


Beware of breaking the single market

European governments are turning against the European Commission, with mischief in mind

See article

Readers' comments


Vash The Stampede

I'm Greek, for me Tony Blair is a total fail in England, he is absolutely incapable of protecting EU's interests. Putting him in this position, even if he will a secondary role, becauase that's that this is anyway, it's a suicide.

I still remember Mr Blair going against Europe and pro-USA while being a part-member of the EU. Why do we need the British people anyway?

This article looks more like a failed campaign to me. You can't be seriously claiming Blair for president...


President Blair of Europe?
Who better to chair a group of corrupt politicians than the Master of Corruption with his Cheshire cat grin and fork tongue.
One big corrupt tea party - OFF WITH THEIR HEADS


I have no illusions about finance but let's face it, not only the UK and US benefited from and manipulated finance. First of all, many continental banks also set up trading rooms and sent bankers to the City in order to cash in on the booty. Second, liberalisation of capital has helped consumption and investment to a level never dreamt of beforehand. We are going through a major blip but this is because the financial sector went too far and not only liberalised capital, but also created value from things that had no or little value. Blaming the whole finance sector, many of whom were doing their jobs honestly, is like blaming all the nerds from Silicon Valley for the dot-com bust. Third, why do you think German and Japanese exports were on a spree the last few years prior to the crunch? Where did the money come from to buy all this stuff? Yes, these countries also cashed in from finance in an indirect way. Now there's no money to buy their stuff, they're complaining and pointing fingers.

I agree that the finance sector, which is thoroughly linked to every other sector, needs to be stabalised and regulated. But that does not mean that liberalisation was bad. When more money is flowing more easily, it benefits everyone...even hardcore socialists.


Merkel is grumbling? Wheres fog theres fire... Merkel is quite market liberal herself. Time to process all the new information the recent two years brought us. Its not pretty picture for the unregulated market camp. EU forced banking deregulation certainly made the crisis worse in Germany. I considered the deregulation a good idear two years ago myself. Time to admit the error. Quite obvious right now.

The game Britain Switzerland Luxemburg Ireland etc are playing was always dirty. There is nothing new or ideological about the idear to lower the future harm they do to the rest of the world.



Anglo-Saxon system is not well-suited for the continent and that’s why it is quite ridiculous to observe how French (and also Germans) feel that their system is superior. Anglo-Saxons have a system which was very convenient for the extensive expansion, i.e. colonisation of vast territories. This game is over and their system has to change, thus become more intensive oriented. An example of well-functioning intensive system is German one which enables to drive an innovation in the country where almost everything is on the state-of-the-art level.

I think that French system is based very much on the fact that originally European commission was “colonized” by the French bureaucracy. This enabled two things: (i) design ultra profitable CAP for France and (ii) incorporate pro-French protectionism (though weaker with time). In my opinion all French suggestions for a solution of the crisis are path to HELL in the globalized World.

Hopefully, the game will be decided by Germany and its allies who understand what is going on in the World. I admit it is a historical paradox after everything what happened in the 20th century.


Since a reform of the European institutions is discussed here I dare to copy my post from thread discussing the European security:

I have to admit that I sometimes think that the last normal German politician, i.e. understanding and defending German interests, was Bismarck. Since then it is more or less tragedy. If there should be a peaceful, prosperous, pro-American, and militarily self-sufficient EU, it cannot be done without Germans becoming grown-ups. This means a real restructuring of the EU, the end of the Franco-German alliance (which is nothing more then Germany pays France rules). From my point of view following things are in German interest: (i) Friendly and strong (at least as Spain) Poland (Baltic pipeline is a ”fantastic” contribution in this direction. (ii) France which understand its role and limits and stops wasting money in hopeless CAP. (iii) Stabilized south Europe which gets used to live without permanent influx of German money and is able to cope with consequences of the Global Warming, migration and etc. (iv) Rich and prosperous north and central Europe since both regions are comprised of small countries (i.e. politically insignificant). (v) Stabilized Balkans with minimized Russian influence. This is probably the hardest part since pro-Russian sentiments are very strong thanks to both German contribution to the dissolution of Yugoslavia (I can only speculate about Czechoslovakia…) and the Kosovo story. I believe that if Germany does not take its responsibilities in good then we can expect a very “interesting” moments in the near future in Europe.

First, I add that my wish for a strong Poland is motivated by the fact that Russia is not culturally European country (i.e. understands also the raw power) and if you want to live in peace and prosperity you need a strong military close to Russia's borders. Please, remember that Russia can recover from its collapse even stronger. The next Wall could be then not in Berlin but on Rhine (if not thinking about the Channel).


Since one of the crucial tasks of the future EU Commission will be the coordination of financial affairs (or even a pan-European financial regulator), its president has to come inevitably from a euro-state. How can a politician from a country which hasn’t even adopted the European currency yet look successfully after its financial interactions?

Mrs Merkel’s “rants” about the “Anglo-Saxon” system are more than justified since it were The City’s boys which helped to bring down the world economy again (after the disaster of the 1930s). And I can surely understand when “Many leaders on the continent would love to regulate the City of London down to size” not “for reasons of both ideology and commercial rivalry”, but for reasons that The City turned into a gambling hall, gambling with the fate of the commonwealth of the Union and its member states.

Here is the copy of another post of mine, regarding the parallel Economist articles on Germany’s “ordnungspolitik-model” and France’s intervention policies:

I would prefer it to the French big-government-solution. The German ‘social-market-economy’ is positioned somewhere between a ‘laissez-faire-economy’ and the interventionist-economy a la France. However, anything that works for France in these crucial days is fine.

But it can be seen very clearly in all publications and analysis’ these days that the pure “finance-driven-capitalism” of the USA and Great Britain is a “good-weather-economy-model” only . . . not fit to withstand a bigger turmoil. The “bust/bubble cycle”, which only needs a plug to be pulled to collapse, is not “God given”; it is man made. Its roots lie in the Wall Streets and in The City’s emphasis on a gamble-hall-capitalism . . . instead of a sound and prudent entrepreneur-economy.

After the same type of gamblers rocked the world into shambles already in the 1930s (with horrible results, as we all recall), it is time now that more prudent monetary societies disconnect their economies from the Wall Street’s and The City’s “Gambling Halls”; meaning: not allowing their financial “inventiveness” and dubious fiscal products to enter the healthy markets of others any more. If this cannot be achieved through regulations, it has to be achieved by outlawing American and British investors and their toxic products from entering the markets of the prudent. This is the sure lesson countries like Germany have to learn now . . . very strict and consequent.


zernik said:

"Why is it that trying to lift bans on genetically modified products is now called 'trying to force Europeans to grow genetically modified corn?' If farmers don't want to grow the stuff, they don't have to; if consumers don't want to buy it, no need; as it is now, they are forced NOT to grow it."

I think that your assumption that you can grow genetically modified food without "polluting" all the others who don't want it is quite illusionist . . . as can be seen where it is applied. Winds and pollinating insects can’t be stopped at a boundary ridge.



This is an excellent idea with Polish candidate. Ideally, it could be proposed and then backed by Germany. It coud help a lot to improve German-Polish relationship. As a good candidate one could consider Mr. Sikorski who was a candidate for the General Secretary of NATO (I guess that he has not been chosen because of the traditionally friendly Russian-Polish relationship in times of the US offensive of charm).

I think that it also is a right time to adopt to the new post-enlargement reality, i.e. that the center-of-mass of the EU is in Germany and thus, candidates should be chosen from both sides of the former Wall. It is high time for German offensive of charm (instead of Steibach etc)!


The title of the article should read: "European politicians turn against the Commission". There is nothing new in this. In times of electoral stress, politicians always react in the same way. But the EU, or rather the European Community, is a rules-based organisation governed by the rule of law. The democratic civil apparatus of Member States, as opposed to the politicians who happen to be in power at a particular time, recognise that if they do not obey the law, why should anybody else?

Of course, the question posed is whether the 'civil apparatus' is functioning or not. Readers can come to their own judgements on individual Member States.

A distinction has also to be drawn between the powers of the Commission in the area of the internal market, which are those of proposal and subsequent policing, versus those in relation to competition, which derive directly from the Treaty establishing the European Community. A recent example of the latter is the raid by the Commission and national competition authorities in France on the EDF (80% State ownership) with regard to suspicions of price-fixing.

The Commission has a broad back even if it has a timid and un-inspiring President.


I am positively surprised that the Economist, or at least the new Charlemagne, suddenly supports a strong, independent European Commission and now seems to confer more trust in it than to the Council - at least as regards saving the Single Market . I still remember the Economist’s draft of a Constitution for Europe which intended to downgrade the Commission to function as the EU Council’s secretariate..
I personally think the envisaged position of a full-time president of the European Council is completely superfluous. I doubt whether it might lead to any organizational improvement for the Council. . If actually created, the Council president will face similar problems as the Commission president does d, namely clashes with the egos of certain heads of government. Not to mention possible clashes between both presidents as well.
As regards the issue of genetically modified maize the fingers had more suitably be pointed at the WTO, which presently happens to have a Frenchmen at its helm.

Me for President

"Many leaders on the continent would love to regulate the City of London down to size, for reasons of both ideology and commercial rivalry."

Oh please. And here I was thinking the economist was a serious magazine discussing important issues. We all know the real deal behind the City's golden boys and what kind of business environment they put us all in so forgive us for wanting to bulldoze it all to the ground.


If the British stock is low for claiming the economic commissioner, I wonder how large would the French stock be if Mr Sarkozy is asked first to pay his fine for persistent breach of the 3% deficit rule, that is 0.5% of his annual GDP. Most likely, he will put it again in his trading basket for the summit.

Concerning Mr Blair's nomination, it would be refreshing and a token of respect if Britain stops sending to Brussels politicians who have failed at home.


Why is a candidate from a member country that doesn't pay full membership fee considered anyway??? Given the current circumstances wouldn't a Blair presidency make the British hate europe (the "continent") even more? And vice versa (if that's possible)? And isn't it time for somebody from "eastern" europe to get one of those representational jobs? That's my major point: I can see that Blair has some desirable political qualities (though his constant violation of the french language isn't one) but no matter what TE thinks, those jobs are prestigious and NOT powerful! Le petit Nicolas wipes the floor with Barroso anytime he wishes to (unfortunately), so why not do the ever-lamenting poles a favour instead of letting Ulysses (only because nobody misses him at home?) become the president of Troy (=europe)... I guess in this analogy Bush is Agamemnon, somehow that cheers me up ;)


Thx Martin for the update.
I was still stuck with Mr Rachman's disclosure of Charlemagne's identity on his FT's blog :)

martin horn

Starbuck 11: The current Charlemagne mentioned Rachman as a previous Charlemagne in a blog post:
"A previous author of the Charlemagne column, Gideon Rachman"

And yeah, giving Tony Blair an important position does two things:
1. It fails to make the British any more pro-EU.
2. It stands a good chance of pissing off people who live in countries that are already pro-EU.

So I don't see the logic behind it.


Why is it that trying to lift bans on GM products is now called "trying to force Europeans to grow genetically modified corn?" If farmers don't want to grow the stuff, they don't have to; if consumers don't want to buy it, no need; as it is now, they are forced NOT to grow it.


Why is Gideon Rachman (aka Charlemagne) still trying to sell Blair for top European positions ?
Hasn't he learned just yet, how much disliked is he in both the UK and Continental Europe (Iraq War, selling out Europe in the UK, Kosovo, impotent plum job in Palestine ...) .... and how much anything that comes out of Albion is perfidiously stinking ?

.... it's like reading a piece from another one of Blair's apologist, Denis McShane : BORING and DELUSIONAL.

Best regards,


Latest blog posts - All times are GMT
The crisis in Venezuela: Another day, more bodies
Americas view 1 hrs 46 mins ago
A tribute to Robert Ashley: A perfect life
Prospero 1 hrs 29 mins ago
Commodities and the economy: Copper bottomed
Buttonwood's notebook 2 hrs 45 mins ago
Germany's Hoeness trial: Uli goes to jail
Charlemagne 3 hrs 47 mins ago
El Salvador's election: An extraordinary result
Americas view March 13th, 14:13


Products & events