip of this iceberg with the massive hidden costs being the additional price of food that we all pay at the supermarket checkout due to the CAP and the massive regulatory cost to British business of complying with heavy handed EU regulations. Even the EU Commission estimates the costs of complying with its own regulations to exceed their own estimates of the benefit of the EU single market. The most economically advantageous arrangement for the UK would to negotiate what Mexico has and which Canada is now negotiating for, i.e. free trade with both North America and Europe. This would free the 80% of the UK economy devoted to domestic production from heavy-handed EU regulation and simultaneously boost our international trade and wealth. When these economic issues are understood more widely by the British public I am confident that Britons will vote to leave the EU in the interests of both our economic well-being and to restore democratic governance in this island.
Complain about this comment
threnodio @21,
Offering the 'all or nothing' option is not an option most people in the UK want. That is why, perhaps, you are kind enough to offer it.
Most people here want the UK to part of a single-market, customs-free trading zone, not part of a nascent supra-national superstate. No monetary or political or 'ever closer' union.
A 'third way' (arrgghhh! memories of one A. Blair, esq. Phoooeeew! Wash my mouth out with soap and water) is possible.
Complain about this comment
#22 - Menedemus
I will come and pick you up. Send me a message in a bottle or by semaphore but on no account ring or email because - big sister Jacqui will be watching us.
Complain about this comment
Before anyone asks me to back up my claim that that the EU costs more than it is worth, the Commission estimate for additional GDP due to the Single Market is from their report "The Internal Market – Ten Years without Frontiers" available on their website at the link below. On page 6 it says "The Commission estimates that EU GDP in 2002 is 1.8% or €164.5 billion higher thanks to the Internal Market".
[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]
In the following FT interview the EU Commissioner for Trade and Industry (Verheugen) says the Commission estimate for the cost to industry of complying with EU regulations is €600m per year.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/101cf670-57fb-11db-be9f-0000779e2340.html
Therefore EU costs exceed benefits by more than 3 to 1 even before taking into account the additional cost of food due to the CAP and the direct costs of EU membership.
Complain about this comment
I read posts 23 and 24 with interest:
How many other trade combinations are there available to the UK if we repudiate the Treaty of Rome?
The fact is that we can, as a member state of the EU, trade with whomsoever nations we choose. The UK does trade with the USA, the Rest of the World and Europe - we get the advantage of duty free/tariff free trade with other EU nations now.
The only fly in the ointment is the political agenda of the EU as compared to the EEC as was. It is that political agenda that is the bugbear for most people within the UK that I speak to.
The politicised EU is the one thing that could lead to a referendum vote being turned fromm a vote FOR an ever closer Europe to an AGAINST anti-EU vote that severs the UK from free trade with the other EU nations, isolates the UK from some of our allies within the EU and leaves the UK adrift from nations within the rest of the World (such as Japan) who ustilise the UK as a gateway to selling their produce into the EU.
In my mind's eye I see the advantages of being part of the EU.
I do not like the EU as it is currently configured, especially as I feel that I have no voice in determing my future within the EU - but I see no advantages to the UK severing itself from the EU and becoming marginalised to the point that we are as important to the world as Iceland - that well known high street freezer goods store!
Complain about this comment
Re 21 Threnodio, have to say I am fully with Max Sceptic on this, there is a 'third way'. Instead of offering a referendum just to the people of the U.K. lets offer it to all the E.U. countries (after all it was the French and Dutch people that rejected the constitution and the Irish that rejected the Lisbon Treaty, the U.K. has signed it)
But the referendum could give 3 options
1. Do you wish to leave the E.U.
2. Do you wish to stay in the E.U. and for to become an ever closer political union.
3. Do you wish to stay in the E.U and for it to become a single market free trading zone.
Such a referendum would at least allow the peoples of Europe for the first time to express their opinion in a clear and unamgiguous way.
Some how do not think it will happen because it is too clear and unambiguous. Failing such a referendum or similar, myself and millions of others across Europe will keep trying to block the slide to a federalist Europe.
Complain about this comment
There are 5 European countries in the G8: Britain, France, Germany, Italy and Russia.
Complain about this comment
All you ever needed to know about climate change was defined by Charles Darwin a long time ago: "In the struggle for survival, the fittest win out at the expense of their rivals because they succeed in adapting themselves best to their environment".
Complain about this comment
According to all the EU reports - and solutions - climate change is man made. Correct.
But it's primarily due to the growth of the population over the last century or so.
Just when are those in charge going to realise that climate change is happening and cannot be stopped. Just like King Canute sitting on the shore-line getting his feet wet.
Unless of course the population is reduced.
These current proposals are just taxes in disguise.
Complain about this comment
As most EU legislation there is absolutedly no trace of plain common sense !
How about getting some serious tax deduction incentives to the average persons to do things like replace all light bulbs with led with no VAT ?
And what about incentives to retrofit cars w. antiparticulate if diesel or go methane ? do any of you eurocrats know that 70% of urban smog is actually oil heating ?
What if we all were to replace them tax free ? Maybe little but pragmatic things would give massive results with the added benefit of having the economy grow ...
No wonder Europe's dream of a "constitution" got vaporized by the voters...
Complain about this comment
#22
I voted in the 1973 referendum, but don't blame me for the outcome. There was intense media (and government) pressure to vote "Yes" and in those days the average Briton in the street did what they were told. Maybe the idea was to create a new British Empire.
Perhaps if the British government and British business had taken more notice of the obligations and opportunities of the existing Commonwealth then we wouldn't be having this debate - the european nations would be queuing up to join us.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS