From a DER SPIEGEL editorial:
Europe, and we Germans, will certainly have to pay a price for sanctions. But the price would be incomparably greater were Putin allowed to continue to violate international law. Peace and security in Europe would then be in serious danger.
Read more SPIEGEL Editorial: Time to Impose Tough Sanctions on Russia – SPIEGEL ONLINE.
Margaret Thatcher’s biographer Charles Moore discusses the former Prime Minister’s legacy. Moore provides insights as to how Margaret Thatcher’s stance on the market economy developed and how she popularised it. He seeks to outline her approach to foreign affairs, in relation to the EU, the US, and her broad approach to the Cold War.
Interesting extract from Spiegel interview with Prof. Timothy Snyder from Yale:
SPIEGEL: What motivates Putin?
Snyder: I think Putin is playing an all-or-nothing game, geopolitically speaking. He no longer cares about tolerable relations with the EU or about a solid relationship with Ukraine. Putin has opted for something else, a much larger project, to destabilize Ukraine and the EU. It’s an all-or-nothing game because there is no going back, now that he has embarked on this path.
SPIEGEL: Can he win?
Snyder: There are two options now: Either he achieves his goals, or the European Union achieves political unity and ideological stringency. It would have to define itself as Russia’s adversary and, most of all, develop a joint energy policy with which it could affect Putin. If the EU could do that, there would be radical consequences for Russia. Then Putin would have to fall back on China, and Russia would become China’s Ukraine.
via Experts Discuss What Ukraine Crisis Means for Future of Europe – SPIEGEL ONLINE.
Thomas L. Friedman’s opinion at the NY Times:
…….Ukraine is not threatening Russia, but Ukraine’s revolution is threatening Putin. The main goal of the Ukraine uprising is to import a rules-based system from the E.U. that will break the kleptocracy that has dominated Kiev — the same kind of kleptocracy Putin wants to maintain in Moscow. Putin doesn’t care if Germans live by E.U. rules, but when fellow Slavs, like Ukrainians, want to — that is a threat to him at home.
Don’t let anyone tell you the sanctions are meaningless and the only way to influence Russia is by moving tanks. (Putin would love that. It would force every Russian to rally to him.) If anything, we should worry that over time our sanctions will work too well. And don’t let anyone tell you that we’re challenging Russia’s “space.” We’re not. The real issue here is that Ukrainians, as individuals and collectively, are challenging Putin’s “values.”
We couldn’t stop them if we wanted to. They’ve been empowered by globalization and the I.T. revolution. Get used to it, Comrade Putin.
Read more at Challenging Putin’s Values – NYTimes.com.
China wants to develop what it sees as key industries by giving Chinese companies a leg up in both the Chinese and global market. Its trading partners don’t want to see their firms placed at a disadvantage, and in several cases have challenged Chinese policies. China is challenging them right back, arguing that those countries do the same thing, and that people who live in protectionist glass houses shouldn’t throw stones. If they do, China can match them “tit for tat.” (A similar battle involving cross-accusations and threats between the EU and China began unfolding this week — you can read about it here).
There’s a critical difference, though, between China and its trade partners. They all may both have policies that can be called protectionist, but they come from different starting points. In the U.S., trade restrictions and subsidies tend to be the exception to the rule, and when they do occur, are usually transparent. There’s a public approval process and an overt policy that can be challenged at WTO. In China, restrictions and subsidies are pervasive, due to the large state role in the economy, and often hard to pin down.
via EconoMonitor : EconoMonitor » U.S.-China Trade War in the Offing?.
In his speech resigning from the cabinet in 1990, by which he toppled Mrs. Thatcher as Conservative Party leader and prime minister, her former close ally Geoffrey Howe accused her, in her obsession with preserving the British nation-state, of living “in a ghetto of sentimentality about our past.”
It does not look quite like that now. Indeed, it was Mrs. Thatcher herself, a couple of years after she left office, who identified the problem with European construction. It was, she said, “infused with the spirit of yesterday’s future.” It made the “central intellectual mistake” of assuming that “the model for future government was that of a centralized bureaucracy.” As she concluded, “The day of the artificially constructed megastate is gone.”
“There is now little point in Britain staying in the EU,” said MacShane, who was a minister in Tony Blair’s generally pro-Europe Labour Party government. “It is an historic turning point and Britain might as well get out now, as Europe’s future will be settled without us.”
…….The economic impact of leaving the European Union would be difficult to predict. British companies might lose easy access to European markets — where they now enjoy open trade, with few barriers — but Britain also might be able to negotiate a favorable trade treaty with Europe, as Israel and Mexico have done.
via Cameron’s Rejection of EU Summit Isolates Britain.
Comment: ~ Withdrawal from the EU could harm the same financial sector that David Cameron has vowed to protect. The UK may view tighter financial regulation and/or transaction taxes imposed by the EU as a threat, but interruption to trade/financial flows posed by isolation from the EU would be an even greater danger.
From a paper by Philip Whyte and Simon Tilford for the Centre for European Reform… a pro-EU group with a broadly free-market leaning.
Eurozone leaders now face a choice between two unpalatable alternatives. Either they accept that the eurozone is institutionally flawed and do what is necessary to turn it into a more stable arrangement. This will require some of them to go beyond what their voters seem prepared to allow, and to accept that a certain amount of ‘rule-breaking’ is necessary in the short term if the eurozone is to survive intact. Or they can stick to the fiction that confidence can be restored by the adoption and enforcement of tougher rules. This option will condemn the eurozone to self-defeating policies that hasten defaults, contagion and eventual break-up.
via Self-serving myths of Europe’s neo-Calvinists – Telegraph Blogs.
Italy was forced to pay its highest interest rate since the euro’s creation to sell five-year bonds—a sign of skepticism that new governments in Italy and Greece will be able to simultaneously boost economic growth and reduce high public-debt levels……Industrial production in the euro zone plunged 2% in September from August, the steepest slide since February 2009, according to the European Union’s statistics agency. The decline stretched from the weak periphery of Spain, Italy and Portugal to powerhouses such as Germany, France and the Netherlands. Compared with a year ago, output rose just 2.2%—the weakest gain in nearly two years. The data suggest “the euro-zone will soon fall back into another fairly deep recession,” said Ben May, economist at consultancy Capital Economics.
The FTSE Italian MIB index found support at 15000. Expect an upsurge in response to news that Mario Monti has been asked to form a new government. Breakout above 17000 would signal a rally to 19000. Rising 13-week Twiggs Money Flow indicates consistent buying pressure over the past few weeks.
* Target calculation: 17 + ( 17 – 15 ) = 19
France’s CAC-40 index similarly found support at 3000. Recovery above 3400 would offer a target of 3800, but 63-day Twiggs Momentum, a long way below zero, indicates a primary down-trend.
* Target calculation: 2800 – ( 3400 – 2800 ) = 2200 AND 3400 + ( 3400 – 3000 ) = 3800
The German DAX found support at 5700. Recovery above 6400 would offer a target of 7100, while failure of support would warn of another test of primary support at 5000.
* Target calculation: 6400 + ( 6400 – 5700 ) = 7100
The FTSE 100 is also consolidating above medium-term support — this time at 5350. 13-Week Twiggs Money Flow continues to signal strong buying pressure. Breakout above 5700 would re-test the 2011 highs at 6100. Failure of support is unlikely, but would warn of another test of primary support at 4800.
* Target calculation: 5700 + ( 5700 – 5300 ) = 6100
We need to remember, however, that this is still a bear market. We have seen one or two favorable news headlines but very little substance. And the European economy faces strong headwinds over the next few years.
