Adapted from a front page story over at the European Tribune
Over at the European Tribune, I have flagged in recent days the repeated appearance of the word "protectionism" in any article about the political economy in Europe: basically, any criticism of "reforms" or any protest against corporations triumphant is smothered under the evil blanket of "protectionism" and opposed to "liberalism" (in the European meaning, i.e. Thatcherism, whether in soft or hard versions), which takes the mantle of progress and dynamism.
In the context for you guys of the ports story, and in particular of Hunter's brilliant essay (When Corpotate meets State), here's the status of the European debate on that same topic, and the worrisome blanket of hidden assumptions that stifle real debate on the economy and economic policy (what DoDo has appropriately labelled the New Consensus) and which we need to fight on both sides of the Atlantic to have a chance to change things.
The FT, which, despite the high quality and openness of its debate pages, remains the official organ of the neoliberal forces in Europe has been using the word "protectionism" with increasing frequency in recent days and weeks, (including twice on the front apge today).
This needs to be flagged as what it really is: an ideaological campaign to try to smear political opposition to unfettered labor market "reform" and eliminate State regulation of corporations.
Madrid is warned over Eon hostility
The European Commission warned Madrid on Wednesday not to use illegal protectionist means to try to block Eon's takeover bid for Endesa, the Spanish utility.
The warnings came as the German power group prepared to take its case for the 29.1bn ($34.6bn) offer on the road to shareholders, and as other utilities considered joining in the race. Brussels' intervention was sparked by remarks from the Spanish government's chief spokesman that Madrid would "do everything in our power to ensure Spain's energy companies remain Spanish".
If you look at the actual declarations of Zapatero (the Spanish PM) and McCreevy (the EU Commissioner for the internal market), Zapatero says he will use "legal" means, McCreevy tells him not to do anything, especially not use the golden share ( a share in the company by the government which gives it certain rights on strategic decisions), and Zapatero says he won't use the golden share.
So what is the FT saying? Not to use means that would be illegal and protectionist? Nah, that would mean that legal protectionist means are allowed, which cannot be. I think they mean that anything protectionist is illegal by definition. That forms a core part of the New Consensus.
Italy mulls need for tough takeover laws
Note that the title in the paper version of that same article is: Italy threatens takeover law as protectionism spreads
The threat of creeping protectionism across Europe deepened on Wednesday when Italy raised the prospect of toughening Italian takeover laws in retaliation against France's efforts to deter foreign bidders from acquiring French companies.
Giulio Tremonti, finance minister, said Italy was among the most "market-oriented" countries in the European Union and disliked protectionism, but it could not ignore France's firm line on hostile takeover bids.
Again, any political action against take-overs is evil and 'anti-market'. Fremonti is a heartily pro-market minister of Berlusconi, the man who has done more than anyone to put his government in the service of companies - in particular of his own companies. (And note the subtext that it is France's fault at heart, I'll get back to that later).
Still in today's edition, we move on to Poland:
EU steps up pressure on Poland over bank deal
The European Commission threatened the Polish government yesterday with legal action over Warsaw's continuing opposition to a controversial banking merger that would create a new market leader controlled by Unicredit, the Italian financial group.
In an escalation of a dispute widely seen as a test case for the functioning of the European Union's single market, Charlie McCreevy, internal market commissioner, said yesterday he was "not satisfied" with responses he had received from Warsaw and that he had instructed the Commission's lawyers to investigate the possibility of legal action.
Brussels has repeatedly attacked Poland's stance as protectionist, arguing that Warsaw has no right to block the merger between Pekao and BPH, the country's second and third-biggest banks. The merger comes as part of Unicredit's takeover of German rival HVB, and would combine the two groups' Polish subsidiaries.
And finally, in what is admittedly one of the most market-oriented bits of the FT (but thus also the right place to find the underlying ideological line), "European Comment"
Economic nationalism gains pace
The French concept of "economic patriotism" appears to be winning a growing number of converts across Europe.
After Poland sought to block UniCredit's merger with HVB and Luxembourg's rush on new takeover legislation in an attempt to scupper Mittal Steel's bid for Arcelor, it is now the turn of Spain to wave the protectionist flag in the face of Eon's bid for Endesa.
Yet this revival of economic nationalism in continental Europe is causing increasing concern in business, with companies worried this could have serious implications for their international expansion strategies.
One leading European executive yesterday said businesses were anxious to seize opportunities offered by a more open European market. But this is being threatened by national attitudes.
(...)
But Spanish companies have also been thwarted in their ambitions to expand elsewhere in Europe by protectionist barriers.
(...)
Eon's bid for Endesa, according to Spanish executives, could prove a defining moment for the Socialist government in demonstrating, in the words of one businessman, "whether it wants to play the European game or run the country like a banana republic".
These fairly lengthy quotes point us very clearly to what the battle lines are, and what the stakes are.
Note how one side is trying to capture to its benefit the concept of Europe, something that has great symbolic value on the continent, embodying peace, freedom to travel, a high quality of life and, to some extent, economic prosperity:
international corporations / opportunity / Europe / dynamic
vs
protectionism / "banana republic" / nationalism / workers rights
The New Consensus is a coherent whole, with a single - and simple - underlying principle: nothing must hamper corporations' ability to make money. Corporations are the sole source of efficiency, of prosperity and of wealth. More, they are the sole creators, and thus the sole legitimate earners of wealth.
Not workers and theur pesky rights and unions.
Not governments and their pesky regulations and strategic preoccupations.
The only thing that matter is the short term ability to efficiently make money and distribute it, untaxed, to shareholders.
I don't want to ignite a French vs Anglo-Saxon war, but I do note that France is specifically targetted as the inspirational source of all this "protectionism", and, for instance, the UK government's announcement that it would undertake a "vigorous scrutiny" of the mooted purchase of Centrica by Gazprom is never, ever listed in the current list of "protectionist" measures by various European governments (even though it is substantially similar to what the French and Spanish governments have said about Mittal or Endesa, only said with less directness). Thus the UK government under Blair is (rightly or wrongly) considered an ally in this ideological fight, whereas the French government is seen as the enemy in that ideological battle. One of the reasons is, of course, that this "protectionism" meme has been spread by Blair allies Mandelson (Commisioner for trade) and Barroso (President of the Commission) in the EU Commission, and that French politicians are not shy to say bluntly that the State should do this or that, even when it won't or even cannot do it.
What matters, of course, is not France or the UK per se, but the fact that French policies symbolise, again, rightly or wrongly, the logic of an active State, willing to regulate companies and impose various burdens and constraints on them, whereas the UK symbolises a more laissez-faire approach.
So, the attacks are not on France per se, but on State action, which the French still claim as a valid tool; and the praise on the UK is a praise for that image of an absent government (which is of course far from the reality in the UK) whiche lets corporations do their business without constraints.
The debate in the US seems to me to be very similar to that one, with the Democrats replacing the French as the evil (or, at best, clueless) Statists against the freedom loving, and corporation supporting Republicans. Of course, things are just a little bit more complex in each case, but the same kind of common wisdom emerges in both cases, and it drives commentary to a large extent.
Thus the New Consensus. Governments is always bad. Corporations are always better and should be "set free" to do what they want to the environment, to their workers, and to the national interest, because it'll turn out okay in the end.
Yeah. For their rich owners and the politicicans they cultivate.
As to the ports, I tend to be with Soj on the facts, but this is such a great opportunity to pound on the absolute contradictions in the deal coming from the fact that (i) Dubai Ports is a State-owned corporation (and as such, necessarily evil) and (ii) that a corporation is put in charge of something awfully close to the national security-heart of what the Republicans' rump government should be doing.