German president tells Angela Merkel to come clean on EU debt deal
ECB as European banking superpower poses potentially dangerous conflicts of interest
Europe’s Missing Union
ECB Must Implement Massive QE As Lesser Of Two Evils
France Shows Caution on EU Integration
Euro Crisis: Two Steps Forward, Three Steps Back
Next, our old buddy, “senior EU official” (SEO to his friends) decided to tell Dow Jones ace Europe reporter Matina Stevis that, actually, the whole plan was really just an accounting trick. SEO said “I need to make clear what the ESM can do: the ESM is able–if one were to decide ever on such an instrument–to take an equity share in a bank. But only against full guarantee by the sovereign concerned,” the official said. “What you have is that it cuts out the effect of that loan on the debt-to-GDP ratio of the sovereign. Does it still remain the risk of the sovereign or [does it go to] the ESM? It remains the risk of the sovereign.” In other words, the real plan to get rid of the “vicious circle” in which all the risk associated with banks remained on the sovereign was to keep all the risk on the sovereign but to run an accounting trick in which it might appear to the terminally stupid that the risk wasn’t there. Even by euro crisis standards, this was Alice in Wonderland material: Words mean what we want them to mean. Finally, this weekend, German finance minister, Wolfgang Schauble, emerged to say that the Euro-summit’s plan was a load of rubbish. Bloomberg reported http://www.forbes.com/sites/karlwhelan/2012/07/08/euro-crisis-two-steps-forward-three-steps-back/Eurozone crisis will last for 20 years
Noonan to ask EU for 40% cut to debt
Monti attacks Northern EU states
Euro zone fragmenting faster than EU can act
Christopher Booker - Sunday's Mail today!! - 8th July/12
Ashley Mote" <ashley.mote@btconnect.com>Date: 9 July 2012 07:15:20 GMT+01:00To: "'G LThe following letter has gone to the editor of the Sunday Telegraph this morning…
Sir
Whilst Christopher Booker is right about Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty (8 July) allowing the UK to negotiate an exit over two years, he ignores the practical consequences.
That time would be used by the bureaucrats to mount a huge and sustained PR campaign in the UK to “warn” the people of the UK of the terrible consequences of leaving. Our own taxpayer’s money would be used against us in a sustained campaign to undermine the then UK government’s objective. Every incident, problem, crisis would be “sold” to the BBC and the other pro-EU media as being the direct and inescapable result of the UK ’s decision to leave.
Secondly, any and every EU regulation and directive which has been passed into UK law would be nit-picked over and reinforced with threats of fines and prosecution. Any interim activity planned by the British government would be examined microscopically for any apparent unlawful activity, and again policed with threats. It would be a logistical and administrative nightmare for the then UK government.
Given the pathetic weakness of recent prime ministers when faced with the EU the then incumbent might easily buckle. That, of course, would be the EU’s purpose. They would do everything they could - legal or illegal, moral or immoral, truthful or not - to have the notice to withdraw itself withdrawn.
There is only one way to leave. Repeal the European Communities Act, 1972, which took us in. We are immediately free. No further discussion, except perhaps about practicalities.
Ashley Mote
Date: Sun, Jul 8, 2012 Subject: Re: Christopher Booker - Sunday's Mail today!! - 8th July/12 I wonder what happened to the Bill already going through Parliament to repeal the act taking us in to the EU? That seems the way to go to me. G
Politics List
Gordon - your friend in Italy is perfectly correct. We have to give two year's Notice, during which time our daily £50m "donations" would continue.
Also, we would not be allowed in ANY Committees or Meetings held by the EU, whatsoever. We are out!
In addition to that (and which your friend also does NOT mention) we would be obliged to continue following every single EU Law in existence, as now - plus any new Laws passed during our 2 year wait to leave!
There are other horrendous financial penalties which I cannot recall at this moment - not through the Red Mist, which is down again!
What we really need, is a government, or even a Leader would do, with the courage to say "get lost - we are out of here! You have had your last penny from us!"
That....and revoke the ECA72 to make it legal and in full compliance with English Law and tradition!
It's time we went back to the English Constitution, English Law, honesty and some common sense!
We seem to have elected a Commons full of useless wimps - and in addition - it's slowly being taken over by Muslims, who will sit quietly until they have a majority and then introduce Islam nationally - complete with Sharia Law, Burkas, Hijabs - the lot!
WHAT IS THE MATTER WITH THEM?
s-
From: G L
Subject: Sunday's paper today!!
Our Man in Rome responds immediately and alarmingly to the Booker article in today's ST, and I think on balance I must agree with him - always be suspicious of anything the EY does, and the idea of Art 50 being a trap carries a fair degree of validity.
IF the only way is for the HoP to revoke the ECA72 Act, then we have to concentrate our attack on the Conservative Party via the new intake, 100+ MPs, Liam Fox and whoever.
Crikey NOOOO! art. 50 is a deadly TRAP! Here is my online comment on Booker's piece in today's S.T.
Oh dear, oh dear, Christopher Booker.
For years you have been a beacon of common sense on EU matters shining alone in the darkness of the mainstream media. But on your suggestion here that the UK use article 50, the so-called "Exit clause", of Lisbon , the answer has to be NO NO NO! Article 50 is a trap. In the typical Napoleonic-state style, with one hand it purports to grant a right, the right to withdraw from the EU, but with the other hand it restricts it, so much so that it reduces it to nothing. The catch, hidden within article 50, lies in the two-year waiting period that a withdrawing state must wait before it can consider itself sovereign once again, if no agreement on the terms of withdrawal is reached with the others. You seem to think that by announcing an intention to withdraw, Cameron would impress our EU "partners" so much that they would buckle under and grant us our demands in a withdrawal agreement. I can see no reason to think that. The Eurocrats do not like us already. Just look (on Youtube) at the sarcasm dripping from the lips of the influential Belgian Eurocrat Guy Verhofstadt as he derides "Her Majesty's government...". Now if we announced our intention to withdraw, their dislike would turn to open hatred and vindictiveness. And during the two year enforced waiting period, we would still be in the EU and subject to all their decisions. They would use this power against us. They would also want to plunder us in order to make up for their loss of our contributions to their budget. Already many of their decisions have crippled us, destroying our fishing, decimating our agriculture, and now threatening our financial services industry. This process would accelerate during the two years. At the end we might well be free, but we would be naked and impoverished. So NO to article 50. The only way for us to withdraw from the EU is for Parliament - with or without a referendum - to repeal the ECA72, with immediate effect. Then, and only then from a position of renewed strength as a sovereign state once more, should we negotiate a fresh trade-only agreement with the remaining EU (if indeed it is still standing).
Posts
