Author: johnredwood

They told us if the Greek people voted against the final proposals of the Euro area they would have to leave the Euro.

The Greeks voted No, so they were invited to new talks to stay in.

We read they would have one last go at sorting it out at a special meeting yesterday.

That failed.

So now the Greeks have been invited to table more proposals by Friday, with a meeting for the heads of government of the whole EU scheduled for Sunday to endorse a deal or agree to no deal and its unspecified consequences for Greece’s Euro and EU membership.

Meanwhile the unpleasant threats to Greece continue, with no proper support for Greek  banks and with  talk of bankruptcy and Euro exit.

This is not a sensible, friendly or effective way to run a single currency. Those who want the Euro need to support all parts of the zone and have confidence in its member states and banks. To its critics the Euro is now doing obvious economic damage to Greece and more widely, and is causing major tensions between European countries.

This December the UN seeks again to reach a global agreement to cut carbon dioxide output. The new agreement will take the form of a legally enforceable protocol and legal instrument attached to past agreements. It will come into force in 2020. The advocates wish to limit the earth to a 2 degree temperature rise, and believe that if the world cuts human generated carbon dioxide emissions by enough this precision in temperature control can be achieved. There is little comment on the other variables which might have an impact on the weather and climate in 2050 and 2100.

We now know the offers of the three main players. China, the world’s largest source of human CO2 emissions (25% of world total) has indicated that it should reach peak output of carbon dioxide by 2030. In the meantime it will build up renewable electricity generating capacity to limit the rise in carbon output it plans.  The USA (11% of world total) under Mr Obama wishes to make a   contribution, and has offered to cut its emissions by 28% in 2025 compared to a 2005 base level.  The EU (9% of world total) acting on behalf of all member states is enthusiastic about the process. It has offered a “binding, economy wide, domestic greenhouse gas emissions reduction target of at least 40% by 2030”. This is compared to a 1990 base.

The fact that China’s emissions will grow mean that advocates of this policy will be disappointed by the offers so far made collectively by the main creators of greenhouse gases. Once again the response of the world is asymmetric, with the EU offering the biggest cuts. This will continue to expose the EU to the need to substitute dearer energy for cheaper energy, and will limit EU competitiveness. Whilst markets are understandably concentrating on the tribulations of the Euro, the EU’s climate policy is also going to have quite an impact on EU costs, and divert  more industry out of the EU altogether. At least this process will cut the EU’s carbon footprint but it will also  boost the footprint of those places that sell us the industrial products that become displaced.

BBC reform is on the agenda. The appointment of Mr Whittingdale  as Culture Secretary and related briefing indicates change is in the air. He will preside over the licence review, and has been a past critic of the BBC poll tax or licence fee.

Some wish to use this review as an opportunity to re open the issue of alleged BBC bias. I do not think this is a good idea. The issue of bias requires robust democratic exchange, with more than one party or interest group thinking they are badly done by. These are  matters to be fought over within any given financial and governance framework for broadcasting, but should not dictate those frameworks.

I do agree with those Conservative and UKIP critics who think the BBC has a strong pro EU Guardian style bias. Many interviewers repeat the 3 million jobs at risk lie about EU& membership and still claim not to have heard its simple refutations. Most interviewers talking to business people invite them to say they wish us to stay in the EU in any interview, yet people against EU membership  talking on other subjects are not asked for their view on the EU. When discussing issues like fuel poverty and dear energy the BBC seems to go out of its way to avoid mentioning that dear fuel is an EU policy. These are matters for immediate review with the BBC but not a proper part of any decisions on its future. The BBC after all belongs to all of us, including pro EU voters.

The main  issues at stake in the licence review have been partially dealt with by the surprise announcement yesterday to the Commons of a new financial settlement. The BC loses the broadband levy, but takes over responsibility for free tv licences for the over 75s. In return it gains indexation of a confirmed licence fee.

This still leaves important issues like removing the criminal offence from non payment  of the licence fee, the definition of public service and the question of how the BBC is allowed to compete with other media outlets using tv tax revenues.

It is unacceptable for one of the leading Central banks of the world to fail to tell people on what basis it will support Greek banks and get them open for business again.
It is the job of the ECB to supply Euros to Greek banks when people want to withdraw their money. It is their duty to allow external settlement of accounts from Greece to the rest of the zone and beyond. Greek business with money needs to pay foreign suppliers. If Greek banks are solvent as the ECB has always said they are, they must supply the cash. If a bank in the zone becomes insolvent, then the ECB must trigger its recapitalisation. Playing politics with the livelihoods of Greeks and undermining Greek businesses by failing to allow transactions is doing damage to the Eurozone as a whole as well as to Greece itself.

I hold this truth to be self evident. People are happier if they are self governing.
The choice for the Greek people was a simple one. Did they wish to sign up to another period of the same policies that delivered a cut of one quarter in their incomes and mass unemployment, especially for their young people, or did they wish to try something different?
We now know the Greeks by a large margin voted for their democracy. They voted for change. They voted against the policies a German led Europe has imposed on them. And yes, it was a vote against German influence, as the explicit posters of the campaign with pictures of the German Finance Minister and unflattering words made clear.
I think all should respect the strong view of the Greek people. If the Euro area wishes to keep Greece in the Euro it has to move swiftly to help. If it wants them out, it needs to tell us urgently how it can be done sensibly with least damage.
Those who still have something to lose, particularly those with jobs from the EU, may have voted for more of the same. Those who have already lost probably voted for change. Those who are optimists probably voted for something different, whilst some pessimists accepted the German led EU’s strictures. Those who believe in Greek democracy voted for their government and those who believe in the EU scheme voted for the deal which may be back on offer.
To some in Greece it was a vote for the dignity to disagree with The Euro bosses. For others it was a vote to conform, to show they are trying to be good Europeans.
This is a seminal moment for the whole EU/Euro project. As Greece votes No the EU has to rethink its approach to national democracies. Other nations will want and need the ability to change EU/Euro policies they do not like.
It is not a pleasant sight watching the group of Euro area Ministers and their Central bank gradually throttling the Greek economy by refusing it the cash it needs through the commercial banks. If these are solvent banks they should be sent the money they need. If a bank is no longer solvent it should be recapitalised under the agreed procedure. Any advanced economy needs a fully operational banking system. It is a prime duty of sovereign government to maintain a freely traded currency that allows all legal transactions.Why doesn’t the Eurozone do that?
If today the European Central Bank does not re-open the facilities for the Greek banks we will witness the extraordinary sight of the European Central Bank refusing to help damaged banks within its own zone, and refusing to behave as normal central banks as lender of last resort and provider of liquidity to commercial banks under its supervision. This may force the Greek state to issue its own money to pay bills and to re-open the banks.If the Euro area refuses early and urgent talks with Greece then it makes crisis more likely. It should also lead other members to ask what kind of a common currency is it, if people with deposits in banks in the zone cannot get their own money out, and if businesses in Greece with money are not able to pay their bills with other parts of the zone.

Before the Greek referendum the consistent message from the European Commission, the Euro group of ministers, and from the large Euro country governments was the same. The referendum was not about whether Greece should accept the last terms from the Euro group and EU or whether it should reject them. The referendum they said, was about whether Greece wanted to stay in the Euro or not.
Germany’s Vice Chancellor said on the record that a No vote was a vote “against remaining in the Euro”. The President of France said the vote was about “whether the Greeks want to stay in the Eurozone.” Signor Renzi of Italy said the vote was about the “Euro versus the drachma”. As they knew the Greek government and people wanted to stay in the Euro come what may and were not about to ask to leave, they were clearly saying they would drive Greece out of the currency if she voted No.
So how are they going to bring this about? Will they do it by a sensible agreement, keeping Greece’s banks going in the meantime whilst Greece sets up her own currency arrangements? Or are they going to do it the nasty way, by continuing to refuse the Greek banks access to more cash, in an effort to bring the Greek banks down in a hurry and force the pace of establishing a new Greek currency?
Or were these words all foolish hot air? Will the Euro area now meekly pay up, send Greece the money it needs to keep going, and sit down again at the negotiating table to try to come up with another compromise which is better for Greece than the last one on offer? If they do that, will they this time try and find a lasting solution, instead of more extend and pretend credit that does not tackle the underlying weakness of the Greek economy?
Which ever way, the credibility of the Euro bosses is gravely compromised by this dreadful situation they have helped create. If they decide to co-operate, lend to Greek banks enough money, help the Greek state meet its debts, and discuss changes of economic policy to try to get the Greek economy growing again, they will have to eat all the words they have spoken in haste in the last week. They send exactly the signal they wished to avoid, that if a country gets into a big enough mess they will be bailed out by the taxpayers of other states of the zone. If they continue to dig in and refuse to support Greek banks they may well drive Greece out of the Euro, after doing yet more damaged to the Greek economy. It is time they rose to their responsibilities. It is time they understood how democracy works. It is time they realised they and the IMF have lent too much already on the wrong terms, and have now to find a way out for themselves and for Greece.