Latest news with #EuropeanMonetarySystem
Yahoo
05-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Why the Left won't learn when the Right is right
It can be melancholy to be right about something when others are wrong. It makes you unpopular at the time and often unbearably smug when you are later vindicated. The problem is acute in politics when the Right is right. The Left tends to be more censorious than the Right and therefore thinks that anything emanating from the Right must be morally wrong. (The Right more often regards the Left as impractically idealistic rather than evil.) Once the Left labels a view 'Right-wing', it permits itself to disregard that view. A classic case was the refusal of Western governments to consider the Wuhan 'lab leak' theory as the origin of Covid-19, simply because Donald Trump was its noisiest advocate. A much earlier one was the refusal to admit that Britain could not for long remain within the Exchange Rate Mechanism (ERM) of the European Monetary System – the forerunner of the euro. We joined in October 1990. In the summer of 1992, the prime minister, John Major, declared that departure would produce 'fool's gold'. We fell out, all the same, that September. The trans issue is also a case in point. The Right (which did not, until recently, include most of the Conservative leadership on this subject) took its stand on reality: your sex is a biological fact that cannot be altered by wishing it so. So long as it was predominantly crusty old conservatives who said this, public policy debate was able to evade this key issue of fact. Then feminists, often Left-wing, bravely took up the matter. As campaigners for recognition of women's rights and identity, they were angry at trans women who, as they saw it, parodied their sex by adopting it. Only then did the dam of public debate belatedly break. There has been a similar, regrettable delay about net zero. Again, the Right – though pitifully few at the top of the Conservative Party – took its stand on reality. It did not deny that climate change was an issue. Rather, it argued that the policies being proposed to arrest it were ineffective, unnecessarily expensive and dangerously insecure. Following a timetable which could not be met, it added, would also cause great damage. These warnings are being progressively vindicated, as the public becomes much more aware of the issue because of the vast, net zero-driven rise in energy costs for households and businesses. As we get acquainted with the price of electric vehicles (even when subsidised), the inadequacy of heat-pumps, the precariousness of power supply, and the disappearance of jobs dependent on fossil fuels, we grow alarmed. But for the Energy Secretary, Ed Miliband, to admit these problems would seem tantamount to becoming 'Right-wing'. Given his ambitions, he would almost rather die. Even Sir Keir Starmer, who is marginally more cautious on this topic, sees climate-crisis language as essential to his political identity, distinguishing him from semi-fascist 'climate-deniers'. Only a few brave souls on the Left, like Gary Smith of the GMB union, challenge the orthodoxy. Yet, as a matter of plain fact, this Labour Government will not hit its net zero targets and will have to modify them. The cost of delay in recognising that the Right is right can be stupendous. The Climate Change Act became law 17 years ago: the public admission that the policies are failing is only just beginning. What is the next example of this syndrome? I would say our acceptance of the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights, especially in relation to immigration. Every government that evades this issue, and therefore fails to control immigration, will be punished by voters. The Right was saying this as early as the 20th century. When the Second World War was ending in April 1945, my uncle, an injured prisoner of war, was liberated. Shortly before VE Day, he was flown to Britain in an American Dakota. With his first sight of England, he recognised his family house, near the Sussex coast, distinctively visible because of its fields and old garden walls. 'That's my home down there,' he said to the American Red Cross sergeant. 'Gee bud,' came the reply, 'do you want a parachute?' Eighty years on, it is sad to think that, thanks to Donald Trump, the American offer of a metaphorical parachute, and the allied friendship that goes with it, may be withdrawn. If it is, a third great European war, which then goes global, seems likelier than ever before. Thinking of which, I note that, this week, Vladimir Putin signed a decree renaming the airport of Volgograd, 'Stalingrad International Airport'. He has added that veterans of his current 'special military operation' in Ukraine would like the city itself to be renamed Stalingrad. He says he favours the idea but purports to be consulting local opinion. The name change is a repeat of history. In 1925, Volgograd became Stalingrad for the first time, in honour of the Soviet Union's then fairly new all-powerful dictator. Under this name, and with Stalin now in charge of his country's resistance to Nazi invasion, Stalingrad became world-famous in 1942-3 for the titanic battle fought there between the German and Soviet armies. The Soviets, though at terrible cost, were the eventual victors. In 1961, with Stalin eight years dead and his personality cult cancelled, Khrushchev's Soviet government restored Volgograd to its original name. In 2025, the rehabilitation of Communism's biggest ever murderer proceeds, with the rehabilitator no slouch at murder himself. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Telegraph
05-05-2025
- Politics
- Telegraph
Why the Left won't learn when the Right is right
It can be melancholy to be right about something when others are wrong. It makes you unpopular at the time and often unbearably smug when you are later vindicated. The problem is acute in politics when the Right is right. The Left tends to be more censorious than the Right and therefore thinks that anything emanating from the Right must be morally wrong. (The Right more often regards the Left as impractically idealistic rather than evil.) Once the Left labels a view 'Right-wing', it permits itself to disregard that view. A classic case was the refusal of Western governments to consider the Wuhan 'lab leak' theory as the origin of Covid-19, simply because Donald Trump was its noisiest advocate. A much earlier one was the refusal to admit that Britain could not for long remain within the Exchange Rate Mechanism (ERM) of the European Monetary System – the forerunner of the euro. We joined in October 1990. In the summer of 1992, the prime minister, John Major, declared that departure would produce 'fool's gold'. We fell out, all the same, that September. The trans issue is also a case in point. The Right (which did not, until recently, include most of the Conservative leadership on this subject) took its stand on reality: your sex is a biological fact that cannot be altered by wishing it so. So long as it was predominantly crusty old conservatives who said this, public policy debate was able to evade this key issue of fact. Then feminists, often Left-wing, bravely took up the matter. As campaigners for recognition of women's rights and identity, they were angry at trans women who, as they saw it, parodied their sex by adopting it. Only then did the dam of public debate belatedly break. There has been a similar, regrettable delay about net zero. Again, the Right – though pitifully few at the top of the Conservative Party – took its stand on reality. It did not deny that climate change was an issue. Rather, it argued that the policies being proposed to arrest it were ineffective, unnecessarily expensive and dangerously insecure. Following a timetable which could not be met, it added, would also cause great damage. These warnings are being progressively vindicated, as the public becomes much more aware of the issue because of the vast, net zero-driven rise in energy costs for households and businesses. As we get acquainted with the price of electric vehicles (even when subsidised), the inadequacy of heat-pumps, the precariousness of power supply, and the disappearance of jobs dependent on fossil fuels, we grow alarmed. But for the Energy Secretary, Ed Miliband, to admit these problems would seem tantamount to becoming 'Right-wing'. Given his ambitions, he would almost rather die. Even Sir Keir Starmer, who is marginally more cautious on this topic, sees climate-crisis language as essential to his political identity, distinguishing him from semi-fascist 'climate-deniers'. Only a few brave souls on the Left, like Gary Smith of the GMB union, challenge the orthodoxy. Yet, as a matter of plain fact, this Labour Government will not hit its net zero targets and will have to modify them. The cost of delay in recognising that the Right is right can be stupendous. The Climate Change Act became law 17 years ago: the public admission that the policies are failing is only just beginning. What is the next example of this syndrome? I would say our acceptance of the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights, especially in relation to immigration. Every government that evades this issue, and therefore fails to control immigration, will be punished by voters. The Right was saying this as early as the 20th century. Metaphorical parachute When the Second World War was ending in April 1945, my uncle, an injured prisoner of war, was liberated. Shortly before VE Day, he was flown to Britain in an American Dakota. With his first sight of England, he recognised his family house, near the Sussex coast, distinctively visible because of its fields and old garden walls. 'That's my home down there,' he said to the American Red Cross sergeant. 'Gee bud,' came the reply, 'do you want a parachute?' Eighty years on, it is sad to think that, thanks to Donald Trump, the American offer of a metaphorical parachute, and the allied friendship that goes with it, may be withdrawn. If it is, a third great European war, which then goes global, seems likelier than ever before. The return of Stalingrad Thinking of which, I note that, this week, Vladimir Putin signed a decree renaming the airport of Volgograd, 'Stalingrad International Airport'. He has added that veterans of his current 'special military operation' in Ukraine would like the city itself to be renamed Stalingrad. He says he favours the idea but purports to be consulting local opinion. The name change is a repeat of history. In 1925, Volgograd became Stalingrad for the first time, in honour of the Soviet Union's then fairly new all-powerful dictator. Under this name, and with Stalin now in charge of his country's resistance to Nazi invasion, Stalingrad became world-famous in 1942-3 for the titanic battle fought there between the German and Soviet armies. The Soviets, though at terrible cost, were the eventual victors. In 1961, with Stalin eight years dead and his personality cult cancelled, Khrushchev's Soviet government restored Volgograd to its original name. In 2025, the rehabilitation of Communism's biggest ever murderer proceeds, with the rehabilitator no slouch at murder himself.
The Guardian
13-04-2025
- Business
- The Guardian
After this, what more proof does Britain need that it cannot ‘cosy up' to Trump?
Alas: that the infantile wrecker in the White House has 'blinked' may be some relief; but the damage he is wreaking on his own country and the rest of us persists. Amid the chaos, conspiracy theories abound. Is Trump a 'useful idiot' of even darker forces? What has Putin got on a president who succeeds a long line of (mostly) admirable predecessors, who saw Russian leaders as enemies with whom they had to coexist, not as friends? One conspiracy theory going the rounds is that 'the tariffs are about manipulating share prices for him and his billionaire buddies to profit from fluctuations'. This theory was hardly dismissed out of hand when Trump stated 'this is a great time to buy' after the stock market collapse. True or not, the collapse of the bond market last Wednesday was something else, and precipitated a panic that almost took the smirk off Trump's face. Yes, he most certainly blinked, having childishly boasted that some 70 countries were crawling to him to negotiate. Most economists agree that the tariff war Trump has initiated is far more extensive in its threatened consequences than the notorious Smoot-Hawley tariffs of 1930. There are now serious fears of a world recession, or even depression, as 'beggar my neighbour' policies return after being abandoned in reaction to the economic and political damage they caused in the 1930s. Serious though the tariff war is, there is a danger it may distract attention from the wider crisis, namely that Trump and his sidekicks are presiding over a quasi-fascist state, with huge damage to the rule of law, democratic values and the lives and living standards of countless poorer nations being cut off from US overseas aid. Which brings us to how Britain should respond. Does our government really wish to be as close to Trump as, sadly, Keir Starmer appears to want to be? First, a little background. There is nothing new about Europe's distrust of the US. The breakup of the Bretton Woods fixed exchange rate system in 1973 so alarmed European leaders that Chancellor Schmidt of West Germany and President Giscard d'Estaing of France joined forces with Britain's Roy Jenkins, then president of the European Commission, to set up the European Monetary System in the late 1970s. This was intended to be a 'zone of monetary stability' in the face of what became known as America's 'benign neglect' of the international monetary system. Its principal manifestation was the exchange rate mechanism (ERM), which evolved into the eurozone. But what Trump has been up to is causing far more distrust of the US on the part of Europe than that 1970s experience. Gordon Brown, the hero of the successful coordination of G20 policies in 2009 after the 2008 banking crisis, is arguing for a similar coordinated effort – to ward off the global recession that many fear the tariff war could precipitate. This, says Brown, means 'working ever more closely with the EU – indeed, the changes under way in Europe make possible a collaboration that is even more extensive than removing the post-Brexit trade barriers'. On which issue, there are signs that the Germans and others would welcome us back into the customs union. Ministers talk about removing 'unnecessary trade barriers', but how long can they go on about self-imposed red lines when the biggest barrier to our trade has been the huge losses of export business caused by Brexit? Er, that is to say, it was the biggest until Trump slapped a 10% tariff on most British goods exports to the US, 25% for steel, aluminium and pharmaceuticals, and more on vehicles. So much for cosying up to Trump. EU protectionism? Nobel laureate Paul Krugman points out that, in 2024, the average EU tariff on US goods was 1.7%, against an average US tariff on EU goods of 1.4%. Hardly serious. Now that the US is disengaging from its traditional relationship with Europe, it is obvious that, for defence and security reasons, the UK needs to be closer to the EU; indeed, there are already stirrings in that direction. But it is also obvious that a government that is desperately seeking to put flesh on the bones of its growth policy needs to recognise that its economic interests also require the abandonment of those red lines about not rejoining the customs union and single market. Trump has already demonstrated to Starmer that he cannot be trusted, whether or not our prime minister kowtows to him. Finally: a little light relief. Martin Bell, the former BBC international correspondent and independent MP, has sent me this clerihew: 'His tariffs were imposed on every nationRegardless of their size and populationHis people sang a plaintive song'The penguins have abused us for too long.''
