Francois Hollande’s new vision for Europe

August 8, 2012 1:24 pm

François Hollande has been in power for less than six months and we are already seeing a new direction in Europe, revealing that it is possible, after the Merkozy era, to conceive of a different approach, combining rigour with investment in growth and jobs.

The quiet leader — too lacking in charisma, according to Eurosceptics and Sarkozy’s (few) fans — is, in fact, delivering.

In a pre-election speech, ‘Renaissance pour l’Europe’, addressed to an audience of European Social Democrats, Hollande gave shape to his idea of how to create growth globally. Taking a fresh approach on the socialist idea, Hollande advocated a degree of national autonomy coupled with the ability for Europe to intervene to stimulate growth, through measures such as project bonds and Eurobonds.

The German Chancellor was worried enough by Hollande’s approach to ignore him initially, and later campaigned proactively for his opponent, Sarkozy. But the French people made their choice, and Hollande has won the trust of many others, including Barack Obama. Obama is certainly worried about his own re-election, as the United States are suffering tremendously from the economic slowdown, caused in part by the inability of the European leaders to lead a response to the crisis.

The Wall Street Journal, discussing the Federal Reserve Bank in parallel with the European Central Bank, highlighted how both banks bought bonds in 2009 and 2010: the outcome was that, although the markets appreciated the move, there were few benefits for the real economy. This was because countries were too focused on the short-term, ineffective politics of austerity, which have led to recession, nationalism, populism and poverty. Most importantly, they have let people down, disregarding the right to a future of an entire generation of young Europeans.

In a recent article for the New York Times, Paul Krugman stated that not only can the Euro be saved, but that it must be saved. Not saving it, he argues, would inflict irreversible damage on the whole European project, which is what is really at stake now.

When Europe was born following the ravages of the Second World War, it was based on the premise that a union could protect people more effectively against the hatred and destruction they had experienced from the Nazis. The idea was to eradicate nationalisms by transferring power to a technocratic elite; less emotional but much safer. And it did work, guaranteeing peace and prosperity for a long while. New countries joined, providing new markets and new opportunities. Countries such as Spain — although now maligned — have played a key role in the development of strategic relationships with South America, as well as producing politicians of the calibre of Javier Solana.

The economic crisis, born in the US, has shown the fragility of the European economic basis and, I think, clearly demonstrated that Europe needs to be stronger, if it is to protect its people and creating a space in which they can prosper. For example, the idea underpinning the Lisbon Strategy — that the economy must grow hand in hand with social rights — has been slowly abandoned. This did not happen by chance, but has been the result of the swing to the right, which has occurred in many countries over the past ten years.

As a result, workers’ rights have been eroded, unions have been weakened and a misleading idea has been introduced: that economic growth and workers’ security are at odds, rather than being complementary.

Since the crisis began, workers in Greece, Spain and Italy have been abandoned: pensions have been cut, and enourmous sacrifices have been made on the altar of the ideology of austerity.

As Ed Miliband stated recently, what we are seeing is the outcome of a Europe that has been dominated by the right for decades.

In a letter addressed to their countries’ Prime Ministers, the most powerful Italian and Spanish trade unions called last week for a fresh European social contract, where the confidence of the markets — which is, of course, necessary — is to be restored through reforms made by citizens and workers participating in the governance process.

What they are stating is obvious: the conflict caused by austerity policies has deepened the crisis and prolonged the recession, thus disenfranchising many people from politics and from Europe.

If Hollande can show another way for the euro-zone, this should be welcomed. Britain has already paid the price of short-sighted European leaders; it is now time to welcome visionary ones.

Ivana Bartoletti is Deputy Director of the Fabian Women’s Network and a former policy adviser to the Romano Prodi government in Italy

  • KonradBaxter

    “The idea was to eradicate nationalisms by transferring power to a technocratic elite; less emotional but much safer”
     
    Is this a retrospective look at the development of the EU? Or was this always the plan and was it ever actually articulated like this?
     
    I don’t remember ever being told that Europe was to be ruled by a defined un- and anti- democratic elite with the various nations having all their independent power removed . It certainly does not seem to feature in EU promotional material.
     
    “And it did work, guaranteeing peace and prosperity for a long while”
     
    There was no guarantee, certainly not from ‘European’ institutions as you mean here. But there were American missiles, Soviet tanks, NATO and the Warsaw Pact.   Those are what kept the peace, giving prosperity a chance.
     
    ‘Europe’ was formed to stop the Germans and French going to war again which would let the Soviets in, hence the European Coal and Steel Pact.

    ” …clearly demonstrated that Europe needs to be stronger,”

    The continual power grab from Brussels. Sorry, a noble removal of our democratic rights by our unemotional and far wiser technocratic elite. Long may they rule over us.  

  • http://twitter.com/rob_marchant Rob Marchant

    While I agree with the general pro-European sentiment and Krugman’s view on the importance of saving the euro, I’d also say that Hollande is the last person who should be in charge of Europe’s future. My piece about Hollande’s failure on the basic maths of pensions is here.

  • AnotherOldBoy

    This would be hilarious nonsense: Monsieur Hollande’s lunatic policies will result in disaster for France and, with luck, Mr Ed Miliband’s endorsement of them will sink him in 20 15 and it is, of course, laughable that the great Paul Krugman – than whom there ca be no greater source of wisdom (not!) - believes that the Euro can and must be saved when it is plain that it cannot survive as it is.

    But there is a sinister edge to Ms Bartoletti’s piece: she may be in favour of “transferring power to a technocratic elite” but some of us believe in democracy.  Of course, Italy is now run by a technocractic government, as is Greece but some of us think that  governments should be chosen by the electorate and not by unelected Eurocrats.

    Ms Bartoletti’s solution for the present crisis of the Euro is that “Europe needs to be stronger” (by which I think she means that the EU institutions need to be stronger): more technocrats, less democracy. 

    Good to see that Ms Bartoletti, who moved to this country in 2008, was selected for Labour’s Future Candidates Programme in July 2011.  Her views will strike a real chord with the UK electorate!

  • Lee Matthews

    Europe used to be made up of individual colourfull countries, so it’s a shame to see them being turned into a bland beige soup.

  • Brumanuensis

    Hollande’s proposal applies to those with at least a 41 year contribution record, meaning that to qualify for a full state pension at 60, you’ll have to have made contributions since the age of 19.

    Most French employees start making contributions at the age of 29.

    Hollande isn’t stupid. Nor is he particularly left-wing.

    • Daniel Speight

      I’m sure Rob is far better at arithmetic than all those Frenchmen advising Hollande, after all wasn’t Rob advising Ed Miliband that he had to come clean on what cuts Labour would impose, although that seems to have gone very quiet recently.

      Still I wonder if in the maths he worked it with he included the entrance of young people into the workforce from the unemployment queues to replace their earlier retiring elders. Even if he had I’m sure Rob would point out that benefits for young unemployed are far less than pensions for the elderly, but somehow I suspect the social consequences would make it worthwhile.

      Still maybe I should leave it to the brilliant mathematicians instead.

      • PeterBarnard

        He was so good at “maths,” as well, Daniel, that he missed out the rate of return on investment as a determinant on the size of the pension pot. Something of a “schoolboy howler.”

        The second thing is that the French state pension scheme is essentially pay-as-you-go (like ours), and a “pension pot” is irrelevant in those circumstances.

        The sooner that we ditch ideas of “saving for pensions” in favour of a “living pension” funded by pay-as-you-go, the better. At present, the state retirement pension costs about 5.0% of GDP (because GDP is way below trend ; in 2007-08, retirement pensions were 4.1% of GDP).

        There is no reason – apart from politics – that we can’t pay around 9 – 10% of GDP on pay-as-you-go and, at the same time, scrap all the tax benefits associated with personal saving (and do without the £5 bn a year paid out in commission by the life assurers)..

        In normal times, GDP  increases at around 2.5 – 3.0% per annum, while the pensions population will be increasing by 1.0% per annum between now and 2035, so that pensioners would still receive a real increase in their state pension.

        Now, that’s what I call maths …

        • John Dore

          Ah the usual Peter Barnard matter of fact I know better than everyone answer. 

          The real factors in the decisions are: 
          * Pot size
          * Money in
          * Money out
          * Future liabilities

          …and what Rob correctly points out is that liabilities are increasing. This is due to BOTH people living longer and increasing population. So it is disingenuous focussing on the 1% increase in population, when the life expectancy issue is a bigger factor.

          The rest of your maths is funny. How can you compare a 4.1% shift to 5.0% which is a 22% change to a low single digit change in GDP??????? Especially given the size of the numbers relative to government spending???????? For crying out loud we spend circa 20% of our government spending on pensions a 22% shift in a £140m spend, is kinda massive.

          You say “There is no reason – apart from politics – that we can’t pay around 9 – 10% of GDP on pay-as-you-go and, at the same time, scrap all the tax benefits associated with personal saving (and do without the £5 bn a year paid out in commission by the life assurers)..” In your head this may be a small change but this is huge and this is just a meaningless throw away comment. What you’re advocating is over £120m additional spend on pensions – scary.

          Peter, you need to spend more time on ONS data, you may find that enlightening. 

          Your maths is hilarious, each to their own as they say.

          • PeterBarnard

            Because, JD, in 2007-08, we spent £59 bn on the state retirement pension vs a money GDP of £1,426 bn and that = 4.1% ; in 2012-13, we will be spending £80 bn (DWP forecast) vs a money GDP of £1,576 bn (OBR forecast in March) = 5.1% of GDP.

            Now, why don’t you go and find something to do that’s more suited to your talents … such as feeding the goldfish?

          • John Dore

            …. and since when does the government have GDP at its disposal to spend? You can only meaningfully compare pension spending as a proportion of government spending.

            Keep reading the tables, mountains of useful information to those who understand it. 

            Goldfish…… almost funny

          • Brumanuensis

            If you want a more objective yardstick to measure pensions expenditure against, GDP – which summarises total output – is better than government spending – which is a reflection of political priorities.

  • John Dore

    Just read your article Rob. Quite enlightening. As your link doesn’t work here is is for the masses.

    http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/politics/2012/08/dont-look-fran%C3%A7ois-hollande-inspiration-ed

    Ivana have a read of Robs article, its well written factual and it reaches a well reasoned conclusion, unlike yours.

Latest

  • Comment Sometimes what is unsaid at PMQs is the most important thing of all…

    Sometimes what is unsaid at PMQs is the most important thing of all…

    Well that was a bad PMQs for Ed Miliband – the second in a row. Perhaps he hasn’t gotten back into his stride after such a long period without the weekly Wednesday joust, but whatever it is, Miliband isn’t hitting his marks at PMQs. Meanwhile Cameron – who has been jousting with world leaders this week – seemed far more o top of his game than we’ve been used to seeing him lately. Alas the problem for Miliband was that [...]

    Read more →
  • Video Cameron refuses to answer question on secret government plans to hike interest on student loans

    Cameron refuses to answer question on secret government plans to hike interest on student loans

    Last week it was revealed that the government discussed secret plans to hike interest on pre-existing student loans, meaning that anyone with a student loan will be expected to pay far more than expected. Today, the Prime Minister was asked about this – he spoke for nearly a minute but wouldn’t answer the question. What does he have to hide? How much more does he expect graduates to pay?

    Read more →
  • Comment Who benefits? Delivering on energy and infrastructure

    Who benefits? Delivering on energy and infrastructure

    Across the industrial north, it is striking how old pit villages and industrial towns are proving far less willing to embrace renewable energy than the noisier, more polluting fossil fuels and industries which shaped their identity. Energy companies are getting a nasty shock after mistakenly believing that these communities would not bat an eyelid at a few wind turbines on the surrounding hills because they had been content to make huge slag heaps part of the landscape in decades past. [...]

    Read more →
  • News Put reckless bankers in jail – Media roundup: June 19th, 2013

    Put reckless bankers in jail – Media roundup: June 19th, 2013

    Subscribers to our morning email get the best of LabourList – including the Media and blog round up – every weekday morning. If you were a subscriber you would have already received this (and much more) in your inbox. You can sign up here. Put reckless bankers in jail Britain’s banking bosses should face jail if their decisions force fresh bailouts, the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards says today. The commission’s hotly anticipated report urges the Chancellor, George Osborne, to oversee the [...]

    Read more →
  • Featured Wise heads – 5 ex-ministers Miliband could put in the Shadow Cabinet

    Wise heads – 5 ex-ministers Miliband could put in the Shadow Cabinet

    Last week I highlighted 5 women from the 2010 intake who Ed Miliband could add to his Shadow Cabinet in the coming months. Today I’ve taken a look at five of the wise heads on the backbenches with experience of government who could add something to Miliband’s front bench team in opposition: Alistair Darling – the obvious candidate for a return to the Shadow Cabinet at some point, Alastair Darling managed the remarkable feat of overseeing a financial crisis, and [...]

    Read more →