Friends Let Friends Brexit

The Weekly Standard, March 21, 2016

Complacency, laziness, or a simple failure to keep up can reduce foreign policy to a habit, unexamined and out of date. The United States traditionally smiled on the idea of tighter European integration. Binding the nations of Western Europe more closely together would bolster them against Soviet expansionism and render them less likely to fall out (yet again) among themselves, the latter a pastime that tended to cost American lives. British membership in what became the European Union (the U.K. joined in 1973) was supported by Uncle Sam, not least because the Brits could be expected to push the nascent bloc in a more Atlanticist direction, politically and economically.

Against that historical backdrop, there is nothing surprising about the increasingly tough line taken by the Obama administration against "Brexit"— a vote by the British people to exit the EU in a referendum to be held on June 23. The president has long made known his preference for "a strong U.K. in a strong European Union." And preference may be too weak a word. In 2013 the State Department's Philip Gordon explained that British membership in the EU was "essential and critical to the United States." It's neither.

As referendum day approaches, the administration's tone has become a tad menacing. Speaking last October, America's senior trade diplomat, Michael Froman (who worked as a trainee at the European Commission years before), warned that Washington would not put much priority on a free trade deal with a post-Brexit Britain. Being one of America's closest allies and the fifth-largest economy in the world apparently doesn't count for much.

Meanwhile, according to the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, President Obama is planning a "big, public reach-out" to mutinous Brits in the near future. Some tact might be worth a try.

Again, seen against the historical background, there's nothing very unusual about all this. Seen against contemporary reality, however, it looks overwrought. The administration's starting point, one must assume, is concern that Brexit would do serious harm to the rest of the EU. That's not likely, but even if it were a real risk, a glance at the calendar should avert panic. It is not 1914 and, despite its vanity and that nutty Nobel Prize, the EU is not the guarantor of European peace. Nor is it 1980: The Soviet threat is history.

And nasty Vlad Putin? Well, pushing the EU's "ever closer union" far beyond where it was prudent to go, whether with the euro or recklessly loose immigration policies, has created the conditions in which extremism can thrive, conditions the Kremlin has not been slow to exploit. Old ghosts are stirring across the continent and Putin, getting pally with a Le Pen and chummy with a Syriza, is only too pleased to rile them up. In this respect, the EU has been a problem, not a solution.

For all the troubles set in motion by the EU's surfeit of ambition, there are few signs that it is prepared to change course. The default answer, whether in Brussels or Berlin, to the union's mainly self-inflicted woes continues to be "more Europe" — at the Greek border, in the finance ministries of the eurozone, everywhere. The dream of a new kind of "empire" (to borrow the word used by former European Commission president José Manuel Barroso) is alive if not well. And — let's not forget — in this dream the EU stars as a challenger to the colossus across the ocean, both in the way it runs itself (no Anglo-Saxon capitalism, merci!) and internationally.

This goal matters more than it once did, and much more than the U.S. foreign policy establishment seems willing to recognize. Despite its current difficulties, the EU is far more formidable than two or three decades ago: Its reach has stretched both within its borders and beyond. There is already an EU "foreign minister." Angela Merkel has in the past expressed interest in a European army. That could evolve into a curb on the ability of more confident powers (Britain and France, say) to take independent action and in any event would be an unwelcome distraction from NATO.

The best guess is that Brexit would leave the EU somewhat shrunk but essentially unscathed. There will be no great unraveling. For Washington to oppose Brexit for fear it might dent the (now destabilizing and destructive) progress of "ever closer union" makes no sense. Such an outcome is improbable, but it would be a feature, not a bug.

And the argument that the United States should encourage the U.K. to stay in to act as a brake on the EU's long march towards Barroso's empire overlooks the fact that the time when the U.K. could alter the EU's trajectory has passed. In the 1980s the EU turned towards economic liberalization in a manner unthinkable to its dirigiste founders, largely thanks to the U.K. and more specifically the influence of Thatcherism, then at its peak. A decade or so later, British pressure played a significant part in the EU's expansion into lands that Moscow once controlled. That helped anchor much of Eastern Europe in the West, a development that Washington had every reason to celebrate.

But these successes were the product of a specific time and—in those halcyon days between the collapse of communism and the collapse of Lehman Brothers—a specific ideological moment. Mrs. Thatcher is no more, and the behavior of some of her successors is a reminder that Washington cannot assume a British government will be as in tune with American economic and political thinking as was the case during the Reagan years. What's more, Britain now represents a smaller part of a larger union from which the wise decision to keep clear of the euro has left it semi-detached, although not detached enough. Its ability to nudge the EU along a more America-friendly path is not what it was.

While the U.K. finds it more difficult to influence the EU, the EU is busy reshaping the U.K. This is more than the cumulative effect of all the powers that have been transferred from London to Brussels over the years. It also reflects the passing of time, shifting demographics, and what people have become used to: 1973 was an eon ago. Younger Brits feel more "European" than their elders. June 23 may well be the Brexiteers' last chance to get their country out — and back. A recent YouGov poll showed 63 percent of those between the ages of 18 and 29 wanting to remain in the EU; 56 percent of those over 60 thought the U.K. should quit. The understanding of what it means to be British is changing, a transformation that is eroding the old instinctive, if sometimes patchy, Atlanticism of this country's closest and most reliable European ally. That's a transformation that will gather pace if Britain remains in the EU, and it's a transformation that the United States should not want to see.

By contrast, the possibility of a very different transformation in the way the British Isles are run may offer a sounder basis for American opposition to Brexit. There is an obvious danger that the U.K.'s departure from the EU might provoke the departure of (relatively Europhile) Scotland from the U.K. The broader consequences of that are as misty as a Highland glen, but the prospect of the Scottish National party— a party only reluctantly committed to NATO — running an independent Scotland won't thrill the Pentagon. On the other hand, even if Britain remains in the EU, the chances of Scotland's eventually going its own way — particularly if oil prices revive — already appear to be high. In that event, all that Brexit will do is speed things up. That said, the uncertainty that will inevitably follow Britain's break with Brussels might persuade nervous Scots that they would rather stick with the auld devil they know, especially as a tartan return to the European fold is far from guaranteed. Spain, mindful of restless Catalonia, would not endorse a precedent that made it easy for secessionist states to "rejoin" the EU.

Then there's the economy. If the U.K. opts for Brexit (still unlikely, I reckon), it will make for a choppy June 24 in the financial markets. And not just June 24.

But hysteria is what markets do. Britain could flourish outside the EU. It could not, however, afford to ignore its ex over the water. The U.K. may have to accept a closer relationship with the EU (perhaps something akin to the status enjoyed by Norway in the European Economic Area) than many Brexiteers would like. For its part, Brussels will need to remember how good a market Britain is for the EU's exporters. It will have to rein in a natural inclination to "punish" the Brits, an inclination sharpened by paranoia that too smooth a separation might tempt others to stray. But the alternative would damage both the U.K. and its former EU partners.

Encouraging the two sides to agree to a velvet divorce might be the next occasion on which Washington has to rescue Europe from itself.

Into the O.K. Corral

National Review Online, February 26, 2016

In a new article posted elsewhere on this website, my old friend Rupert Darwall has, with characteristic elegance and precision, dissected some of the issues surrounding Britain’s referendum on its membership of the EU, a vote set for June 23. For anyone interested in what’s at stake (and I appreciate that not everyone on NR’s side of the Atlantic will be), it’s a must-read.

  As Darwall explains, this particular chapter in Britain’s unhappy European union began in 2007, when then–opposition leader David Cameron gave a “cast-iron guarantee” of a referendum on the EU’s notorious Lisbon Treaty. That treaty, another of Angela Merkel’s gifts to the Continent, was a disgrace to democracy, designed to bludgeon through the functional equivalent of the EU’s rejected constitution. Unfortunately, it came into force before Cameron became prime minister. His referendum would have had no legal effect. Being a pragmatic sort, Cameron dropped it.

Cameron could have gotten away with that flip-flop but for a pattern of behavior, both before and after that decision, that gave the entirely fair impression that he neither shared nor even understood euroskeptic concerns. Thus he made clear his irritation with those Conservatives who were “banging on about Europe.” He denounced UKIP, at that time more clearly a tribe of the ex-Tory Right than it is today, as a party of “fruitcakes, loonies or closet racists, mostly,” a slur that backfired badly.

Compounding this — and whatever eurofundamentalists might claim to the contrary — Cameron was generally cooperative in his dealings with the EU, something all too typical of what Darwall accurately describes as the prime minister’s “steady-as-you-go” politics.

But his clubbable approach generated no gratitude in Brussels and fueled mounting suspicion among euroskeptics at home. Darwall writes that if Cameron’s “party had trusted him more on Europe, he would have been better placed to withstand the pressure for [the] referendum” that now lies just ahead. That’s true. It didn’t help him that the increasingly uneasy Tories also felt threatened by a UKIP insurgency that was itself boosted by Cameron’s inability or unwillingness to fight Britain’s corner in Europe. The result was that, in 2013, he had to concede an “in/out” referendum that, if the voters opt for Brexit, could bring his premiership to an end.

Ranging more generally, Darwall argues that “other than the cap on net migration, there is little from the EU that constrains [Cameron’s] policy ambitions for Britain.” There’s quite a bit to that, but it should come with the important qualification that this is true of Cameron’s ambitions. As Darwall notes, in many areas the prime minister’s ideas converge with those of Britain’s European partners. Once those ideas are enacted into law at the EU level, they are nearly impossible to repeal. A future Tory prime minister, more interested in the free market and, say, scientific realism (Cameron is a climate warrior), will find such faits accomplis very frustrating indeed. With the EU in an increasingly dirigiste mood, that poisonous legacy will only get worse.

But all this is, in a sense, a sideshow, ignoring, as Darwall puts it, “the nine-tenths of the iceberg below the surface”:

How can a Union on the path to becoming a full-fledged political union — what the agreement Mr. Cameron secured in Brussels at the weekend calls “further political integration into the European Union” — accommodate a large nation that is on a diverging path?

It cannot. The EU is what it is, and what it is is a machine grinding relentlessly in the direction of “ever closer union,” a phrase that is both aspirational and of profound legal and institutional consequence. Allowing exemptions from the EU’s forward march — such as those releasing Britain and Denmark from the obligation to sign up for the euro — grows more difficult by the year and needs, well, “cast-iron” legal protection of the type that Cameron has notably failed to secure in his current “renegotiation” with the rest of the EU.

That’s why Cameron’s deal largely covers what Darwall rightly dubs “second-order issues.” The British prime minister desperately wanted his country to stay in the EU, but he had to give the euroskeptic hordes something. Because of the nature of the EU, “second-order” was all that could ever be on offer. The result, fears Darwall, is a distraction, a package that enables Cameron “to trap euroskeptics in a manufactured choice when the real one is still over the horizon.”

In a way, that’s too pessimistic. The deal Cameron has struck is so feeble that, at best, all it can do is give a hand to waverers wanting an excuse to vote to remain in the EU. That’s not nothing, but the deal will not be center stage other than as comic relief. Rather, the debate will probably slide out from underneath Cameron’s control and into more important territory. On the euroskeptic side it will be focused on Britain’s regaining control of more of its own destiny, not least where immigration is concerned.

For their part, those looking to persuade Brits to rally behind the status quo will also, I suspect, move rapidly away from Cameron’s sad surrender and concentrate instead on the underlying case for continued membership of the EU. There will be happy talk of travel, peace, and free trade, but the key message will be negative: Leaving the EU is, they will warn, a leap in the dark, risky at the best of times, utter madness now.

Aided by the fact that Brexiteers have so far failed to unify around an easily grasped, unfrightening alternative to membership in the EU (such as the variant of the “Norwegian option” long advocated by EU Referendum’s Richard North), fear will prevail. Brits will stick with the EU, the devil they know.

That will be a tragedy, and that is the trap this referendum really represents. Darwall eloquently highlights the danger that the EU represents to British democracy. And he frets that “Mr. Cameron’s small-bore approach — asking for little and getting less — stores up problems for the future by fostering the impression that a vote in June to remain in the EU settles the matter of Britain’s relationship with Europe.” My worry, by contrast, is that that impression is correct: The vote will settle the question.

Darwall reckons that the “tensions inherent in Britain’s EU membership will remain” even after the vote to stay in that he expects. So they will. Where we differ is over Darwall’s obvious belief that they will count for something. He thinks that “Mr. Cameron’s referendum will not be the end of the story.” But my guess is that, for all practical purposes, it will. Euroskeptics are an aging segment of the electorate. Absent some truly major convulsion shaking the EU into reopening its core treaty for discussion, this vote is their last good shot at Brexit. And they are likely to miss.

Fear Is The Key

The Weekly Standard, February 19, 2016

Voters in the United Kingdom will be choosing — in a referendum to be held by the end of next year, and perhaps as early as June — whether or not to stay in the European Union. Barack Obama wants the U.K. to stay put and is reportedly planning "a big, public reach-out" to persuade Brits to stick with the EU.

It's not the first time the American president has weighed in on this most British (or European) of questions, but the timing was telling. It came immediately after EU "president" (it's complicated, but that designation will have to do) Donald Tusk unveiled the draft settlement intended to bring David Cameron's attempt to "renegotiate" Britain's position in the EU to a satisfactory conclusion. What was unveiled was underwhelming; the derision with which it was greeted was anything but. It's not hard to guess why Obama believes that Cameron could use a helping hand.

Britain's prime minister cannot be entirely surprised that it has come to this. An unimaginative politician without much feel for what truly matters, Cameron has never wanted Britain to exit ("Brexit," as such a departure is unattractively known) the European Union. He agreed to the planned referendum reluctantly and only as a device to head off the Euroskeptic challenge to his Conservative party ahead of the 2015 general election.

Cameron's idea was, when reelected, to recommend that Britain remain in the EU on the basis of a new deal negotiated with its European partners: a deal he must have realized would not— could not — amount to very much. The EU rests on a set of fundamental principles. These include "ever closer union" (the ratchet that provides that integration must forever move forward), the "four freedoms" (the free movement of goods, capital, services, and people within the union), and the primacy of EU law. Abandoning or even diluting any of those principles, even for just one country, would risk unraveling the whole European project: It was never going to happen.

Cameron's problem was that many of the objections that the British have to the EU flow from those very same principles. "Ever closer union" means what it says: U.K. sovereignty is continuously being eroded, with its democracy going the same way. Britain's laws and its courts are subordinated to those of the European Union. And, most sensitively of all, Brits fear they have lost control of their borders: EU immigration into the U.K. is currently running at a net 180,000 per year, an issue made all the more toxic by the migrant crisis on the Continent.

All the prime minister could do was try to use his renegotiation to change the subject, focusing attention on sideshows, some significant and some not. Thus the proposed agreement would, among other less than glorious "victories," chip away at some "in-work" welfare benefits enjoyed by EU migrants, give the feeblest of boosts to the role of national parliaments, and win the U.K. a degree of protection from eurozone bullying. But, overall, the result is a sad, scaled-back little ragbag of half-measures and trivia that still has yet (as I write) to be finalized. Despite some flummery (it will be filed with the U.N.!), the eventual settlement may well, legally, be nothing more than an agreement to agree, which is to say very little indeed.

Cameron began his efforts to sell this crock on an upbeat note. It would pave the way for a "substantial change" in Britain's relationship with Brussels. (Well, no.) "Hand on heart," he had "delivered" on the "commitments" made in the Conservative manifesto. (Nope, not hardly.) The deal was so good that, if Britain were not already a member of the EU, he would have advised joining on these terms. (Words fail me.)

The reviews were savage. The press coverage that followed the disclosure of the deal's details was some of the worst that Cameron has ever known. And the grumbling in Conservative ranks didn't take long to get going. To one Tory MP, Cameron had been reduced to "polishing poo." Nor was the discontent confined to dissidents in Westminster (at least 20 percent of his parliamentary party at the latest count). Most Conservative activists are Euroskeptics; so too about half of Tory voters. Polls show a swing of support towards Brexit.

A nervous Cameron has turned (again) to "Project Fear" (the name comes from a strategy used successfully and rather more legitimately in the 2014 referendum on Scottish independence), spinning scare stories to frighten Brits away from the Brexit door. This plays on the understandable anxiety that many British voters have about life outside the EU.

Late last year I was discussing, with a leading Brexit advocate, the chances voters would choose to leave the EU. In his view, the country divided roughly into thirds: One-third would opt for Brexit come what may; one-third would always prefer to stay in the EU; the rest are somewhere in the middle and could go either way.

This last group, obviously, will decide the outcome, and its members are likely to be susceptible to bleak warnings of the catastrophes that divorce from Brussels could set in motion. They may not be enthusiastic about the EU, but they will not want to risk too much to escape it. Cameron's grim (and quickly discredited) prediction that, in the event of Brexit, migrant camps in Calais could be relocated to the U.K. was one example of Project Fear at work. There have been plenty of others in recent months (Mass unemployment! No more cheap flights abroad! Goldman Sachs to move an office!) — so many and so absurd that they have given birth to an Internet meme depicting fire-breathing dragons, giant waves, and other horrors that will follow in Brexit's wake.

Uncertainty is one of fear's most effective enablers. Euroskeptics need to paint a clearer picture of what sort of arrangements Britain might have with the EU after a divorce. But the Leave camp is badly divided, not least over what the country's options could include. One alternative would be to sign up for the European Economic Area and "do a Norway." This would give the U.K. access to the EU's single market, and there would be little in the way of immediate, visible change, something wavering voters in the middle may find reassuring. For other Brexiteers, that's too modest: Britain, the fifth-largest economy in the world, ought, they argue, to be able to cut a better bargain. But what if its jilted European partners, angry and worried about the precedent being set, balk at agreeing to anything, Norwegian-style or otherwise, that makes leaving the EU look too easy? At this point, it's impossible to say: awkwardly for the Out crowd there are only so many questions that can be answered in advance.

The final version of the deal between Cameron and the rest of the EU has— as we go to press — yet to be settled. From what's already known, we can be sure that what's in it will not change the minds of the solidly Euroskeptical. But what of the wobbly center? The deal may contain enough to convince some of those who lean Brussels's way, and might even win over some of the genuinely undecided. But what those calling for Brexit should really fear is not Cameron's deal, but fear itself. And most of them aren't taking that threat seriously enough. Yes, the polls may have shown some encouraging signs of movement in Brexit's direction, but their overall message suggests that the dismal status quo will prevail.

These are politically volatile times, but, as things stand now, the best guess is that the British will vote against taking what is all too easily caricatured as a dangerous leap into the dark.

‘Polishing Poo’: Cameron’s Dirty Deal with the EU

National Review Online, February 10, 2016

To pull a rabbit out of a hat, there has to be a hat. In a speech in January 2013, British prime minister David Cameron promised to negotiate a fundamental reworking of Britain’s relationship with the European Union. There would then be a referendum to decide whether Brits wanted to quit the union or stick with it to enjoy the “new settlement” Cameron had secured. There was bold, delusional, or dishonest (take your pick, I’ll go for dishonest) talk of strengthening the EU’s “democratic legitimacy,” of opting out of the forced march toward “ever closer union,” of power “flowing back” to the member states, of an increased role for national parliaments. Euroskeptics scoffed. They were right to. There was no hat. The EU is what it is, and what it is not is some sort of super-free-trade zone: If Cameron got what he wanted, it would no longer be the EU. The rest of the EU was never going to go along with that.

And, now, three years later, the EU’s “president,” Donald Tusk, is brandishing a draft deal that makes that all too clear. Mr. Cameron doesn’t seem too fussed. Many Britons have identified Tusk’s settlement for the malevolent nothing that it is, but their prime minister is insisting that the rabbit that they don’t see is in fact there. He is, he explains, on the edge of winning a splendid new deal for Britain.

It’s customary at times like this to drag out tired old analogies with poor Neville Chamberlain, so notoriously swindled by a wily foreigner at Munich, but that comparison doesn’t work here. No one has swindled Cameron, but if he sells this deal, he will have swindled his country.

In that speech three years ago, Cameron noted how many Britons were asking, “Why can’t we just have what we voted to join — a common market?” Well, that was what they were told they were joining. But what the U.K. actually signed up for was very different — and infinitely less benign.

Yes, “common market” was indeed what Brits used to call that mysterious structure run out of Brussels, but that was a label that concealed more than it explained. In joining what were then more accurately known as the European Communities, Britain had committed itself not only to a trade pact, but also to ever closer union. And that was a project that had been grinding on for a long time. The institutional machinery was already in place to ensure that the integration process — and with it the continuous and irreversible transfer of powers away from national democracies — only moved forward.

And that has continued. The pace may not have been certain, but the direction always was. The changes that David Cameron talked about in 2013 (and before then) were not mere technicalities. They were aimed at the essence of what the European Union, the intended graveyard of the nation-state, was supposed to be. The fact that Cameron wanted quite a few of these changes to be for the benefit of all the EU’s members made things worse still. They were not only a challenge to Brussels but to the euro-fundamentalist political class across a wide swathe of the EU. To repeat myself: The idea that Cameron would secure the unanimous agreement of Britain’s European “partners” to this (because that’s what would, under EU rules, be required) was nonsense.

Cameron, no fool, must have known this, but he was playing a different game. The referendum had essentially been forced on him by the threat to the Tories posed by UKIP’s euroskeptic insurgency. The “renegotiation” would buy valuable time to safely (fingers crossed!) see him through the 2015 election. If it turned out to be a dud, well, he would sort out the problem then.

And a dud is what it has turned out to be

One Tory MP described the proposed deal as “a slap in the face for Britain.” More like a punch, I’d say, made more vicious by the contempt for the electorate with which it was landed: “Hand on heart,” boasted Cameron, “I have delivered the commitments made in my manifesto.” Hand on heart . . . 

Meanwhile, he did his best to stifle dissent within a Conservative party in which many were startled by Cameron’s interpretation of what they had naïvely believed was their manifesto, too.

Speaking in the House of Commons, another Conservative MP, Steve Baker, commented that the deal looked and smelt “funny.” “It might be superficially shiny on the outside, but poke it and it’s soft in the middle.” He asked the prime minister whether he would admit to having “been reduced to polishing poo?”

Cameron wouldn’t, but, dung or not, his renegotiation was always going to be a dud. Bit by bit, he had dropped or diluted his demands. The grand constitutional rearrangements were shelved and the EU’s job-destroying social legislation was left untouched. The tough talk of regaining at least some meaningful veto rights over immigration into the U.K. from elsewhere in the EU dwindled (mostly) into snarling about welfare benefits, a telling retreat. The surge of EU migrants into the U.K. (currently running at a net 180,000 people per year) has done much to fuel British euroskepticism, but Cameron was compelled to accept that he could only nibble at its edges. The free movement of people within the EU is one of the union’s fundamental principles: It wasn’t something that was going to be bartered away.

Cameron ended up asking for little. He will receive less. Thus, so far as benefits are concerned, his proposed scaling back of “in-work” benefits for EU migrants has itself been scaled back. Even that only kicks in if Britain applies an “emergency brake” in the event of undue pressure on public services or the welfare system. And who decides whether the conditions for applying that emergency brake have been met? The EU Commission. Ah.

To be fair, the Commission has said that those conditions are met in Britain — for now.

Wait, there’s more.

The definition of those EU citizens that the U.K. can turn away on the grounds that they represent a “present” threat to public policy or security will be broadened. That’s a welcome change, but it does nothing to address the way European human-rights legislation — all too often stretched beyond reasonable interpretation — can stand in the way of the deportation of equally undesirable non-EUcitizens. Cameron once undertook to tackle this, too. (No matter that doing anything about it was — for reasons too complicated to go into here — a legal impossibility as long as Britain remained within the EU.) He gave up on that as well.

Meanwhile, the introduction of a “red card” system that would, under certain circumstances, allow national parliaments to block EU legislation is one of the few “constitutional” reforms to survive, but it would require the support of another 14 national parliaments before it could be played. The chances of that ever happening are, to say the least, remote.

Another area of British concern has been that the nine EU countries — including the U.K. — not in the euro zone might be ganged up upon by the 19 who are. So, if enough of the nine (it’s not indicated how many) get together, they will be allowed to give their “reasoned objection” to measures designed to integrate the euro zone further. How kind! These objections will then be “discuss[ed]” with a view to finding a “satisfactory solution.” And if that can’t be found, well, silence.

More helpfully, it’s confirmed that Britain will not have to contribute to future euro-zone bailouts, and there will be some protections for Britain’s financial sector from euro-zone regulators. There will also be a prohibition against discrimination against individuals and entities based on the fact that the member-state where they are established has not adopted the single currency, something that will, again, please the City.

Then there’s “ever closer union,” that lethal ratchet. Cameron has been handed a few words, of limited legal consequence, to the effect that the U.K. “is not committed to further political integration into the European Union,” whatever that might mean. But nothing direct is said about the European Court and its habit of interpreting EU law in a way that takes “ever closer union” as a guiding principle. This matters: In the event of a conflict between European law and the law of any member state (including Britain’s), European law prevails. As long as the EU is the EU, that, too, is not going to change.

Is the deal even binding? At the moment it’s only a draft. There will be more bargaining to come, but this proposal, or something close to it, will probably be agreed to by all the EU’s leaders, conceivably as early as next week. Once that’s happened, it can (arguably) be reversed only by a unanimous vote. Once filed with the United Nations, it is (arguably) also binding under international law.

Arguably: With the EU the devil is always in the details, and the law in this area is decidedly murky. The deal will commit the EU’s leadership to amend the EU’s secondary legislation to reflect what has been agreed, a procedure that will give the EU’s (reliably euro-fundamentalist) parliament an opportunity to weigh in. And if it declines to sign off on the deal, what then? After all, the British will have already voted.

Tusk also accepts that the EU treaties may “possibly” need amending at some (unspecified) point to reflect “a few elements” in the proposed deal. Forget that “possibly.” The word is “certainly,” and the amendments may have to cover more than a “few” elements. Amending the treaty is a lengthy, rarely straightforward business, requiring the agreement of all 28 member-states. If that’s not forthcoming — if a parliament votes it down, say, or a referendum gets in the way — what then? It’s by no means clear that Tusk’s agreement to agree would have the legal force that he and Cameron claim. Again, this would take place after (maybe years after) the British referendum, which may take place as early as June.

So, what’s a Brit to think? Well, even on the most favorable construction, the deal does next to nothing to restore Britain’s control over its borders, next to nothing to return any powers to its parliament, next to nothing to extricate Britain from the jaws of “ever closer union,” and nothing at all to restore supremacy to its courts. Adding insult to injury, what’s been thrown the country’s way are, for the most part, not even scraps but promises of scraps, promises that may well not be binding.

Apart from that, it’s a great deal. Hand on heart.

A Feast of Fools

National Review Online, May 27, 2014

Europe has long played host to strange, exuberant celebrations, from Roman Saturnalia to medieval Feasts of Fools to the bean-feasts of old Twelfth Night, when hierarchy was upended and decorum trashed. Master played slave, slave played master, and cook pretended to be king. But when the festivities ended, all was as before. Master and slave, cook and king returned to their stations. Order was restored, strengthened, and tacitly affirmed by a brief period of license that began with its end already agreed.

And that brings me to the elections to the EU parliament. These have always been a pastiche of democracy, rendered absurd by the absence of a European demos. Europe’s voters have always understood that their role in these elections was to perform as extras in a carefully choreographed drama, pay for the whole thing, pretend it was real, and then go away. A good number decided that they would rather not show up at all. There is no European nation, so why vote as if there was?

Back in 1979, the turnout for the first direct elections to the parliament was 61.99 percent. It then fell for each of the next six, reaching 43 percent in 2009. At the time of writing, the turnout for 2014 is calculated at 43.1 percent, an improvement desperately described as “historic” by one of the parliament’s spokesmen. If it was, it was only historic in the depth of the indifference that 43.1 percent represented. The EU parliament is far more powerful than it was in the past, and the catastrophe wrought by the euro has brought the EU to the center of European political debate as never before. That ought to have been worth more than an extra tenth of a percentage point. That it wasn’t says everything.

From the perspective of Brussels, this year’s show must appear to have gotten a little out of hand. An alarming number of the extras ignored their lines and noisily rewrote the script. They did so in ways too varied to list them all. Nevertheless, there were some standouts.

Over in the Sceptic Isle, Nigel Farage’s UKIP swept to the top of the poll with 27.5 percent, the first time for more than a century that a party that was neither Labour nor Conservative had prevailed in a nationwide contest. This was despite an unprecedented battering by the media and the other political parties and, it has to be said, a few own goals.

Across the English Channel, France’s Front National, a pariah for generations, won with 25 percent. In Denmark, the (somewhat) UKIP-like Danish People’s party took the top prize with 26.7 percent, and in Hungary, the conservative-nationalist Fidesz, the ruling party that Brussels most likes to hate, romped home with over half the vote, while the sinister Jobbik clung to 14.3 percent of the poll. That was a higher score than that achieved by the neo-Nazis of Greece’s Golden Dawn, who had to make do with 9.4 percent, not a bad haul nonetheless, considering that its leader and a number of its MPs are in jail. The gold medal in Greece meanwhile was grabbed by the far-left Syriza, with 26.6 percent, a result that could point to a Syriza victory at the next general election and ought to alarm Greece’s creditors. A win by Syriza in the EU elections would, its leader explained shortly before the vote, be a message to Greece’s current government “to take the memorandums [setting out the terms under which Greece received its bailouts], take the troika [the EU Commission, the European Central Bank, and the IMF, which supervise the austerity program], and go.”

And Syriza’s language found an echo in crisis-struck Spain. Establishment parties of center-left and center-right saw sharp declines in their support. Podemos, a brand-new party of the far left, and an offshoot of sorts of the anti-austerity Indignados protests, came from nowhere to take 8 percent of the vote. We will work, said its leader, “together with other partners from southern Europe to say that we don’t want to be a colony of Germany and the troika,” words that should make German taxpayers shudder.

Still, that vulnerable constituency finally has proper representation in the European parliament in the form of a young, pro-EU but anti-euro party, the center-right Alternative für Deutschland, which took 7 percent of the vote. It remains to be seen whether AfD’s success will be enough of a warning shot to stop Chancellor Merkel from selling her country down the river in the event of a revolt against austerity in the periphery and now, quite possibly, France. Probably not, if I had to guess.

Not everything went badly for those in charge in Brussels. In two “creditor” nations, Finland and the Netherlands, prominent Euroskeptic parties did far less well than expected, while in Italy comedian Beppe Grillo’s populist, and not always coherent, Five Star Movement was eclipsed by the center-left PD, now led by the charismatic Matteo Renzi, its supposedly Blair-like (be warned, Italy) new prime minister. That said, the Grillini still managed to account for 21.15 percent of the votes cast. It may be too soon to say that they have peaked.

But Brussels does not have to look as far as Rome for comfort. To start with, the low turnout almost certainly exaggerated the Euroskeptic portion of the vote when compared with the likely outcome in national elections. To be sure, a reluctance to turn up at the polling station may not show much engagement with the European project and that will distress more idealistic Eurocrats. But their more cynical counterparts know very well that apathy is not only better than outright opposition, but is, for the most part, also an ally. Large elements of the superstate-in-waiting have been able to be put in place only thanks to the unwillingness or inability of the electorate to understand where the often complex, often deliberately obscure process of European construction will lead. That still seems unlikely to change.

More than that, the European Parliament will continue to be a Euro-federalist redoubt. As José Manuel Barroso, the former Maoist who is now the EU’s top bureaucrat, announced on Sunday night, “The political forces represented in the European Commission have overall won once again. . . . They share a fundamental consensus for Europe that should now be reinforced.”

The Open Europe think tank has calculated that anti-EU and anti-establishment parties are “on course to win 229 out of 751 seats in the new European Parliament (30.5%), up from 164 out of 766 seats in the current parliament (21.4%).” That’s impressive, but in itself it is not enough to change anything. The parliament will be likely run by some sort of coalition of the center-left and -right, perhaps with an added Green tinge to make it all the more sickening. That won’t be much of a change. In an earlier piece of research, Open Europe noted that “the center-right European People’s Party (EPP) and center-left Socialist and Democrat (S&D) party families voted the same way 74% of the time in the 2009-14 parliament.” A de facto coalition will become de jure, that’s all. And its preferred approach will continue to be “more Europe” buttressed even more than before by the paranoid argument, and often paranoid belief, that Euroskepticism is some sort of fascism. After all, look at that Marine Le Pen.

The outsider parties not only lack the numbers to challenge this consensus, they lack the cohesion to do so. That reflects the fact that they spring from far more authentic — and thus more diverse — national political traditions than the unaccountable nothingness of the acronyms now in charge. The differences between the Euroskeptic parties and the nations they spring from mean that even a marriage of convenience between them (the parliament’s rules favor groupings of a certain breadth and size) can be fraught with danger. A mooted association with Le Pen’s Front National proved very damaging for Geert Wilders in the Netherlands and would be poison for Nigel Farage. The best hope is that the Euroskeptics can at least cast enough light on the workings of the parliament and the rest of the Brussels machine to stir up yet more discontent, but that will take time, perseverance, and a media that is willing to pay attention. Don’t hold your breath.

That’s not to deny that there will be talk of reform, and maybe even talk of the transfer of some power away from Brussels. There will be talk, plenty of it, but its main function will be to mask the whirring of the engine of ever-closer union, an engine that continues to drive integration along whatever the voters may say. To change that will take a revolt of the centrist parties in their domestic legislatures, provoked, perhaps, by the reality of the economic grind that continues to lie ahead and by fear of the political parties that may someday be strong enough to take advantage of it.

Until then, well, clear up the empty bottles; take down the balloons and bunting. È finita la commedia: Those in charge are back in charge, as, indeed, they always were.

Playing The Verdun Card

The Weekly Standard, May 26, 2014

In the curious pantomime that is the EU parliament, the French politician Joseph Daul is a star. He’s the president of the European People’s party (the principal center-right bloc in the parliament), an apparatchik with impeccable EU establishment credentials. He has euro-federalist beliefs, a funding scandal in his past, and a willingness to warn that Brussels is all that stands between the continent and a reversion to its warring ways. He’s also a little twitchy about the elections to the EU parliament later this month.

“I am convinced,” he announced recently, “that if Europe succumbs to the siren voices of populists and Euroskeptics, there will be a turning back towards chaos and war.”

This is an all too familiar eurocratic refrain, but it is heard even more frequently on those rare occasions when Europe’s voters are given a chance to slow down the march to a superstate. Trying to cajole his compatriots into choosing the euro in a 2003 referendum, Swedish prime minister Göran Persson recalled how Germany’s “weeping” Chancellor Kohl had told him that he did not want his sons to die in a third world war, an understandable sentiment, but an unpersuasive argument. Swedish voters stuck with the krona.

Two years later, another Swede, Margot Wallström, then the EU commissioner charged with selling the proposed EU constitution to a somewhat doubtful continent, took the opportunity presented by a visit to the Nazi concentration camp at Theresienstadt (Terezin) to observe that “there are those today who want to scrap the supranational idea. They want the European Union to go back to the old purely intergovernmental way of doing things. .  .  . Those people should come to Terezin and see where that old road leads.”

With this month’s election falling within a few weeks of the hundredth anniversary of a certain shooting in Sarajevo, the dire warnings now tend to refer to a different dark chapter in Europe’s tumultuous 20th century. Last year, José Manuel Barroso, the EU’s top bureaucrat, implied that those “who want to roll back our integration” were risking a regression to “the war [and] the trenches” of the past, a ludicrous variation on an already ludicrous theme.

If all this scaremongering were a matter of cynical calculation it might be possible to treat it with a degree of admiration. As a political tool, it has, after all, proved very effective: Fear works. And so does the manipulation of historical memory, another integral element in Brussels dezinformatsiya. If Europeans could be persuaded to blame the nation-state for their wars, they could be talked into distrusting their own patriotism and buying into the bogus made-in-Brussels “European” identity.

And, indeed, this is what we have seen over recent decades. As it came to be widely accepted that a united Europe was the key to peace, those who persisted in dissenting from the principle of a broader federalist agenda, except, perhaps, in reliably stubborn Britain, were pushed into uncomfortable and ultimately self-segregating corners far from
the electoral mainstream. Outside the skeptic isle, almost the only political parties prepared, until lately, to reject “ever closer union” were those drawn from the rougher ends of the political spectrum, an uninviting destination for centrist voters. That, in turn, made it easier to claim that Euroskepticism was, by definition, evidence of extremism and, maybe, a screw loose too.

The mantra that the EU was staving off a return to the hecatombs also operated as an unsubtle reminder to the Germans that they had a moral obligation to confine their role in the new Europe to keeping quiet and footing a large chunk of the bill. Meanwhile the rest of the continent—and, such is the power of guilt, much of Germany too—was led to believe that only Brussels could keep the Hun on the leash, a notion that rested on the absurd premise that panzers still prowled through Teutonic dreams. Such is the power of history.

The passing of time and the reemergence of German economic power have eroded some of the Bundesrepublik’s willingness to follow the demeaning postwar script, but by less than might be expected. Introducing the euro over the objections of most Germans made a mockery of their democracy. Preserving the single currency has stretched the country’s much-prized constitutional order and now threatens to become a permanent drain on its coffers, but the conservative, gently Euroskeptic (anti-euro, but pro-EU) Alternative für Deutschland is only likely to score 6-7 percent in the upcoming election, and no small portion of that support will owe more to the AfD’s mildly restrictive immigration policy than to its opposition to the single currency. Most of the rest of Germany’s political class remains in thrall to the tired myth that to retreat from ever closer union would be to advance into danger and, quite possibly, war.

But a myth it is. What kept the peace in Europe was, yes, in part, memories of Auschwitz and Verdun, but it was also, much more so, the product of the savage ethnic cleansing of Eastern Europe’s awkward German minorities, and, above all, the discipline imposed by the Cold War—by Soviet hegemony over half of the continent and American leadership of the other. The evolution of the EU was the consequence of this new, rather chilly peace, not the creator of it. Brussels subsequently performed an invaluable role in shepherding Moscow’s former European colonies back to the West after the Soviet collapse, but on foundations built by the Atlantic alliance.

Those who used and abused this myth to drive the EU forward were in many cases not so much Machiavellis as priests who had faith in a tale they themselves spun. And it proved to be a highly convenient myth. The insistence that nationalism is inherently dangerous is an extrapolation from a totally defeated, especially toxic, and specifically German form of nationalism. But it gave those in charge of the European project an ever-expanding license to remove more and more of anything that marked out the distinctiveness of a nation from the regular democratic process: The voters, poor creatures, so susceptible to “populists,” you see, could not be trusted to do the right thing.

Slice by slice, sovereignty has been transferred from democratic nation-states to a largely unaccountable supranational technocratic elite which in turn has become dangerously disconnected from the reality that encounters with the electorate might have brought, and dangerously emboldened as a result. And so the euro was put together with little regard for its own rule book, common sense, or anything resembling informed popular consent. Once launched, the currency union was run in a way that was, if anything, worse. After hubris, nemesis, and with it, old demons began to stir.

The long economic crisis has shattered the never completely convincing illusion of a continent that was leaving nationality behind. Northern Europeans resent being compelled to bail out nations of a eurozone periphery for which they feel little affinity and less respect. The eurozone’s laggards detest what they see as harsh rule by foreign diktat. Vintage stereotypes are dusted off. Greeks are thieves. Chancellor Merkel is a Nazi. Trapped in the jaws of a dysfunctional currency union, and lacking the democratic legitimacy to fix it and either the imagination or the courage to try something else, the establishment parties have little to offer but more of the same. And so the hard times grind on.

And as hard times tend to do, they are persuading increasing numbers of voters to turn to alternatives they once would never have considered. While the effect may be magnified by low turnout (which fell—the sixth consecutive drop—to 43 percent in 2009), this month’s European election is likely to see something that looks a lot like a Euroskeptic wave. Some 25 percent  of the vote could go to Euroskeptics  of one description or another, up from 15 percent or so (it’s difficult to be precise) in the current parliament. As waves go it will be choppy: This is a ragtag group, drawing from left and right and ranging from the benign (such as Britain’s UKIP) to the sinister (Greece’s neo-Nazi Golden Dawn, given its big break by the failures of an EU that once claimed it had consigned black shirts to history). It will be neither numerous nor cohesive enough to change very much in the short term. But what these parties do have in common is a determination to wrest back control of their countries’ destinies from what is rightly seen as remote, micromanaging, and alien bureaucratic control.

This month’s vote will be followed by noisy, angry, and overwrought polemics, but not by dramatic transformation or the guns of August. That said, as the Barrosos and the Dauls push on—and they will—with the trudge towards ever closer European integration, doubtless claiming that the rise of “dangerous” Euroskepticism makes it even more imperative than before, they will be ignoring a nastily inconvenient truth from Europe’s past: Imposed multinational federations don’t end well.

Sarajevo learned that a century ago. And then it learned it again.

A Vulnerable Equilibrium

Jens Nordvig: The Fall of The Euro

National Review Online, April 29, 2014

He ate poisoned cakes and he drank poisoned wine, and he was shot and bludgeoned just to make sure, but still Rasputin lived on. And that gives me just enough of an excuse to use the mad, almost indestructible monk to begin an article about a mad, possibly indestructible currency. The euro has crushed economies, wrecked lives, toppled governments, broken its own rule book, made a mockery of democracy, defied market economics, and yet it endures, kept alive by the political will of the EU’s elite, fear of the alternative, and the magic of a few words from Mario Draghi, the president of the European Central Bank (ECB) back in July 2012.

Speaking to an investment conference, Draghi said that, “within our mandate” (a salute to watchful Germans), the ECB was “ready to do whatever it takes to preserve the euro.” “Believe me,” he added, “it will be enough.” Those few words, and their implication of dramatic market intervention, did the trick. Financial markets calmed down, and there are now even faint hints of economic recovery in the worst corners of the euro zone’s ER. And all this has happened without the ECB’s actually doing anything. Simply sending a signal sufficed.

The crisis has been declared over by the same Brussels clown posse that always declares the crisis over. They may be right, they may be wrong, but a calm of sorts has descended on the euro zone — not peace exactly, but quiet, punctuated occasionally by tremors that may be aftershocks, but could be omens of fresh chaos ahead.

That makes this a good time to take a look at The Fall of the Euro, a guide to the EU’s vampire currency by Jens Nordvig, global head of currency strategy for the Japanese investment bank Nomura Securities. If you are looking for a quick, clear, accessible account, free from financial mumbo-jumbo, that explains how the euro came to be, why trouble was always headed its way, what was done when the storm broke, and what might happen next, this book (which was published last autumn) is an excellent place to start.

It is written from the point of view of a market practitioner. Nordvig is not too fussed about the deeper European debate. He mainly wants to know what works. Here and there he will nod politely to democratic niceties, but this is a book where worries over lost sovereignty are dismissed as “sentimental.” Overall, Nordvig is a supporter of closer European integration (“a noble ideal,” he maintains — it isn’t, but that’s another story), but one with considerably less time for illusions than most in his camp.

And the euro, he argues, was built — and run — on illusions, the illusion that Germany was Italy, Italy was Portugal, and Portugal was Finland, the illusion that one size would fit all. Its creation was a “reckless gamble.” Politics prevailed over economics. No one made any preparations for the rainy day that could never come. The foundations for catastrophe were laid, and then built on by regulators, policymakers, and financial-market players only too happy to believe that the impossible was possible. Imbalance was piled on imbalance, and a shared currency masked the nightmare developing underneath. Employed by Goldman Sachs at the time, Nordvig saw how markets viewed the euro zone as an indivisible whole. But Greece was still Greece. And Germany was still Germany.

“Policy makers,” writes Nordvig, “can attempt to circumvent the basic laws of economics, but over time, the core economic truths take their revenge.” Unsustainable boom was followed by what has seemed, until recently, like permanent bust.

Nordvig does a fine job of explaining how the euro zone has been kept intact since the storm first broke, but he focuses more on the how than on the implications. Thus he relates how some of what has been done appears to “circumvent” a clear legal prohibition on European Central Bank financing of public-sector deficits, but seems to see that as more of a curiosity than cause for concern. But concern is called for: The EU’s combination of lawlessness at the top (remember how the Lisbon Treaty was used to “circumvent” those French and Dutch referenda) and tight control over everyone else has been a hallmark of tyranny through the ages.

Then again, financial types generally focus, understandably enough, on the financial rather than the political. But when the two look to be at risk of colliding, market attention shifts. Nordvig suspects that the euro zone may be getting closer to one of those moments.

He sees the euro zone as having emerged from its travails into what is now a state of “vulnerable equilibrium.” But to work properly, it needs substantially deeper fiscal and budgetary integration — something resembling the set-up that underpins monetary union in the U.S. He’s right about that, and that he is goes a long way toward explaining why euroskeptics are so opposed to the single currency. A realist, Nordvig concedes that the political support for such a step is simply not there, and he’s right about that too. New Yorkers might grumble about the way that, courtesy of the federal government, they effectively send cash to Mississippi, but they accept that their two states are in the same American boat. Germans look across at the Greeks (and other mendicants) and realize that they have been conned into bailing out a bunch of foreigners. That’s why, when Germany accepted the need for some sort of fiscal union to keep the euro zone in one piece, it insisted (as Nordvig explains) on an arrangement that falls far short of how such a union is usually understood. The Fiscal Compact that ensued is intended to minimize deficit spending in euro-zone member states rather than give Brussels additional spending power, spending power that could have been used to help out the battered periphery. It is no “transfer union.”

All that is left for the euro zone’s weaker performers is yet more austerity (sensibly enough, Nordvig sees the current currency regime as akin to a gold standard, and not in a good way), adding further bite to the deflationary crunch which these countries face. And it’s a crunch made worse by the perception, both fair and unfair, that it is being imposed on them from “abroad.” Greece is not Germany. And nor is France.

With bailouts resented in the euro zone’s more prosperous north, and austerity loathed elsewhere, it’s surprising how passive voters have been. There are plenty of explanations for this, but Nordvig is right to stress fear of the turbulence that abandoning the euro might unleash (a fear reinforced by establishment propaganda and the failure of many of the euro’s critics to articulate a credible alternative). A residual attachment to that “noble idea” of closer European union has also played a part as has, Nordvig notes, the determination of the dominant parties of center right and center left to hang onto the single currency. That’s something that has left anti-euro, but otherwise mainstream, voters struggling to find an outlet for their discontent.

That said, the prolonged economic grind is increasingly forcing voters in the direction of less respectable parties (such as France’s Front National) that believe that the euro zone and EU need much more than a mild course correction (the FN would pull France out of the euro). If these parties gain significant ground in May’s elections to the EU parliament (the betting is that they will), the danger (or opportunity) is not that they will overthrow the prevailing consensus in the EU parliament (they have neither the numbers nor the cohesion to do that), but that their success will shove their mainstream opponents in a more euroskeptic direction back home. Credibly enough, Nordvig identifies the possibility of a revolt within the political center (which could take very different forms: The Finns, say, may decline to support another bailout, while the Greeks might eventually turn away from austerity) as another potential block on the road to the closer integration that the single currency needs.

Even if the euro zone’s leadership does manage to fumble its way to agreeing on how closer integration could be secured — a deal that would inevitably involve massive transfers of sovereignty to Brussels — it will not be easy to push such a package through without the approval of a referendum or two. On past form, and in the electorate’s present mood, that will not be easy.

But, warns Nordvig, “if further integration is not feasible, some form of breakup is inevitable.” Nordvig may be sympathetic to the European project, but he is too much of a realist to pay too much attention to the Brussels myth that there is no alternative to preserving the euro “as is.” Specifically, he rejects the argument that, just because a “full-blown” breakup would be cataclysmic (as Nordvig convincingly shows, it could well be), all forms of breakup must be too. That’s a claim he heretically and correctly regards as little more than “a convenient tool to bind the euro zone together” and one, moreover, that has been used to stifle any proper analysis of what the costs and benefits of, say, a particular country’s quitting the euro might be. Such a departure, he believes, could be engineered “without intolerable pain.”

In understanding what Nordvig means by this, pay attention to his observation that “the cost of exit may be more concentrated around the transition phase, while the cost of sticking with the euro accumulates gradually over time.” Jumping out of a burning building is never easy, but it often beats the alternative.

Nordvig deftly summarizes what the costs and benefits of that jump might be, concluding that quitting the euro would be very tough for Ireland, Greece, Portugal, and Spain, easier than perhaps expected for France and Italy, and easiest (although far from problem-free) for Germany (I’d agree). That’s a position that logically takes him not too far (although he doesn’t quite arrive there) from support for a division of the single currency into northern and southern euros, something that has, in my view, long been the way to go. According to Nordvig, however, the most likely quitter is a country reduced to a state of such excruciating agony (not only in that burning building, but on fire) that exiting the euro finally comes onto the agenda. That is highly unlikely to be Germany, the nation most able to cope, inside the euro and out.

So what happens next? Suitably cautious in the face of such an uncertain environment, Nordvig lays out a number of different scenarios. While accepting, as he should, that political turmoil could upend everything, Nordvig appears, on balance, to conclude that the German austerity model will prevail, that a transfer union will be avoided, and that the euro zone’s laggards will trudge their way to an excruciatingly slow recovery. My own suspicion is that this assumes too much patience on the part of the periphery. Pushed both by common sense and fear of an increasingly unruly electorate, its governments will start a slow-motion revolt against what remains of the hard-money ECB that the Germans were once promised. Still in thrall to the cult of “ever closer union,” and terrified of the alternatives, Germany’s leadership will acquiesce. In fact there are clear signs that this process may be well underway.

This will lead to another of the scenarios sketched out by Nordvig. Loose money will try to fill some of the gap left by the transfer union that never was, and will do so just well enough to enable the euro to survive, but as a currency that is more lira than deutsche mark. That will be yet another betrayal of taxpayers in Europe’s north, while leaving the continent’s south still trapped in a system that does not fit.

And for what?