Skip to main content

Estonia enters the Euro- and the UK doesn't

This is an Estonian Euro coin.

It does not exist yet, but on January 1st 2011, when Estonia will enter the Euro zone, it will join the designs of the other 16 members that circulate across the Euro area.

Many- especially in the UK- are astonished that any country would want to join the Euro zone- so successful have right-wing Euro sceptics have been in persuading British public opinion that the single currency is a catastrophe that will either lead to an undemocratic European super state or- more likely- will break apart as the contradictions inherent in such a large currency zone finally reassert themselves.

The reality, as Estonia's entry into the zone may begin to show, is perhaps rather different from the anti-Euro polemic masquerading as objective analysis that is pretty universal in the British media. The fact is that, despite the tensions and problems within the Euro system, the benefits of currency stability have been far greater than any possible benefits from the much praised "flexibility" of Sterling: i.e. the continuing policy of attempting to devalue Sterling in order to try to maintain a competitive advantage against other trade partners.

Despite a near 30% devaluation of the Pound against the Euro, the United Kingdom has yet to see the implied benefits from that policy. Indeed in the second quarter of 2010 the nascent recovery of the UK manufacturing sector seemed already to be stalling, as export levels fell well below expectations. So, even though British goods are selling at a roughly 30% discount to where they were a couple of years ago, the fact is that the British economy has barely managed to make any progress at all.

Worse numbers seem set to come, as the Bank of England chief economist suggests that growth will continue to stagnate. Indeed a nasty cocktail of lower growth and increased unemployment as the result of necessary government spending cuts is being joined by the continued curse of the British economy since the 1970s: stubbornly high inflation. This so-called triple whammy merely underlines the fact that the UK still faces serious structural problems, which it has continued to put off addressing.

The fact is that, despite the problems caused for Greece by false accounting, the position of the UK government debt mountain is still worse than in Athens. Furthermore, the Greek government is now seriously addressing the problems that they face, and at this point they appear to be winning the political battle at home and are facing down the radical opponents of the government's austerity programme. The UK too is addressing its problems, but the fact is that with inflation remaining stubbornly high, the UK continues to see its competitiveness eroded still further.

The ability to devalue has simply allowed Britain to put off the kind of structural reforms that Germany has been enacting successfully over the past decade. Too much intrusive regulation and micro management by the last Labour government has had dramatically bad effects on the whole UK economy. Entrepreneurship in the UK has continued to decline- new businesses are being created in Asia and meanwhile old established British brand names from MG to Cadbury are no longer under British control. The UK controls an ever diminishing amount of intellectual property- and yet it also no longer has the industrial capacity to manufacture for any one else.

The UK is simply not educating itself fast enough or well enough to be able to face the competitive threat from both Asia and indeed its European partners, neither is the business environment so attractive as to gain new overseas investors in the way that helped to transform the country in the 1980s. All that devaluation has allowed us is a breathing space- yet we are still failing to take advantage of this brief window in order to make the structural changes to the Labour market and the business environment that can actually provide a more sustainable economic future for the country.

Meanwhile Estonia has transformed itself from the totally closed Soviet system into one of the most open economies, not just in Europe, but in the world. Its competitive advantage of highly sophisticated technology and simple regulation is creating a situation where the country will overtake several of its European partners in per capita GDP over the course of the next five years. and possibly even the UK itself within the next ten years.

Estonia is a genuinely flexible market- and the UK is not. Estonia, with relatively low levels of total debt and extremely low levels of government debt- less than 9% of GDP- is not carrying the burden of unfunded pension liabilities that is crippling the UK.

The coalition government has started well: they have admitted the scale of the problem and have set out a credible road map to reduce the deficit. This is necessary, but not sufficient. It is critical that a credible programme of restructuring is put into place- not just a programme of austerity or cuts- depending upon your political brand- but a complete remodelling of the state that permanently shrinks the crippling burdens of debt and pension liabilities.

The failure of Labour to even acknowledge the disastrous mistakes they have made in office should render them disqualified from office, preferably forever. Now it is up to the Coalition to make the case for the the kinds of sacrifices that will ultimately create a more sustainable and more prosperous country.

By that time, Estonia will probably have redesigned their Euro coins several times.

Comments

AGilinsky said…
"Worse numbers seem set to come, as the Bank of England chief economist suggests that growth will continue to stagnate."

I love how this is written on the same day the GDP growth figures have come out; showing differently.
Cicero said…
The GDP numbers are quite likely to be a flash in the pan- and by increasing the upward pressure on interest rates, may end up being both unsustained and unsustainable.

Popular posts from this blog

Post Truth and Justice

The past decade has seen the rise of so-called "post truth" politics.  Instead of mere misrepresentation of facts to serve an argument, political figures began to put forward arguments which denied easily provable facts, and then blustered and browbeat those who pointed out the lie. 

The political class was able to get away with "post truth" positions because the infrastructure that reported their activity has been suborned directly into the process. In short, the media abandoned long-cherished traditions of objectivity and began a slow slide into undeclared bias and partisanship. 

The "fourth estate" was always a key piece of how democratic societies worked, since the press, and later the broadcast media could shape opinion by the way they reported on the political process. As a result there has never been a golden age of objective media, but nevertheless individual reporters acquired better or worse reputations for the quality of their reporting and the j…

Breaking the Brexit logjam

The fundamental problem of Brexit has not been that the UK voted to leave the European Union. The problem has been the fact that the vote was hijacked by ignorant, grandstanding fools who interpreted the vote as a will to sever all and every link between the UK and the European Union. That was then and is now a catastrophic policy. To default to WTO rules, when any member of the WTO could stop that policy was a recipe for the UK to be held hostage by any state with an act to grind against us. A crash out from the EU, without any structure to cope, was an act of recklessness that should disqualify anyone advocating it from any position of power whatsoever. That is now the most likely option because the Conservative leadership, abetted by the cowardly extremism of Corbyn, neither understood the scale of the crisis, now had any vision of how to tackle it.

Theresa May is a weak and hapless Prime Minster, and her problems started when she failed to realize that there was a compromise that w…

The rumbling financial markets

Security specialists use a variety of ways to address the risks that they face: and these risk assessments are made in the certain knowledge that the actors in the system hold only incomplete information. Although much mocked at the time, Donald Rumsfeld’s categorization of “known unknowns” and “unknown unknowns”, is now generally recognized as a succinct summery of his strategic quandaries.
By contrast, actors in the financial markets have a more sanguine assessment of the risks they deal with: they divide them into two kinds of risk: quantifiable and unquantifiable. Unquantifiable risk is not generally considered, since there is usually no financial profit that can be made except from pure supposition. Therefore for the purposes of the financial markets, any given event is priced relative to its level of probability, that is to say its quantifiable risk. 
Depending on the market, higher levels of risk generally carry higher prices, lower levels generally lower prices. Clearly such an…