Mediaboss Marketing

LONDON (Reuters Breakingviews) - For aficionados of financial-political-economic crises, Greeces near-exit from the euro zone in 2015 was a classic. Two journalists have told the story as a bureaucratic page-turner.

Greek Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras arrives at a European Union leaders summit after European Parliament elections to discuss who should run the EU executive for the next five years, in Brussels, Belgium May 28, 2019.

The Last Bluff: How Greece came face-to-face with financial catastrophe and the secret plan for its euro exit largely narrates six months of meetings, speeches, popular votes, meetings and more meetings. Remarkably, Viktoria Dendrinou and Eleni Varvitsioti convey the excitement and tension felt by the protagonists.

As is often the case in dramas, the ending is predictable but only with the benefit of hindsight. Viewed from today, it is clear that in the beginning of 2015 German Chancellor Angela Merkel would guide the Europeans towards a deal with this wayward member of the European single currency.

The Greeks would ultimately cooperate, since output and employment were starting to recover, and a large majority of Greek voters were committed to keeping the euro. Something resembling the compromise which was finally reached just before 8 a.m. on July 13 of that year was pretty much inevitable.

Dendrinou and Varvitsioti, respectively journalists at Bloomberg and the Greek newspaper Kathimerini, make clear that it did not feel that way at the time. The election of Alexis Tsipras as Greeces prime minister in January 2015 created real dramatic tension.

The inexperienced radical politician had promised voters that he would resist the latest demands of the countrys creditors, represented by the European Commission, European Central Bank and International Monetary Fund. Tsipras was popular, because many euro-loving Greeks hated the harsh reforms and fiscal austerity that the troika had imposed. Tsiprass choice of finance minister increased the chances of catastrophe. Yanis Varoufakis was a Marxist economist with no relevant experience and unlimited self-confidence. As it turned out, Greece barely avoided crashing out of the euro.

The Last Bluff follows the twists and turns of the story with admirable clarity and concision. Varoufakis was sidelined; Merkel and Francois Hollande, the French president, took charge; the International Monetary Fund slowed progress; Greece defaulted and imposed currency controls; the Europeans secretly planned for Greece to leave the single currency. Most importantly, Tsipras learned that he was far too weak to bully the European Union. Throughout, the EUs leaders, Donald Tusk and Jean-Claude Juncker, were mostly helpful, and a large cast of senior and junior bureaucrats kept track of the seemingly endless details.

Varoufakis has written his own version of this story, but Tsipras is the most interesting character in this account. His political coming-of-age required jettisoning long-cherished left-wing populist dreams. That was hard, but the prime minister eventually learned that dogma is less productive, both politically and economically, than painful compromise. He ended up ignoring the result of a referendum that he himself had called, showing great personal courage as well as some political cunning.

While Dendrinou and Varvitsioti steer clear of grand historical analysis, one great theme does emerge the value of the European project to its participants. The EUs politicians and civil servants were not happy about dedicating so much time to one small country and its truculent and often ill-informed politicians. But everyone was willing to make a huge effort to keep Greece onside, simply to avoid jeopardising an organisation which had become so central to peace, prosperity and identity.

The last dramatic scene shows how this almost instinctive loyalty tipped the balance in favour of what only now looks like a pre-ordained ending. The all-night negotiations seemed to have failed. An exhausted Merkel stood up, declaring, Then its over. Greece will leave the euro zone. But Tusk blocked the door, asking her: Do you really want me to say that the euro zone broke up over 2.5 billion euros? She sat down again for another half hour of talks.

The results were what Dendrinou and Varvitsioti call a typical European fudge. Europe may be a high ideal, but its flexible politics can be pretty low.

The leading American economists who called on Tsipras to embrace currency flexibility by abandoning the euro did not understand the single currencys political and cultural importance. They also overestimated the economic value of a national currency for Greece.

A new drachma would only reduce the pressure on future Greek governments to address what the authors describe as the real, deep problems of the state in areas such as justice, competitiveness, tax evasion and the functioning of independent authorities. After the last fudge, the European authorities also lost interest in tackling these problems. The European vision may be noble, but the execution is often flawed.

British readers of the The Last Bluff will undoubtedly compare the Greek experience to their countrys negotiations to leave the EU. On the EU side, the approach is remarkably similar. Internal differences are smoothed over and the good of the Union is paramount. However, neither Theresa May nor Boris Johnson, the two British prime ministers involved, seem to have Tsiprass ability to recognise what was really at stake.

Reuters Breakingviews is the world's leading source of agenda-setting financial insight. As the Reuters brand for financial commentary, we dissect the big business and economic stories as they break around the world every day. A global team of about 30 correspondents in New York, London, Hong Kong and other major cities provides expert analysis in real time.

Sign up for a free trial of our full service at https://www.breakingviews.com/trial and follow us on Twitter @Breakingviews and at http://www.breakingviews.com. All opinions expressed are those of the authors.

Read this article:
Breakingviews - Review: Greek crisis drama shows EUs good and bad - Reuters

European powers have rejected U.S. President Donald Trumps call for them to join him in abandoning the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, with several factors pushing them to try to keep the deal alive, analysts say.

After European Union foreign ministers held an emergency meeting in Brussels Friday to discuss escalating Middle East tensions, EU foreign affairs chief Josep Borrell said the 28-nation bloc will keep doing whatever it can to save the deal. Under the agreement, world powers offered Iran relief from international sanctions in return for limits on its nuclear program.

Trump had called on the JCPOAs three EU signatories Britain, France and Germany, all traditional U.S. allies to break away from the deal in a Wednesday speech detailing his response to Iranian missile strikes on U.S. forces in Iraq the previous day. Iran launched the attacks, which caused no casualties, in retaliation for what the U.S. called a self-defensive strike that killed top Iranian general Qassem Soleimani in Baghdad last week.

The very defective JCPOA expires shortly anyway, and gives Iran a clear and quick path to nuclear [weapon] breakout. The time has come for the United Kingdom, Germany, France, Russia and China to recognize this reality, Trump said. Iran has long insisted its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes.

We want to save this deal if its possible, Borrell told reporters after chairing the EU foreign ministers talks in Brussels. Thanks to this deal, Iran is not a nuclear power, he added.

Dispute resolution mechanism

Borrell also said the EU powers had not discussed triggering the JCPOAs dispute-resolution mechanism in response to Irans series of breaches of JCPOA limits on nuclear activities in recent months or its latest threat to scrap restrictions on uranium enrichment, a process that can be diverted to nuclear bomb-making.

Diplomats have warned that Britain, France and Germany could activate the agreement's dispute mechanism if Iran does not return to full compliance. Such an activation could lead to a U.N. Security Council snapback of international sanctions on Iran, a move that Tehran has said would prompt it to quit the deal and end any remaining restraints on its nuclear program.

Trump has vowed that he will never allow Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon and refused to rule out military action to prevent such an outcome.

One factor pushing EU powers to try to keep the JCPOA alive is the fear that triggering a dispute process that leads to a U.N. sanctions snapback could push the U.S. and Iran into a war.

Any conflict between Iran and the U.S. will happen at the EUs doorstep, and they will be the ones who will pay a price for it, in the form of waves of refugees and radicalization that would end up on European shores, said Ali Vaez, an International Crisis Group analyst, in a VOA Persian interview.

EU powers also appear to be waiting for Iran to make the next move in its series of JCPOA breaches.

Tehran has yet to say when and by how much it will expand uranium enrichment, as it threatened to do after the Jan. 3 U.S. killing of Soleimani. Tehran also has said the International Atomic Energy Agency can keep monitoring its nuclear sites and the JCPOA breaches are reversible if European powers help the Iranian economy to circumvent crushing U.S. sanctions.

Hudson Institute analyst Michael Doran told VOA Persian that Iran would have to behave so brazenly in any further breaches of the JCPOA that it generates a backlash for EU powers to feel compelled to trigger the dispute mechanism.

I think the Iranians understand that its not in their interests do that, so they will calibrate their nuclear steps very carefully, he said.

Waiting game

As EU powers wait for U.N. inspectors to verify the extent of Irans breaches of the JCPOA before deciding their next move, the U.S. may not exercise the same degree of patience.

A State Department legal opinion reported by the Associated Press last month said the U.S. has a legal avenue to demand a snapback of U.N. sanctions without waiting for the JCPOAs joint commission to conclude its dispute process. Trump withdrew the U.S. from the JCPOA in 2018, saying it was not tough enough on Iran.

Trumps Republican allies in Congress, including Senators Ted Cruz and Lindsey Graham, have urged him to invoke the U.N. snapback of sanctions in response to Irans threat to back out of JCPOA limits on uranium enrichment. U.S. officials have not said whether they will heed that call.

Trump critics have disputed the State Departments legal opinion, saying the U.S. can only trigger the U.N. snapback if it actively participates in the JCPOA and its dispute mechanism.

I've talked with the Europeans, Russians and Chinese. No one recognizes that interpretation that the U.S. has, so they dont take this threat seriously, Vaez said.

EU powers also face little pressure from their domestic constituencies to walk away from the nuclear deal.

This is not a top priority for the European public, Vaez said. There are a lot of other issues they care about more, like the future of trade, the NATO alliance and 5G mobile technology.

This article originated in VOAs Persian Service.

Visit link:
Why EU Powers Rejected Trumps Call to Leave Iran Nuclear Deal - Voice of America

ONE of the reasons for this column is to show how countries with a similar or smaller population than Scotlands can not only survive but thrive as an independent nation whether or not they join the European Union.

Last week, Finland, which has a similar size of population to Scotland, marked 25 years of being part of the EU.

On January 1, 1995, Finland, Austria and Sweden became the 13th, 14th and 15th countries to join. They were the first three to do so after the collapse of the Soviet Union and all of them joined after referendums.

Finlands advisory referendum was held on October 16, 1994, and, on a turnout of 70.9%, some 56.8% of people voted in favour of joining.

Heidi Hautala, a vice-president of the European Parliament and a member of the Finnish Greens, told theparliamentmagazine.eu website that when the EU gets its act together, its influence reaches far beyond its own borders.

She added: Protection of privacy and leadership in the protection of the environment demonstrate this.

Now the bloc must come up with a model for the sustainable economy Finland can play its full part in this planet-saving task.

READ MORE:Malta wins case over the arrest of ship off West coast of Africa

According to a poll by the Finnish Business and Policy Forum, the popularity of EU membership in Finland has reached a record high, with 56% holding a positive view and only 13% against.

Roger Casale, secretary general and chief executive of New Europeans said: None of this remarkable achievement of 25 years EU membership has happened by chance and Brexit teaches us that we should take nothing for granted going forwards.

Some Finns took to social media to mark the anniversary. Tapani Saraninen tweeted: Finland as part of European Union is one of the best decisions in Finlands history. For the next 25+ years of development and progress.

Excerpt from:
Finland celebrates 25 years of membership in the European Union - The National

Libya could become a new Syria in the intensity of its conflicts and as a cockpit for regional and big power rivalries unless more serious efforts are made to create a framework for peace-making there. On Sunday, contending forces of the United Nations-backed government of national accord in the capital Tripoli and those led by Gen Khalifa Haftar surrounding the city partially observed a ceasefire called for by their respective supporters Turkey and Russia. Their initiative came from one of several recent summits, reflecting the different European and Middle East interests and ideology running through Libyas conflicts.

In the years since its leader Muammar Gadafy was overthrown in 2011 following a Nato intervention led by France and Britain, Libya disintegrated into regional, tribal, political and religious factions who fought for control. It is a large, strategic and oil-rich country bordering Egypt, Sudan, Chad, Niger, Algeria and Tunisia and sharing Mediterranean geopolitical space with Italy, France, Spain and their European Union bloc. The disintegration makes it the primary locus for migration across the Mediterranean, and has resulted in the development of a deeply inhumane detention camp regime there run by militias.

The latest military, strategic and political competition reflect all these contending interests and ideologies. Gen Haftars forces control most of eastern Libya and his campaign against the government in Tripoli is backed by Egypt, Saudi Arabia and other opponents of the Muslim Brotherhood and Islamist groups he says dominate it. Russia, France and the US tacitly support him too, while Turkey and the EU favour the government of national accord led by prime minister Fayez al-Sarraj. A further arena of conflict focuses on maritime resources and gas pipelines in the Mediterranean highlighted in competing economic summitry last week.

Creating a peace-making framework to head off conflict and stabilise Libya matters hugely. Russia and Turkey seek to fill the strategic gaps left by the USs disengagement from Libya and its preoccupation with Iran. Despite their differences on Libya, both powers have an interest in upstaging the EU as a peace broker and initially they seemed to be getting their way, amid policy disarray and political transition in Brussels.

Libya is a real test for the new European Commission, which proclaims itself to have a geopolitical mandate, notably in the EUs Mediterranean and Middle East neighbourhoods. It is to be hoped that the signs of a more active EU role to consolidate this ceasefire with renewed diplomatic and political negotiations to bring various Libyan forces together will bear fruit. That will require a much firmer effort to find a common EU basis for these talks.

Visit link:
The Irish Times view on Libyas conflicts: A test for the EU as peace-broker - The Irish Times

For Europe's rebel leader, when your enemies are ganging up it's time to make a powerful new friend.

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban has consistently thumbed his nose at the European Union, which has criticized him for cronyism and undermining the rule of law in his country. But through an unlikely alliance with French President Emmanuel Macron, it might be Orban helping force the EU to change its ways.

When it comes to how to approach Vladimir Putin's Russia and Donald Trump's U.S., the common ground is growing. The relationship could prove pivotal in 2020 as Britain leaves the bloc and German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who has served as a bridge between east and west, takes more of a backseat.

Indeed, shifting alliances threaten to make a renewed effort to bring Orban to heel all but redundant. He faces potential expulsion from the European People's Party, the largest group in the European Parliament, after former European Council chief Donald Tusk took over its leadership and vowed to purge it of populists. The EPP may vote next month on whether to boot out Orban's Fidesz party but it may no longer mean a costly isolation.

"Orban and Macron come from very different places but both seek to disrupt the status quo," said Daniel Hegedus, a fellow at the German Marshall Fund in Berlin. "There's now talk of an Orban-Macron axis in Europe."

Orban, the anti-immigration proponent of "illiberal democracy," and Macron, who is bidding to become the continent's main power broker, are the standard-bearers for two very different visions for Europe.

Yet the camaraderie on display in October when Orban was received by an honor guard at the Elysee Palace in Paris was unmistakable. An hour was scheduled for the meeting and it ended up lasting more than two.

That was a sharp contrast to Macron's early days in office. During his presidential campaign in 2017, he called out populists like Orban for using the EU as a "supermarket," taking its funding but leaving democratic commitments on the shelf.

Macron also made a point of skipping Budapest on his first tour of eastern Europe and he replaced his ambassador to Hungary after the latter called Orban's policies a "model" for Europe. Orban, 56, dismissed Macron, 42, as the "new kid" on the bloc who didn't understand the region.

When Orban paid a visit to the Italian nationalist Matteo Salvini in August the following year, Macron said "if they want to see me as their main opponent, they're right." A few weeks later he called a European Parliament vote censuring Orban as a first step in the fight against "illiberals" in the region.

Last year, though, saw a convergence of interests as Macron sought to broaden his alliances across the continent.

In the European Parliament during the summer, they linked up in backroom deals in Brussels to retain the supremacy of national leaders to elect the head of the next EU executive, rejecting the EPP choice for president of the European Commission.

Orban's aides see common ground on some of the biggest issues facing Europe, including how to manage relations with Russia and the U.S. The Hungarian leader has long argued for a detente with Putin over the EU's objections.

For Macron, the new entente between the two men says something about his change in tactics in Europe. He's stopped with this "us against them" approach to confront what Merkel and Tusk have called the forces of darkness.

The French president is dispatching his foreign minister to several eastern European countries early this year. His calls to toughen environmental policies and to force countries within the border-free Schengen zone to take on more migrants or risk expulsion will likely face pushback from in the region.

"They may have different points of view in detail, but both feel that the EU needs to agree on a common approach on how we deal with China, Russia or the U.S.," Hungarian Justice Minister Judit Varga said in an interview with German newspaper Die Welt last month.

The two men have both shown they have a keen eye for political opportunity. Both have disrupted the status quo at home and want to wield more influence abroad.

When Orban first came to power in 1998, he was the young, fresh-faced leader who represented the new Europe that emerged after the end of the Cold War less than a decade earlier. When Macron formed a new party to snatch the French presidency, he won similar accolades as the man to help steer European politics away from the nationalism that threatened to undermine the EU.

The question is how another adept political operator fits into the equation. Tusk, the former Polish prime minister and European Council president, is marshaling the EPP to fight for the political center ground. He called on members in a fiery speech in Zagreb in November to disavow populism, which was widely interpreted as an ultimatum aimed at Orban.

Orban's Fidesz party was already suspended in March for its opposition to liberal democracy and courting of far-right leaders. Macron, whose En Marche also isn't a member of the EPP, criticized the group at the time for being too soft on Orban.

The EPP has asked a trio of "wise men" to assess Fidesz and the panel submitted its report to Tusk, Hungarian newspaper Nepszava reported on Friday. Orban has said he would quit the EPP before a formal ouster could take place.

"The issue of Orban and the EPP is nested inside a much bigger battle for power and influence in the EU," said Richard Youngs, a Madrid-based analyst at Carnegie Europe, "with Macron shaking things up."

View original post here:
Orban and Macron: The frenemies who want to shake up Europe - Stars and Stripes