The Euro: A lot on their Plato.

As most of Britain watched Murdoch in the dock at the House of Commons Home Affairs Select Committee, the Euro countries finally agreed to bail out Greece once again with an enormous 96 billion pound loan. Immediately markets across Europe were relieved, particularly across southern Europe where the Spanish and Italian economies were teetering from Greek contagion. However; the French president Nicolas Sarkozy has said that this bailout is purely to deal with Greece’s economy and other Euro countries will not move to assist the other ailing PIGS (Portugal, Italy, Greece, Spain). Yet as Britain strictly stays on the outside and European countries head towards fiscal union, where does the European project stand?

After centuries of war and bloodshed, it is remarkable to find that the European project has been so successful in turning military hostilities into economic partnerships. A continent ravaged by war became one of the world’s most important free markets. It appeared to be the correct decision to take as well. Europe, an economy of ideas and inventions would be an ideal competitor against the US and Japan. The decades after the Second World War saw great European statesman bridging differences and pushing beyond economic matrimony to a full-scale political partnership. This was a generation that had lived or emerged from two wars that had destroyed and killed millions, the plans that were unfolding before them seemed not only possible but the only option.

However, the increasing integration of the European project hit a brick wall, literally, when the Berlin Wall came down. For fifty years, Western Europe was a bulwark against the Communist East and now with democracy sweeping across Eastern boundaries, what was Europe and the EU supposed to stand for? Germany was always central to the project and unsurprisingly leaders were concerned about a reunified superpower in the middle of the continent.

European institutions, whether in Brussels, Luxembourg or Strasbourg have fundamental issues: a weak mandate, they lack transparency and accountability, further bureaucracy and perhaps most importantly to ordinary Europeans, they don’t know what it stands for. Perhaps this was the trouble with the European project; there was an original idea and as things kept on moving along, no one questioned where it was going. Monetary union was purely a facade to continue the project and did not encompass any financial instruments to ensure its success. Politicians and cultural commentators have speculated that a single currency would ultimate fail because the EU had no fiscal powers to monitor and penalise countries. As we have learnt over the past few weeks, there was no mechanism in place to leave the Euro.

The recent financial crises occurred because of a political impasse against the European project. Each country had its own interests to bear against an increasingly frustrated national electorate. It is unsurprising; billions of Euros are being spent on bailouts, particularly Greece, when its economic affairs were in a ruinous state before it joined the currency. Why should billions be spent in on the Greek economy when they should never have been allowed in from the start. This is not a victory to the little Englanders of the right-wing press who claimed it would all end in tears from the start; their grievances were aimed at bendy cucumbers and the inability for town halls to parade the flag of St George. This was a rose-tinted view that economic union would endure culminating in further political union.

So does a two-tier Europe have a chance? That is Euro countries forming a political bloc with countries such as Denmark, Sweden and the UK on the outside. It certainly retains the status-quo, France and Germany dominating the internal politics and directing its future. Tighter regulation of finances would bring control of taxation and other macroeconomic measures in house. That would be a massive repeal of sovereignty. Yet is there a political or cultural demand for such changes? Do European people seem content to move in a closer direction? The rejection of the Lisbon treaty or European constitution would suggest no and after the recent bailouts Northern European countries would demand checklists to ensure tighter controls on the PIGS, not to mention new entrants. Yet for the Euro to survive, as it stands now, this is the safest solution.

And Britain. Although it is not part of the bailout plan, it is yet to hear the last of Europe.

Jacob's games.

It has been a busy summer of sport, yet notoriously quiet on the footballing front. Few high profile transfers and the only events taking place are the Women’s World Cup, which frankly does not draw the same audience as the men’s game and the Copa America, which is locked away on ESPN. A year has passed since the World Cup was played in South Africa, where Spain went on to become the champions after a fierce final against the Dutch. So, is this a good time to judge the legacy of Africa’s first finals and what will the consequences be for the Rainbow Nation?

The recent history of South Africa is fascinating to observe from the outside. After spending decades in the international wilderness through its racial Apartheid laws, it was under the leadership of Nelson Mandela who governed South Africa through a period of uncertainty and united a nation that had been living with the consequences of racial segregation laws since 1948. Mandela recognised the importance of sport in bringing people together and its significance in the public imagination. In Mandela’s memoirs there are plenty of references to sport whilst he was incarcerated on Robben Island, perhaps most famously his love affair for the great tennis rivalry of Bjorn Borg and John McEnroe. Mandela famously handed over the William Webb-Ellis trophy to Francois Pienaar after South Africa beat New Zealand in the 1995 Rugby Union World Cup final.

This was not the last tournament the country was to host; South Africa hosted the ICC Cricket World Cup in 2003 and also held the Indian Premier League in 2009 after security fears in India from the Mumbai bombings. South Africa has a proud history of cricket and rugby and inevitably, these tournaments do not expect hundreds of thousands of fans from around the world to visit. South Africa’s opportunity to host football’s biggest event was twofold. One, FIFA President Sepp Blatter is a fan of expanding the game into new areas of the world and the unifying qualities it brings, which a rebranded country like South Africa would love. Secondly, Blatter owed FIFA’s African delegation a favour as their bloc vote helped him become FIFA President.

Politically South Africa has changed since the early years of Mandela rule. Now under the Presidency of Jacob Zuma, South Africa’s African National Congress (ANC) party is struggling in the polls and has an identity crisis. No longer is it seen as the unifying party, but is swarming with a new breed of young black politicians, most notoriously Julius Malema, who are more interested in business and patronage, rather than welfare and equality. Last month saw the ANC lose control of Cape Town in regional elections. Many say it is no longer a party of the people and prefers to look after its own elite.

Football is very much a black person’s game in South Africa. The ranks of its cricket and rugby sides are swarming with white stars, despite the constitutional laws of positive discrimination that ensure that teams are not full of certain races. A World Cup in South Africa was a political statement not just to the world, but to black South Africans as well.

Yet, costs to host the tournament spiralled and supposedly reached $3.5 billion dollars, more than three times more than original predictions. Many cities such as Cape Town and Durban are left with stadia that remain empty. Port Elizabeth has yet to host another match since the ending of last year’s tournament. South African club teams are reluctant to relocate because of the extortionate rental fees (Ajax Cape Town were quoted $100,000 a game despite attendances reaching fewer than 8,000) and inevitably a weaker Rand has meant going to watch football is more expensive. It is true that in Portugal and South Korea, stadia were demolished after they held tournaments, but in a country where 50% of people live under the poverty line, where basic educational, health and welfare are every day issues, it does seem like a waste of money. Crime is a notorious issue in its cities, yet the federal Government struggled to pay the wages of its police force.

FIFA likes to acknowledge the good that football can bring, but it is at an exceptional cost. Legacy is an important thing to consider and many deemed the tournament to be a great success, but for the average black South African living in a township, how much did it cost their future?

Printing the presses

The week’s dominating story surrounding the phone hacking allegations made by News of the World (NOTW) journalists is becoming an ever increasing business and publicity nightmare for News Corporation and Rupert Murdoch. This afternoon’s announcement that Britain’s biggest selling newspaper will stop printing after 168 years is a serious blow to the revenue stream of the world’s most famous media mogul. With probable criminal investigations and multiple public inquires into the scandal much scrutiny is being placed on News International’s Chief Executive Rebekah Wade (former editor of the NOTW) and her successor Andy Coulson (and deputy at the time) who later went on to become David Cameron’s press secretary. Yet how much scrutiny should also be focussed on the Prime Minister? Many commentators believe politicians kowtow to easily the media, especially the printing presses, but is Mr Cameron’s slow response subject to what some may say is an unhealthy relationship.

According to sales figures from March the newspapers (The Sun, The Times, The Sunday Times and NOTW) from News Corp sell well over 23 million copies each week. Even in a medium where circulation is dropping year on year) the power of newspapers to drive opinion is still an extremely important vehicle for politicians to maintain. Under Mrs Thatcher, Rupert Murdoch enjoyed an extremely healthy relationship and used his friendship to acquire the Times, without it being referred to the Monopoly Commission. He in turn used his power to back Maggie in her fights against the Miners and in Brussels. Later on, during the New Labour years, armed with two fierce media men, former political editor of the Daily Mirror Alastair Campbell and Peter Mandelson, Tony Blair was able to contrive most editors into plugging his vision of a new Britain. It became extremely insidious and some of the press had sympathies with the government after the Iraq War and the Hutton Inquiry into the death of the weapons inspector Dr David Kelly.

So is Cameron really at fault? Is it not part of the political game? He courted the Murdoch press during his time in opposition and they forcibly backed him against the dithering Gordon Brown in the 2010 election. Does he not owe them a favour in return? There are plenty of examples from overseas, particularly America, that show what problems Presidents can face when they get on to the wrong side of the press. The Watergate scandal saw the downfall of Richard Nixon and many saw the end of Lyndon B Johnson’s presidency down to the press coverage of the Vietnam War. The CBS anchor Walter Cronkite famously reported that the conflict was “mired in stalemate” to which LBJ was reported to have said “If I’ve lost Cronkite, I’ve lost Middle America.” Since these times politicians have seen it as a duty to court the press. As Enoch Powell said “Politicians criticising journalists is like sailors criticising the weather”. They are in affect part of the game.

Cameron is known to dine regularly with the likes of Matthew Freud, a PR man who is married to one Elisabeth Murdoch and he also attended the wedding of Brookes two years ago. So far, the Murdoch press has been very loyal to the coalition Government, yet the resignation of Andy Coulson was when many questioned started to question Mr Cameron’s own integrity.

This is particularly why the Prime Minister needs to be careful, people will think the delay and dithering of his response come down to the fact that he does not want to decapitate a Government-endorsing newspaper. When questions are now being raised that the PM knew that Coulson was complicit in signing off cheques to bribe policemen then the pernicious details do not look favourably on Mr Cameron or the Murdochs. The reputation of the British press is notoriously sensationalist and scandal based, but the public fury and ethical questions being asked are not good all round, Mr Cameron should be aware of this and know when issues are in the interest of the people rather than himself.