Euro Area

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

“the State has a responsibility to the whole of society though - not you as an individual.” A State is a political construction, a contract for a community to have common rule. If you don’t think a State has to protect his weaker member and care for the population, but to be an autonomous beast so we don’t have the same idea of what is a State.
So, why do you pay taxes? To give good money to Politicians?

Yes - a State is a political construction, a collective one.

Dieing young makes you unfortunate - not weak. Just because you might not live to retirement age doesn't mean that age shouldn't rise.

When France first had a state pension in the 1950's what was the life expectancy? 65, 68?

The system isn't meant to support a long old age and it can't be made to - it doesn't make economic sense. If the retirement age is 70 and the average life expectancy is 80 then the average citizen gets 10 years at the end of their life supported by the state. Given that average age includes all those young people, i.e. below 50, who would NEVER draw a pension the majority of pensioners will get between 15 and 20 years.

[Kadagar_AV]

A shared currency between countries with widely different economical, not to mention cultural, outlook will never work.

I have been thinking that all along.

I don't cite a source, the world as it is should prove my point as it is.

[Brenus]

“The system isn't meant to support a long old age and it can't be made to - it doesn't make economic sense.” I agree. So the system has to be adapted to the new technological and economic situation.
The capitalistic failing system solution is to go back to the origin (Bismarck) and put the age of pension at the average date for dying: Money and Profit first.
Or, you might consider that we civilized a little bit, and it is time to give elderlies good time, little moments of happiness before the Big Jump in the Unknown. So you can have laws and taxes taking on the increasingly profitable society to give better life and free the people.
I don’t know if you notice, but you use the same argument that the ones who were pro-slavery, for the children work in factories, against the 1 week holidays and basically all workers life improvement: We can’t afford it. Of course, each time we did. And each time it create more business and money than it cost.
In short (and simplistic), to put the children back to factories will be the end of Disney.

The problem is the distribution of the Wealth.

In term of economy what does not make sense is the accumulation. The legend actually in vogue in the Capitalist Ideology is the riches create jobs. Non sense, England should be fully employed.
The Rich became riche (sometimes) because they had a good idea and made people working for them. But most of them are rich because at one point of History, some members of the family were good at looting, killing and raping others, or exploiting.
One person got 16 million bonus will spend a little bit of it in buying a new yacht, and perhaps a new gardener. 16 million kids receiving 1 whatever currency will spend it immediately. The first 16 million are useless, the 2nd one are put back in the economy and allows factories, workers, shop keepers to live, taxes going to the States, pensions, health system, police, Army to be founded.

“Brenus, whenever has the euro obeyed any rule stood in the way of ever closer union?” I know. But I am just laughing about “experts” who even didn’t read the Treaty, the same who were selling us the Celtic Dragon, and the Spanish Economic Boom…
I regret Louis because I vote against the Treaty and he did. I wonder what he would tell.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

A shared currency between countries with widely different economical, not to mention cultural, outlook will never work.

I have been thinking that all along.

I don't cite a source, the world as it is should prove my point as it is.


And yet - this keeps getting called the "Anglo-Saxon" heresy.

Brenus: if you read my post, you'll see I advocated an average of a decade on average, I think that's as generous as anyone has a right to expect but your Hollande wants to give an average of two decades.

That's childish, because children are the only ones who deserve to live for an extended period off the backs of the community.

[Brenus]

"That's childish, because children are the only ones who deserve to live for an extended period off the backs of the community." In Africa, they will tell that the elders have the priority as they gave to the Community. As much they know, children are still a potential, perhaps criminals and thieves.
What is childish is to deny the fact that societies can afford to give back to the oldest a little bit of what they gave.

[rory_20_uk]

"That's childish, because children are the only ones who deserve to live for an extended period off the backs of the community." In Africa, they will tell that the elders have the priority as they gave to the Community. As much they know, children are still a potential, perhaps criminals and thieves.
What is childish is to deny the fact that societies can afford to give back to the oldest a little bit of what they gave.

Western societies give a lot back to the elderly already. In many cases a lot more than they gave, given the spiralling cost of healthcare and social care.

Those who are 65+ are no longer "the oldest". They are a significant percentage of the population.

~:smoking:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

"That's childish, because children are the only ones who deserve to live for an extended period off the backs of the community." In Africa, they will tell that the elders have the priority as they gave to the Community. As much they know, children are still a potential, perhaps criminals and thieves.
What is childish is to deny the fact that societies can afford to give back to the oldest a little bit of what they gave.

My hundred year old grandfather who fought in the war is "the oldest" - he is currently in hospital, my 61 year of father is not.

[Fragony]

Mumbles something about picture and thousands words

http://www.geenstijl.nl/mt/archieven/2012/06/no_taxation_without_representation.html#comments

Would you vote on this man, of course not you can't. While we are distracted with the crisis the flemish ferret his Portugese waiter and a German booksalesman are completing the international socialism

[Sarmatian]

A shared currency between countries with widely different economical, not to mention cultural, outlook will never work.

I have been thinking that all along.

I don't cite a source, the world as it is should prove my point as it is.

Again, take a look at the economy of Delaware and the economy of New York. What do you know, the dollar works...

[Furunculus]

They have federal taxation to slosh cash around, and a lender of last resort.

Oh, And a sense of shared familial sentiment to legitimise such transfers.

[rvg]

Mumbles something about picture and thousands words

http://www.geenstijl.nl/mt/archieven/2012/06/no_taxation_without_representation.html#comments

Would you vote on this man, of course not you can't. While we are distracted with the crisis the flemish ferret his Portugese waiter and a German booksalesman are completing the international socialism

Hey, I didn't know that Monty Burns was Dutch!

[gaelic cowboy]

Again, take a look at the economy of Delaware and the economy of New York. What do you know, the dollar works...

Except when a Texan bank goes bust the state of Texas is not expected to shoulder the burden of it's collapse.

Same as when Northeren Rock went bust the Bank of England didnt say to Newcastle City Council to pay up for it.

Banks are too big too complex and too spread out for national governments to handle then when we have a crisis in the Eurozone.

The normal route to solving bank crisis are not available hence the fragility of banks everywhere including Germany.

[Fragony]

Hey, I didn't know that Monty Burns was Dutch!

He is flemmish, and nobody knows who he are and why he is there really. But it is unlikely he is Dutch as there aren't that many owls dropping out of the tree that want to conquer europe here. I hope.

[Fragony]

BLAM Spain also needs money, to the absolute surprise of europhiles they are flabbergasted. They knew, for a fact, that it was highly unlikely because ehhhh it just is. But Spain is too big to save it cannot be done not a thousand European anthems is going to change that.

Where was that Nigel Farrage compilation

Can someone in the UK or the US please adopt me I promise I won't chew on any cables. Brazil China or India is also fine.

[Greyblades]

Can someone in the UK or the US please adopt me I promise I won't chew on any cables. Brazil China or India is also fine.
...Fine, but I get to legally change your name to Mr Bubbles.

[Fragony]

Fine, my real name Johny Stardust isn't all that special anyway

[gaelic cowboy]

Dan wades in with his thoughts I particularly like the first line.


DAN O'BRIEN, Economics Editor The Irish Times

How Europe plans to prevent a repeat of banking nightmare

EUROPEANS INVENTED banks. These days it feels as if banks will end up “uninventing” Europe.


The euro crisis is – first and foremost – a financial crisis. Preventing finance from threatening economic prosperity, and, ultimately, societal stability is probably the biggest and most urgent public policy challenge facing the rich world in the medium term.

Yesterday the European Commission chipped in with its tuppence ha’penny worth, publishing a 250-page menu of proposals on how the EU and euro zone banking systems can be made safer.

It includes proposals on how the risk of banks failing can be reduced, how regulators can get stuck early to banks that are showing signs of weakness and – perhaps most importantly – how taxpayers can be spared the cost of picking up bankers’ losses.

There is no shortage of context on just how big the challenge is in achieving all these aims.

When one thinks of overblown finance, Wall Street may be the first place on the planet that comes to mind.

But, lamentably, European bankers put their American counterparts in the ha’penny place when it comes to ballooning their balance sheets.

The commission noted yesterday that of the assets of the world’s 1,000 largest banks in 2008-2009, EU banks account for 56 per cent, versus US banks’ meagre 13 per cent. In terms of assets relative to size of national economies, the largest EU banks dwarf their US counterparts.

One reason for this is because European companies depend much more on banks for their financing needs than their American counterparts. The latter are far more likely to cut out the middle men in banks and tap stock and bond markets directly when they need to raise money. According to the Institute of International Finance, a club for the world’s biggest bankers, three-quarters of all credit intermediation in Europe is handled by banks. In the US it is only one-quarter.

To summarise: Europe’s banks have grown dangerously big but the real economy remains hugely dependent on them.

The size, interconnectedness and sheer complexity of the European banking system has become a nightmare. There are enough issues and complexities to make any head hurt.

The biggest conundrum in the long term is how to handle banks that blow up so that panic is not triggered and taxpayers’ money does not have to be used to reassure or bail out stampeding financiers.

It is often said that this should be straightforward – corporate and personal bankruptcies are inevitable in a market economy because companies and individuals make bad financial decisions and get unlucky all the time. As most countries have laws and structures to ensure that these forms of bankruptcy happen as smoothly as possible, why not treat banks in the same way?

In Europe, few countries had similar laws and structures to deal with bankrupt banks when the financial crisis erupted half a decade ago (since successive administrations here never bothered to modernise even personal bankruptcy laws, it will come as no surprise that Ireland was not among the small number of European countries with the foresight to enact bank resolution laws).

One reason for this failure was because so few banks have crashed in living memory. The less something happens, the less well prepared one tends to be when it does happen.

Another understandable lament one hears frequently is why normal corporate bankruptcy laws are not simply applied to banks. The reason is confidence. If, say, a telecoms company’s bondholders are burned, there is very little danger of a knock-on effect to other companies in the industry and no chance of anything as dramatic as a run on them. Banking is different.

That said, while designing resolution mechanisms poses challenges, these are not insurmountable, as the US’s system of aggressively shutting down teetering banks shows.

For what it is worth, yesterday’s report by the commission said that the resolution measures the Government is now putting in place are not incompatible with any of its proposals for a Europe-wide resolution mechanism.

If resolution mechanisms are to be successful, says the report, the authorities will need a range of powers. One is “the power to remove or replace the senior management of an institution under resolution”.

How many objections would that raise in this jurisdiction?

[gaelic cowboy]

Well thats that then "It's A Bailout" to paraphrase South Park

Spanish Economy Minister Luis de Guindos says Spain will seek financial help (http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0609/spain-bailout.html)


Spain this evening formally requested European financial assistance of up to €100bn to save its stricken banks and try to avert a broader financial catastrophe.

Fellow finance ministers in the 17-nation eurozone accepted the plea in a statement released after an emergency video conference lasting more than two hours.
"The Spanish government declares its intention to solicit European financial help for the recapitalization of those banks that need it," Economy Minister Luis de Guindos told a news conference.
The request amounts to a climbdown for Spain, as successive Spanish governments have denied any need for outside aid.
Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy's conservative government finally had to bow to rising pressure from world leaders and more importantly the markets, which have sent its borrowing costs soaring.
Defying desperate efforts by eurozone policymakers, the emergency has spread to the region's fourth-biggest economy - Spain's is twice the size of that of Greece's, Ireland's and Portugal's combined.
Irish Finance Minister Michael Noonan this evening said the Spanish deal will not mean a better deal for Ireland on its banking debts.
Speaking in Limerick, Minister Noonan said the deal agreed with Spain replicates the recapitalisation part of the deal that was done for Ireland.
He described the deal as "satisfactory" and said it would bring about much needed stablity to the eurozone.
Minister Noonan said that he would have preferred if the money was pumped directly into the Spanish banks rather than through the sovereign and he said he would expect the same to apply to Ireland.
He said today was not the day for discussing that but he told finance ministers on this afternoon's conference call that he would be returning to it at future eurozone meetings.
Spain denies deal is a 'rescue'
Mr de Guindos refused to describe the aid as a rescue, which his government had categorically ruled out even in the days leading up to the formal request for cash.
"This has nothing to do with a rescue," he insisted, arguing that the aid would be directed to the 30% of banks with the greatest exposure to the 2008 property market crash.
The deal imposed no conditions on the overall Spanish economy, and no new austerity measures, Mr de Guindos said.
"The only conditions are for the banks. There are no additional conditions for the Spanish people," he added.
After talks lasting more than two hours, the eurogroup ministers issued a statement saying they were "willing to respond favourably" to the request for financial assistance.
Up to €100bn would be provided by the European rescue mechanisms to recapitalise Spanish banks, it said, providing an "effective backstop" for all possible requirements.
The size of the aid would depend on an external audit already being carried out for Madrid by consultants Roland Berger and Oliver Wyman, and due by 21 June.
The cash would be channelled through Spain's state-backed bank Fund for Orderly Bank Restructuring, it said.
Eurozone ministers said they were confident Spain would honour commitments to cut the deficit and restructure the economy.
"Progress in these areas will be closely and regularly reviewed," they said.
Mr de Guindos stressed that the €100bn included a big safety margin.
"This announcement is good news for the Spanish economy and for the future of the eurozone," he said.
International Monetary Fund bank stress tests, unveiled yesterday three days ahead of schedule, determined that Spanish banks need about €40bn in new capital.
But an IMF official noted that the banks would probably need more than that to build a "credible firewall."
German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schaeuble hailed the deal for Spain saying he and his colleagues welcomed Spain's "determination" to recapitalise the banks with "rescue funds".

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Well thats that then "It's A Bailout" to paraphrase South Park

Spanish Economy Minister Luis de Guindos says Spain will seek financial help (http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0609/spain-bailout.html)

Can't imagine that's going to play well down your way.

[Brenus]

Yep, again. Bank made losses, Taxes Payers will pay. What will be the Spanish? Lazy, and not paying their taxes, having retirement at 45? Well, these lies worked once, why changed a winning formula?

[HopAlongBunny]

Considering the present crisis is as old as banking you have to wonder why it isn't better controlled. My hypothesis is that there is just too much money to be made leaving it broken.

[gaelic cowboy]

Can't imagine that's going to play well down your way.

Basically everything that the government has told em for the last year will be done on the sly for Spain(except not really the sovereign is being bailed out) and we will be ignored as usual as good compliant members of the "Troika Programme"

These clowns still havent figured out the game had changed and in now it has in fact has changed utterly a terrible beuaty is born so to speak.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Basically everything that the government has told em for the last year will be done on the sly for Spain(except not really the sovereign is being bailed out) and we will be ignored as usual as good compliant members of the "Troika Programme"

These clowns still havent figured out the game had changed and in now it has in fact has changed utterly a terrible beuaty is born so to speak.

Serious question: Are the IRA (whatever their current form) capable of making the intellectual leap to seeing the EU beurocracy as the "New Enemy"?

[Beskar]

Serious question: Are the IRA (whatever their current form) capable of making the intellectual leap to seeing the EU beurocracy as the "New Enemy"?

As long as Northern Ireland wants to remain British, I doubt that. As they will always see it as British oppression upon their homeland, even though it is the North wanting to remain within the union. So unless the north became "True Irish", which would remove the large bulk of support for the movement, they probably don't have a real momentum to switch.

[gaelic cowboy]

Serious question: Are the IRA (whatever their current form) capable of making the intellectual leap to seeing the EU beurocracy as the "New Enemy"?

No I doubt it but the ordinary voter and sinn fein are and lately there profitting electorally on it.

[Fragony]

Unsurprisingly a Portugese waitor knows the answer, we need more Europe. Tellas A's party will no doubt agree since they directly democrately support anything Europe as long as it's Europe because it's Europe, no democracy needed

[InsaneApache]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ISdTcwC-54&feature=player_embedded

ECB exposed to 444 billion Euros. Kinnell. :sweatdrop:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ISdTcwC-54&feature=player_embedded

ECB exposed to 444 billion Euros. Kinnell. :sweatdrop:


Not as many people used to turn up, nobody cheered and people booed.

How times have changed.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Tellas A's party will no doubt agree since they directly democrately support anything Europe as long as it's Europe because it's Europe, no democracy needed
Which party would that be?

[Fragony]

Which party would that be?

EU66, you know the one of the Bilderberg meeting. The one with crownjewels

Fun fact, out of all party's the voters of EU66 are the most opposed against a referendum on the greatest heist in human history that is the ESM

[Idaho]

OK - who's up for a wager?

I bet that whatever happens, the general folk of Europe will be stitched up, and politicians and the rich will be largely unaffected (or will turn a decent profit).

Any of you right-wingers want a piece of the action?

[Fragony]

OK - who's up for a wager?

I bet that whatever happens, the general folk of Europe will be stitched up, and politicians and the rich will be largely unaffected (or will turn a decent profit).

Any of you right-wingers want a piece of the action?

Is this a different realm of reality where rightwingers are pro-europe? Must be but it's odd, I thought we were against the EU. I thought we were populists for not being 100% sure of Europe. So confusing...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

OK - who's up for a wager?

I bet that whatever happens, the general folk of Europe will be stitched up, and politicians and the rich will be largely unaffected (or will turn a decent profit).

Any of you right-wingers want a piece of the action?

I'm sorry?

How many decades have Conservative Eurosceptics been saying this?

Hell, Enoch Powell said this!

[Fragony]

Nigel Farrage (who isn't 100% sure of europe) explains something to a German booksalesman and his Portugese waiter http://www.geenstijl.nl/mt/archieven/2012/06/lunchvideo_epic_rant_van_nigel.html#comments

[Tellos Athenaios]

EU66, you know the one of the Bilderberg meeting. The one with crownjewels

Fun fact, out of all party's the voters of EU66 are the most opposed against a referendum on the greatest heist in human history that is the ESM

I'm afraid I don't follow. Anyway, it was a trick question but you know full well I am not a card carrying member of any party.

By the by, it is the "right" wing over here that is pro EU if we go by the old division along economic beliefs. Now of course if you equate "right wing" with authoritarian, then no clearly not as neither SP nor PVV are particularly pro EU. ~;)

[Kralizec]

Is this a different realm of reality where rightwingers are pro-europe? Must be but it's odd, I thought we were against the EU.

So now the PVV, which copied pretty much all of the Socialist Party's talking points over the years for electoral reasons, is suddenly the only right-wing party we have? And even the VVD is a leftist party? How odd.

[Fragony]

So now the PVV, which copied pretty much all of the Socialist Party's talking points over the years for electoral reasons, is suddenly the only right-wing party we have? And even the VVD is a leftist party? How odd.

PVV intends to make the cuts painfull for the government and NGO's, you are reading too much quality media. Welfare state is good, keep it. After cutting of the dead weight, never thought I would but Wilders has my vote.

[Kralizec]

PVV intends to make the cuts painfull for the government and NGO's, you are reading too much quality media. Welfare state is good, keep it. After cutting of the dead weight, never thought I would but Wilders has my vote.

You're reading to much bullshit media. Wilders doesn't care about the welfare state. In the early days after he left the VVD he said he wanted to get rid of collective bargaining and abolish the minimum wage. He has flip-flopped on every conceivable issue except islam and immigration.

The rest of his party does seem to genuinely care about health care (some catagories of patients excluded), animal welfare (commendable, but odd) and whatever. This is just speculation of course, but the only reasons I can think of at this point why he blew up his cooperation with the VVD and CDA are - A) he feared the voters would punish him for compromising or B) he feared that some of his party members might defect for making those same compromises.
And option A seems the least credible of the two, considering that he'll never be able to form a working coaltion with anyone again - so the extra seats he might win are cold comfort.

Cutting bureaucratic tape is something that every party supports, in theory. The PVV is however is implying that they're going to fire civil servants in droves and reap mountains of gold in the process, and that is nothing more than a pipe dream. Same with development aid - even if you get rid of it entirely it will only be a couple of "drops on a hot plate" as far as our economic problems are concerned. The real budget cuts are to be found on those issues which the PVV won't touch because they're nothing but a bunch of populists.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Wilders is simply not prepared to bite the bullet. He and the PVV are no more a credible alternative than the SP is.

[Fragony]

Wilders is simply not prepared to bite the bullet. He and the PVV are no more a credible alternative than the SP is.

I don't care, they are just as good in the opposition if they get enough seats. I want out of the EU before they can rob us with the ESM treaty and the PVV is the only party who simply wants out. I do not want to vote PVV but I am still going to, stakes are too high

[Beskar]

One thing I don't understand though, this is in regards to this..

The Bank of England's announcement of its plan, on Thursday, came in response to the worsening economic outlook, governor Sir Mervyn King said: "Together with the government, it will provide billions of pounds of cheap credit to banks to lend to companies."

In otherwords, the government gives a load of free money to banks to use, which then profit from this money as they lend it out to others on an interest.

Why won't the government just lend it out directly to the companies and just cut the greedy fatcat middle men out altogether?

[InsaneApache]

Why won't the government just lend it out directly to the companies and just cut the greedy fatcat middle men out altogether?

Because governments are rubbish at business. They literally couldn't organize a piss up in a brewery.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Because governments are rubbish at business. They literally couldn't organize a piss up in a brewery.


Also - I'm pretty sure it contravenes several EU treaties on fair competition, otherwise I am quite sure they WOULD be doing it by now.

Government is quite capable of acting if it means not losing the election - and the current lot know they can't win with the economy tanked.

[Sarmatian]

OK - who's up for a wager?

I bet that whatever happens, the general folk of Europe will be stitched up, and politicians and the rich will be largely unaffected (or will turn a decent profit).

Any of you right-wingers want a piece of the action?

I have a better offer - I bet that whatever happens, in any country in the world, no exceptions whatsoever, the general folk of that country will be stitched up, and politicians and the rich will be largely unaffected (or will turn a decent profit).

[InsaneApache]

Red Ken and Nigel Farage agree shocker! :inquisitive:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxgwI-0Sozg&feature=player_embedded

[Fragony]

Red Ken and Nigel Farage agree shocker! :inquisitive:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxgwI-0Sozg&feature=player_embedded

Oh so the populist right who disagree with a Flemish ferret who looks like an owl who dropped from his three, a german bookesalesman and his Portugese waiter was right after all. Where to hang them for being way too stupid by considering that this mght just not work.

[Papewaio]

Because governments are rubbish at business. They literally couldn't organize a piss up in a brewery.

Who created the GFC? Government or Private Banks?

All I've seen so far is private companies over extend themselves leaving taxpayers to pick up the droppings of the banks risk taking.

Privatization of infrastructure does not always equal a better value proposition.

As seen with the too big to fail corporations. Inefficiencies scale regardless of the label being government or company. These problems get worse with burecracy and a lack of transparency & accountability.

How many of the decision makers in private industry caused this mess ended up with golden parachutes or are still in the game making bonuses on taxpayer insured decisions?

[Vladimir]

So you're saying that government intervention makes private sector failures worse.

To big to fail is an excuse.

[Kadagar_AV]

Government intervention has to be decisive. Either you really step in and fix the problem (which has not happened in any of the recent Bailouts, in Europe or the USA) or you leave well enough alone and let competition step in.

This half-assed bailout strategy that's become so common is just wasteful procrastination on a grand scale.






I am no financial expert by any means... But one thing I have learnt from life at large is that that the old saying "We don't solve today's problems with today's solutions" by and large holds true.

Tracy Chapman's "talkin' bout a revolution" comes to mind..

[InsaneApache]

It is one of the tragic delusions of the human race that we believe in the inevitability of progress. We look around us, and we seem to see a glorious affirmation that our ruthless species of homo is getting ever more sapiens. We see ice cream Snickers bars and in vitro babies and beautiful electronic pads on which you can paint with your fingertip and – by heaven – suitcases with wheels! Think of it: we managed to put a man on the moon about 35 years before we came up with wheelie-suitcases; and yet here they are. They have completely displaced the old type of suitcase, the ones with a handle that you used to lug puffing down platforms.

Aren’t they grand? Life seems impossible without them, and soon they will no doubt be joined by so many other improvements – acne cures, electric cars, electric suitcases – that we will be strengthened in our superstition that history is a one-way ratchet, an endless click click click forwards to a nirvana of liberal democratic free-market brotherhood of man. Isn’t that what history teaches us, that humanity is engaged in a remorseless ascent?

On the contrary: history teaches us that the tide can suddenly and inexplicably go out, and that things can lurch backwards into darkness and squalor and appalling violence. The Romans gave us roads and aqueducts and glass and sanitation and all the other benefits famously listed by Monty Python; indeed, they were probably on the verge of discovering the wheely-suitcase when they went into decline and fall in the fifth century AD.

Whichever way you look at it, this was a catastrophe for the human race. People in Britain could no longer read or write. Life-expectancy plummeted to about 32, and the population fell. The very cattle shrunk at the withers. The secret of the hypocaust was forgotten, and chilblain-ridden swineherds built sluttish huts in the ruins of the villas, driving their post-holes through the mosaics. In the once bustling Roman city of London (for instance) we find no trace of human habitation save for a mysterious black earth that may be a relic of a fire or some primitive system of agriculture.

It took hundreds of years before the population was restored to Roman levels. If we think that no such disaster could happen again, we are not just arrogant but forgetful of the lessons of the very recent past. Never mind the empty temples of the Aztecs or the Incas or the reproachful beehive structures of the lost civilisation of Great Zimbabwe. Look at our own era: the fate of European Jewry, massacred in the lifetimes of our parents and grandparents, on the deranged orders of an elected government in what had been one of the most civilised countries on earth; or look at the skyline of modern German cities, and mourn those medieval buildings blown to smithereens in an uncontrollable cycle of revenge. Yes, when things go backwards, they can go backwards fast. Technology, liberty, democracy, comfort – they can all go out of the window. However complacent we may be, in the words of the poet Geoffrey Hill, “Tragedy has us under regard”. Nowhere is that clearer than in Greece today.

Every day we read of fresh horrors: of once proud bourgeois families queuing for bread, of people in agony because the government has run out of money to pay for cancer drugs. Pensions are being cut, living standards are falling, unemployment is rising, and the suicide rate is now the highest in the EU – having been one of the lowest.

By any standards we are seeing a whole nation undergo a protracted economic and political humiliation; and whatever the result of yesterday’s election, we seem determined to make matters worse. There is no plan for Greece to leave the euro, or none that I can discover. No European leader dares suggest that this might be possible, since that would be to profane the religion of Ever Closer Union. Instead we are all meant to be conniving in a plan to create a fiscal union which (if it were to mean anything) would mean undermining the fundamentals of Western democracy.

This forward-marching concept of history – the idea of inexorable political and economic progress – is really a modern one. In ancient times, it was common to speak of lost golden ages or forgotten republican virtues or prelapsarian idylls. It is only in the past few hundred years that people have switched to the “Whig” interpretation, and on the face of it one can forgive them for their optimism. We have seen the emancipation of women, the extension of the franchise to all adult human beings, the acceptance that there should be no taxation without representation and the general understanding that people should be democratically entitled to determine their own fates.

And now look at what is being proposed in Greece. For the sake of bubble-gumming the euro together, we are willing to slaughter democracy in the very place where it was born. What is the point of a Greek elector voting for an economic programme, if that programme is decided in Brussels or – in reality – in Germany? What is the meaning of Greek freedom, the freedom Byron fought for, if Greece is returned to a kind of Ottoman dependency, but with the Sublime Porte now based in Berlin?

It won’t work. If things go on as they are, we will see more misery, more resentment, and an ever greater chance that the whole damn kebab van will go up in flames. Greece will one day be free again – in the sense that I still think it marginally more likely than not that whoever takes charge in Athens will eventually find a way to restore competitiveness through devaluation and leaving the euro – for this simple reason: that market confidence in Greek membership is like a burst paper bag of rice – hard to restore.

Without a resolution, without clarity, I am afraid the suffering will go on. The best way forward would be an orderly bisection into an old eurozone and a New Eurozone for the periphery. With every month of dither, we delay the prospect of a global recovery; while the approved solution – fiscal and political union – will consign the continent to a democratic dark ages.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/9337911/Dithering-Europe-is-heading-for-the-democratic-dark-ages.html

[Sarmatian]

What a piece of bull....

Boris Johnson really needs a piece of reality

[Furunculus]

i thought it was pretty incisive stuff myself.

[Greyblades]

...He's comparing the dark ages... to the remains of a destitute small country in the rear end of europe. I'm not a historian or a economist but that seems like a huge example of hyperbole .

[Vladimir]

Hate wheeled suitcases. It's one cubic foot! How heavy could it be?

Is Greece really like Alabama?

[Major Robert Dump]

So hypothetically, were one to have some excess currency available to him, one could travel to Greece with one's leveraged currency and possibly buy property for cheap, or possibly open a non profit for cheap, or possibly, were one so inclined, hire cheap Talent for one's amatuer "art" movies??

Oh wait, the Euro. Right. It has the same value/exchange rate to the dollar in all the member countries, right? Whose stupid idea was that?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

...He's comparing the dark ages... to the remains of a destitute small country in the rear end of europe. I'm not a historian or a economist but that seems like a huge example of hyperbole .

Right - you're not an historian.

He's saying that we can backslide - there's no garentee that Greece will remain a democracy, or that her economy will recover to pre-crisis levels.

Look at Zimbabwe, once capable of feeding all of Africa but in the space of the rule of one man it has become utterly destitute, the people starving and the economy useless and effectively shrinking as inflation rises. Or how about Iran - 60 years ago it was essentially a fully Westernised country until the Americans and British overthrew the elected government.

Hell, look at Somalia in 1982 and 1992.

You know what? just look at the Former Yugoslavia.

That CAN happen in Greece, that's the point.

[Brenus]

Well, the only point Boris forgot, like most, is THERE IS NO POSSIBILITY to quit the Euro. I am not a lawyer, but this treaty, imposed against the will of at least 3 countries that voted against, is signed between sovereign countries. There is no, I repeat, no, countries more equal than others. Perhaps the Conservative Boris has a problem with the concept of equality in front of the law, but as much I was and am against the Treaty of Lisbon Greece is still an equal partner. All the scaremongering and the fear factor can't g again the fact that if Greece doesn't want to go, nobody can decide for her. Even if the Greeks decide to not pay the debt to banks... I can't stop laughing and crying....

[Sarmatian]

Right - you're not an historian.

He's saying that we can backslide - there's no garentee that Greece will remain a democracy, or that her economy will recover to pre-crisis levels.

Look at Zimbabwe, once capable of feeding all of Africa but in the space of the rule of one man it has become utterly destitute, the people starving and the economy useless and effectively shrinking as inflation rises. Or how about Iran - 60 years ago it was essentially a fully Westernised country until the Americans and British overthrew the elected government.

Hell, look at Somalia in 1982 and 1992.

You know what? just look at the Former Yugoslavia.

That CAN happen in Greece, that's the point.

Yes, it can happen to Greece, it can happen to US, it can happen to Australia, it can happen to Brazil, it can happen to Monaco...

If that's all he wanted to say, he shouldn't have even opened his mouth. Yes, water is wet, two plus two is four, thank you very much, move along.

It comes to his reasoning. He's arguing how Greece is being forced to do something by outside influence and he use it as an argument against EU/euro. He conveniently forgets that's something all world/regional powers (Britain included) have been doing for ages and still are doing. Every election in Serbia, including the last one a few weeks ago, there's a ton of guys from US, Britain, France, Germany etc... saying which candidates are preferred by them.

That's a minor example, I don't need to mention cases of supporting political or even military groups, various (N)GO's, etc etc...

And he chose THIS as an example of big countries meddling in (un)democratic processes in other countries??? Thank you, Boris, it was a real eye opener...

[Kralizec]

Well, the only point Boris forgot, like most, is THERE IS NO POSSIBILITY to quit the Euro. I am not a lawyer, but this treaty, imposed against the will of at least 3 countries that voted against, is signed between sovereign countries. There is no, I repeat, no, countries more equal than others. Perhaps the Conservative Boris has a problem with the concept of equality in front of the law, but as much I was and am against the Treaty of Lisbon Greece is still an equal partner. All the scaremongering and the fear factor can't g again the fact that if Greece doesn't want to go, nobody can decide for her. Even if the Greeks decide to not pay the debt to banks... I can't stop laughing and crying....

At present there is no (legal) way for the others to force them to leave EMU, so yes, Greece could refuse to leave. However, they would have nowhere to turn for financing anything. They simply cannot pay for their own bills, even if you exclude interests on their current loans. They think that the current austerity measures are bad, but once they no longer receive EU/IMF aid their government would only be able to spend money that they collect in taxes first. And even that is purely theoretical, because it doesn't take a genius to realize that the entire economy will collapse almost immediately.

In such a case, the EU countries will ignore Greece and concentrate their efforts on keeping Italy, Spain and a legion of banks afloat. They might still agree to give Greece some aid under the condition that they'll leave the Eurozone voluntarily. If they're to be kept in the EU at all, that would presumably require a treaty change because the current one doesn't acknowledge the possibility of leaving only the EMU. Since this is not a hopeful situation for the rest of Europe either, we can be pretty sure that Greece will receive help as long as they keep their end of the agreements.

I'm happy with Greece's latest election results. I do think that New Democracy should stop calling themselves "the conservatives" though. That title now belongs to Syriza. Syriza ran on a platform of continuing Greece's policies of the last three decades: more government jobs, more social security and more deficit spending in general. As a dog returns to its vomit, so a fool repeats his folly :coffeenews:

For the record, assuming Greece does get a government that abides by the existing agreements, I do think that we should be more lenient towards them. That could be either by less austerity or more EU investments in Greece. I just think it's folly to promise further relief when it's still open to doubt wether they'll honour their promises.

[InsaneApache]

Yes, it can happen to Greece, it can happen to US, it can happen to Australia, it can happen to Brazil, it can happen to Monaco...

If that's all he wanted to say, he shouldn't have even opened his mouth. Yes, water is wet, two plus two is four, thank you very much, move along.

It comes to his reasoning. He's arguing how Greece is being forced to do something by outside influence and he use it as an argument against EU/euro. He conveniently forgets that's something all world/regional powers (Britain included) have been doing for ages and still are doing. Every election in Serbia, including the last one a few weeks ago, there's a ton of guys from US, Britain, France, Germany etc... saying which candidates are preferred by them.

That's a minor example, I don't need to mention cases of supporting political or even military groups, various (N)GO's, etc etc...

And he chose THIS as an example of big countries meddling in (un)democratic processes in other countries??? Thank you, Boris, it was a real eye opener...

Welcome to the Peoples Democratic Republic of the massive European Union, where all opinions are considered and ignored enmasse.

[Furunculus]

Well, the only point Boris forgot, like most, is THERE IS NO POSSIBILITY to quit the Euro. I am not a lawyer, but this treaty, imposed against the will of at least 3 countries that voted against, is signed between sovereign countries. There is no, I repeat, no, countries more equal than others.

when have any euro nations ever let a treaty get in the way of national interest?
when has the EU ever been shy about breaking a rule that stood in the way of ever-closer-union?


Perhaps the Conservative Boris has a problem with the concept of equality in front of the law, but as much I was and am against the Treaty of Lisbon Greece is still an equal partner. All the scaremongering and the fear factor can't g again the fact that if Greece doesn't want to go, nobody can decide for her.

what has his Conservative affiliation got to do with his respect for the rule of law?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Well, the only point Boris forgot, like most, is THERE IS NO POSSIBILITY to quit the Euro. I am not a lawyer, but this treaty, imposed against the will of at least 3 countries that voted against, is signed between sovereign countries. There is no, I repeat, no, countries more equal than others. Perhaps the Conservative Boris has a problem with the concept of equality in front of the law, but as much I was and am against the Treaty of Lisbon Greece is still an equal partner. All the scaremongering and the fear factor can't g again the fact that if Greece doesn't want to go, nobody can decide for her. Even if the Greeks decide to not pay the debt to banks... I can't stop laughing and crying....

There is no provision for them to leave - there is also no provision to force them to stay.

Greece can simply repudiate the treaty.

So there is "a possibility to quit the Euro".

[Kralizec]

There is no provision for them to leave - there is also no provision to force them to stay.

Greece can simply repudiate the treaty.

So there is "a possibility to quit the Euro".

They don't want to leave the EMU.

Polls have consistently shown that Greece's population is against the austerity measures and against a return to the drachme. They want to have their cake and eat it, too.

Which is why your idea of returning to the drachme and then writing off their debts wasn't going to work and still isn't going to work.

[Greyblades]

Right - you're not an historian.

He's saying that we can backslide - there's no garentee that Greece will remain a democracy, or that her economy will recover to pre-crisis levels.

Look at Zimbabwe, once capable of feeding all of Africa but in the space of the rule of one man it has become utterly destitute, the people starving and the economy useless and effectively shrinking as inflation rises. Or how about Iran - 60 years ago it was essentially a fully Westernised country until the Americans and British overthrew the elected government.

Hell, look at Somalia in 1982 and 1992.

You know what? just look at the Former Yugoslavia.

That CAN happen in Greece, that's the point.

...What's eating you?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

...What's eating you?

Nothing especially - but you made a silly comment that amounted to "I'm not an expert in history and the collapse of Civilisations, but I'll just dismiss the guy who is."

Whatever else you may think of Boris Johnson he is neither stupid nor lacking in education or erudition.

Point of fact - the man would probably have been better served as an Oxford Don than a politician.

[Greyblades]

Boris Johnson's an expert on history? I know I'm an idiot but I thought he was more of a literary man.

[Furunculus]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classics (oxford)
kings scholar (eton)

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Boris Johnson's an expert on history? I know I'm an idiot but I thought he was more of a literary man.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literae_Humaniores

He is one of the few men in public life with a traditional liberal education.

[Brenus]

“Greece can simply repudiate the treaty. So there is "a possibility to quit the Euro".” Yes. But there is no possibility to expel… That makes the difference and shows retrospectively the arrogance of the Merkozy and the lack of political knowledge of the ones pretending different.
Now, for Greece to go this way, what would be the benefit, the profit: If the debt stays, none. And if Greece refuses to pay the debt, there is no reason to leave the Euro.
Because, you will laugh, without having to pay the debt, Greece has a balanced budget, as 20 % of it goes for servicing the debt. Cancelled this, and reinvest in growth…
It seems obvious that the Conservation Plan doesn’t work. After 9 austerity plans and the plunder of Greece, the debt is higher than when it started.

“However, they would have nowhere to turn for financing anything.” Oops, that was said to Argentina, Brazil and others South Americans Countries when they kicked out the IMF. Nowadays, they have the biggest growth… Or Iceland… Of course, Greece will have to start to tax the Church, the Riches and fight taxes evasion…

“I'm happy with Greece's latest election results.” Really? The cheaters, the corrupted, the same who put Greece where it is with the help of the crook now in charge of the European Central Bank are now in power and you are happy. So, congratulation…

“Syriza ran on a platform of continuing Greece's policies of the last three decades: more government jobs, more social security and more deficit spending in general”: I think you should read their platform. Perhaps it is too much to ask…

“As a dog returns to its vomit, so a fool repeats his folly” Yeap. 9 austerity plans successfully failed, and the Conservative carry on. Well, at least the banksters and affiliates are making money…

“And even that is purely theoretical, because it doesn't take a genius to realize that the entire economy will collapse almost immediately.” It doesn’t take a genius to see it. So it won’t happen because the Conservative and Socialist Greeks allied together will bow to the demand of their European owners.

“Conservative affiliation got to do with his respect for the rule of law?” It goes with to be a Conservative.

[Kralizec]

Because, you will laugh, without having to pay the debt, Greece has a balanced budget, as 20 % of it goes for servicing the debt. Cancelled this, and reinvest in growth…

No, they wouldn't. PVC claimed the same a few months ago and I proved him wrong; eliminate the interest payments and Greece is still in the red. Maybe something changed in the interim, but if so, it's about time.


It seems obvious that the Conservation Plan doesn’t work. After 9 austerity plans and the plunder of Greece, the debt is higher than when it started.

True enough; if left to themselves however the debt would have been even higher with no end in sight.


It seems obvious that the Conservation Plan doesn’t work. After 9 austerity plans and the plunder of Greece, the debt is higher than when it started.“However, they would have nowhere to turn for financing anything.” Oops, that was said to Argentina, Brazil and others South Americans Countries when they kicked out the IMF. Nowadays, they have the biggest growth… Or Iceland… Of course, Greece will have to start to tax the Church, the Riches and fight taxes evasion…[/quote]

Argentina was a financial pariah for many years. Other than that, I don't know much about the South American debt crisis, but a long time has passed since.

It's nice to hear that Iceland is doing fine, they still owe us (the Dutch taxpayers) a load of money.


“I'm happy with Greece's latest election results.” Really? The cheaters, the corrupted, the same who put Greece where it is with the help of the crook now in charge of the European Central Bank are now in power and you are happy. So, congratulation…

New Democracy and Pasok were the main culprits, but they (and a smaller third party) are the only ones willing to work with the EU and IMF on this. Right now, they're better than any of the alternatives.


“Syriza ran on a platform of continuing Greece's policies of the last three decades: more government jobs, more social security and more deficit spending in general”: I think you should read their platform. Perhaps it is too much to ask…

Okay.
http://translate.google.com
http://www.syriza.gr/

Some points:

- restoring the minimum wage to the level before the crisis
- lots of new social programs, many of which would require extra staff to carry out
- stop paying for the remaining debt if that should prove necessary to carry out the rest of their ideas
- attracting more EU funds, and redirecting existing ones to battle unemployment and whatnot

I'd say that I got it about right. Not all of their plans are bad per se, and most of it could have been drawn from any other European leftist party. They also have some bits about getting serious about collecting taxes (particulary against the richt) but that isn't going to cover their program.

[gaelic cowboy]

Another one bites the dust

Cyprus set to make bailout bid today - source (http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0625/fitch-downgrades-cyprus-on-greece-exposure-fears.html)


Spain formally requests banking aid (http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0625/spain-formally-requests-banking-aid.html)

[Fragony]

Unsurprisingly our parlement votes for the ESM, the billions for von Rompuy and Barosso. Dear traitors it may look like it rights now but you are not safe, chaos prevails, you are on a list and your day will come. Be worried or not but you will die within a few years

[gaelic cowboy]

Unsurprisingly our parlement votes for the ESM, the billions for von Rompuy and Barosso. Dear traitors it may look like it rights now but you are not safe, chaos prevails, you are on a list and your day will come. Be worried or not but you will die within a few years

They still havent a clue how to fix this thing and thats going on 4yr now at this stage, if the stupid idiots had sat down and tried to work out a real solution to the rot in Europes banks back in 2008 then we might actually be out of this thing by now.

As it is they continue with failed policy and risk everything because there afraid to admit they were wrong all along.

To continue on the present policy endangers not just Europe but the world.

[Kralizec]

Unsurprisingly our parlement votes for the ESM, the billions for von Rompuy and Barosso. Dear traitors it may look like it rights now but you are not safe, chaos prevails, you are on a list and your day will come. Be worried or not but you will die within a few years

:coffeenews:

Our parliament is elected by the people and they ratified the ESM. Nothing else about it.

Actually, there is: there is a loud-mouthed minority in our country, with you being part of it, who thinks that democracy entails always getting what they want, and everytime a majority disagrees with them they're traitors.

I'd suggest that you do some reading up on what "democracy" actually means. I wouldn't suggest that you start reading quality media as you call it. A dictionary should suffice for now.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

:coffeenews:

Our parliament is elected by the people and they ratified the ESM. Nothing else about it.

Actually, there is: there is a loud-mouthed minority in our country, with you being part of it, who thinks that democracy entails always getting what they want, and everytime a majority disagrees with them they're traitors.

I'd suggest that you do some reading up on what "democracy" actually means. I wouldn't suggest that you start reading quality media as you call it. A dictionary should suffice for now.

There is an important question though - are democratically elected politicians allowed to hand their democratically conferred powers (in this case control of budgets) off to a third body not responsible to the electorate.

It's taken a while, but over here (and in Ireland) the consensus is now "no".

Ergo, the belief is that the ESM requires a referendum - which the real reason we aren't joining.

[Kralizec]

I don't feel strongly for or against binding referendums. I do object to the cherry-picking that political movements display over the issue however - over here they usually demand a referendum on singular issues where the majority opinions of parliament and population do not match. The PVV demands a referendum as a second chance because they can't achieve what they want through the normal process of representative democracy. In Ireland and Switzerland especially referendums are an established way of decision making so that's a different kettle of fish.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I don't feel strongly for or against binding referendums. I do object to the cherry-picking that political movements display over the issue however - over here they usually demand a referendum on singular issues where the majority opinions of parliament and population do not match. The PVV demands a referendum as a second chance because they can't achieve what they want through the normal process of representative democracy. In Ireland and Switzerland especially referendums are an established way of decision making so that's a different kettle of fish.

Right - when Parliament is not representative, which is sadly often true of Europe, especially here.

There is, though, a Constitutional point here - to my knowledge no European political party has ever been elected on a platform of handing powers off to Brussels, but this has been done several times - with EU passports and the Euro being just the most obvious examples of this. If the Government derives its powers from the electorate and holds them in trust then it should not relinquish them to anyone other than the electorate. That means that when a government proposes to give a power to a Super-national body it should consult the people directly via a referendum.

[Kralizec]

Right - when Parliament is not representative, which is sadly often true of Europe, especially here.

There is, though, a Constitutional point here - to my knowledge no European political party has ever been elected on a platform of handing powers off to Brussels, but this has been done several times - with EU passports and the Euro being just the most obvious examples of this. If the Government derives its powers from the electorate and holds them in trust then it should not relinquish them to anyone other than the electorate. That means that when a government proposes to give a power to a Super-national body it should consult the people directly via a referendum.

In that other EU thread (about the EU-group that the Tories are in currently) Furunculus and I often skirmished about the merits and cons of the Westminster system and proportional representation. What we did agree on was that representative democracy is largely a good thing.

Britain has two main parties that often use eurosceptic rethoric in election time but never seriously propose a fundamental change such as leaving the EU. In contrast, the Netherlands has PR and a load of parties. We have:

- the PVV, which wants to leave the EU entirely
- the SP, which claims they're not against the EU as such but think that we should only abide by EU rules when it suits us
- the SGP, a hardline protestant party which is against the EU (as well as women who vote or work, homosexuals and whatnot)
- the CU, a leftist christian party which is more moderate than any of the above and is somewhat eurosceptic

These parties do not have a majority in Parliament at this time, and I don't expect they will after the next election. (even then, they differ on other issues so much that a coalition would be impossible, but I digress)

There are no institutional barriers for the eurosceptics to get a political majority, but they never do, and even if they could they wouldn't be able to cooperate with eachother. The PVV (Wilders) and SP (Socialist Party) are by far the biggest of the two I mentioned. Both have asinine ideas about managing the economy and the PVV has lots of other disagreeable aspects to boot.

I'm largely pro-EU. The failure of the eurosceptics to get their act together and accomplish what they want is not my problem, nor is it a failing of democracy.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

In that other EU thread (about the EU-group that the Tories are in currently) Furunculus and I often skirmished about the merits and cons of the Westminster system and proportional representation. What we did agree on was that representative democracy is largely a good thing.

Britain has two main parties that often use eurosceptic rethoric in election time but never seriously propose a fundamental change such as leaving the EU. In contrast, the Netherlands has PR and a load of parties. We have:

- the PVV, which wants to leave the EU entirely
- the SP, which claims they're not against the EU as such but think that we should only abide by EU rules when it suits us
- the SGP, a hardline protestant party which is against the EU (as well as women who vote or work, homosexuals and whatnot)
- the CU, a leftist christian party which is more moderate than any of the above and is somewhat eurosceptic

These parties do not have a majority in Parliament at this time, and I don't expect they will after the next election. (even then, they differ on other issues so much that a coalition would be impossible, but I digress)

There are no institutional barriers for the eurosceptics to get a political majority, but they never do, and even if they could they wouldn't be able to cooperate with eachother. The PVV (Wilders) and SP (Socialist Party) are by far the biggest of the two I mentioned. Both have asinine ideas about managing the economy and the PVV has lots of other disagreeable aspects to boot.

I'm largely pro-EU. The failure of the eurosceptics to get their act together and accomplish what they want is not my problem, nor is it a failing of democracy.

None of that has ANYTHING to do with the Constitutional question.

Do elected politicians have the right to relinquish powers gifted to them by the electorate to a third party?

Yes or Nor?

It is a simple question, is has nothing to do with how the politicians are elected or how many parties there are.

[InsaneApache]

If put to an 'In or out' referendum tomorrow the UK would vote out. It's not we were led to believe it was.

[Kralizec]

None of that has ANYTHING to do with the Constitutional question.

Do elected politicians have the right to relinquish powers gifted to them by the electorate to a third party?

Yes or Nor?

It is a simple question, is has nothing to do with how the politicians are elected or how many parties there are.

Yes. There's nothing in our written constitution that forbids it, except that treaties which conflict with the constitution have to be ratified with a 2/3 majority. Simple answer for a simple question.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Yes. There's nothing in our written constitution that forbids it, except that treaties which conflict with the constitution have to be ratified with a 2/3 majority. Simple answer for a simple question.

And you're ok with that?

You believe that is right?

Bear in mind, these powers once handed off are extremely difficult to get back - indeed no country has thus far managed it with the EU.

[Furunculus]

There is an important question though - are democratically elected politicians allowed to hand their democratically conferred powers (in this case control of budgets) off to a third body not responsible to the electorate.

^ THIS! ^

authority to govern is [loaned] temporarily to the party that wins the election.

for that party to then [give] away that authority to govern to a third party, without first seeking the explicit consent of the people, is a gross abuse of representative democracy.

[Fragony]

As if they give a crap, we aren't even invited to the meeting that will cost us 800.000.000.000.000 euro. Those are our collective savings and the EU craves acces to it

[Sarmatian]

^ THIS! ^

authority to govern is [loaned] temporarily to the party that wins the election.

for that party to then [give] away that authority to govern to a third party, without first seeking the explicit consent of the people, is a gross abuse of representative democracy.

And when you are going to protest British NATO membership on the same grounds?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

And when you are going to protest British NATO membership on the same grounds?

When NATO becomes a problem and makes a fuss about us coming and going.

France illustrates the absurdity of the comparison in-out-in-out.

[Tellos Athenaios]

They do that every report they issue. They insist you should spend more... do more...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Actually, isn't it usually us saying Germany should do more?

[Tellos Athenaios]

Actually, isn't it usually us saying Germany should do more?

So that is it. It's fine if others (USA) complain about you, so long as you get to complain about others (Germans) ... !

[Papewaio]

Of course that's how most relationships work. Reciprical bitching about each other never actually examining and resolving the root cause problem.

[Sarmatian]

When NATO becomes a problem and makes a fuss about us coming and going.

France illustrates the absurdity of the comparison in-out-in-out.

So it's all about exit mechanism?

[Fragony]

So it's all about exit mechanism?

That would be lovely. Out of the EU. I'll happily accept retiring at 70 just to get rid of the great burden

[gaelic cowboy]

Finaly an idea that might actually work this time of course it only took about 4 year and 3 more bailouts after the Greek one.

Germany caves in over bond buying, bank aid after Italy and Spain threaten to block 'everything' (http://www.independent.ie/business/european/germany-caves-in-over-bond-buying-bank-aid-after-italy-and-spain-threaten-to-block-everything-3153547.html)

[Furunculus]

And when you are going to protest British NATO membership on the same grounds?

i don't recognise a valid comparison.............

one is a military defence treaty
one is a political union that is not considered representative or accountable, and thus illegitimate to the british people

help me out here.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

So it's all about exit mechanism?

Yes, and the fact that we aren't threatened with economic sanctions if we say we don't like it.

[Beskar]

Finaly an idea that might actually work this time of course it only took about 4 year and 3 more bailouts after the Greek one.

Germany caves in over bond buying, bank aid after Italy and Spain threaten to block 'everything' (http://www.independent.ie/business/european/germany-caves-in-over-bond-buying-bank-aid-after-italy-and-spain-threaten-to-block-everything-3153547.html)

It is only going through now because there were issues with sovereignity. More power has been transferred to "Brussels" (technically, ECB). Sovereign entities cannot simply keep their cake and eat it at the same time.

So whilst you are going "Finally, what has taken so long?", you got the Euroeskeptics going "NNNNoooooOOOOOOoooooOOOOOooo (http://www.nooooooooooooooo.com/)".

[gaelic cowboy]

It is only going through now because there were issues with sovereignity. More power has been transferred to "Brussels" (technically, ECB). Sovereign entities cannot simply keep their cake and eat it at the same time.

So whilst you are going "Finally, what has taken so long?", you got the Euroeskeptics going "NNNNoooooOOOOOOoooooOOOOOooo (http://www.nooooooooooooooo.com/)".

I see no cake here to be honest but I do see how everyone seems to be pro eating it.

The simple fact is you cant have a single currency and not have a central bank willing to stand behind it's banks, forcing sovereigns to shoulder these debts was pretty much wrong from the start.

Yes power is transfered from national banking regulators but then they have all of them globaly been proved to be completly incapable to the task. I dont see the ECB being any better at this but eventually it will be capable of printing money for banks at least.

[Furunculus]

according to Charlamagne:

"The euro zone’s fiscal hawks say the bond-buying mechanism will be little different from the existing system. “Mario Monti raised a gun to his head and threatened to shoot himself. In the end he wounded himself in the shoulder,” said one scornful diplomat."

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

It is only going through now because there were issues with sovereignity. More power has been transferred to "Brussels" (technically, ECB). Sovereign entities cannot simply keep their cake and eat it at the same time.

So whilst you are going "Finally, what has taken so long?", you got the Euroeskeptics going "NNNNoooooOOOOOOoooooOOOOOooo (http://www.nooooooooooooooo.com/)".

The question is - will this latest short term fix lead to a long term solution.

I still say no - at some point they will need to re-run the European Constitution votes, and it won't pass.

The Democratic Defecit is too large - that is the sole problem and the entire reason we are in this mess - the macinations of the "progressive" project has long outstripped popular enthusiasm for it.

[gaelic cowboy]

The question is - will this latest short term fix lead to a long term solution.

I still say no - at some point they will need to re-run the European Constitution votes, and it won't pass.

The Democratic Defecit is too large - that is the sole problem and the entire reason we are in this mess - the macinations of the "progressive" project has long outstripped popular enthusiasm for it.

I totally agree that this is a short term fix but it now makes it far more likely Ireland will return to market funding this year and that we should be on target to exit the bailout next year as agreed.

After that they can all go hang for all I care

Beidh mé ag vótáil NÍL

I trust there is no need for translation

[Sarmatian]

i don't recognise a valid comparison.............

one is a military defence treaty
one is a political union that is not considered representative or accountable, and thus illegitimate to the british people

help me out here.

Who asked British electorate if they want to be a part of a military alliance?

Who asked British electorate if they want to go and die for, let's say, Estonia?

Notice the pattern.

[InsaneApache]

Who asked British electorate if they want to be a part of a military alliance?

Who asked British electorate if they want to go and die for, let's say, Estonia?

Notice the pattern.

You may or not be aware how the EU was sold to the British people. Basically, Ted Heath, the treacherous bastard lied.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Who asked British electorate if they want to be a part of a military alliance?

Who asked British electorate if they want to go and die for, let's say, Estonia?

Notice the pattern.

NATO exists because of Russian expansionism, and Britain is free to leave, and will probably do so at some point in the future if we judge Russia to have joined the civilised world.

NATO also doesn't impinge on national soveriegnty and outside a war situation is minimally intrusive, it mandates upper-level structures for co-operation and standardisation of certain things like ammunition (which is famously not enforced) and that's it.

The EU is infinitely more complex than that and, more to the point, an ever growing and overreaching institution.

[Furunculus]

Who asked British electorate if they want to be a part of a military alliance?

Who asked British electorate if they want to go and die for, let's say, Estonia?

Notice the pattern.

nope, doesn't fly. sorry.

[Papewaio]

China, India, US & Indonesia have populations equal to or larger then the EU. Some are democracies, some are very religious, one is not. Very diverse populations in some. So what is the EUs excuse? All too big for your boots to cooperate.

Maybe there will be a united Caliphite before a fully functioning EU.

[InsaneApache]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZaVykbeNyYY

[Greyblades]

China, India, US & Indonesia have populations equal to or larger then the EU. Some are democracies, some are very religious, one is not. Very diverse populations in some. So what is the EUs excuse? All too big for your boots to cooperate.
Pretty much.
China, India, US & Indonesia, They were all united through one force kicking the crap out of all the competition and leaving the population united under one flag, defiant against all outsiders. Europe hasnt had any force unite it since roman times and without that the different provinces and countries still consider themselves seperate from eachother.
The EU is only a economic treaty that is governed by twits who think they are there to rule a united europe, but you dont unify people through economic treaties and they are only tolerated because it makes the member states money. All of the member states are too prideful to give up their autonomy and after the catastrophies that accompanied the last two attempts to conquer europe noone wants to risk another war to conquer europe.
Personally I think the only thing that would unite europe is a common enemy that actually has the power to threaten europe, the only ones who took that role in the last 200 years were Russia, Germany and France; Europeans themselves.

[Fragony]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5z7RVT0a8zI&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Way to go mister Farrage, who is so hated by a that Flemmish ferret who always looks like an owl that dropped from his tree, his Portugese waiter and a German booksalesman. Who for some reason nobody understands get to play with our buttons. Now the socialism demands our savings, these 800 billion smell so good don't they

Out. Didn't we say no by the way

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

China, India, US & Indonesia have populations equal to or larger then the EU. Some are democracies, some are very religious, one is not. Very diverse populations in some. So what is the EUs excuse? All too big for your boots to cooperate.

Maybe there will be a united Caliphite before a fully functioning EU.

By that argument Australians should have pushed for greater integration with Westminster rather than greater independence - what your ancestors wanted, though, was self-governence.

Of your examples, China and India are bywords for bad governance - especially China, Indonesia is not that hot and the US has serious problems with the way the Federal Government interacts with the States and the accountability of Congress.

Nobody has ever shown that a united Europe is either necessary, desirable, or inevitable. In point of fact, we have seen that larger European states have a greater tendancy to break apart than stay together - in the last hundred years, excluding outside impositions, two democratic European states have fragmented due to the will of their respective peoples and percieved incompatability.

Namely, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and Czechoslovakia.

[Sarmatian]

nope, doesn't fly. sorry.

It flies like a fly.

British youth is expected to go and potentially die en masse for someone else, who is NOT YOUR FAMILY(tm), and no one even asked the British electorate how they feel about it?!

[Furunculus]

It flies like a fly.

British youth is expected to go and potentially die en masse for someone else, who is NOT YOUR FAMILY(tm), and no one even asked the British electorate how they feel about it?!

dear me sarmation, this is tedious.

PVC and IA have already covered this quite adequately.

1. This product was mis-sold - generations of the electorate have been called xeonphobic peasants for even wondering whether ever-closer-union was in fact code for a political union, something that was never on the referenda for staying in the european economic community.

2. A treaty is not political union - the collective trust in shared aims and expectations that allows the people to put their destiny in the hands of another, safe in the knowledge that even if ‘their’ man doesn’t get the job then the other guy will still be looking after their best interests.

the manner in which this trust is built is the knowledge that you and ‘he’ have a history of cooperation, and that your respective families likewise have a shared social and cultural history of cooperation, all of which allows you to trust that when adversity strikes ‘he’ will act in a predictable and acceptable way.

so no, Sarmation, a collective defence treaty is a million miles away from political union and common governance in its consequences and processes.

[Papewaio]

By that argument Australians should have pushed for greater integration with Westminster rather than greater independence - what your ancestors wanted, though, was self-

Like a quarter of Australians I am a migrant. Hence my ancestors were not part of voting for Australian independence.

Australia is the only continent under one rule. So I'm not really fussed about local unity.



Of your examples, China and India are bywords for bad governance - especially China, Indonesia is not that hot and the US has serious problems with the way the Federal Government interacts with the States and the accountability of Congress.

China is ruled by technocrats true. It's vector is impressive. It's human rights have a long way to go. But it's technical achievements are rapidly accumulating. Afterall as of last week it surpassed the EUs manned ability in space.

India is chaotically stumbling forward hampered by its religious and caste insitutions. But if cricket is anything to go by they are improving. Economically their growth rate is about half that of China.

Indonesia is actually part basket case part uncut gem. It will be interesting to see where it goes.

USA is still at the top of the heap on a lot of factors. A bit of confidence and it will be powering along again. It has some of the key fundamentals. One of which: fresh water should not be underestimated.



Nobody has ever shown that a united Europe is either necessary, desirable, or inevitable. In point of fact, we have seen that larger European states have a greater tendancy to break apart than stay together - in the last hundred years, excluding outside impositions, two democratic European states have fragmented due to the will of their respective peoples and percieved incompatability.

Namely, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and Czechoslovakia.

A united Europe is desirable to all as we don't want to be dragged into a third world war of your making.

=][=

I still oppose the EU in its current form as it removes too many democratic top level options.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Let's just assume I more or less agree with the rest of what you said.

With the caveat that I think all four of those places could easily go down the toilet - as Boris Johnson pointed out for us earlier, we should not underestimate how quickly a society can collapse.


A united Europe is desirable to all as we don't want to be dragged into a third world war of your making.

This, however, is the great fallacy. the belief that a unified Europe will be peaceful is untennable - it has never worked. It doesn't even work in microcosm, look at the former Yugoslavia.

Then look at the current situation, anti-German sentiment is rising again whilst the German parliament once again desires to impose its will on Southern Europe for the benefit of its own citizens.

You desire peace in Europe?

You must crush Germany, shatter it into its componet peaces, otherwise war is merely a matter of time.

[Papewaio]

The other four countries mentioned all achieve it through different means.

There are solutions not a single solution. A federation works and preserves countries rights. You could have the country of the United Kingdom within the United Europe federation.

I think most important is putting democracy into the highest level.

[Fragony]

The other four countries mentioned all achieve it through different means.

There are solutions not a single solution. A federation works and preserves countries rights. You could have the country of the United Kingdom within the United Europe federation.

I think most important is putting democracy into the highest level.

The EUSSR is undemocratic by nature, it's completely out of control, for eurocrats it's just about upholding their comfortable bliss by now, democracy be damned, es muss sein. And it will go wrong, there will be blood. At my hands probably as my disgust for the EU is by now pure hate. And not just with me, we didn't choose to be ruled by a Flemmish ferret who looks like an owl who just dropped from a tree, his Portugese waiter and a Germam booksalesman. We said no to it.

And why can't I vote for Nigel Farrage, he understands a thing or two

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The other four countries mentioned all achieve it through different means.

There are solutions not a single solution. A federation works and preserves countries rights. You could have the country of the United Kingdom within the United Europe federation.

I think most important is putting democracy into the highest level.

I would not go as far as Fragony, but consider why the EU is undemocratic - its institutions take the place of national ones, but they lack the mandate. If you had put every new EU treaty to plebecite (as we should have since at least 1990) none of them would have been passed, hell the last two were rejected by popular vote, and the Irish only accepted the second time because they were in an economic crunch, needed EU support and were offered several new carrots which they have since effectively been deprived of.

[gaelic cowboy]

I would not go as far as Fragony, but consider why the EU is undemocratic - its institutions take the place of national ones, but they lack the mandate. If you had put every new EU treaty to plebecite (as we should have since at least 1990) none of them would have been passed, hell the last two were rejected by popular vote, and the Irish only accepted the second time because they were in an economic crunch, needed EU support and were offered several new carrots which they have since effectively been deprived of.

The Eurocrats have sown the seeds of eurosceptism in Ireland I used to believe it would take years to get it going but Eurocrats did it overnight. Support for Europe as an economic entity and a place to sort disputes etc etc was high in Ireland even during all of the No votes. This Last Yes vote is problem more damaging than a No vote because if Europe does not deliver on this potential ESM finacial engineering bank dbet thing then goodluck with that Euro add on treaty next year.

Once Sinn Fein have put some distance between them and the troubles and also once they get rid of Adams and McGuinness due to there poor grasp of Southern issues and economics they will grow. At the minute there still acting like a protest party which isnt going to fly enough politically to be top dog in the Dail but once they get a Leader from the South who can talk to the middle class issues they can soar.

That would force both FG, Labour and FF into the same eurosceptic battleground.

[Fragony]

The Eurocrats have sown the seeds of eurosceptism in Ireland I used to believe it would take years to get it going but Eurocrats did it overnight. Support for Europe as an economic entity and a place to sort disputes etc etc was high in Ireland even during all of the No votes. This Last Yes vote is problem more damaging than a No vote because if Europe does not deliver on this potential ESM finacial engineering bank dbet thing then goodluck with that Euro add on treaty next year.

Once Sinn Fein have put some distance between them and the troubles and also once they get rid of Adams and McGuinness due to there poor grasp of Southern issues and economics they will grow. At the minute there still acting like a protest party which isnt going to fly enough politically to be top dog in the Dail but once they get a Leader from the South who can talk to the middle class issues they can soar.

That would force both FG, Labour and FF into the same eurosceptic battleground.

I like you Irish, you are on the receiving end of the man with the money-dick but understand what it will mean for you eventually

[Sarmatian]

dear me sarmation, this is tedious.

PVC and IA have already covered this quite adequately.

1. This product was mis-sold - generations of the electorate have been called xeonphobic peasants for even wondering whether ever-closer-union was in fact code for a political union, something that was never on the referenda for staying in the european economic community.

2. A treaty is not political union - the collective trust in shared aims and expectations that allows the people to put their destiny in the hands of another, safe in the knowledge that even if ‘their’ man doesn’t get the job then the other guy will still be looking after their best interests.

the manner in which this trust is built is the knowledge that you and ‘he’ have a history of cooperation, and that your respective families likewise have a shared social and cultural history of cooperation, all of which allows you to trust that when adversity strikes ‘he’ will act in a predictable and acceptable way.

so no, Sarmation, a collective defence treaty is a million miles away from political union and common governance in its consequences and processes.

I know there's difference between a political and military alliance, though I thank you for the explanation.

The deal is that the electorate wasn't asked in either case, and, maybe it's just my opinion, for whom I have to risk my life is equally important.

You mention a history of cooperation between you and "him". Even if we're willing to ignore the fact that in the last few hundred years, Britain was at war with most important "he's" in NATO just as many times as they were allied, how can you not protest against membership of let's say Estonia in it? Or Georgia, which is anxious to join? What kind of "history of cooperation" is there between Britain and Estonia? Or "shared social and cultural history". And yet, Brits are required to go and die for Estonia if need be... And no one asked them if they want to, ever...

Just to mention, I'm not necessarily disagreeing that EU wasn't formed as democratically as it could or should have been, or that referanda should have been held before ever deeper union and what not, I'm just not seeing how can you not be just as critical to NATO under the same principles, other than your opinion that NATO membership is in the best interest of Britain, which may or may not be true. Some people believe deeper EU integration is in Britain's best interest and likewise it may or may not be true.

I really want a straight answer, don't give me technicalities.

[rory_20_uk]

NATO was a Good Thing when it was a defensive organisation which helped standardise... standards. If the remit is defense of participants as long as they are not the aggressor things work pretty well. Even so, events such as the Falklands show the limits of utility when required.

Since it has become a pseudo-offensive organisation it is not such a good thing.

~:smoking:

[Strike For The South]

Then look at the current situation, anti-German sentiment is rising again whilst the German parliament once again desires to impose its will on Southern Europe for the benefit of its own citizens.

You desire peace in Europe?

You must crush Germany, shatter it into its componet peaces, otherwise war is merely a matter of time.


I have been saying this for years.

[Papewaio]

If you want Spain and Italy to pay up quick smart maybe add the stick of no EU Football cup until they pay their bills.

Seems they all have money for entertainment but not enough to pay for basics.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I know there's difference between a political and military alliance, though I thank you for the explanation.

The deal is that the electorate wasn't asked in either case, and, maybe it's just my opinion, for whom I have to risk my life is equally important.

You mention a history of cooperation between you and "him". Even if we're willing to ignore the fact that in the last few hundred years, Britain was at war with most important "he's" in NATO just as many times as they were allied, how can you not protest against membership of let's say Estonia in it? Or Georgia, which is anxious to join? What kind of "history of cooperation" is there between Britain and Estonia? Or "shared social and cultural history". And yet, Brits are required to go and die for Estonia if need be... And no one asked them if they want to, ever...

Just to mention, I'm not necessarily disagreeing that EU wasn't formed as democratically as it could or should have been, or that referanda should have been held before ever deeper union and what not, I'm just not seeing how can you not be just as critical to NATO under the same principles, other than your opinion that NATO membership is in the best interest of Britain, which may or may not be true. Some people believe deeper EU integration is in Britain's best interest and likewise it may or may not be true.

I really want a straight answer, don't give me technicalities.

I think the difference is - NATO doesn't keep changing, and leaving and coming back is not so hard - France has demonstrated this. However, the idea that a country might leave the EU is regularly represented as "The End Times".

NATO exists for our mutual defence, but people keep telling us the EU is necessary to prevent war in Europe, when it looks like deeper integration is fanning racial tensions and making war more likely.

Rory has acertain point about Afganistan, but it is limted by the fact that the treaty was actually invoked properly, and while NATO may not have been directly involved in the Falklands the British got help from the French and Americans which was greatly eased and facilitated by existing arrangements.

[Sarmatian]

I think the difference is - NATO doesn't keep changing, and leaving and coming back is not so hard - France has demonstrated this. However, the idea that a country might leave the EU is regularly represented as "The End Times".

This part is highly debatable - with the dissolution of USSR, one might say NATO's prime reason for existence is no more. NATO keeps enlarging, accepting countries with no shared social and cultural links and no history of cooperation. It's also pushing for acceptance of countries which are not western style democracies. NATO also isn't solely a defensive alliance anymore - NATO attacked Serbia in 1999. Without going into the details of the conflict, or the moral reasoning, NATO attacked a sovereign country which didn't attack or threaten to attack a NATO country.


NATO exists for our mutual defence, but people keep telling us the EU is necessary to prevent war in Europe, when it looks like deeper integration is fanning racial tensions and making war more likely.

Might be, but I'm trying to argue which is better for Britain or even Europe as a whole. I'm certain there are Brits who feel that a military alliance with US and/or other countries isn't in Britain's best interest, and yet they may be required to fight in a war, just as those Brits who are pro-NATO.

If we agree that electorate should be consulted before the government transfers power to a third party, surely a decision whether to declare war is just as important, and by virtue of NATO membership, that power is taken away from Britain, without ever consulting the British electorate.

[InsaneApache]

I don't recall the UK handing any sovereignty to NATO.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

If we agree that electorate should be consulted before the government transfers power to a third party, surely a decision whether to declare war is just as important, and by virtue of NATO membership, that power is taken away from Britain, without ever consulting the British electorate.

The power you refer to is the power to make war.

What NATO is is a military alliance, what it is not is a body which can unilaterally declare war on behalf of its members.

See the Falklands, likewise see Iraq - even in Afganistan there are NATO members who have flatly refused to comit more than a token force.

[Sarmatian]

The power you refer to is the power to make war.

What NATO is is a military alliance, what it is not is a body which can unilaterally declare war on behalf of its members.

See the Falklands, likewise see Iraq - even in Afganistan there are NATO members who have flatly refused to comit more than a token force.

And what if someone invades Estonia?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

And what if someone invades Estonia?

You mean "what if Russia invades Estonia"?

Good question, hopefully NATO would be a deterrent, even if the axels on the BMW trucks are now one meter high, I still don't fancy having to fight Russia.

[InsaneApache]

And what if someone invades Estonia?

We send the 'Mericans in. :turtle:

[gaelic cowboy]

Well Ireland dipped it's big toe in the shark pond hopefully it will lead to something in the bond market for longer term paper later on.


Irish Bill Sale Marks End of Drought as Spain Yields Rise (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-04/irish-bill-sale-marks-end-of-drought-as-spain-boosts-bond-size.html)

By Finbarr Flynn - Jul 5, 2012 12:42 PM

Ireland returned to public debt markets following an almost two-year absence after European leaders took steps to ease the financial burden of nations that received bailouts.

The National Treasury Management Agency sold 500 million euros ($625 million) of bills due in October at a yield of 1.80 percent, the first auction since September 2010, the Dublin- based NTMA said today. Spain issued about 3 billion euros of securities, with borrowing costs rising for its 10-year bonds France also sold debt.


Prime Minister Enda Kenny is betting that investor confidence can be restored after policy makers agreed at last week’s summit in Brussels to let financial institutions be directly recapitalized through the EU’s bailout funds. With Spain seeking as much as 100 billion euros for its banks, Ireland wants the measures to apply retroactively after pledging 64 billion euros to save its lenders.

“This is a good result, albeit mainly from a symbolic point of view,” said Owen Callan, a Dublin-based analyst at Danske Bank A/S, a primary dealer in Irish government debt. “The vast bulk of the interests getting involved were in the international space, with some small domestic participation as well.”

Spain and Greece
Spain sold three-month bills at a yield of 2.362 percent on June 26. Unlike Greece and Portugal, which have kept selling bills, Ireland stopped using public debt markets when the government was bailed out in 2010.

While Finance Minister Michael Noonan said today the state is focusing on returning to longer-term bond markets next year, it may be possible to sell such debt before the end of 2012, Dublin-based securities firm Davy, a primary dealer in Irish sovereign debt, said.

The yield on Ireland’s 5 percent security due in October 2020 rose four basis points to 6.30 percent at 12.20 p.m. London time. It dropped to 6.22 percent on July 3, the lowest since October 2010. The rate was at 7.11 percent on June 28, and exceeded 14 percent about a year ago.

At Ireland’s previous sale on Sept. 23, 2010, the debt agency sold 400 million euros of bills, with 4 1/2 month bills priced to yield 1.907 percent and 6 1/2 month bills at 2.23 percent.

“The perception is that last week’s EU summit deal to use the eurozone’s new rescue fund to recapitalise banks directly will prove extremely favourable for the Irish sovereign,” Nicholas Spiro, managing director of Spiro Sovereign Strategy in London, said in an e-mail. “However, Ireland is hardly out of the woods.”

Rescue Program
In November 2010, the EU and the International Monetary Fund agreed to a 67.5 billion euro international rescue of the nation as investors shunned Irish debt amid concern that its banking industry would topple the government into bankruptcy. The program is due to finish at the end of next year.

Spain, which like Ireland is dealing with the aftershocks of a real estate bubble, sold its January 2022 bond at an average yield of 6.43 percent today, compared with 6.044 percent the last time the nation sold its 5.85 percent bond on June 7. The yield advanced 23 basis points to 6.64 percent today.

The government also auctioned securities due in July 2015 and October 2016. At Spain’s two previous bond auctions, on June 21 and June 7, it set a maximum sales target of 2 billion euros each, exceeding the objective on both occasions.

General Concern
“There is general concern about demand for Spanish debt,” said Marchel Alexandrovich, an economist at Jefferies Group Inc. in London. “Recent data showed Spanish banks themselves turned a net seller of the country’s debt in April and May. That’s worrying.”

At the summit, euro-area leaders paved the way for Europe’s bailout fund to inject funds directly into lenders once they establish a single banking supervisor. Proposals for a unified supervision framework will be considered by the end of the year, the leaders said. They also decided that the financial assistance Spain gets won’t subordinate existing bondholders.

France, the euro area’s second-biggest economy, sold 7.83 billion euros of securities due in October 2019, April 2022 and October 2023. The 10-year bonds drew an average yield of 2.53 percent, compared with 2.46 percent in June. The 10-year yield was little changed at 2.54 percent.


Interestingly Spain paid more for it's 3 month paper suggests that people are still in a wait and see mode on this supposed ESM bailout scheme.

[Furunculus]

the end cometh?

http://www.spiegel.de/fotostrecke/spiegel-online-survey-on-attitudes-to-euro-crisis-fotostrecke-84563-3.html

[Fragony]

the end cometh?

http://www.spiegel.de/fotostrecke/spiegel-online-survey-on-attitudes-to-euro-crisis-fotostrecke-84563-3.html

Meh. Yesterday someone asked a question about the money going from north to south, predictably a furious Barosso started about Europe's darkest days blabla&bla. I don't think German politicians are cured yet. Rule #1 for eurocrats: if somebody asks question about money or borders, mention the war

Of course it was friday

[Fragony]

wow. A shrink of 6.9% of Greece economy expected. Young Greeks and other southern euro's, come over here to our inevitable northern union, we are short on hands here not on jobs. Geez.

[Conradus]

You desire peace in Europe?

You must crush Germany, shatter it into its componet peaces, otherwise war is merely a matter of time.

To be honest, the same argument could be made for the crushing of France or Britain.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

To be honest, the same argument could be made for the crushing of France or Britain.

Not really - Britain is a Nation of traders, and France is a much weaker economy than Germany - that's why they have the CAP.

If you look at the UK's history you will see out Continental wars all involved either France or Germany being over-mighty - but France has succumbed to Socialism and is smaller and weaker than historically. Germany has the Rhineland.

[Greyblades]

If you look at the UK's history you will see out Continental wars all involved either France or Germany being over-mighty - but France has succumbed to Socialism and is smaller and weaker than historically. Germany has the Rhineland.

You missed out spain, we've had more wars with them than we have with a unified Germany.

[Greyblades]

His point is pretty sound, though. Through all the centuries of inter-European warfare and aggression, the UK has never really been an instigator (if we don't count colonial disputes, but just European wars).

I know, I just feel he missed out a major combatant.

[Fragony]

Yay for the German high court, no ESM just yet. Major setback for that flemmish ferret who looks like an owl that dropped from it's tree, his Portugese waiter and a German booksalesmen.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I know, I just feel he missed out a major combatant.

Most of our Spanish Wars, though, happened when the Spanish King was Holy Roman Emperor - i.e. controlled much of Germany.

Actually, I suppose the suppose the current Spanish King must be Emperor by default - he should ask the Pope about that.

Hmmmm

*Begins sharpening knives.*

[Conradus]

Not really - Britain is a Nation of traders, and France is a much weaker economy than Germany - that's why they have the CAP.

If you look at the UK's history you will see out Continental wars all involved either France or Germany being over-mighty - but France has succumbed to Socialism and is smaller and weaker than historically. Germany has the Rhineland.

Hmm, let's see.

Ever since William the Bastard Engeland has had a history of death and violence in France until they lost their last possessions around Calais. Afterwards, they just started meddling in every continental war and/or any power that threatened their navy. Hell, even with The Netherlands they fought a series of wars. Saying they just fought wars because others were getting too mighty is hardly an argument not to destroy Great Britain. In the end, who is the UK to go deciding on other nation's strength?

And then France, they were involved in every war - and probably partially responsible for every war- until WWI.

Then again, do any of you truly another pan-European war will start?

[Conradus]

Most of our Spanish Wars, though, happened when the Spanish King was Holy Roman Emperor - i.e. controlled much of Germany.

Actually, I suppose the suppose the current Spanish King must be Emperor by default - he should ask the Pope about that.

Hmmmm

*Begins sharpening knives.*

The Empire and hence the title were disbanded by Napoleon, weren't they? The Austrian emperors just went ahead and created the Austria-Hungarian Empire to retain their title :D

[Sarmatian]

The Empire and hence the title were disbanded by Napoleon, weren't they? The Austrian emperors just went ahead and created the Austria-Hungarian Empire to retain their title :D

Ok, just who the heck are you to start bringing common sense in this thread?!

[Kralizec]

The Empire and hence the title were disbanded by Napoleon, weren't they? The Austrian emperors just went ahead and created the Austria-Hungarian Empire to retain their title :D

Nope, Emperor Franz declared the HRE to be dissolved. He did not have the constitutional power to do so, but that's kind of a moot point really.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Nope, Emperor Franz declared the HRE to be dissolved. He did not have the constitutional power to do so, but that's kind of a moot point really.

Legally, the title of Holy Roman Emperor can only be conferred by the Poper - following the "Donation of Constantine."

The modern stumbling block would be that the "Donation" is widely acknowledged to be a fake, but His Majesty King Juan Carlos could fall back on the fact that the Church continued to acknowledge the Emperors, despite the fact that the Canon lawyers would have been aware of this at least from the Renaissance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donation_of_Constantine

Given that the forgery is apparently from the 9th Century that means that Charles the Great much have been annointed of the Pope's own authority.

So, anyway, all hail his de facto Imperial Majesty Emperor Juan Carlos, I suppose.

[Greyblades]

In the end, who is the UK to go deciding on other nation's strength?

The one who can.

[Kralizec]

Legally, the title of Holy Roman Emperor can only be conferred by the Poper - following the "Donation of Constantine."

The modern stumbling block would be that the "Donation" is widely acknowledged to be a fake, but His Majesty King Juan Carlos could fall back on the fact that the Church continued to acknowledge the Emperors, despite the fact that the Canon lawyers would have been aware of this at least from the Renaissance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donation_of_Constantine

Given that the forgery is apparently from the 9th Century that means that Charles the Great much have been annointed of the Pope's own authority.

So, anyway, all hail his de facto Imperial Majesty Emperor Juan Carlos, I suppose.

Yes, the claimants would need to be crowned by the Pope to be Emperor in name; but even when they didn't bother they still legally ruled the HRE as "King of the Romans". I did not know about that particular document though.

When we're speaking of the HRE, as in the collection of German states that had appropriated the title of "Emperor", in order to be King of the Romans (a prerequisite for coronation) one would need to be approved by the electors. And as said, the HRE was dissolved by Franz - even though he wasn't empowered to so from a legal perspective.

I'm pretty sure that Juan Carlos is not a male-line descendant of the Habsburgs, and even if he were, that alone would not sufficient in the days the HRE actually existed.

[drone]

How much of a stink is the LIBOR scandal causing in the EU? Not much about it here, I guess we just need to wait for JPM or BoA to get hit with the investigation. :shrug:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Yes, the claimants would need to be crowned by the Pope to be Emperor in name; but even when they didn't bother they still legally ruled the HRE as "King of the Romans". I did not know about that particular document though.

When we're speaking of the HRE, as in the collection of German states that had appropriated the title of "Emperor", in order to be King of the Romans (a prerequisite for coronation) one would need to be approved by the electors. And as said, the HRE was dissolved by Franz - even though he wasn't empowered to so from a legal perspective.

I'm pretty sure that Juan Carlos is not a male-line descendant of the Habsburgs, and even if he were, that alone would not sufficient in the days the HRE actually existed.

You are mistaken as to the nature of the Holy Roman Empire: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Roman_Empire

As I said, the Emperor's authority derives from the Pope - the later arrangement with the "Electors" was Papally endorsed, tacitely at least, because all temporal monarchs derive their authority ultamately from God.

[Kralizec]

You are mistaken as to the nature of the Holy Roman Empire: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Roman_Empire

As I said, the Emperor's authority derives from the Pope - the later arrangement with the "Electors" was Papally endorsed, tacitely at least, because all temporal monarchs derive their authority ultamately from God.

To be clear, I'm making a distinction between being the ruler of those German states and having the title of Emperor. Only the electors could name a King of Rome; wether the Pope actually went through and named him emperor didn't impact his power in any factual sense- in many cases the rulers of the HRE didnd't bother or just didn't get around to travel to Rome for actual coronation. They were still the rulers of the Empire, in fact if not on paper.

[Fragony]

I think its a given. Europe has been rolling in the good times (relatively speaking) since the end of WWII. It hasn't all been roses, but you've seen more peace and prosperity than at any point in European history. It can't last forever, and war is inevitable when the hard times come.

Not expecting it, not in the traditional sense; war between nations. Major civil unrest is pretty much a given though once our comfortable bliss becomes less comfortable.

[lars573]

You are mistaken as to the nature of the Holy Roman Empire: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Roman_Empire

As I said, the Emperor's authority derives from the Pope - the later arrangement with the "Electors" was Papally endorsed, tacitely at least, because all temporal monarchs derive their authority ultamately from God.
The Holy Roman Emperor also had 2 ancillary titles. King of Germany and King of the Romans. After Charlemagne the title of HRE and king of the Romans was passed around by his grand-sons descendants. It end up with the elected king of the Germans also being HRE. With a stipulation that it was only official if you crowned by the Pope in Rome. Electors were the original dukes of the German tribal duchies. After the 15th century no HRE really bothered going to Rome for a coronation. But the late dark age idea that the Pope had the authority to make Emperors is why Napoleon had the Pope crown him Emperor.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

To be clear, I'm making a distinction between being the ruler of those German states and having the title of Emperor. Only the electors could name a King of Rome; wether the Pope actually went through and named him emperor didn't impact his power in any factual sense- in many cases the rulers of the HRE didnd't bother or just didn't get around to travel to Rome for actual coronation. They were still the rulers of the Empire, in fact if not on paper.

That's fine - but to clarify the point, being "Holy Roman Emperor" doesn't have to apply to a German Emperor, which explains Napoleon's use of the Aqulia etc.

[HopAlongBunny]

How much of a stink is the LIBOR scandal causing in the EU? Not much about it here, I guess we just need to wait for JPM or BoA to get hit with the investigation. :shrug:

Not in the EU myself, but it looks like Barclays will take the fall. I get the impression that no one wants to open the Pandora's Box; whack the one with the poor taste to raise the issue and hope it goes away.

[Kralizec]

That's fine - but to clarify the point, being "Holy Roman Emperor" doesn't have to apply to a German Emperor, which explains Napoleon's use of the Aqulia etc.

I'm still not sure what your point is. The Germans assumed the imperial mantle after they absorbed the middle kingdom and the city of Aachen; which was Charlemagne's favoured residence, and the Pope induldged them in their pretentions.

The actual title is meaningless beyond its empty symbology. It's supposed to stress preemincence over the other monarchs of Europe, but even their power over the petty German princes waxed with the ages. The Papal recognition of their "imperial" crown was essentially a useless gesture but it gave the impression that the Pope actually did have authority over worldy rulers. Napoleon dispensed with this obvious nonsense and essentially crowned himself; the fact that the Pope was present was insult to injury.

Why Juan Carlos would have any claim to the title, a useless one anywa, is unclear to me. He did not descend from the Emperors and even if he did that would not be enough.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Why Juan Carlos would have any claim to the title, a useless one anywa, is unclear to me. He did not descend from the Emperors and even if he did that would not be enough.

He would not need to "descend" from anyone, although it became a de facto Hapsburg title it was never a de jure one.

He would get it by defeault - he's the only Roman Catholic King left!

[Kralizec]

He would not need to "descend" from anyone, although it became a de facto Hapsburg title it was never a de jure one.

He would get it by defeault - he's the only Roman Catholic King left!

Is my usage of the word "descend" incorrect?

Belgium.

Also, Luxembourg. That's just a grand duchy, though. And if the Pope can name any king an emperor, no matter how much power he actually has, surely he could name a beggar as well.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Is my use of the word "descend" incorrect?

Belgium.

Also, Luxembourg. That's just a grand duchy, though. And if the Pope can name any king an emperor, no matter how much power he actually has, surely he could name a beggar as well.

The first crowned Western Emperor was, irrc Clovis - nobody is "descended" from him. The point, it's not blood which is the key issue.

Is Luxemborg Roman Catholic, I did not know that.

[Kralizec]

I'm pretty sure that Charlemagne was the first one to be crowned after 476 AD.

Yes.

[Kralizec]

The Holy Roman Emperor also had 2 ancillary titles. King of Germany and King of the Romans. After Charlemagne the title of HRE and king of the Romans was passed around by his grand-sons descendants. It end up with the elected king of the Germans also being HRE. With a stipulation that it was only official if you crowned by the Pope in Rome. Electors were the original dukes of the German tribal duchies. After the 15th century no HRE really bothered going to Rome for a coronation. But the late dark age idea that the Pope had the authority to make Emperors is why Napoleon had the Pope crown him Emperor.

That's mostly correct, except that the term "Holy Roman Empire/Emperor" was only used from Otto I and onwards. IIRC, being king of Germany (that is, the eastern portion of the divided Carolingian realm) was originally hereditary, but that male-line branch of Charlemagne's descendants died out at some point. Strictly speaking all the lands should then have passed to the Carolingian heir in west-Francia (i.e. France), but the German dukes decided to elect a new monarch instead. Since then, the king/emperor of Germany was elected.

[HopAlongBunny]

Apparently I was wrong about the LIBOR scandal winding down to oblivion.

Canadian banks are under investigation as well as ones in USA. The article (http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/story/2012/07/15/canada-libor-link-probed.html) mentions Canadian branches of involved banks, as well as an investigation by the US. If any findings see the light of day, it could get very ugly indeed.

[drone]

Excellent, this need to get the full light-of-day treatment. It's high time the heads of bank execs started rolling, and the uproar might prevent the regulatory rollbacks the industry is currently bribing our congresscritters for.

[Strike For The South]

In 100 years, this will be the new gilded age, only with bankers taking the role that heavy industry played.

Any takers?

sigh. I would be a revolutionary, if there were any money in it.

[HopAlongBunny]

In 100 years, this will be the new gilded age, only with bankers taking the role that heavy industry played.

Any takers?

sigh. I would be a revolutionary, if there were any money in it.

I'll bite.

Unlike Twains' Gilded Age where cheap money saw enormous expansion of industry, agriculture and infrastructure (raising all boats), this gilded age is all about cheap money chasing paper returns essentially resulting in asset inflation. The beauty of Twains' take on things is it is just as relevant today as when published. The actors change but the mechanism of gov't/industry and "wealth creation" is much the same.

[Jolt]

I'm sorry, but what has the Western Roman Emperors, Clovis, Charlemagne and the Pope got to do with this thread again?

[Kagemusha]

People are passing time, waiting for the default.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Treaty of Rome.

The EU is a Papist plot to spread peace and joy across the continent.

[gaelic cowboy]

People are passing time, waiting for the default.

Actually it happened already back in March (http://www.economist.com/node/21550271)

[Tellos Athenaios]

Ehrm I was promised a full scale Euro zone default and all I got was this lousy ... ?

[Fragony]

Ehrm I was promised a full scale Euro zone default and all I got was this lousy delay?

Fixed

[gaelic cowboy]

Ehrm I was promised a full scale Euro zone default and all I got was this lousy ... ?

Then people have been missunderstanding what default means in this case.

Default does not have to mean expulsion of a member or the end of the EURO.

However by denying such simple solutions the Very Important People who deal with Very Serious Matters actually nearly broke the EURO and it's not entirely certain they understand that.

[Tellos Athenaios]

No I understand perfectly well what a default is. But Greece on its own does not a default of the Euro zone make, yet.

[Sarmatian]

Actually it happened already back in March (http://www.economist.com/node/21550271)

That's not a default, that's debt restructuring.

[Vladimir]

Bankruptcy?

[gaelic cowboy]

That's not a default, that's debt restructuring.


Did they get paid the money they were supposed to?


Unlike some of the people posting here I dont believe a default is the end of the EURO in fact it's the lack of default the makes the end of the EURO more likely.

Eventually the ECB will burn people holding Eurozone paper and basically nothing will happen in fact I bet after a few weeks the markets forget about it and start rallying.

[Kralizec]

1) some other countries got into trouble when they started bailing out their banks. Are you saying they should have just let the banks gone bust? Or that they should have bailed them out and then defaulted on those debts? Because the latter would have ruined not just the governments credibility but also that of its respective financial sector
2) if a country defaults, it screws over a string of banks, pension funds and governments in other EU countries. I can see how this would be beneficial to the defaulting country in the short run, but why should the rest stand for this behaviour?
3) just speculation: let's say a country has about 100% GDP sovereign debt, and it defaults on half of it. If that causes the interest rates at which they can refinance their remaining debt to double or tripple, how is that country any better off? If a country defaults on all of its debt, can it manage to run a positive budget for the next couple of decades? Because a lot of people will be pissed, and simply not lend at all.

[gaelic cowboy]

1) some other countries got into trouble when they started bailing out their banks. Are you saying they should have just let the banks gone bust? Or that they should have bailed them out and then defaulted on those debts? Because the latter would have ruined not just the governments credibility but also that of its respective financial sector
2) if a country defaults, it screws over a string of banks, pension funds and governments in other EU countries. I can see how this would be beneficial to the defaulting country in the short run, but why should the rest stand for this behaviour?
3) just speculation: let's say a country has about 100% GDP sovereign debt, and it defaults on half of it. If that causes the interest rates at which they can refinance their remaining debt to double or tripple, how is that country any better off? If a country defaults on all of its debt, can it manage to run a positive budget for the next couple of decades? Because a lot of people will be pissed, and simply not lend at all.

Q1 Bailing banks has been forced on people because everyones respective central bank has been against any form of restrucure or default from the start. This policy was based on much of the thinking you yourself profess about market sentiment turning bad due to investor losses blah balh and frankly it's a lod of cobblesrs and neither is it working and in fact is getting worse. We have seen where this policy has led us and to continue it now for Spain and Italy will be suicide both for the Euro the EU and the world economy.

Q2 So what your saying is that you prefer to reward bad investment strategies by private corporations and individuals by taking money from taxpayers etc etc. Therefore you want to increase the debt burden on the sovereign by making it liable for bank losses which increases the amount need to be borrowed for bailouts and as a result deflates said economy which increase the debt burden. This cycle needs to be broken or it will break us all.

Q3 Because there is less burden on the sovereign to borrow to refinance existing loans and because much of the reticence in the bondmarket is due to the need to refinance and the fear of restructuring. The markets have no memory they only care about returns and they will lend if they feel there is one available.

I'm confident if Ireland gets to cancel much of it's bank debt then it's bond rates will actually go down and facilitate a return to market funding in 2013 as envisaged all along by the Troika. Every paper released by every investment bank/hedge fund/financial blah blah says the same thing Ireland must restructure it's bank debt ie to effectively not pay it back. The continual burden on taxpayers of Ireland to pay back the bailout money merely increase the cost of the debt making it harder to exit the programme.

I believe Portugal could get a simmilar bounce depending on the situation in Spain but unfortunately it appears Spain is as we speak paying more for it bonds. If Spain is paying more it probably means that the proposed spanish bank deal is nothing of the sort and is actually a bailout of the sovereign.

[Fragony]

I am probably stupid for asking, especially because I'm asking it, but what exactly is a 'default'. It was never explained to me in a way I can understand

[rory_20_uk]

At its most simplest the monies owed are not paid.

~:smoking:

[a completely inoffensive name]

Just popping in here to ask real quickly, are we still boned?

[Kralizec]

Q1 Bailing banks has been forced on people because everyones respective central bank has been against any form of restrucure or default from the start. This policy was based on much of the thinking you yourself profess about market sentiment turning bad due to investor losses blah balh and frankly it's a lod of cobblesrs and neither is it working and in fact is getting worse. We have seen where this policy has led us and to continue it now for Spain and Italy will be suicide both for the Euro the EU and the world economy.

Q2 So what your saying is that you prefer to reward bad investment strategies by private corporations and individuals by taking money from taxpayers etc etc. Therefore you want to increase the debt burden on the sovereign by making it liable for bank losses which increases the amount need to be borrowed for bailouts and as a result deflates said economy which increase the debt burden. This cycle needs to be broken or it will break us all.

Unilaterally erasing your banks' debt is quite illegal per EU law. As the effects of that, or a default on sovereign debt for that matter, will dramatically affect financial institutions and pension funds in other countries it's not surprising that those other countries won't look kindly on such a move.

Bad investment strategies? Maybe. "We're defaulting on our debt. Don't like it? Then you shouldn't have invested in us in the first place. What were you thinking, lolz."

It's not just an abstract matter of "reduced confidence" but also a direct matter of reduced money supply when (other) banks have to write off a huge amount of assets. You could make the case that there should be a EU wide restructuring of debt, but that will disproportionately reward those countries who either made a mess out of it themselves or countries who enjoyed the benefits of large financial sectors for many years.


Q3 Because there is less burden on the sovereign to borrow to refinance existing loans and because much of the reticence in the bondmarket is due to the need to refinance and the fear of restructuring. The markets have no memory they only care about returns and they will lend if they feel there is one available.

Fair enough. A sovereign default is not necessarily an armageddon, and restructuring/defaulting will actually make it easier to repay the remainder of the debt. But if a country defaults at a time when there's still actually hope that it could repay debt it sets a poor precedent.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Just popping in here to ask real quickly, are we still boned?


Yes.

[gaelic cowboy]

Unilaterally erasing your banks' debt is quite illegal per EU law. As the effects of that, or a default on sovereign debt for that matter, will dramatically affect financial institutions and pension funds in other countries it's not surprising that those other countries won't look kindly on such a move.

Bad investment strategies? Maybe. "We're defaulting on our debt. Don't like it? Then you shouldn't have invested in us in the first place. What were you thinking, lolz."

It's not just an abstract matter of "reduced confidence" but also a direct matter of reduced money supply when (other) banks have to write off a huge amount of assets. You could make the case that there should be a EU wide restructuring of debt, but that will disproportionately reward those countries who either made a mess out of it themselves or countries who enjoyed the benefits of large financial sectors for many years.



Fair enough. A sovereign default is not necessarily an armageddon, and restructuring/defaulting will actually make it easier to repay the remainder of the debt. But if a country defaults at a time when there's still actually hope that it could repay debt it sets a poor precedent.


You still don't get it even after all this time yer all still worried what others will think of the default. The high bond prices for Spain and Ireland are there as a result of a belief among lenders that sovereigns will deflate there economy because of the terms of the bailout. Ireland's bonds should be lower as we don't have to borrow money cos we have a bailout that means anyone with short term paper is guaranteed there money back, so why do they soar they go up because we require more and more to service an ever larger debt because of the bailout.

Spain is Ireland on steroids if ye all try the same trick again as ye did here the Euro will suffer it's biggest crisis yet and it wont have anything to do with Greece.


And honestly what financial institution would hold such paper when Merkels 2013 deadline for haircuts is coming up, this stuff has all been marked down or sold at a loss ages ago.

If you dont restructure the debt you will end up down here in the mud with us I suggest you mark it down and at least get something for it.

[Kralizec]

You do have a knack for selectively picking things that support your argument, don't you?

Debt rates are high for the simple reason that nobody wants to buy those bonds. Germany's finances are good but not that good; the near-zero rates they get now are because everybody piles on eachother to buy that paper and thus create a self-reinforcing prophesy. Spain and Italy are in trouble, but because nobody buys their bonds it paints a bleaker picture than is actually justified.

German and French banks hold massive stakes in Spanish debt. Erasing that debt means letting Spain off the hook at the expense of France and Germany. Is that difficult to comprehend?

The banking union sounds like a good idea that's long overdue.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

You do have a knack for selectively picking things that support your argument, don't you?

Debt rates are high for the simple reason that nobody wants to buy those bonds. Germany's finances are good but not that good; the near-zero rates they get now are because everybody piles on eachother to buy that paper and thus create a self-reinforcing prophesy. Spain and Italy are in trouble, but because nobody buys their bonds it paints a bleaker picture than is actually justified.

German and French banks hold massive stakes in Spanish debt. Erasing that debt means letting Spain off the hook at the expense of France and Germany. Is that difficult to comprehend?

The banking union sounds like a good idea that's long overdue.

Spain's bond yields are over 7% right now - I suggest you boys find a new solution, because the medicine you're using isn't killing the patient so much as putrifying his corpse right now.

[gaelic cowboy]

You do have a knack for selectively picking things that support your argument, don't you?

Debt rates are high for the simple reason that nobody wants to buy those bonds. Germany's finances are good but not that good; the near-zero rates they get now are because everybody piles on eachother to buy that paper and thus create a self-reinforcing prophesy. Spain and Italy are in trouble, but because nobody buys their bonds it paints a bleaker picture than is actually justified.

German and French banks hold massive stakes in Spanish debt. Erasing that debt means letting Spain off the hook at the expense of France and Germany. Is that difficult to comprehend?

The banking union sounds like a good idea that's long overdue.

If there guaraunteed there money on short term paper why are they going up then these people only care about returns.

The fact is the ECB is causing it because institutions senority in bond purchases is in danger, why pay for senior bond status if the ECB is going to effectively claim Senior Senior status.

German and French banks had 4yr to get ready for this moment and essentially the ECB, national governments and various banks did absolutely to get ready for it. The ECB is effectively saying we must reward this insanity by paying back all senior bondholders the full amount with taxpayer cash, however at the same time we the ECB must be paid first. I cannot have senior status if the ECB is ahead of me so essentially people are concluding that senior status is really junior and is in danger of a cut.

At the moment there are only two ways out of the swamp
1: cut some of it so it's lower
or
2:restructure it into new longer term bonds

both of these reduce the burden on sovereigns and increase the likelyhood of some or all of the payment.

At the minute both options are completely off the table and so that only leaves only a total default hence Spanish bonds are rising.

The market has rightly concluded that there will be a bailout of Spain as there has not in fact been an agreement to ringfence bank debt from sovereign debt

[Kralizec]

Loans/bonds granted under relief packages deserve special treatment because they're granted with the goal of keeping the country afloat and are therefore beneficial to the other creditors. One could draw a paralell with insolvent companies who are put under custody; if the business is kept running in the interim the costs of that operation are given preferential status in the case a bankruptcy does eventually occur (or at least; that's the way it works over here)

Sovereign bonds have traditionally been seen as a safe investment with low returns. France, the Netherlands and especially Germany have recently even sold bonds with negative nominal interest rates - for the plain simple reason that investors in bonds do not generally care about large returns but do care about getting at least their nominal investment back. Spain and Italy's rates are high because bond investors are generally risk averse.

Banks are not the only problems of the Spanish, but also their autonomous regions who they can barely reign in.

[gaelic cowboy]

Loans/bonds granted under relief packages deserve special treatment because they're granted with the goal of keeping the country afloat and are therefore beneficial to the other creditors. One could draw a paralell with insolvent companies who are put under custody; if the business is kept running in the interim the costs of that operation are given preferential status in the case a bankruptcy does eventually occur (or at least; that's the way it works over here)

nice parralell but a country is not a company as no company sells the majority of it's goods to it's own employees. And the costs in this case will be born by the taxpayer of said country and not the lender.


Sovereign bonds have traditionally been seen as a safe investment with low returns. France, the Netherlands and especially Germany have recently even sold bonds with negative nominal interest rates - for the plain simple reason that investors in bonds do not generally care about large returns but do care about getting at least their nominal investment back. Spain and Italy's rates are high because bond investors are generally risk averse.

And there now even more risk averse than before as they have concluded that Spain will be forced to become a bailout country due to the fact that bank debt will not be kept separate from sovereign debt.

This has increased the likelyhood that no will get paid because effectively were trying to pay everyone.

[phonicsmonkey]

negative nominal interest rates

I think you mean negative real interest rates ie. a small positive nominal rate which, when adjusted for inflation, becomes effectively negative

sorry to be a pedant

[Kralizec]

I think you mean negative real interest rates ie. a small positive nominal rate which, when adjusted for inflation, becomes effectively negative

sorry to be a pedant

Well, yes, but I gather that most bonds include an interst rate and, seperately from that, an inflation-protection clause (a variable percentage of interest that's linked to actual inflation). I should have been clearer.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Well, yes, but I gather that most bonds include an interst rate and, seperately from that, an inflation-protection clause (a variable percentage of interest that's linked to actual inflation). I should have been clearer.

All the situation for Germany, I do not believe it applies to France, indicates is that the market is broken - Germany's rates are a result of people buying nothing else AND the Bundusbank hoovering up ALL spare debt on the secondary market.

[SoFarSoGood]

German Target2 exposure is over 700bn euros. IF the southern Europeans leave that debt defaults.

[gaelic cowboy]

German Target2 exposure is over 700bn euros. IF the southern Europeans leave that debt defaults.

How? if you leave the debt is still in Euro and since it is in fact the ECB that is owed the money it can just delete the word debt on it's balance sheet and insert the word asset.

Plus most of this is either capital flight from weaker country banks or normal day to day trade ie paying German exporters for there products.

And in any case using the word debt and owed in relation to target2 is faulty as target2 is not a debt, the increase in the money supply in Germany will be mirrored by a reduction of the same amount in Italy.

[SoFarSoGood]

If I owe the bank £100 it's my problem. If I owe the bank 700bn euros it's the banks problem. To call the Target2 money owed an 'asset' presumes you be repayed but that is precisely the problem; the southern europeans are having trouble supporting their own economies without Target2 payments. It is therefore an 'exposure'.

So what happens if the southerners leave the euro? They revert back to their own currencies and devalue. Yes Germany might recover the Target2 exposure but if it is still denominated in euros it would take centuries to repay in new Liras and Pesatas etc. It's certainly not going to be payed back as it is supposed to be now and as the new sovereigns would not be run by the ECB but by their own national banks.

700bn euros missing from German banks... As I said it's the banks problem.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Only if they need the money - if the debt has already been written off it will not be a real issue

Money is just an idea, it isn't worth anything beyond the institution that backs it.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9417845/British-taxpayers-to-pay-350-million-extra-to-EU.html

2.8% increase in the EU budget while national governments slash spending.

Fire the entire bloody parliament, I say.

[InsaneApache]

The EU certainly knows how to royally take the piss.

[Fragony]

The EU certainly knows how to royally take the piss.

Looking forward for the moment where they are amazed that they will actually get hanged.

[gaelic cowboy]

If I owe the bank £100 it's my problem. If I owe the bank 700bn euros it's the banks problem. To call the Target2 money owed an 'asset' presumes you be repayed but that is precisely the problem; the southern europeans are having trouble supporting their own economies without Target2 payments. It is therefore an 'exposure'.

So what happens if the southerners leave the euro? They revert back to their own currencies and devalue. Yes Germany might recover the Target2 exposure but if it is still denominated in euros it would take centuries to repay in new Liras and Pesatas etc. It's certainly not going to be payed back as it is supposed to be now and as the new sovereigns would not be run by the ECB but by their own national banks.

700bn euros missing from German banks... As I said it's the banks problem.

It's pretty obvious you dont understand what target 2 actually is because that is is basically completely wrong. The money is owed to the ECB and the payment has already being made so any reversion to Lira does not wipe your target 2 credit/debit out.

Target 2 is a payment system between euro area banks by using there national central banks using the ECB to credit or debit each national central bank account. No money is actually created here as this money is already in circulation and it is basically the normal to and fro of any national payments system.

The only exposure I have ever read or heard about is if the EURO might ever get dissolved as this would would wipe out the ECB as it can only print EURO. However the ECB would naturally have already printed all the EURO it needs to credit any account before it was wound up so I don't see how this can actually happen in reality.

Also on a potential dissolution the payments to the ECB would have to be shared by each of the national central bank according to there share of the ECB.

So actually having an overly large target 2 is a good thing as your only liable for your share of the ECB and not your share of the money.

[SoFarSoGood]

The southern banks have NOT repayed the ECB, which in turn should pass them on to the Bundesbank. The real the collateral held at the Bundesbank is decreasing.

[gaelic cowboy]

The southern banks have NOT repayed the ECB, which in turn should pass them on to the Bundesbank. The real the collateral held at the Bundesbank is decreasing.


Actually they have PAYED by the ECB because that's how target2 works.

Goods, services or even deposits are lodged to crossborder accounts so the Bank of Greece tells the ECB to debit it's account and credit the Bundesbank one at the ECB.

The Bundesbank has a high target 2 meaning they are being paid for goods and services etc etc which probably indicates a high current account surplus in the German domestic economy allied with capital flight to German banks.

The Bundesbank is not lending this money it is in fact being payed this money by the ECB who just delete or input a few numbers on a spreadsheet.

And reduction in capital is merely an indication of the reduction of German assets nationally of say cars, washing machines or tractors finding there way to say Spain after payment.

[SoFarSoGood]

So how come it is reported, even by the Bundesbank itself, that Germany is over exposed to Target2 repayment? There appears to be some divergence between your utopia (which is of course how it should work) and the reality. But nothing new there in the euro fiasco...

[phonicsmonkey]

Well, yes, but I gather that most bonds include an interst rate and, seperately from that, an inflation-protection clause (a variable percentage of interest that's linked to actual inflation). I should have been clearer.

Not quite. Most bonds have a coupon which is fixed at the time of issue, relative to market interest rates. At that point, the coupon interest rate will contain a component which reflects the market's expectation for inflation. However, the coupon does not change with subsequent changes in inflation expectations. Hence fixed interest securities like bonds are particularly negatively impacted by inflation.

Unless it's an inflation-linked bond where the coupon varies directly with changes in the inflation rate, but they are a very small subset of the total bonds on issue.

The point you were making was that G3 (US, Germany and Japan) bonds are currently being issued at negative real interest rates. Which means that if you examine the fixed coupon they are being issued at and deduct the expected inflation rate the result is negative. In effect the 'borrower' is being paid by the lender for the privilege of taking their money.

Such is the distortion of markets caused by terror. The return of capital has become more important than the return on capital.

[SoFarSoGood]

Spanish 2 year paper now trading at 6.74%... Which means that for Spain to use 2 year bonds to borrow they would, in order to repay profitably, have to be growing at around 7%. Evidently they are not which is why Spain is effectively blocked from the markets.

[gaelic cowboy]

So how come it is reported, even by the Bundesbank itself, that Germany is over exposed to Target2 repayment? There appears to be some divergence between your utopia (which is of course how it should work) and the reality. But nothing new there in the euro fiasco...

What Germany is talking about in Target 2 is how dangerous its position is in relation to the current account surpluses it runs against other Eurozone menbers. These surplusses are due to countries having to trade with Germany for goods while Germany buys little from them, all that could dissappear IF the Eurozone were to be wound up.

A huge part of the Germany economic strength at the minute is built on the fact there is on there been no currency differential between EZ member states.

Basically your incorrect in your assertion that Germany could lose money on payments it has already recieved, the danger for Germany is to future trade which is why no one will get kicked out of the EURO.

These lunatics will quite litterally fight to the last indoctirnated zealot to keep it going.

[gaelic cowboy]

Spanish 2 year paper now trading at 6.74%... Which means that for Spain to use 2 year bonds to borrow they would, in order to repay profitably, have to be growing at around 7%. Evidently they are not which is why Spain is effectively blocked from the markets.

Indeed as I feared the deal on Spanish banks was nothing of the sort and baring a solution to this crisis we should get a Spanish bailout by the backend of this year.

I would have thought though that the figure needed for repayment would be closer to 3.5% as they are 2yr bonds after all.

[SoFarSoGood]

What Germany is talking about in Target 2 is how dangerous its position is in relation to the current account surpluses it runs against other Eurozone menbers. These surplusses are due to countries having to trade with Germany for goods while Germany buys little from them, all that could dissappear IF the Eurozone were to be wound up.

A huge part of the Germany economic strength at the minute is built on the fact there is on there been no currency differential between EZ member states.

Basically your incorrect in your assertion that Germany could lose money on payments it has already recieved, the danger for Germany is to future trade which is why no one will get kicked out of the EURO.

These lunatics will quite litterally fight to the last indoctirnated zealot to keep it going.

You are mistaken when you say that the Target2 repayments have been made. It was being repayed when all was hunky dory but that is precisely what is indicated by the phrase 'Target2 exposure'; it has not been payed. It is an 'asset' should it be repayed but for any chance of that the system has be kept going, which of course requires ever more money. Seriously how can Greece make Target2 payments to the ECB when it relies on ECB/IMF drip feed anyway? I know that the 'troika' loans to Greece enjoy 'seniority' to other bond holders but wouldn't it be a little self defeating to have German exports to Greece (which is actualy relatively small) propped up 'troika' loans? If it was all tickety-boo and the 700bn euros had "already" been repayed then I agree it wouldn't be a problem. It hasn't though and thus it's an "exposure".

In theory if Greece (for example) left the euro Germany would be able reclaim it's Target2 money from the ECB. "Consider an example for Germany and Greece. Germany provided about 27 percent of the capital of the ECB provided by countries belonging to the euro area (Bank of Spain 2012). Greece's TARGET2 balances are on the order of 100 billion euro. If something happened and those balances became worth half, losses would be 50 billion euro and Germany's exposure 27 percent of that, or on the order of 13 billion euro, a far cry from what might be suggested by its TARGET2 balance of approximately 500 billion euro. Furthermore, Germany's TARGET2 balance itself could be zero and the loss would be the same in this example. It is the net exposure of the ECB to countries that determines any risk associated with TARGET2." (Gerald Dwyer)

In a way you are right; the ECB suffers, not Germany but as most of the loans handed out by the ECB and therefore debts owed to the ECB are German money... See my point?


Indeed as I feared the deal on Spanish banks was nothing of the sort and baring a solution to this crisis we should get a Spanish bailout by the backend of this year.

I would have thought though that the figure needed for repayment would be closer to 3.5% as they are 2yr bonds after all.

Recently actual auctions of both Spanish and Italian bonds have been slightly under the market trading price. I believe the last 10 Italian auction was arounf 5.4% but don't recall offhand whereas it's quoted nearer 6%. So although Spanish 2 year paper is trading for 6.7% you might expect it sell for slightly less in reality (the Spanish banks buy it). However is Spain borrows say £100 for 2 years at 6% it HAS to make more 6% profit in those 2 years to be able to repay the £100 and still make a profit. If I borrow £100 at 6% and make 20% profit it's no problem - I repay the £106 and keep £14 profit and tyvm can I do it again? Spanish 10 year bonds are above 7.5% now so that is why 2 year paper is trading nearer 6.7%. The confidence is gone and Spain certainly will need either a 'bailout' (which is more delaying tactics) or a direct ECB intervention.

Personaly I would put the lot on trial for fraud and have rid of the euro and would be dictators in Brussels with it. Long live freedom (except for the Romans who must die!).

[gaelic cowboy]

You are mistaken when you say that the Target2 repayments have been made. It was being repayed when all was hunky dory but that is precisely what is indicated by the phrase 'Target2 exposure'; it has not been payed. It is an 'asset' should it be repayed but for any chance of that the system has be kept going, which of course requires ever more money. Seriously how can Greece make Target2 payments to the ECB when it relies on ECB/IMF drip feed anyway? I know that the 'troika' loans to Greece enjoy 'seniority' to other bond holders but wouldn't it be a little self defeating to have German exports to Greece (which is actualy relatively small) propped up 'troika' loans? If it was all tickety-boo and the 700bn euros had "already" been repayed then I agree it wouldn't be a problem. It hasn't though and thus it's an "exposure".

You wont send on your goods to a customer unless you recieve payment for them so therefore the high current account surplus is what accounts for the target 2 increases. Target 2 is not a borrowing facility it's a payment facility for money that already exists the situation with Greece barely comes into it.

A Greek farmer want a new tractor so he gets a loan from his bank and buys a nice new Deutz-Fahr, the Bank of Greece is informed by the greek farmers bank to pay the german bank of the Same Deutz Fahr corporation for a tractor. As a result the Bank of Greece account is debited and the Bundesbank is credited now the Bundesbank will finally credit the local bank in Germany of Same Deutz Fahr who made the tractor. The only time collateral comes into the equation is with regard to the loan made by the Greek bank to the Greek farmer as whatever collateral used is liable for the loan on the Greek side. However the Germans have already been paid for the tractor so they dont care if the loan goes bust.

Now of course this local Greek bank might have been given capital by the EFSF to ensure a banking system in Greece so potentially this tractor was bought with money from the EFSF. However potentially Germany only contributed a share of say 20% of that loan but Germany gets 100% of the payment for the tractor. The kicker is that germany can now sit back and wait for it's 20% plus interest on the EFSF loan while essentially having staked nothing because it probably sold a bond at practically negative rates for it's EFSF contribution. Essentially Germany has already been paid for it's loan through the payments injected into it's domestic economy and bond market.

Now if Greece somehow could pull the plug on Euro membership and it's not clear how this could occur this could mean the colateral put up by the Greek farmer for his tractor is now worth less that the value of the loan. As a result the ECB may require all member states to pay for the shortfall as per there share of the overall ECB (if there stopped from printing money to pay the loan)

You only have to pay for the amount of the ECB that you own so German would end with a surplus after it pays out and Greece could potentially wipe 95% of it's target 2 out in one go. This means any countries with small imbalances gain little to nothing or potentially could even lose out if there ECB share is larger than the target 2 amounts they have.

If Greece leaves and somehow the ECB is blocked from printing the Euro it needs to cover any payments then massively imbalanced target 2 is a good thing.


Now I know your thinking surely the money cannot be just appear magically even if it can be printed by the ECB just remeber the plus side of the equation is naturally tracked by a nice big minus due to the deflation in the Greek economy. This balances the equation and essentially it can go on for as long as people continue to pay Germany to lose a small bit of there of there money for fear of losing it all.

Eventually people will tire of poor returns on German bonds and thats where the real trouble starts as it's now much harder to prop up intra-european trade with Germany.


In theory if Greece (for example) left the euro Germany would be able reclaim it's Target2 money from the ECB. "Consider an example for Germany and Greece. Germany provided about 27 percent of the capital of the ECB provided by countries belonging to the euro area (Bank of Spain 2012). Greece's TARGET2 balances are on the order of 100 billion euro. If something happened and those balances became worth half, losses would be 50 billion euro and Germany's exposure 27 percent of that, or on the order of 13 billion euro, a far cry from what might be suggested by its TARGET2 balance of approximately 500 billion euro. Furthermore, Germany's TARGET2 balance itself could be zero and the loss would be the same in this example. It is the net exposure of the ECB to countries that determines any risk associated with TARGET2." (Gerald Dwyer)

The exposure refers to a current account surplus ie Germany imports less goods and capital into it's economy than it sends out. This is because Germany is are essentially paid for these things by everyone else, now it's also important to remember that that your target 2 can be out of balance within Europe but overall your economy could be running a current account surplus.

Here we could say Ireland imports more from Europe than it exports however this is paid for many multiples of times by exports to non-eurozone countries. Essentially Ireland's only problem would then be a government deficit brought on by a reduction in GDP due to a banking sector crash.

So if Ireland left the Euro it's not neccessarily so that people would not get there target 2 money back although they might not get there EFSF money back.


In a way you are right; the ECB suffers, not Germany but as most of the loans handed out by the ECB and therefore debts owed to the ECB are German money... See my point?

Because the ECB can print Euro it doesnt need any German money so the ECB is not in debt to anyone, however troika loans require actual money from a contributing country to fund an EFSF loan and that is a debt. Money owed to the ECB is separate to the EFSF but your right money owed to the ECB would be a debt however it cannot go broke as it can print Euro. This printing of money has no bearing on inflation because Europes economy is actually in a deflationary spiral. Essentially the only thing to worry about in this senario would be the Euro's strength vs currency X with regard to sourcing imports for the larger European economy.




Recently actual auctions of both Spanish and Italian bonds have been slightly under the market trading price. I believe the last 10 Italian auction was arounf 5.4% but don't recall offhand whereas it's quoted nearer 6%. So although Spanish 2 year paper is trading for 6.7% you might expect it sell for slightly less in reality (the Spanish banks buy it). However is Spain borrows say £100 for 2 years at 6% it HAS to make more 6% profit in those 2 years to be able to repay the £100 and still make a profit. If I borrow £100 at 6% and make 20% profit it's no problem - I repay the £106 and keep £14 profit and tyvm can I do it again? Spanish 10 year bonds are above 7.5% now so that is why 2 year paper is trading nearer 6.7%. The confidence is gone and Spain certainly will need either a 'bailout' (which is more delaying tactics) or a direct ECB intervention.

But if Spain grows at say 3.5% over 2 yr it could outstrip the 7% required to pay it back by a couple of percent, remember it's 3.5% on top of the figure for this yr and then 3.5% on top of next yrs now bigger number. So if the amount borrowed was as a percent of GDP less than the growth rate over a two yr period then the figure could I believe add up overall.

Of course I dont believe that Spain can sustain a prolonged 7% anymore than Greece could so in the words of South Park


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wz-PtEJEaqY&feature=related



Personaly I would put the lot on trial for fraud and have rid of the euro and would be dictators in Brussels with it. Long live freedom (except for the Romans who must die!).

They will stand on top of a nuked Europe before they admit they were wrong..

[SoFarSoGood]

You only have to pay for the amount of the ECB that you own

Correct.


Now of course this local Greek bank might have been given capital by the EFSF

The Ponzi scheme they are running yes...


Now if Greece somehow could pull the plug on Euro membership and it's not clear how this could occur this could mean the colateral put up by the Greek farmer for his tractor is now worth less that the value of the loan. As a result the ECB may require all member states to pay for the shortfall as per there share of the overall ECB (if there stopped from printing money to pay the loan)

Ahahh we agree? (I am well aware that there is no 'legal' exit from the straightjacket).


You only have to pay for the amount of the ECB that you own so German would end with a surplus

Nope because, as you explain: "the colateral put up by the Greek farmer for his tractor is now worth less that the value of the loan". The others then stump up to cover the loss as as % of funds in the ECB (in the ideal world). Of course realistically asking Spain and Italy to pay more to cover someone elses 'tractors' will only cause a worse problem for them.


Because the ECB can print Euro

It can't 'print the money' by it's rules, nor can it lend directly to Governments. That was what the LTRO was about: Trying to fund the banks so that they could purchase the sovereign debt. It worked (for a while).

Look my friend as you most correctly explain the value of the tractor 'loan' diminishes should Greece devalue and return to the Drachma; indeed all Greek Target2 debt devalues. The ECB then "may require all member states to pay for the shortfall as per there share of the overall ECB". You want to ask Spain? Might not be wise right now...

So yes the ECB loses but so do the contributors to the ECB proportionaly (as you say). Ergo who loses most? Germany.

[phonicsmonkey]

Thought you chaps might enjoy this


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOzR3UAyXao

[gaelic cowboy]

Nope because, as you explain: "the colateral put up by the Greek farmer for his tractor is now worth less that the value of the loan". The others then stump up to cover the loss as as % of funds in the ECB (in the ideal world). Of course realistically asking Spain and Italy to pay more to cover someone elses 'tractors' will only cause a worse problem for them.

The loss is born by the Bank of Greece and the local bank as thats where the loan is, lets remeber this fictional tractor has already been bought and paid for so the Germans are actually in the clear. It's the ECB and the Bank of Greece that have to worry about the credit worthiness of the loan basically I have yet to see someone who sold a house ending up with less because the guy they sold it to is in negative equity.

The only time where everyone has to stump up is if someone leaves the Euro.




It can't 'print the money' by it's rules, nor can it lend directly to Governments. That was what the LTRO was about: Trying to fund the banks so that they could purchase the sovereign debt. It worked (for a while).

This wouldnt be lending to governments it would be lending effectively to national central banks which essentially are the ECB through the various board members. So unless said printing is blocked by a vote at ECB board level I dont see how the ECB could go broke.


Look my friend as you most correctly explain the value of the tractor 'loan' diminishes should Greece devalue and return to the Drachma; indeed all Greek Target2 debt devalues. The ECB then "may require all member states to pay for the shortfall as per there share of the overall ECB". You want to ask Spain? Might not be wise right now...

Indeed which is why nobody will either be forced or choose to leave in fact.




So yes the ECB loses but so do the contributors to the ECB proportionaly (as you say). Ergo who loses most? Germany.

How can Germany lose though your original assertion was that Germany is OWED money when in fact they have really been paid. The only thing they have to worry about at all is that no one leaves and if they do there target 2 is larger than there share. Now this essentially means Germany must have a contiually weak Euro to ensure continued trade with EZ economies, naturally this kills the other economies through deflation requiring bailouts.

This essentially is a ponzi that eventually has to end but it's not clear that German politicians have woken up to that fact or that they have adequetaly explained it to there voters. Essentially all those pension funds and financial products that chased returns all over the EZ will eventually have to face the loss.

Otherwise they will sink there own currency

[gaelic cowboy]

Former Anglo chief Seán FitzPatrick charged with 16 offences as part of fraud investigation (http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0724/former-anglo-chief-sean-fitzpatrick-arrested.html)

About :daisy: time this is the :daisy: that effectively casued Ireland to need a bailout.





Relentless market pressure pushes Spain closer to bailout (http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0724/spains-short-term-borrowing-costs-rise-at-auction-business.html)

And in other news that pesky market just wont leave Spain of the Euro alone oh dear all I can think to say in reply is Timber


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vKvzHxHWQCw

looks like another full bog standard sovereign bailout

[SoFarSoGood]

How can Germany lose though your original assertion was that Germany is OWED money when in fact they have really been paid. The only thing they have to worry about at all is that no one leaves and if they do there target 2 is larger than there share. Now this essentially means Germany must have a contiually weak Euro to ensure continued trade with EZ economies, naturally this kills the other economies through deflation requiring bailouts.

As you have so eloquently pointed out if a country leaves the euro "the ECB may require all member states to pay for the shortfall as per there share of the overall ECB". Well the Spanish and Italians can't pay and France is not too healthy so who makes good the shortfall?

As for the printing money option the ECB tried that with the LTRO 1 and 2 cash injections into banks. The banks then bought their Governments debts and now face massive losses. Germany, for historical reasons (the hyper inflation of the 1920s) will not alow the ECB to print endless money. Mario Draghi says it is not the job of his institution to sort out the finances of EMU states. Its task is to ensure "price stability" ie. inflation.

It now transpires that the Spanish bank bailout is to be guaranteed by the sovereign so in effect it was a 'full fat' bailout just that the bailout money doesn't take precedence over other investors (as it did with Greece). Spanish papers say Spain may leave the euro but no doubt this is a threat for softer terms.

[gaelic cowboy]

As you have so eloquently pointed out if a country leaves the euro "the ECB may require all member states to pay for the shortfall as per there share of the overall ECB". Well the Spanish and Italians can't pay and France is not too healthy so who makes good the shortfall?.

Thats why no one will be asked to leave at least not big countries anyway, although it has still not been shown how someone can leave yet by countries who talk about forcing such things.

Thats why Germany is growing it's Target 2 credit by engaging in a massive trading surplus with EZ members, this will give it the credit at the ECB to pay for it's 18% share of the ECB.

Of course The ECB can print as many Euro as it likes and frankly it doesnt have to take a blind bit of notice of the Bundesbank cos were talking about a winding up of the Euro here.


As for the printing money option the ECB tried that with the LTRO 1 and 2 cash injections into banks. The banks then bought their Governments debts and now face massive losses. Germany, for historical reasons (the hyper inflation of the 1920s) will not alow the ECB to print endless money. Mario Draghi says it is not the job of his institution to sort out the finances of EMU states. Its task is to ensure "price stability" ie. inflation.

At the minute were experiencing massive deflation which is just as deadly and Germany is one member of a larger board, they cannot stop every decision just like they couldnt stop LTRO.


It now transpires that the Spanish bank bailout is to be guaranteed by the sovereign so in effect it was a 'full fat' bailout just that the bailout money doesn't take precedence over other investors (as it did with Greece). Spanish papers say Spain may leave the euro but no doubt this is a threat for softer terms.

Indeed just as I said could potentially happen about 50-60 pages back when I created this thread originally.

At the time I warned that if sovereigns were not separated from things like bank debt or the said debt was not inflated away then we were only going one way.

[SoFarSoGood]

Thats why no one will be asked to leave at least not big countries anyway, although it has still not been shown how someone can leave yet by countries who talk about forcing such things.

Which is what I said in the first place.

Seems Mr Draghi disagrees with you about printing money and without being rude I think he has somewhat more say than either of us (which of course may not be a good thing).

It also seems that Germany, now facing a credit downgrade, may force Greece out. As it is they have said that no further installment of the loans will be payed to Greece until September when Greece has a bond renewal due in August.

[rvg]

It also seems that Germany, now facing a credit downgrade, may force Greece out.

Long overdue.

[Fragony]

Forget Greece, now it's Spain. And as the Spanish government surprisingly put it, Germany should give them money and shouldn't forget, guess what

[InsaneApache]

To put their towels on the sunbeds before anyone else does.

[Fragony]

To put their towels on the sunbeds before anyone else does.

Well that as well, although they tend do dig their own holes. Your metaphor is better then you think

On a more serious note, godwins from South Europeans and Eurocrats are starting to really annoy me, there are only so many left before the Germans will stop nodding out of politeness and will just give the finger instead. That plumb eastblock workhorse and ex stasi-informer Merkel isn't going to be forever in charge to appease the international-socialism, they (the Germans) have seriously had it being bullied and morally blackmailed by these garlic-slackers. Same goes for us, the europhiles have little popular support to go on, we already said no to all of this.

[Sarmatian]

Well that as well, although they tend do dig their own holes. Your metaphor is better then you think

On a more serious note, godwins from South Europeans and Eurocrats are starting to really annoy me, there are only so many left before the Germans will stop nodding out of politeness and will just give the finger instead. That plumb eastblock workhorse and ex stasi-informer Merkel isn't going to be forever in charge to appease the international-socialism, they (the Germans) have seriously had it being bullied and morally blackmailed by these garlic-slackers. Same goes for us, the europhiles have little popular support to go on, we already said no to all of this.

You assume Germany does it out of altruism or some euro dream, but the fact is that a lot of debt of those countries are in fact to German banks. If they default, German banks lose a lot of money. Then those banks need to be helped out or they'll go bust.

So, Germany writes off some debt, give additional credits and aid and in the end comes in good shape. In the other case, Germany does nothing and watch Spanish and Greek deficits suddenly become German deficits.

[HopAlongBunny]

So, Germany writes off some debt, give additional credits and aid and in the end comes in good shape. In the other case, Germany does nothing and watch Spanish and Greek deficits suddenly become German deficits.

Excellent summation. The spending spree was clearly not sustainable; even Germany does not have the money to keep the balloon fully inflated. The political question is how much deflation and austerity can be imposed w/o someone opting for default? Of course, how much is Germany willing to bet on the answer.

[Fragony]

For teh Dutchies http://www.volkskrant.nl/vk/nl/2668/Buitenland/article/detail/3296527/2012/08/04/Het-Europese-geduld-met-etterbakje-Nederland-is-op.dhtml

Ohohoh, the totalitarian true face of the EUSSR, what a flemish ferret who looks like an owl who just fell of it's tree, his Portugese waitor and a German booksalesman, really want from us... To abolish democracy. Es muss sein. Sorry, did we just elected a flemish ferret who looks like an owl that just fell out of his tree, his Portugese waitor and a German booksalesman? I don't think we did

The terrifying real face of the international-socialism, we must simply obbey because everything the EU does is good because it's the EU doing it

[Kralizec]

The terrifying real face of the international-socialism, we must simply obbey because everything the EU does is good because it's the EU doing it

Yeah, it's time to confront the judeo-bolshewik, cultural-marxist enemy that is the EUSSR!

Do you even read the articles you link to? It's largely about negotiations in the Council, that is the national leaders. Rutte frustrates these kind of negotiations with the valid, but too often repeated excuse that his parliament isn't happy about it and that he can't be arsed to defend the measures.

If every national leader simply refused to accept any sort of compromise that doesn't satisfiy his own goals 100%, nothing would ever get done. That's exactly what you want, but only because you dislike the EU and want to sabotage it any way possible. Bottom line is that the EU doesn't exist exclusively for the benefit of the Netherlands. When you're part of a club you're expected to abide by its rules and mores. I really don't see how it is even remotely "undemocratic", never mind "socialist" when other countries criticize us for selfishly pursuing our own interests without any regard for others.

[InsaneApache]

Bottom line is that the EU doesn't exist exclusively for the benefit of the Netherlands. When you're part of a club you're expected to abide by its rules and mores

That has to be the most accidentally ironic and hilarious post I've read all year. :laugh4:

[Kralizec]

Do explain, please. Or are you just here to take cheap shots?

[InsaneApache]

Well the notion of abiding by the rules and mores of the club is risible considering how the eurozone members have adhered to the stability pact.

Shouldn't need explaining really.

[Kralizec]

Noted.

And?

[SoFarSoGood]

They have broken every 'rule' they have made up. A country has to be democratic to join the EU... Italy does not have 1 elected cabinet member due to Brussels. If the EU were a country applying to join the 'club' it's application would be refused as it is not democratic.

[Fragony]

Yeah, it's time to confront the judeo-bolshewik, cultural-marxist enemy that is the EUSSR!

Do you even read the articles you link to? It's largely about negotiations in the Council, that is the national leaders. Rutte frustrates these kind of negotiations with the valid, but too often repeated excuse that his parliament isn't happy about it and that he can't be arsed to defend the measures.

If every national leader simply refused to accept any sort of compromise that doesn't satisfiy his own goals 100%, nothing would ever get done. That's exactly what you want, but only because you dislike the EU and want to sabotage it any way possible. Bottom line is that the EU doesn't exist exclusively for the benefit of the Netherlands. When you're part of a club you're expected to abide by its rules and mores. I really don't see how it is even remotely "undemocratic", never mind "socialist" when other countries criticize us for selfishly pursuing our own interests without any regard for others.

You call it being an arse, but the international-socialism has no democratic mandate. More and more is it showing it's true face. If promising heaven doesn't work it's it's nature to threaten with hell

[Tellos Athenaios]

For teh Dutchies http://www.volkskrant.nl/vk/nl/2668/Buitenland/article/detail/3296527/2012/08/04/Het-Europese-geduld-met-etterbakje-Nederland-is-op.dhtml

Ohohoh, the totalitarian true face of the EUSSR, what a flemish ferret who looks like an owl who just fell of it's tree, his Portugese waitor and a German booksalesman, really want from us... To abolish democracy. Es muss sein. Sorry, did we just elected a flemish ferret who looks like an owl that just fell out of his tree, his Portugese waitor and a German booksalesman? I don't think we did

The terrifying real face of the international-socialism, we must simply obbey because everything the EU does is good because it's the EU doing it

In other words: Rutte and his crew are incompetent, water is wet and the pope remains Catholic.

[Tellos Athenaios]

You call it being an arse, but the international-socialism has no democratic mandate. More and more is it showing it's true face. If promising heaven doesn't work it's it's nature to threaten with hell

You are reacting as though you suffer from some sort of attack of hysteria. Some hack chats up a couple of foreign diplomats (who are not remotely interested in dancing to your tune) gets them to admit they cannot work with a spineless jellyfish for a PM (obviously) and will in future prefer to route around the damage (easy, but not good for the prospects of jellyfish country). All true and none of that is a threat but the consequence of sheer incompetence on the part of our current crop of muppets and of course the fact that other countries do not have to pay more than a token amount of respect for the Netherlands in face of such utter uselessness.

To the other EU states Rutte and co might as well be a dead ferret next to an owl dropped from its tree.

[Fragony]

You are reacting as though you suffer from some sort of attack of hysteria. Some hack chats up a couple of foreign diplomats (who are not remotely interested in dancing to your tune) gets them to admit they cannot work with a spineless jellyfish for a PM (obviously) and will in future prefer to route around the damage (easy, but not good for the prospects of jellyfish country). All true and none of that is a threat but the consequence of sheer incompetence on the part of our current crop of muppets and of course the fact that other countries do not have to pay more than a token amount of respect for the Netherlands in face of such utter uselessness.

To the other EU states Rutte and co might as well be a dead ferret next to an owl dropped from its tree.

Hysteria, we don't even can control our own immigration-policies anymore because of the international-socialism, that costs us 8 billion euro's year and those are just the new ones. In the meantime we have to send accept-gyros to every garlic-slacker in the universe and surroundings, and let's not even start about fatting the multiple NGO's. There are much better ways to spend that money. I have absolutely had it. About to be wanting to get even with those who sell us out. Ripping of jaw, making soup with it. Come to think of it, I will

[Tellos Athenaios]

Hysteria, we don't even can control our own immigration-policies anymore because of the international-socialism, that costs us 8 billion euro's year and those are just the new ones. In the meantime we have to send accept-gyros to every garlic-slacker in the universe and surroundings, and let's not even start about fatting the multiple NGO's. There are much better ways to spend that money. I have absolutely had it. About to be wanting to get even with those who sell us out. Ripping of jaw, making soup with it. Come to think of it, I will

Yeah I get it. However that doesn't make the frustrations of EU diplomats a direct threat but a consequence of sheer uselessness on the part of Rutte and his crew.

[Fragony]

Yeah I get it. However that doesn't make the frustrations of EU diplomats a direct threat but a consequence of sheer uselessness on the part of Rutte and his crew.

You are D66 you would further it much faster, the deeper we are in the harder it will be to get out, D66 will always want more Europe just because it's more Europe. But the deeper we get in this the tighter the noose on our neck will be. If we transfer too much money south there will be no way back, the international socialism will have reached it's true form if we can no longer call it quits because of international financial ties. The Netherlands is a well runned company that really doesn't need so much dead weight, and we especially shouldn't volunteer for having any

[Beskar]

I always wondered why an international corporate cartel having a stranglehold upon the democratic economies of the west is getting portrayed as "Communism" or "International Socialism" (which ideologically opposes such corporate cartels), especially as this cartel is forcing greater integration of the European Union at an accelerated rate due to the economic stresses exerted upon the sovereign debt of nations and the associated flawed policy of where pandering to the cartel apparently means more benefit for the common man of the European Community.

The "Great Economical Game" is at a stage where they cannot lose, the current system of capital investment is at the point where if they make a good debt investment, they gain profit and if they do not, they get bailed out. These rules need to change. The FX market - which sells and buys currency speculations is actually larger annually then global GDP. So if the most profitable way to make money is buy investing on specualtions, which do not even need to materialize. This is unfortunately has also given rise to a disturbing trend whereby an investor does not think that investing into production does not yield enough profit and invests in specualtions only, diverting the money away from the actual real-market. Something is definetely wrong with the system.

So can be done to solve this issue?

Contrary to popular belief of misguided individuals,one of the best ways to tackle this issue is infact: "More Socialism". By this phrase, I am talking about the transfer of power from the economical power brokers to the people of the European community. Opposed to pandering to the international corporate cartel, we should let them know there is such thing as a "bust". Instead of bailing out the banks, you bail out the people. According to figures I posted earlier in this thread, Britain so far has given more money in internal bailouts to the banking sector than the total sum of public debt. In short: We have given more money to the banks than what it would have cost to erase the debt of everyone living in the British Isles. Opposed to giving the money to the banks through allowing them to profiteer on Sovereign credit, the money should go to the people, who then the banks have to appeal to via legitimate market forces to pry from their hands.

[Fragony]

We don't need more socialism we need more decency, socialism is in the end ourscourcing that

[SoFarSoGood]

I always wondered why an international corporate cartel having a stranglehold upon the democratic economies of the west is getting portrayed as "Communism" or "International Socialism" (which ideologically opposes such corporate cartels), especially as this cartel is forcing greater integration of the European Union at an accelerated rate due to the economic stresses exerted upon the sovereign debt of nations and the associated flawed policy of where pandering to the cartel apparently means more benefit for the common man of the European Community.

The "Great Economical Game" is at a stage where they cannot lose, the current system of capital investment is at the point where if they make a good debt investment, they gain profit and if they do not, they get bailed out. These rules need to change. The FX market - which sells and buys currency speculations is actually larger annually then global GDP. So if the most profitable way to make money is buy investing on specualtions, which do not even need to materialize. This is unfortunately has also given rise to a disturbing trend whereby an investor does not think that investing into production does not yield enough profit and invests in specualtions only, diverting the money away from the actual real-market. Something is definetely wrong with the system.

So can be done to solve this issue?

Contrary to popular belief of misguided individuals,one of the best ways to tackle this issue is infact: "More Socialism". By this phrase, I am talking about the transfer of power from the economical power brokers to the people of the European community. Opposed to pandering to the international corporate cartel, we should let them know there is such thing as a "bust". Instead of bailing out the banks, you bail out the people. According to figures I posted earlier in this thread, Britain so far has given more money in internal bailouts to the banking sector than the total sum of public debt. In short: We have given more money to the banks than what it would have cost to erase the debt of everyone living in the British Isles. Opposed to giving the money to the banks through allowing them to profiteer on Sovereign credit, the money should go to the people, who then the banks have to appeal to via legitimate market forces to pry from their hands.


Hold on... we have forced immigration, rights for every minority but never for the natives, enforced working hours, only 15% of the fish that can be caught in British water can be caught by British people, force everyone to overpay for their food to keep French fields empty, impose such regulations on our businesses that are said to cost British business $15bn per year, stop known terrorists from being deported, continue forcing through more and more directives although some 70% of British people want a vote on Europe (you would have to be 59 now to have had a vote on Europe in England) and your answer is.... more socialism?

What the hell do you call a bailout but and enforced tax on one part of the population to pay for another part? You must be living in one of them alternate universes...

[Beskar]

Hold on... we have forced immigration
That is false. There is no 'forced' immigration. There is some policy surrounding the nature of European citizens, but that in no way shape or form reflects policy of citizens from outside the European Community and the United Kingdom has opt-outs to the Schengen Agreement. Immigration is a sovereign government issue.


rights for every minority but never for the natives
That is false. There is no 'extra' rights for every minority and 'never' for the natives. Considering the very nature of citizenship, any British Citizen will enjoy far more 'rights' than any non-British citizen.


enforced working hours
There is only a limit on working hours an employer can force you, which is to benefit of the British citizen to prevent abuse and exploitation of the workers. Even though, this is a mostly sovereign nation matter and British government regulated on this anyway since before the EU even existed. Unless you want this regulation removed which means your employer could up your hours to 60 per week, if you liked it or not, without any legal support at your end, opposed to the current situation where they can not do this and you can choose to do this voluntary.


only 15% of the fish that can be caught in British water can be caught by British people
That is again, false. Only regulation is that Britain can only fish 200 miles off its shore, which was enacted by the UN, and not EU. Even though, there are serious issues of overfishing within the waters which brought about enforced quotas to prevent lifestock going extinct in the Common Fisheries Policy.


force everyone to overpay for their food to keep French fields empty
I don't believe you know how the Common Agricultural policy works. For a start, Britain enjoys half the amount of subsidies as France for the sole reason that France has the biggest agricultural sector in Europe. Also, the "fields empty" is that farmers all over must keep 7% of their land fallow to allow wildlife to thrive otherwise many species of animals will go extinct as they have no where to live. As for "overpay for their food to keep fields empty", this is completely false, hence the "European Food Mountains and Lakes" where we produce so much food in excess, it simply goes to waste. Also, France and Germanies argriculture are both net Contributors (ie: they give to the system more than they take out, even though they take out the biggest shares), the United Kingdom is not.


impose such regulations on our businesses that are said to cost British business $15bn per year
There is always regulation and it always "costs money". It costs more money to depose of waste chemicals safely than just dumping it in the local water supply. Even then, due to the uniformity brought about in the regulation across the countries, it actually costs "far less" than the system where there wasn't policy harmonisation.


continue forcing through more and more directives although some 70% of British people want a vote on Europe (you would have to be 59 now to have had a vote on Europe in England)
I believe that is the British government and not the European Union, even then, we have always voted by-proxy with the government in power. This is the nature of representative governance.


What the hell do you call a bailout but and enforced tax on one part of the population to pay for another part? You must be living in one of them alternate universes...
The bailouts that occurred were systematic free-credit transference to corporate financial cartels on the sovereign states tab. By definition it is not a tax since there was no levy imposed upon the population, even so, I have not disputed this fact in anyway about it not being a form of wealth transference and only suggested that such 'bailouts' should be directed to the population opposed to any corporate interest if they were to occur. So any talk about alternative universes must be a result of critical comprehension failure.


your answer is.... more socialism?
You actually do know what you wrote has nothing to do with socialism outside this mentioning, right?

Especially considering the context I explicitly defined my statement.

[SoFarSoGood]

That is false. There is no 'forced' immigration. There is some policy surrounding the nature of European citizens, but that in no way shape or form reflects policy of citizens from outside the European Community and the United Kingdom has opt-outs to the Schengen Agreement. Immigration is a sovereign government issue.

Ok so what do you call it when we cannot deport known terrorists and cannot stop anyone from inside the EU entering? To do so is a breach of 'European Law' which takes precedence over any national law. Yet the majority of the British people want less immigration... not forced? Get real...


That is false. There is no 'extra' rights for every minority and 'never' for the natives. Considering the very nature of citizenship, any British Citizen will enjoy far more 'rights' than any non-British citizen.

More wishful thinking.... It's fine for Muslims in Britain to shout about 'hating the west' and call for it's overthrow... They have to be 'protected'. If you get a white person shouting the converse (all Moslems are horrid and should be expelled etc) they get prosecuted. Jacqueline Woodhouse got 21 weeks in jail for an expletive-laden rant about immigration, multiculturalism and the disappearance of British civilization. In the same way if two lots of young boys get into a fight and the whites happen to outnumber the coloured people they are likely to found themselves charged with a racialy motivated attack. Should the coloured kids outnumber the white ones, and even if it IS racialy motivated the law will treat it differently. Only natives can be 'racist' in law. What happened to one law for all?


There is only a limit on working hours an employer can force you, which is to benefit of the British citizen to prevent abuse and exploitation of the workers. Even though, this is a mostly sovereign nation matter and British government regulated on this anyway since before the EU even existed. Unless you want this regulation removed which means your employer could up your hours to 60 per week, if you liked it or not, without any legal support at your end, opposed to the current situation where they can not do this and you can choose to do this voluntary.

Ever heard of the European Working Hours Directive? It's a directive mind; ie dreamt up by some unelected bureaucrat. Then there is all the 'unfair dismissal' procedure that you may have to go through if you have to lay someone off because it's not economically viable to keep them on. This makes companies less inclined to hire people in the first place and increases unemployment. The problem is that such mindless 'do-good' socialist dogma is actually a restriction on the very people it seeks to empower. Far from increasing social mobility it actually hinders it.


That is again, false. Only regulation is that Britain can only fish 200 miles off its shore, which was enacted by the UN, and not EU. Even though, there are serious issues of overfishing within the waters which brought about enforced quotas to prevent lifestock going extinct in the Common Fisheries Policy.

So tell me why Spanish boats can take upto 50% of the fish in British waters? You speak about maintaining the fish stocks and if this were the case presumably a moratorium would be imposed to allow all fish stocks to rebuild. However far from this the insanity is that small fish (although already dead) have to be thrown away! As if this is going to replenish fish stocks... Those who the God wish to destroy they first send mad.

In reality Britain lost control over its fish stocks and this insane system is now in place where other European countries can take more fish out of British waters than we can ourselves.



I don't believe you know how the Common Agricultural policy works. For a start, Britain enjoys half the amount of subsidies as France for the sole reason that France has the biggest agricultural sector in Europe. Also, the "fields empty" is that farmers all over must keep 7% of their land fallow to allow wildlife to thrive otherwise many species of animals will go extinct as they have no where to live. As for "overpay for their food to keep fields empty", this is completely false, hence the "European Food Mountains and Lakes" where we produce so much food in excess, it simply goes to waste. Also, France and Germanies argriculture are both net Contributors (ie: they give to the system more than they take out, even though they take out the biggest shares), the United Kingdom is not.

So let me get this right... The Common Agricultural Policy (€43.8bn in 2010) doesn't benefit France although 'France has the biggest agricultural sector in Europe'? Look we pay extra for our food through the taxes we give for CAP and then we restrict imports of cheaper food. So much for the free market but once again the people who really suffer are the poorer people in Europe who because Europe is anti free trade in (and many other areas) have to pay more for their food and pay more in tax. Yet you seem to support this...


There is always regulation and it always "costs money". It costs more money to depose of waste chemicals safely than just dumping it in the local water supply. Even then, due to the uniformity brought about in the regulation across the countries, it actually costs "far less" than the system where there wasn't policy harmonisation.

Disposing of chemicals and regulation for the safety of such issues does not require 'harmonisation' nor some supranational authority to oversee it. It's all about how much room a chicken must have to live in and how big an apple can be what constitutes a 'sausage' or whether something is 'wine' and not alcoholic fruit juice and hundreds of thousands of more trifling idiocies that add no real value but create an extra cost. These additional costs make our business's less competitive and so decrease employment potential.


I believe that is the British government and not the European Union, even then, we have always voted by-proxy with the government in power. This is the nature of representative governance.

Indeed... many of our politicians are 'traitors' by definition. But you must agree that European Union is anti democratic. Not one member of the Italian Cabinet is elected. What happens if you vote no to an EU Treaty? You keep on voting until you vote yes and then you can never vote again. What happened to the Constitution? Simply got turned into the Lisbon Treaty after people voted no. Of course the greatest threat to democracy is this fiscal union... As Gladstone said in 1891: "The Finance of the country is intimately associated with the liberties of the Country...if the House of Commons can by any possibility lose the power of the grants of public money, depend upon it your liberty will be worth very little…”


The bailouts that occurred were systematic free-credit transference to corporate financial cartels on the sovereign states tab. By definition it is not a tax since there was no levy imposed upon the population, even so, I have not disputed this fact in anyway about it not being a form of wealth transference and only suggested that such 'bailouts' should be directed to the population opposed to any corporate interest if they were to occur. So any talk about alternative universes must be a result of critical comprehension failure.

But 'fiscal union' implies unlimited capital transference. You say it's put on a 'tab' but if the the transferals are to be continuous someone has to pay the 'tab'. Also should the debtor prove unable to repay the loan again the 'tab' has to be payed. 'Tabs' don't run forever and in the end it is the taxpayers who pick it either way, either in the debtor or creditor state. But they had this planned from the start... it's what they call a 'beneficial crisis' by which they can say "omg panic!!! We need more powers to deal with this... fiscal union is the only answer!" and thus destroy national democracy.



You actually do know what you wrote has nothing to do with socialism outside this mentioning, right?

If these autocrats - eurocrats were such radically business wise types as you imply why are they crippling European business and free trade in every way imaginable? Why is there is insistence on the 'social agenda' everything done to undermine competitive business in Europe? Let me take one example; the proposed 'transaction tax' (also known as the Tobin tax). This proposes that any deal done on the financial markets will be subject to a small tax. Evidently the City of London would raise the most tax from this but in reality it would just cost more to trade in Europe than elsewhere and the jobs would go... Less investments would be made in Europe and we'd all suffer.

Your brand of socialism, and that of the EU, is that of the Trade Union leader who, believing he is doing best for his members, demands less hours for more pay. This however makes the company decide to close their business in your area and move elsewhere. You have not in fact helped your members... your have put them all out of work.

[Jolt]

Hysteria, we don't even can control our own immigration-policies anymore because of the international-socialism, that costs us 8 billion euro's year and those are just the new ones. In the meantime we have to send accept-gyros to every garlic-slacker in the universe and surroundings, and let's not even start about fatting the multiple NGO's. There are much better ways to spend that money. I have absolutely had it. About to be wanting to get even with those who sell us out. Ripping of jaw, making soup with it. Come to think of it, I will

Your posts and rants on international socialism sound a lot like Breivik.


They have broken every 'rule' they have made up. A country has to be democratic to join the EU... Italy does not have 1 elected cabinet member due to Brussels. If the EU were a country applying to join the 'club' it's application would be refused as it is not democratic.

That's why it isn't a country, and it has never made any claims of being a country. It is an International Organization, like the WTO and IMF, and once you sign in, not only are you forced to follow its rules, but you're also forced to dish out payments to them. It is a regional bloc, started and built on the cooperation between European political leaders. In fact, the EU, when compared with any other international organization or regional bloc, it is far more democratic.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Your posts and rants on international socialism sound a lot like Breivik.



That's why it isn't a country, and it has never made any claims of being a country. It is an International Organization, like the WTO and IMF, and once you sign in, not only are you forced to follow its rules, but you're also forced to dish out payments to them. It is a regional bloc, started and built on the cooperation between European political leaders. In fact, the EU, when compared with any other international organization or regional bloc, it is far more democratic.

that's very faint praise, "oh well we're better than the other Blocs", which presumably means the African Union and Arab League, and the American Bloc whatever that's called.

I would love to have something positive to say about the EU, but I honestly can't think of a single thing.

[Jolt]

I would love to have something positive to say about the EU, but I honestly can't think of a single thing.

Such delightfully predictable bigotry. But so this commentary doesn't pass on outright, I'll refer you one major thing: Schengen Agreement (And by inherence, if you like, the European Internal Market, which is far larger and more valuable than anything the Commonwealth could ever hope to offer the UK in the next 50 or more years). And I could pull dozens more examples of positive measures from the EU.

Subsidies and legislation emanating from Brussels has helped countries, companies and families in a myriad different ways throughout it's existance. Even the simple concept of the EU using the pooled resources of its members-states as a mean to fund certain areas makes it so in a scale that no single European country could fund the same thing.

[Fragony]

Your posts and rants on international socialism sound a lot like Breivik.

and that sounds a lot like the international socialism

[Jolt]

and that sounds a lot like the international socialism

Actually I don't see anywhere in the part you quoted any affirmation of any ideology whatsoever. Whereas your posts are filled with them. So I'm not really following.

[Fragony]

Actually I don't see anywhere in the part you quoted any affirmation of any ideology whatsoever. Whereas your posts are filled with them. So I'm not really following.

Not required. It's kinda funny you say I sound like Breivik, that's the sort of thing the international socialism would do. The garlic slackers for example accuse us we are being hold hostage by Wilders because they don't get any free money the second they furiously demand it, we are supposedly not looking for solutions but only out for trouble by not giving them money. Germany always gets it worse if they don't give away free money these garlic slackers oh so love their Godwins.

Ah, another gem, from Italy's pm this time. Northern countries shouldn't be hold back by their national parlements when it comes to giving away free money, or war and all that, darkest days you get it

Why do we hate peace so much? That plumb eastblock workhorse Merkel may be sensitive for that but we aren't, any pro-euro party is walking on eggs the elections are comming up and anything pro-international socialism might just get a serious beating

[InsaneApache]

Simply amazing. The EU ***** up so the answer is more EU. Incredible.

[Fragony]

Simply amazing. The EU ***** up so the answer is more EU. Incredible.

Ain't it

[Jolt]

Not required. It's kinda funny you say I sound like Breivik, that's the sort of thing the international socialism would do. The garlic slackers for example accuse us we are being hold hostage by Wilders because they don't get any free money the second they furiously demand it, we are supposedly not looking for solutions but only out for trouble by not giving them money. Germany always gets it worse if they don't give away free money these garlic slackers oh so love their Godwins.

No, you're not understanding. International Socialism isn't a person. It's an ideology. An ideology doesn't do anything. And you might notice that's what everyone with eyes, and a mind would do. His life attempts against Socialist politicians and murder of dozens of youths in a Socialist camp, all in the name of what he and you see as a vast worldwide socialist conspiracy to promote multiculturalism and immigration and ultimately destroy your countries or cultures or societies, along with the usual Communist State control trying force, you brave freedom fighters, to do what they want. That is what both of you are proponents for. That is what you are talking about with your International Socialism rants. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to follow you.

And yes, it's required, as I've been angrily called a Fascist for claiming that Salazar (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/António_de_Oliveira_Salazar) was actually a pretty competent administrator. And likewise, that statement in itself doesn't affirm any ideology, just like this one.

Also, what are the "garlic slackers"? Am I a "garlic slacker"?

And finally, the question of free money; There hasn't been any. The bailouts are loans, which have ear marks and preconditions. That's right. Everyone who lent money is already recieving the interest over the amount. If the interest rate was 0% (e.g. free money, that still needs to be given back, hence even then, not really free money), then the fiscal pressure (e.g. the amount of money flowing out of State coffers every month to pay the yields on the bailouts and yields and maturities of previous bonds) on the southern countries would have be colossally reduced.

If you notice the ECB's most recent financial updates, the financial turnover of the organization has been huge thanks to these bailouts.

[Jolt]

Double-post.

[Fragony]

No, you're not understanding. International Socialism isn't a person. It's an ideology. An ideology doesn't do anything. And you might notice that's what everyone with eyes, and a mind would do. His life attempts against Socialist politicians and murder of dozens of youths in a Socialist camp, all in the name of what he and you see as a vast worldwide socialist conspiracy to promote multiculturalism and immigration and ultimately destroy your countries or cultures or societies, along with the usual Communist State control trying force, you brave freedom fighters, to do what they want. That is what both of you are proponents for. That is what you are talking about with your International Socialism rants. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to follow you.


Yeah, funny you mentioned it I was just about to go on a killing spree, but first coffee. Do you know who also drinked coffee, nobody less than Adolf Hitler. Yes I am guilty by association.

[Jolt]

Simply amazing. The EU ***** up so the answer is more EU. Incredible.

Please. Where in this has the EU as an organization faltered? The EU itself has no teeth. If the European organizations are mostly sui generis and run from behind the scenes right now, by the major member-states, who call all the shots and decide what will REALLY be implemented or not, with only the European organizations having very little to do but try to pressure towards a certain path, and in the end, accepting the consensus of the member-states. That is ultimately what happened with the violations of the Stability and Growth Pact. When Portugal broke the pact, we were going to be handed down severe sanctions. But once it was found out that Germany had also broken the pact, the whole sanctions threats affair dropped all of a sudden. This is not due to a failure to act, but rather due to the fact that the member-states have the authority and the financing of the European organizations, and when the major ones want to change the rules, then the rules will in fact change. Realpolitik. European bureaucrats can do little but curse to themselves that such does happen.

Negotiations in the European Council are conducts by each country's Heads of State/Government. The leaders of the European organizations themselves have been pushing for a speedy resolution for the crisis, but they have no actual jurisdiction to implement the necessary measures. The needed authority and capital to solve this crisis is in the hands of the member-states.

[Fragony]

Please. Where in this has the EU as an organization faltered? The EU itself has no teeth. If the European organizations are mostly sui generis and run from behind the scenes right now, by the major member-states, who call all the shots and decide what will REALLY be implemented or not, with only the European organizations having very little to do but try to pressure towards a certain path, and in the end, accepting the consensus of the member-states. That is ultimately what happened with the violations of the Stability and Growth Pact. When Portugal broke the pact, we were going to be handed down severe sanctions. But once it was found out that Germany had also broken the pact, the whole sanctions threats affair dropped all of a sudden. This is not due to a failure to act, but rather due to the fact that the member-states have the authority and the financing of the European organizations, and when the major ones want to change the rules, then the rules will in fact change. Realpolitik. European bureaucrats can do little but curse to themselves that such does happen.

Negotiations in the European Council are conducts by each country's Heads of State/Government. The leaders of the European organizations themselves have been pushing for a speedy resolution for the crisis, but they have no actual jurisdiction to implement the necessary measures. The needed authority and capital to solve this crisis is in the hands of the member-states.

Do you know who also negotiated