Sep 082017
 

By Michael Nevradakis, 99GetSmart

Originally published at MintPressNews

A pro-remain supporter of Britain staying in the EU, wears an EU flag mask whilst taking part in a protest to coincide with politicians returning to work after the summer recess, outside the Houses of Parliament in London, Sept. 5, 2017. (AP/Matt Dunham)

A pro-remain supporter of Britain staying in the EU, wears an EU flag mask whilst taking part in a protest to coincide with politicians returning to work after the summer recess, outside the Houses of Parliament in London, Sept. 5, 2017. (AP/Matt Dunham)

The unflinching support for the EU and its institutions is not about preventing European countries from becoming “Afghanistan.” Not about preventing collapse. Not about the inconvenience of long lines at passport control. It is about promoting an ideology, a specific worldview, a vision for the way the world should work.

ATHENS, Greece & LIMASSOL, Cyprus (Analysis) It was way back in the ancient 1990s, when protesting crippling economic austerity measures, the economic imperialism of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank, and free trade deals such as NAFTA and the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), was a mainstay of the progressive or left-wing political agenda and worldview.

Today, that same worldview apparently makes one a “nationalist” or a “fascist,” in the eyes of self-described leftists and progressives. Oh, the irony!

Opposition to free trade agreements or open borders is now a surefire way to be branded with the modern-day scarlet letter, that of being a “nationalist.” Opposing unchecked migration—and the war and conflict that spur mass waves of migration in the first place—apparently makes one a “xenophobe.” Standing up to the crippling austerity prescribed by the open-borders project known as the European Union towards some of its own member-states makes one a “fascist.” Independence and sovereignty are bad, open borders and unrestricted free trade benefiting certain industrial powerhouses and large multinational corporations are good.

In another irony, the anti-colonial independence movements of the 1950s and 1960s were by and large nationalist movements, and were supported by many progressive forces around the world. But at the time, the “n-word” (nationalism, of course) was not the dirty word that it is today.

Back in the distant 1990s, the United States was described by western commentators as the leader of the free world, the beacon of liberty and democracy. This worldview continued unabated up through the end of the term of President Barack Obama. The election of President Donald Trump in November on a populist platform — on the heels of the British referendum result in favor of Brexit, which also drew heavy support from populist political elements — put an end to this worldview.

In yet another irony of ironies, it is now the “iron lady” of one such industrial powerhouse, Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany, who is widely viewed as the global beacon of liberal democracy and freedom. According to Politico, it is Merkel who is now the “leader of the free world,” anointed as “global savior.” Online feminist publication Jezebel has dubbed Merkel the “last pillar of liberal democracy in Europe.” And Kati Marton, wife of the late U.S. Ambassador and Assistant Secretary of State Richard Holbrooke, described Merkel as “the last real democratic leader standing” and “the most powerful woman in the world,” in a highly laudatory profile piece written for fashion and lifestyle magazine Vogue.

The aforementioned sources are quite varied in style and substance, but they all adhere to the same worldview: neoliberalism, or if you prefer, globalism. And it is “free” trade, “open borders,” and the dominance of supranational institutions such as the EU that are some of globalism’s basic tenets. In the eyes of Politico, Jezebel, Vogue and their ilk, leaders like Merkel — among the staunchest supporters of open borders, and of economic austerity for suffering EU member-states such as Greece, towards which the EU supposedly displays “solidarity” — epitomize the ideal global leader, in the mold of other globalist favorites such as former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

This tacit, blinding acceptance of institutions such as the EU, the World Bank, and the IMF and their policies and practices is a slap in the face to all those—whether they are in Greece, Mexico, Argentina, Tanzania, Indonesia, or elsewhere—that have suffered as a result of the economic doctrines that these institutions have imposed upon their countries. And no criticism or opposition shall be brooked by the purportedly tolerant supporters and backers of such institutions!

Case in point: Naomi Klein. The out-of-nowhere celebrity author and “activist” with a hazy biography first became widely known in the late 1990s for her anti-corporate globalization treatise No Logo, though the pinnacle of her anti-economic globalization work is her 2007 book, The Shock Doctrine. Following the election of the supposedly “radical leftist” SYRIZA in Greece on January 25, 2015, Klein could barely contain herself, gushing like a teenage schoolgirl over its victory in social media postings that now seem to have been scrubbed—although some evidence of Klein’s enthusiasm still remains. As SYRIZA and Greek Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras have sold Greece and its people down the river, overturning the July 5, 2015 referendum result and enacting a third (and since then, a fourth) memorandum agreement, Klein has remained conspicuously silent.

To be clear, this is not an argument in favor of political figures such as Trump (more on this later). Instead, using the EU as a case study, neoliberal doctrine and the prevailing orthodoxy observed in the overwhelming majority of the world’s mainstream media outlets—and in such sectors as business and academia—will be deconstructed. By examining what a supranational institution such as the EU actually is, how it was created and how it operates today — as well as by analyzing why so many entities have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo and how they attempt to discredit any opposition to it — readers will (I hope) come away with a clearer understanding of the purpose such institutions serve in the global order today, and why they are not quite what they seem.

A Case Study In Neoliberalism: What The EU Actually Is

The signing, March 25, 1957, of the Treaty of Rome, creating the European Economic Community, forerunner of today's European Union. (AP Photo)

The signing, March 25, 1957, of the Treaty of Rome, creating the European Economic Community, forerunner of today’s European Union. (AP Photo)

The EU’s not so humble beginnings:

The EU’s innumerable backers in government, the press and mass media, academia, the intelligentsia, and the general public describe the supranational institution as a force for peace, indeed as the sole and exclusive reason why there supposedly has been no war or conflict—itself a false claim—in Europe since the end of World War II. The EU was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2012 based on this argument, that “for over six decades [it had] contributed to the advancement of peace and reconciliation, democracy and human rights in Europe.”

For its proponents, the EU signifies the beginnings of a “brave new world” without war and indeed without borders, a force for peace where capital—including “human capital”—can travel freely. An entity where millennials hop aboard their favorite budget airline and travel from Berlin to Milan to enjoy some prosecco without having to lose precious minutes standing on line at passport control or to exchange currency.

The EU’s beginnings, however, are hardly as benign as the official propaganda. Indeed, there exists significant evidence indicating that, at the very least, the foundations of the European Economic Community (EEC), as it was first known, may have been inspired by Third Reich plans for European “integration” and German hegemony.

At a public meeting at the British House of Commons on February 26, 2008, author, political economist, former British Ministerial Adviser and then-lecturer at Germany’s University of Mainz Rodney Atkinson described the backgrounds of Nazis and fascists who became key founding members of the EEC. In this speech, Atkinson highlighted the backgrounds of such prominent figures as Walter Hallstein and Walther Funk.

Who were Hallstein and Funk? Hallstein was one of the twelve signatories of the Treaty of Rome, the founding document of the EEC, and was the first president of the non-elected European Commission, the EU’s executive branch, between 1958 and 1967. EU proponents describe Hallstein as a “visionary,” while mainstream biographies of Hallstein note that while he was a member of some “nominally” Nazi organizations, he was not a Nazi Party member or part of the SA.

Let’s look at these “nominally” Nazi organizations. Hallstein was a member of the Association of National Socialist German Legal Professionals, which later morphed into the National Socialist Association of Legal Professionals (or “Law Protectors”), membership in which was restricted to only those who displayed the most unwavering and active support for Nazi ideology. Indeed, in 1933 Hitler purged Jews and socialists from the organization. Hallstein, in a memo to Nazi administrators, confirmed in 1935 that he was a member of both of these organizations.

Following Hitler’s official state visit to Italy and meeting with Mussolini in May 1938 in the lead-up to World War II, a bi-national commission was established to create the framework for the European dictatorship that was to be achieved. Soon thereafter, the first meeting of this commission’s legal team was held, with Hallstein representing Nazi Germany.

The following year, just before the outbreak of the war, Hallstein gave an infamous speech—the handwritten manuscript of which is available online. In this speech Hallstein referred, among other things, to “the creation of the Greater German Reich” and “legal Germanization of the new territories,” via the “link up” of Austria and much of Czechoslovakia with Germany and creation of a “unified legal system” for this new territory — citing the failure to create such as system as one of the “unfinished tasks” of the Second Reich. Most egregiously, in this same speech Hallstein also advocated in favor of a “law for the protection of the German blood and the German honor,” or what were to become the Nuremberg Race Laws.

On to Walther Funk. Funk served in the Nazi Propaganda Ministry under Goebbels, and later as Nazi Germany’s minister of economics, president of the Reichsbank, and president of the Bank of International Settlements, he was responsible for dispossessing Jews of their assets, for which he was later convicted at the Nuremberg trials. Released from prison in 1957—the year the Treaty of Rome was signed—he served in Lower Saxony’s ministry of education between 1957 and 1960. To state it differently, just over a decade after the war, one of the founding member-states of the EEC offered a significant position in public administration to a convicted Nazi criminal.

Funk’s direct relevance to the EEC, however, is evident through a report produced in 1942 under his watch as economics minister and president of the Reichsbank, titled “Europaische Wirtschaftsgemeinschaft,” or “European Economic Community.” Indeed, this term was apparently first introduced by the Nazi regime. This report presented a plan for how Germany would administer the economies of conquered post-war Europe, and encompassed sections on currency, trade and economic agreements, agriculture, industry, and more. More specifically, the report called for the “harmonization” of Europe’s currencies. A uniform planning and management system that would erode the economic sovereignty of individual European states—shades of the EU and such things as the “Common Agricultural Policy” today—was foreseen. And, foreshadowing today’s “identity politics” and “freedom of mobility,” national sovereignty was to be displaced by the so-called “sovereignty of the people.”

When Gerard Batten, a member of the European parliament with the UK Independence Party (UKIP), referred to Funk’s past in a posting on his blog, Labour Party MP Chuka Umunna described these claims as “crackpot conspiracy theories.” But are they? “Europaische Wirtschaftsgemeinschaft,” with Funk as one of the co-authors, is readily locatable today. Daniel J. Beddowes and Flavio Cipollini, who together authored a book titled The EU: The Truth About the Fourth Reich – How Hitler Won the Second World War, argue that Funk put the finishing touches on the plans for what is today the EU.

According to Beddowes and Cipollini, “[i]t was Funk who predicted the coming of European economic unity. Funk was also Adolf Hitler’s economics minister and his key economics advisor.” The authors indicate that Hitler’s post-war plans foresaw a federalized, economically integrated European Union free of “the clutter of small nations,” and that these plans were themselves based on a belief held by Lenin, that “federation is a transitional form towards complete union of all nations.” Therefore, argue the authors, it is not by chance that the EU closely resembles Hitler’s blueprint for a unified Europe, and that most EU member-states are getting poorer while Germany is continuously getting richer.

An alleged U.S. military intelligence report, EW-Pa 128 — also known as the “Red House Report” and said to have been written in November 1944 — describes the proceedings of a secret meeting that took place earlier that year where Nazi officials, recognizing that defeat and the end of the war were near, ordered German industrialists to plan for the post-war future and to lay the groundwork for a new “strong German empire.” The secret report was said to have been copied to British officials and to have made its way to the U.S. Secretary of State. The industrialists, including representatives of such companies as Volkswagen, were joined by representatives of the German Navy and the Nazi ministry of armaments.

This report, if indeed legitimate, describes a post-war Europe that would eventually come to be dominated by Germany, but with this domination being economic rather than military. The economic reserves of German front companies located abroad would be exploited, and this money would later be funneled to German industrialists via other front companies in “neutral” Switzerland. These overseas front companies would maintain a direct line of communication with the top political echelons of Germany, with the goal of eventually reasserting their dominance over Germany—and over Europe.

This report dredges up memories of the infamous Merten affair, involving Dr. Max Merten, who had been installed as a Nazi administrator in the city of Thessaloniki. Infamous for having looted Thessaloniki’s substantial Jewish community of their wealth and jewels in exchange for protection—before betraying their trust—Merten maintained close ties with prominent Greek politicians, particularly the inner circle of Konstantinos Karamanlis, who in the 1950s became Greece’s Western-supported prime minister.

Merten, wishing to recover his hidden booty, returned to Greece in 1957 under the assumption that no warrant existed for his arrest. Merten was arrested, however, and served some months in prison before being amnestied by Karamanlis. Merten had been threatening the Karamanlis government with evidence that Merten was said to have in his possession, proving that Karamanlis and key ministers of his government had collaborated with the Nazis during the war.

One of Karamanlis’ closest allies, Konstantinos Gertsos, appears in the declassified intelligence files on the Merten affair. Gertsos headed a German front corporation, landing a lucrative mining concession on behalf of German businessmen. He later became Greece’s ambassador to Switzerland, where he participated in investment schemes with Karamanlis, and later was named honorary ambassador of Greece. Serving again as Greece’s first post-junta prime minister, Karamanlis himself oversaw the negotiations for Greece’s accession to the European Community in the late 1970s. His nephew, also named Konstantinos Karamanlis, served as prime minister between 2004-2009, the years that led up to Greece’s catastrophic economic crisis.

On the topic of industry, there is the example of Hermann Abs, founder of the pro-integration European League for Economic Cooperation (still in existence), a board member of Deutsche Bank, and also a board member of I.G. Farben, a union of German industrial titans such as BASF and Bayer. This consortium sought to obtain control of the global marketplace in such sectors as pharmaceuticals and petrochemicals. In 1933, it also became the largest financier of the Nazis’ rise to power, and continued to collaborate with the Nazis thereafter, to the tune of over 80 million Reichsmark during the war. In exchange, I.G. Farben took over key industries in each Nazi-occupied country.

What was I.G. Farben’s endgame? A letter presented at the Nuremberg War Crimes tribunal, which had been written by I.G. Farben director August von Knieriem and addressed to the Nazi government, foresaw a common European currency, legal system, and judicial system—not unlike today’s EU and Eurozone.

The Nazi foreign ministry itself crafted a draft blueprint for a “united Europe,” which—in shades of today’s hysterical anti-Russian sentiment in the West—called for a European mobilization against the USSR through the implementation of a “European image of German foreign policy” and the formation of a confederation of 14 European states that would be led by Germany and ultimately promote German interests.

None other than celebrity economist and former Greek finance minister Yanis Varoufakis himself has pointed outseveral quotations that could fairly describe today’s EU, including: “There must be a readiness to subordinate one’s own interests in certain cases to that of the European Community;” and “The solution to economic problems … with the eventual object of a European customs union and a free European market, a European clearing system and stable exchange rates in Europe, looking towards a European currency union.” Oddly enough, or perhaps not so oddly, these striking similarities with Nazi rhetoric do not lead to any hesitation on Varoufakis’ part to wholly and enthusiastically support EU institutions.

“There is no alternative”

A protester take part in a rally against the proposed privatization of the state-run water utility, in the Thessaloniki, Greece’s second largest city, on Wednesday, May 28, 2014. Greece’s highest administrative court has ruled against the sale, arguing that the sale could affect water quality. (AP Photo/Nikolas Giakoumidis)

A protester take part in a rally against the proposed privatization of the state-run water utility, in the Thessaloniki, Greece’s second largest city, on Wednesday, May 28, 2014. Greece’s highest administrative court has ruled against the sale, arguing that the sale could affect water quality. (AP Photo/Nikolas Giakoumidis)

Just as with opposition to international “free” trade and the policies of institutions such as the IMF and the World Bank, there was a time where the left and progressive forces were opposed to the politics of TINA—“there is no alternative,” exemplified by the original iron lady, former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. Today though, we are told by a wide range of voices, including purported leftists such as Varoufakis, that for countries such as Greece there is no alternative to EU and Eurozone membership, categorically ruling out any thoughts of departure.

But Greece lied by presenting false economic data to enter the Eurozone, did it not? And therefore it must accept “bitter medicine,” should it not? That’s what many “well-meaning” leftists and progressives retort when the topic of the EU and IMF’s cruelty towards Greece is brought up. But this also exposes what could, depending on one’s perspective, be described as either the EU’s incompetence or its insidious nature. If Greece lied and the EU did not perform due diligence and was fooled, then it is incompetent. If it knew what was going on and went along, then it is complicit in what has followed.

Furthermore, Greece wasn’t alone in its “creative accounting:” countries like Italy and Spain also brokered deals with the likes of Goldman Sachs and J.P. Morgan to massage the numbers in order to meet the Maastricht criteria to qualify for Eurozone membership. Even Varoufakis, in a 2012 Dialogos Radio interview, has suggested that many other Eurozone members fudged the numbers.

Membership in the EU and the Eurozone provided an ephemeral economic boom and a period of false prosperity for Greece. The negative impacts, however, are more long-lasting, if indeed not permanent, in nature. Privatizations, which began in earnest in the early 1990s and did nothing to prevent the crisis, resulted in the wholesale sell-off of strategic state assets, resources, and public utilities that were often profitable. Introduction of a “hard” currency, overvalued for the Greek economy, made Greek exports and tourism uncompetitive compared to lower-priced alternatives in the region. Greece’s previously modest industrial base was decimated while agricultural production has dropped sharply since 1981, the year Greece joined the EU, due in large part to the EU’s common agricultural policy.

Greece, as did several other countries, may have presented questionable data in order to enter the Eurozone. In yet another biting irony though, similarly “fudged” numbers may have been presented, very much on purpose, in order to drag Greece into the IMF-EU austerity mechanism. Whistleblowers such as Zoe Georganta have made allegations and presented evidence indicating that Greece’s debt and deficit figures were purposely worsened in order to drag Greece under the austerity mechanism.

Fueling these allegations is the revelation that former IMF chief Dominique Strauss-Kahn had met with then-opposition leader George Papandreou in April 2009, months before Papandreou was elected as Greece’s prime minister. The allegedly augmented deficit and debt figures were revealed soon after Papandreou’s election, signifying the start of the economic crisis.

We might ask, why sabotage a national economy? The corrected question, though, should be, why not? The austerity regime enabled the EU and successive subservient regimes in Greece to impose unpopular and socially harmful measures that would never have had a chance of being enacted under ordinary conditions — including harsh cuts to social services, wages, and pensions, plus fast-tracking the privatization of key national assets.

Notably, the Greek economy was subject to EU audits and oversight during the 2004-2007 time period. For some unexplained reason, this oversight did nothing to prevent the crisis that followed. And while the international press has habitually focused on Greece’s falsifying of its economic data to join the Eurozone (without focusing on other countries which also engaged in this practice), any discussion of the allegations made by whistleblowers about the alleged augmentation of Greece’s deficit and debt figures is denounced as conspiracy theory. Indeed, the chief statistician who oversaw this possible falsification of the data is lauded in the press.

The EU’s democratic deficit, hypocrisy, and the human cost

A man looks on a pile of trash as he walks behind a flower pot in Kaminia neighborhood of Piraeus, near Athens, June 27, 2017. Striking garbage collectors who fear job losses from EU-imposed regulations governing short-term contract workers in the public sector, were on the 11th-day of protest that left huge piles of trash around Athens. (AP/Petros Giannakouris)The austerity regime in Greece has been far from victimless. Repeated reports from the United Nations and the Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights (OHCHR) have found that the austerity measures imposed in Greece are in violation of international law and the basic human rights of the Greek people, who have increasingly been impoverished during the crisis as a result of the successive pension and wage cuts and reductions to social services that have been imposed.

For a while, the “European family” demonstrated “solidarity” with Greece and its people. Such “solidarity” movements cropped up in early 2015 in particular—movements that were fully supportive of the SYRIZA-led coalition government, notwithstanding the signs that were evident from the very beginning that SYRIZA was not the leftist, anti-austerity force it was portrayed as being. Instead, their “solidarity” protests in European and North American cities, replete with SYRIZA flags, and their accompanying social media hashtag #ThisIsACoup, gently chastised the “bad Europeans” for “blackmailing” the well-intentioned “leftist” government of Greece.

Peculiarly, these mild protestations against the “bad Europeans” were never, ever accompanied by suggestions that Greece consider a departure from the EU or the Eurozone, even as a negotiating tactic. Instead, the Greek people have, by the very same people who displayed “solidarity,” often been lectured about Greece’s responsibility towards the rest of the “European family” and chastised for such matters as the petty corruption of not issuing a receipt for small purchases.

Indeed, it has often been Greece that has been called upon to display “solidarity” without reciprocation. With Greece beset by many dozens of destructive forest fires in recent weeks, the EU obliged Greece to send two firefighting airplanes to Albania—itself not a EU member-state—but France refused a request to send planes to help Greece’s overextended fire brigades extinguish the Greek blazes.

This mentality has made its way into the Greek political psyche. Prime Minister Tsipras’ victory speech on January 25, 2015 was full of pro-EU zeal, featuring many references to saving Europe, but none to saving Greece. The main opposition party, New Democracy, has helped organize several “remain in Europe” rallies since 2015 and has repeatedly positioned itself as a “responsible” and “outward-looking” alternative to the “leftist” SYRIZA.

Nary a word is mentioned, however, about the EU’s apparent disdain for democracy. As mentioned earlier, its executive branch, the European Commission, is wholly non-elected. Nor, for that matter, are the EU commissioners themselves. One such commissioner, EU trade commissioner Cecilia Malmström of Sweden, has said quite accurately that she “does not receive her mandate from the European people.”

The non-elected president of the Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker, himself embattled by the LuxLeaks scandals in the recent past, has stated that “there can be no democratic choice against the European treaties.” Sadly though, he hasn’t addressed the hypocrisy of lecturing Greece about “reform” whilst being embroiled in scandals of his own.

In turn, Germany’s apparent finance minister-for-life, Wolfgang Schäuble, who apparently also acts as finance minister of Greece and Spain and Italy and Portugal, has said “[e]lections change nothing. There are rules.” The sovereign judicial institutions of an EU member-state have also been openly questioned when decisions don’t go the EU’s way, as was the case recently in Greece. Solidaridad!

This author received an in-your-face taste of the EU’s brand of democracy in a 2013 visit to EU institutions in Brussels and Luxembourg. During this visit, a succession of technocrats shed all pretense and demonstrated their disdain for democracy and the very concept of the nation-state. Their talks were peppered with such quotes as “The labor force should be ‘flexible’ and should ‘diversify;’” “Mussolini dealt with the situation;” “There are regions of Italy which we wish Brussels could govern directly;” and “We believe in a single European consciousness.” Compare these with the Nazi quotations presented earlier in this piece.

During this series of talks, the technocrats and their partners in academia arrogantly attributed the EU’s economic perils to three simple factors: “Bad design. Bad luck. Bad decisions: Greece.” Revealing the EU’s possible endgame, we were further told that “the nation-state is a 19th-century construct, and nothing lasts forever.”

Further demonstrating the utter lack of democracy and accountability in the Nobel Prize-winning EU, it should be noted that the European Central Bank (ECB), which holds the economic fate of the EU’s member-states in its hands, has only one mandate in its governing documents: maintaining price stability — reflecting a longstanding German aversion to inflation of any sort. Nothing in the ECB’s constitution requires it to enact policy with social mandates, such as full employment, in mind. Indeed, the ECB itself does not lend directly to member-states but exclusively to private banks, from which states are then obliged to borrow at higher interest rates.

Perhaps best demonstrating the contempt with which the EU elite and its supporters view democracy and popular will, numerous parliamentary votes and referendum results that have not gone the EU’s way have systematically been subject to re-dos and overturned. For instance, Ireland rejected the EU’s Lisbon Treaty by referendum in 2008. A “relatively small member state” daring to “hold up” attempts at further EU integration was considered intolerable by the powers that be, and a new vote was called. Amidst tremendous pressure, voters wilted and accepted the treaty in the new referendum.

Similarly, Irish voters rejected the EU’s Treaty of Nice in 2001. This surprise result was also deemed unacceptable. A new referendum was scheduled in 2002, the usual pressure on voters piled on, and the Treaty approved by Irish voters the second time around.

In 2013, Cyprus’ newly-elected government of President Nikos Anastasiadis rejected an EU-proposed “bailout” that would have resulted in a “haircut” of bank deposits ranging from 6.6 percent to 9.9 percent. Indeed, not one vote in favor was cast in parliament. De facto EU boss Germany was not impressed. Under stifling pressure and amidst threats of “imminent” bankruptcy, the parliament caved and passed a modified, but still onerous, “bailout” bill and haircut in a second vote.

In Greece, of course, the “leftist” SYRIZA government felt no obligation to even pretend to show resistance, despite the absurd “#ThisIsACoup” rhetoric that it tacitly supported behind the scenes. The July 2015 popular referendum overwhelmingly rejecting the EU’s austerity proposals was swiftly overturned and replaced by an even more severe austerity package, all in the name of keeping Greece “in Europe” (as if it would float away to Antarctica otherwise).

Following the Brexit referendum in the United Kingdom, elitist, pro-EU scholars from such “safe space” institutions as the London School of Economics recoiled in disgust at the “tyranny of the majority.” Clearly, voters were not as well-informed as pro-EU ivory tower intellectuals. This sentiment is not a recent phenomenon, however: similar views were expressed over a decade ago following the rejection of the proposed EU “constitution” by French and Dutch voters in 2005.

Therefore, it is no surprise that in the EU today, non-elected authorities are the ones who, for instance, tell countries what to grow and what not to grow (EU common agricultural policy), or whether or not a state-owned national air carrier can be allowed to continue to operate. A private and high-cost quasi-monopoly (Aegean Airlines) along with a smattering of low-cost airlines with a limited range of destinations has replaced Greece’s Olympic Airlines, which undoubtedly had been mismanaged but nevertheless connected Greece to North America and Australia.  In neighboring Turkey, Turkish Airlines—unimpeded by EU “competition” regulations and half-owned by the Turkish state—flies to the most countries and fourth most destinations in the world.

Why the fear of losing the EU?

A man looks up at a model of a pigeon on top of a banner as anti Brexit campaigners gather at Hyde Park Corner in London, March 25, 2017, before they march towards Britain's parliament. (AP/Kirsty Wigglesworth)

A man looks up at a model of a pigeon on top of a banner as anti Brexit campaigners gather at Hyde Park Corner in London, March 25, 2017, before they march towards Britain’s parliament. (AP/Kirsty Wigglesworth)

For some of those who favor the EU, their support often approaches levels of blind dogmatism. The main issue to contend with here though is why do such large segments of the political, business, and media elite so strongly support the EU, the Eurozone, and all of its associated institutions and policies?

In a word, the reason is neoliberalism. Based in part on “third way” politics, which burst to the political forefront in the 1990s with the likes of Bill Clinton and Tony Blair, it is the idea that capital, including “human capital,” should be able to flow freely across borders—or better yet, that borders should be abolished altogether. It is an idea that pays lip service to democracy and social justice but that preserves the primacy of international financial capital and so-called “free trade” über alles.

Greek Prime Minister Tsipras, defending his government’s policy of maintaining Greek membership in the Eurozone, argued in a recent interview that Greece would turn “into Afghanistan” if it left the common currency bloc. However, as evidenced by Tsipras’ aforementioned victory speech, the end goal is preserving the idea of “Europe”—as conceptualized by today’s European Union—at all costs, even if it means breaking campaign promises (or outright lying, if you prefer) and implementing policies that are toxic for the country and its people.

Some of the more laughable defenses that have been heard in favor of EU membership—as exemplified by the heated pre- and post-Brexit referendum rhetoric, concern such awful inconveniences as having to wait on line at customs control or at currency exchange. Somewhat more serious arguments concern the loss of the right to seek employment in other European countries. Doom-and-gloom scenarios, such as the one put forth by Tsipras and also much of the press and mass media, predict economic failure and catastrophe for those who dare depart from the Eurozone or the EU.

This unflinching support for the EU and its institutions, though, is not in reality about preventing European countries from being transformed into “Afghanistan.” It is not about preventing collapse. It is not about the laughable inconvenience of waiting on long lines at passport control. It is about promoting an ideology, a specific worldview, a vision for the way the world should work.

How exactly does this new, visionary world work in reality? What is the end goal? Let’s take the “free movement of labor” as an example. The positive spin that is often placed on this issue points out the advantages of being able to seek work in 28 EU member-states, increasing options for those seeking jobs and the pool of potential workers for employers.

In actuality though, such policies promote a “brain drain” from poorer EU member-states towards those that are wealthier. This perpetuates a spiral of impoverishment in countries such as Greece, from which an estimated 600,000 people have emigrated just during the years of the economic crisis, draining the country of a significant percentage of its educated professionals, the know-how and innovation they could provide, and the contributions their employment would make to the national tax base and pension system–further perpetuating the vicious economic cycle.

Indeed, it can be surmised that a portion of the still significant levels of support for EU membership in Greece stems from individuals who do not view EU membership in terms of the country’s best interest but in terms of self-interest — such as the opportunity to escape the “hellhole” that is Greece and to move to other, wealthier countries that are deemed more “civilized.” Motivated self-interest can also be seen in certain professional categories, such as academics for instance, who fear losing such benefits as EU-provided or EU-supported financial grants.

On their end, employers do not wish to lose what amounts to a pool of surplus labor. This has nothing to do with meritocracy, competition, or finding the best candidate to fill available positions. It has much more to do with increasing labor supply and lowering wages accordingly, essentially pitting labor against itself. As an ancillary benefit, the impoverishment of EU member-states such as Greece creates an internal bloc of countries with educated working populations, proximity to the rest of Europe, free trade and the same currency, and labor conditions and wages rapidly approaching third-world levels. This leads to “investments” (including the aforementioned privatizations) in these nouveau-poor nations, while “free” trade allows cheaply-made imports from economic powerhouses such as Germany to be dumped on local markets.

The same holds true for economic migrants and refugees, for whom we are often told there must be “no borders.” But what this influx of peoples actually represents from an economic point of view is further surplus labor, including labor willing to perform undesirable jobs at pitifully low wages. It represents a new labor pool which is, in essence, pitted against the domestic labor of European countries, suppressing wages across the board. As an additional bonus for employers, those migrants and refugees who are undocumented are far more likely to be amenable to long workdays, extremely low wages, and employment without insurance, benefits, or union membership — essentially held hostage by fear of deportation or starvation.

In other words, these migrants and refugees are exploited, and this exploitation occurs under the guise of “open borders” and “solidarity.” As this exploitation takes place, the true causes of the mass waves of migration and outflows of refugees from these countries are ignored. These, in turn, are closely related to the geopolitical ambitions and activities of Western actors, including the EU and Brussels-based NATO.

While many of those who are opposed to unchecked migration are indeed racist and xenophobic, there also exist those who oppose such migration on the aforementioned grounds, while further recognizing that states already battered by domestic unemployment are in no position to absorb a new labor pool. There are obviously non-racist and non-xenophobic grounds for  opposition to the destruction, impoverishment and exploitation of these countries in the first place There are then equally sound and benignant grounds for further opposition to the exploitation of the migrant workers and the suppression of wages and elimination of jobs for the domestic workforce, especially at a time when double-digit unemployment already officially exists in much of Europe and the Eurozone.

The way this induced “free” movement operates, a significant percentage of the labor force within “united” Europe is exploited or driven out of work and forced into internal migration within the “common market,” while migrants from outside Europe add to the pool of surplus labor and drive down wages even further. Both categories of workers are exploited by the “big fish,” namely economic and industrial giants such as Germany, and by international financial capital, which together benefit quite handsomely from this situation. This is as far from a xenophobic argument as one can get.

If this all sounds far-fetched, consider the following remarks made by British Labour Party MP John Reid on the BBC’s “Sunday Politics” television program on April 14, 2013: “The Treasury insisted in having a free flow of labor because they thought it would have brought down the cost of labor.” Reid further noted that he was attacked by members of his own party for suggesting that it was not racist to discuss the issue of immigration.

This is the prevalent ideology: “open borders” under a veil of “humanism” but with the goal of the economic exploitation of workers and entire countries alike. War and conflict is fomented in some countries, economic oppression in others. The migrants fleeing these countries in search of survival and employment are then exploited by the wealthier countries, which benefit and profit off of their work and very presence in these countries, such as through the broadening of the tax base. Conversely, the countries that raised these individuals and invested in their education are left largely empty-handed, at best awaiting remittances from abroad. And all of this is couched in pseudo-humanitarian terms: open borders, free movement, and “free” trade.

Discrediting the EU’s opponents

Guest speaker British politician George Galloway makes a speech at a rally held by the Grassroots Out (GO), anti-EU campaign group at the Queen Elizabeth II conference centre in London, held to coincide with the EU summit in Brussels, Feb. 19, 2016. (AP/Matt Dunham)

Guest speaker British politician George Galloway makes a speech at a rally held by the Grassroots Out (GO), anti-EU campaign group at the Queen Elizabeth II conference centre in London, held to coincide with the EU summit in Brussels, Feb. 19, 2016. (AP/Matt Dunham)

As I conclude this piece, I find myself at a fascinating conference on journalism and digital media taking place on the divided island of Cyprus. Notably, Cyprus, just like the United Kingdom, is not yet part of the Schengen Zone, which allows for passport- and visa-free travel. This means long lines at passport control—the horror! Interestingly enough, despite the U.K.’s having been exempted from participation in the Schengen Zone, “freedom to travel” was one of the arguments put forth to oppose “Brexit.”

But back to the conference: I’ve attended fascinating panel discussions and talks by brilliant academic colleagues from all across the world. But there is one problem: the prevailing viewpoint seems openly in favor of all of the institutions and beliefs that are shared by those who could be described as proponents of neoliberalism: pro-EU, anti-Brexit, vilification of the type of so-called “fake news” (i.e., news that does not fit a globalist agenda) allegedly practiced by outlets such as MintPress News, as well as heaps of shock and horror at the election of Donald Trump in the United States. All of this reflects prevailing viewpoints in the media, in the business world, and in academia.

So, Trump and Brexit. These electoral results have been blamed, sometimes in their entirety, on racism and xenophobia and “nationalism” and the ever-evil “populism.” But academia, and particularly the liberal arts and humanities, for all of their lofty talk of “interrogating hegemony,” do not question why populism is successful, and whether there are factors other than poorly-informed and racist voters taking advantage of democratic processes to, believe it or not, vote for their preferred candidate!

Earlier, the example of voters in Missouri counties that had previously voted solidly in favor of Barack Obama but who supported Trump in last year’s election, was used to question the idea that all voters who perhaps supported “populism” or who wished to “make America great again” were racists and xenophobes. Similarly, while the mass media has heaped attention on the racist and xenophobic element of the Brexit referendum result, left-wing campaigns for Brexit, such as “Lexit” and “Left Leave” and prominent left-wing and decidedly non-racist, non-xenophobic figures such as Tariq Ali, are habitually ignored—by journalists, by the media, by academia. In turn, any political development that contradicts the long march towards further neoliberalism and globalism is conflated with the likes of Donald Trump, Steve Bannon, Nigel Farage, and Marine Le Pen among others.

What seems increasingly apparent is that these aforementioned populist political figures are being used—though not entirely incorrectly—as weapons to discredit any policies that are not favorable to the neoliberal status quo. What isn’t clear is whether this was the plan all along — for the likes of Trump to be anointed for this purpose as a real-life “manchurian candidate” and for the Brexit referendum to take place smack in the midst of Europe’s refugee and migrant crisis — or if it simply represents a strategic response by the establishment to an inconvenient situation. But the disgust that has accompanied some of the few actual positive developments of the Trump presidency — such as the elimination of TPP and TTIP (also opposed by Bernie Sanders amidst censorship), the types of “free trade” agreements once vigorously opposed by progressive forces — perhaps elucidates the true nature of opposition to “populism.”

One of the end results of such a divisive and often extreme political climate is the occurrence of horrible, unfortunate, and tragic events that directly reflect this emerging polarization. The recent occurrence in Charlottesville is a case in point. Once they have taken place, such incidents — driven by extremists and pent-up anger on either side — are further used as weapons to discredit any argument against the prevailing political and economic order.

International cooperation and repairing what’s broken

A man stands in front of a banner during an anti-austerity rally by workers in the health sector outside the Labour ministry in Athens, March 2, 2017. Monitors from Greece's European Union creditors and the International Monetary Fund re-launched talks in Athens on Tuesday on the country's stumbling bailout program. The banner reads : "Medical Association of Athens, We demand the immediate withdraw of the pension bill". (AP/Yorgos Karahalis)

A man stands in front of a banner during an anti-austerity rally by workers in the health sector outside the Labour ministry in Athens, March 2, 2017. Monitors from Greece’s European Union creditors and the International Monetary Fund re-launched talks in Athens on Tuesday on the country’s stumbling bailout program. The banner reads : “Medical Association of Athens, We demand the immediate withdraw of the pension bill”. (AP/Yorgos Karahalis)

A lack of willingness to question the aforementioned political and economic order may help explain why even those individuals who expressed “solidarity” with Greece—at least up until Greece and its crisis were largely forgotten following the July 2015 referendum—nevertheless refused to question the very core issues of the EU, its policies in Greece and other crisis-stricken countries, and continued membership in the EU and the Eurozone. Even during the “#ThisIsACoup” phase of “solidarity” towards Greece, the “bad” Europeans who were said to be blackmailing the Greek government were apparently never considered quite bad enough to necessitate “Grexit”—or to later support Brexit. At worst, the Greek situation could be said to be viewed by these elements as merely a momentary hiccup on the path towards a borderless European—or global—utopia.

It seems to be the case that questioning the project in purported European “unity” that is the EU is enough for ordinary individuals to be branded “racists” and “xenophobes,” “isolationists” and “reactionaries.” I suppose then that Tariq Ali, who also questioned SYRIZA when it was not yet fashionable to do so, is a racist and a regressive force—as are Glenn Greenwald, Julian Assange, and George Galloway, who also adopted positions in favor of Brexit.

So why not simply fix the EU if it is broken? That’s what the likes of Yanis Varoufakis have repeatedly argued. But if Grexit is unreasonable and unrealistic, is it more reasonable and more realistic to presume that entrenched institutional structures — such as a non-elected European Commission, an unaccountable European justice system, and thousands upon thousands of regulations and directives dictating many aspects of life and economic activity in Europe, right down to the shape of bananas sold for human consumption (regulations which do in fact exist despite insistence to the contrary by the EU’s supporters) — can simply be changed or eliminated? Or that the issue of surplus labor and downward pressures on wages can be solved within such an institutional and regulatory context? I have not heard a satisfactory answer to these questions, not even from Varoufakis himself. Can an institution that is rotten and undemocratic to the core be salvaged?

Having mentioned Varoufakis, it bears noting that he has, on several occasions, openly praised Mrs. TINA herself, Margaret Thatcher (see also here, here, here, and here). This should come as no surprise, as it is Varoufakis who told us that There Is No Alternative to the euro for Greece, refused to even bring the Grexit option to the negotiating table as Greece’s finance minister, and accepted all of the EU’s austerity demands in the name of keeping Greece in the Eurozone at all costs.

It’s quite ironic that “anti-establishment” leftists and anarchists find themselves precisely on the same side as much of the establishment itself when it comes to the existence of institutions such as the EU, in the name of “open borders”—or no borders whatsoever. The very same establishment that praises one of the harshest prescribers of austerity, Angela Merkel, as a bastion of liberal democracy and as the newly anointed leader of the “free” world.

Those who do not conform to this orthodoxy often do not go unpunished. In various ways, three other purportedly “leftist” or “progressive” publications made it clear that this author’s contributions were no longer welcome. Ditto a radio station and Voice of America affiliate in Thessaloniki, Greece’s second-largest city, which once carried my radio program. So much for tolerance.

Yet, in the name of journalistic integrity — and in the face of injustice, hypocrisy and intolerance — there are things that must be said, if we are to engage in the type of healthy, robust and open democratic dialogue that we’d like to believe we stand for. For this, and as I prepare to begin a professional career in my chosen field, shall I expect to be confronted with a dressing-down akin to that seen in the classic 1976 film Network, where journalist Howard Beale was kindly informed that he had meddled with the primal forces of nature and that he will atone? Perhaps!

The lecture to which Beale was subjected in Network, whether intentionally or not, was accurate: by and large there is no left or right. There are no Democrats or Republicans. There is a prevailing globalist, neoliberal worldview, and there is a smattering of various elements from a wide range of sharply different and often incongruent belief systems that, each for its own reasons, oppose this prevailing trend. And because of the actions of fringe groups that truly are racist and violent, anyone who even so much as simply questions the orthodox worldview is lumped together with such genuinely reactionary elements.

There is true beauty in diversity and cultural difference. But what is diversity and what is cultural difference? I don’t wish to see the same Starbucks in Los Angeles, Lisbon, Lima, and Lesotho. I don’t desire to see one global “lingua franca” prevail while “unimportant” languages (like Greek) die out. I would not like to see the same corporations and the same lifestyle imposed worldwide via the process of globalization. When I am privileged enough to travel, I’d like to enjoy the local food and music and culture, to hear the local language and learn a few words (or more), to appreciate a way of life and a worldview different from my own. That’s diversity, and it is endangered by the homogenizing process of globalization, which is itself brought further along by the elimination of national sovereignty.

If I am a Greek voter, I want my elected prime minister, whether it is Alexis Tsipras or anyone else, to talk about the country that they were elected to govern and to represent me, my children and my family, not to discuss some abstract entity known as “Europe” which he or she was not elected to represent. Democracy works at a local level, while imperialism and empire are what prevail at the global, supranational level. And if the price of that democracy is waiting in a queue to exchange currency (which preferably would be in physical form) then so be it.

The idea of unity is often treated as a zero-sum game with the idea of the nation, that only one or the other is possible. But is this truly the case? International cooperation and understanding can and does exist across nations and peoples in an astounding myriad of ways. These could include trade agreements that are not parasitic or based on exploitation, visa-free travel regimes across countries, and academic exchange programs that help foster cultural mixing and collaboration. Those academics who are also EU backers and are worried about losing, say, the Erasmus+ exchange program, may wish to consider that it is open to non-EU citizens, just as the United States’ Fulbright exchange program is open to participants from all around the world. Those are concrete examples of international cooperation and cultural bridging in action which can exist, should exist, and often times do exist without the necessity of a bloated supranational behemoth micromanaging every aspect of life and serving the interests of a select few.

Nation-states and borders do not necessarily mean isolationism. They don’t necessarily mean hatred, nor do they mean a lack of cooperation. Indeed these elements can and do exist even absent of borders, such as within societies or within supranational entities. We are told that the EU has served as a force for peace and that the nation-state as an institution promotes war. But the EU and EU member-states allied with NATO have participated in countless conflicts, both on the European continent and elsewhere, and have no problem allying themselves with oppressive, violent, authoritarian and genocidal regimes for reasons of economic or geopolitical expediency. War itself has existed since prehistoric times, long before the advent of the nation-state. It has also indeed contributed to the breakup of larger supranational entities. And as demonstrated earlier, whether due to conspiracy or coincidence, the idea of European economic and political unity is not necessarily incompatible with fascist and extremist ideology.

So what of the EU and Eurozone? A commonly heard retort is that no one has suggested any practical alternatives or a course of action that would allow a country such as, say, Greece, to depart from these institutions without a catastrophic meltdown taking place. This therefore raises the question: should a country like Greece depart and, if so, how can it accomplish this? What are the alternatives, and are they viable? Will Greece be transformed into Afghanistan, as Tsipras suggests? The next installment of this series will address these questions—and more—in detail. Stay tuned.

Apr 282017
 

By Michael Nevradakis99GetSmart

Originally published at MintPressNews:

According to economist Roger Bootle, the EU has grown unsustainable and due to various factors, is about to burst. (AP/Francisco Seco)

According to economist Roger Bootle, the EU has grown unsustainable and due to various factors, is about to burst. (AP/Francisco Seco)

Britain’s departure from the EU, a process that will take about two years, has formally gone into motion. MintPress News had the opportunity to speak with prize-winning economist Roger Bootle about what Brexit will ultimately mean for the country’s economy, as well as the European Union as a whole.

LONDON– The recent triggering of Article 50 of the European Union’s Lisbon Treaty by the United Kingdom has formally set into motion the process of Britain’s departure from the EU, an action that is in line with the result of last June’s referendum, where 52 percent of British voters chose to leave the union.

Europe is now faced with the prospect of a turbulent period ahead, with the upcoming French presidential elections and the possibility of a victory for populist candidate Marine Le Pen, as well as snap parliamentary elections declared in the UK, German elections in September, a rising tide of Euroscepticism across the continent and the process of Brexit now formally put into motion.

Economist Roger Bootle, chairman of Capital Economics in London and specialist adviser to the British House of Commons Treasury Committee, is the lead author of the report “Leaving the euro: a practical guide,” which was awarded the prestigious Wolfson Prize in Economics in 2012. The report presents a comprehensive proposal for how any eurozone member could depart the zone in an orderly fashion. Bootle discussed his findings extensively in a March 2015 interview with Dialogos Radio.

MintPress News recently had the opportunity to speak with Bootle, in an interview that also aired on Dialogos Radio, about the prospects of the British economy following Brexit and the future of the EU and eurozone following Britain’s upcoming departure.

MintPress News (MPN): The British government has recently gone ahead and invoked Article 50, formally triggering the process for Great Britain’s departure from the European Union. Many doom-and-gloom scenarios have been voiced, particularly by media pundits, regarding the adverse impacts of “Brexit” on Great Britain’s economy. In reality, how has the British economy performed since the referendum vote and, more recently, since Article 50 was invoked, and what are its prospects going forward?

Roger Bootle (RB): The British economy has done extremely well since the referendum. In fact, you can’t really see any adverse effects at all. It’s just bowled along much as before. In the immediate weeks and months after the referendum, there was some hesitation and some business sectors undoubtedly felt a bit of a slowdown, but that didn’t last long.

As things are at the moment, they’re looking really very strong. Surveys suggest that economic growth will continue roughly at the level we’ve seen recently. Of course, the pound has dropped quite considerably, and that’s helped British exports. They are looking very strong. Even if there’s a bit of a squeeze on consumers, which there may well be, I think all the signs are that the British economy is going to sail through this period.

MPN: From an economic point of view, what are the next steps in the Brexit process for Great Britain? For instance, do you believe that Great Britain will still maintain access to the European common market, and more so, do you believe that Great Britain should maintain access to the European common market?

RB: Now of course we are in a difficult phase, which could go on for up to two years because the Lisbon Treaty allows for a period of up to two years for negotiations for a country leaving. Of course, there’s been no country apart from Greenland, a long time before, that’s actually left the European Union, so we’re in uncharted territory really.

I think that what we’re going to see, what I hope we’re going to see, is some sort of free trade deal hammered out between Britain and the EU. Now if that doesn’t happen, it’s very important that this word “access” is nobbled, that Britain needs “access.” I think it really is very misleading, this word.

Every country in the world has got access to the single market – the United States, India, China, Japan, all these countries trade with the single market, they’ve got access to it, it’s just that not being part of the single market, not having a free trade deal with the European Union, they have to pay the

European Union common external tariff, and of course they have to meet all the standards and certificates and so on that the EU demands.

Now, if Britain doesn’t reach some sort of free trade agreement with the EU during this two-year negotiating period, then we’re effectively going to be in the same sort of situation that the United States, China, Japan and India are all in. That doesn’t sound to me to be too bad.

MPN: There have been many rumors and many press reports regarding the pound of flesh, if you will, that the European Union will demand from Great Britain as an exit bill for leaving the EU. Do you view this as a distinct possibility, or does Great Britain have bargaining chips of its own to possibly avoid this as it navigates the exit process?

RB: Various figures have suggested bills as high as 60 billion euros that the UK will have to hand over to the EU. I think the chances of the EU being able to secure anything like that are vanishingly small, next to zero. There was a report by the British House of Lords recently which obtained expert legal opinion, and the result of that expert legal opinion was that Britain was obliged to pay nothing at all. That is to say, the common sense interpretation of this would apply, that once you leave the club you’re no longer asked to carry on paying your membership dues.

Now, I suspect that there might be reasons of political and economic self-interest such that Britain might end up paying rather more than zero, but 60 billion euros, well they’ll have to whistle for that. I think there’s plenty of room for some sort of reasonable deal.

MPN: Part of the exit process, from what I understand, would have to do with Great Britain’s share of the European Central Bank’s cash reserves, which amount to 16 percent of the ECB’s total cash reserves. Can these cash reserves be returned to Great Britain as part of the Brexit process?

RB: I don’t see that as being a factor to be taken on its own. As a shareholder in the ECB, we do have a claim on the ECB’s net assets. The ECB’s got liabilities as well, so it isn’t reasonable to just look at the cash the ECB holds, you have to look at the balance sheet as a whole, and then you’ve got to put that into the context of the whole position of the EU. I can’t see the UK walking away with 16 percent of the ECB’s cash holdings. I think there’s going to be some overall totting-up of assets and liabilities and whatever the EU thinks are the UK’s continuing obligations after it’s actually left the club, and that’s something that’s going to be a major argument. These ECB cash reserves will be just one factor among very many that will affect this question of how much the UK has to hand over.

MPN: What are the possibilities that Great Britain has on the table as it prepares to depart the European Union, in terms of new trade deals or other beneficial agreements outside of the European Union?

RB: We’ve heard President [Donald] Trump say that he’s keen on a prospective U.S.-UK trade deal, and he’s made it pretty clear that he thinks that can be accomplished very quickly. There’s a whole series of other countries that are interested, including former members of the British Empire that are now members of the British Commonwealth: Canada, Australia, New Zealand, India. Countries outside, such as Japan and China, I think will be able to secure some sort of agreement pretty soon.

I think it’s very important not to overplay the significance of trade deals. Britain trades all around the world with all sorts of countries with which it does not have a trade deal, the United States being one of them, Britain’s biggest single export market. The UK does not have a trade agreement with the United States, and the reason it doesn’t have one is because at the moment it can’t make its own trade policy! It’s the EU that has to do that, and the EU hasn’t been able to make a trade deal with the United States!

I think very much [that as] a result of “euro-brainwashing,” in the European Union most people seem to think that prosperity emerges at the end of the fountain pens of these wonderful official trade negotiators in Brussels and elsewhere, and that all our futures depend on these people. This is complete hogwash. It’s a fairy tale. Around the world, all sorts of countries do extremely well and trade with each other without having anything to do with these panjandrums in Brussels. Britain could be in exactly the same position.

MPN: How does the City of London and the business community in Great Britain view the prospects of the British economy following Brexit?

RB: In the run-up to the referendum, there was a majority of the leaders of big business in Britain, including in the City of London, the financial interests, in favor of Britain staying in. That hasn’t changed very much, and accordingly there’s a preponderance of voices, although it’s less strident than before, worried about exactly what sort of arrangement Britain is going to put in place.

But even before the referendum vote, this description of the state of business opinion was far from uniform. There were a lot of businesspeople who were in favor of Britain leaving. A lot of people in the City were in favor of Britain leaving. On the whole, it was the more entrepreneurial City firms that were in favor of Britain leaving, as opposed to the big established banks and brokerage houses and so forth, who on balance were in favor of Britain staying.

I think that now the debate has moved on a lot. It’s been helped by some of Mrs. [British Prime Minister Theresa] May’s speeches and by the triggering of Article 50. It’s now pretty clear that we are leaving; accordingly, business opinion has switched from trying to operate as some sort of rear-guard action to realizing that it’s going to happen. Obviously, there’s a difference of opinion.

There are still some business leaders, including some in the City, who are a bit concerned and they want to make sure that we get the softest of soft Brexits. But a lot of business leaders are more optimistic than that. I think the mood, though, has changed. It’s changed towards, as I thought it would and hoped it would, towards making the most of Brexit, getting on with it, getting on with the job, getting the job of leaving the EU done and then making sure that Britain is best placed in the world that follows.

MPN: A recent survey of reserve managers at 80 central banks around the world found that there is a recent tendency for central banks to cut their euro exposure, while viewing British currency as a safer prospect for their banks’ portfolios. Is this a trend that you have observed in the markets and is this likely to continue?

RB: I don’t find it surprising that central bank reserve managers should find the prospect of having substantial amounts of their reserves in euros alarming. I don’t find that surprising at all, because there is a mega-crisis in the European Union. For the last year or so, the media has been obsessing about the so-called “British crisis” triggered by the fact that we voted to leave the European Union.

But fundamentally, putting aside for a moment the possible question of a second Scottish referendum — that is a big worry for the UK — that aside, the UK is a pretty stable place, and I think all the signs are that although there might be a few wobbles over Brexit, it can continue to be both successful and stable in the years ahead. And of course, famously it’s got extremely liquid financial markets. So I can see why international money managers, including central bank reserve managers, would find the UK fairly attractive.

By contrast, you can paint a scenario that’s deeply alarming for the countries of the EU. It’s still, I think, more than possible that another country is going to leave the euro over the next few years. The Italians remain very weak, the Greek economy is in a very, very serious state. Either one or both of those countries can leave. You’ve got a political crisis in France, with the possibility of far-right leader Marine Le Pen becoming president.

Even if that doesn’t happen, there’s no doubt over what way France is going over the next couple of years. So there are really fundamental questions about the integrity of the EU as a political unit, and the euro currency alongside that. Why would you want to expose substantial amounts of your reserves to that?

From a British point of view, there is a danger, I think, in all of this. I happen to think that the lower pound brought on by Brexit is a great boon for the British economy. I wanted the pound to be weaker for a long time. I think we needed it, it’s improved our competitiveness, so the last thing I would want to see is international capital holders becoming really worried about the euro and the EU, moving money into the pound with the result of the pound rising a lot in the exchanges. I think that would be extremely unhelpful for Britain.

MPN: Even though Great Britain was not in the eurozone, many people forget that it had been a part of the European Exchange Rate Mechanism, the ERM, before departing in 1992. This departure had, like Brexit, been accompanied by doom-and-gloom scenarios for what the impact on the British economy would be. In reality, how did exiting the ERM impact the British economy at the time?

RB: It’s very funny, this, because I remember extremely well that before Britain left — ”left” is too dignified a word, it sort of fell out of the ERM. What happened in September 1992, the UK Treasury was telling anyone who wanted to listen, and quite a few who didn’t, that we absolutely had to stay in the ERM, because otherwise inflation would soar, interest rates would soar and the economy would go down the tubes.

Various economists, myself included, said this was rubbish and that the opposite would happen, and dare I say it, after Sept. 16, 1992, the Treasury was proven wrong. That’s to say, the currency fell a long way, and exactly as a few of us had said, interest rates would not have to go up. Indeed they fell, inflation carried on falling too, and the economy recovered. After that, there were five years of very strong growth under the Conservatives before Labour won the election in 1997. So that was an earlier occasion where the Treasury forecasts of doom and gloom were proved comprehensively wrong.

MPN: Looking at economic and political developments in Europe, with an emphasis on the upcoming presidential elections in France and the candidacy of Marine Le Pen, who has delivered her own strong Eurosceptic message to French voters, do you believe we are seeing the beginning process of the breakup of the eurozone or the European Union, and how can Brexit serve as a catalyst for this process?

RB: I think we are seeing probably the beginnings of the breakup of the EU. The beginnings of the breakup of the euro were seen some time ago. Of course it hasn’t happened, but the signs are, I think, pretty clear, of the strains, very clear of course in Greece, but also I think more significantly in Italy. Less dramatic, of course, in Italy, but Italy is a much bigger economy, and I think this is more significant for the EU because Italy, of course, was a founding member of the EU. Greece didn’t join until much later.

If Greece ends up leaving the euro, then that is a hammerblow not just to the euro but, I think, to the institutions of the EU itself. Now, it may well be that one of these events, a country leaving the euro or the election of Marine Le Pen, could happen fairly soon, and that would still be early on in the Brexit process, because it will be almost two years until Britain leaves the EU.

But if Italy doesn’t leave the euro, and/or we don’t get Marine Le Pen as president of France, and both the euro and the EU hold together, then I think Brexit is going to play a major role, because then all eyes are going to be on seeing how the UK does outside the EU. Now of course, it’s going to take quite some time for this to be testable. We’ve got the up to two years of negotiations, and I suspect there will be some wobbles and difficulties and short-term problems associated with the business of exit, so it might be a year or two after exit before we can see how the UK is doing.

But if the UK is doing really pretty well after that period, we’re going to see a lot of pressure within the EU for other countries to leave, because then the UK will have gotten out of the free movement of labor, gotten out of the jurisdiction of the European courts without having to pay Brussels these huge annual subventions, and I think a lot of countries will look at this deal and think “oh gosh, I think I rather like that setup.”

MPN: A few years back, you were awarded the Wolfson Prize in Economics for your analysis that showed that any eurozone member state could safely depart the eurozone in an orderly fashion. Could you recap some of the highlights of this proposal for our listeners, and has anything changed in your analysis since then?

RB: I don’t think the essence of the situation or indeed my recommendations for what a country should do have changed at all, but there is a particular relevance to the French situation. What we said was, first of all, don’t be afraid of the fact that the exchange rate for the new currency falls, that the currency is weak immediately after the exit. That is part of the solution, not the problem. You shouldn’t try to stop it, indeed you should encourage it. It’s how you get the combination of reduced burden of debt and increased competitiveness.

We recommended that preparations for this exit should be conducted in secret. If this is not possible, then you have to impose capital controls. You might have to close the banks, which would be a serious worry. You don’t need to be able to issue new currency in order to leave. It takes quite some time for notes to be printed. You can do it without doing that in these days of electronic money. You could do without notes for a while, and indeed you could carry on using euros in the interim before your new notes are available.

You probably will need, in some sense, to default on some of your debt. The aim should be redenominate your national debt into the new currency, the one that’s depreciated, and depending on whether you can do that, it’s going to depend on the precise legal position of the debt. But insofar as you can, that’s what you should do, and the aim should be, through a combination of a reduced debt burden as a share of GDP, and the increased competitiveness, to get a period of economic growth, and from that of course, all sorts of good things will follow.

The connection with the French election is that Marine Le Pen has talked about having a referendum on ditching the euro and bringing back the franc, which is completely different from what we suggested in our Wolfson Prize-winning study. The significance of this is that Marine Le Pen’s proposal is going to cause an awful lot of financial instability. The financial markets aren’t going to wait for the result of the vote, they’re going to act with their feet straight away!

If Marine Le Pen wins, I think you’re going to see substantial capital flight from France even before she announces the referendum, and a lot of money leaving France. I could see a real banking crisis following from that, as people try to get their money out and to put it in, as it were, safer members of the eurozone, principally Germany. There might have to be some sort of capital controls imposed to stop that capital flight and to stop the French banking system from collapsing.

MPN: Looking at economic conditions in Europe today, and specifically in countries such as Greece that continue to enforce a regime of strict economic austerity as prescribed by its lenders, do you believe that exiting the eurozone is still an option for these countries?

RB: I don’t see how Greece can escape from its current situation without a much-devalued exchange rate. Spain is a country that is now recovering, and I think would probably be able to stay in the euro system, although not if Italy leaves and devalues. Italy, especially, and Greece, I don’t see any chance of emerging from their current economic torpor that doesn’t involve leaving the euro.

MPN: In Greece, there are various arguments that are heard against Grexit, ranging from claims that it’s too late and that it is something Greece should have done seven or eight years ago at the onset of the crisis, to arguments that a catastrophic devaluation of the new currency would follow, or that hyperinflation would result, or that Greece would be unable to import vital necessities. How do you respond to these arguments?

RB: There’s no doubt that it would be possible to do Grexit badly, and in the same vein, it’s possible to do Brexit badly. You could make a complete mess of it. There’s no doubt that’s possible. It’s very important, I think, not to let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Yes, there will be difficulties as a result of Grexit, but the most important thing is, it gives hope.

You have to ask yourself what you’re comparing your option with. A country that’s lost something like 25 percent of its GDP, that has a huge proportion of its workforce unemployed, there doesn’t seem to be much hope under the current situation. So I think it’s a bit extreme to say “oh gosh, if Greece left the euro, there would be hyperinflation.” Well, there wouldn’t be hyperinflation at all. If it’s managed properly, there wouldn’t be an uptick in inflation, and that wouldn’t necessarily be all bad, because it would help to devalue the real value of some of the debt.

You’d have to, though, keep this under control. It would have to be well-managed. You would need the effective management of the Bank of Greece and the Greek government to make sure that this was a fairly benign process. That doesn’t mean to say that you can avoid pain. You can’t avoid pain! You’ve had pain for the last how many years in Greece, and this is a country that’s lost 25 percent of its GDP!