On his blog, TEAM board member Alain Bournazel, points out that the very measure of the EU member countries ”helping” each other out of the crisis with gap-stopping loans actually sharpens the crisis.
He also points out the that crisis has hit only members of the Eurozone, whereas Switzerland, Denmark, Norway and Sweden, countries that have kept their national currency, have not been hit.
The article follows here in the original French.
La crise - La tentation du pire
Ce qu’on appelle communément la crise est en fait la conjonction de plusieurs crises qui éclatent simultanément en plusieurs points du globe. Avec des économies largement mondialisées, les crises s’entretiennent mutuellement, ce qui rend leur règlement plus difficile. Mais il faut savoir sérier les problèmes. Les Etats-Unis sont confrontés à un réel problème d’équilibre de leurs finances publiques (ce qui n’est pas nouveau). Mais l’économie américaine a suffisamment de ressources et le dollar reste malgré tout suffisamment fort pour que les Etats-Unis s’en sortent sans trop de difficultés.
Le problème de la zone euro est beaucoup plus préoccupant. Les pays de la zone – l’Allemagne mise à part – sont asphyxiés par des déficits publics de plus en plus difficiles à combler du fait que leur économie est complètement anémiée par l’euro. On constatera d’ailleurs que la crise financière en Europe frappe presque exclusivement les pays de la zone euro. Personne ne parle de crise pour la Suisse, le Danemark, la Suède, la Norvège qui ont conservé leur monnaie nationale. Cette réalité met à nu le bobard de l’euro qui devait nous apporter la stabilité et la croissance.
Si la Grèce, l’Espagne, l’Italie et le Portugal n’étaient pas dans la zone euro, ils pourraient s’en sortir par une dévaluation qui leur permettrait de remettre leur économie à un niveau compétitif. Enfermés dans la zone euro, ils n’ont d’autres solutions que d’attendre une aide massive venant des autres pays de la zone. Mais cette aide fragilise les pays donateurs qui sont eux-mêmes fortement endettés ce qui est le cas de la France. La mutualisation des dettes au niveau européen que d’aucuns présentent comme le remède est en réalité la pire car elle ébranle l’ensemble. La faiblesse des uns devient la faiblesse de tous.
Pour empêcher cette fragilisation, les tenants de la cause européenne préconisent une politique de rigueur. Certes, il est souhaitable que les finances publiques soient en équilibre. Ce serait possible pour la France si elle mettait un terme au gaspillage insensé des deniers publics dilapidés par des opérations douteuses et des causes stupides. Mais la rigueur en soi n’est pas une solution car elle accroît des problèmes qui n’ont nullement besoin de l’être, en particulier celui du chômage.
Bref au lieu des interminables palabres, nous avons besoin aujourd’hui d’une politique de redressement national conduite avec vigueur. Le nouveau gouvernement qui a pris la direction des affaires au mois de juin en Finlande à la suite des dernières élections législatives a pris des mesures pour remettre en ordre les comptes publics. Le traitement des ministres a été réduit de 5%. Exemple à méditer.
Par ALAIN BOURNAZEL
Le septième sommet européen qui s’est tenu à Bruxelles, les 16 et 17 décembre, fut, comme les précédents, consacré à la crise financière. Cette constance du problème suffit à montrer que le mal est à la fois profond et durable. Il paraît bien lointain le temps du rêve idyllique où M. Trichet déclamait ingénument que le Fonds Monétaire International (FMI) n’aurait pas à intervenir en Europe car les pays de l’Union européenne étaient à l’abri d’une crise du fait de l’euro. Aujourd’hui, la crise c’est l’euro et le FMI est appelé à la rescousse.
L’Allemagne dicte sa loi
Avant le sommet européen, Mme Merkel, comme à l’accoutumé, a exposé sa stratégie au Bundestag. Elle a souligné que la monnaie unique profitait tout particulièrement à l’Allemagne. Donc il fallait défendre l’euro. Notre Président de la République n’ayant, semble-t-il, sur ces questions que les idées vagues qu’il faut bien appeler l’ignorance, a immédiatement accepté la thèse de la chancelière allemande. Dans le couple franco-allemand, c’est la femme qui commande.
Et le Conseil européen de poursuivre dans la stratégie qui consiste à essayer de remplir un tonneau sans fond. Le capital de la Banque Centrale Européenne (BCE) est pratiquement doublé ; de 5,76 milliards d’euros, il doit progressivement être porté à 10,76 milliards. Par ailleurs un fonds permanent de secours pour résister aux crises financières doit être mis en place, ce qui nécessite au passage une modification du traité de Lisbonne. Ce fonds que Mme Lagarde qui a décidemment le sens de l’humour qualifie « d’ajustement majeur » a pour objet de rassurer les marchés sur la capacité de résistance de la zone euro ;
Le culte de l’idole
L’Antiquité avait connu le culte des idoles. Cet acharnement à vouloir à tout prix défendre l’euro a quelque chose de pathétique ; les générations futures auront sans doute du mal à comprendre cette vénération enfantine et idolâtre pour un système non seulement inefficace mais malfaisant. Où est-elle la prospérité qui nous était naguère promise par la zone euro? L’austérité imposée par la crise accule la Grèce aux lisières de la guérilla urbaine. Malgré trois plans de rigueur depuis 2008, et des secours financiers importants du FMI et de l’Union européenne, l’Irlande est enlisée dans un déficit abyssal qui atteint 32% de son PIB. Et l’agence Moody’ vient de baisser de cinq crans sa note. Le Portugal est en crise. L’Espagne vends une partie de ses aéroports et supprime l’allocation de fin de droit que touchaient 700 000 personnes ; le chômage frappe 20% de la population active. L’agence Moody’s vient de placer le pays sous surveillance négative. L’Italie conjugue une croissance faible (1%) et une dette considérable 1900 milliards d’euros.
La France n’est pas épargnée
Depuis le passage à l’euro, la France accuse une perte de compétitivité. L’investissement est poussif. La croissance se situera aux alentours de 1,6%. Mme Lagarde annonce une croissance de 2% pour 2011 ; non seulement elle a le sens de l’humour mais elle rêve. L’Europe de Bruxelles enfonce chaque jour davantage les pays de l’Union dans uns catastrophe qui leur coûte cher aujourd’hui, et qui, dans peu de temps, leur coûtera très cher. Bref, les pays européens sont placés à un carrefour décisif. Où bien en finir avec l’Europe de Bruxelles. Où bien affronter des révolutions.
The Sick Europe of the Euro
In this article, Alain Bournazel, president of Rassemblement pour l Indépendance de la France (RIF) and member of the TEAM Board, comments on the situation of the Euro after the December 2010 EU Summit. Alain Bournazel stresses the fact that Germany is the country which profits most from the Euro, but that the common currency is harmfuld to most other EU countries, and that France is among those. The article compares the faith in the Euro with the cult of idols in the Antiquity and continues:
”There is something pathetic about this stubborn insistence on defending the Euro at all costs: probably future generations will find it difficult to understand this childish idolatry and veneration for a system which is not only inefficient but even harmful.”
The article also sums up a number of the well known arguments against the Euro and sums up the situation in these words:
”In short, the European countries are at a decisive crossroads. They must either put an end to the Europe of Brussels or face revolutions.”
Le blog d’Alain Bournazel
En quelques jours le paysage européen vient de subir une transformation brutale. Elle ne procède pas d’un miracle mais de la prise de conscience d’une réalité que l’on avait cherché à cacher.
Depuis des années, les responsables politiques de tous bords, droite et gauche confondues, de Paris, de Berlin, de Bruxelles et d’ailleurs serinent les peuples que l’Union européenne doit être dotée d’institutions lui permettant de fonctionner efficacement. Tous les moyens ont été utilisés pour imposer ces institutions : projet de Constitution Giscard, rebaptisée mini-traité par Nicolas Sarkozy, propagande à outrance, dérogations accordées (en parfaite violation du droit des traités) à la Pologne, l’Irlande, au Royaume-Uni, à la République Tchèque, etc., suffrage universel bafoué aux Pays-Bas et en France. Et que constatons-nous, après ce laborieux parcours ? Ces nouvelles institutions imposées plus qu’adoptées, subies plus qu’acceptées, non seulement n’apportent aucune simplification au fonctionnement de l’Union mais compliquent encore une machinerie d’une effroyable complexité.
Comme l’ont noté les observateurs politiques, en désignant comme président du conseil européen, M. Van Rompuy, Premier ministre d’une Belgique en voie de désintégration et la baronne travailliste, Catherine Ashton comme Haut représentant pour les Affaires étrangères, les chefs d’Etat et de gouvernement ont choisi des personnages qui ne leur feraient pas d’ombre. D’une certaine manière, ils reconnaissent que le pouvoir légitime est celui qui émane des Etats. C’est d’ailleurs ce que nous pensons. Mais on peut s’interroger sur les raisons qui ont poussé les dirigeants européens à mettre en place un système qui aujourd’hui les effraie. Constatons simplement – une fois de plus – que les plus belles sottises viennent souvent des gens intelligents et instruits.
Sottise institutionnelle certes, mais également lourde charge financière. M. Van Rompuy va recevoir à compter du 1er décembre 22.000€ nets par mois. Il aura droit à 22 collaborateurs permanents et à 10 agents de sécurité. Mme Ashton bénéficiera de 275.000 euros par an. Un service de 5000 personne est en cours de constitution pour assurer la représentation de l’Union dans tous les pays du monde, représentation qui doublera celle des Etats membres.
A Bruxelles comme à Paris, on dilapide les deniers publics, alors que la pauvreté progresse dans tous les pays européens.
The top French Court has declared that EU directives can be invoked directly in the French legal order even if they haven’t been implemented in national law yet.
source Coulisses de Bruxelles blog via Open Europe
France has indicated that even if the Irish vote No in their referendum on the Lisbon Treaty on Friday, it will not hinder the European Union from taking steps towards further integration.
Pierre Lellouche, France’s state secretary for Europe, told French TV on Monday morning (28 September), that a “solution” will be found in case of a second Irish rejection of the treaty as “whatever happens, Europe will advance because we don’t have a choice.”
“The institutional fate of 500 million Europeans is in the hands of 3 or 4 million Irish. It’s a very undecided country,” he said.
“We are faced with a world that is soon going to have more than 9 billion people. There is enormous work to do in the fields of energy, immigration, industry and social affairs and we’re not going to stop. So we will find a solution if ever we are faced with this type of situation,” he added, but refused to say whether there is actually a Plan B in the event of a No vote.
The French comments are further indication of the impatience felt by larger member states that a referendum in one small member state could derail the Lisbon Treaty completely.
Earlier this month, Italian leader Silvio Berlusconi also advocated the creation of a core of EU states that would push ahead with integration.
“If the Lisbon Treaty on EU reform does not pass, we need to completely revisit the current functioning of Europe to create a core of states that operate beyond unanimity,” he said.
(WARNING - MANIPULATIVE PARAGRAPH AHEAD!) Recent polls indicate that the result will be a Yes on 2 October. The Ireland of this year is profoundly changed in comparison to when the first vote took place 16 months ago. The financial crisis has plunged the country into double-figure unemployment and it is facing a predicted decline in GDP of 9.8 percent this year. Analysts suggest that fears about jobs and economic security are likely to play towards a Yes vote.
But Brussels remains nervous about the outcome, with the No side fighting a vocal campaign focusing on many of the same issues that were raised ahead of the first vote.
A rejection would stop the treaty coming into force across the 27-nation Union as it needs to be ratified by all member states, meaning the country has become the focus of anti-treaty campaigners from across Europe.
Article from EUobserver, very scary, very real…
Apparently YES camp already smells ze great defeat!
We have to stop these mental bEUlldozers!
Original article in French can be read here:
On the 12th of June 2008, the Irish people rejected the Lisbon Treaty by a margin of 53.4% to 46.6%. The 2nd of October 2009, it will have to pronounce itself anew on this same text without a single comma having been changed, a text which itself is only a deliberately confused rewording of the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe rejected by the French and Dutch voters in 2005. Thus, whatever the result, the second Irish referendum can only be one more illustration of the total loss of legitimacy of the European institutions.
2005, 2008, 2009… The referenda follow each other, the name of the text changes, the content remains the same(1); this relentlessness reveals the nature of the project: the European Union does not content itself with questioning the sovereignty of the European peoples to realize its ambition, it is the loss of sovereignty of these same peoples which constitutes its project. Can one still call a referendum what is in the end only the search for a unique answer validating a process of negotiation between the Irish government and the European Council?
It is appropriate first of all to recall the reception of the Irish “no” in 2008(2). Before even the announcement of the result, the polls forecasting the victory of the “no” had set off reactions listening to which it was clear that the Lisbon Treaty had to be adopted at all costs. A few days before the referendum, the French Minister of Foreign Affairs Bernard Kouchner, to only quote him, anticipated “[that in the case of a negative vote], one would have to continue, unrelentingly, to go very fast, to continue with the priorities that we have defined and attempt to convince the Irish who have already revoted once concerning in fact the Nice Treaty, to consider this treaty again(3).”
After the result, the from now well-polished machinery of negation of the people’s judgement functioned at full throttle; journalists and politicians relativized in chorus the bearing of the “no”, for, as the French journalist Jean Daniel said, “One country of 4 or 5 million in habitants like Ireland cannot take hostage nations uniting 490 million citizens(4)”. National sovereignty is an obsolete notion for the authorized commentators. As soon as the day following the referendum, José Manuel Barroso proclaimed that “The Treaty is not dead. The Treaty is alive, and we will try to work to find a solution(5).” The Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk was one of the most frank: “The referendum results in Ireland do not disqualify the Treaty completely. We will continue seeking ways to bring it to life. Regardless of the referendum results I think we can be moderately optimistic about the EU finding a way to put it in force(6)”. In a permanent antidemocratic soliloquy, the pro-European zealots trampled the sovereignty of the Irish people underfoot; for them the European Union is, lo and behold, already sovereign.
The Irish Prime Minister, Brian Cowen, showed very rapidly that he did not intend to support the decision of his people; on the contrary, he minimized its weight by declaring: “We must take time to digest what has happened, to understand why it did, to consult broadly amongst ourselves and with our partners(7)”. This deliciously diplomatic language showed that it was now a question of finding a means to get round the Irish “no”. It has never been seriously considered to take account of the popular verdict. Such an attitude on the part of a democratically elected leader allows a profound uncertainty to persist concerning the true nature of the role of European elites: do they still represent their people or are they at the service of a supranational policy-making with which it is impossible to compromise and of which they would be in charge of applying locally the decisions? Such an ambiguity leads democracy to its ruin.
The chronology of the facts of the year elapsed since the Irish “no” of 2008 allows one to fully account for the refusal to adopt the popular will. After having spent the month of June in comments intended to either infantilize the Irish voters(8) or make them feel guilty, Brian Cowen was summoned before the European Council, as a bad pupil to the headmaster’s office, to account for his failure. The Council then took over the process of ratification. It was impossible to change the text of the treaty without this new version being reexamined by all the states of the EU. Thus the method decided upon was that of an adjunction to the Treaty in the form of an additional protocol bearing on the questions of neutrality, of legislation concerning abortion and on the control of taxation, supposed focusing points of discontent during the first ballot. It will always be easier to abolish this protocol than to amend the whole of the Constitutional Treaty. Thereby does one think it skilful to “guarantee” the Irish a right they already have, that of deciding their own legislation. Enjoining the Irish to forfeit their sovereign power in exchange for simple guarantees on particular questions, the European Council seems to consider that one can prefer to give up one’s watch against the promise of always being able to ask the time…
If the European Union was a democratic system —which it never has been and will never be—, it would be unthinkable to require a sovereign people to vote again even though it has just delivered its verdict. It would not be any more conceivable to deprive the other peoples of speech. But the peoples of Europe live only in a parody of democracy; the verdict of the ballot boxes, only legitimate poll of public opinion, has ceased to be politically constraining. One must take account of this with the greatest seriousness and take measure of what the European leaders are ready to do for their project to succeed.
The French and Dutch “no” to the European Constitution have been purely and simply declared null and void; the only people who, thanks to the constitution of its country, has had the occasion to pronounce itself on the Lisbon Treaty sees itself being refused the right to say “no”. This refusal is to be understood in the strict sense; indeed, as José Luis Zapatero has said: “It is not possible for Ireland, with all due respect to its democratic choice, be able to stop such a necessary project(9).” Not only the neoliberal measures contained in the Lisbon Treaty, such as that of free and undistorted competition, are not amendable, but they are the very bedrock of the European project, and this last is not negotiable. Thus one could not hope without contradiction of reforming from the inside what constitutes the very nature of the “European idea”. Either it is accepted, either it is imposed. But where is democracy hidden in such practices?
The peoples see themselves systematically deprived of a public debate worthy of the name regarding the European Union. When the flagrantly pro-European Union bias of the media(10) and the enraptured loyalty of the political parties to the European project lets emerge a public disavowal, this last is denied, got round. All the parties who have access to the media are favourable to the European construction —it is precisely for this reason that they have access to the media— whereas the rates of abstention in the European elections and the doubts as regards the democratic virtues of the European Union have never been as strong. All the great private powers (multinationals, banks, etc.) are favourable to the European construction, no doubt are they impatient that “social Europe(11)” see the light of day… Political parties, the media and private wealth converge naturally towards Euro-liberalism, each finding (or hoping to find) in the decrepitude of the nation states an advantage and the means of increasing their power at the cost of the political and social rights of the citizens.
To get an idea of the impunity and of the preferential treatment which the European Union benefits from, imagine what would be the reaction of the “international community” and of the Western media if the government of Russia, Iran or Venezuela declared null and void or ignored the result of a referendum… Yet, it’s Europe which the media and the political parties are attempting to cover up for with massive publicity stunts and “pedagogy” —a politics marketing term to designate propaganda— the growing democratic deficit and totalitarian leaning of the European Union. The less we’ll truly be in a democracy, the more one will have to claim the opposite. The matter at hand here is to compensate for the disappearance of the actual entity by massive repetition of the word.
Whatever may be the result of the referendum of the 2nd of October, it will be taken in charge by the usual devices of media reception. If the “yes” wins, the atmosphere will be one given to relieved approval, and if the Irish again vote “no”, it will once again be a question of how to “get Europe out of this impasse”. It will matter above all else that the opportunity of the European construction not be brought into question. It is this absence of real political choice, characteristic of the post-democratic society to which an “elite of technicians” destines its peoples, that one perceives behind these remarks by the French ex-State Secretary for European Affairs Jean Pierre Jouyet:
“I sincerely believe that the referendum is not the right formula to adopt at the national level international treaties and regulations. Hence indeed, if other referenda [concerning the Treaty of Lisbon] had been organized, it is probable that certain of them would also have seen the “no” win. But it is not up to the people to decide these very complex questions12.”
(1) See our article “Lisbon treaty: EU democratic process in question”, online since February 17, 2008
(2) See our article “L’introuvable souveraineté de l’Union européenne”, online since July 3, 2008
(3) Bernard Kouchner, interview with Jean-Michel Aphathie, RTL, June 9, 2008
(4) Jean Daniel, “Naufrage d’une ambition”, Le Nouvel Observateur, June 19-25 weekly issue, 2008
(5) José Manuel Barroso, press conference, June 13, 2008, quoted by Arnaud Vaulerin, “La petite Irlande secoue l’Europe”, Libération, June 14-15, 2008
(6) Donald Tusk, June 13, 2008, Le Nouvel Observateur, June 19-25 weekly issue, 2008
(7) Brian Cowen, quoted by Henri de Bresson and Philippe Richard, “La mise en œuvre du traité de Lisbonne est bloquée”, Le Monde, June 15-16, 2008
(8) See the article by Denis Perias and Mathias Reymond, “Traité de Lisbonne : ces Irlandais d’où vient tout le mal”, online since June 23, 2008
(9) José Luis Zapatero, quoted by Alain Barluet, “Les vingt-sept se donnent quatre mois de réflexion”, Le Figaro, June 20, 2008
(10) See the book by Henri Maler and Antoine Schwartz (for Acrimed), Médias en campagne : retours sur le référendum de 2005, Syllepse, 2005.
(11) See the book by François Denord and Antoine Schwartz, L’Europe sociale n’aura pas lieu, Raisons d’Agir, 2009.
(12) Jean-Pierre Jouyet, Une présidence de crise : entretiens avec Sophie Coignard, Albin Michel, 2009.
Laurent Dauré and Dominique Guillemin
Militants de l’Union Populaire Républicaine – Paris
Translated from the French by Aubrey Wanliss-Orlebar
Henrik Brors: Sweden among losers as new EP emerges
Henrik Bors, writing in Swedish newspaper DN, says that Sweden, along with Denmark and Finland emerged as the greatest losers as the new European Parliament power structures became clear. Swedish MEPs were unable to land any of the more important chairmanships in the new parliament as they all went to larger countries.
Surprise, surprise… the big ‘uns - Italy, Germany, France, Great Britain and Poland took all the spoils.
addition (on July 28th)
The French Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs has hailed France’s presence on European Parliament committees, saying “With 4 committee and sub-committee chairs, France has only one chair less than Italy, is equal to Germany and is ahead of the UK and Spain.” He added that France “is one of the leading European countries in terms of the number of vice presidents.”
Declan Ganley, the leader of Libertas who has led a campaign against the Lisbon treaty, has bowed out of politics having failed to win a seat in the European Parliament in Ireland. He said he would not campaign against the treaty in a second referendum later this year and that “the future of Libertas is a matter for others”.
Libertas, which fielded more than 600 candidates in 14 member states, had an abysmal election with only one candidate officially elected – Philippe de Villiers, a French MEP.
From June Movement there came an announcement: “In 2009 the movement lost its representation in the European Parliament and is planning to disband.”
TEAM members from Denmark can only add that “the People’s Movement obtained a good result, so the democratic cross-political EU-opposition in Denmark is alive and all right!”*
Skøl, Søren! Skøl, Denmark!
This initiative clearly demonstrates the Empire’s determination to combat criminal acts.
Op ATALANTA will involve six warships and three surveillance aircraft with contributions expected from the provinces of Britannia, Frankia, Hellas, Hispano, and Germania, patrolling a million square lightyears of the Indian Galaxy and Rings of Aden where pirates have captured several vessels and taken numerous hostages this aeon alone.
Today @ 09:24 CET
Draft conclusions for this week’s EU summit say the Lisbon treaty is to enter into force on 1 January 2010 in a deal struck by Ireland and the French EU presidency, Reuters reports, citing diplomatic sources. The phrasing will put pressure on Ireland to hold a second referendum on the text in time.
Ireland not serving citizens on Lisbon, says Ganley
ANDREW WILLIS IN DUBLIN AND VALENTINA POP IN STRASBOURG
Today @ 09:24 CET
EUOBSERVER / DUBLIN / STRASBOURG
Asked why a second referendum in Ireland is required when this was not the case in France and the Netherlands after they rejected the Constitutional Treaty, Mr Leinen said: “The situation is different now than in June 2005, when there were two Nos in one week and seven more countries set to hold referendums.”
“But when all the countries say ‘Yes’, it’s legitimate to ask [the Irish] if that’s their last answer,” he argued at a press conference in Strasbourg.
“A second No would be a No, and then of course you could forget about the treaty. But a first No is volatile, let’s say, because it’s not a clear No against Europe. Here you have a diffuse coalition of Nos. We respect it, but we have to respect as well the Yes of the other member states,” Mr Leinen concluded.
We might as well add MEP Roger Helmer’s (UK) opinion from his last electronic newsletter:
Deceit and contempt: drafting the Lisbon Treaty
When our government was trying to convince us of the benefits of the Lisbon Treaty, we were told that it contained an “Early Warning Mechanism” that increased the powers of national parliaments to resist EU legislation, and that this meant devolving greater power to member-states and increasing the accountability of the EU institutions.
But now two prominent Europhile MEPs, Labour’s Richard Corbett and the Lib-Dems’ Andrew Duff, have admitted that it did no such thing. In evidence to the Commons European Scrutiny Committee, Andrew Duff told the Committee: “there is a danger that, in assessing the Treaty of Lisbon, national parliaments become obsessed by the early warning mechanism on subsidiarity. It was understood by those of us involved in its drafting and then re-drafting, that the mechanism, although a necessary addition to the system of governance of the Union, was not really intended to be used. It is, in Bagehot’s terms, more a dignified part of the European constitutional settlement than an efficient one.” Richard Corbett told the Committee: “in practice, I do not think that the ‘yellow’ and ‘orange’ card mechanisms will be extensively used.”
The deceit is breath-taking. The contempt in which they hold the voters, and their national parliaments, is astonishing. But we need to learn the lesson: everything the EU does is about transferring power from us to them, and when they pretend otherwise, they’re lying.
Every country for itself as European unity collapses in an attack of jitters
Germany became the latest EU member to put its national interest first by announcing its own guarantee for bank deposits
Roger Boyes for TIMES ONLINE - whole article here
Germany shattered any semblance of European unity on the global credit crisis last night by announcing that it was ready to guarantee €568 billion of personal savings in domestic accounts.
The move – which came as Berlin announced a new rescue package for an ailing mortgage bank – is sure to anger France which, holding the European Union presidency, tried to create the illusion of a common front at a weekend summit in Paris. Instead, the message coming loud and clear from Berlin is that it is every man for himself. Or as President Nicolas Sarkozy would prefer not to say: sauve qui peut.
The massive liquidity crisis in the banking system has already nudged the Irish Republic and Greece into unilateral – and probably illegal under EU law – action to guarantee the deposits in national banks. Faced with a choice between the possible collapse of their banking systems and violating EU competition rules, the two countries opted for what they saw as the lesser evil. Now Germany, which at the weekend rejected French plans for an EU lifeboat fund, has taken the decisive protective step, and it is said to be plain that other European states will have to follow suit.
Those critics of Euro (€) of which one of the strongest has always been TEAM’s long-time member The Bruges Group who have based much of their convictions on the rather hidden cracks within the “Optimum currency area theory” have also kept clear mind about the long term prospects of the Euro-zone.
Here is one of their excellent papers titled Is Europe Ready for EMU? Theory, Evidence and Consequences.
One of the basic structural criterions of OCA theory which at first has not been emphasized enough has later been graded as more relevant. Here is a short .pdf presentation from the year 2005 (this one not from The Bruges Group but much more favourable towards Euro) from which we’ll quote some interesting details:
The “New” OCA Theory
Focuses primarily on political issues of forming a currency union:
Homogeneity of Preferences Criterion
Even though the authors of this presentation have predicted bright future for the Euro the word “Solidarity” or rather the lack of it in these days discloses much more than it should for the Europhile political elites.
Polish senator Krzysztof Zaremba has said Poland should not ratify the Lisbon treaty if Brussels forces it to close down shipyards, amid allegations of anti-Polish French and German lobbying.
“If lobbying stands behind the decision of the commissioner, to bankrupt the shipyards, then we should hold off on the ratification process,” the senator told Polish newspaper Dziennik on Wednesday (1st October). “They treat us like dirt. It’s unacceptable. If this is the case, let Europe wait for its treaty.”
Mr Zaremba - from Poland’s ruling and pro-European Civic Platform party - said he would present his proposals at the next meeting of the senate’s foreign affairs committee.
more at the eubserver.com
How come the ratification of the Renamed EU Constitution is revolving around shipyards? Until now we were under PR impression that the main goal was to enhance democracy…
Although that the outspoken Irish opponent of the Lisbon Treaty, businessman Ulick McEvaddy (chief executive of Omega Air) likened EU to a “Communist-Moscow-style” dictatorship he did add one important fact, namely that “the EU lacks the KGB, thankfully”.
Well if the EU still does not entail its own KGB/CIA than at least they are working on something resembling SPETSNAZ/FBI.
Following addition is rather old (two weeks) but it fits in this story and in our previous article perfectly: Secret EU security draft to pool policing and give US personal data.
In this article by The Guardian you will learn that there exists so called Future Group of interior and justice ministers from six EU member states - Germany, France, Sweden, Portugal, Slovenia and the Czech Republic.
Zey wil protect us.
On the eve of Ireland’s referendum on the EU treaty, the Irish “no” camp has accused France of trying to hide its intentions to push for beefing up EU military capabilities and creating an EU army commanded by Brussels.
According to Kathy Sinnott, independent MEP and fervent opponent of the Lisbon treaty, the French government is keeping a promised blueprint on European defence and security secret until after the crucial vote on Thursday (12 June).
“The French white paper on EU defence has been ready for release since May, but the French government are withholding it until after the Irish referendum,” the MEP said, demanding that the text be released immediately.
The rest of the article at the EUobserver.
Rassemblement de protestation contre le nouveau projet de Constitution européenne
Faisons du 29 mai, jour anniversaire du Non, la fête nationale de la Souveraineté !
A l’occasion du 3ème anniversaire de la victoire du Non au référendum européen, Paul-Marie Coûteaux et le Comité National du 29 mai, appellent à un rassemblement de protestation contre le nouveau projet de Constitution européenne dissimulé sous le “mini-traité” de Lisbonne.
Place Saint Germain des Près (Paris, VIèmearrondissement) le jeudi 29 mai à 18 heures 30.
pour plus d’informations:
Contacts: 01 47 98 25 41 / 06 72 43 12 03 / 01 34 75 19 05 / 06 75 61 95 83
Taken from IND/DEM webpage.
From the French initiative www.29mai.eu we have received following appeal:
*the new Treaty, identical to the treaty it replaces to establish an European Constitution, was adopted in December at the summit in Lisbon. The French President announced that he would not give the French another Referendum.
The signatories denounce the United State’s threat of war against Iraq. None of the pled pretexts can justify military intervention, which would only represent a hegemonic will of the United States to take control over the principal oil reserves of the world. An attack against Iraq would result in the exacerbation of tension in the Middle East, and support the rise to power of the extremists and to worsen the risks of a “shock of civilisations”.