Spectator editor
Fraser Nelson is one of those interesting chaps: presentable, often agreeable,
generally knowledgeable, while being a wilful contrarian and on occasion unable
to make sense of his own argument. Moreover, this lack of coherence is
something he is apparently unable to see for himself. This is superbly illustrated
by
his latest punditry on the Euro crisis.
Nelson gets one half valid item into his text, the idea that
Greece sees the EU as a means not to return to military dictatorship (the
Generals were ousted in 1974 following their disastrous attempt to impose enosis on Cyprus, which precipitated the
Turkish invasion of the north of the island), given that the country joined the
EU after just seven years of democratic rule.
But he then goes wrong by telling that this is why Greece
wanted to join the Euro. It wasn’t: a major part of the rationale was to impose
some discipline in an area where persistent inflation had been a bugbear for
many years (one Pound Sterling bought around 280 drachma in 1990, but a decade
later that amount had almost doubled). But Greeks kept on marking up prices
every year and not paying their taxes.
And the same – wrong – reasoning is applied to Spain and
Portugal: the latter ended the period of the Estado Novo in 1974, with Juan Carlos ending the Falangist regime
in Spain soon after Franco died the following year. Both countries had been
parliamentary democracies for quarter of a century, with no sign of the
dictators returning, before the Euro project began.
But Nelson keeps his biggest non sequitur for last: the idea
that there are just too many different styles of politics and governance for
the EU’s constituent nations to be compatible. This is his clinching argument
against the single currency, which he characterises as “lunacy” and a “tragedy”.
There were, after all, literally hundreds of states within Europe as recently
as 500 years ago.
But, so what? There weren’t any states in what is now the
USA. Or Australia. Or New Zealand. And many others were not states as we would
know the term today – including many of those 500 in Europe. Ultimately, many survivors
were swallowed up into larger states as Italy and then Germany were unified at
the end of the 1860s. They then had no problem with their own particular single
currencies.
And the vastly different parts of the United States all
operate within a single currency area. Many have different tax regimes,
different laws, and even different languages, even if English is the language of law and commerce.
Whenever those on the right assert that single currency areas cannot work
across different cultures, languages and legal jurisdictions, they always
selectively edit out the USA.
Thus Nelson ties
himself up in a very full one. No change
there, then.
No comments:
Post a Comment