Opinions & Ideas

Author: John Bruton Page 1 of 58

TRUST ON GOVERNMENTS VARIES WIDELY ACROSS THE WORLD. SOME DEMOCRACIES TRUSTED, OTHERS ARE NOT

Democracy rests on trust. So do all other forms of government to some degree. 

I came across the 2020 Edelman Trust Report. It contains some startling and worrying findings.

 It can be found here

It  is worth reading in full.

If the world is to cope with Covid and the economic situation, it needs leadership that people are prepared to trust. 

The Trust Report tells a truly alarming story for those of us who believe in liberal democracy. 

The average level of trust in government in the world is only 49%, but the alarming thing is that there is more trust in government in some autocratic states than there is in democratic ones. 

Against a global average of 49% trust in government, 90% of Chinese and  78% of Saudi Arabians told Edelman that they trust their government.  In Europe the trust in national governments ranges from a high of 59% in Netherlands to 45% in Germany, 41% in Ireland , 36% in the UK,  35% in France, 33% in Russia, down to a mere 30%. Interestingly in India, also a democracy, trust in government is 81%.  Interestingly 61% of Irish people trust the EU, which is well ahead of the level of trust in their national government,

The Survey results suggest that income inequality contributes more to a loss of trust than does insufficient economic growth. But levels on income inequality in India and China are quite high so that is not a sufficient explanation.

There is a slightly higher level of trust in institutions among those with more education. 

But it is not just government that is distrusted in western countries. On average overall, 49% of global respondents say they trust the media, but trust in the media is only 37% in Ireland and France. Yet 80% of the Chinese trust their media!  Given that the Chinese trust their government so much, perhaps it is not surprising that they also trust their government controlled media.

Business is trusted somewhat more than either governments or media are- 58% as against 49%. But again there are stark contrasts. 

82% of Indians and Chinese people trust business, as against only 35% of Russians, 48% of Germans and Irish, and 57% of Italians.

It would be worthwhile to dig more deeply into Edelman’s findings!

ALL TRADE RESTS ON RESPECT FOR TREATIES

The fact that the UK government is now saying it will pass legislation that will break an international Treaty it signed and ratified little over a year ago, is very serious. It undermines Britain’s aspiration to be a globally trading nation.

All trade between nations rests, ultimately, on respect for Treaties and contracts.

Deliberately breaching commitments, freely given in a Treaty, undermines the whole structure of global relations between states.

 If one cannot rely on a commitment in a Treaty, nothing is reliable.

The EU only continues to exist because its member states respect the Treaties that set it up ( as some seem to have forgotten in another context recently).

If the UK, by its breach of the Withdrawal Treaty commitments it gave  on checks on goods going from Britain to Northern Ireland, forces Ireland to introduce checks on the Irish land border,  in order to protect Ireland’s status as a fully complaint EU member, it will undermine the structure that has brought peace to these islands. 

We could be living with the consequences of this long after Boris Johnson has passed from the political scene.

A FAILURE TO PROTECT THE INDEPENDENCE OF THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION

LACK OF FAIR PROCESS, OR OF RESPECT FOR THE EU TREATIES

I have always believed that the independence of members of the European Commission was a keystone of successful European integration.

 Commissioners are obliged by their oath of office to seek a European solution to problems, rather than just seek a balance between conflicting national interests.

 Since 1958, they have done so, and this is why European integration has succeeded, while efforts at integration on other continents have failed, under the weight of national egoism.

The larger the membership of the European Union became, the more important did the independence of Commissioners from national politics become.

Some believe the Commission is too large. From an efficiency point of view, they have a point. 

But Ireland, among others, has insisted that, despite this, each member state should have one of its nationals as a member of the Commission at all times. 

But if the “one Commissioner per member state” rule is to be kept in place, as the Union enlarges, Commissioners, from all states large and small, must demonstrate that they put the European interest first, and are not subject to the vagaries and passions of politics in their country of origin. 

In other words, European Commissioners must be independent, and be seen to be so. All member states must be seen to respect this.

This is why I am so deeply troubled by the attitude take by the Irish government, and then  by President Von Der Leyen of the European Commission, to calls for the EU Trade Commissioner Phil Hogan to resign.

 Both of them failed in their understanding of the European Union, and of one of its vital interests….. namely the  visible independence of members of the European Commission from the politics of any one EU state, large or small. 

I was genuinely shocked by what happened.

 Late in the evening of 22 August,  the leaders of the Irish Government called on the EU Trade Commissioner, Phil Hogan to “consider his position”. Those words mean resign.

 They piled on the pressure thereafter, with a further statement, on 23 August, containing a political determination that he had broken their Covid 19 rules. 

Phil Hogan did resign on 26 August.

 That was his decision and one he was entitled to make.

LESSONS FROM THIS PRECEDENT

But there are profound lessons to be learned by President Von der Leyen, and by the Commission as a whole , as to how, and to whom, Commissioners should be held accountable,  and a need to understand what this precedent means for the future political independence of Commissioners from their home governments.

 Separately, there are also questions to be asked about the internal management of, and the collegiality, of the Commission.

I will set out my concerns here, drawing on the words of the EU Treaty, which I helped draft as a member of the Convention on the Future of Europe.

On the 26 August, President Von der Leyen clearly withdrew any active support from Commissioner Hogan, and unquestioningly accepted the line of the Irish Government. This influenced him to resign his position.

 In this action, I contend that she did not fulfil all her responsibilities under the Treaties.

 I know she faced a genuine political difficulty. But the Treaties were framed do deal with fraught political situations, while preserving the independence of the Commission and due process.

 The Commission is guardian of the Treaties, and should be seen to defend the rules laid down in the Treaties in all circumstances, even when it is politically difficult. 

Article 245 of the Treaty requires member states to respect the independence of Commissioners. Ireland is bound by that article having ratified it in a referendum.

 One should note that Article 245 refers to respecting the independence of Commissioners individually, not just to the Commission as a whole.

 It is for the Irish government to say whether publicly demanding a Commissioner’s resignation, for an alleged breach of purely Irish rules, is compatible with the Irish government’s Treaty obligation under Article 245 to respect his independence, It had other options,

If any Commissioner is visiting a member state for any reason, he or she is subject to the laws of that state, on the same basis as any other citizen. A visiting Commissioner would not be above the law, but nor would she be below it either. 

If she breached the law, due process in the Courts ought to be applied, as to any citizen.

 This what would have happened if the visiting Commissioner was from any country other than Ireland and had had the difficulties which Phil Hogan had….due process would have been followed. 

 The statements of the Irish government, and the unsatisfactory explanations by Phil Hogan, did create political problems for the President of the Commission.

 She had to do something, but not necessarily what she did do.

 But there were options available to her which, inexplicably, she failed to use or even consider.

RULES IGNORED

 Commissioners are subject to a Code of Conduct, last updated in 2018. Under that Code,

 there is an ethics committee to determine if the Code has been breached. If the matter was urgent, there is provision for a time limit  to be set for a report by the Committee.

 But a reference to the Ethics Committee would have allowed for due process, and a calm and fair hearing. More importantly using this process would also have asserted the independence of the Commission as an institution.

 The Code says that it is to be applied “in good faith and with due consideration of the proportionality principle” and it allows for a reprimand. where the failing does not warrant asking the Commissioner to resign. 

Now, because of the course followed, we will never know if there was any breach at all of the Code at all by Phil Hogan. 

President Von der Leyen’s failure to use these mechanisms seems to be a serious failure to defend due process and proportionality, and to protect  the independence  of individual Commissioners, as she was required to do by the Treaty.

 The Commission and the Parliament should enquire into why she did not do so.  There are consequences now for the viability of the Code of Conduct, if it is not to be used in a case like this. 

CRITERIA NOT APPLIED

Was what Phil Hogan did a resigning matter anyway ?

Article 247 allows for only two grounds for asking a Commissioner to resign. There are that he or she is

“no longer being able to fulfil the conditions for the performance of his duties”

Or

” has been guilty of serious misconduct”.

I do not think either condition was met in this case.

Phil Hogan would have been fully capable of carrying out his duties while the Ethics Committee did its work. Instead his position is now effectively vacant.

Most people I have spoken to do not think the breaches committed by Phil Hogan, while foolish, amounted to “serious misconduct” within the meaning of Article 247.

 Failure to recollects all the details of a private visit over 2 weeks, or to issue a sufficient apology quickly enough, may be political failings, but they hardly  rise to the level of “serious misconduct”. Any deliberate and knowing breach of quarantine should have been dealt with in the Irish courts without fuss. 

 In any event, President von der Leyen would have been far wiser to have got an objective view on all these things from the Ethics Committee, before allowing Phil Hogan’s resignation.

WHY DID THE COMMISSION NOT MEET?

Another issue is the President’s failure to call a Commission meeting, if she was considering that a Commissioner should resign.

Under article 247 it is the Commission, not the President alone, who may compulsorily retire a Commissioner, and even then, they must have the approval of the European Court of Justice.  These safeguards were put in the Treaty to protect the independence of the Commission. They were ignored in this case.

The resultant weakening of the institutional independence of the Commission is very damaging to European integration and to the interests of smaller EU states. This should be of concern to the European Parliament.

WE NEED A FULL STRENGTH TEAM ON THE PITCH AS BREXIT REACHES THE ENDGAME

It is increasingly likely that, unless things change, on 1 January 2021,  we will have a no deal Brexit. The only agreement between the EU and the UK would then be the already ratified Withdrawal Agreement.

 There are only 50 working days left in which to make a broader agreement. The consequences of  a failure to do so  for Ireland will be as profound, and even as  long lasting, that those of Covid 19.

A failure to reach an EU/UK Agreement would mean a deep rift between the UK and Ireland.

 It would mean heightened tensions within Northern Ireland, disruptions to century’s old business relations, and a succession of high profile and prolonged court cases between the EU and the UK dragging on for years.

 Issues, on which agreement could easily have been settled in amicable give and take negotiations, will be used as hostages or for leverage on other issues. The economic and political damage would be incalculable.

We must do everything we can to avoid this.

Changing the EU Trade Commissioner in such circumstances would be dangerous.  Trying to change horses in mid stream is always difficult. But attempting to do so at the height of a flood, in high winds, would  be even more so.

The EU would lose an exceptionally competent Trade Commissioner when he was never more needed. An Irishman would no longer hold the Trade portfolio. The independence of the European commission, a vital ingredient in the EU’s success would have been compromised…a huge loss for all smaller EU states.

According to Michel Barnier, the EU/UK talks , which ended last week, seemed at times to be going “backwards rather than forwards”.

The impasse has been reached for three reasons.

THE MEANING OF SOVEREIGNTY

Firstly, the two sides have set themselves incompatible objectives.

The EU side wants a “wide ranging economic partnership” between the UK and the EU with ”a level playing field for open and fair competition”. The UK also agreed to this objective in the joint political declaration  made with the EU at the time of the Withdrawal Agreement.

Since it agreed to this, the UK has had a General Election, and it has changed its mind. Now it is insisting, in the uncompromising words of it chief negotiator, on

 “sovereign control over our laws, our borders, and our waters”.

This formula fails to take account of the fact that any Agreement the UK might make with the EU (or with anyone else) on standards for goods, services or food stuffs necessarily involves a diminution of sovereign control.

Even being in the World Trade Organisation (WTO) involves accepting its rulings which are a diminution of “sovereign control”. This is why Donald Trump does not like the WTO and is trying to undermine it.

The Withdrawal Agreement from the EU (WA), which the UK has already ratified,  also involves a diminution of sovereign control by Westminster over the laws that will apply in Northern Ireland (NI) and thus within the UK.

 The WA obliges the UK to apply EU laws on tariffs and standards to goods entering NI from Britain, ie. going from one part of the UK to another.

This obligation is one of the reasons given by a group of UK parliamentarians, including Ian Duncan Smith, David Trimble, Bill Cash, Owen Patterson and Sammy Wilson, for wanting the UK to withdraw from the Withdrawal Agreement, even though most of them voted for it last year!

Sovereignty is a metaphysical concept, not a practical policy.

Attempting to apply it literally would make structured, and predictable, international cooperation between states impossible. That is not understood by many in the UK Conservative Party.

THE METHOD OF NEGOTIATION

The second difficulty is one of negotiating method. The legal and political timetables do not gel.

The UK wants to discuss the legal texts of a possible Free Trade Agreement first, and leave the controversial issues, like level playing field competition and fisheries, over until the endgame in October.

The EU side wants serious engagement to start on these controversial issues straight away .

Any resolution of these controversial issues will require complex legal drafting, which cannot be left to the last minute. After all, these legal texts will have to be approved by The EU and UK Parliaments before the end of this year.

There can be no ambiguities or late night sloppy drafting.

The problem is that the UK negotiator cannot yet get instructions, on the compromises he might make , from Boris Johnson. Boris Johnson is preoccupied instead with Covid 19, and with keeping the likes of Ian Duncan Smith and Co. onside.  He is a last minute type of guy. 

TRADE RELATIONS WITH OTHER BLOCS

The Third difficulty is  that of making provision for with the Trade Agreements the UK wants to make in future with other countries like the US, Japan and New Zealand. Freedom to make such deals was presented to UK voters as one of the benefits of Brexit.

The underlying problem here is that the UK government has yet to make up its mind on whether it will continue with the EU’s strict precautionary policy on food safety, or adopt the  more permissive approach favoured by the US.

Similar policy choices will have to be made by the UK on chemicals, energy efficiency displays, and geographical indicators.

The more the UK diverges from existing EU standards on these issues, the more intrusive will have to be the controls on goods coming into  Northern Ireland from Britain, and the more acute will be the distress in Unionist circles in NI.

Issues that are uncontroversial in themselves will assume vast symbolic significance, and threaten the peace of our island.

The UK is likely be forced to make side deals with the US on issues like hormone treated beef, GMOs  and chlorinated chicken. The US questions the scientific basis for the existing EU restrictions, and has won a WTO case on beef on that basis.  It would probably win on chlorinated chicken too.

 If the UK conceded to the US on hormones and chlorination, this would create control problems at the border between the UK and the EU, wherever that border is in Ireland.

Either UK officials would enforce EU rules on hormones and chlorination on entry of beef or chicken to this island, or there would be a huge international court case.

All this shows that, in the absence of some sort of Partnership Agreement between the EU and the UK, relations could spiral out of control.

Ireland , and the EU, needs its best team on the pitch to ensure that this  does not happen!

PADDY SHEEHAN RIP

I was deeply shocked to learn of the death of my friend, and long time colleague, Paddy Sheehan of Goleen, Co Cork. Paddy was a Fine Gael public representative in West Cork from 1967 to 2011.

Paddy lost his wife, Frances, only last week. This was a huge blow because Frances was central to every aspect of Paddy’s life. Although he bore this loss with great fortitude, it must have taken a great toll.

Paddy first entered public life when elected to Cork County Council in 1967.

He contested the General Elections of 1969, 1973 and 1977 without success, but he persisted and was elected  to the Dail in 1981. In so doing, he won a second seat for Fine Gael in South West Cork, an immense achievement in a 3 seat constituency.

He held the seat, with one interval, until his retirement from politics in 2011.

Paddy was a great advocate of the interests of rural Ireland and especially of  those who lived on the western seaboard. He was in constant contact with his electorate, running in Goleen what is now the only surviving general store and supermarket on the Mizen peninsula.

His journey to Dail Eireann each week was longer than that of almost every other TD, but he made himself heard in the Dail Chamber frequently and strongly.

 He had a great sense of humour and was beloved across all political divisions.

On behalf of all my family, I extend heartfelt sympathy to, his children, Diarmuid, Deirdre, Eucharia and Maebh in  the huge double bereavement they are suffering.

THE IRISH TRAPPED IN FRANCE BY THE SECOND WORLD WAR.

I had a personal reason for wanting to read “No Way Out, the Irish in Wartime France 1939-1945” by Isadore Ryan (Mercier Press).

This is because my aunt, Hilda Delany (1916-1956) from Culmullen was one of the Irish trapped in France, when the German Army  quickly over ran, and occupied the country in the summer of 1940.

Hilda had joined the Bon Sauveur Order of nuns in 1938 and was sent to France for training.

She spent the entire war in France, only returning to her convent in Holyhead in Wales in September 1945.

She died when I was only 9 years of age, so I did not get to know her well, although I do remember my mother bringing me to visit her in Holyhead on the Mail Boat. Conditions seem to have been very difficult in occupied France and food was scarce, and these privations may have contributed to her death at such an early age.

While my aunt is not mentioned in Isadore Ryan’s thoroughly researched book, there are many stories of other individual Irish individual people (including nuns), who found themselves trapped in France with minimal means of communication with, or receipt of support from, their families or communities back in Ireland.

The Irish Legation in Vichy France did its best to provide support but there were limits on what it could do. There were advantages in having a neutral Irish, rather than a British, passport at this time. The British passport holders were liable to be interned, whereas the Irish enjoyed some internal freedom of movement.

But the only way the Irish could get home to Ireland was by land to Spain and then by air or sea from Portugal to Britain. This was expensive, slow, and hazardous so very few attempted it.

Isadore Ryan ‘s book provides glimpses into the lives of many of the Irish, some of them well known like James Joyce and Samuel Beckett. He also describes the lives and troubles of others who were priests, businessman, teachers of English, governesses, entertainers and nurses.

Some, like Beckett and Janie McCarthy were active in the French Resistance. A small number fraternized with the Germans, to the extent that they were suspected of collaboration with them. 

Interestingly, very few returned to Ireland when the war was over, a sign of straitened condition of this country in the late 1940’s and early 1950’s.

Many Irish readers will find mention of families they know in this book.

It gives a glimpse into a more difficult time, which will put in proper proportion some of the constraints now imposed by the battle against Covid 19.

JOHN HUME RIP

John Hume was the pivotal figure of the twentieth century in the development of thinking about Ireland’s future.

 He reframed the problem from being one about who held sovereignty over land, to being one about people, and how they related to one another.

 Thus reframed, the issue became one to which violence and coercion became completely irrelevant. This was the intellectual basis of the peace process.

The issue was no longer one about winning or losing, but about sharing or choosing not to share.  

In practical terms, he won the argument. That is why we have peace today. 

ANN DILLON GALLAGHER RIP

Tribute by John Bruton, former Taoiseach

Ann Dillon Gallagher, who has died, was a Fine Gael member of Meath County Council from 1999 to 2014.

She was Chairman of  the  Council from 2010 to 2011.

She came from a distinguished North Meath family and drew on a strong tradition of public service in her political career. 

She knew her own mind, and was never afraid to speak up for her beliefs.

 Although always cognizant of the needs of her own locality, she had a great sense of the potential of Meath as a whole, as she demonstrated so well during her successful chairmanship of Meath County Council.

I extend heartfelt sympathy to her husband Michael and all her family.

DE VALERA …..A TWO VOLUME BIOGRAPHY

I have recently completed David McCullagh’s two volume biography of Eamon de Valera, entitled “Rise 1882-1932”, and “Rule 1932-1975”.

 Both volumes are full of anecdotal detail that gives a good sense of the sort of person de Valera was. They are also the result of a thorough study of the archives.

De Valera was a man of apparent contradictions. 

He was infinitely charming and polite, but also wilful and self centred.

He  was creative, but wanted things done his way. He procrastinated, and obsessed over detail.

He was a magnetic personality, who could give a very dull speech, but still hold his audience in rapt attention. 

His personal story is a remarkable one.

Born in America, he was sent back to Limerick to be raised by his uncle and grandmother. A studious boy, he won a scholarship to Blackrock College and was to remain loyal to that college, and its rugby playing tradition, all his life.

He was introduced to physical force nationalism through the Irish Volunteers, established initially as a counterweight to the anti Home Rule Ulster Volunteers. 

He was condemned to death for his part in the 1916 Rebellion, but his sentence was commuted on 10 May 1916, two days after strenuous objection to continuing executions had been raised in the House of Commons by John Redmond and John Dillon, something de Valera never forgot.

He emerged as a major political figure through his role as a leader among the  post 1916 prisoners and as the successful Sinn Fein candidate in the East Clare by election.

When Dail Eireann was established, following the Sinn Fein success in the December 1918 General Election, de Valera became Priomh Aire (President of the Dail government) in April 1919. In this capacity, he left for the United States in June 1919, in an endeavour to win US support for Irish independence. His 18 month tour encountered some opposition from the American Legion, who resented the alliance of the 1916 rebels with Germany in the Great War.

His primary concern, in his political career, was sovereignty and independence from Britain. His secondary one was opposing partition and achieving Irish unity. He achieved his primary objective, but made little progress at all towards his second.

McCullagh deals extensively with de Valera’s role in the Treaty negotiations and the subsequent Civil War.

He presided over a chaotic Cabinet meeting to consider the British proposals on 3 December 1921, at which the exhausted negotiators got ambiguous instructions. When the negotiators were back in London, de Valera went touring his constituency and was substantially out of contact. 

When the negotiators came back with a Treaty he could not accept, he drew up an alternative to the Treaty (Document number 2), but did not address how it might have made been acceptable to the UK at that time.

De Valera had substantial moral authority in 1922, and if he had remained neutral or supported the Treaty, a Civil War might still have taken place, but it would probably have been much shorter.

When de Valera came to power in 1932, he built on the Treaty and the work of his predecessors in the 1920’s in enhancing Irish independence.

His major successes were the enactment of the 1937 Constitution, and the 1938 Agreement with Britain, which ended the Economic War and secured the return of the Naval Ports at Cobh and elsewhere to Irish jurisdiction.

This latter success enabled him to maintain Irish neutrality from 1939 to 1945. If Britain still had naval facilities on Irish territory, neutrality would have been very hard to sustain.

When he was Leader of the Opposition in the late 1940’s and the 1950’s, de Valera devoted a lot of time to campaigning around the world against partition, but he did not come forward with any concrete proposals that would have been likely to reconcile Ulster unionists, with their British heritage and allegiance, with the nationalism of the rest of the island of Ireland.

 Overseas public opinion was never going to unite Ireland. That work had to be done in Ireland by Irish people of both allegiances. It was not done by de Valera or his contemporaries because, like many Irish Nationalists, de Valera believed it was for the British government to press unionists to come into a united Ireland.

 That was not realistic in 1914, and even less so in 1948. There is little evidence that he thought this through. 

De Valera’s economic policies have been criticised. He did not see economic growth, or the accumulation of wealth, as ends in themselves.

 He wanted to build a harmonious and self respecting society in Ireland. This is why he prioritized independence over growth.

He wanted comfort to be distributed widely, hence his wish that all should live in “frugal comfort”, a phrase he used repeatedly and which has been unfairly mocked. His priorities were spiritual and moral, as much as economic, and drew on his religious convictions.

I met de Valera once, in 1973, as his guest at a dinner he gave in Aras an Uachtaran for Liam Cosgrave and the members of the incoming Fine Gael/Labour government. He was exceptionally courteous and aware of the significance and role of each guest.

These two volumes tell an engaging human story and deserve to be widely read. 

SIGNPOSTS TO A NEW AND VERY DIFFERENT EUROPE

Last week’s video conference Summit of EU Heads of Government was important.

BREXIT

The leaders received a report on the meeting of EU Presidents Von der Leyen, Michel and Sassoli with the UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson.

They noted his decision not to seek any extension of the transition period.

Significantly, the EU leaders decided to make no change to the negotiation mandate given to the Commission for its negotiation with the UK on a future relationship with the EU. There had been suggestions in the UK media that the EU should loosen the mandate to facilitate the talks.

If a “No Deal” is to be avoided, the UK will now need to do some creative thinking about how it can give legally enforceable commitments to meet the concerns highlighted by the EU side on issues like

  • guaranteeing fair competition, if the UK is to have access to the EU Single Market, especially on state to business and quality and environmental standards
  • access for EU travelers to UK fishing grounds, if there is to be access for UK fish exporters to the EU consumer market for fish
  • human rights guarantees, if the UK is to have access to police cooperation with the  matters like the EU Arrest warrant
  • an overall partnership structure to govern the future EU/UK relationship.

If there is a “No Deal”, the relationship between the UK and its neighbours could deteriorate quite dramatically. There will be bitterness on both sides. This will not be confined to economics, but will affect every aspect of life.

POST COVID 19 ECONOMIC RECOVERY PROGRAMME FOR EUROPE

The post Covid 19 economic recovery proposals put forward by the European Commission are really ambitious.

For the first time, the EU itself will be borrowing substantial sums on its own account and passing the money on to member states.

Detailed allocations of funds for each country have been suggested. These allocations are based on an analysis of which countries, regions, and economic sectors that have been hardest hit by Covid 19.

It is interesting to note that there are wide differences in the economic impact of Covid 19 within countries. For example two regions of Italy are much worse hit than the rest of the country.

The analysis of need, on the basis of which the Commission proposed allocations have been prepared, takes no account of the impact of Brexit. Even if there is an EU/UK Deal, Brexit will do a lot of additional economic damage from 1 January 2021 onwards. The allocations will have to be revisited at that stage.

If fully implemented, it is estimated that the Commission proposals could, by 2024, add 2% to the overall GDP of the EU.

Member states will design their own programmes for spending the money.

There will be equity supports for viable companies.

It is important that the money be spent in ways that will enhance the sustainability and efficiency of the EU economy.

Since the financial crisis of 2008, the Commission has developed expertise in identifying what works and what does not work.

The judgement as to what is a “viable” business, that should get help, will not be an easy one. Objective criteria should be used. Some will be disappointed. There will be controversy and accusations of favouritism.

Eventually, borrowed funds will have to be repaid, or rolled over into new borrowing.

Interest rates will not always be as low as they are today, especially if the global economy recovers and there is an increased demand for funds in other parts of the world. So rolling over debts may not be wise.

Keynesian economics is not easy to implement in democracies.

Keynesianism encourages governments to run deficits and borrow, when times are hard. But that requires them to run budget surpluses and to pay down debt, when times are good.

 Politically, the first part is easy, but the second part is really difficult.

In good times, the expectations of the electorate of what governments should provide are very high and rise incessantly. There is no  electoral appetite for using the good times to pay off debts. We need to keep that in mind.

Page 1 of 58

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén