Britain is feeling rather alone at the moment since the other 26 member states, including Hungary, are now proceeding to a new treaty on the Euro. If the Conservatives want exit from the European Union, they should spell out what status Britain would have.  Norway and Switzerland are often mentioned. They are outside the EU, they have access to the single market, but they have to observe the principles of free movement of people and workers as well as to enact EU norms in governance of the single market. Among other things this means allowing EU citizens free access to the labour markets of their countries. To benefit from the market without tariffs, Norway and Switzerland have to obey EU law on which they have no vote.

Perhaps the Conservatives want to have a weaker relationship with the EU than that which Norway and Switzerland enjoy. At this point, the model for Britain is Belarus, an impotent European country sandwiched between its powerful neighbours and which benefits from all the advantages that national sovereignty provides: low regulation, vast poverty, authoritarian control of a pliant workforce, and the death penalty.

At 3am on Saturday 19 November, the conciliation committee agreed the budget for 2012. Originally, the European Commission had propose an increase of 4.9% on the figure for 2011. The Council cut this to the rate of inflation at 2% though the British government would have preferred less. The European Parliament increased this to 5.2%, above the Commission's figure. The stage was set for the conciliation committtee of the 27 governments and 27 representatives from the European Parliament to find a solution.

The agreement concluded almost the same figure as that expressed by the Council, just 2%. Parliament and the Commission had claimed that above inflation increses were required, even in an age of austerity, because EU-level intervention is more efficient in securing economic resurgence than 27 more expensive national policies, such that EU spending represents a saving. Their other argument was that the increases were necessary to cover contractual obligations to meet spending targets agreed back in 2006 for a seven year term that expires in 2013. There is some truth in the second argument, because the way that EU funding programmes work, including co-financing, means that money is released for spending towards the end of multiannual programmes. We would therefore expect more to be spent in 2012-13 than in 2007-08.

At 3am, Parliament's negotiators accepted the Council's figures over the alternative of having no budgety. Under the budget procedure in place due to the Lisbon Treaty the Parliament and Council can each exercise a mutual veto. Previously, if Council and Parliament disagreed, each side could force through amendments on different types of spending against the wishes of the other.

Alain Lamassoure, Chairman of the Parliament's Budget Committee, explained that before the economic crisis, governments tried to refuse budget increases because they didn't want them. Now, they refuse increases not because they don't want them, but because they do not have the money. This is a matter of opinion. What happened last year? In November 2010, the conciliation process for the budget of 2011 broke down without agreement. The Commission rapidly tabled a new budget and the Parliament agreed it in line with the Council's demands. Whether the outcomes of the bugets of 2011 and 2012 as well as future budgets are due to the reason suggested by Lamassoure or, rather, to the power of the mutual veto provided by the Lisbon Treaty is a matter for debate. It seems that the lower figure as demanded by either the Council or the Parliament will be adopted.

The Conclusions of the Conciliation Committee for the 2012 budget can be found here:

http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/ecofin/126157.pdf

Tonight, with Berlusconi's exit, Europe is feeling a little bit safer. His resignation marks a symbolic victory in the struggle against kleptocracy which has so weakened the public finances of countries in southern Europe. Any of his likely successors will be more credile in safeguarding Europe from the prospect of Italy becoming the next Lehmans and taking France and half the banks of Europe down with it.

In Ireland they call it STV, but for electing their President, they use AV – rejected by the British in last May’s referendum.

This election campaign was more interesting and contested by more candidates than ever before. The presidency is symbolic and usually the candidatures are carefully controlled by the political parties. To get a nomination, a candidate must be supported by at least 20 parliamentarians or four county councils. Some of the political parties allowed their supporters on county councils to nominate popular independents, thus opening up the election. The other important difference compared to previous elections was the collapse in support for the candidates associated with some of the main parties, notably Gay Mitchell, whose party had just won the parliamentary elections earlier this year with 27 percent of the vote. He emerged from the contest with only 6 percent of the vote. The winner was Michael D. Higgins, a popular figure in the less popular Irish Labour Party. While Labour scored a comparatively high 19 percent in the parliamentary elections, Higgins doubled that to 40 percent in the presidential election. It seems that personality is everything.

Under the AV system, the votes were counted as follows.

Michael  D. Higgins was ahead from the start and as lower-placed candidates were eliminated this did not change. Indeed, he picked up more transfers than Sean Gallagher at both of the successive relevant counts. At the second count, the transfers from Dana Scallon and Mary Davis for Gay Mitchell were higher than they were for Martin McGuiness of Sinn Fein. The elimination of McGuiness and Mitchell in the final count led to an avalanche of transfers to Higgins in an anti-Fianna Fail surge. Although the scores of McGuiness and Gallagher were respectable, they were very few people’s second preference.

Nothing is surprising about Ireland, but a final curiosity is that McGuiness, the third placed candidate for the Presidency of Ireland, had no vote in the election because he is a UK resident. He is also a member of the British Parliament. If he had been elected, we would have seen the strange event of the head of state of a Republic requesting a manorial stewardship from the Crown in order to be able to resign from Westminster.



What was George Papandreou thinking in calling for a referendum on the package agreed by the Europeans for Greece? International media are assuming he will lose, but is that part of the calculation? Win or lose, Papandreou could be the winner. If he gets a "yes" vote, that will legitimise the action his government is taking. This will be more likely if in the meantime he is seen as getting tough not on modest Greeks but on the self-employed and super-rich who have been paying no tax. The lead-up to the referendum makes it easier for him to soak the rich.

If he gets a "no", he still wins. A "no" will be a "no" to the bail-out, a "no" to its various strings attached, and a "no" to the 50% write-down of Greek debt. The Greek people will have only themselves to blame for the disastrous consequences of a "no". After a few years, who can come back to save Greece? Papandreou.