Europe

Recent events in the Eurozone have led a number of commentators to suggest that we are nearing some repeat of the financial crisis that followed the nationalisation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in August 2008 and the subsequent (and consequent) bankruptcy of Lehman’s. In my view, the current situation is rather different from that in 2008, but matters could turn out much worse. Our situation is not like 2008 (yet) because: – not such a high proportion of AAA securities has been reduced to junk status – there are now slightly more robust resolution regimes in place for banks – banks have a bit more liquidity – US and

I would like to defend the coalition from allegations that there has been a deplorable Tory concession on the Human Rights Act. Tearing it up was never in the Tory manifesto. Dominic Grieve, who drafted the Tory plan, is one of those lawyers who is rather passionate about the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) and praised it in his maiden speech. I had many conversations with him about this: for Britain to pull out of it, he said, would send an “odd” signal to the countries on the fringes of Europe whom we were trying to pull into our orbit. Grieve’s plan was to propose a Bill of Rights

One of the things that critics of the LibCon coalition keep coming back to is the question of what will happen in European, local and other elections. Will the two governing parties stand against each other? And how can they differentiate themselves when they support the same policies? To many, it seems like David Cameron and Nick Clegg are suggesting that we all walk backwards – odd, uncomfortable and unlikely to ensure progress. But why is this so odd? This kind of electioneering happens in many other countries. Take Denmark. There, a Liberal-Conservative government has been in power for almost a decade and across several elections, yet the two governing

A week in, and I am loving the Conservative-led government. The new line-up of Secretaries of State is very impressive and, though a few solid Tory politicians missed out on Cabinet posts, the inclusion of the Liberal Democrat bench has swelled the government’s talent quota. David Cameron has infused No 10 with energy and purpose. You can just feel the umpf. As the former MP John Gummer said, there is now “smile on the face of Britain”. Foreign Secretary William Hague’s trip to the US set the right tone by calling the UK-US link “an unbreakable alliance”. If he now goes on to places where the “economic action” is, to

Post-election deals are tough for those on the wings of political parties – the activists, the die-hards, the idealists. Those in the middle, by definition the pragmatists, find it easier to prioritise aims or to compromise in the short-term in order to win over the long-term. Any Con-Lib deal will be tough for the left-wing of the Lib Dems and the right-wing of the Conservative party. But both will have to accept that power is better than opposition and that being able to implement part of your party programme is better than carping on the sidelines, your manifesto languishing on never-visited websites. To make the most of a political shotgun

Europe is likely to play a big role in tonight’s debate. It is probably the one issue that divides the Liberal Democrats and the Tories as much as electoral reform. Nick Clegg, a former MEP and adviser to then-EU Commissioner Leon Brittan, is a euro-enthusiast who would like Britain to join the Euro, even if it takes time. David Cameron is a euro-skeptic (though not, to the chagrin of many CoffeHouse readers, obsessed about the issue).   But neither wants a confrontation with the EU and other European governments over the next four years – and the Liberal Democrats have become quieter over time about their pro-EU tendencies. Their support

Since the Lib Dems starting surging there has been no shortage of speculation about the possible coalitions that may emerge after the election – Lab-Lib, Lib-Lab, Con-Lib. There has also been breathless speculation about what posts Nick Clegg might demand, including by yours truly.  But none have been as cleverly-written as Hugo Brady’s. A think-tanker for CER, Brady is predicting the rise of “Clameronism“: ‘Buoyed by a huge increase in the Liberal vote, Clegg at first opted for opposition. He bet that a swift second election was likely and that the Liberal Democrats would again double their seats. But the threat of a new financial crisis later that year spelt

The FT’s Jim Pickard writes: ‘Cameron will be cursing the order of the debates. He’d much prefer to be attacking Nick Clegg on domestic issues than foreign affairs on Thursday.’ I’m not so sure. Foreign Policy is the arena where the Tories are concrete, populist and accessible. The same is not true for the Lib Dems. Along with Iain Martin and John Rentoul, Pete noted that Ed Davey is vague on the Lib Dem Trident replacement policy. Davey’s vague with good reason: the policy is hopelessly confused. The manifesto says: ‘Rule out the like-for-like replacement of the Trident nuclear weapons system. At a cost of £100 billion over a lifetime

The Conservative Party’s departure from the European People’s Party came down to a choice of expediency over principle. If you are inclined to accept that Britain will stay in the EU and that membership helps this country – even if it requires some compromises – you will likely find the move unfortunate. If you are more concerned about the principles at stake – and feel that Britain’s loss of sovereignty has gone too far – and do not care about the loss of influence on the legislative process, you are likely to be in favor of the Tory move.   David Cameron is keen to keep the issue of Europe