We use cookies to help improve and maintain our site. More information.
close

May 14, 2020

Another migrant wave from Turkey?

Greece is expecting another influx of migrants through the Turkish border now that the Covid-19 risks are subsiding and lockdown measures are being relaxed. The Turkish foreign minister Mevlüt Cavusoglu said in a TV interview this week that his country’s open border policy for anyone wishing to cross into Europe will continue. This comes on top of Turkish provocations by violating Greek airspace several times over recent weeks. The Greek government is now preparing for another storm at the Evros land border, similar to the one in February.

Re-enforcement of border controls has been hampered by Covid-19 restrictions, The 262 Frontex officers in the Evros region were ordered to stay and help defend the border, but the addition of another 400 trained officers has been postponed due to the coronavirus.

The latest provocations come as lockdown restrictions are lifted in Turkey, which will allow more migrants to follow the call and make their way through the country towards Greece.

Show Comments Write a Comment

May 14, 2020

Hyperventilating about the German court

We note an interesting shift from complacency to panic among some economists. As a group, EU economists and economic commentators were by-and-large complacent about the need to reform the eurozone during the eurozone crisis years. That complacency was reflected in a focus on small-change technical proposals like synthetic eurobonds, and a lack of gumption to speak truth to power on austerity. Books on the eurozone crisis tended to underplay the persistence of those failures, which are now becoming only too evident. We noted a generalised lack of interest in a joint fiscal capacity or mutualised debt instruments, and an exaggerated belief in the powers of the ECB even as it became obvious that the monetary policy was hitting legal and technical limits.

The German court ruling has caused panic among some of those economists. We also worry about it, not in terms of its impact on the ECB but its impact on the legal cohesion of the EU. But, for those who placed excessive weight on the ECB as the eurozone's deus-ex-machina, this ruling is an unpleasant wake-up call. 

In the last few days there have been several articles from economists and commentators about the economic illiteracy of German lawyers. We agree that German justices are no economic experts, but their economic illiteracy is matched, if not exceeded, by the illiteracy of economists about the laws underpinning the monetary union, and the political nature of the social contract behind the Maastricht Treaty. Our sense of alarm during the crisis was based on a realisation that the Germans and the Dutch would never buy into the North Atlantic economic policy consensus, and a parallel realisation that imbalances will not adjust without a fiscal union.

As a representative example of those economic commentators, we pick out Holger Schmieding in FAZ this morning. He started his piece, you might have guessed it, with the court's alleged illiteracy in matters of monetary economics. He also argues that the conflict is unnecessary from an economic point of view, a statement that is simultaneously true and pointless. The court is not in the business of economic optimisation. 

We also think that the court misjudges the nature of monetary policy in one crucial respect. It cannot be subjected to the German constitutional requirement of proportionality. This is not about explaining policy but about due process, of the kind which a central bank can in practice not commit to. This is why we disagree with Schmieding's conclusion that the way out of this dilemma would be a report by the Bundesbank to the German parliament that claims that the policy is indeed proportional. That is not what the justices have asked. They asked among other things for an explicit strategy for programmes to end. The court has given a binding ruling that now forms part of constitutional law. If the Bundesbank treats constitutional law with an obvious attempt to circumvent the ruling, there will be another case which will result in ever more explicit requirements.

We think the better response to this ruling is to stop hyperventilating, and focus on a eurobond instead. There is an unprecedented crisis, symmetric in nature, asymmetric in its effects, and a German court ruling that narrows the boundaries of what the ECB can do. What else do you need?

Show Comments Write a Comment

This is the public section of the Eurointelligence Professional Briefing, which focuses on the geopolitical aspects of our news coverage. It appears daily at 2pm CET. The full briefing, which appears at 9am CET, is only available to subscribers. Please click here for a free trial, and here for the Eurointelligence home page.

 

Recent News

  • June 22, 2020
  • What we learned from Trump in Tulsa
  • Greece seeks EEZ deal with Egypt to counter Turkey
  • Political pressure on French judiciary in Fillon probe?
  • June 15, 2020
  • US and Germany step up fight over NordStream 2
  • Macron's agenda for the next two years
  • June 08, 2020
  • Brexit talks at an impasse
  • Trump's troop reduction in Germany - another way to divide the EU?
  • June 01, 2020
  • Refugees' mass eviction in Greece
  • This is Brexit week again
  • May 26, 2020
  • French fashion stores - lockdown is one crisis too many
  • An important German supreme court ruling against VW
  • Public scrutiny over lockdown rules
  • May 21, 2020
  • How to spend it - recovery fund edition
  • Greek stimulus to help tourism sector
  • Teleworking is catching on
  • May 18, 2020
  • Why this won't be a symmetric shock
  • Towards a new cold war
  • May 15, 2020
  • Brace for east-west tensions
  • Why European sovereignty is a counter-productive concept