Spanish life is not always likeable but it is compellingly loveable.
- Christopher Howse: A Pilgrim in Spain.
If you've arrived here because of an interest in Galicia or Pontevedra, see my web page here.
- As you'd expect, there have been numerous eulogies for Sr Rajoy from PP party colleagues. And even some nice comments from the leader of Podemos. But the famous Judge Baltasar Garzón has opined: The problem wasn't one of only corruption but also authoritarianism and the cuts applied by the PP. Very true.
- Rajoy himself has gone out on the astonishing line that: The Spanish have never withdrawn their trust of us. Can he really believe that, especially in view of recent poll predictions of their low ranking in the next elections?
- Rather contrasting with Rajoy's view was the cartoon in one paper yesterday showing his PP party in a coma.
- The new PM has named, so far, 13 cabinet members, the majority of which are women. Apart from this, two things struck me: 1. The first word in each of their profiles is their birth place, reflecting the Spanish obsession with patrias chicas; and 2. The great majority of the women started their careers with a legal qualification. Seems to be the obvious springboard for politicians in Spain, even though lawyers have a much lower status in Spain – cf. notaries – than in the Anglo Saxon world.
- One local paper naturally felt aggrieved that none of the jobholders are Galician. Though one was born in La Coruña but then moved to Madrid aged only 4. Not much consolation.
Life in Spain
- Lower electricity bills for some? . . . Pédro Sánchez has announced his objective of abolishing the so-called 'tax on the sun'.
- Here's the latest list from The Local – Spain's most endangered species.
- An unusually reasonable view? . . . Of all the contested issues in a generation, differences over Brexit appear to be the most intractable. With few exceptions, each side seems unable or unwilling to recognise the other side’s arguments. On the one hand there is the genius of political, economic and international cooperation replacing three centuries of grossly destructive nationalism and economic rivalry which led to the shedding of blood on an unimaginable scale. On the other, this has involved the shift from simple economic to complex political cooperation, incorporating a democratic deficit of unacceptable proportions. And societies that have operated with similar democratic deficits have seen the same outcome by a different route; the shedding of blood on an unimaginable scale. Since none of us can foresee the future, we can’t be certain which of the two views on the European Union is the better. But they are both sensible, both moral and both matter.
- Possibly all a bit irrelevant now, in view of the next section . . .
- There's a saying that you can't please all the people all the time. Even truer, I believe, is the warning that you can displease all the people all the time. The British government has amply demonstrated this via its incompetent Brexit negotiations. This has certainly displeased Ambrose Evans Pritchard, who's joined the exceptionally-knowledgable Richard North in giving up on Brexit. See the former's article below, which starts with the sentiment: The quixotic bid for British independence has failed. North and Evans Pritchard favoured Flexit and the EEA options based on gradual change. In contrast, the British government has gone from Hard Brexit, via No Brexit to the softest of Soft Brexits. Or, de facto, perhaps no real Brexit at all, with the UK very probably out of the EU but still effectively being ruled by it. Of course, it hasn't been helped by the confusingly ambiguous and opportunistic stance(s) of the Labour Party, but this is to be expected of the main opposition party.
- No one really knows what the outcome of this lost opportunity will be but it does rather seem that the UK will lose some of the positives of the EU while gaining little or nothing. So . . . . Well, done Mrs May. Thanks for nothing.
- Some other folk with a massive failure on their hands are the directors of Sabadell and TSB banks. Click here for Don Quijones' review of the ongoing farce-cum-tragedy here, now in its 7th week.
- For some reason, Vigo airport has switched off its anti-fog radar. The result on Tuesday was the cancellation of 92 flights.
- BTW . . . The article on this revealed that you can fly direct to Vigo from Edinburgh, as well as from London. But from nowhere else in the UK. Why Edinburgh, I wonder. And not Birmingham, Manchester or Liverpool.
- Follow-ups . . .
- I drove to Portugal yesterday and found the Rande bridge open, both going and returning. The power of this blog?
- I got petrol/gas just north of the border, as it's very much more expensive in (poorer) Portugal. There were 5 cars waiting for the single attendant. Reader María suggests it's employee resistance preventing self-service operation but I wonder how often major companies worry about employee reaction to automation. And I suspect one factor is that Spaniards are much more relaxed about waiting than Anglo Saxons.
© David Colin Davies, Pontevedra: 7.6.18
Weep for Brexit: the British dash for independence has failed: Ambrose Evans Pritchard
Brexiteers, bring out your black suits of mourning. Grieve with private dignity. The quixotic bid for British independence has failed.
There will be no return to full sovereign and democratic self-rule in March 2019, or after the transition, or as far as the political eye can see. Britain will be bound and hemmed until the latent contradictions of such a colonial settlement cause a volcanic national uprising, as they surely must.
The Westminster class is edging crablike towards a double embrace of the EU single market and the customs union, the full EU package but without a veto in the European Council, or Euro-MPs with heft in the dominant blocs of Strasbourg, or judges on the European Court (ECJ) to lean against top-down "Napoleonic" jurisprudence. Both of our great parties are resiling from core manifesto pledges.
Labour has now lurched twice, first towards the customs union and this week calling for “full access to the EU’s single market”. This second step was inevitable once the party chose – for tactical advantage – to fan the flames over the Irish border. Most border checks are linked to the single market not the customs union. If you assert that the Good Friday Accord is in grave jeopardy, you have to accept both in the end and this entails the continued the rule of Euro-judges.
I strongly suspect that the Tories will be compelled by political events and cut-throat pressure from Brussels to opt for much the same formula, whatever they propose next month in their 150-page White Paper. They will discover – as would Labour in power – that the Franco-German axis aims to use its control over cliff-edge nodal points to force near total acceptance of the EU’s legal and regulatory machinery. The EU can evoke the doomsday scenario of a trade crash. It can exploit Britain’s psychological vulnerability on Ireland.
The Government has engaged in foolish bluffs. As I feared, it has fallen into the Greek Syriza trap, issuing hollow threats followed by retreat. It never took the preparations needed to make a "no-deal" walkout credible. The trade infrastructure has not been built. Nothing substantive has been done.
Theresa May has doggedly pursued her "Canada Plus" deal covering goods and services, with the holy grail of ‘mutual recognition’, while insisting on British red lines over immigration and the ECJ. She knows that Michel Barnier has ruled out any such accord a priori, yet she has chosen not to fortify her negotiating hand.
Brussels can conclude with certainty that Britain will not take action to defend itself against a one-sided and discriminatory deal that no normal trading partner would contemplate. It will not walk out and endanger the EU’s €80bn bilateral trade surplus that it so lightly takes for granted, potentially delivering a shock powerful enough to push the eurozone back into recession and set off an existential political and financial crisis. Total capitulation on EU terms therefore looks unavoidable at the October summit.
The EU’s assertions that a "third party" deal on services is impossible, or that mutual recognition is unworkable, are of course disingenuous. Mr Barnier specifically requested both in trade talks with the US in 2014. The dispute comes down to raw power. Britain has unilaterally disarmed itself. It will suffer the consequences.
“The Government effectively has no credible policy and the whole world knows it. By not taking the basic steps any sane Government should have taken from June 24 2016, its ‘strategy’ has imploded,” said Dominic Cummings, the former campaign chief of Vote Leave.
Mr Cummings said Theresa May’s first grave mistake was to trigger Article 50 and set the clock running before developing a coherent plan, akin to “putting a gun in your mouth and pulling the trigger”. Nothing was done to prepare for sovereign trading status. It is now too late to pursue the fall-back option of the World Trade Organisation.
“The Government has irretrievably botched this. Downing Street, the Treasury, the Cabinet Office and the Cabinet have made no such preparations and there is no intention of starting,” he wrote.
The harsh interpretation is that this was sabotage, a "trahison des clercs" in Whitehall, with the acquiescence of Remainers at No 10 and No 11. The benign verdict is that this mess reflects the narrow result of the referendum, the Scottish and Ulster fissures within the Union, and the arithmetic of Parliament. Theresa May and Philip Hammond are under crushing pressure from the big guns of the CBI, the financial press, and the City. You cannot easily take a divided nation into a showdown with the EU.
Personally, I long advocated applying to join the EEA, but only as a halfway house for five to ten years, and precisely in order to stay out of the customs union. This would have preserved good access to the single market while allowing the UK to negotiate trade deals with the US, China, Japan, India, and the rest of the world. Britain would have extracted itself from the EU in safe stages. Cliff edges would have become rolling hills.
Had the Prime Minister opted for the EEA from the start, Brexit chemistry might have been very different. She quashed the idea because it preserved EU migrant flows (with an emergency brake). Brexit was always about borders in her Home Office mind.
In the end we are likely to end up in the EEA anyway – or close enough – but on worse terms, for a different purpose, with the customs union bolted on, and after great political damage has already been done. She will probably have to swallow a high degree of free movement to get any deal at all.
It is clear that Theresa May abandoned defiance and switched to a strategy of emollience at the Brussels summit in December. That is when she stopped repeating that "no deal is better than a bad deal" and quietly agreed to "full alignment" with EU rules if need be. She signed away a large sum of money to secure goodwill.
At the Munich Security Conference in February she pledged “unconditional” support for EU defence regardless of what occurs in Brexit talks. She accepted the sway of the ECJ over crime and terrorism collaboration, in dealings with Europol, Eurojust, and over the European Arrest Warrant. This was a generous gesture since Britain is not a supplicant in defence and security. It remains the EU’s biggest military power. It defends the EU’s Baltic, Balkan, and Polish borders, and helps to anchor the US in Nato.
The post-December shift in strategy makes sense. If the UK is to go into trade talks stark naked, it is better to do so in a friendly spirit of appeasement. How far this will get us is an open question. The EU has taken a pitiless – and illegal – position over the Galileo satellite project. It deems Britain to be a security risk in an endeavour that we largely pioneered and heavily financed (pro-Putin regimes in central Europe are not?).
We have no choice other than to smile, bow, and scrape at this point. We can only trust that Germany, France, Italy, Poland, Holland, Ireland, and fellow nations, will conclude that it is not in their interests to push the punishment too far, whatever EU ideologues might want. They have to live with their near abroad. Do they want to be encircled by a hostile Britain, Turkey, and Russia, in Donald Trump’s dystopian world?
Those within Britain who have pushed so hard for an emasculated vassal Brexit may find that it is a Pyrrhic victory. It is hard to imagine a more certain way to destroy British relations with Europe than to subject this island to foreign and authoritarian rule, and to try to do so on a permanent footing.
Can the Lords not see this? Can the Soubry-Umunna axis in the Commons not see the historical and democratic absurdity of such an arrangement. Is Parliament willing to forgo its ancient prerogatives so lightly for a mess of economic potage, essentially to avoid a short-term shock of no lasting importance in the sweep of time and the life of a nation?
You can make a realpolitik calculus that the political pendulum will swing back as the EU tears itself apart over migration and the rule of law. If Britain waits patiently, the European problem might resolve itself – either because the EU ceases to exist, or because it evolves into a different animal.
One awaits with curiosity to see how the unreformed eurozone is going to weather the next global downturn, with one foot still in a Japanese deflation trap, monetary ammunition largely exhausted, debt ratios dangerously high, fiscal union not remotely in sight, and Italy in open revolt.
For now Brexiteers must fall back silently and weep.