Britannia Radio

I’m glad someone other than Cassandra [many thanks to RN and HS] is 
keeping up with the crisis and getting at the truth instead of the 
half-baked and half-true reports in the general media.   I try and 
sort out the most reliable before posting to readers but there is a 
limit to how much time I, at least, can spend at it !

One aspect of the Irish situation which Richard may have missed is 
that the EU is falling over backwards not to rub the Irish up the 
wrong way before they get to ratifying their precious treaty.   
‘Mustn’t frighten the natives’ is the mantra.

I would only add that since we are in the EU and our interests are at 
stake we should be using the rules of that monstrous orgasnisation 
when it suits us!
xxxxxxxxxxxx cs
===========================
EUREFERENDUM Blog   2.10.08
The elephant dives for cover

In a way, it is rather funny, although perhaps in equal measure 
pathetic, the way stories of great moment are paraded through much of 
the media with never a mention of that giant elephant looming in the 
undergrowth.

We refer, this time, to the great Irish Bank Saga, where that oh so 
communautaire Irish government has stepped in to give an unlimited 
guarantee to Irish savers – in breach of EU law, on at least two counts.

The law governing investor compensation is Directive 97/9/EC, known 
as the "Investment Compensation Schemes Directive".

This directive sets up an EU-wide minimum compensation requirement – 
currently €20,000 but no maximum. Member states are specifically 
permitted by the directive to set their own maxima, but subject to 
two conditions.

Firstly (see recital 15), the EU is concerned about "levels of cover 
higher than the harmonized minimum within the same territory," 
leading to "disparities in compensation and unequal conditions of 
competition between national investment firms and branches of firms 
from other Member States."

In order to counteract those disadvantages, therefore, those branches 
have to be "authorized to join their host countries' schemes so that 
they may offer their investors the same cover as is provided by the 
schemes of the countries in which they are located."

Secondly, the directive states quite clearly (recital 23), that the 
cost of financing such schemes must, in principle, be borne by 
investment firms themselves. Further, it states that the financing 
capacities of such schemes must be in proportion to their liabilities 
and then goes on to state that these schemes "must not, however, 
jeopardize the stability of the financial system of the Member State 
concerned."

Yet, reviewing the media coverage this morning, you would be hard put 
to find any reference to this law, much less any mention that the 
Irish government is in clear breach of it.

We thus get the Irish broadcaster RTE reporting that British banks 
have complained that the Irish legislation "would distort 
competition," while the British Bankers' Association is to deliver a 
letter to the [Irish] Government later today. From that source, and 
The Guardian we learn that British chancellor Alistair Darling has 
"approached [Irish] minister for finance Brian Lenihan on the 
legislation", saying that, "in no uncertain terms that the scheme was 
a problem for the UK."

And, of course, the BBC coverage is entirely devoid of reference to 
the elephant in the undergrowth.

However, it is the Irish Times which gives the game away. It reports 
that, "British Prime Minister Gordon Brown's office said Ireland's 
plan to guarantee all bank deposits will be studied by European Union 
regulators," citing Downing Street spokesman, Michael Ellam, saying: 
"Where there is a policy of one of the member states that impacts on 
single market rules, it is to be looked at by the European Commission."

But even Mr Ellam does not seem to have got the point. This is not 
[just] a matter of "a policy … that impacts on single market rules." 
The Irish move is in breach of specific provisions of an existing 
directive.

Bizarrely though, the elephant is keeping its head down. According to 
the IHT, EU competition commissioner Neelie Kroes "declined to 
criticize the Irish move outright," although she "noted that the 
Irish had failed to coordinate its move with other EU members."

All we thus get is the anodyne statement that, "Her office said it 
would investigate whether Ireland was guilty of unfair practices," 
and a little whimper from the corner. "I would like to plead to 
national governments," she says, "not to act unilaterally, but rather 
to continue their practice of consulting the (European) Commission 
when they are confronted with problems that may require state aid to 
the banking sector."

Then we get Ireland's own EU representative, financial services 
commissioner Charlie McCreevy, suggested that his colleague was being 
unrealistic. Governments like Ireland "don't have the luxury of 
waiting forever and a day to make up their minds about critical 
matters," says the former Irish financial minister.

It is almost as if the elephant, having dumped its pile of ordure in 
the room, is hastily retreating and denying responsibility for the 
mess. And, as usual, everyone is ignoring the smell.
------------------------------------------
Posted by Richard North at 12.25

- - - - - - - - - - - -
Senate has passed (a somewhat different) Bill

House will vote on Friday. Instapundit has a comment and Powerline 
argues against a House approval. Don't let them tell you it's rescue 
package. It's a bail-out and the American taxpayer will pay and pay 
again. When they have to pay over the odds, we all suffer. That's 
before our own government, the European Union, starts introducing its 
own bail-out packages.

Let us be happy at the opportunity we have been given of saving a 
system that clearly does not work, reckless banks, people who borrow 
knowing they cannot pay it back and the sorry hides of politicians 
who have helped to create the system.
---------------------------------
Posted by Helen Szamuely  at 10.31