Euro Area

[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.

[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

[Fragony]

the end cometh?

http://www.spiegel.de/fotostrecke/sp...e-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.

[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.