91热爆

91热爆 BLOGS - Newsnight: Paul Mason
芦 Previous | Main | Next 禄

Europe: one currency, two souls?

Post categories:

Paul Mason | 12:12 UK time, Friday, 25 March 2011

Something Mats Persson, of the think tank OpenEurope, said to me yesterday has stuck in my mind: the EU leaders have come to identify the stability and survival of the EU with the Eurozone. Likewise they have come to believe the Eurozone's survival intact as the bedrock of all policy and therefore inevitable.

This prompts a question: why then do their actions continually fall short of defending this thing they find so crucial?

Why, within the space of 12 days, do we get a "grand bargain" to create a Euro Stability Mechanism (11 March), which is then (a) knocked back by Finland (b) defied by Portugal (c) renegotiated at the behest of Germany's FDP coalition partner so they can do a tax giveaway in the coming elections; and (d) excludes Ireland anyway?

There is a serious chance that the Portugese refusal to implement the demanded 5% fiscal tightening (in a single year) will lead to defaults on sovereign debt. The IMF, recognising this, has activated a $580bn contingency fund.

Ireland was already excluded from the 11 March deal - its request for lower interest rates put on hold because the EU (ie Germany) did not like its retention of 12.5% corporation tax.

Now Portugal is facing BBB (near junk) status and 30 small Spanish banks got the overnight downgrade treatment - not so much for their exposure to Portugal but because the markets no longer believe the Spanish government will save them.

Though it has the potential to escalate, the potential for this moment to be one that actually ends the Euro crisis is also great.

The markets, awash with Asian cash, are prepared to buy Spanish debt. Indeed one market participant told me yesterday that there are repeated surges of money into both Spanish and Italian debt whenever risk appetites rise. Why? I said. I dunno, he said, and I'm Italian! Spanish debt is trading like Italian debt, and has been since the December bailout of Ireland - and this is good, because it means - rationally or otherwise - the markets believe Portugal can be where it all ends.

If the Spanish cajas can be allowed to go bust or recapitalise, and Spain can stay out of recession, the crisis stops at Portugal: you get Ireland, Portugal and Greece bailed out; you allow them to delay their fiscal retrenchment, keeping them out of the markets for three to five years, so that they avoid the doom-spiral of recession/deflation/default.

But these are big ifs.

There are two big problems ahead. The first is the European Central Bank. It is currently keeping the EU banking system afloat by issuing liquidity - this stops the banks having to recapitalise and write off debts, and governments likewise. But soon the ECB will raise rates and withdraw liquidity. Having overseen a decade of too-loose monetary policy for the Euro-periphery it will now impose a regime that is too tight for them to recover: they will get thin but their arteries will harden - the monetary equivalent of the Atkins diet.

If the ECB imposes higher interest rates, to rein back inflation in the northern core, there is a chance it will provoke recession in Spain. And then the chance of creating a north-south firebreak across the Iberian peninsular is lost, as David Owen of Jefferies investment bank told me yesterday.

The second problem is the shape of the coming deal on the permanent European Stability Mechanism. Some people in the bond market are getting nervy about this because what it looks like is a permanent sovereign debt resolution mechanism which says: hey, banks - next time a country goes bust you will be classed as irresponsible lenders and you will be last in the queue to get your money back.

The logical response of the bond investors to this will be: "hey, South and Eastern Europe - get lost". More likely they will force the stricken countries to create debt vehicles that get round the pesky rules that dictate private sector losses on sovereign debt defaults, as they did with the rest of Latin America after Argentina defaulted.

Now there is of course a structural solution to this: a German/French funded "Marshall Plan" for the peripheral countries, combined with massive structural reform there (Portugese public sector wages are 50% higher than private sector says McKinsey, compared to a 7% average in northern Europe); then you unify the fiscal rules and create the beginnings of a common tax and budget system.

But, ahem. Here I should pause while some of Idle Scawl's readers do that spitting-out-their-cocktail thing that Jeff Lebowski does when Maude tells him she's trying to conceive his baby. Because this is understandably anathema to many people.

But logically if you are going to keep basket-case economies inside the Eurozone you have to help them become modernised, de-bureaucratised, less riddled with informal economic activity, organised crime and corruption.

If this is off the agenda, then it is hard to see how countries like Greece and Ireland recover inside the Eurozone.

Hanging over the whole situation is the European banking sector - undercapitalised, opaque, passing stress test after stress test without ever recovering in reality.

Peter Oborne in offers a scathing judgement on how we got to this point:

"The scary truth is that the scale of the problem facing the eurozone has been gravely underestimated by British commentators. The reasons are shaming. One significant factor is the financial and economic illiteracy of political journalists and foreign correspondents. Too many are ill-equipped to look behind the bland statements made by European chancellors or to interpret the deliberately misleading balance sheets of major European banks."

While I would question anybody's ability to get inside the balance sheet of a Landesbank, I think the bland statements have certainly been questioned on this blog and, when you can get a word in edgeways, at the press conferences. The problem is it does not stop the statements being bland.

I watched a whole bunch of "rushes" coming out of European parliaments yesterday, above all Germany, where it's instructive to observe how both Angela Merkel and her deputy Herr Westerwelle play to the German gallery on Euro-toughness. We are very little exposed to this in Britain - probably over-exposed to the thoughts of minor US congressmen but under-exposed to the detailed pronouncements of the people who actually control Europe.

Likewise I suspect few Newsnight viewers were prepared for the news that a man called Timo Soini, who supports Millwall FC and leads a UKIP-like party called the True Finns, may soon be in a Finnish coalition government and capable of stymie-ing the Finns' participation in a future ESM fund.

European political reality is fragmented and not really grasped in its totality by any media outlet, here or anywhere else. The poor hacks standing outside the Justus Lipsius building (as I have done many times) are all too aware that they are seeing and hearing nothing of any value in those arrival and departure shots, and that the press conferences they are forced to attend are a study in opacity.

What Europe's leaders have begun to do, at today's summit, is drag the political psyches of their own countries to the negotiating table: protestant north Europe does not want to go on paying for the "profligate" south; meanwhile if the south and Ireland have already taken some austerity, the sheer scale of what's demanded challenges the very essence of the societies though they were creating after throwing-off decades of fascism, dictatorship and religious conservatism.

The antidote to this would be a vision of how the two psyches - north and south - can co-exist within a new, common system; or a new arrangement which dismantles the common system in a non-chaotic way.

I am listening hard for that vision thing.

Comments

  • Comment number 1.

    It seems so obvious to me that the solution is to be centrally-bureaucratised, more cross border informal economic activity, more cross border organised crime and more cross border corruption.

    Or to put it another way merge all the individual central banks and also admit that the markets outrank democracy. Governments can then openly roll on their backs and have their tummies tickled by their owners.

  • Comment number 2.

    All this user's posts have been removed.Why?

  • Comment number 3.

    'But logically if you are going to keep basket-case economies inside the Eurozone you have to help them become modernised, de-bureaucratised, less riddled with informal economic activity, organised crime and corruption.'

    Yep, spot on.

    The same is true for many parts of the UK also.

    OK, perhaps not so much the organised crime in the UK but everything else could be equally written about Scotland, Wales, and the English regions outside of the South East.

    Don't look for a Eurozone grand vision when one is sadly lacking within these shores.

  • Comment number 4.

    Paul
    The trouble is the locals in the South don't want to modernise, de-bureaucratise, abandon informal economic activity, organised crime and corruption. This is how they live and have always lived beyond the EU, beyond even their Fascist interlude.

    It's funny I've always fancied trying to earn enough to buy that place in France, Spain, Greece or Italy, but could never see myself integrating in a society dominated by the Catholic/Orthodox church and associated local power architectures (Mayor, local gangsters etc.).
    Loved the range in the post from the narrowest detail of Millwall supporting Finn to the very big picture.

  • Comment number 5.

    ''I am listening hard for that vision thing.''

    Arn't we all, even Ed (The vacant eyed photo is hardly flattering in the context of the article but it says it all really).

    /news/uk-politics-12859330


    Another cracking post Paul, if many Journalists, as you say, are, to paraphrase -

    'forced to attend meaningless briefings and are as non plussed as the rest of us on the lack of leadership and ideas to overcome the crisis of the century'

    Why then do we not see more blogs like Idle Scraw, and more articles like Peter Orborne in the mainstream, what are journalists waiting for? Permission to report it how it is?

    As for the vision thing, it would need fleshing out a bit but a good start would be.

    1) Be honest, tell the situation as it is warts and all in both Europe and the broader global economic dynamic ... the physical limits of the model have been reached.. things can never be the same again.

    2) Tell the markets - business as usual for now while a strategic plan is worked on, tell the people the same .. dont change your routine for now, at least their suffering may feel like it has a purpose then for people in austerity land.

    3) Send all government advisors on gardening leave and replace them with a select single panel of proven business people outside the financial sector and organisations like NEF.

    4) Develop a strategy for a sustainable europe which would play to the strengths of respective economies and lifestyles with the aim of being sustainable within european borders. All baseline human needs will be met by the state by a credit system - homes, food and energy within sustainable limits and a proportion of everyones time or funds (depending on situation)contributes to this (would not be much in the modern technological age). This could be being responsible for maintaining the local park or, if you are a busy doctor for example you could choose to 'pay extra tax' to avoid such duties. If you want more than the basic you have to work and trade something of value to get it but everyone would have the same baseline rights to basic needs (non tradable strategic assessts) irrespective of status and everyone would need to contribute the same towards maintaining it irrespective of status.


    5) The above strategy would require a huge strategic investment and provide a lot of jobs during the transition but the end result would be a sustainable maintainable shared basic food, energy and shelter infrastructure that is NOT moneterised.

    6) everything else can be moneterised bought and sold and traded be it a skill or a commodity or a manufactured item as it is now except there would be a much higher taxation for high energy - non sustainable goods which go beyond the individuals 'free' state provided limit. You can own a chelsea tractor - no problem and everybody will know that in so doing you are contributing (via a tax system) a large proportion of the running costs back into the sustainable state support system and you can afford it because you are a highly skilled doctor who studied hard and can improve lots of lives or you invented a new computer game everyone loves etc etc. Creativity and value generation is rewarded while everyone actively contributes to maintain a sustainable sub-structure which supports it but which is locked out of the 'money cycle' in recognition of its strategic importance and potential for abuse from those whom would make themselves wealthy from the misery of others.

    7) abolish all income tax and replace it with smart VAT, a sliding scale depending on how unsustainable a product or service is as measured within Euro borders.



    Sound like a resonable starting point ED?

    How hard was that !!!!

  • Comment number 6.

    Another factor to consider is how far can governments go on austerity which seems mainly to affect the poor and middle income sections who may want their Tahrir Square moments. How much piri-piri flavoured cold turkey will the Portuguese take before they wreck their adolescent democracy? The EU cannot afford to be laissez faire about the modernisation of these ailing economies and a Marshall style recovery plan with rescheduling sovereign debts at sensible interest rates. In the long term interests of the Portuguese (and Greeks, Irish) too.

  • Comment number 7.

    @3 Tawse57

    Seriously, what are you talking about?: "OK, perhaps not so much the organised crime in the UK but everything else could be equally written about Scotland, Wales, and the English regions outside of the South East."

    So you are saying these countries and regions within the UK are riddled with bureaucracy (despite having the same laws with regards to business and investment as the rest of the UK), Informal economic activity and corruption as well as requiring moderisation? Do you have any evidence of this or are you just making a huge generalisation? What changes in particular would you bring in to moderise these place and stamp out the rampant corruption exactly? What pieces of bureaucracy would you remove?

    Additionally, is there a particular reason you missed out Northern Ireland or did you simply mean that they have the same problems but also the organised crime?

  • Comment number 8.

    is tomorrow our 'Tahir' square moment?

  • Comment number 9.

    Isnt the reality that you have a group of states very keen to share in the benefits of a free market and single currency but not-so-keen to share the burdens of individual failure. The response ( looking at the ESM) is to create intricate firewalls and mechanisms to ensure private market lenders and banks share the in pain if all goes wrong. In other words, a partial liability union offset by the law of liquidation. Some might not say that is a vision, but it may be all you are going to see from the Europe of this decade.

  • Comment number 10.

    Good commentary on the contradictions of the euro.

    But don't forget the bigger, wider contradictions of the capitalist system.

    When I first read Marx I thought he had neglected the supply side because capitalism must grow & the earth is finite.
    But re-reading & thinking more about part 3 of volume III supply-side constraints are assumed.
    He assumes the whole world is capitalist.
    That there are just workers & capitalists.
    That there is no population growth.
    Hence there is no increase in absolute surplus value - once the physical limit of the working day is hit.
    He then shows that the capitalists have to take an ever larger share of the cake that can't grow.
    The increases in constant capital (e.g. new machinery) increase the organic composition of capital.
    Without matching increases in the rate of exploitation the rate of profit falls.

    What we can see clearly today is the importance of energy.
    Cheap energy has gone.
    When energy was getting cheaper the rate of exploitation can be increased without lowering the standard of living of the workers (the post-war period for the developed nations).
    Now with energy getting more expensive the rate of exploitation needed to maintain profit levels requires cuts in wages, pensions, health spending, benefits, etc.
    In other words, the capitalist need a larger share of the cake at the expense of the workers.
    This is why we are in a revolutionary period.
    Politics is now starting to catch-up with economics & there's nothing the ruling class can do about it.

  • Comment number 11.

    I HAVE NOT READ MARX (#10)

    Did he consider that - to all intents and purposes - apparent adults (grown-ups) are really immature (psychologically under-developed) juveniles MASKING their deficiencies (as we all do) while the LEAST SOCIALLY CAPABLE are driven to acquire HIGH OFFICE in a futile attempt to salve the pain of their inadequacy?

    In consequence, governance is inevitably flawed, leading to the current tightening spiral of failure, as a consequence of juvenile imperatives: cheating, lying, killing, stealing, greed, oppression, pomposity, hubris and need to WIN at any cost.

  • Comment number 12.

    ColtSeavers

    I am sending out positive vibes to you. Can you feel them?

    I am giving you a massive virtual hug of love. Can you feel the warmth and fuzziness?

  • Comment number 13.

    Thank goodness Ireland has been fixed?

    'BRUSSELS (Reuters) - Ireland (Berlin: IIK.BE - news) 's prime minister has made a new plea to the president of the European Central Bank to extend its lifeline to the country's banks, giving Dublin more time to tackle problems many fear are worse than forecast.'


  • Comment number 14.

    #4 tonyparksrun

    Forget about buying a place in France, Spain, Italy or Greece. China is the new Dubai when it comes to property speculation.

    Why not buy one of the 64 million empty flats in China? Only 300,000 US Dollars to you for a 2 bed, assuming you can put down a 50 percent deposit.

    Better get in quick!

    Excellent Aussie TV report on China's property bubble.



    When this bubble bursts it will take out the Aussie economy so dependent are the Aussies on selling ores/commodities to China.

    Would not surprise me for us to then learn that UK banks are up to their eyeballs in all this?

  • Comment number 15.

    As a Brit living in Germany for the past 20+ years, I can confirm much of what Paul says. There is zero appetite amongst the electorate of the world鈥檚 4th largest economy to take on the role of Europe鈥檚 bank of last resort and to continue to foot the bill for Euro-zone bail outs.

    Cross-border cooperation with other European countries is generally seen as a good thing, and I would even go so far as to say that the Euro has been accepted as something worth 鈥渄efending鈥 (in the central bank sense of the word), but Germans are increasingly irritated by the frequency with which their government adds to the level of country鈥檚 indebtedness to fight off one crisis after another.

    Opinions in Germany about the poor historical spending habits of 鈥淪outhern鈥 European governments are more neutral than in the UK, partly because of the high level of immigration and long standing family ties with those countries. (By comparison, there is a deep-seated reluctance to embrace Turkey鈥檚 desire to get closer to Europe).

    There is no doubt that the level of independent and incisive reporting is far lower in Germany than the UK. For that very reason we invested a long time ago in a large satellite dish, so that we can watch UK TV. It is amusing to see German news channels re-broadcasting 91热爆 footage from trouble hot spots, because their own journalists are not on the scene and often not even in the same country.

    This does mean there is generally more willingness here to accept on face value the line fed to them from their politicians. However, this only goes so far, particularly when it comes down to the stability of the currency. The tribal memory of hyper-inflation is still very close to the surface.

    Of course, it will be interesting to see if anyone here is willing to join the dots on fiscal integration, because until now there has been no public debate in Germany on the need for harmonisation of taxation and benefit regimes within the Euro-zone, or the potential political and economic consequences of such a path. I seriously doubt any German government could survive the attempt to sell this to their electorate.

  • Comment number 16.

    #15

    Useful to hear such perspectives.


    If that is the prevailing attitude within the electorate in the engine room of Europe then the european project is screwed.

    Perhaps the Portuguese crisis will mark the point when the cry from the bridge starts to go.

    ''every man for himself''

    A sustainable economic model to replace the now flawed free market model could be done within country borders rather than european borders, perhaps that needs to happen first anyway, to change an economic system and a political one as radically as is required is probably too big a bite to try to take in one step.

  • Comment number 17.

    Stevie: "is tomorrow our 'Tahir' square moment?"

    Put the kettle on - milk no sugar.

    My prediction: no. The British are conformist. TV is utter crap yet we watch on average 4 hours a day. If you build it, they will come. Looking forward to lots of placards about everything under the sun and Socialist Worker wasting more subs on posters. And the cops reading your every move via Twitter. Take a book.

  • Comment number 18.

    Cheers for that Paul, there is more lucidity in the past two post about Europe than I've seen in a year or more.

    The timing is looking interesting to say the least, they have about 9bn Euro of redemptions in the coming months not to mention coupon payments coming due, and I doubt they have the money, or the ability to procure it in a timely fashion. Part of me says the ECB will have no choice, but if Trichet continues to be doctrinaire about all this I wonder when, not if, the markets will take their ball home.

    Like the man said, Spain will be "interesting"

  • Comment number 19.

    Apologies for the double post but i am a tad inebriated and rather chuffed with this little number i rustled up in my blog troll like way on Marc urbans blog.


    The really scary bit to the plot to the novel is where a war in the middle east is exactly what the shadow government (the hands up the backsides of the puppets - subconscious monsters from Freuds 'id' if you will) wants.

    You see, we can either:

    a) Pay back the huge debts via austerity which keeps the banks solvent and everyone in debt slavery- not very popular and starting to be voted against which is not going down well with banks and gov are doing all kinds of stuff like printing money to try to pretend the issue is not there.

    b) Default on the debts and destroy the banking system and stop the countries who borrowed from borrowing more via an appauling credit rating ... sounds sensible except the shadow government does not make any money out of that one... they lose everything and become nationalised to a man.

    or

    c) Have a really nasty war which will re-set the debt clock (you dont have to repay debts to nations you are at war with apparently - I find it scary that there is even an accepted banking protocol for that scenario) and in the process re-shape the political landscape.


    If I were to look at this from a psychologically needy meglomaniac sociopath's perspective I would go for option c every time.


    So war it is then....

    The really scary bit above the above post is that I am not sure if I am being serious or not.


  • Comment number 20.

    One thing I have never quite got about this 'Germany paying for the party in the south' thing.

    Germany gets huge benefit from the drag down in the value of the euro (in terms of purchasing power parity) by the naughty south.

    If they had the Deutch Marc would they be doing nearly so well on the export market?

    Who is subsidising whos party.. shireblogger ..anybody can you educate me on that point.. I would really like tio understand it because I done see anyone talking about it so either I dont understand it and it does not exists or people dont like to talk about that particular dynamic...so which is it?

  • Comment number 21.

    @Jericoa

    How do you propose to deal with the allocation of land to best use?

  • Comment number 22.

    (Meant to post this here, so edited repost from previous blog)

    Agree Telgraph piece is a good read - Oborne's libertarian credentials and my take on what Marx would make of current events on Paul's last Blog do seem to link up to some extent... scary

    The question I have for those who blame the EU & Euro for everything is this:

    if there had not been an EU or the Euro, what would have happened to the PIIGs?

    Like it or not, the EU has led to the development of their economies, infrastructure and investment, plus delivered a big hike in living standards - I remember going to Barcelona when Franco was still alive - it was a third world country with prostitutes three deep all the way up the Ramblas - today the Spanish are a proud and successful nation that has put fascism behind them and built a society to be proud of.

    Was the whole thing fated to end like this - was it always inevitable? Oborne's somewhat "culturalist" take on these economies always going bad offers an explanation which gets too close to a racial explanation for my liking...

    The fact is that the industrial economies developed their financial infrastructure, whilst the agrarian/fishing periphery didn't, so we gained control of the instruments of international trade and the flow of investment and built huge amounts of capital.

    Banking has come a long way since the founding of the EU and in the critical 1980s/90s those advocating deregulation and globalisation increasingly got their way, so an unholy deal of PIIG politicians wanting investment & jobs and bankers trying to cut big deals with them has led to an unsustainable level of lending and debt, whilst the bills for the borrowing have risen and risen.

    What went wrong - and what should we do about it? I'd say deregulation and lack supervision was at the heart of it - and the aspirations - no the delusions of grandeur - of the PIIGs and EU simply sucked in the borrowing.

    Clearly financial deregulation was and is totally irresponsible - it's just as much the greed for bonuses by bankers making these deals that fueled the problem as much as it was the aspirations of the PIIGs, whilst the "moral hazard" of governments being blackmailed to bail out bankers is no serious personal hazard at all to those responsible - one wonders if capital punishment might not be a possible answer?

    The temptation to say let the banks go bust should be tempered by the realisaton that this would only result in their debts in turn be subsumed by government - who would in turn come round with the tax bill to our doorsteps to pay for it...

    OK so we all want to move on from Marx - too much baggage/water under the bridge, etc - and I'm all for a new reforged model for how our economy and society should function, but all I can see is a chasm of debt and a mountain of loans - until one is used to fill in the other, we will never be on a level playing field again and right now I can't see how this can happen, unless the system collapses the heap into the hole.

    I'm of the view that this is now probably inevitable and I wonder why politicians don't see this and try and manage the process rather than allowing a trainwreck to happen - but perhaps that's what the bailout process really is, after all - the managed twilight of the Masters of The Universe whose time is passing..?

  • Comment number 23.

    no.21 carol wilcox

    'what do you intend to do...'

    If only it was in my gift to do anyhting except winge from the sidelines...optimists are activists apparently..pessimists ...well lets just say alot of pessimists reside in this blog space :)

    Theoretically wrt best use of land... not very much. The people who own the land know the land, look what happened to production in Zimbabwe when the status quo was messed with.

    For any strategic changes in the national interest that need to take place there is already a legal mechanism in place (compulsory purchase orders), that process should be simplified and be less tied up in red tape so if we want to build a severn barrage or a high speed rail link we just get on with it rather than the 10 year proceedural merry go round which happens now before a spade breaks ground. we dont have time for that in many of the decisions which need to be made and implemented.

    Not sure if that was the exact thrust of your question but that is all that came to me by way of a esponse.

  • Comment number 24.

    Hi Jericoa
    Not quite sure what you are asking at #20. The benefits of a single currency with fiscal rectitude are well discussed. The socialised part of the bargain appears to be implemented through the Cohesion Fund and the European Regional Development Fund and other programmes designed to redistribute wealth from richer to poorer EU regions and create economic regeneration in uncompetitive EU regions. I agree that there is often no discussion of the success or otherwise of these programmes in addition to the bailout question.

  • Comment number 25.

    @Jericoa

    Land is a free gift of nature. It's value is created by human activity (all of us). It is therefore fair and efficient to pay for exclusive use of the land - the rent. It is useless to try to share the land by diktat. We don't even know who owns 45% of UK land by acreage. Let's make landowners claim their titles, lets value all the land (whether used or not) and revalue at frequent intervals, then send an annual bill for the rent payable to us, the citizens. Abolish Council Tax, business rates, stamp duty. The balance of revenue would be vast - enough to abolish income tax on low wages. No one would then want to own land except to use it (within democratically determined constraints). Tenant farmers would be paying the rent to us and not to the likes of Charles Windsor and Gerald Grosvenor. The capital value of all land would tend to zero, so homes would be affordable for all, more of us could afford to live near to where we work, relieving the pressure on transport. There are plenty of radical policies which could improve our lives but this is a real no-brainer.

  • Comment number 26.

    @Jericoa

    You say "The people who own the land know the land". You make the common mistake of believing that land is just about agriculture. Land seems to become invisible once it's built upon. The most valuable land is urban residential - look at the price of houses in Mayfair. Do you think that Gerald Grosvenor knows more about the huge amount of land he owns than his tenants?

More from this blog...

Latest contributors

91热爆 iD

91热爆 navigation

91热爆 漏 2014 The 91热爆 is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.