December 23, 2012

You are here: Home / Archives for Politics / European Union

Fitch Downgrades Ratings on Five Major European Banks

December 15, 2011 By Leave a Comment

By: CNBC.com

Fitch Ratings downgraded its credit ratings on five major European commercial banks and banking groups Wednesday as part of a broader review of its ratings on the largest banks in the world.

In a press release, the rating firm said it downgraded Banque Federative du Credit Mutuel, Credit Agricole, Danske Bank, OP Pohjola Group and Rabobank Group.

The firm said the downgrades reflect the “broader phenomenon of stronger headwinds facing the banking industry as a whole. Exposure to troubled euro zone countries through their subsidiaries was a direct consideration in the downgrades of Danske Bank and Credit Agricole.”

For the other banks, Fitch said the crisis had “negative indirect consequences.”

Capital markets, “in particular interbank markets, are not functioning effectively, and, along with more global factors, the crisis is driving economic slowdown,” according to Fitch.

 

Filed Under: Banks, European Union Tagged With:

Impartial? The BBC Made It Sound As If The World Had Ended After Cameron’s Historic Veto

December 13, 2011 By Leave a Comment

Anybody waking up last Friday morning and tuning in to the BBC’s TV or radio news bulletins might have thought there had been a national disaster overnight.

On Radio 4’s Today programme, in particular, the voices were sombre, verging on the funereal. Had they been required to wear ties, the presenters would surely have chosen black.

But far from being a catastrophe, the event they were reporting upon — David Cameron standing up to the Brussels elite by vetoing a new EU treaty inimical to Britain’s interests — was considered by the majority of the public (as proved by opinion polls at the weekend) to be a cause for celebration, or at least applause.

To the BBC, however, it was a betrayal of one of the Corporation’s most trenchantly held views: that Britain can prosper only if it agrees to do everything Europe demands of it.

Hence, the veto was reported from the perspective of the EU — rather than the British taxpayers who pay the wages of the BBC’s vast army of correspondents and executives.

On Radio 4’s 6am news bulletin, Justin Webb announced gravely: ‘Leaders of 23 EU countries are to draft a new fiscal pact to help stabilise their currency without the involvement of Britain.’

He added: ‘President Sarkozy accused David Cameron of making a deal between all 27 countries impossible.’

It was a full two minutes before listeners heard Mr Cameron’s own remarks explaining why he was forced into exercising Britain’s veto.

The debate, as conducted by the BBC, was batted around that, if the hopelessly flawed, one-size-fits-all model for a single currency collapses under the weight of its own monstrous debts, it would somehow be Mr Cameron’s fault — even though nothing could be further from the truth.

Apocalyptic tones: The BBC's reporting of the Prime Minister's historic veto of an EU treaty was skewed in favour of Brussels

Apocalyptic tones: The BBC’s reporting of the Prime Minister’s historic veto of an EU treaty was skewed in favour of Brussels

On BBC TV’s One O’Clock News, presenter Sophie Raworth continued with the negative tone and began by saying: ‘David Cameron has dramatically refused to sign a new treaty designed to resolve the eurozone debt crisis.’

The response of senior Tory officials to this dark propaganda was a weary shrug. They have become accustomed to BBC bias on all matters European.

But what makes this latest coverage so depressing is that the Corporation is fully aware of its pro-EU bias and seems incapable of behaving any differently.

Last year, BBC Director General Mark Thompson accepted the Corporation had previously been guilty of a ‘massive’ Left-wing bias. He also confessed that the BBC’s coverage of Europe had been ‘weak and rather nervous’.

Promising a change of course, Mr Thompson added: ‘We have made some progress there, but I think there are more areas where we can make progress.’

Yet still the BBC’s instinctive response in recent days has been to assume that Britain is doomed and that — by not binding Britain ever closer to Brussels — Mr Cameron has somehow sold us all down the river.

Surprised: George Osborne was asked almost nonsensical questions from BBC interviewers after the veto

Surprised: George Osborne was asked almost nonsensical questions from BBC interviewers after the veto

Every medium available to the Corporation was flooded with negative coverage. On the main news website on Friday, political correspondent Carole Walker was warning of the ‘profound danger’ of wielding a veto which could have ‘damaging consequences’.

When Labour MPs took to the airwaves to denounce the Prime Minister, they were largely given a free ride. The line taken by Labour and Lib Dem MEPs and backbenchers — namely that Britain would be left in parlous ‘isolation’ on the fringes of Europe — was treated as if it were gospel.

Yet when Chancellor George Osborne was invited onto the Today programme on Saturday morning, he was subjected to an unusually harsh grilling.

After the editor of the pro-Europe Financial Times — which was proved spectacularly wrong over its support for the euro — was given licence to attack the Government for leaving Britain ‘completely on our own’ in Europe, Mr Osborne took a battering from John Humphrys, who was characteristically adversarial.

The presenter’s opening remarks included the following line about the Prime Minister: ‘He wielded a veto and we gained nothing in return.’ The BBC man then curiously compared Tory Eurosceptics with Danish invaders from the time of Ethelred II.

Mr Humphrys told a stunned Mr Osborne: ‘You’ve chucked them some meat, or to use another metaphor if you like, you’ve paid some Danegeld [a tax raised to pay tribute to the Viking raiders to prevent them from ravaging the land]; you’ll never get rid of the Danes now, will you? Once they’ve got this — they’ve got it now — they’ll want more.’

In other words, he was implying that the veto was a ‘political gambit’ designed solely to appease ‘extremists’ in the Tory Party.

By Sunday, when Nick Clegg appeared on BBC1’s Andrew Marr Show to openly attack the Prime Minister, the sense of glee in BBC newsrooms was palpable as his message boosted the Corporation’s Euro-friendly agenda.

The story leading the BBC website yesterday morning said: ‘David Cameron will face MPs later to explain his decision to veto EU treaty changes, the day after his deputy PM said the move was “bad for Britain”.’

According the BBC’s own editorial guidelines: ‘Impartiality lies at the heart of public service and is the core of the BBC’s commitment to its audiences . . . We must be inclusive, considering the broad perspective and ensuring the existence of a range of views is appropriately reflected.’

Yet according to the polls, around six in ten voters support Mr Cameron’s actions. Less than 15 per cent are against.

Not that you’d know it from listening to the ‘British Broadcasting Corporation’.

Source: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2073358/BBC-bias-The-Corporation-sounded-like-world-ended-Camerons-EU-veto.html

Filed Under: European Union, Media, United Kingdom

Exclusive: Ex-Greek PM George Papandreou on Greece’s Fiscal Crisis and Why He Backs Occupy Movement

December 13, 2011 By 1 Comment

By https://www.democracynow.org

In an exclusive interview, we speak with former Greek prime minister, George Papandreou, who is attending the U.N. climate change summit in Durban, South Africa.

Papandreou was forced to resign last month when he suggested holding a national referendum to allow the Greek people to have a say in whether they would accept the European Union’s bailout plan which would necessitate severe austerity cuts.

We speak to Papandreou about the financial crisis, the role of banks, and the importance of the growing Occupy Wall Street movement. “The Occupy Wall Street movements … are saying something very, very specific, that inequality, in the end, is an inequality of power, and we need to redistribute power, not just money—power—and this is, I think, the democratic challenge that we have today,” Papandreou says.

 

Source: https://www.democracynow.org/2011/12/9/exclusive_ex_greek_pm_george_papandreou

Filed Under: European Union, Financial Crisis, Money, Politicians Tagged With:

European debt crisis spiralling out of control

December 13, 2011 By Leave a Comment

Reports that Germany and France have begun talks to break up the eurozone amid fears that Italy will be too big to rescue

Fears that Europe’s sovereign debt crisis was spiralling out of control have intensified as political chaos in Athens and Rome, and looming recession, created panic on world markets.

Reports emerging from Brussels said that Germany and France had begun preliminary talks on a break-up of the eurozone, amid fears that Italy would be too big to rescue.

Despite Silvio Berlusconi’s announcement that he would step down as prime minister once austerity measures were pushed through parliament, a collapse of investor confidence in the eurozone’s third-biggest economy sent interest rates in Italy to the levels that triggered bailouts in Portugal, Greece and Ireland.

Italian bond yields surged through the critical 7% mark, at one point hitting 7.5%, amid concern that the deteriorating situation had moved the crisis into a dangerous new phase.

In Athens talks to appoint a prime minister to succeed George Papandreou were in deadlock, and will resume on Thursday morning. The Italian president, Giorgio Napolitano, sought to reassure the markets by promising that Berlusconi would be leaving office soon.

Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, said the situation had become “unpleasant”, and called for eurozone members to accelerate plans for closer political integration. “It is time for a breakthrough to a new Europe,” she said. “Because the world is changing so much, we must be prepared to answer the challenges. That will mean more Europe, not less Europe.”

The president of the European commission, José Manuel Barroso, issued a new call for the EU to “unite or face irrelevance” in the face of the mounting economic crisis in Italy. “We are witnessing fundamental changes to the economic and geopolitical order that have convinced me that Europe needs to advance now together or risk fragmentation. Europe must either transform itself or it will decline. We are in a defining moment where we either unite or face irrelevance,” he said.

Senior policymakers in Paris, Berlin and Brussels are reported to have discussed the possibility of one or more countries leaving the eurozone, while the remaining core pushes on toward deeper economic integration, including on tax and fiscal policy. “France and Germany have had intense consultations on this issue over the last months, at all levels,” a senior EU official in Brussels told Reuters, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the discussions.

Financial regulators across Europe were last night carefully monitoring the health of their heavily exposed banks, amid concern that the turmoil could lead to a debt default, or even the break-up of the euro.

George Osborne, just three weeks away from delivering his autumn statement on the health of the economy, believes Europe’s problems are blighting the UK’s growth prospects, but he will use the sell-off of Italian bonds to insist there is no alternative to his austerity plans.

Nick Clegg, the deputy prime minister, spent Wednesday in Brussels urging the council president, Herman Van Rompuy, and a clutch of EU commissioners to focus on growth, and not further treaty changes, warning that if Europe does not become more competitive it will end up in a spiral of perpetual decline. Both he and David Cameron are urging EU integrationists to recognise that EU Treaty changes in the next few months would be a massive distraction and no cure for the underlying economic crisis. He pointed out that they would require referendums in at least four countries.

The latest chapter in the ongoing sovereign debt crisis came as Bank of England policymakers gathered for their monthly two-day interest rate-setting meeting. The monetary policy committee announced £75bn-worth of quantitative easing last month in an effort to prevent a recession.

City analysts believe the renewed turmoil in the eurozone is pointing to a deep recession in Europe. “It’s unavoidable that there will be an outright contraction in the fourth quarter of this year, and a 60%-70% chance of another decline in the first quarter of next year,” said Nick Parsons, head of strategy at National Australia Bank.

Shares fell heavily on both sides of the Atlantic. The Italian stock market lost 4% of its value. The FTSE100 index of leading shares closed 106.96 points down, at 5460.38. The Dow Jones closed 389 points down at 11,780.94.

Christine Lagarde, head of the IMF, told a financial forum in Beijing that Europe’s debt crisis risked plunging the global economy into a Japan-style “lost decade” of weak growth and deflation.

“Our sense is that if we do not act boldly and if we do not act together, the economy around the world runs the risk of a downward spiral of uncertainty, financial instability and potential collapse of global demand … we could run the risk of what some commentators are already calling the lost decade.”

Simon Derrick, currency strategist at BNY Mellon, said: “We’re at the point of asking the question, if I put my money into Italy, am I going to get it back? The fact is, there isn’t a safety net.” He added that the mood in the City was reminiscent of Black Wednesday, in September 1992, when the UK crashed out of the European Exchange Rate Mechanism.

The surge in Italian bond yields was eventually capped by the European Central Bank, which intervened in the markets to buy limited quantities of Italian debt. But analysts say the ECB will eventually have to step up its action, and act as a lender of last resort to bring interest rates down to pre-crisis levels. Sony Kapoor, director of Brussels-based think-tank Re-Define, said: “We may be fairly close to the point where an existential threat to the eurozone, and hence the ECB, is on the horizon. This could easily spiral out of control.”

The ECB is seen as the only institution with the firepower to rescue Italy, because the EU lacks the resources to bail out such a large economy. Ben May, of Capital Economics, said Italy would need a €650bn bailout to keep it out of financial markets for the next three years or so. “The European Financial Stability Facility will not be able to provide a bailout of this size,” he said.

Officials in Brussels insisted on Wednesday there would be no rescue package for Rome, saying, “financial assistance is not on the cards”. A key test will come on Thursday morning when Italy has to raise €5bn from investors on the bond market.

Economic and monetary affairs commissioner Olli Rehn ratcheted up the political pressure on Italy with a strongly-worded letter to finance minister Giulio Tremonti. In it, Rehn demanded concrete written details of how Italy will implement each of the 39 separate reform measures it has promised to undertake.

In Rome the head of state, Giorgio Napolitano, insisted that Berlusconi would be leaving office soon, and that his departure would not be the prelude to a lengthy period of political instability.

His intervention came after hurried consultations with the speakers of both houses of parliament to ensure the speediest possible approval for a package of economic reform and austerity measures agreed with the European institutions. On Tuesday evening, after losing his majority in the chamber of deputies, Berlusconi told Napolitano he would resign.

But, to prevent the economic measures being blocked by the fall of his government, he said he would only go once the package had been approved.

As concern grew that he might delay the passage of the legislation, which has become a litmus test of Italy’s credibility in the markets, Berlusconi said he would insist on holding new elections and one of his ministers speculated that could be next February.

After the yield on Italy’s benchmark bonds soared above 7%, taking interest rates to a level beyond which previous euro zone debt crisis victims have sought a bail-out, the president issued a statement to say the new economic measures would be “approved in the space of a few days” and that there was “no uncertainty over the prime minister’s decision to resign”.

Napolitano, who cannot begin consultations with party leaders until Berlusconi leaves office, said that either a new government would be formed “to take every necessary decision” or an election would be held “within the shortest time”.

That would still mean a vote was not held until January. But a source close to the president stressed to the Guardian that “early elections are not a foregone conclusion.”

Source:

https://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/nov/09/european-debt-crisis-eurozone-breakup

Filed Under: Banks, European Union, Money, Politics, Poverty, Protests

International Bribery Scandal Invades The ECB

December 12, 2011 By 1 Comment

The bribery scandal came at the worst possible moment for the European Central Bank. Already it’s struggling on a daily basis with the ballooning debt crisis in the Eurozone. And it’s trying to defend its independence against an onslaught of demands to print unlimited amounts of euros and buy the crappy sovereign bonds of the Eurozone’s weaker members. But now, Ewald Nowotny, member of its Governing Council, is up to his neck in hot water.

A spokesperson of the state prosecutor in Vienna, Austria, announced on Monday that the criminal investigation of an international bribery scandal that has been simmering for a while has been expanded to over 20 suspects. And it has now entangled six current directors of the Austrian National Bank (OeNB), including its Governor, Ewald Nowotny (Handelsblatt).

The scandal is centered on a division of the OeNB, the Oesterreichische Banknoten- und Sicherheitsdruck GmbH, (OeBS), which is in the lucrative business of printing money, literally. And it has been active in soliciting bank-note business from foreign governments since 2000. On its website, it claims that it “excels at combining innovative security features with modern designs.” Apparently, it also excels at bribery, kickbacks, and money laundering.

According to the prosecution, OeBS paid €17 million in bribes to Syrian officials to obtain orders from the Syrian government (Wiener Zeitung). Payments were routed to offshore outfits, such as the Panamanian mailbox company Venkoy, with representatives in Switzerland. The prosecutor is further investigating €1.7 million in kickbacks that made their way back to Austria (Die Presse). Similar arrangements with Azerbaijan are also being investigated. Two weeks ago, four people—the managing director and the head of marketing of OeBS and two lawyers—were arrested. Bits and pieces of the affair began to see the light of the day last June, when questions were raised by Austrian tax authorities about the deductibility of these payments.

The OeNB confirmed on Monday that a criminal prosecution has been initiated against six of its directors, including its Governor Ewald Nowotny, Vice Governor Wolfgang Duchatczek, and Director Peter Zöllner, who were accused of having known about the bribery of foreign public officials in connection with the acquisition of bank note printing orders. Of course, it defended its directors: the accusations were based on statements by fired employees, it said—implying that it’s nothing but a vendetta. Based on the information the directors had in front of them at the time, they’d assumed that the payments were for actual and legitimate services, and that the acquisition of orders complied with all applicable rules and laws, it said.

But on November 9, the Vienna-based daily paper Kurier created a stir when it said that it had obtained a copy of the minutes of the OeNB Board of Directors meetings. According to these minutes, the directors had known for years that millions of euros in bribes were being paid to acquire bank-note business from foreign governments.

For example, on March 24, 2010, the managing director of OeBS informed the OeNB board about a possible order from Azerbaijan for 150 million bank notes that carried a “commission” of 10%. And how did the board react? “Duchatczek asked the managing director to initiate the acquisition activities so that the years 2011 and 2012 would be at capacity.”

Over the years, the minutes show, Nowotny, Duchatczek, and their colleagues asked questions about various payments but then did nothing. For example, on December 15, 2008, Nowotny asked about the amount of a commission and the recipient in Azerbaijan. The managing director then “informed that there is a representative in Switzerland,” and that the commission would amount to 20% of the order. And that was that.

The OeNB had already tried to stamp out the brushfire and protect its directors by firing the managing director and the director of marketing at the OeBS. Stated reason? An internal audit revealed “unlawful actions and withholding of information from the Supervisory Board.” At the time, the bribery of Syrian officials had already surfaced, along with €600,000 in “unusual expenses.”

Maximum penalty for bribery is ten years in prison, according to the Handelsblatt. But given the impunity with which central bankers act, I doubt that Nowotny or the other central bankers will ever face any serious risk of ending up there. He might not even lose his jobs at the OeNB and at the ECB. And his future, well, given that he is a central banker, looks bright.

Proton Bank in Greece had siphoned off $1 billion in a scheme of fraud, embezzlement, money laundering, and offshore front companies. And got bailed out. But then a bomb exploded…. European Bailout Fund Pays For Greek Money Laundering And Fraud.

Source: https://www.testosteronepit.com/home/2011/11/28/international-bribery-scandal-invades-the-ecb.html#ixzz1g9faTgI8

Filed Under: Banks, Corporations, Corruption, European Union Tagged With: ,

Top US General Worries About Euro, Potential Unrest

December 12, 2011 By Leave a Comment

WASHINGTON (AFP) - Top US military officer General Martin Dempsey admitted he was “extraordinarily concerned” about the euro’s survival Friday, pointing to potential civil unrest and the breakup of the European Union.

“The eurozone is at great risk,” the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff told reporters, giving the strongest indication yet about the depth of Washington’s concerns over Europe’s financial tumult.

“We are extraordinarily concerned by the health and viability of the euro because in some ways we’re exposed literally to contracts but also because of the potential of civil unrest and breakup of the union that has been forged over there,” Dempsey said.

The unusually frank comments came hours after EU leaders banded together to back tighter budget enforcement, with 26 of the 27 members signaling their willingness to join a “new fiscal compact” to resolve the crisis.

But a Franco-German drive to enshrine new budget rules in a modified EU treaty failed, when non-euro Britain refused to go along, raising the prospect of a two-speed Europe or fully fledged EU breakup.

Dempsey said it was still unclear whether measures taken so far “will be the glue that holds it together.”

His remarks echo those of some economists, who have warned the collapse of the eurozone would reverberate well beyond the financial sector.

Prominent Citigroup economist and former central banker Willem Buiter warned Thursday that a fully blown breakup of the eurozone could spell a global depression and “pandemonium.”

Defaults and eurozone exits by Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Greece and Spain “would drag down not just the European banking system, but the north Atlantic financial system and the internationally exposed parts of the rest of the global banking system as well.”

The former Bank of England official said the result would be “a global depression that would last for years” with gross domestic product falling by more than 10 percent and unemployment in the West reaching 20 percent or more.

“The case for keeping the Euro Area show on the road would seem to be a strong one: financially, economically, and politically, including geopolitically,” he concluded.

US President Barack Obama and his Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner — who returned from Europe this week — have repeatedly urged Europe to move quickly to solve the crisis.

But both the White House and Treasury Department have been careful to preface their concern with expressions of confidence in Europe’s ability to pull through in the end.

“Look, Europe is wealthy enough that there’s no reason why they can’t solve this problem,” Obama said on Thursday.

Yet Dempsey’s comments are not the first time US security officials have waded into economic waters.

In 2009 Dennis Blair, then America’s top spy, warned Congress that the global economic crisis could eclipse terrorism as the greatest threat to US national security.

 

Source: https://www.activistpost.com/2011/12/top-us-general-worries-about-euro.html

Filed Under: Economy, European Union, Financial Crisis, Military, Money, Social Unrest, USA Tagged With:

Firms Fear Cameron’s Veto Will Steer UK Into Economic Dead End

December 12, 2011 By Leave a Comment

David Cameron’s bold decision has caused alarm among companies fearful of a long-term loss of influence in Europe.

When David Cameron used the nuclear option in the early hours of Friday morning, and incensed Angela Merkel and Nicolas Sarkozy by vetoing a new Europe-wide treaty, he claimed to be defending the British economy.

Yet it was hard to find many business voices supporting the decision this weekend. Sir Martin Sorrell, boss of the multinational advertising group WPP, summed up the concerns of many business leaders when he told the Observer: “Intuitively, it can’t be helpful. I’d rather be inside the tent.” He added that the spat between Britain and the eurozone countries was reminiscent of the kind of internal politics he has had to deal with: “It reminds me of the battles that go on inside companies in our industry between country managers and regional headquarters – it’s really a political battle over power and control.”

Manufacturers, whose fortunes lie at the heart of the Cameron-Osborne plan for revitalising the economy, and many of whom are heavily reliant on demand from the EU, also express caution. Steve Coventry, head of government affairs at manufacturers’ association the EEF, says:

“What we need to do is step back, forget about the politics of this, and think about the practicalities of the way it’s going to affect how we engage with our EU partners on a daily basis.”

In theory, decisions about trade rules, financial regulation and so on are meant to form part of the architecture of the single market, and therefore be decided by all 27 member states; but industry fears that, over time, the core everyone-but-Britain group will inevitably shape the direction of policy.

Julien Seetharamdoo of Coutts plays down the short-term risk of a two-speed Europe leaving Britain on the fringes, but warns foreign direct investment might eventually suffer if Britain distances itself from the EU. “The immediate impact won’t be particularly significant; Europe will still be the UK’s main destination for exports and we are still part of a free trade area,” he says. “But it could have an impact on the degree to which foreign companies will want to invest in the UK. Japan and the US have always viewed the UK as a springboard into Europe.”

With relatively few domestic industrial champions, the UK has relied on attracting overseas firms by offering them the advantages of access to the EU single market without the more rigorous regulation of areas such as labour markets of its continental neighbours.

The chancellor’s “plan for growth”, which he announced in the budget and elaborated on in the autumn statement, involves cutting red tape, reducing corporation tax and helping to fund innovation in areas such as advanced manufacturing, in an effort to invite foreign investment and boost exports so that the UK can pay its way in the world. Nothing in the new “fiscal compact” should immediately jeopardise that; but experts fear that if the rest of the EU hurtles towards closer union, Britain will have to fight to hold on to its place as a full member of the single market.

UK Trade and Investment, the government’s trade promotion body, is encouraging British firms to look beyond Europe to emerging markets such as China and India. But about half of UK exports still go to the EU; and in global trade negotiations, it’s the EU, not its individual member countries, that gets a seat at the table.

Even in the City, whose interests Cameron was avowedly defending when he flew to Brussels, there were fears that the prime minister had overplayed his hand. A month ago, an unprecedented coalition of all the City’s major traders – encompassing banks, hedge funds, stockbrokers and derivatives dealers – warned in an open letter to Osborne of the dire consequences of an EU-wide transaction tax that they feared a new treaty could bring. In some business areas, up to 90% of all transactions could flee London, it said. Yet after the veto, even some of the signatories are privately warning that it could backfire against Britain.

“It doesn’t protect us, it exposes us,” says one. There was puzzlement, too, because some of the legislation Britain plans to unilaterally impose on its financial sector – the recommendations of the Vickers commission on banking, for example – is actually tougher than anything being mooted at EU level. The Treasury insists that part of Britain’s motivation was in fact to ensure that it would be allowed to set its own rules without EU interference.

Nevertheless, a huge amount of financial services legislation is currently coming down the Brussels pipeline, and fears are growing that Britain will no longer be able to influence directives that, despite the veto, will still have full legal force in the UK. Cameron may have drawn a line preventing the EU from imposing a “Robin Hood” tax on financial transactions, but while Britain remains in the EU, it cannot sidestep other EU-wide directives agreed by the commission and passed in the European parliament.

The British Bankers’ Association acknowledges that the UK’s interests may be harmed by losing its place at the table. BBA chief executive Angela Knight says: “We do not yet know the impact this new arrangement is going to have on the UK’s ability to secure agreements on sensible regulation – but that is critical.” And the Association of British Insurers adds: “The immediate challenge for us will be exerting influence over EU regulations that will affect the UK financial services industry and its customers.”

The insurance industry is currently undergoing intense negotiations in Brussels over “Solvency II”, a directive to be introduced next year aimed at increasing the amount of capital insurers must hold. Critics warn it could result in higher premiums and that some UK-based insurers may quit for offshore locations.

But Britain’s day-to-day engagement with the EU may suffer much less than people imagine, says Richard Saunders, chief executive of the Investment Management Association. “At the technical level – the level at which things are discussed in committees and directives are hammered out – I’m not sure there will be a huge amount of difference. I don’t think we will be isolated.”

In financial markets, the mood was muted on Friday, with the FTSE edging a little higher and sterling slipping just a little, despite what foreign policy experts regard as an historic turning point in Britain’s relationship with Europe. Saunders believes markets are awaiting more details of just how tax harmonisation and fiscal union in the eurozone may work before delivering their verdict.

Committed Eurosceptics such as Mark Dampier, investment chief at financial adviser Hargreaves Lansdown (itself a component of the FTSE 100 index) are among those who unreservedly applaud Cameron’s veto; he is only concerned about a future U-turn. “I’m glad Cameron had the courage to turn around and say no,” Dampier says. “The City still earns a shedload of money for Britain, despite what many people think, and it’s important that it is protected.”

It is still far from clear whether last week’s summit has succeeded in safeguarding the single currency. If the euro is in a slow-motion train crash, and eventually collapses in a year or two’s time, Cameron will be able to claim he has done the right thing – but with Britain’s economic fortunes so closely intertwined with Europe’s, nothing he could do would drag us clear of the wreckage.

 

Source: https://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/dec/10/business-reaction-cameron-eu-veto

Filed Under: Corporations, Economy, European Union, United Kingdom Tagged With: ,

Demand An End To Animal Rape In Denmark (Where The Govt Think It’s Perfectly Normal & Legal)

December 12, 2011 By 2 Comments

Why This Is Important

PLEASE SIGN AND SHARE THIS PETITION: https://www.change.org/petitions/demand-an-end-to-animal-rape-in-denmark-where-the-government-think-its-perfectly-normal-and-legal

You are so small and defenceless, you are terrified, in horrific pain, you have been bound and gagged by your torturer with no means of escape. You have beaten and kicked until you are almost unconscious, then dragged into a room where your torturer has paid another to put you through so much physical and mental pain you are praying you wont survive.

Still conscious he will deliberately destroy your internal organs, your delicate pelvic bones will be smashed, your skin will literally be ripped to pieces. Your legs will be forced to breaking point, your muscles and ligaments shredded and torn from the bone where your attacker forces your limbs away from your body. So much pain, so much fear, so much horror for someone so tiny, so innocent to endure.

All the while you try to scream out in hopes that someone will help you, anyone, just to make this stop. You try to fight back but you cant, you are bound and your mouth has been gagged so you cannot defend yourself in anyway.

You pray that death will be kind and take you to where you cant be hurt any more, because if you do survive, tomorrow or the next day, your owner will again take money from another, to abuse and rape you again.

You don’t understand what is happening to you. Why isn’t anyone coming to save you? Why is he doing this to you? What have you done so wrong that you have to endure this horrific ordeal?

The truth is:

You have done nothing wrong , you are an innocent

The reason he is allowed to do this to you is because you are in Denmark, and Rape of defenceless animals has been deemed by the Government to be legal!

In fact, other vile scum are even allowed to trap hundreds just like you, force you and others to endure such horrific cruelty on a daily, even hourly basis and call it an animal brothel.

At this point in time, sadly the only escape for you and others is death at the hands of your torturer ( Just like poor Lunar whose pic you see on this petitions main image, who was raped and killed in Turkey.), for those like lunar and you in the future, your only hope is that the decent honourable humans out there, who do care about you,will do the following:

* Read this petition

* Sign it

* Share it with the rest of the world.

* Alert there own European MP or there Foriegn affairs minister.

AND TELL THE GOVERNMENT AND PEOPLE OF DENMARK THAT THIS IS ANIMAL ABUSE IN ONE OF THE WORST FORMS,AND IT IS NOT ACCEPTABLE, IT IS NOT RIGHT, AND IT IS TOTALLY ILLEGAL, AND THAT THIS MUST STOP IMMEDIATELY.

As you can see by the photo of poor little Lunar who was recently raped and killed in Turkey, the act of Raping an animal as with all forms of rape is not normal, is horrific, it must be stopped.

 

Source: https://www.change.org/petitions/demand-an-end-to-animal-rape-in-denmark-where-the-government-think-its-perfectly-normal-and-legal

Filed Under: Animal Cruelty, European Union, Law Tagged With: ,

After David Cameron’s EU Treaty Veto: Seven Key Questions Britain Must Face

December 11, 2011 By Leave a Comment

Observer writers analyse the political and financial implications of the PM’s refusal to fall in line with the rest of Europe

Question 1: how did Britain wind up on the fringe of Europe?

France, Germany and their neighbours have waved us goodbye. Political editor Toby Helm examines Britain’s fractious history within Europe

“Auf Wiedersehen, England!” was how German magazine Der Spiegelreacted in the early hours of Friday. “Der Euro ist wichtiger als die Briten,” (the euro is more important than the British) concluded the German tabloid, Bild.

It was as much in sorrow as in anger that the Germans and French bid a weary farewell to the UK as part of the European mainstream and waved it over into the EU’s slow lane.

Indeed, Le Monde devoted an editorial to all that it admired in its neighbour – from the BBC, to John le Carré, to Elizabethan poetry and Liverpool FC. But its conclusion was blunt: “As dawn broke on 9 December, Europe was right to say No to London.”

Down the years, German and French leaders, from Kohl and Mitterrand to Schröder and Chirac had tried their best to accommodate the UK as a fellow traveller on the great European journey.

But it had always been a struggle. During the UK’s 38-year membership of the European Community, and latterly Union, the true believers had, too often in their eyes, to make special exceptions for the “awkward Anglo-Saxons”. The “Brits” wielded handbags and threatened vetoes, insisting all the time on remaining at the top table of discussions despite opting out of Europe’s more ambitious ventures – the Schengen open borders agreement and the euro being chief among them.

Around 4am on Friday the EU finally ran out of patience with the UK andDavid Cameron ran out of road. Under intense pressure from his Eurosceptic party to show the “bulldog spirit” he applied the veto and found himself suddenly alone.

Although the UK originally thought it had the support of others including Hungary, in the end it turned out to be the only EU member state to refuse to sign a new intergovernmental accord designed to save the euro. The talks broke down when Cameron failed to get the assurances he was seeking for the City of London and Britain’s place in the single market. The prime minister insisted upon a legally binding “protocol” to protect the City from more EU financial regulations. He didn’t get one so he blocked a deal.

French president Nicolas Sarkozy, furious that the British were lobbing in their own last-minute demands when everyone else was there to save the euro, told the prime minister: “You can’t have an offshore centre taking Europe’s capital.”

Playing to the domestic gallery, Cameron said he had acted in the national interest. Tory Eurosceptics were delighted. But Cameron’s veto – while releasing short-term pressure at home – is a massive political gamble.

The UK is now likely to be out of the loop at the outset of crucial EU debates for years to come. Our partners now have a forum in which to seal alliances on single-market issues in advance of votes being taken. But the UK will be locked out.

Cameron has also set a time-bomb ticking under the coalition with the pro-EU Lib Dems. Several party grandees and Lib Dem MEPs are furious that the Tory/Lib Dem government has put the UK on the EU’s sidelines where Nick Clegg has always insisted it must never be.

The 1990s and 2000s saw successive British leaders, Labour and Tory, trying to reconcile the largely irreconcilable as they attempted to ride two horses at once, the broadly sceptical British one and the European one. It was well nigh impossible. Tony Blair was blocked from joining the euro by Gordon Brown and so lost kudos in the EU.

Reel forward to David Cameron and the same tensions have applied. His problems, however, have been deeper for two reasons. First he made rash promises to the right of his party that have come back to haunt him. Critics say this was because he never bothered to engage his mind on Europe.

Britain and the EUDuring his leadership campaign in 2005 he attracted sceptic support by promising to pull the Tories out of the pro-integration alliance of centre-right parties, the European Peoples’ Party (EPP). He infuriated Merkel and Sarkozy when he did so and formed a rival anti-integration group with a hotch-potch of eastern European parties with nationalist, homophobic and anti-semitic connections and no influence in the EU.

His second difficulty has been one of timing. His premiership has coincided with the euro crisis, and Cameron felt he had no option but to call for more fiscal union to prevent European and global financial disaster. Conservative sceptics saw their chance when euro leaders suggested a new EU treaty to deliver that union. Here was Cameron’s opportunity to demand repatriation. But he was wisely advised it would be mad to push such demands when the euro was on the edge. He pulled back. The sceptics cried “betrayal” again, and turned up demands for a referendum. Again Cameron’s answer was no.

As he headed to Brussels on Thursday, some Tories were mumbling about a leadership challenge. Politically Cameron simply had to deliver. Now he and the UK must face the consequences.

What Europe's voters say

Question 2: how will voters respond?

Britons are split on Europe – but all parties think Friday’s events will help them at the polls, writes Policy Editor Daniel Boffey

It is a strange fact that all the political parties believe David Cameron’s actions in Europe last week will benefit them electorally in the coming years. The reasons they give centre on Britain’s tortuous and complicated relationship with the continent.

Britons are split on their feelings over the EU with 42% of people having a positive or very positive image of it, compared to 39% holding the opposing negative view and 19% with no view at all, according to the latest European Commission poll.

But Britons, more frequently than not, cannot shake off the feeling, whether pro-European or not, that the country is somehow being short-changed by the EU; that the economic costs of being a member exceed the benefits.

On average, Britons believe we lose out by around 19% of the country’s gross national product every year to the EU. In reality, the latest figures show that the UK contributes just 0.12% more of its GNP than it receives.

By so publicly standing up for Britain’s interests in the face of overwhelming opposition, the prime minister, one Tory MP said, is likely to strike a chord across Britain. “And of course, now that this European club is free to make decisions against our national interest on a routine basis, even more people will feel a Eurosceptic urge,” he added. Senior Tory MPs believe that not only will there be a referendum on our future with Europe before 2015 but it will demonstrate a rise of Euroscepticism across the political spectrum that could help deliver a Tory majority.

That isn’t the Liberal Democrat view. While irritated by Cameron’s tactics, and in particular the bragging rights last week’s development provides the Eurosceptic right, there is quiet confidence that Cameron’s isolationism will prove once and for all that Britain needs to be at the centre of Europe or fail.

Evan Harris, the former Lib Dem MP for Oxford West and Abingdon, said: “This is a victory for the Tory right but it is a victory over the Tory left. There is a good chance that being on the sidelines will hurt our economic recovery and our electoral hopes are rather tied to that. But we would rather be competing against a rightwing Tory party than a leftwing progressive one. If it looks as if what the Tory right has done is merely prevent the bankers from being regulated, there will be a price to pay.” David Rendel, the former Lib Dem MP for Newbury, added: “As decisions which affect us are made, the electorate will see what a disaster David Cameron’s actions have been for the country and, in fact, for his party.”

Meanwhile, Labour leader Ed Miliband has this week been adamant that Cameron’s actions in Brussels were a disaster for the Tories. Should the economy continue to struggle or even suffer a further downturn, Labour will now be able to say that not only have the Tory-led government’s economic policies led to the average worker being less prosperous but that its foreign policy has led to the country losing its voice at the level the big decisions that could have saved the economy are being made.

The latest polls show Labour 6% ahead of the Conservative party, a relatively small lead given the awful economic times. Miliband and his team believe they have just been given a new weapon in their armoury.

Question 3: how can Clegg and the coalition survive?

Reactions among Lib Dems to David Cameron’s veto have varied – but only in their degrees of disbelief and anger. By Toby Helm and Daniel Boffey

“If you were a Liberal Democrat at the last election what were your unique selling points on the big issues?” one of the party’s peers pondered. “You believed in electoral reform and you were pro-European.”

Her point was that things had changed for the worse since then and the Lib Dems had lost the causes that had once made them distinct. They were also running out of reasons to stay in the coalition.

In May this year electoral reform was rejected in a referendum. Seven months on no one believes there is the remotest chance the country can return to the subject for a generation.

Nor, after Friday’s summit fiasco, could the Lib Dems so readily display their pro-European credentials, now that the government they were part of had left the UK isolated in the EU. Party members could be forgiven for asking what the point was.

The reactions among Lib Dems to David Cameron’s actions on behalf of the coalition have been varied, but only in their degrees of disbelief and anger.

On Friday, one senior Lib Dem said the deal was a “disaster” that placed Britain “on the precipice” of Europe and would destroy the coalition.

“A referendum is inevitable and it will be lost because we will be on the outside of everything, not in any of the conversations, not invited to any of the dinners. What is the point of being in a club like that?” he said.

Initially, on Friday, a stunned Nick Clegg came out in broad support of the deal, saying he had been kept in touch and that he backed Cameron’s actions.

But on Saturday, after pondering things further, sources made clear to the Observer that the deputy prime minister was, in fact, deeply unhappy about what had gone on.

It was an astonishing about-turn that showed Clegg had, in this case, decided to put his own credibility and that of his party above his support for Cameron. If the coalition was to survive, the Lib Dem leader had to retain respect among his people and he could not if do so if, as an ardent pro-European, he backed an outrightly eurosceptic agenda.

Friends of the deputy prime minister said Clegg was fed up with taking flak for policies with which he did not agree and of being accused of betrayal. The scars of the Lib Dem about-turn on tuition fees are still fresh. On Europe, of all subjects, Clegg has decided to stand up for what he believes.

Just six weeks ago he wrote in the Observer that “being shoved to the margins [of the EU], or retreating there voluntarily, would be economic suicide: a surefire way to hurt British business and lose jobs”. It was hard for any Lib Dem on Friday to argue that their leader’s worst fears had not been realised. Equally difficult for the Lib Dems was the fact that Cameron returned from Brussels saying he had blocked the EU deal to protect the City of London. So the beneficiaries – the reasons for the veto – were the very bankers whom the Lib Dems want to see subjected to more regulation, not less, despite considerable Tory opposition.

A Lib Dem government source said: “Cameron not only left us on the sidelines in the EU but he did so in order to defend the City, while doing nothing for real jobs, real manufacturing. It is completely wrong.”

During the first 19 months of the Tory/Lib Dem alliance Clegg had been able to boast, with some justification, that he had reined in the Tories on Europe, curbed their natural scepticism. After the election he persuaded them to shelve their commitment to repatriating powers over social and economic policy – something which infuriated Conservative sceptics. Tory ministers, including the foreign secretary, William Hague, even praised the role of the Lib Dems in framing a sensible coalition foreign policy.

But the Lib Dems’ influence infuriated the Tory sceptics who demanded more and more of Cameron until he delivered his veto in Brussels. Lord Oakeshott, the Lib Dem peer who is close to business secretary, Vince Cable, said the whole Brussels fiasco had destabilised the coalition. “This has done serious damage to coalition unity as well as our future in Europe. David Cameron needs to stop running the country in the interests of a few Eurosceptic backbenchers,” he said.

Clegg is the most European of the pro-EU Lib Dems. His political home is Europe. His mother is Dutch and his wife Spanish and he speaks several European languages including Spanish, German, French and Italian. Europe not only helps define him and his party: it is central to his mindset.

If anything is likely to break the coalition and tip Clegg over the edge it is Europe. The Lib Dems have forged difficult compromises with the Tories on numerous issues including reform of the NHS, reform of the benefit system, tax for lower earners and free schools. But on Europe, it is difficult to see how the two sides can be reconciled– particularly after Friday morning.

Most Lib Dems believe the coalition will not break up in the short term because there would be dreadful consequences if it did. “I think everyone knows that the bond markets would release their furies on us if we walked out and we would be blamed,” said one.

But it is an increasingly unhappy marriage and the main sticking point is Europe. When Clegg sits down next to Cameron in the Commons on Monday they will be further apart on the issue than ever.

Question 4: is it likely the euro has been saved?

The common currency has been sliding towards disaster for months. Business editor Heather Stewart looks at its survival hopes

One City wag compares the serial summitry of the past 18 months in the eurozone to a repeatedly unsuccessful “amateur escapology trick”: each time, Europe’s leaders set the scene with a great, theatrical buildup, warning that they have “10 days to save the euro” (in the words of EU commissioner Olli Rehn) and promising a daring escape, but when the drum roll ends, they’re still trapped underwater in a padlocked box.

Last week’s Brussels summit was less of a flop than most, and Europe’s leaders did at least start to outline an escape route. First, they’ve made progress towards the “fiscal compact” demanded by European Central Bank president Mario Draghi, by promising to enshrine budgetary rules – including strict ceilings on deficits – in their constitutions, and enforce automatic punishments on eurozone members that fail to comply.

Ngaire Woods, professor of global economic governance at Oxford, last week compared this process to “designing their summerhouse while their house is burning around them”.

But EU leaders believe it will help to convince financial markets that they’re serious about fiscal discipline, restoring confidence and reopening the lending taps to countries in a shaky financial position such as Italy and Spain – and perhaps persuade Draghi and the ECB to ride to the rescue by buying those government’s bonds on a far larger scale.

Second, the sums of money now being set aside by eurozone leaders to rescue stricken neighbours also look somewhat more convincing: Europe will channel €200bn through the IMF, which it hopes will be boosted by contributions from wealthy developing countries such as China and Brazil. The European stability mechanism, the new bailout fund, which should now be up and running next year, will have a total of €500bn at its disposal.

Third, eurozone leaders also promised to focus on measures that would improve competitiveness and create jobs; but some economists were warning this weekend that there was still no convincing answer to the question of how Italy would manage to borrow the €400bn it needs to repay bonds due in the next 12 months alone.

There’s also a tough political challenge for countries such as Portugal and Greece, which have already imposed painful austerity measures – tax rises, pay cuts and reductions in public spending – at the behest of Brussels and the financial markets, and will have to convince their electorates to stay the course.

Many analysts believe Greece, Portugal and perhaps Ireland will eventually have to write off part of their outstanding debt. “At the very next downturn, one treasury or another in the southern states is going to be stretched to breaking point,” says Neil Mellor, of BNY Mellon. He predicts that Italian bond yields – the interest rate Rome pays on its debts – could be back in the “danger zone” above 7% within days.

There are further doubts about the role the ECB could play in the coming months. Euro-watchers interpreted a closely-watched speech by Draghi earlier this month as suggesting that once a deal on tax-and-spending discipline is in place, the ECB could act as a so-called lender-of-last-resort, and step in to aid distressed sovereigns. But while the Italian ECB president did announce a battery of emergency measures to unblock the frozen financial markets last week, he used his regular Frankfurt press conference to insist that it’s not his job to bail out governments.

And just to spice things up further, Standard and Poor’s has warned that it may be about to downgrade the credit ratings of much of the eurozone, risking a fresh round of market panic. There’s no great escape yet.

Question 5: has Cameron really protected the City?

The inner core of countries will still press ahead with a ‘Robin Hood Tax’ and Britain won’t get a say in new regulation of banks, argues Heather Stewart

For the past year or so, a determined group of anti-poverty campaigners, with the high-profile support of the actor Bill Nighy and the film-maker Richard Curtis, have been demanding a so-called “Robin Hood Tax” on City trading, to ensure that banks and other financial firms bear their share of the costs of the credit crisis.

Their original motivation was for the funds to be directed to tackling poverty and climate change; but as the idea has gathered pace, and been adopted by France and Germany, it has become clear that the revenues would go directly to Europe’s treasuries.

It is ironic, given that the worldwide campaign emerged from the UK, and fed on public fury that the bloated banks had got off scot-free, that scuppering a transaction tax became a totemic issue in Cameron’s standoff with the rest of Europe.

What was puzzling City insiders this weekend, however, was what exactly Cameron has won. The inner core of countries will still press ahead with the Robin Hood Tax, which will apply to banks registered in their countries – including, for example, German banks trading in London.

Cameron’s demands, which included the freedom to implement the proposals of the Vickers commission on banking, and an assurance that financial regulations would be even-handedly applied right across the single market, were relatively modest. But they made it easy for Sarkozy to caricature him as the dastardly Sheriff of Nottingham, defender of the rapacious Anglo-Saxon capitalists who caused the crisis.

Despite lobbying hard against the Robin Hood Tax and a slew of other Brussels regulations, few City insiders were cheering Britain’s new isolationist stance: they’re nervous that while most regulation will still in theory be decided at EU level, the inner core of everyone-but-Britain will over time come to dominate decision-making.

They also know much of the regulation born in the UK is stricter than anything being drawn up on the continent.

As for the rest of the economy, Sir Mervyn King has made clear that the future of the eurozone poses the single biggest threat to the UK. The Bank of England’s monetary policy committee is predicting zero growth in the current quarter; but that’s assuming the latest flurry of euro summitry is successful. It believes the consequences of a “disorderly” break-up of the single currency would be so dire that it can’t even model them.

Many analysts now believe that even if the worst outcome of a complete euro-collapse is avoided, the severe shock to confidence and the strains on the banking sector, which are driving up the cost of borrowing right across Europe, mean a downturn on the continent is all but inevitable.

Question 6: how will the world see Britain’s isolation?

The UK will lose influence globally – and the ‘special relationship’ with the USA will be a casualty. By Foreign Affairs Editor Peter Beaumont

“It is an undeniable privilege of every man to prove himself right in the thesis that the world is his enemy,” the celebrated US diplomat George F Kennan once said. “For if he reiterates it frequently enough and makes it the background of his conduct he is bound eventually to be right.”

Britain may be forced to recognise sooner rather than later that by embracing the self-fulfilling prophecy of Eurosceptic rhetoric – that Europe has it in for us – Europe and the world has indeed become a more difficult place for the UK to exert its influence.

Even as senior foreign office officials were reported to be privately furious at David Cameron’s performance in Brussels, other figures were warning publicly of the huge potential damage inflicted on British foreign policy, and its ability to influence other countries.

Chris Davies, chief whip of the Lib Dem MEPs, wrote just after Cameron exercised his veto: “Today Britain has taken a step towards irrelevance. There will be other dinners of European leaders. At too many of them, there will now be no place set for the prime minister of the United Kingdom.”

Richard Whitman, an associate fellow at Chatham House and an expert on European politics was equally critical. “I’m shell-shocked,” he admitted. “Without over-dramatising it, I believe this signals a profound crisis for British diplomacy. The UK strategy in Europe for decades – a successful strategy – has been to nudge and influence political developments.” That strategy, Whitman argues, now lies in ruins and with it decades of careful diplomacy.

It is not merely within Europe, Whitman believes, that Britain’s voice is likely to be diminished but also in the US where, under President Barack Obama, enthusiasm for the “special relationship” has been cooler. “It is not clear why the US should pursue a privileged relationship with the UK over Europe when the UK is outside. We have sold ourselves as a bridge between Europe and the US. Why go through London when it can go straight to Paris or Berlin?”

Michael Calingaert, an expert at the US Brookings Institution on the EU and transatlantic relations, believes that Britain’s influence will inevitably be diminished. “The notion that Britain was a bridge between the US and Europe was probably overstated somewhat. But now that Merkel and Sarkozy are running the show it is inevitable that Berlin and Paris will be more important [to Washington] than London. The US will look far less to the UK as an interlocutor.”

But if these are the obvious challenges facing British diplomacy, by distancing itself from the core of Europe the UK may face more profound consequences. One may be its ability to play as significant a role as it does in other forums. Last week Liberal Democrat energy secretary Chris Huhne was in Durban as a senior member of the EU negotiating delegation. Further isolation from the mainstream could make it harder to claim such prominence.

Whatever the future, the United Kingdom looks suddenly smaller.

Question 7: can the UK return to the heart of Europe?

A return to the top table is not impossible, but highly unlikely while the current government remains in power, explains Political Editor Toby Helm

The answer is yes. But it is very difficult to see how Britain can do so under a government led by the current Conservatives. David Cameron has shown himself willing to put the demands of Eurosceptic backbenchers and the City above other EU leaders.

The sceptics have their tails up and many will redouble their efforts now. While they accept that their goal of repatriating powers is difficult for Cameron to achieve, they are likely to press the case for a referendum, arguing that the EU is a different club to the one the UK joined. Any backing off by Cameron from the hard line will be taken by the sceptics as betrayal and endanger his leadership.

Even if Cameron wanted to change direction and sign up to the new accord, it is difficult to see EU leaders agreeing to reopen talks. President Sarkozy and Chancellor Merkel are not in the mood to go back to the negotiating table – one that Merkel suggested Cameron did not appear interested in being at in the first place.

EU leaders have the euro to save and cannot spend time worrying about the UK. Cameron, too, seems content with isolation and the accolades of his party. The only point at which the dynamics could change is under a new British government with a genuine desire to be at the heart of Europe.

 

Source: https://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/dec/11/cameron-veto-key-questions-britain

Filed Under: European Union, United Kingdom Tagged With:

‘Goldman Sachs Dictatorship - Hitler’s Dream’

December 11, 2011 By Leave a Comment

Time is running out for Eurozone leaders to save the single currency, as they prepare for eleventh-hour talks in Brussels. Germany and France are pushing to change EU treaties, to create a fiscal union and introduce tougher budget rules.However, the European Council President believes they can achieve the same goals without altering existing treaties, which would need a lengthy ratification process.

The British Prime Minister warned he wouldn’t agree to anything which damaged the UK’s role in the European market. Meanwhile, credit ratings giant Standard and Poor’s has added to the sense of urgency, as it threatens to downgrade 15 Eurozone countries as well as their bailout fund. Investigative journalist Tony Gosling says countries need to return to their own currencies if they’re to escape being ruled by Brussels.

 

Filed Under: Banks, European Union Tagged With: ,
« Older Posts