Dr. Stacey Gutkowski discusses her new book based on fieldwork, interviews and surveys conducted after the 2014 Gaza War
Panelists:
Dr. Stacey Gutkowski, Senior Lecturer in Conflict Studies, Department of War Studies, King’s College London
Dr. Ian Black, Visiting Senior Fellow, Middle East Centre, LSE
How do secular Jewish Israeli millennials feel about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, having come of age in the shadow of the Oslo peace process, when political leaders have used ethno-religious rhetoric as a dividing force? This is the first book to analyze blowback to Palestinian and Jewish-Israeli religious nationalism among this group in their own words, based on fieldwork, interviews and surveys conducted after the 2014 Gaza War.
Wake up to the Trusted Mideast News source Mideast Daily News Email
By subscribing, you agree to The Media Line terms of use and privacy policy.
Offering a close reading of the lived experience and generational memory of participants, Stacey Gutkowski offers a new explanation for why attitudes to occupation have grown increasingly conservative over the past two decades. Examining the intimate emotional ecology of occupation, this book offers a new argument about neo-Romantic conceptions of citizenship among this group. Beyond the case study, Religion, War and Israel’s Secular Millennials: Being Reasonable? also provides a new theoretical framework and research methods for researchers and students studying emotion, religion, nationalism, secularism and political violence around the world.
Dr. Stacey Gutkowski is a senior lecturer in Conflict Studies and Co-Director of the Centre for the Study of Divided Societies in the Department of War Studies, King’s College London. Her research analyzes peace, conflict, religion and the secular across the Arab world and Israel. She co-edits the book series Religion and its Others: Studies in Religion, Nonreligion and Secularity and is former co-director of the Nonreligion and Secularity Research Network (2008-20).
Dr Ian Black is a visiting senior fellow at the Middle East Centre, London School of Economics. He is a former Middle East editor, diplomatic editor and European editor for the Guardian newspaper. His most recent book is Enemies and Neighbors: Arabs and Jews in Palestine and Israel, 1917-2017 (Allen Lane, 2017).
This event will be held on Zoom, once registered you will receive the access details via email prior to the event.
A post-Brexit trade deal appeared to be a way off this weekend after the UK reportedly labelled the EU’s offer on fishing rights “derisory”.
EU chief negotiator Michel Barnier is back in London today for the latest round of talks. Face-to-face negotiations had to be postponed just over a week ago when a member of Barnier’s team caught coronavirus.
Before Barnier was forced into self-isolation, things were looking up for a Brexit deal. Yet the two sides appear to be far apart again on fishing with only weeks to go until the Brexit transition period ends.
Barnier reportedly told EU ambassadors at a meeting that he had offered the UK a 15 to 18 per cent reduction in the bloc’s fishing rights in British waters.
Yet British officials said the UK has dismissed the offer. The proposals, first reported by Irish broadcaster RTE, were called “derisory”.
Yesterday, Barnier said talks remained stalled over the “same divergences” of fisheries, state aid, and how to resolve future disputes.
The UK is keen to take a much bigger share of the EU’s current fishing rights in British waters, which are worth around €650m (£580m). Chief negotiator David Frost is pushing for around 80 per cent of the rights, according to reports.
Yesterday Frost tweeted: “For a deal to be possible it must fully respect UK sovereignty.
“That is not just a word – it has practical consequences. That includes: controlling our borders; deciding ourselves on a robust and principled subsidy control system; and controlling our fishing waters.”
City A.M. has contacted Number 10 and the European Commission for comment.
Labour mulls support for Brexit deal
Should a deal be agreed, the Labour Party is planning to back it in parliament, according to The Guardian. It comes as the party seeks to signal to voters in former Labour heartlands that it has heard them on Brexit.
Multiple sources told the paper that Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer is likely to tell his MPs that they must back the deal in a vote. Labour has been contacted for comment.
A Labour spokesperson said: “The Conservatives need to get a grip on the negotiations and deliver the trade deal they promised the British people at the last election.
“We have consistently said that no deal would be the worst possible scenario, especially with workers, families and businesses already under so much strain from the pandemic.
“Labour will look carefully at the detail of any deal if and when it is agreed.”
… ) — Teams from Britain and the European Union resumed face-to-face talks … the little time that remains. EU chief negotiator Michel Barnier returned …
The U.K. left the EU early this year, but remained … it entails. The 27-nation EU accuses Britain of seeking to …
The EU’s chief negotiator Michel Barnier said ‘we are far from the take it or leave it moment’ as he resumed make-or-break Brexit talks with Lord Frost today.
Mr Barnier arrived in London last night as both sides scramble to hash out a deal on future trading arrangements before Britain leaves the transition period in January.
It is the first time Lord Frost has met face-to-face with Mr Barnier since the French diplomat went into self-isolation after a member of his team caught coronavirus.
As it stands, Britain will leave the EU’s trade and customs area in five weeks with talks on a follow-on agreement stalled over fishing rights and fair trade rules.
Both parties warned yesterday that success was not guaranteed, with Mr Barnier tweeting that the ‘same significant divergences persist’.
A failure to strike an accord would result in a chaotic divorce on January 1, with the two sides forced to trade on World Trade Organisation terms which would see tariffs imposed on goods travelling into and out of the continent.
There is now huge pressure on negotiators to conclude the talks as soon as possible because of the amount of time it will take the EU to ratify and roll out any deal.
The EU’s chief negotiator Michel Barnier said ‘we are far from the take it or leave it moment’ as he resumed make-or-break Brexit talks with Lord Frost today
Lord Frost said he believes a post-Brexit trade deal with the EU ‘is still possible’ as Michel Barnier heads to London to resume face-to-face negotiations
There are fears that if talks continue beyond next week then the bloc could struggle to complete the ratification and implementation process before January 1.
‘We are not far from the take it or leave it moment,’ Mr Barnier later told EU ambassadors, according to a source familiar with the closed-door meeting.
Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s lead negotiator Lord Frost said that people were ‘asking me why we are still talking,’ he said in a tweet.
‘It’s my job to do my utmost to see if the conditions for a deal exist. It is late but a deal is still possible, and I will continue to talk until it’s clear that it isn’t.
‘But for a deal to be possible it must fully respect UK sovereignty. That is not just a word – it has practical consequences.
‘That includes: controlling our borders; deciding ourselves on a robust and principled subsidy control system; and controlling our fishing waters.
‘We look to reach an agreement on this basis, allowing the new beginning to our relationship with the EU which, for our part, we have always wanted. We will continue to work hard to get it – because an agreement on any other basis is not possible.’
Britain has been trading on the same terms with the EU since it officially left the bloc in January as part of a transition agreement that expires at the end of the year.
It is the first time Lord Frost has met face-to-face with Mr Barnier since the French diplomat went into self-isolation after a member of his team caught coronavirus
Mr Barnier arrived in London last night as both sides scramble to hash out a deal on future trading arrangements before Britain leaves the transition period in January
If the two parties fail to secure a post-Brexit deal, a no-deal scenario is widely expected to cause economic chaos, with customs checks required at borders.
Concern is particularly acute on the border between EU member Ireland and the British province of Northern Ireland, where the sudden imposition of a hard border threatens the delicate peace secured by 1999’s Good Friday Agreement.
Mr Johnson spoke with Irish premier Micheal Martin late Friday and ‘underlined his commitment to reaching a deal that respects the sovereignty of the UK’.
But he also ‘reaffirmed the need to prioritise the Good Friday Agreement and avoid a hard border on the island of Ireland,’ according to London.
Mr Johnson earlier told reporters the ‘likelihood of a deal is very much determined by our friends and partners in the EU’, adding there were ‘substantial and important differences to be bridged.’
A key sticking point is the EU’s demand for a post-Brexit ‘level playing field’, with punishing trade penalties if either side diverges from agreed standards or state aid regulations, but Britain does not want to be bound by rules made in Brussels.
Britain’s fishing waters are also a hot topic, with sources on Friday saying that Barnier told envoys that London was asking that European access to them be cut by 80 percent, while the EU was willing to accept 15 to 18 percent.
The talks have already pushed on much longer than expected and time is running out for ratification of any deal by the European Parliament by the end of the year.
Lord Frost said he believed a deal can still be achieved as he vowed to ‘continue to talk until it’s clear’ that the two sides cannot reach an agreement. However, he said for a deal to be done it ‘must fully respect UK sovereignty’ as he stressed that is ‘not just a word’
Members of the European Parliament have expressed frustration with the delays and may have to ratify a deal between Christmas and the New Year.
In Brussels, one source close to the talks said she would ‘eat my hat’ if there was a deal by Monday, echoing a chorus of complaints that Johnson was playing the clock
Last night, Mr Barnier said he was ‘very happy to be back in London’ and vowed to ‘continue the work with patience and determination’.
The Frenchman, who arrived at St Pancras International, had said yesterday morning that the ‘same significant divergences persist’.
Lord Frost said he believed a deal can still be achieved as he vowed to ‘continue to talk until it’s clear’ that the two sides cannot reach an agreement.
However, he said for a deal to be done it ‘must fully respect UK sovereignty’ as he stressed that is ‘not just a word’ but something which has ‘practical consequences’.
European Parliament called for tough sanctions against Turkey on Nov. 26
Members of the European Parliament on Thursday voted in favor of a resolution calling on the European Council to impose urgent sanctions against Turkey.
The measure was promoted by what the European Parliament called Turkey’s o”illegal activities in the Varosha suburb of the city of Famagusta” in Cyprus.
In 1974, the Turkish army fenced off Varosha, a beach resort immediately after the invasion of Cyprus. The Greek Cypriots who fled from Varosha were not allowed to return and with public entry prohibited, Varosha has effectively become a ghost town.
Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan angered Cyprus when he visited Verosha on November 15. Ankara backed the partial re-opening of Varosha in a move criticised by the United States, Greece and Greek Cypriots.
Erdogan’s visit this month capped months of tensions between Turkey, Greece, and Cyprus, as well as Europe, when Ankara began exploring for natural resources off the coast of Cyprus. This prompted a military buildup on the Eastern Mediterranean, alarming other states such as Egypt.
Members of the European Parliament on Thursday warned that Turkey’s decision to partially open the town of Varosha, “weakens prospects of a comprehensive solution to the Cyprus problem, exacerbating divisions and entrenching the permanent partition of the island”.
They also called on Turkey to transfer Varosha to its lawful inhabitants under the UN temporary administration in accordance with UN Security Council Resolution 550 (1984) and to refrain from any actions that alter the demographic balance on the island through a “policy of illegal settlement.”
In response, Turkey’s Foreign Ministry condemned the resolution, saying: “We completely reject the non-binding resolution adopted by the MEPs on our country and the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus.”
“This decision, which is undoubtedly dictated by the Greek Cypriot administration, once again demonstrates how disconnected from reality and prejudiced the EP is on the Cyprus issue,” he continued.
Earlier this month, the European Union’s foreign policy chief, Josep Borrell, criticized Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s visit to northern Cyprus during which he called for a “two-state” solution in the island.
“These [actions] will cause greater distrust and tension in the region and should be urgently reversed,” he said.
The island of Cyprus was divided in 1974. The island’s Greek Cypriots live predominantly in the south, and Turkish Cypriots in the north since the 1974 war. Several peacemaking efforts have failed and the discovery of offshore resources has complicated the negotiations.
Unfortunately, our website is currently unavailable in most European countries. We are engaged on the issue and committed to looking at options that support our full range of digital offerings to the EU market. We continue to identify technical compliance solutions that will provide all readers with our award-winning journalism.
Interview with Yves Mersch, Member of the Executive Board of the ECB, conducted by Marie Charrel and Eric Albert
28 November 2020
How do you feel about the euro today compared with your hopes and expectations at the time of negotiating the Maastricht Treaty?
At the time, it was a leap into the unknown. The international financial markets were sceptical. And we didn’t know whether citizens would embrace the new currency. Today, I am very satisfied with the outcome. First of all, the euro has won the wholehearted approval of more than 75% of Europe’s citizens. And even the most eurosceptic of political parties have changed their opinion on this given that Europe’s citizens do not want to “undo” what has already been accomplished.
What’s more, it’s a currency valued by the corporate sector and sought after by the financial markets. Only a few years ago, there were still concerns that the euro area might fall apart. The political response to the crisis and the steps taken by the European Central Bank quelled those concerns. Today, the differences in interest rates across countries, across firms in those countries, have been reduced. And there is heightened demand on the part of international investors for euro-denominated assets, even though we do not have the same financial market depth as other countries, such as the United States.
There is still scepticism surrounding the euro. Are you at all concerned by the mistrust of Monetary Union voiced in Italy at the start of the pandemic, or in Greece during the 2012-15 crisis?
It is always easier to blame Europe for what’s not working and attribute success to national policies, and that can fan the flames of this mistrust. In spite of all that, public support for the euro is strong. In some Member States, it is even close to 90%. We shouldn’t forget about the permanent transfers that flow within the EU from its more developed to its less developed members. If the latter were not in the euro area, their debt would undoubtedly not be financed at such low interest rates. Leaving the euro area would increase their debt servicing costs through interest rate levels and devaluations, which would mean less money for investment, research and education. And by the way, we can also ponder whether or not the younger Member States would remain intact if they left the single currency and the EU.
The euro nevertheless went through a major crisis between 2010 and 2015, which led to huge social upheaval…
The initial agreement was that we would have a single currency, but that fiscal, economic and structural policies would be kept at national level. We were aware that it was a source of tension, which still exists today. But we learned lessons from the last financial crisis. The response to the pandemic has led to much closer coordination, as it happens, between monetary policy and national fiscal policies. And the Stability and Growth Pact (which caps the budget deficit at 3% of GDP) has even been temporarily put on hold.
The EU has also reached an agreement on a €750 billion recovery package. Talks to finalise the package are ongoing. Is this a “Hamiltonian moment” for the EU in terms of taking a step closer towards federalism?
It is a very important step. Europe has shown that it is still capable of employing its political capital to respond with solidarity. This has had a considerable impact on non-European investor confidence. But the European recovery package is temporary in nature, for use only in response to the pandemic. To say that it marks the beginning of the “United States of Europe” is going a bit far. The situation is very different from when Alexander Hamilton advocated for US federalism in the 18th century in the wake of the civil war. At that time, there was a very clear financial benefit to consolidating the debt of the southern states funded by their northern counterparts.
From an economic perspective, has Europe fallen behind the United States since the 2008 crisis?
We can make up the ground that we have lost. The gap has come about due to structural factors. There are strong trends such as demographic change (moving at a faster pace in the United States) behind the difference in per capita GDP. There is also the proportion of funding to the economy provided by banks in Europe. When a banking crisis occurs in an already weakened sector, it has a knock-on effect on the entire economy, and the recovery takes even longer. We have learned from this, which is why we set up the banking union and insisted on the need for a capital markets union. Moreover, European fiscal policies have been excessively procyclical. As a result, countries that built up their reserves are currently in a much better financial position to deal with the pandemic crisis, whereas those with the highest levels of debt know that there are limits to the action they can take.
There is also the issue of private debt. At the beginning, it was higher in the United States, but it has been brought down much faster there than in Europe. Last of all, Europe needs to implement structural reform at national level. Recommendations have been made, but they haven’t resulted in action being taken. The same goes for the Stability and Growth Pact: the rules are not being complied with. To me, there is a significant lack of governance which needs to be fixed. To be master of its own destiny and compete with the United States, Europe needs to solve its structural weaknesses.
Since the euro area was created, it has remained an unfinished project, edging slowly towards completion, and only during times of crisis. Do you know why?
The differences across the economic, financial and political cycles, which are never aligned in the various Member States, are holding back progress. This poses a challenge to the task of building Europe, which, as Jean Monnet pointed out, only picks up speed in times of crisis. But once you’ve been working this way for 30 years, it becomes second nature! It is difficult to avoid these delays and complexities when you embark upon a project as colossal as building the European Union in peacetime. Similar projects in other countries have often been the result of civil wars.
In the long run, will the EU Treaties need to be amended?
We can already implement significant reforms without changing any Treaty, such as creating the capital markets union a must for us or completing banking union. Reform in other areas will be more challenging. Transferring some powers that have remained at the national level up until now, such as budgetary authority, or taxation – still subject to the unanimity rule – will thus be very difficult to do without transferring a degree of national democratic representation – sovereignty – to the European level. The issuance of common European debt is a sign of significant progress, but common budgetary capacity or a European budget worthy of the name are still a long way off. Currently, the European Parliament is above all else responsible for expenditure, but very little revenue: the system is therefore flawed. During the discussions held prior to the Maastricht Treaty, we were convinced that the single currency would act as a catalyst for European integration. We were hopeful that the markets would push in that direction. But in this respect, they have at the very least…been slow to respond.
Many people today are calling for a review of the Stability and Growth Pact at the very least – the target of 3% of GDP for the budget deficit and of 60% of GDP for debt – a target with which Member States are no longer able to comply. Should the Maastricht rules be reviewed? If so, in what way?
The less we have complied with these rules, the more complex and confusing they have become for the general public, which is not very democratic. However, it is true that they are a reflection of the situation in the 1990s when inflation and growth hovered around 2%. We can simplify and revise them to take into account the effects of globalisation, demographic change, and the fall in the equilibrium interest rate. But it is also worth noting that there is currently a debate in Germany to bring the budget deficit to below the 3% mark in 2022 or 2023. At the end of the day, compliance with the rules has nothing to do with the economy. It is more a matter of political science and law. Abolishing the Maastricht rules will not improve the functioning of our economies. For that to happen, we need to improve our capacity for growth, and therefore implement structural reforms.
By aiming to comply with these fiscal rules at all costs, isn’t there a risk that we may make the same mistake we made in 2010 by reintroducing austerity policies too early?
Making public spending more efficient is not the same as austerity. The temporary budgetary support measures are not sustainable if there is no recovery in activity levels. From the outset, the Stability and Growth Pact required a balanced budget. Is that a bad thing? We need to find a common response to this issue. If it is the norm to have a budget deficit of, let’s say, 5% of GDP, this means that national as well as international investors need to be found to finance it. International investors like policies that are predictable, robust and sustainable over the long term. We have the benefit of a stable currency that has the backing of our citizens. This should not be undermined by an unsustainable fiscal policy.
Over the next few years, what changes would you like to see within the EU?
Structurally, we need to continue with our efforts in education and research which are crucial for our future. But we also need to provide a more tangible response to the issues that are of major concern to our fellow citizens. How will Europe deal with matters of internal and external security? How will it deal with healthcare? Are we convinced that the response to the pandemic should be purely domestic, as should the response to terrorism? The problem is that as the Treaties currently stand, we cannot respond at the European level.
You have attended more than 500 Governing Council meetings. Do you have any regrets or are there any particular success stories that come to mind?
Before joining the ECB, I also attended several hundred ECOFIN meetings and around a hundred EU Council meetings. Europe is part of who I am, so please forgive me. The success stories are always collective, never individual. At the ECB, a young institution, we have always favoured a more federal-style and consensus-based decision-making process. It works very well. And it also makes it possible to overcome the all-too-often intergovernmental approach to European decision-making.
World Economic Forum, CC BY-SA 2.0 , via Wikimedia Commons
Interview with Luis de Guindos, Vice-President of the ECB, conducted by Petri Sajari on 24 November 2020
28 November 2020
What are the key risks for the euro area recovery at the moment?
The fourth quarter of 2020 will be marked by the measures taken by euro area governments to deal with the new wave of coronavirus (COVID-19) infections that started after the summer. While these containment measures are generally not on the same scale as those taken in March or April, they will have an impact on the economy. We had a welcome surprise in the third quarter, but our quarter-on-quarter growth projection for the fourth, which was slightly above 3%, will not be met. Looking at leading indicators such as the purchasing managers’ index, negative quarter-on-quarter growth is now the most realistic scenario for the end of the year.
The main issue in the near future will be the availability of the vaccine and the precise details of how and when it is to be rolled out. The news is having a positive impact on market sentiment, but the implementation of the vaccine warrants our attention. Hopefully, a very high percentage of the population will soon be vaccinated and the nightmare of this pandemic will begin to draw to a close.
According to the International Monetary Fund, the pandemic will have the largest impact on the eurozone economy. What do you think the long-term damage of this crisis will be?
There are indeed factors that cause concern. The first long-term consequence of the pandemic is that public debt-to-GDP ratios will increase by between 15 and 20 percentage points. Similarly, leverage in the private, mainly corporate, sector will also increase. And there is a risk, which we need to avoid, of long-term scars in the labour market. Currently we see a decoupling between the drop in economic activity and the evolution of the labour market, i.e. unemployment levels have not risen by as much as you would expect with such a deep decline in activity. This is because the temporary work schemes implemented by governments across Europe are avoiding a sharp increase in unemployment.
We believe the economy will start to recover in 2021 and continue its revival in 2022. It will be essential that those who are currently on furlough schemes continue to belong to the labour force, and that those who have lost their jobs can rejoin the labour market. We can then not only recover the level of economic activity we had before the pandemic, but also the level of employment.
If the crisis gets worse, which now seems inevitable, what more will the ECB be able to do?
As I’ve mentioned, the fourth quarter will be worse than forecast, but the medium-term outlook – mainly because of the ray of hope brought by news of the vaccine – looks brighter. However, when we assess our instruments we do not only look at economic output. We also look at the evolution of inflation, which is our primary mandate. Inflation will be negative until the end of the year and we expect that it will turn positive next year because some drivers of this negative inflation will be reverted, for instance the reductions in value added tax or the sharp decline in oil prices caused by the lack of economic activity. All in all, we expect inflation to be close to 1% in 2021 and to see it moving up towards 1.2% or 1.3% in 2022.
As President Lagarde indicated after the last Governing Council meeting, we will recalibrate our instruments in December and this recalibration mainly involves our targeted longer-term refinancing operations (TLTRO), which is an instrument to inject liquidity into the banking sector, and the pandemic emergency purchase programme (PEPP), which right now comprises an envelope of €1.35 trillion to be implemented until mid-2021.These are the two main tools if the situation gets darker, although the arrival of the vaccines brings hope regarding the medium-term outlook.
Is there a risk that low interest rates, combined with the asset purchase program and the PEPP, are creating zombie companies that would not have survived under normal financial conditions and are therefore an obstacle to creative destruction?
The interest rate environment is not only a consequence of monetary policy decisions. It is also the consequence of a combination of other factors, such as globalisation, digitalisation and demographics. These have made the natural interest rate, which is a real variable rather than a monetary variable, decline over time. This, combined with very low inflation expectations, has created a situation where nominal interest rates, which are the ones we observe in the markets, are very low. But this is not only a result of monetary policy – it also reflects a decline in the natural interest rate.
Furthermore, low rates have been very useful in sustaining economic activity. Without them, the process would most likely not just have been one of creative destruction but one of simple destruction of companies and a decline in GDP.
Some might also say that the high debt levels in the economy will lead to zombie banks and zombie companies that constrain growth because of extraordinary debt burdens. What is your assessment of this?
As I mentioned earlier, there will be a legacy of debt after this crisis, in both the public and the private sector, and we will have to take this into consideration. But there is no alternative in the short term. The first line of defence against the consequences of the pandemic has been, and had to be, fiscal policy. The alternative – doing nothing – would have had much worse consequences in the short term and also in the medium and long term.
Regarding private debt, when you experience a decline in revenues as substantial as that experienced by many European companies, you need to try to bridge the gap and survive until the pandemic is over. And to do that you need to take on debt. There’s no alternative. Once the pandemic is over, issues such as fiscal sustainability and private lending will come to the fore, but in the short term there is no alternative.
Let’s move to the banking system. What are the main vulnerabilities in the eurozone banking system?
European banks have more capital and are more liquid and resilient than before the global financial crisis. But their weak point is very low profitability, which is reflected in very low valuations. This is not trivial, as it has an impact on their capacity to raise capital in the markets or generate it organically. It also makes it challenging to achieve an adequate level of provisioning that is in line with developments in the economy. Profitability was already the key weak point before the pandemic, and the crisis has aggravated it. Banks will also suffer a decline in revenues and the level of non-performing loans (NPLs) will go up. We expect the bulk of the NPL wave to come in the first half of next year.
Do you believe there will be consolidation via mergers and acquisitions in the eurozone banking sector?
We have started to see some consolidation, for instance in Italy and Spain. So far it’s domestic consolidation. It would be good if we also saw some cross-border consolidation. Consolidation is not a target in itself, but it could be a way to reduce excess capacity and costs.
The ECB started its asset purchase programme in early 2015 and abandoned it in late 2018. In autumn 2019, it was started again, but inflation remains very low. What are the key factors behind this extraordinarily low inflation?
Both headline and core inflation have been low over the last ten years and, as I mentioned, there are some structural factors, such as digitalisation, globalisation and demographics, that help explain why. In 2015 and 2016, there was a clear risk of deflation and the ECB acted to avoid it and to anchor inflation expectations. It remains to be seen what will happen with some of these factors. For instance, globalisation will likely not be as intense as it has been in recent decades, as the pandemic could make value chains more regional, which might have an impact on inflation. However, according to our projections inflation will remain low, and we will therefore keep monetary policy accommodative so that inflation can converge to our medium term aim.
In July 2020 the European Union introduced a recovery plan worth €750 billion. What is your take on that? Is there a risk that States may use it in a manner that does not promote structural changes?
The Next Generation EU fund is a very positive response, not only because of its size but also because it sends a very clear signal of the common willingness to defend Europe and the euro area. And regarding the funds, indeed, it’s not about spending but about spending properly, through programmes that can transform the European economy and accompany the structural reforms needed to improve productivity and enhance competitiveness. The European Commission will monitor this spending. If this money is not spent properly, we will be missing a great opportunity to make the European economy greener, more digital and more competitive.
Since introducing the PEPP in March, the ECB has definitely been able to calm the markets, but many people might still wonder how the programme has supported the real economy and households. What is your answer?
Calming the situation in the sovereign debt markets also brought reassurance to other markets, which has had a positive impact on the financing conditions that banks offer to their clients, households and companies. By avoiding fragmentation in the sovereign debt markets, we also avoided a credit crunch. Furthermore, PEPP also includes corporate sector purchases such as bonds or commercial paper.
Do you believe the attitude towards public debt has changed for good? Or is this change temporary, based on the fact that extraordinary times require extraordinary actions to support the economy?
Fiscal policy has to be the first line of defence, and fiscal deficits will be the consequence of the measures that governments have taken and will continue to take to address the impact of the pandemic. Public expenditure has to focus on the pandemic, for instance on furlough or public guarantee schemes, healthcare, etc. As a result, we will see larger public debt ratios. But in the medium term, once the pandemic is over, the situation will need to be addressed to ensure the sustainability of public finances.
So, basically, your answer is that you don’t believe that there has been a major shift in attitude towards public debt?
The big change is that the pandemic has caused a public health crisis which demanded a fiscal response. There was no alternative and, in the medium term, we will see higher public debt ratios. We will have to deal with that once the pandemic is over.
The response to this crisis has been quite different from what it was ten years ago, when the eurozone crisis began, because then the constant narrative was that we cannot allow public debt to increase.
This time is different. This crisis hasn’t been triggered by banks or financial stability troubles, as was the case in 2008. This is an exogenous shock of a magnitude we have not seen since the end of the Second World War. The policy response was the only one available: fiscal measures as the first line of defence, accompanied by monetary policy. Not acting rapidly on the fiscal side would have provoked an even deeper decline in GDP, and fiscal policy would also have had to react to that.
Former liberal-turned-conservative author David Horowitz called the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling that prohibited New York Gov. Mario Cuomo’s COVID-19-justified limits on religious gatherings ”refreshing” because the ”Democrat Party has abandoned America.”
”The most troubling thing about all the troubles we’re going through is how the Democrat Party has abandoned America,” the 81-year-old Horowitz said on Newsmax TV’s ”The Chris Salcedo Show” on Friday.
”They’ve forgotten the fundamental principles. It’s refreshing to see the Supreme Court reassert them. But it should have been a 9-0 vote. You can’t defend the freedom of liquor stores to open and not churches and synagogues.”
Horowitz was reacting to the Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision issued late Wednesday that barred Cuomo from enforcing his ”cluster initiative” that placed limits on church services to ostensibly limit the spread of the novel coronavirus.
The ruling appeared to overturn two previous rulings this summer, the most recent in July regarding a case out of Nevada in which a 5-4 court approved much stricter state regulations on churches than casinos.
The Nevada case, and an earlier one out of California, came with Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the court. She died in September and was replaced by Amy Coney Barrett.
”The most basic freedom we have as Americans is religious freedom, freedom of conscience,” said Horowitz, whose book, ”Blitz: Trump Will Smash the Left and Win” released in June has been listed on the bestsellers list of The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and USA Today.
”It’s how the country was created. It was created by religious refugees from religious persecution.”
Important: See Newsmax TV now carried in 70 million cable homes, on DirecTVCh. 349, Dish Network Ch. 216, Xfinity Ch. 1115, Spectrum, U-verse Ch. 1220, FiOS Ch. 615, Optimum Ch. 102, Cox cable, Suddenlink Ch. 102, Mediacom Ch. 277, or Find More Cable Systems – Click Here.
In a statement released by the Holy See Press Office on Friday evening, Pope Francis voiced his concern for the situation in Ethiopia’s Tigray region, as well as surrounding areas.
Matteo Bruni, Press Office Director, said the Pope is following news of the conflict closely.
“Because of the violence, hundreds of civilians have died and tens of thousands of people are forced to flee their homes to Sudan,” the statement read. “During the Angelus on 8 November, Pope Francis, referring to the ongoing conflict in Ethiopia, said: ‘While I urge that the temptation of an armed conflict be rejected, I invite everyone to prayer and to fraternal respect, to dialogue and to a peaceful resolution to the disagreements.’”
In the statement, the Pope also lamented the worsening humanitarian situation.
“The Holy Father, in calling for prayer for this country, appeals to the parties to the conflict to stop the violence, to protect all lives, especially those of civilians, and to restore peace to the people.”
Meanwhile, Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed has received three African ex-leaders working on behalf of the African Union. Joaquim Chissano of Mozambique, Ellen Johnson Sirleaf of Liberia, and Kgalema Motlanthe of South Africa all arrived in Ethiopia for talks on Friday.
The AU called for an immediate halt to hostilities on 10 November, but the conflict only spiralled further out of control.
Final offensive
Now, Abiy’s army is currently poised for a final offensive against regional forces in the Tigray region. Three weeks ago, he deployed the national Army on an offensive against local troops in Tigray after accusing them of attacking federal troops.
He said the military would bring an end to the fighting in the region and remove its leadership, which his government regards as illegal.
Standing firm
As it stands, the Tigray People’s Liberation Front (TPLF), which holds control of the northern region, still refuses to surrender its rule.
Abiy’s forces are currently near Mekelle, a city of 500,000 people. The TPLF said its forces would stand firm, as soldiers dug trenches and prepared fortifications.
Humanitarian emergency
Over the last few weeks, thousands have died and more than 30,000 refugees have fled to Sudan. Reports suggest this conflict is already spilling into Eritrea and destabilising the wider Horn of Africa.
On Friday, the UNHCR said nearly 100,000 Eritrean refugees in Tigray could run out of food as early as next week if supplies cannot reach them.
The UN are hoping to raise US$200 million to cover food, shelter and the other urgent needs of refugees, with plans to help 200,000 people over the next six-months.
