I Think I'm Becoming More of a Conservative

I salute David Cameron for his veto to the EU because I think I have become more conservative and appreciate the maintenance of Anglo-American culture versus the new form of polity that is emerging in Europe under the leadership of Germany. Liberal seems to mean merging the Anglo-American culture with the Continental which is not realistic. Gideon Rachman points out in his column that the Netherlands and France seem to be hanging rather lose in the new constellation formed. France because the socialists, if they win in the spring, would opt against. What I don’t like with the Germans so far is the strong anti-Americanism displayed in their English propaganda magazine Spiegel Online International. The English journals and magazines are more neutral against Germany.

Sweden has ended up in a precarious situation the reason for which I am a little unsure. I had this idea that the Swedes that historically have had a soft spot for the strong leader would have liked the EU and to become more of a guided citizen of Europe than a member of the “free world” now when crisis strikes and federalism is back on the agenda. Many politicians and industry in Sweden are German and would like an EMU membership but the populace is to 80% against this development currently. This surprised me actually and the question is if this is Germanophobia, Anglophilia, or just holding tight in your wallet for southern profligacy? The fact that English is used in media and music to a great extent in Sweden probably adds to the ambivalence. Birgitta Ohlsson, the EU minister, Jan Björklund, party leader in the People’s Party, and Carl B Hamilton, chairman of the EU commission today write in Svenska Dagbladet  that Sweden should join the “core of Europe”. That would mean EMU membership or at least membership in the new coalition. The new suggested Left Party leader Jonas Sjöstedt immediately takes a point that they act against the people. It is interesting to find Tories side by side with Swedish Left Partiers!

People are demonstrating in Italy because of Monti’s austerity measures which raise the question if the German austerity way is actually going to destabilize Europe. If these problems become more severe this might lead to a notion from the market that a federalization attempt of the Eurozone would not add to financial improvement. People seem therefore have lost hope and walk out on the street without a clear objective. They do not sense the reality of the emergency. Large numbers are just large numbers and not years of hard work with less to balance the books. They feel unfairly treated and cheated by everybody. Almost all serious writes that publish in the free media diagnose the problem as a problem of a widening gap between the rich and the poor. In order to entice investors Merkozy let the private investors off the hook in the deal and loaded the problem onto the taxpayers, something that did not show very clearly in the aftermath.

What kind of new culture is forming under Germany on the Continent then? It is different both in its economy and in its general culture. Germany is well founded in philosophy, literature and music but it is not clear exactly where they stand politically, except that they have a right of center and a left of center party with a strong former communist block as of recently. Catholicism will be a strong factor in its development. They even have a German-born and raised Pope. That is a factor that ameliorates the fusion with Poland but not with Sweden. Britain is a more secular and religiously open-minded country which fits better with the liberal immigration politics of Sweden. The Orthodox Greeks are culturally and economically way out as I pointed out before. How does Catholicism influence people then compared to a more secular religiously open-minded setting. It could have an effect on the degree of privacy due to the culture of the Confession. Personally I believe strongly that maintaining privacy is a survival factor for future civilizations.

What does Britain have to offer the Swedes then? Its culture multiplies the knowledge-factor via the second language with a factor of at least ten times. We can directly access the Anglo-American literature and all its text books for academia. Unless Sweden would go back to German as a second language they will always have problems on the Continent. The problem there for the Germans is clear. Their language does not sound that attractive so it does not work as efficiently to foster a culture as English. Therefore there is a risk that there will be harder power than what would be needed in the English case. In an era where teaming up to survive is becoming more and more necessary to challenge the gargantuan Chinese state it is important to realized that Sweden is a small country which has to form ties with for them the right partners. The time has come again for a decision. Last time around Sweden made a U-turn after the war. Will they make a U-turn post battle this time when the smoke clears?

Europe?

Germany is the current power house in Europe and it seems like there are wishes that Sweden should help Greece to help Germany out in the Eurozone. How about investing this money in Britain instead? They are a little short right now.

Technology dependent states--China and the EU?

The first unified China, the Qin Dynasty, lasted only fourteen years, from 221BCE. It was a highly suppressive affair that alienated everyone in society although there was a unification of the spoken and written language. It was replaced by the Han Dynasty, 202BCE to 220CE, where Confucianism came back and the moral of the emperor ruling for the benefit of the ruled moral came back from the Legalist tradition under Qin. In 5BCE there were 60m people in China together with 130,000 bureaucrats.

Today there are 1,350m people in China and it occurred to me that Deng Xiaoping in 1978 would never have embarked on the Chinese miracle if it had not been for the technology that no one dares to speak of. Controlling such an amount of educated Middle Class Chinese the way the party wants to would not have been possible. If I am right in my conjecture, this would mean that the protocol used by the 80m people in the Communist Party is a prerequisite for the state whereas the West is using the technology on preexistant functioning states.

This would mean that governing such large conglomerates as China and the EU needs the technology. Francis Fukuyama discusses how China’s development compared with that of Europe and it is interesting to note that the seemingly blind alley that the Chinese already embarked on in 221BCE with the first modern dictatorship is something they might have cemented with the technology today making it virtually impossible for a democratic development. Fusing Europe in the EU is also something that has reversed democratization.

The frustrating discussion that have been ongoing since the financial crisis in 2008 on the fate of the EU then in all probability to a certain extent revolves around the question if national states are going to let go of their regular governance to the governance aided by the technology and thus emulation of China. Historically Europe never mustered the coercion needed by Qin to unify China. The geography was configured so as to promote different cultures and languages and the brute force of unification never materialized. Furthermore, the Catholic Church induced a social development that never happened in China which lacks the rule of law and an accountable government still today.

The latest gossip on the EU is that a two-speed super-state will form on the Continent with Britain on the side. The question then is if Germany will lead the Continent in the Chinese technology dependent fashion and that democracy with functioning governments using the technology will remain in Anglo-America?

The Global Position?

I see that some people claim that they are global liberals or that Sweden is a global country. Is this an escape from the real people "verklighetens folk"? I must admit I feel a little guilty myself but the question is what such a stratification does to a country. The global postion is a little fuzzy.

As I noted before, the Libya debacle is a case in point. Swedes and Danes share the same base in Italy but do not do the same job and Germany is not doing anything. This is examples of different penetration of the stratification problem.

As a global liberal it is necessary to take a strand for helping the so called rebels in Libya which means you get in trouble supporting Germany's new anti-nuclear line as the path forward for Europe especially when you get 40% of your electricity from nuclear power. Again it is possible to escape as a global liberal with global values but such values are theoretical. They don't exist in reality in a country. I wonder if calling Sweden a global country is not the same as declaring it neutral in all conflicts and keeping one's options open? Saying that we do what the EU does is not true either. We are not even part of the euro-zone.

Then again how homogenous is the global position. Is it the position of global peace? Or the position of global finance? Is it the defunct G20? Jeffrey D. Sachs suggested the world should be divided into self-sustaining regions instead of a G20 mechanism where the regions take care of economical and security questions. Our region would then be the Nordic countries. Some 25m people. Since Norway is not part of the EU and Sweden and Finland not part of NATO we are not even ready to take care of our immediate environment.

With our language education we are part of the Anglo-American culture domain. But apart from security issues, Great Britain and the US are not so close anymore. Germany just took a path that seemed unpalatable for Sweden and thus an ever closer Union does not look potentially good right now, which is what is necessary to save the Euro. You see, neutrality politics becomes tempting again.

Where is the future forming right now? 1523 when Gustaf Vasa got financial help from Lübeck to take back Stokholm from the Danes and then help to organize Sweden saw a development where Holland slowly took over control from Lübeck and thus formed the Western civilization with England during the 16th and 17th centuries. Sweden became on their own then from their benefactor, independence, but did not get part of the real action until later. Are we doing the same mistake today?

Is Sweden on the way back to a neutral position?

It has been going on for a decade now, the problem with China's undervalued currency. The most dramatic lines in Gideon Rachman's book Zero-Sum World, that came out in November of 2010, are: "It is no longer clear that the most important economic relationship in the world--that between China and the United States--is still mutually beneficial. The Americans worry about their trade deficit with China and argue that an undervalued Chinese currency helped create the credit bubble that blew up in 2008. The Chinese call such charges absurd--and worry about the safety of their dollar assets."

Would a small country with a large export industry be careful to take sides in such a battle? Would they forget what happened when Liu Xiaobo got the Nobel Peace Prize--threats from China to countries participating in the festivities in Oslo? Democracy? Well, the Swedes as a people are still hesitating to join NATO, even if the membership in the EU approximately amounts to the same thing, except a relationship with the US. The Social Democrats and their coalition, prior to the election last September, even suggested that the US should close their bases around the world. That might mean that they think US's supposed empire is in decline. Values or prosperity?

The SOM Institute in Göteborg regularly polls the Swedes to find out what they value the most. It is health, freedom, honesty and a world in peace. Peace runs very strongly among the Swedes. They have a tradition of staying out of the World Wars and concentrate on peace keeping in the UN and Afghanistan. They reacted very strongly against the Vietnam War and has taken in 2% of it's population worth of Iraqis. Faced with this moral dilemma, my guess would be that they retract into a neutrality politics. It is interesting to note that Germany seems to be heading in the same direction?

Member states versus the EU?

It is interesting to note that the only area where the EU has some clout is in economy where they have the Euro and it is in this area where people now start to talk about a "Currency War". Apparently all major players, and a few others, are trying to lower their currencies relative others and most of all people want China to raise theirs to perhaps 20% undervalued renminbi according to The Financial Times.

The meeting between China and the EU the last few days was not a success. Wen Jiabao, the Chinese premier, in principle asked the EU to stop bothering them about the renminbi. There would be problems in China in terms of stability if all the Chinese companies would be let to go bust if the renminbi was to be raised. These are important matters since the EU is China's largest trade partner. China prefers to deal bilaterally with individual countries though, which is something they can't do with the Euro.

As people that read this blog might have noticed, I'm very interested in what will happen with EU in the future. Will the member states dominate or will things become more "federal". Furthermore, in an article on the euobserver.com site today they discuss that small countries in general are angry with the larger EU countries because they play national games rather than union ones. In other words if Germany push for something this would be inherently wrong, which is of course not true in general.

Drift into oblivion! This is the fate of the EU if they don't federalize according to some people. Others say that they don't see any problems and that the member states will dominate. Would Wen Jiabao have visited if it wasn't for the Euro and how about the American analysis that the Euro would crash if there wasn't a federalization taking place? The editorial of Göteborgs Posten today calls for an entry into the Euro zone for Sweden. Will Sweden and Britain remain on the side of the Continent?

David Cameron, the steward of the ship Britannica, held his first major speech yesterday. The debate in Britain today is very interesting because they have what some would call an existential struggle going on where Cameron tried but failed, according to The Financial Times, to push for what he calls a "Big Society". Apparently he was not asking the Brits for help but rather made a "call to arms". A Debt War, I guess!

The idea of the Big Society is simple. Replace the state with efforts from the civic society but according to The Times it is not the same old small state talk but rather a new form of caring-for-each-other version of the civic society. That makes Cameron a little like a priest of society. His big moment so far is supposed to be as an architect of the coalition with the LibDems. Fredrik Reinfeldt has had bad luck with the financial crisis so far but now faces a more complicated governing situation where his leadership skills will be challenged in a new fashion. Having a better financial situation than his friend in Britain, he still faces the same existential problems in principle.

Britain and Sweden in the world?

The Hindu : Columns / Hasan Suroor : Britain: redefining its global status: "Indeed, there is a growing view that Britain must now abandon its search for a post-Raj role and learn to live by the new world order in which those it once governed are the new masters. But, in refusing to read the writing on the wall, old colonial powers can be like ageing ballerinas who are often reluctant to acknowledge that their glory days are over and time has come for them to leave the stage before push comes to shove."

The columnist in question is giving Britain a beating for having been imperialistic. It is interesting reading. I get a feeling we have enemies out there. However, India and China are developing from partly the same paradigm that was created in England and Scotland during the 17th and 18th centuries. Furthermore, there is a sense that India, in this case, is beating from a position where the full country with all its poverty is in the same shape as Britain's. They are not!

The question is if India and China will be the "new masters"? The West and India is about them same number of people. I think it would be nice of India would develop into an equal partner but its becoming a new master is rather far fetched. The column brings about the question if India and China can rule by dividing? If they can single out country by country and finish them off without the rest of the West reacting? Is NATO hereby getting a new meaning? A new role where economic security would be more in focus?

Hostile attitudes like the one above could act as a unifying agent on the EU and on the trans-Atlantic relationship. Another effect might be just on Britain's choice of junior partner with the US or member of the EU. This choice will have historic meaning. Another fate for the states of Europe might be to end up as the neutral-bent Sweden. Sweden's rhetoric has however been lately rather "we the EU". The word is still out on the effect of the debt crisis. Will it federalize or divide Europe or will EU just muddle through with part of the state affairs in common custody? Will Europe be left alone?

The Swedish role in the world?

Tallyho! Hunting for a British role - The Globe and Mail: "It’s been nearly 50 years since U.S. secretary of state Dean Acheson whipped up a storm by saying Britain had lost an empire but not yet found a role. Role hunting has been a British sport ever since. Tallyho! goes up the cry, every time they have a new government, and off they gallop, led by the prime minister and the foreign secretary. The fox usually gets away in the end – and Britain sinks back into doing whatever it does."

Timothy Garton Ash complains in his way on the problem for a 60m country to have a say here on Earth as we speak. What does Sweden then have to say in the world with its 9m people, 2% of the population of the EU? Some people in Sweden talks nostalgically about "Stormakts Sverige", the time when Swedish kings like Gustavus Adolphus foraged around in Europe for fame and glory while ruining their country. The king in question died the same year as Baruch Spinoza and John Locke were born, by the way. The Social Democrats in Sweden introduced a pacifistic bent where Sweden represented the World Conscience.

The Social Democrat Ulf Bjereld made his dissertation on something as esoteric as a Swedish Middle East Policy and interestingly the current foreign minister Carl Bildt is fairly in line with the Social Democrats on these issues where he is more American on others as the Turkish question. It is interesting to note, by the way, that Germany's energy company RWE has shown interest in the Russian Turkey avoiding South Stream pipeline negotiated by Gerhard Schröder over the Nabucco ditto, despite a double cost estimate.

Considering Garton Ash's role search above, is it possible for Sweden to find a new path from the World Conscience one of the Social Democrats? I personally find the World Conscience one very unsatisfactory because it disregards power. If you want democracy to reign supreme it's wise to, like Britain, play a role as a firm supporter of the US. I'm surprised Garton Ash is not referring to this role? Carl Bildt is trying a new way in between Britain and Old Sweden: having relationships with powers you might not dislike and still work for democracy in other ways. I guess the power Poles and Swedes don't like is Russia, but as we just discussed, keep a relationship--and let Germany do the power thing.

Stand by your Man, Garton Ash!

Everything is politics?

From a speech by Göran Hägglund, party leader for Kristdemokraterna in Sweden, a conservative party: "Rikstingsdeltagare, Vänstern drivs av en fundamental tes som säger att allt är politik. Det är en i grunden totalitär syn, för i den finns inga givna gränser för vad politiker ska få bestämma om. Det är en syn som är fullkomligt främmande för oss kristdemokrater, och av flera skäl. För det första är vår tradition den naturrättsliga, den som erkänner en grundläggande rätt för människan som ligger djupare än politiska trender. För det andra tror vi att politikens uppgift är att understödja när det behövs, inte att styra i onödan. För det tredje tror vi att det civila samhället, det som är utanför stat och marknad, är den kraft som driver det politiska livet och inte tvärtom."

It is echoing in Great Britain: "So today we are taking an unprecedented step. Based on the belief that it is people, not policymakers, who know best, we are asking the people of Britain to tell us how you want to see your freedom restored." says Nick Clegg, party leader of the Liberal Democrats in the ruling coalition of Great Britain.

The Day After the EU Summit

De Gaulle and Churchill have a message for Sarkozy and Cameron Timothy Garton Ash Comment is free The Guardian: "Simply put, Churchill concluded that Britain could no longer rely on France and must secure its own survival, security and, so far as possible, continued greatness, through a special relationship with the United States. De Gaulle concluded that French greatness must be restored through a fierce independence from the US, but also from Britain, and by finding partners on the European continent"

Well, Germany is apparently having their way so far which might be what Garton Ash means with a civil1940. I agree with Angela Merkel that it is better with a 27 country "economic government", whatever that will come to mean. After all Sweden would not be a part of Nicolas Sarkozy's Euroland government. I don't know what they mean with a two speed Europe though, talking about the Eurozone, because many of the countries outside the zone are in the high speed circle?

Watching the intense media hype around the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, I have begun to wonder if it could alienate the US and the UK? There was a discussion of a vanishing "special relationship" even before this debacle. With Clegg aboard the British ship Cameron might steer the British government in the direction of the EU after all. Charlemagne believes that France and Germany will iron out a joint position after the dust of the debt crisis has settled, if it does.

A lot of people are tip toeing around the concept of an "economic government". Anders Borg, the Swedish Minister of Finance, believes this government must come from within the states. There is no way some little green guys in Brussels will helm the EU ship. The question then becomes how is this self reliance enforced. Borg was very reluctant to suggest remedies. The invisible hand? That magic which keeps the EU together whether its people wants it or not?

In my analysis the current fight in EU is between the people and the elites, or Eurocrats as some people call them. Merkel is more on the people's side than Sarkozy from the enarchic France. I wrote more, because the German people gives her a hard time recently for supporting the wealthy. The elites in Europe are negotiating and Merkel and Sarkozy are involved in some kind of political theater displaying these remarkable photographs of the dear old couple.

It was interesting that Dimitry Medvedev joined the fray on an American note and suggested that the Euro is in danger and that BP Plc might collapse. Estland is joining the club but Island is apparently not so interested anymore now when they recovered somewhat from their recession.

The other fight is between the economic system of the US and that of Germany apparently where the US is afraid of recession and Germany of inflation. President Obama has issued a statement where he warns Europe for risking the world economic recovery by their austerity. From the economic discussions available it seems like Wall Street and The City of London is in the same boat but that Germany and France are each in different vessels. That would give a continued Churchillianism but a partly broken Gaullism.

Does Germany change military security for financial security?

What happened in Germany now is possibly a trend for where Europe is heading. The savings package that Angela Merkel has proposed, to the dismay of the opposition who think the cuts are too anti-social, plays down the Bundeswehr for greater financial future security with less debt. Germany is going to save some €80bn the next four years. Setting an example for Europe is also given as an explanation. Leading by example. Is Merkel saying place no money in military matters. Especially not borrowed money.

Merkel hesitated against the wish of the US around the time of the financial crisis to borrow money for a stimulus. Common sense has it that if you don't have a need for it during a crisis don't put yourself in debt. Not high finance but the idea probably rubs well with the public. As does the idea of not spending more money than you earn.

I guess the Anglo-Saxon model was that you can borrow if you have ideas to make money from the borrowed money that earned more than the interest, up to a point, and that point seems to come earlier in Germany these days. I have also gathered that the mentally repugnant idea that you should increase consumption in Germany to stimulate the economy in Europe does not interest the Chancellor. Increase consumption when there are bad times!?

It has become very dangerous to have debt apparently. Britain has gotten a warning today for losing their triple A rating if they don't lower their debt burden more than earlier planned. Anne Applebaum writes about the German president that left because of some question of why Germany is in Afghanistan. If Britain all of a sudden is going to decide that it is more dangerous to increase their debt than leaving Afghanistan to its fate, things will start to happen. Germany apparently does not lower funding for their foreign military adventures but will lower costs significantly for their domestic use. President Köhler perhaps left office because he wanted to tell the truth which would then have been that foreign economical reasons are very important for the domestic security of Germany. A reason that then would be constitutional.

Excuse me for asking, but is not all this financial security going to cost growth and therefore cause debt problems for southern Europe? And what is going to happen with the other European countries if Germany has to save this much? Is Germany selfish again? A lot of people have written about this today but I don't get any answers on how unique the folding of your military is and what you are replacing it with, if at all?

The Continent?

Charlemagne's notebook The Economist: "The eurozone is in a moment of historic flux. Mr Cameron made it clear several times that Britain had no intention of being drawn closer to the euro, though he made the case that the euro's stability was of vital importance to Britain, as a major trading partner. This was not a meeting between members of a single political family, but a polite encounter between new neighbours."

The Times called the meeting between David Cameron and Angela Merkel frosty. After all, Cameron had gone to Paris first. Perhaps because Merkel had not wanted to meet with Cameron at a visit in London which Sarkozy had done. Merkel apparently is more sour for the Tory elopement from the EU parliament EPP group. The ruling society of the Continent.

I had a feeling that prior to the €750bn bail-out EU was in a fragmented stage. The outgoing German EU commissioner Günter Verheugen, who had spent 10 years at the Commission, said when he left that the EU had no vision for Europe. There is no consensus among the 27 nations. Now, all of a sudden there is talk of an economic government of the Euro zone. Cameron, however, wants nothing to do with Euroland.

The problem I have with The Continent is that it is very much "the lid on". If it wasn't for the Anglo-Saxon press, I personally would not know much about its business. The Swedish press writes very little about Germany and France as well. Nothing about Poland. The Swedish blogosphere is probably close to en par with the frequency of interest--very important-- for foreign policy in Europe of 1-2% according to the EUrobarometer. There is very little information to come by. Thus it takes time to get a feel for what is going on.

So what is happening? Well, searching the internet for post-EU-politics does not yield much. I have a distinct feeling, however, that this is what we have to start pondering. Take Verheugen's word for it. I have changed my mind on the peace issue. I do not think an-ever-closer-union is necessary for peace. Being subjungated under Germany is worse. Germanization of Europe is probably not possible. English as an enforced second language was not possible either. A prerequisite for further integration. Right now the EU in general and the euro zone in particular stand before the decision of accepting Germany as ruler in an economic government. "Do what they say"?

As I said, I don't think that the communitarian Europe needs that boss. Therefore we will see more fragmentation and the dissolution of the eurozone. The fragments will be more stable though and therefore more peaceful. Some people say that there would be chaos in Europe if the euro zone was brought down. There are signs that Germany is working of making an "orderly" transit in the name of "stability".

Returing a moment to Verheugen's judgment, there are probably visions for Europe. The problem is, however, when it is not possible to verbalize such visions in public.

How to construct a modern political party?

Blair-Brown is over. No more living in the past David Miliband - Times Online: "But it became outdated in the new media age where people crave participation. Today we are proud of our activists, not fearful of them. So we need a new way of doing politics. We talked about political reform in the last Parliament, admittedly late in the day. But we did not meet today’s requirement for openness and participation. We did not escape the image of politics as deals, not debate; a game, not a calling."

David Miliband is one of the contestants for Party Leader in Labour. He was groomed as a foreign secretary and it is now very interesting to see how he think Labour should renew itself based on his broad experience. Apparently he thinks the new media age did his party in.

The image of politics has become "a game, not a calling", he says. I really think he is on to something here. "The game" has become a menace. It is the entry to the black net-economy where they don't pay tax and clandestinely shield people from real life. These practices must create alienation and cause people to worry.

Miliband uses "participation" as a key word. Someone Swedish said that so called "fri-fräsande" bloggers, ie, non-organized activists, was a problem if they blogged in a party's name. The same person once said there were hierarchies on the internet which made me wonder about free speech. I guess some people like to sing in a choir whereas others like solving problems as they come.

Participants in the political discussion obviously vary in skill and knowledge. It seems to me, however, that they should be valuable to parties in all forms. There are these besserwissers that think they need to intervene when the internet naturally sort out what is interesting by itself. Smart people don't read what does not interest them.

Swedish politics, and now also British, is the politics of coalitions. That would make it more interesting to read of "natural" ideas from people rather than sorting people into party choirs. The combined idea from the people becomes more interesting than the party line. However, there must be leaders out there that manage to also lead by their visions. Governing by the poll might not be creative enough. After all the most creative politicians don't represent the mean. I guess it is a little like the hen and the egg. I hope that the new politics is not going to be performed by people that are poll nerds. Perhaps it is time to separate the politician from the government administrator? Or is the politician passé? After all the political party memberships are declining.

European growth perspectives?

BBC News - EU prepares to vote on new hedge fund rules: "The European Parliament's economics committee is set to vote on the legislation on Monday evening, then EU finance ministers will discuss it on Tuesday. The parliament and member states' governments have equal powers to shape the new regulations."

The above article discusses how Great Britain differs from the Continent in how they want their financial markets to operate. I vouched for risk taking and fulfilling dreams the other night so I guess I am British on this one. But I am not sure I understand the logic behind the wanted change since Europe needs growth more than most and because the suggested changes limit these prospectives.

Angela Merkel and Nicolas Sarkozy went against George Bush almost immediately after the financial crisis 2008 and wanted more regulations. I guess it has taken this long for this change to percolate down to the current suggestion by the European Parliament Economics Committee. I remember Bush's argument against was that Germany's market was more regulated but they also ran into the same trouble.

Olle Schmidt, a European MP from the Swedish People's Party, says in an article in Svenska Dagbladet: "Firmer regulations of Risk Capital Funds will strangulate Europe from capital and among other things give pension fund investors less opportunities to invest." Schmidt argues that this might have negative consequences for pensions and venture companies in Sweden. Schmidt, a member of the liberal ALDE group, will vote against the suggestion whereas conservatives and socialists are expected to vote for it.

The Cameron government just installed a EU moderate as EU minister to soften concerns of the EU. Cameron had taken his party out of the EPP group to the EU parliament fringes. Apparently Merkel and Sarkozy are united against Great Britain on this issue which is very important for the City of London financial centers that has generated a lot of income to Britain. Wall Street earned 30% of the US GDP and thus the City of London has felt that they are attacked by the Continent on their ability to get future revenue.

I guess I'm sitting around waiting for the new economics to be suggested from France, where 50% think the capitalist system is broken, and Germany. We don't seem to be there yet in terms of a global sustainable economics. For Britain to lose revenue due to such a regulation must be serious under its present economical conditions. Will they leave the EU?

The Popular Vote?

We have gotten an Obama at 10 Downing Street. It is a new generation of pragmatics. They break youth records in office. David Cameron is the youngest in Britain since 1812. Despite the clear differences the two parties Tories and Liberal Democrats are supposed to be able to rule Britannica for her own best as if they did not have quite different approaches to that goal in their election manifestos. The Liberal Democrats are considered to the left of Labour. Der Spiegel gives a tart comment that the longevities of hung parliament govenments are measured in months rather than years.

So which election system is the better? The Westminster or proportional. The Liberal Democrats have complained that they have 23% of the popular vote but less than 10% of the seats. It is well known that change, ie, new parties on the scene, is difficult with this system. In Sweden however, it went in the other direction. The large dominant party was taken down by an Alliance which led to a two-block system reminiscent of the Westminster type.

No one talks about the fact that the two ideologially similar parties did have a majority of 51% in the popular vote. The people did vote for this type of ideology. After all, the Liberal Democrats were born out of the Labour Party in 1981 and fused with the then Social Democrats. The Tories and Liberal Democrats are as night and day on the EU politics, for example. So the elites won this time. Some commentators in Sweden are usually against the elites and for the common man but not this time. The Third Way party of Blair and Brown seemed to have done its thing.

The editorial in the Times of London today voice the nice thing about a new government forming. The old one giving room for the new, as if this was a surprise. "The old tribe being replaced by two new ones". The article was called Britain's New Politics. Cameron talked about a Big Society which did not quite catch on so he tried "quiet efficiency" instead. My problem with quiet efficiency is that it might work reasonably in heaven but becomes hell a few ladders down. It is a little too quiet, I guess?

One main occupation for the masters of quiet efficiency is apparently to listen attentively to the so called Markets. They worry about this in Sweden too. Because when a debate was up on the fidelity of MPs votes along the party line the PM said things got to run smoothly to placate the Markets and keep the bond rates down. The people in Geece know this first hand by now. They are forced by the EU to go through a revolution because the machines have declared that they can't use regular mechanisms to modernize.

Markets are probably a good thing though. People take good care to distribute money where it is useful. I do find it a little worrisome however that the elites, singing the song of the Markets, don't listen to the wisdom of the people and its popular vote.

Europe Day--a day late for obvious reasons

Europhiles lead 'economic governance' calls on Europe Day EurActiv: "'The financial, economic and social crisis presently affecting Europe and the World needs decisive answers and demands urgent action,' warned the European Movement, a pro-EU integration campaign group, at the weekend."

They are not dead yet, apparently, the people hailing Shuman's speech 60 years ago that started all the EU fuss. People are now discussing what actually happened last night. Is it Sarkozy's economic government of his call from the French chairmanship of the EU? Is it an attempt of stabilization but no money down for the "lazy" Greeks? How much is left of the Maastricht Treaty?

Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, above at the Telegraph, writes that this weekend's deal demands even more belt-tightening from Club Med countries. Is the current crisis leading to more political integration of the EU or less? Most people seem to think that what we just saw was only temporary relief. Anders Borg, the Swedish Finance Minister, said something on the news that I interpreted as meaning Club Med countries have to tax themselves more if they are going to keep their social models. He did not seem to mean that they had lost their sovereignty. But then again what does more belt-tightening then mean. Evans-Pritchard suggests that a new state is forming in front of our eyes.

The timing of all this is interesting. Because this federalistic push takes place right at the British hung parliament where the Brown government does not want to commit themselves to something expensive Continentalish and Euroish. To their dismay they had to furnish £10bn for the "stabilization". The eurosceptic Britons, on the other hand, have their election right on Europe Day.

Angela Merkel, on her side, visited a military parade on the Red Square celebrating the demise of the Nazis on the same day as she lost an important election in North Rhine-Westphalia, the largest German Land with 18m inhabitants. Nicholas Sarkozy and Silvio Berlusconi actually should have joined her but stayed home instead due to the financial crisis according to New York Times. Merkel, in my mind, reverted a little to her East German descent this week-end.

Taken together, all this probably point in an attempt for business as usual. Carl Bildt speak of taking the long term perspective and it does not seem like the French and the Germans have similar projects which cast some doubts over Europe Day.

The British election result

As far as I can see the two ideologically similar parties Liberal Democrats and Labour could form a coalition based on the popular vote. They would get more than 50% together the Conservatives only got 36%. Thus they could change the election system and formalize such a coalition building in a reelection.

Right now neither the Conservatives nor the Lib-Lab coalition get a majority based on the number of seats in parliament.

However, many influential people are against Gordon Brown, although he made a significant contribution for the world during the financial crisis and as the incumbent should get a second chance having held the helm during a crisis. The Financial Times, The Economist, The Times and even The Guardian supports Cameron.

Iran's Bomb?

The following citation is taken from an article describing the "Special Relationship" between the US and Britain:

"Concerning Iraq, the President and Prime Minister discussed the pro’s and con’s at length – and more intimately than among any other two world leaders. There was ample opportunity for the UK to influence US thinking – and it did so. The fact is that then-Prime Minister Blair made his own decision: It was too risky to allow Iraq to develop weapons of mass destruction (which even France and Germany believed they had), and then possibly pass them to terrorists.
This was not only the Prime Minister’s view, it was confirmed through a vote of Parliament. The special relationship did not make Britain do anything. Rather, it gave Britain unique information and access, and Britain – Government and Parliament alike – chose to go forward. And as former Prime Minister Blair candidly and courageously told the Iraq Inquiry, he would do it again."

Well, with Iran we are there again. The difference is that the US military is exhaused according to an article on DN.se. I'm not sure I agree but it would be interesting to know if it is economically too risky to enter into a fight with Iran about their bomb making. In this case we have a situation that would not be acceptable that we cannot do anything about. Does this financial debacle that we have entered put us in a situation of great risk for WMD proliferation? Is this the major problem today?

Britain and Sweden?

Britons see 'dangers ahead' in U.S. relationship - USATODAY.com: "Britain 'should never be frightened of saying 'no' to America,' Cameron said this year. He has said the relationship between the two nations needs to be 'rebalanced' into an alliance that is 'solid but not slavish.' Clegg said the British 'still too readily put ourselves in a position of unthinking subservience to American interests.' He called on Britain to wake up from the 'spell of default Atlanticism.'"

Well, it is not unlikely that these two gents will Rule Britannica later this week. I wonder what David Cameron meant with having been "slavish" to the US? He is probably trying to be nasty to Tony Blair and Labour but does this not downgrade the British people rather? I see no reason for the British to be slavish at all but it would be important with a good Anglo-American understanding which seems to be what is planned--a redefinition. Is Sweden redefining also? DN.se gives Obama, the Nobel Peace Prize winner, a beating today for his apparent belligerence.

Apparently Gordon Brown is the person to thank for the non-membership of Britain in Euroland. Tony Blair was for giving up the sterling. Sweden voted no in a referendum 2003. However, the finance minister of Sweden, Anders Borg, would claim that Sweden would have performed well in and outside of the EMU. The Britons don't agree since they have devalued the pound currently. It is going to be interesting to see if a coalition between Cameron and the EMU friendly Clegg would mean a more Euro friendly attitude in Britain or if it moves more eurosceptic in line of the Tories. According to Irwing Stelzer in the Wall Street Journal, Euroland is changed forever, the bailout of Greece is going to cost 30% of the value after a restructuring of the debt. Euroland is still on its slippery slope apparently. Markets are wary. This would mean subsidies and a breach of EU rules?

Anders Borg said, before the Greek crisis, that Sweden should join the Euro for political reasons. What I don't understand then is that there seems not to be any further political integration and thus there would not be a reason? Borg thought that people in Euroland would listen more to Swedish arguments if we were members--an experience from after the Swedish chairmanship 2009. I must say that I have taken in the arguments from various economists that the EMU is malconstructed and that it cannot function properly without a federal Europe, which is not on the drawing board any longer. As a layman, I have concluded that EMU is no good.

Greece?

Well, it is a little over two months since I commented on the Greek financial crisis. The financial part in this crisis is on a slippery slope that there is not much to talk about. Confidence in Greece from the point of view of the markets is eroding. One of the three rating agencies has given Greek bonds the "junk" status. The other two are one notch away. Other countries like Portugal and Spain have also lost in their ratings.

More interesting is perhaps what is happening with Europe. We have two elections coming that both might be important for the future development. One in Britain May 6 and one in Germany May 9. The British election might be important for the outcome of the German one because it might go in an eurosceptic direction if the Tories win. Will Germany say good bye to Greece from the Eurozone then?

Some people are actually already saying that Greece will default on their loans. Investors will not get all their money back. They talk about a Lehman Brother's of Europe. What is happening in Europe? The European welfare model is falling apart or are we now to believe that only north of Europe can function economically in the present global environment?

Most people are not economists, I am one of them, but economists have not performed as of late. They are as bewildered as most of us. The funny thing is that in the middle of all this in Europe there exists a very strong voice for increasing expenses further to account for the environment. With one country dropping off after the other, is this something that Europeans are going to afford?

From the press of the latest 2 month it is clear that Germany is in charge. It is the largest country in the EU and they did reasonably well through the financial crisis. It is Wolfgang Schäuble that sits with Jean-Claude Trichet of the ECB and Domenique Strauss-Kahn of the IMF. What is it we Europeans want to hear from our leader, ie, the leader with most liberty at this point, Angela Merkel, at a time like this?

Well, maybe the Germans want to mind their own business from now on? They have paid a fortune into East Germany and know first hand how difficult it is to germanize or europeanize a country both economically and inspiration wise. The idea of a federal Europe is dead and buried according to most accounts. Maybe they think that we can make it alone in a globalized world but it is not possible to carry any dead weight?

That is probably the core of the matter. Is the average EU strong enough. A two speed Europe is already here. But will a two speed Europe really function? It is anathema to the welfare state model where the weak are helped along by the strong. My feeling is that Europe is at cross-roads. It is now or never.

The EEAS or European External Action Service headed by the high representative Lady Ashton, 7,000 able men and women, are not even in play yet to take care of EU foreign business. We were going to have a voice in the world but we just have to dump some of the ballast first? Everything that is not getting our common act together is going to look rather silly by observers in the world at large.