Euro Area

[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.

[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

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.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

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/sp...e-84563-3.html