From the possibility of GREXIT to the reality of BREXIT, four years that shook the European Union to its foundations

In May 2012 this blog predicted that Greece would leave the 'euro zone'. Four years later Greece remains very much part of the 'European Project' whilst the United Kingdom prepares to trigger 'Article 50' and head for the BREXIT!

This blog was launched in May 2012 and, in those early days. Greece led the daily headlines. The Greeks were looking for their second bailout in two years and the economy was in a mess. Many commentators predicted that Greece would soon leave the 'euro zone', and perhaps the European Union itself. Despite the usual complaints from some Conservative MPs it was assumed that the United Kingdom was very much a long term member of the Union. In January 2013 that assumption was 'turned on its head' when the then Prime Minister, David Cameron, announced his intention to legislate for (in the event of a Conservative majority government) an 'in/out' referendum on whether the UK would remain a member of the European Union. In May 2015 (against all predictions) the General Election produced the first Conservative majority government since April 1992. David Cameron kept his promise and, (following renegotiation of the terms of UK membership of the EU), a referendum was held on 23 June 2016. Against all predictions the electorate voted by 52% to 48% to leave the European Union. Cameron resigned and was replaced by Theresa May and the the new administration is now on course to trigger Article 50 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (Lisbon Treaty) and thus begin the legal process of the United Kingdom ceasing to be a member of the European Union.

Thus from the possibility of GREXIT (remember this phrase?) we have, in four years, moved to the reality of BREXIT. At the conclusion of this decade the United Kingdom (assuming no delays) would have exited a major international organisation and brought to an end almost fifty years of participation in the so called 'European Project'. Greece appears secure in the 'euro zone' (though the Greek economy is still arguably a 'basket case') and the aim of the remaining twenty seven member states of the European Union is to proceed to 'ever closer union' albeit without the contribution of the United Kingdom. How and why did we get here? This blog post aims to assist the reader in the seismic shifts that have taken place in just over four years.

The original posts

It is worth revisiting what this blog stated back in May 2012. Here are the posts.

Grexit: what a Euro mess!

The future of the Euro

Four years on

This blog post looks at where we now are, over four years on, and asks the question why GREXIT failed to materialise whilst BREXIT is now a reality. It will be argued that the European Union was determined to maintain the integrity of the 'euro zone' regardless of the consequences to the Greek economy. The decision by David Cameron, in January 2013, to announce an intention to legislate for an in/out referendum was reckless. Contrary to expert opinion the outcome (a vote to leave) was always a possibility indeed it was likely as ordinary voters (especially outside London, Scotland, and Northern Ireland) had become disaffected with political elites and this had not been recognised. Although notions of national sovereignty and national identity were contributing factors to the vote to 'leave' immigration was by far the key single issue. which determined the outcome.

The GREXIT that never happened

Cast your mind back to mid 2012. All the news was about the impending departure of Greece from the 'euro zone'. The Greeks were negotiating their second bailout and the elections were predicted to bring the far left to power; who were making clear that they were not interested in the draconian terms on offer by the European Union,. the European Central Bank, and the International Monetary Fund ("the troika"). Civil unrest in Athens was a daily occurrence, and most European media outlets openly speculated about the imminent ejection from the 'euro zone' of Greece, possible contagion to countries such as Italy and Spain, and even the very real possibility of Greece leaving the European Union. Some went as far as to speculate about a military coup. The term GREXIT entered the popular lexicon.

The elections of 2012 resulted in New Democracy taking power. This centre right party was supportive of the austerity measures demanded by "the troika" and accepted the tough terms of the second bailout. At this point the immediate crisis was averted and talk of Greece leaving the 'euro zone' or the European Union abated. Early 2014 was to lead to a third bailout and yet more talk of Greece being ejected from the 'euro zone'; however, the real crisis was to come in 2015. Following early elections the far left Syriza led by Alexis Tsipras came to power on a manifesto to renegotiate the terms of the bailout and demand less austerity. This demand to reject austerity was to be reinforced by a referendum in July 2015 in which the Greek electorate voted to reject bailout conditions. Despite this rejection the bailout conditions were eventually accepted and talk of Greece leaving the 'euro zone' has again abated.

Was this a rejection of the democratic will of the people? Even as far back as November 2011 a government, led by George Papandreou of PASOK (centre left party), was effectively forced from office when it tried to call a referendum on the original bailout terms. The Papandreou government was replaced by a technocratic government led by Lucas Papademos. Ben Crum of the Department of Political Science of the University of Amsterdam argued in his paper, "Saving the Euro at the Cost of Democracy", that the present course towards executive federalism could be justified for preventing euro dissolution and recognising the value of national self-government; however, it threatens to come at a democratic price. Judicial Cat takes issue with this analysis. Executive federalism and national self government are two different concepts. The collapse of the Papandreou government in 2011 and the effective ignorance of the referendum of 2015 are two examples of were national self governance has been dismissed in favour of measures (unsupported by the electorate) put in place to protect a supra national currency. And this is exactly why Greece did not leave the 'euro zone' and GREXIT remains but a hypothetical concept. The protection of the 'euro zone' was put above all other outcomes. Greece was never going to be permitted to leave as to do so would mean that the 'elites' had 'failed'. The 'euro' was to be permanent and if one nation could leave then this opens the 'flood gates' and leads to the possibility of more important economies following them. The threat of 'contagion' was too much and had to be averted. Therefore the 'elites' of Europe did everything up to and including ignoring the will of the electorate, and forcing democratically elected governments from power, to protect the so called European project.

Although Judicial Cat believed Greece would leave the 'euro zone' ultimately, with hindsight, it is possible to argue that Greece was never going to be allowed to leave, for fear of the precedent it would set.

The fear of a hypothetical GREXIT led to the 'elites' of Europe ignoring the now very real reality of BREXIT.

Why Cameron granted the referendum

Since the early 1990s the Conservative Party has been divided over the merits of the United Kingdom being a member of the European Union. Arguably disagreements over Europe led to the fall of Margaret Thatcher from power. The government of her successor, John Major, was paralysed by arguments over Europe and especially the ratification of the Treaty on European Union ("TEU") (Maastricht). Central to "TEU" was the introduction of European Union Citizenship and, along with the completion of the single European market, complete freedom of movement for European Union citizens. At this time the European Union (European Community as it then was) consisted of twelve nations. Expansion to fifteen nations occurred in 1995; however, it was the expansion in 2004 and the accession of eight countries from the former eastern block that radically altered the public perception of the European Union, and which would lead twelve years later to the decision of the UK electorate to vote to leave. 

David Cameron became Prime Minister in 2010 and had to find a way of containing the discontent of his anti European Union MPs, and the surge of the United Kingdom Independence Party. Public concern over unlimited migration was also becoming an issue with arguments about access to public services, and the alleged driving down of wages in the lower skilled sectors of the economy. To combat these concerns Cameron announced in January 2013 that, in the event that the Conservatives formed a majority government after the scheduled general election of May 2015, a renegotiation of the terms of UK membership of the European Union would take place followed by an in/out referendum by the end of 2017. The May 2015 general election returned the Conservative Party to power with a majority for the first time since April 1992. Cameron now had to make good on his promise.

Renegotiation of a not so impressive nature

Cameron secured next to nothing with his renegotiation. He went into the negotiations looking to curb freedom of movement, access to benefits, and protection from further 'euro zone' integration. What he got was no concessions on freedom of movement, an emergency break on access to benefits that appeared so complicated that many felt that the The Court of Justice of the European Union, or the European Parliament, could block it in any event, and some loosely defined 'protections' for countries outside the 'euro zone'. In summary critics of Cameron were not impressed. Yet, he went into the referendum campaign with all the polls, and most experts predicting that the 'remain' argument would win, and win comfortably. Apart from a 'blip' in early June 2016 the polls consistently favoured 'remain' and on referendum night itself, 23 June 2016, early predictions suggested 'remain' had won by as much as ten percent. On the morning of 24 June 2016 'leave' had won by four percentage points. The United Kingdom was now heading for BREXIT. So why were the pundits wrong and why does the political career of David Cameron now lie in ruins.

Not all 'experts' predicted a win for 'remain'

Denis Macshane, a former Member of Parliament, and Minister for Europe in the Labour government, wrote a book entitled 'BREXIT How Britain Will Leave Europe'. Published in 2015 Macshane argues that 'different tributaries, political, economic, much of the press, cultural, identity, and historical' will come together in 'one power confluence' that will lead to the UK leaving the European Union. Macshane also argues that a growing dissatisfaction with political elites merged with the question of Europe. Crucially Macshane suggested that in order to win the referendum Cameron would need to secure a major concession from the European Union, which would involve some control of entry of EU citizens who seek to live and work in the UK. Macshane was most accurate with his assessment of the arguments. And it is worth noting that Macshane is a well known supporter of the European Union. Simon Tilford of the Centre for European Reform in a web pamphlet entitled 'Britain, immigration and Brexit' (published in December 2015/January 2016) was categorical; namely, if the UK voted to leave the EU it would be because of hostility to immigration. So here were two experts who, it turned out, called it absolutely right.

Sovereignty influential, but immigration determined the result

Judicial Cat argues that the pundits got it wrong because they could not see outside of London. Within England & Wales only London (by region) voted to remain part of the European Union. London is not representative of England & Wales. Those voting in the provinces were fed up of uncontrolled migration, their fears that wages were being driven down, and access to public services curtailed. There was a residual discontent that so called 'elites' were not taking such concerns seriously, or were simply dismissive of concerns relating to migration as 'racist'. Arguably there was a desire to teach such 'elites' a lesson and, to this end, the electorate engaged with the catchy phrase employed by the official leave campaign, 'Vote Leave and take back control'. Concerns about national sovereignty were influential but ultimately the 'voter in the street' was less concerned about academic arguments concerning European institutions rather than the very visible presence of perceived uncontrolled migration affecting their everyday lives. Experts such as Macshane and Tilford saw what was coming. Exit the M25 area and the reality was that the electorate was overwhelmingly hostile to the European Union. Scotland and Northern Ireland were special cases in terms of access to European funding (Scotland and Northern Ireland) and the special relationship between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. The electorate wanted to see an improvement to their own lives and felt the only way to achieve this was to seek a referendum result, which arguably would enable the UK to take control of who had the right to live and work in this country.

Conclusion

This blog has argued that the hypothetical of GREXIT became the reality of BREXIT because so called elites disregarded the concerns of their own citizens. In the case of Greece the clear decision of the electorate to renounce austerity was disregarded in favour of continuing the 'euro zone' and increasing integration further. Governments were replaced and decisions of elections ignored. In the United Kingdom the concerns of the electorate outside London were ignored, ridiculed, and dismissed as 'racist'. In Greece the 'elites' succeeded and got their way. The United Kingdom asserted its sovereignty and the electorate sent a very clear message to the European Union that the electorate could be ignored no more. That is why, four years after Judicial Cat predicted GREXIT, instead we have the reality of BREXIT.  

 

'Annexation' of Crimea is no less than an attempt by Putin to reconstitute the USSR

Make no mistake 'armed men' in Crimea represent the gravest crisis in East/West relations since the end of the cold war

A revolution in Ukraine leads to the most serious geopolitical crisis in Europe for over 35 years. What does the west appear to be doing about it? Absolutely nothing. Many will argue that the west should not get overly involved; however, Judicial Cat argues that the apparent invasion of Crimea by troops from the Russian Federation is merely the latest stage of a longer term strategy by Vladimir Putin to reconstitute the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in so far as actual territory and influence is concerned.

Situation in Crimea is straight out of 'Invasion 101'

It all started on the morning of 27 February 2014 when 'armed men' appeared to take over the Regional Parliament. The 'armed men' displayed no insignia but wore uniform and had equipment remarkably similar to that of troops from the Russian Federation. Events moved quickly with the takeover of two airports on 28 February 2014, the surrounding of a local Television Station, and (by the end of the day) reports of as many as 2000 Russian troops being flown in. Rumours of the closure of local airspace and the disconnection of telecommunications all added to the feeling that an invasion was well and truly underway. Late on 28 February 2014 United States President Barack Obama appeared to finally acknowledge the seriousness of the situation without giving any idea of what the response of the west would be, if anything. Judicial Cat offers an analogy. Imagine you are in the UK and wake up one morning to find (for argument sake) troops from the United States surrounding City Hall in London, the BBC, and maybe Heathrow airport. That would be a blatant breach of all agreements permitting US troops to be based in the UK. Why should it be any different for Russian troops based in part of Ukraine.

Putin's 'Real' Agenda

Let us not consider at the moment how Putin runs affairs in Russia. He is supposedly elected; however, it can be argued that the veracity of the elections in Russia are questionable at best. That is before we even consider the complete lack of respect for basic human rights within that country on a scale that would make any previous Soviet leader 'proud'. Instead consider Putin's background; namely, he is ex KGB and is reported to have stated that the breakup of the USSR was the single most disastrous event of the twentieth century. Russia considers countries such as Ukraine to be their 'near abroad'. In other words well within the Russian sphere of influence. Putin is alleged to not even consider countries like Ukraine to be 'real' or 'sovereign'. When considering an agenda one does not have to go much further than the 2008 invasion of Georgia and the subsequent occupation of South Ossetia. Although Russia was nominally led by Dmitry Medvedev at the time of the Georgian invasion make no mistake that event was Putin's call (who remained as Prime Minister). The pretext for that invasion was to 'protect' Russian ethnic 'citizens' who just so happened to have been fast tracked for Russian passports. The same modus operandi is in operation in Crimea today with reports of the Russian Foreign Ministry promising to fast track passport applications for Russian ethic 'citizens' based in that region of Ukraine. And on 1 March 2014 came reports of the 'regional leader' in Crimea inviting troops from Russia to protect the local population and institutions. It is a well tried and tested formula going back hundreds of years for any country wishing to legitimise what is a good old fashioned invasion and occupation of a region of another sovereign state.

Should Putin's Crimean adventure prove successful then where will he turn his attentions to next? That is why the current events in Crimea are dangerous and represent a major landmark in East/West relations.

A quarrel in a far away country between people of whom we know nothing

Students of history will recognise the above as a quote from former United Kingdom Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain in 1938. This was the reaction of the then UK government to the invasion of Czechoslovakia by Nazi Germany. Hitler, it will be recalled, was attempting to unite and 'protect' German speaking peoples. Within a year the second world war was underway when Hitler marched into a country for which the UK was not prepared to stand aside and allow to be annexed by a much larger bullying neighbour. And this is the problem with Crimea. A lot of readers will not realise that the UK as well as the United States of America are both bound to protect the territorial integrity of Ukraine by reason of being signatories to the Budapest Memorandum of 1994. Russia is also a signatory to this memorandum, which came about at the time Ukraine relinquished control of its share of the Soviet nuclear arsenal.

International lawyers will no doubt argue what exactly the signatories must do in the event that the territorial integrity of Ukraine is violated (which it already is) but it seems to Judicial Cat that, realistically, the UK and USA will not intervene militarily to protect Ukraine. Despite the assertions of many internet 'doom mongers' the west is not going to risk world war three over Ukraine. That being said the west must do something and the reaction must be strong.

What the west can, if anything, do

The problem with Putin is that he now has reason to believe that he can 'get away with it'. Nothing was done about the invasion of Georgia in 2008 and, in all probability, nothing will be done about Ukraine 2014. The only way to stop a bully (and Putin's Russia are bullies) is to standup to the bully and take it on directly. In summary Russia must feel the hurt were it will notice it most and that is economically. The west must give Russia a deadline to stand down the 'armed men' in Crimea or implement tough and immediate economic and other sanctions including freezing assets of Russian leaders, withdrawing visas from Russian citizens, refusing to deal with Russia in international organisations such as the G8 and generally treating Russia as an international pariah state.

The eastern flank of NATO should be bolstered and membership offered to states such as Georgia and Moldova. The west must send out a clear message that the expansionist agenda of Putin will not be tolerated any further.

Closing thoughts

Judicial Cat leaves you with this thought. Putin succeeds with the annexation of Crimea and decides, maybe some years later, that Russia needs to protect Russian speaking people in Lativa, Lithuania, or Estonia. The Baltic States are members of both NATO and the EU. At that stage there would be no discussions, debates about whether invasions are not invasions etc, there would be a major war and all that would entail. That is why this modern day form of 1930s style appeasement needs to stop and the west needs to put down a very clear line in the sand.

Thatcher: - getting the balance right! Speaking out as a child of the era!

She divided a nation but the post 1990 generation have no idea what Thatcher did for the UK in the 1980s

Your blogger was a child of the Thatcher era. Although born some years prior to her election as Prime Minister in 1979, Thatcher was the first PM your blogger had any memory of. The politics of the age were defined by her policies and, perhaps even more, by her personality. Almost a quarter of a century after she left office, and now even in death, the former Prime Minister arouses passions no other domestic political figure of the last 100 years comes even close to matching. Judicial Cat comments on her key achievements, and mistakes.

A lesson for those born after 28 November 1990

When the death of Margaret Thatcher was announced on 8 April 2013 the negative reaction from many was predictable. She was not universally admired, far from it. What was not so predictable and, in your blogger's view, almost ridiculous was the reaction of many twenty somethings; those who can have no memory of Thatcher's time in office. The generation born just before her resignation, or indeed some years later, can have no possible practical idea of her overall impact. Yet many revelled in the news of her death. 

Judicial Cat invites the post 1990 generation to imagine it is the late 1970s. There are no mobile phones, indeed if you had a landline phone you were considered 'affluent'. In order to actually get the landline phone one had to apply to the Post Office and wait around three months before it was installed. You had a choice of maybe three state approved colours for your telephone. No internet, indeed no personal computers. Three television channels, a national airline run by the government, the government of the UK run by Trade Union leaders  rather than the supposedly constitutionally formed government of the country. Depending on who was striking this week you did, or probably did not, have electricity running all week without interruption. Unless very affluent you did not take foreign holidays and if you did there were exchange controls regulating just how much foreign currency you could take out of the country. During the winter of 1978/1979, the streets remained uncleaned with rubbish piling up in Leicester Square, and the dead went unburied with bodies piling up in the mortuaries of Liverpool. In summary the UK approached the 1980s as the basket case of the west. This is the reality that Thatcher's critics conveniently seek to forget or claim to be an exaggeration; even those born some years after the events. This was the 'inheritance' Thatcher faced as she walked into 10 Downing Street as the nation's first female Prime Minister on 4 May 1979.

Key achievements 

Let us look at some of the positive achievements of her premiership. Judicial Cat would highlight the 'Right to Buy', taming the Trade Unions, and her uncompromising stance when it came to proposals for European Monetary Union (or the Euro in modern parlance). Right to Buy enabled those living in what we call 'Social Housing' to purchase the home they rented at a substantial discount. A whole generation who would never have made it onto the property ladder became home owners. Your blogger's parents were 32 when they proudly completed on the purchase of their social home. Without this help, these were people who could never have hoped to have owned property. Contrast this with today's, almost impossible challenge, for anyone under 35 to get on the housing ladder. Some argue this is the cause of today's housing crisis; however, Judicial Cat would disagree. Today's crisis is caused by the uncontrolled rents of the private sector and the failure of governments (including Thatcher's) to legislate for more secure tenancies within this sector. 

The Trade Unions had to be tamed. In 1974 the National Union of Mineworkers effectively brought down the government of Edward Heath. A decade later they were at it again this time under Arthur Scargill. A year long strike, called with no mandate from the union members whatsoever, was no less than an attempt to overturn the democratic result of a general election held less than a year earlier. The government had to make a stand and Thatcher was correct to do so. It is of some note that the Labour governments of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown made no attempt to reverse legislation outlawing secondary picketing and making strike ballots compulsory.

However, in your Blogger's opinion the most important legacy of Thatcher's time in office was also to lead to her downfall in November 1990. The nation owes her a debt of gratitude for having the foresight to warn of the perils of European Monetary Union. She correctly predicted that the idea would be a disaster. On this central issue she called it right and that has become crystal clear in the modern era as we witness the economic collapse of many countries within the eurozone. Some may argue that it was Gordon Brown who 'saved' us from the euro and he certainly played his practical part. That being said have no doubt about who had the foresight years before the project came to fruition, and that was Margaret Thatcher. On foreign policy she was right on all the major issues of the day especially defence and the retention of the UK's independent nuclear deterrent.

What she got wrong

Presentation and the perceptions she allowed to be formed were her weaknesses. She gave the impression of not caring for anyone outside of London and the South East. This was, of course, completely daft. Let's take Liverpool for example. Your blogger knows a little about this area of the country, having been born and brought up there. Liverpool had been in decline for some years prior to 1979; however, to this day Margaret Thatcher is blamed. In actual fact the start of Liverpool's regeneration was under her government with particular praise to Michael Heseltine. This message never got through and, perhaps, she was not interested; there were not many votes within inner city constituencies of Merseyside. This has allowed a complete myth about her to grow and be passed down the generations. Lots of people in Liverpool and other so called 'deprived' cities did benefit from her policies; however, this was never properly communicated or promoted.

Nationally, she stayed in office far too long and brought in daft policies like the Community Charge (Poll Tax). Again nothing wrong with this policy in principle, but the implementation was a dog's breakfast due to a failure to address the regressive nature of the duke paying the same as the unemployed citizen. Judicial Cat takes the view that she should have bowed out in 1989.

Some personal thoughts

As a youngster your blogger was politically aware from a very young age. The politics of the 1980s helped form many of the political views held by your blogger today. In particular it was Thatcher's merit based approach to life that was particularly attractive. She was a conservative politician who had made it to the top, not via the 'silver spoon' route but by sheer guts and determination. Thatcher had no time for the 'celeb culture', which has affected almost every aspect of British life since the late 1990s A tough no nonsense approach is what attracted your blogger to her politics. People claim she was divisive, yet with polices such as the assisted places scheme she facilitated those with ability and from modest backgrounds to attend some of the best schools in the land. University education remained free and social mobility improved. Contrast that with the government of David Cameron and his Liberal Democrat 'side kicks'. The modern day government is divisive, detrimental to social mobility, and interested only in the 'elite'. A cabinet of millionaires, mostly with members who have no idea of the 'real world'. That is a truly non progressive government, not the socially inclusive, widely supported governments led by Margaret Thatcher between 1979 and 1990. May she rest in peace!

Grexit: - what a Euro mess!

It really is now time for Greece to be "set free" from the Euro

A health warning, Judicial Cat is not an economist. Indeed your blogger's only formal economics "training" took place over 20 years ago as part of a first year undergraduate course. That being said your blogger distinctly recalls some of the more obvious arguments against joining the Euro; when back in 1991 it was still some years away, but even then anyone with "sense" could predict the sort of events we witness today. The sovereign debt crisis may not have been predicted; however, what happens when their is a major disparity between the economies of say a northern European nation such as Germany, and a southern European nation such as Greece certainly where!

Billions just "thrown away"

For the past two years the EU and the IMF have literally thrown billions at attempting to solve the problem in Greece. Yet it remains unresolved. Every few months the political "elite" of Europe announce the latest "idea", which will finally solve the debt crisis. A few weeks later a new crisis then erupts ........ rinse and repeat. Whilst the continent's politicians refuse to face reality the majority of the citizens of Greece live in abject poverty. It can be argued the system in that country has a lot to answer for, and yes it does, but any student of history can see the reality in Greece is now becoming comparable with the days of the Weimar Republic in Germany during the inter war period. The only thing missing in Greece is hyper inflation.

Austerity, the elastic won't stretch anymore

It is ok for Frau Merkel to sit in her Chancellery in Berlin going on and on about austerity like some old "broken record"; however, it is not Germany facing the serious prospect of a breakdown in the social order of it's nation. Already there are reports of soup kitchens in Athens, children being passed to orphanages, as well as suicides. Let's not forget that Greece is a country, which was in the grip of a military dictatorship as recently as 1974. The recent inconclusive elections were conclusive in one respect; namely, the rejection by Greek voters of the mainstream parties of Pasok and New Democracy. So called "fringe" parties where the real "winners" in the election. When Greece returns to the polls (and they will very soon) expect the "fringe" parties to become the mainstream. Those parties, with their mandates, are not going to continue to take lectures from Chancellor Merkel. So either the eurozone and the IMF "back down" and continue to bail out Greece despite that country not following the terms of the bail out, or the money tap is finally turned off and Greece defaults and is forced out of the Euro.

With no mandate from the people to continue the austerity course imposed on Greece then it is obvious that something has to change. The only realistic option is for Greece to leave the Euro.

It might be painful but ultimately it will prove fruitful

Leaving the Euro will be chaotic, it will send "shivers" through every country on the continent. There will be bank runs, exchange controls, border closings and a few unpleasant things besides. That being said Greece will have a new currency and once again be in complete control of their own economy. They will be able to conduct their affairs for the benefit of the Greek people and once again become a fully sovereign state. A new Drachma will float on the markets and Greek exports will become competitive. Indeed the tourism industry will receive a boost from the favourable rate of any new Drachma to say the remaining Euro, the Dollar, or Sterling. A path would have been taken, which will ultimately lead to Greece restoring some national pride and some hope. What happens with the threat of contagion is for the remaining eurozone nations to worry about. The single currency was always a plainly daft idea without full fiscal and political union first. Like artificially created nations, this artificially created currency is facing the same fate; i.e. oblivion.

Remember "Black" Wednesday?

16 September 1992 is described as "Black Wednesday" in the UK. On that date the nation was forced out of the Exchange Rate Mechanism (ERM), the forerunner of the Euro. Despite the gloomy predictions the UK economy recovered and provided years of growth. All this as soon as Sterling was allowed to "float" and not be artificially locked into a "false" exchange rate with the then Deutsch Mark.

Ultimately Greece will leave the Euro so why not get it over with now and stop the further wasting of billions of euros of citizens' money and the breakdown of the social fabric in Greece.

BBC Question Time: - Tips for Appearing in the Audience

How do you get on BBC Question Time as a Member of the Audience?

Every week David Dimbleby will announce the locations for the next round of programmes. He will also give out a telephone number and website address http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/question_time/1858613.stm 

The starting point is that you telephone or fill out the online application form. Question Time strives to select an audience, which is "representative". So you fill out the form and what happens next? Well, it is worth taking a look at the odds of being selected. Apparently, some 4000 applications will be received for programmes in the larger cities. Approximately 150 people will be selected. That gives you a 3.75% chance of being selected! Not very good odds you will say! I appeared as an audience member for the London show on 3 May 2012. My application was submitted late night on the prior Monday; i.e. 30 April 2012! Twelve hours later I received a voicemail from Allison Fuller, who is the Audience Producer for the programme, asking that I urgently contact her. Having returned Allison's call she then proceeded to ask me a fair few questions about my political viewpoints, affiliations, and thoughts on contemporary news items. She then asked me what sort of questions I would wish to pose to the panel. One thing I should stress is that it was made clear to me that I was expected to want to ask questions and/or participate in the debate. It seemed to me that the programme is not looking for audience members who are content to just sit there and say nothing. So if that is your intention don't, whatever you do, admit it! After about five minutes chat she told me that I was "in". I was quite pleased, only 14 hours after submitting my application form, I was confirmed on the programme!

What happens next?

An email was then sent confirming the location for that week's recording, arrival time, and security procedures. The email also asks you to submit a question for the panel by return. The question should be short, sharp, and provocative and no more than 30 words (though they prefer less than 20). You are also asked to monitor the news on the day of the programme and  submit a different question on the night whilst waiting to enter the studio.

The night itself!

You arrive at the recording location on the night in question between 17:30 and 18:30. Security takes place and you must produce photographic identification. Refreshments are provided. Whilst in the waiting area the news channels are shown on flat screen televisions for any last minute news items, which may give rise to late questions. You submit your second question and then wait. Around 18:30 David Dimbleby appeared, to welcome everyone and give a briefing on what to expect for the evening.

I have to say that Dimbleby was excellent at putting everyone at ease and generating a good atmosphere in the waiting room.

You then enter the studio. There are no allocated seats so it may well be worth adopting a "strategic" location within the waiting area in order to secure a prime seat in the studio itself! I managed to secure front row and centre. Therefore I considered my strategy in that regard a complete success!

Once in the studio the floor manager introduces himself and again gives a briefing on the do's and don'ts for the evening. At this point he asks for volunteers to form a panel. There then follows a mock debate, which is filmed (but not shown on television) to enable the production team to check camera angles, sound levels, and microphone locations. I was selected as a panel member for this mock debate. If you ever join the Question Time audience then I highly recommend trying to get on the panel for this rehearsal. It is an excellent experience, which you can't buy! Now you are not supposed to take photographs in the studio; however, a few audience members did! The photographs found their way to my inbox the next morning (and no doubt a few other inboxes). Here is the panel for the mock debate!

The question for the debate was: -

"Should the Government be responsible for solving childhood obesity?"

Now your blogger (being of "petite" size NOT) found the question ironic; however, a 20 minute lively debate then followed! My stance was that it was down to personal responsibility and finding time in a busy schedule to exercise. I also pointed out that hardly any children walked to school anymore and spent far too much time playing video games and not going outdoors and participating in physical activity. There were lots of contributions from the audience and some very strongly held views!

Finally Allison had appeared on stage and announced the names of the 6 audience members who had been selected to ask the questions! Your blogger was not selected and I must confess to feeling somewhat disappointed at that time. I shouldn't have been! Indeed, if you do get on the programme, my advice would be to hope that you don't get selected as you will then have the chance to make a contribution with much more impact than asking the actual question! Those selected to ask questions are taken aside for a very short briefing.

The recording itself!

Finally after all the rehearsals David Dimbleby and the panel appear. Prior to the recording there is a question put to the panel, which does not go out on television. This is to get the panel and the audience "into the spirit of things". On this occasion the "secret" question was about Tony Blair's decision to hire a public relations adviser to assist with his plans to re-engage in domestic UK politics. There were some lively views from both the panel and the audience! The cameras then started recording. The theme tune came on and Dimbleby introduced the panel and things then proceed as you see them on television. As you will be aware the programme lasts about an hour. The time goes over very quickly during the actual recording. Once the programme was over we had to wait until the production team had verified that the recording had went without any "hitches" and then we were free to leave! I really did not want to have to sit there and do it all again!

Are the questions "planted"?

The short answer is "no". All questions come from the audience and are selected by the production team only minutes before the panel appear. Questions can focus on news items, which break only an hour or so before the recording of the programme. That being said the questions are rather obvious and predictable. Therefore panelists' researchers won't have too many problems anticipating the topics!

Conclusion and final thoughts

My tips are simple, get to the location early, get a good seat, and don't bother participating in the question that does not go out on television! What's the point? Also, try and get on the panel for the mock debate! If you do make a contribution be prepared for Twitter reaction! I mention this in my blog post about "Guardian Reading Lawyer". If your feelings are easily hurt then don't bother speaking! You WILL be abused on Twitter and other online forums regardless of the merits (or not) of the contribution you make. That being said it is an amazing experience and one I recommend any current affairs enthusiast to try and be involved in at least once!