Tag Archives: Germany

FUTURE ENERGY GENERATION – Why are our major oil & gas companies, apparently under threat by the environmental lobby, not diversifying into energy generation as part of their future strategy?

univest

FUTURE ENERGY GENERATION – Why are our major oil & gas companies, apparently under threat by the environmental lobby, not diversifying into energy generation as part of their future strategy?

Having watched with interest over the past weeks discussions relating to the strategic development of future energy generation I noted one discussion that questioned if the major oil & gas companies today would be the energy companies of tomorrow. This question did not arouse much discussion, but then I thought that if we beg the question of why these companies have not already diversified into the energy generators of today we might have a more interesting debate. After all they have both the Balance Sheets and the income generation to engage in energy generation, and they have the environmental lobby trying to drive them out of the business of fossil fuel production. So why have they not, at least, diversified their activities, but continue to pursue ever more costly development of fossil fuel production?

Looking at the business model of the major oil & gas companies such as BP, Exxon, Shell, etc. they all engage in exploration, development, production, refining, wholesale and retail distribution of fossil-based products. Thus their business model fully accommodates the substitution of power generation (even nuclear as a means to offset the fossil fuel debate) for refining which then provides for both wholesale and retail distribution of electricity. The companies have both the Balance Sheets and income profile (cash flow) to support the development of new primary generation capacity using the new generation of nuclear reactors, namely thorium reactors, as a logical diversification away from fossil fuels.

Before anyone raises the fact that these companies, in various degrees, have invested into renewable energy projects I would suggest that an intelligent review of their capital commitment to such projects is less than their annual promotional costs, and would further suggest that these projects are undertaken as part of their promotional costs, taking full advantage of all available government grants and subsidies, in order to create the illusion that they care about the impacts they may, or may not, be contributing to climate change. Of course we must remember that such impacts are not as yet reasonably proven, and are essentially propaganda by bodies fronted by the UN IPCC committee.

So why do these companies not take the environmental lobby seriously? Why do they continue with the ever increasing cost of developing ever more expensive fossil fuel recovery, yet do not spread their risk into other sources of energy?

Could it be that the latest IPCC climate change report provides a significant clue as to why these companies do not see the need to contemplate energy generation as part of their business strategy. Indeed could the advent of successful fracking for both oil and gas provide an even stronger foundation to the forward strategies of these companies in that the net production costs of recovering fossil fuels is getting cheaper? And the quantum of fossil fuel recoverable reserves has never been in doubt other than by the doomsayer environmentalist activists.

Why do these major oil & gas companies not see the need to diversify into energy generation even though such activity fits within their existing business model? I would suggest that they understand the business of energy, and their fundamental involvement in secure supply of fuel for the foreseeable future – much to the chagrin of the environmental lobby. These companies know that they will maintain their position as the primary source of fuels for generations to come, regardless. They are the only consistent source of fuels for primary energy generation, especially now that the nuclear program has been stalled by the unrealistic (but understandable) reaction to events such as the Fukushima incident. They are likely to have to find ways of reducing the hostile emissions of fossil fuels but, as with the creation of solutions such as the syntroleum process to remove the sulphur content from natural gas thus providing clean feedstock diesel fuel, they will find cost-effective solutions to other emission issues.

I share their confidence – that is until either/or thorium reactors and fusion reactors provide a significant commercial alternative. Other initiatives such as hydrogen fuel cells are unlikely to be cost effective enough to replace internal combustion engines. Indeed there are cheaper and much cleaner fuel alternatives that can be used in the existing internal combustion engine – if the powerful oil & gas interests will let such fuel alternatives see the light of day, even though they are the logical producer and distributor of these alternate fuels.

The major oil & gas companies are formidable political lobbyists. They will ensure that the revelations of uncertainty in the latest IPCC climate change report will set back the climate change/fossil fuel debate by decades, and I expect to see political support of the environmental lobby begin to cool. Indeed politicians in need of votes are likely to slowly but surely defuse the debate by asserting the current lack of reasonable evidence. Germany has irrationally indicated its lack of support for nuclear, not by reference to renewable alternatives, but to a return to coal of which they have significant reserves. Thus I propose that fossil fuels are the preferred reliable source of primary energy generation for the foreseeable future, and as such the major oil & gas majors are in no hurry to diversify.

Advertisement

EU/Eurozone – Start Again or Plod On? – Conclusions

Image

EU/Eurozone – Start Again or Plod On?

Conclusions

During a speech in Zurich on 19th September 1946 probably the greatest statesman of the 20th century, Winston Churchill, called for the creation of a United States of Europe modelled on the United States of America singling out the essential need for Franco-German co-operation. Churchill did not envisage the UK’s role as anything other than promoter (broker). In May 1950 Robert Schuman, the then French Foreign Minister, took up the idea of Churchill and put forward a plan.  We are now in 2013, some 67 years later, and what do we have that remotely resembles this vision?

On July 2nd 1776, the Second Continental Congress, meeting in Philadelphia, voted unanimously to declare the independence ‘of the thirteen United States of America’. Two days later, on July 4, Congress adopted the ‘Declaration of Independence’. The drafting of the Declaration was the responsibility of a Committee of Five, which included, among others, John Adams and Benjamin Franklin; it was drafted by Thomas Jefferson and revised by the others, and then by Congress as a whole. It contended that ‘all men are created equal’ with ‘certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness’, and that ‘to secure these rights governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed’.

In spite of a ravaging war to overturn the Declaration of Independence, (the Revolution War involving both the British and the French), a new Constitution was adopted in 1789. It remains the basis of the United States federal government, and later included a Bill of Rights. With George Washington as the nation’s first president and Alexander Hamilton his chief financial advisor, a strong national government was created. In the First Party System, two national political parties grew up to support, or oppose presidential policies. This was achieved in just 15 years during a ravaging war, and this was all managed without telephones, internet, air travel, motorised transport systems, etc.

Peace and prosperity cannot be achieved merely by the creation of a political and economic framework if the people themselves play no active part in shaping society or in living together in harmony, i.e. without the consent of the governed. In the current EU system little or nothing of significance has been determined by the people and thus they rightly feel disillusioned and disenfranchised. It is a certainty that if the UK were to vote today on staying in the EU the vote would be a resounding ‘NO’. I am informed by my connections in Germany that the vote of the German people is fractured, and could go either way. The Mediterranean states would almost all vote ‘NO’ in spite of reliance on Germany for finance. So when do the politicians stop playing their fiddles whilst Rome is burning, and start to address the real issues, not least that the current framework does not, and will not work. Then sit back and ask the people what they need from a united Europe for themselves, their children and grandchildren. If the people elect for a United States of Europe, something similar as outlined in this series of essays, or as envisaged by Churchill, then fix a date and do it. If the people know and agree the plan, and the target date, they will respond.

And when the politicians start to address this plan they need to look at it from an outward perspective, i.e. how the world will see it, in order to guide thinking to maximise the value drivers available. For example who in the world knows where Brussels, Strasbourg, Frankfurt or even Berlin are, or that they even exist? The most known cities in Europe are Paris, Rome, London, Madrid and even Vienna. How many people do you know that, having visited Washington, the capital city of the USA, came back very disappointed with that city – even the White House is actually much smaller than pictures would have you believe. But Europe has stature with its historic cities so any plan must consider how these cities can be used as value-added drivers to the outside world. For example most people in the world know where London is, and that it is one of the most influential capital cities of the world. This is the strength of the UK, a maritime nation having built longstanding reputation and networks throughout the world, and thus a major value driver. Of course this assumes that we expand Churchill’s vision to include the UK – not a given in my thinking.

One important aspect of the plan for a united Europe was to prevent conflict in the form of another major war. With the ever growing disparity of European nation states, especially within the Eurozone crises, it is not inconceivable that conflict can occur in the form of civil insurrection, or even civil war, (history shows that civil insurrection starts with the disadvantaged versus the rich, and I do not sense that ‘love thy neighbour’ is much in evidence at this time). Was this caused by the banking crisis or, as more likely the case, the shambolic mismanagement of entry into the Euro. At the end of 1996 the European member states supposedly faced a tough test to determine which of them fulfilled the strict convergence criteria laid down for participation in the Euro. Very few passed the test as defined by the strict rules, so the rules were thrown out of the window to allow all who wanted involvement to adopt the Euro – and now we know the reality of allowing totally disparate economies to attempt to converge. What makes any European politician think that they can adopt a single currency without central control of fiscal policy and management of all states involved, and the safety nets in place such as described in my essays ‘EU/Eurozone – Start Again or Plod On’ – ‘A Social State’ and ‘Taxation’.

A major crisis would create a good framework to focus minds on an integrated approach. When Churchill gave his speech in Zurich the conditions in Europe would have been ideal to create the United States of Europe – an opportunity lost. Perhaps if the Eurozone implodes the situation will present the opportunity for a ‘clean sheet’ approach, and a rapid implementation.

Should the UK join a United States of Europe? There are two ways of looking at this. Integrating Europe without the UK would probably be a much easier task, not least because of its unique position in the world. It has protectorates, protected states, mandated territories, the British Commonwealth, etc. to consider involving some 1.6 billion people. What would happen to them in our United States of Europe? In this case the UK could act as independent broker (as envisaged by Churchill) to the creation of the United States of Europe ensuring that its Constitution and political systems are not unduly influenced by national interests of stronger nation states, and is outward looking to ensure that there are no difficulties integrating further countries in the future. The initial United States of America was just 13 states, but the Constitution was structured to be inviting for other states to participate – 50 states plus a federal district to date, and counting.

The alternative is that, as so many of the pillars of a United States of Europe exist, at least in part, within the UK system, finding solutions at the outset for the peripheral issue of integrating the UK will create a comprehensive framework that would accommodate any future entry of additional members, including Russia. I see the inclusion of Russia, at some point in the future, to be the completion of a United States of Europe that can compete with any other nation in the world. However, and unfortunately, the UK has too many of the value drivers needed in a United States of Europe – difficult for the other nation states of Europe to swallow. Looking at it from the rest of the world’s viewpoint London would be the logical capital. London is the largest financial centre in the world by far thus it would also be the home of the European Central Bank and the banking regulators. We could, but not necessarily, add the Supreme Court, and even the European Parliament, – and what about a monarchy head of state?

Another solution that would have a significantly better chance of success would be the integration of just a few fully committed nation states capable of convergence in order to create and refine the structure – and then invite other members as per the USA. However I cannot emphasise how important it would be to have an outward looking, and simple Constitution friendly to all. If it looks like, e.g. an expanded Germany and/or France then I see further membership as limited.

On balance, and in spite of the fact it would leave the UK disadvantaged in some respects, especially if Europe became a fully-fledged 27 member United States of Europe, instinct suggests that the UK should not participate, and certainly not in the EU as it stands today as it is a very expensive club with little or no return on investment. I do not see a massive migration of companies from the UK into Europe for a number of practical and economic reasons. Businesses always find a way to deal with other nations, in spite of politicians.

If we discount the nation states who benefit substantially from membership what proportion of the people (not the politicians) of the other member states would today think that the EU was anything other than a faceless, expensive enterprise causing unrest throughout Europe and continually imposing unnecessary and expensive interference in their lives? What about countries like Switzerland, who traditionally have been very much aligned with Germany, but sitting on the sidelines, and not now considering entry at any time in the near future.

The UK is ideally and uniquely positioned to act as nation broker, as was the case in the removal of the Berlin Wall and reunification of the Eastern states of Europe with the West. The UK would be a natural broker to act between the USA and Europe, and between Europe and Russia and the Black Sea and Caspian states.

Any European integration plan needs a people’s champion who will stay with the plan until achieved. As the natural process is for politicians to come and go, and they are certainly not neutral in their approach, this people’s champion is unlikely to be a politician. This champion could be an individual, a small group (the Group of Five structured the USA system), or even the UK as an independent broker. This champion must have an integration plan endorsed with the full consent of the people of the countries being integrated, not just their representative politicians – the people need to be directly engaged with the process.

The failure of politicians to agree a sound plan for Europe devoid of national and personal self-interests, and to engage with the people, is an affront to democracy for such an important project, and has led to the hotchpotch of a European disintegration that we see today. Now nation states want to revisit treaties, and the people of the UK might have the chance, at last, to make their voice heard. The German government states ‘no’ to revisiting treaties and, by the way, has put everything on hold for 2 months because of German elections – what about the people out there who are hungry and need medicine?

Politicians come and go, but the process of European integration cannot change every time there is a change of political guard. Europe needs a plan, ambitious and exciting, for full implementation within 2 years, fully endorsed by the people’s vote, and it needs a people’s champion to oversee the implementation. In the hour of need cometh the ‘man’, but where is he/she for this project?

I am unexpectedly fortunate to be able to conclude this series of essays in much the way they started; with an episode of Top Gear, the UK motoring programme. Last week Jeremy Clarkson, a presenter of Top Gear had the notion to determine how much automotive manufacture took place in the UK, and asked each manufacturer to contribute a selection of what they produce to a parade in The Mall in London one Sunday morning. The TV pictures of the quantity, quality, and variety of automotive products made in the UK was truly staggering and presented a message to the people of the UK more about the state of UK manufacturing in those picture than any politician could ever explain. To these pictures Clarkson added that:

  • A new car rolls off UK production lines every 20 seconds
  • Honda produces 5 of their car models in Swindon
  • The Toyota plant in Derbyshire exports cars to Japan
  • Nissan make more cars per year in just one plant than the total car production of Italy
  • Of the 11 F1 racing teams 8 are based in the UK
  • Cars such as Rolls Royce, Bentley, Aston Martin, Range Rover are the cars of choice by the rich throughout the world
  • Aston Martin has been voted the coolest brand in the world for 5 of the last 7 years

This was such a powerful 15 minutes of inspired broadcasting that the BBC repeated it again, and again as the message spread and the people connected with this better than any political message, and the resulting well-being of the people was noticeable. Contrast this with the political diatribe that comes out of the EU and it is not unreasonable to expect that the people of the UK will vote ‘NO’ to membership of the current EU disintegration.

Links

George Papandreou: Imagine a European Democracy without Borders http://www.ted.com/talks/george_papandreou_imagine_a_european_democracy_without_borders.html

Epilogue

Thank you for participating in this series of essays, and I hope that you found the debate interesting. It is very difficult within the reasonable scope of a blog to include or expand all of the arguments and debate, and thus what to include, and what to leave out. For example, with my understanding of market economies, I could have written more than the accumulated word count of all 11 essays. The key for me was to find some of the fundamental triggers of a reasonable United States of Europe that at least cause people to question what is happening in their name, and at the expense of the people. Having managed a number of very difficult, multi-faceted problems during my career, not least with disenfranchised people, and time being of the essence to find workable and accepted solutions, I have developed methods to include even the most pessimistic of people, and in timeframes considered unachievable.

The most important part of any solution was the need to explain to all of the people involved (globally in some cases) where we were, and where we needed to be. These people needed to be persuaded to engage in the process knowing some would not understand and/or believe, especially when, for two such problems, the technology we needed did not exist when we started, but we had a fixed and unmoveable delivery date. In such cases it was important that they knew that I would take full responsibility for the outcome – all I wanted from them was commitment and belief. I had one IT manager, very capable but a staunch Trekkie (as in Star Trek) who, when attending a strategy presentation, would write and speak the words ‘Star Date: (whatever the date)’ and then ‘About to go where no man has been before’ as per the start of an episode of Star Trek. This action enabled him to move beyond his anxiety, and he always delivered, albeit sometimes not quite knowing how. All I did was to instil confidence and commitment into people – what I term ‘removing constraint’ – shared my vision, and took responsibility for the result, but vesting the success in them. Such people never failed to deliver, and the sense of well-being of all at delivery was uplifting. People can be mobilised to achieve great things so long as they are properly engaged, motivated, and committed.

EU/Eurozone – Start Again or Plod On? – Common Language

Image

EU/Eurozone – Start Again or Plod On?

A Common Language

The cost of operating in so many languages in the EU is obscenely expensive, and probably enough to lift all children in Europe out of poverty. If we look to our template of the United States of America, and energise my rusty memory of the formation, and formulation of the US Constitution, one of the debates was which language would be adopted – English, French, or German. Even though there were strong, conflicting opinions as there were many immigrants from many European countries all speaking different languages, they all agreed that inclusion of everyone was important in the process and thus they had to select one language which would become the language of the country. Shakespeare won the argument. We see today that Spanish has emerged as a minor second language of the USA as a result of widespread immigration from South America, and there are still small pockets of German and Dutch (primarily Amish communities), French (New Orleans), albeit none are a replacement for the use of English.

During a discussion last year with a former Federal Councillor and Minister of Justice of Switzerland, and Swiss business people, there was a clear pride that Switzerland was able to function in 4 languages, i.e. German, French, Italian, and Romantsch. I posed a question regarding what language they would use for the military command centre in the event that Switzerland was attacked by a foreign invader. After a long silence of pondering, the answer came back as ‘English’. I could only congratulate this inspired response.

This question reminded the former Swiss Federal Councillor of a funny story where this language principle was taken to extremes. In Switzerland they have 2 cantons (federal states) where the boundary passes through the city of Basel, and even along the middle of the street. The language of one canton is German, and the other is French. Each canton, without consultation with each other, introduced different regulations regarding the behaviour of dogs on the street. However they did not succeed in teaching the dogs how to read these different regulations so the dogs could not know how to change their behaviour when they crossed over the street into the other canton.

This is a great illustration on 3 different levels. The first is the natural human reluctance of neighbours, who speak different languages, to try to communicate with each other – language creates its own barriers. The second is the breakdown in the democratic pillar of subsidiarity – there is no point decentralising government if there is a lack of communication at the lower levels. The third is the problem of someone living in the community but who does not converse in either of the languages of the regulations.

Language is about communication, and is meaningless if communication does not result. Even within one language a multitude of dialects can cause lack of communication (look what the Americans did to the English language), but the written word will invariably succeed.

Having used interpreters for business discussions for many years, and even afforded the time to work with the interpreter prior to the main event in order to familiarise the interpreter with my use of words and phrasing, much still gets lost in translation – result: lack of communication.

Therefore I propose that our United States of Europe move towards a single language for, at least in the first instance, government, business, finance, and law, as it already exists today in part. I would also propose that the most widely spoken language in Europe, including as a second language, is English. As English is also the most widely spoken international language in the world, especially for business, adopting this language also makes trading in the global markets much easier. It is also the easiest language for the younger generation to learn in that they are surrounded by media primarily in English. I remember one person I know, having studied English, was amazed at the increase to her watching pleasure on hearing the real voice of John Wayne, and Humphrey Bogart in Casablanca.

As regards relative population size the next logical choice word be German. However even Germany has recognised that the German language is practically exhausted in that there is little realistic capacity for expansion, and as such is not really a realistic choice for the future. Indeed the German language is already littered with English words where no suitable word exists in German.

In the late 1980’s I attended the annual American Banker’s Club dinner at the Savoy in London. The speakers were Jacques Delors, a senior French economist (I think Jacques Attali before he was head of the European Bank of Reconstruction & Development), and an Executive Vice President of CitiGroup. One comment from the French economist stunned the room into silence as he spoke of European integration and stated ‘of course the language of the resulting integrated Europe will be English’. The stunned reaction revealed the thunderous thoughts around the room that a French politician is stating that the language of Europe can only be English, and this was over 20 years ago.

I fully appreciate that, for the older generation and traditionalists, learning a new language can be a step too far. However, under the tenet of democracy, provision will exist for this situation, and I do not expect the other European languages to disappear in social society just as they have not disappeared in the USA or indeed in Brazil where a number of such languages survive, including Welsh. Full transition to a single language system will take at least a generation in any event. What is important in our model is to state that there will be a single language so that people can see the target and thus slowly, but surely, move towards it.

The major emerging economies of the future, such as India – a potential major trading partner, – already speak English. Thus the global nature of business and banking has already started the transition to a common language within Europe to meet the demands of global corporations, so all we need to do for our model is to formalise this process.

Thank you for your continued interest in this European venture.

I hope that you found this blog interesting, and will give it the ‘thumbs up’ below. You can also use the share options below to share your interest in this blog with others you know.

These blogs are intended to provoke thought and ideas so I look forward to any comments about the content. Just move to the beginning of the blog, click on ‘Comments’ and you can record your views, or ask questions.

EU/Eurozone – Start Again or Plod On – Why Integrate?

Image

EU/Eurozone – Start Again or Plod On?

Why Integrate?

Why does Europe need to integrate, or even unite, especially now that the reasons behind the original Common Market have long been overshadowed with more pressing issues – explain. This was a message from an economist friend, having read my blogs on the EU/Eurozone, who felt that I should at least make some attempt to justify yet another grand plan for Europe after so much pain, misery, and expense of existing failed plans. As he is a professor of economics I feel obliged to take note and thus attempt to explain the logistics behind my interest in this subject.

As Europeans we do have choices regarding the future direction of Europe. We can disintegrate the current debacle, and return to independent nation states. The other extreme is to totally unite into a new United States of Europe – the idealist model in this debate. What I do not think we can do is to continue with the current model of part this, part that, one foot in …….. crazy system of fudge upon fudge which has wreaked havoc on weaker members, and to which the people of Europe feel totally disenfranchised. The basic tenet of a democratic system is that it is created ‘by the people, for the people’ and the current situation does not even remotely look anything like.

Where does Europe sit in the World today, and where does it see its future in the grand scheme of the world? It is steeped in history. It is the birthplace of the industrial revolution, and technology. Its pioneers explored the world, and provided answers to many unknowns across the spectrum of the sciences, medicine and philosophy. It developed global trade and finance. It is the cradle from which mankind developed democracy, free speech, and equality for all. But this is all in the past. The various empires created have essentially gone, and new centres of power and creativity have emerged in other parts of the world challenging the once might of Europe.

Can the individual nation states of Europe hold their own in the world of today, and more importantly the world of tomorrow? The short answer is that probably only two or three of the current nation states could be influential, whilst the others become second division players. Is this really the end of a long and proud heritage? There is no question that the nation states of Europe have suffered some serious differences throughout history, and some horrific differences within living memory, but what of the future? There are current distractions such as the current sabre rattling from Spain regarding Gibraltar which echoes of ‘The Mouse That Roared’. Will Europe really just wallow in the past and make the future for its children, and grandchildren, one of ‘we were once at the centre of the world, and at the forefront of progress – but that was yesterday’. Or does Europe reinvent itself, and takes its rightful place as a key player in the world of tomorrow?

Thus there is a case for an integrated Europe.

Recent pioneers have recognised that Europe needs to do something to stay influential in the world, and, to date, Europe has tried market integration, economic integration, trade integration, monetary integration, etc. but national self-interest, and the vested self-interest of the various politicians, in varying degrees, have created such an unmanageable hotchpotch of multi-dimensional chaos and unintended consequences that the people no longer understand what the plan is, if they ever did, and feel that they have little or no say in their own destiny. The people from the Eastern European states must think that they have emerged out of one fire, into another. All the European people really know is that it is all very expensive, painful, and with little obvious benefit.

A quick look at some of the (real and perceived) issues that stir great resentment by the British people to what is happening in the EU/Eurozone show that they do not have apathy, but hostility – and hence the rise of the UK Independence Party (UKIP) who polled enough votes in the most recent political elections to demonstrate that these votes were not just a protest vote. For example a common view is that it feels like the whole process of the creation of the Eurozone was engineered by the Germans, in favour of Germany – they could not capture Europe by military force, so they now they try by economic force. There are still many people alive in the UK who can remember the misery of rationing and other shortages they experienced whilst the UK had to rebuild itself after the last War, selling state assets and begging for loans while Germany was being rebuilt using $ billions under the Marshall Plan, and of course people will always quote that it was 2 British army officers who engineered the first Beetle car starting a successful rebuild of the German car industry.

This attitude by the British people is very unfortunate and unhelpful as it breeds distrust and suspicion of the whole process, but it has foundation and thus requires sensitive consideration when looking for support for an integrated Europe. It does not help that Germany, until 2 years ago, was the clear winner from the introduction of the Euro, albeit that the disciplines associated with the Euro exposed hidden cracks in the economic condition of a number of the Euro nation states. I can remember in 2011 that, contrary to market sentiment, Eurozone interest rates rose to offset inflationary pressures within Germany causing much pain to other Euro members – not the way to win support. Sometimes one has to ask if Germany just arrogantly believes that their way is the only way, or whether it is just a cultural problem. Years ago Germany imposed withholding taxes within Germany on some types of International bonds that are specifically designed to be tax neutral, and then surprised with the number of Germans crossing the border into banks in Luxembourg to buy and sell these bonds to avoid the taxes. The recent attempt, led by Germany, to introduce a transaction tax on banks trading within the EU is another classic example of an ambivalent attitude to the global nature of banking and its importance, not only to the UK, but to the whole of Europe. As the UK is second only to Germany as a net contributor to the existing EU budget they have good reason to be concerned at this behaviour, and have no desire to become just another federal state of Germany – indeed this would be  seriously counterproductive to the desired outcome. I have many German friends, and clearly Germany is a successful country, but a nation is more than an economic machine and thus I think integration requires a new way of inclusive thinking, as was required by the founding fathers of the USA. Indeed Jacques Delors, President of the European Commission between 1985 and 1994, stated that ‘Europe needs a soul’. A further important consideration is that one cannot ignore the important historic influence of the UK throughout the world as a valuable asset to an integrated Europe. For both Germany and the UK integration will be 1 step back to take 2 steps forward – probably painful for both, but necessary for the peaceful co-existence of all nation states.

Can the current situation be fixed so that Europe can obtain a reasonable degree of integration that works without suspicion of vested interest by any nation state, and enables an appropriate external status in the World to be influential? For many this is probably akin to attempting to solve a Rubik cube blindfolded, and many, including nation state leaders, know this. For example while there are a multitude of nation state leaders all voicing their own views to the world, and seeking self-promotion, the outside world will not understand what an integrated Europe really means.

David Cameron, the British Prime Minister, has stated that if his party are re-elected at the next General Election, then he will give the British people a vote in 2016 on whether or not to stay in the EU. As a senior banker understanding the economic and trade benefits of integration my vote would still be ‘no’ in the expectation that, without the UK, the current European model will implode, and then we could start again with a seriously less wealthy Germany. I remember when Margaret Thatcher was being forced by her colleagues to take sterling into the European Rate Mechanism (ERM) – but she managed to include a time bomb which eventually imploded the ERM – another expensive, ill-conceived European political experiment that did not work.

Thus we are back to the underlying tenet of my proposed model. First seek the ideal situation, and then see how close you can get to it in practice without loss of integrity.

Many will say that full integration, i.e. my United States of Europe model, is not a new idea. This is very true – Jacques Delors, probably the founding father of the idea of a fully integrated Europe, constantly promoted this idea. But has anyone ever been able to explain and sell this idea to the people in a way that they can understand the benefits to them, their children, and their grandchildren, and thus fully embrace the transition? To date the debate has been about the technical issues of economic benefit, trade, financial stability, national sovereignty, no borders, etc. etc. etc.

Has any politician told the people that a fully integrated Europe, i.e. a United States of Europe, will:

  • be 2nd only to India as the largest democracy in the world;
  • will be a larger economy than the USA;
  • will have less overall debt than the USA (if the politicians step away and let the bankers solve the debt issues);
  • will be the centre of the global financial system;
  • will have superior, and less expensive organs of government per capita (if they get it right) than any other major power;
  • will be a major force in the global arena;
  • significant economies of scale should lower the cost of living, i.e. a better lifestyle for all;
  • will provide substantial new job opportunities as more international companies seek to be part of such a large market;
  • will certainly be a major, if not the strongest force in sport throughout the world;
  • etc etc.

People can understand these statements, and thus they can feel a sense of real value and belonging as a new European citizen.

We should look to the speeches of Winston Churchill during the Second World War. He was from an aristocratic family, and went to the top private schools – but he knew how to speak with the people to galvanise and instil resolve towards a common goal, especially in the dark days. In the hour of need cometh the man, but where is he/her today?

So back to our model to see if we can show the politicians what the people see as an integrated Europe, and thus what they could be prepared to buy into.

Thank you for your continued interest in this European venture.

I hope that you found this blog interesting, and will give it the ‘thumbs up’ below. You can also use the share options below to share your interest in this blog with others you know.

These blogs are intended to provoke thought and ideas so I look forward to any comments about the content. Just move to the beginning of the blog, click on ‘Comments’ and you can record your views, or ask questions.

Related articles

EU/Eurozone – Start Again or Plod On? – Model Outline

eu_flag_flag5

The EU/Eurozone – Start Again or Plod On?

A Model Outline

Following on from my Intro blog yesterday what is the future for Europe – do we need a new European model, or can we fix the existing model? To date the politicians have held the cards, but is it now time for the people to speak. Even the countries of the former Soviet Union now have had enough time and understanding to know what is possible, and what they would like to see as a sustainable future. Do we revise the current model, or just as with the EEC and the ERM, we put it down to experience and start again with the benefit of hindsight? I am looking for input so I would like to start with a provocative statement or two as I would like to encourage discussion and comment on the future of Europe for our children and grandchildren.

I hope that this will be an evolving blog where interested parties feel that they can contribute to the debate with comments, and be heard. Non-Europeans are welcome to participate as all input is valuable input. The resulting model for Europe should not be insular, and it is important both in relations and trade that the outside world sees a friend and partner with whom it can engage politically, and conduct business.

For the purpose of this discussion can I propose that we call our new model the United States of Europe. I have an utter dislike of any name using the word ‘Federal’ (sounds like a police state), and any reference to the word ‘Republic’ automatically removes any debate about a monarchy, and I am far from convinced that many people in Europe feel that a republic is the only option. Furthermore I would suggest that the United States of Europe is fully inclusive of all countries in Europe, as with the United States of America.

So let us start with the provocation.

  • I believe that it is a fact that the EU has no democratic legitimacy. Has any member state to date asked the people to vote on whether or not their country should become a member? This should not be confused with referendums for treaty ratifications.
  • For over 2 years now the politicians have attempted to solve the financial problems within the Eurozone. I would suggest that if you put some of the best banking minds into a room for 4 – 6 weeks, devoid of politics, vested interests, and with open minds, workable solutions to the financial problems of the Eurozone can be achieved. The pills may not be sweet, but they would be equitable and sustainable in the long-term. For example Germany was by far the economic winner with the introduction of the Euro – now it must deal with the appropriate reciprocity.
  • We must start with the tenet that a democracy consists of a framework of a Government freely elected ‘by the people, for the people’ with oversight from an independent judiciary built on merit, not election. This Government needs to build a social and legal framework based on the rule of law, respect for human rights, free speech, respect for International law, and equality for all. In return the electorate need to respect the law, and take responsibility for their role in society.
  • A secure, self-sufficient, free market economy consists of a sustainable supply of raw materials and energy, a relatively cheap labour force, innovative skills (excellent education), technology transfer skills, manufacturing, marketing, with stable and effective financing (banking).
  • The existing EU/Eurozone is built on political, over economic, sensibilities, fractured by pandemic compromise, with political and national interests as serious constraints to sustainability.

A cursory comparison of the above with the structure of the current EU/Eurozone will reveal that the current structure shows that it:

  • fails to satisfy democratic legitimacy;
  • is incapable of resolving the existing financial problems, and responds too slowly in any event;
  • does not meet the recognised basic parameters of a democracy;
  • does not meet the requirements a self-sufficient free market economy; and
  • is constrained by the vested self-interest of the political leaders of the member states.

Rather than start by debating ‘Start Again or Plod On’ I would suggest that we start with a blank sheet of paper and identify what the people see as a credible European integration by building a model of an equitable and sustainable United States of Europe. Having developed and agreed such a model we can then compare it to what we have today to determine if we can adapt what we have to what we need, or whether we adopt our new model and move into it, leaving any unnecessary baggage behind in the old model. The other option, which is certainly on the table, is to completely abandon European integration.

Please forget ‘what is’ today in your thinking as details such as what side of the road we drive on in different countries is irrelevant to the future of our children and grandchildren. At the risk of alienation the green lobby can we also ignore what could be in energy terms and just look at the resource base that already exist. Too many people in Europe are currently below the bread line, distressed, and hungry. This problem must be addressed as a priority over any new initiatives. Indeed one of my drivers for this exercise is to divert wasted money in the existing EU into growth generation to create jobs for the millions currently without income. Dignity and self-respect derive from self-sufficiency, not charity. Also let your mind have free rein when considering all of the components of a self-sufficient free market economy. I would suggest that there are countries that could be invited to the party to strengthen self-sufficiency.

The classic method of solving complex multifaceted problems is to:

  • Understand the problem, and subdivide into logical components for analysis
  • Analyse each component part – Create an ideal solution
  • Adapt the ideal solution as little as is needed to make it work

When considering the way forward could we concentrate on what we need in our model to create a sustainable, prosperous, and equitable future for all, rather than what we want. Many people want a Ferrari car, but they do not need it to live their life in peace and prosperity.

I would like to propose 2 templates to guide us through the process. The first is the creation of the United States of America in terms of some of the hard decisions and compromises that had to be made to ensure inclusion of everyone. As the creation of the USA had the benefit of no historic baggage to deal with I want to use Switzerland as a second template being a country which functions in 4 languages, has a 700 year history, not currently fully compliant as a democracy, and has an unconventional government structure. If anyone would like to propose any other template I am open to suggestions.

In order to make the process manageable I propose to load a series of blogs over time, each one addressing a separate pillar of democracy, e.g. structure of government, judiciary & legal system, taxation, etc and throw in other considerations such as common language, nationality, republic versus monarchy etc. to complete the whole picture.

This is a serious attempt to find answers to the problems that politicians seem unable to resolve. Having spent some 30 years addressing complex problems using lateral and progressive thinking I can attest to the methodology which, on first sight appears too simplistic, impossible and/or unrealistic – but they said this about Keynes at Bretton Woods – until they sat and really thought about his ideas. We still benefit from his thinking today. The fall of the Berlin Wall was an unthinkable piece of lateral thinking after too many years of political bluster. I believe that the collective thinking of people from all walks of life seriously interested in the future of Europe can contribute to solutions to the problems that face Europe. If you have friends or contacts that you feel would find this process of interest then get them involved as well. Think the unthinkable, and enjoy the process.

I will attempt, in no particular order, to start the first discussion blog in the next few days. If you click on the ‘Follow’ tag you will receive an email as each blog is posted.

Thank you for reading my blog, and I hope that you feel it worth the effort.

Related articles