The title of this blog is the title of the Economist Special Report last week. The title refers, of course, to the 60th anniversary of the Treaty of Rome, the founding of the EU at its source, being celebrated by EU members, less the U.K., last week. Oddly the U.K. is still a member but since she wants out, political correctness prevents Albion from upstaging proceedings.
The Economist special report is really good. It is well balanced and actually concludes that Europe needs a multi-speed system to respect all the differing political and economic challenges across the EU. What is irksome though is that while a two-speed or multi-speed approach has been proposed before, why is it now that the Economist has finally woken up to reporting it and making it the basis of its views regarding the success of the EU?
It is as if the Economist has woken up just in time to see the final deck chair arrangement on the titanic. Correctly the special report calls out the weakness and fallacy of the EU’s monetary policies for all members and now current monetary union is flawed. We all knew this a while ago. If this had been addressed perhaps the U.K. vote for Brexit might never have happened!
But ignoring my cryptic criticism, the article is very up to date and very down to earth. It’s just a shame that it took Brexit and the near break up of the EU, and continuing mess in Greece and Italy to come to the conclusion we needed four years ago.
I have read and loved the Economist form over 25 years. It has been a constant source of (classic, not modern) liberal, free market, small government advise and lens on an increasingly (modern, and so progressive) liberal, socialist, pedantic world. But this last week I have seen a change.
In the run up to the US election the newspaper would respond to Trump’s spoken word as if it were gospel. As such the newspaper ridiculed him and suggested he was not fit to be president. Yet that same newspaper would ignore what Clinton has done in office and privately and wrote about her as if she were a conservative member for Finchley! And a good presidential candidate, too.
This was and is all upside down. Both candidates were bad options. Both are walking disasters. But the way in which the newspaper seems to favor Clinton of Trump has lessened my faith in it.
Now, the next edition after the election, the paper continues to write about Trump as if his campaign rhetoric should equate to policy. Is the Economist that naive? Even listening to the news it is clear that president-elect Trump is very different to Trump the campaigner.
The wall with Mexico might not be a wall, all the way. No kidding. Tariffs are about negotiation. Of course. Immigration will look at the 2m criminals, not the 11m, for possible deportation. NATO is key. Right.
The economist seems to not like Trump. Or maybe it seeks to present itself with holier-than-though credentials. I really cannot tell.
I still love my weekly economist but I did not like multiple articles this week. They clearly write from a one-sided and illogical perspective. I hope that next week’s copy is more realistic and up to date.