THE BENEFITS ??? - EU should leave us alone !!!!

Greece has endured deep budget cuts tied to its massive bailout from the so-called troika - the EU, International Monetary Fund (IMF) and European Central Bank (ECB).
The possibility of a Syriza victory in Sunday's vote has sparked fears that Greece could default on its debt and exit from the euro.
THE BENEFITS OF E.U. AND THE EURO

Average wage is €600 (£450: $690) a month

Unemployment is at 25%, with youth unemployment almost 50%

Economy has shrunk by 25% since the start of the eurozone crisis

Country's debt is 175% of GDP

Borrowed €240bn (£188bn) from the EU, the ECB and the IMF

 

After more than four years of harsh restrictions imposed by the so-called "troika" of the EU, the European Central Bank, and the International Monetary Fund, elections here come just as Greece actually begins to see small signs of recovery. But it is macroeconomic growth that has yet to reach the pockets of ordinary Greeks, who have seen their companies shuttered and their pensions slashed... if Europe is forced to respond to new demands from Greece, it will test cohesion already strained by tensions over NATO and Britain's flirtation with an exit from the EU, says Ian Kearns, director of the policy group European Leadership Network in London. “In that reaction we will see the definition of the European project,” Mr. Kearns says. “It will be the movement of Europe into a new era, one that will lock in austerity or [take] a new path.”   It could also challenge a Greece that has in some ways felt on the mend.  Antonis Birbilis, a volunteer at the electoral stand for New Democracy in Syntagma Square, which was the site of near daily violent protests against austerity, says he fears the election could bring Greece back to darker days.

 

Indeed...

Indeed ... A form of  dictatorship is the only way that the EU CAN work. Fascism - where the state comes before the individual - same with the EU - the EU project comes before EVERYTHING and EVERYBODY else. It must not fail !!!! People eating out of bins in Athens....50% youth unemployment.....convicted murderers roming Europe at will.....who cares, so long as the Eurocrats get their fat pension - all in the name of 'a democratic Europe' - apparently. Let's hope the EU gradually disappears up its own backside. Is it really such a big deal for Greece to leave the Eurozone? Yes, they will default on their debts, but this is only virtual money and the debtors (ie Germany) were not going to see very much of it back in any case. There will be some months of turbulance whilst they create a new currency and agree on an exchange rate ....the average person will be better off as he will suddenly have a load of New Drachma's in his pocket ...the rich will keep their Euros in their various non-Greek accounts...but then the country can start to benefit from an influx of holiday makers and increased competitiveness for their industry, which is responsible for 60% of their exports. They will still be in the European Union and benefit from the open market....as will the rest of the Union....That's the worse case scenario for the EU. Other countries would see that life is better outside euro. Some countries would also want to exit and some countries that are meant to join would refuse to do so.   I want to think that Berlin and Paris will not cause any more pain on Greece, but on the other hand, if Greece exits and it is a success, the Francogerman monetary union can seriously collapse. So, I suspect that Berlin and Paris would still try to make life difficult for Greece outside the euro.

The global insurance industry covered $21bn (£12.7bn) of losses from disasters in the first half of 2014 as fewer natural catastrophes kept claims below their long-term average. The total economic cost of disasters in the first six months was $44bn of which natural events made up $41bn, figures from Swiss Re, the world's second-biggest reinsurer, showed. More than 4,700 people were killed by natural disasters during the period. The figure for overall economic costs was down from $59bn a year ago and was less than half the first-half average of $94bn in the last decade. The $21bn total bill for insurance companies fell from $25bn in the first half of last year and a 10-year average of $27bn. Natural disasters made up $19bn of costs in the first six months of 2014 with manmade events accounting for another $2bn. Insurance losses hit a record of $116bn in 2011 with most of the losses in the first half when the Japanese earthquake cost the industry $35bn. The most costly insured events in the first half of this year were the $2.6bn bill for May's thunderstorms and hail in the US and $2.5bn each for storm Ela, which hit France, Germany and Belgium in June, and a Japanese snow storm in February. The freezing winter that slowed the US economy in January also hit the insurance industry with insured losses of $1.7bn out of total losses of $2.5bn. Heavy flooding caused $4.5bn of losses in Serbia, Bosnia, Croatia and other east European countries but the cost to insurers was "moderate" because of low takeup of insurance, Swiss Re said.

Germany's conservatives and left-leaning Social Democrats reached an agreement this week to create the next federal government after weeks of negotiations following the Sept. 22 election. With Chancellor Angela Merkel of the conservative Christian Democratic Union (CDU) at its helm, the coalition government has agreed to a number of joint policy initiatives that will see the establishment of Germany's first-ever legally mandated minimum wage and generous changes to the country's pension system, including the option of retirement at 63. At the same time, the CDU, its Bavarian sister party, the Christian Social Union (CSU) and the center-left Social Democratic Party (SPD) are pledging to deliver these gifts without raising taxes.  Christoph Schmidt, the head of the German Council of Economic Experts, which advises the German government, said he doesn't believe the government has the funding for all the gifts being given to voters. "It may be possible to finance the planned extra spending until 2017 without raising taxes or fresh borrowing, but it won't be possible after that," he told the newspaper Die Welt. Schmidt said the plans for allowing retirement at 63 instead of the current 67, along with additional benefits for women who left work to raise children and other pension perks would create lasting additional expenditures. Ultimately, he warned, the money would have to come from either higher individual pension contributions, higher taxes or through a general reduction of pension benefits.

Meanwhile, Clemens Fuest, director of the European Center for Economic Research (ZEW), warned of both the pension changes and the new minimum wage. "The biggest problem is the combination of stricter labor market regulations, the sinking of the retirement age and the introduction of new retirement benefits," he said. "That's going to drive up social security contributions and reduce employment at a time when we actually need more jobs."

German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schäuble of Merkel's CDU has defended the proposals, saying everything has been calculated solidly. He told a German public broadcaster there would be €23.06 billion in additional spending between 2014 and 2017 and there is plenty of room for maneuver in the current budget. He said his ministry is already anticipating budget surpluses of €15 billion a year during that period.

The coalition agreement dominates the coverage of German newspapers, where editorialists at many papers criticize the planned new spending, which they believe sends a bad message in times of European austerity. Others praise the new worker protections planned by the future government.

The conservative Die Welt writes: "The coalition contract reflects the spirit of regulation-loving statism. The very policies set in motion by former Chancellor Gerhard Schröder through his reforms of social and labor laws that created the breathing room needed for the economy to flourish and for unemployment to fall are now being systematically dismantled. In the case of the SPD, this is the result of shame over the success of Schröder's Agenda 2010 (which cut worker protection and benefits for the long-term unemployed and also cost the party votes). In the case of the conservatives, it's attributable to 'Merkelism' -- e.g. a chancellor who has transformed her CDU into the first postmodern political party in Europe, one in which the idea that 'anything goes' is now an actual party value."

"The message this sends to the rest of Europe is disastrous. We preach austerity to the debt crisis countries and yet we continue to fatten Germany's already plump social system instead of putting it on a diet. Germany can no longer be considered a role model for Europe." The conservative Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung writes: "Grand coalitions are by their nature generous. That's one of the reasons they are more popular with people than smaller coalitions. And it doesn't appear that the third grand coalition government in postwar German history will disappoint, either. Because each of the three parties in the new government is showing a big heart for the little man, and each wants to make sure that its handwriting is recognizable on the coalition contract. The result is a cornucopia of good deeds courtesy of the social system that are now to be distributed across the country. Be it a national minimum wage (the first in Germany), pension increases for women who have raised children or dual citizenship for children of immigrants born in the country, there is something in here for everyone. And the parties want the wealthy to be grateful that the government won't be resorting to tax increases to pay for it -- at least not in the beginning. Still, many Germans will eventually learn the hidden costs of this blessing -- namely the next generation. But none of the three party leaders is going to allow that to overshadow this very generous alliance."

The leftist Die Tageszeitung writes: "Some are saying that this grand coalition has no vision, but that's not true. The coalition contract isn't just the sum of individual interests that somehow had to be brought in sync. There is a threat that runs through it. The spirit of the contract is the cautious re-establishment of corporatism at the federal level. It is no coincidence that the unions are backing this coalition in a way that they didn't the last time there was a grand coalition in 2005."

"Among the positive aspects are improved conditions for the working poor. Starting in 2017, the country will have a minimum wage of €8.50. Precarious jobs will also be better regulated. Some things are still murky, but the direction is clear: Those with jobs will no longer be able to be exploited the same way they were. It also an open question whether a left-leaning government could have achieved more in terms of labor policy against strong resistance from industry. That's why it is both probable and logical that the SPD party members will vote yes on this coalition agreement."

The left-leaning Berliner Zeitung writes:

"When two wish lists are added together to become a coalition agreement, it comes with a high price. What weighs more heavily than the money, however, is that this coalition will not push through forward-looking structural reforms. Nor is it clear how it will effectively address the problem of demographic change. We have the oldest population in Europe. The problems that creates aren't just restricted to areas like long-term care, health care provisions and family policies. It also has consequences for the ability to innovate, training and families. What are we going to do?"

"Merkel has said that this grand coalition will be one to address big challenges, but it is really just a government that unites two large political parties. Neither the SPD nor the conservatives will have to pay the price - instead it will be the country that does so in the long run. We shouldn't expect much from it. … It is the coalition of a country that lives in prosperity. The rich will stay rich, the poor will be a bit better off. But there will be no real redistribution of wealth or structural reforms." The center-left Süddeutsche Zeitung writes: "The coalition package contains enough packing material so that the sensitivities of this and that for the coalition partners can be protected. But that's also the case with most coalition agreements. Still, if you remove the packing material, some remarkable things are left over: Minimum wage, dual citizenship, pension increases, road tolls. There's a lot for the SPD and for the CDU. The surprise factor in all this is low, given that these points have been at the core of talks for weeks now. One still cannot disregard the fact that a minimum wage, dual citizenship and pension promises are systematically important things -- projects with social pacification force."

FRANKFURT—A top European Central Bank official said the ECB could make asset purchases if needed, as euro-zone policy makers increasingly float the prospect of deploying a tool that is commonly used by other major central banks but stirs deep divisions in Europe. The comments, by ECB Vice President Vitor Constâncio, are the latest in a string of assurances by top officials at the central bank that it still has an array of policy options in its arsenal, even after reducing interest rates to record lows earlier this month. Recent ECB references to the idea of asset purchases, known as quantitative easing, are "only as a possibility and nothing else. Everything is possible. That was what Peter Praet said," Mr. Constâncio told reporters on the sidelines of the 16th annual Euro Finance Week in Frankfurt."If our mandate is at risk we are going to take all the measures that we think we should take to fulfill that mandate," Mr. Praet, who also heads the ECB's powerful economics division, said in the interview last week. "The balance-sheet capacity of the central bank can also be used," he added. "This includes outright purchases that any central bank can do."The officials gave no indication that such a policy is under serious consideration now. Mr. Praet said in the interview that inflation risks are balanced after the ECB's rate cut, which brought its main policy rate to 0.25%. Mr. Constâncio on Tuesday said the ECB hasn't discussed how it would conduct quantitative easing technically. The euro largely shrugged off his comments.Still, simply raising the idea of quantitative easing marks a significant shift in rhetoric from the central bank. ECB President Mario Draghi sidestepped a question about the policy at his monthly news conference on Nov. 7, saying only that the ECB had "a whole range of instruments" that could be activated before hitting the floor on interest rates. It is "remarkable how the attitude of some ECB Governing Council members toward [quantitative easing] has changed," BNP Paribas BNP.FR +0.41%BNP Paribas S.A.France: Paris ^€54.01 +0.22+0.41% Nov. 20, 2013 10:29 am Volume : 575,621 P/E Ratio 12.83Market Cap€68.13 Billion Dividend Yield 2.78% Rev. per Employee €155,68211/13/13 BNP Paribas SA Buys Belgium's ...10/31/13 BNP Paribas's Interesting Lack...10/31/13 BNP Paribas Profit Rises Despi...More quote details and news »BNP.FR inYour ValueYour Change Short position economist Ken Wattret said in a research note. "What was once a taboo, then a last resort is now an option under consideration."

Why is it called a prize in "economic sciences", rather than just "economics"? The other prizes are not awarded in the "chemical sciences" or the "physical sciences."

Fields of endeavour that use "science" in their titles tend to be those that get masses of people emotionally involved and in which crackpots seem to have some purchase on public opinion. These fields have "science" in their names to distinguish them from their disreputable cousins.

The term political science first became popular in the late eighteenth century to distinguish it from all the partisan tracts whose purpose was to gain votes and influence rather than pursue the truth. Astronomical science was a common term in the late nineteenth century, to distinguish it from astrology and the study of ancient myths about the constellations. Hypnotic science was also used in the nineteenth century to distinguish the scientific study of hypnotism from witchcraft or religious transcendentalism.

There was a need for such terms back then, because their crackpot counterparts held much greater sway in general discourse. Scientists had to announce themselves as scientists.

In fact, even the term chemical science enjoyed some popularity in the nineteenth century – a time when the field sought to distinguish itself from alchemy and the promotion of quack nostrums. But the need to use that term to distinguish true science from the practice of imposters was already fading by the time the Nobel prizes were launched in 1901.

Similarly, the terms astronomical science and hypnotic science mostly died out as the twentieth century progressed, perhaps because belief in the occult waned in respectable society. Yes, horoscopes still persist in popular newspapers, but they are there only for the severely scientifically challenged, or for entertainment; the idea that the stars determine our fate has lost all intellectual currency. Hence there is no longer any need for the term "astronomical science."

9 trillion dollars goes "missing" - how much of it is in The Budesbank???

There is one major flaw in the money system that I have never heard a single person mention, don't know why, maybe only I can see it, maybe it is the tin foil hat I wear that gave me it, but I am watching the most powerful man in the world clueless on how this happened, well the way I see it is that other countries like china created wealth, but did they really create it or did they borrow it.  If china created its wealth then that would have meant that it built its infrastructure and businesses internally, then it would have added wealth to the worlds circuit of money and been stable.  But if its infrastructure and businesses were borrowed from somewhere else then that is a transfer of wealth from one area to another and if the market of each depend on each other then its life is limited to the point when so much has been transferred so that it reverses in direction so starts an harmonic cycle decreasing in height until both end up even or at war, so very unstable.  This also means that's china's development was not natural as was the development in the west, now if china was many years ago about to start natural development and the west wanted to stop it or control it then this would have been a good plan. but that would have meant a Kissinger type person was about when the US and china first talked.  Anyway as china's development is not natural then it will collapse when who ever borrowed them the stuff wants it back.  And that's why I think it is all a Hollywood script, all written years ago by the likes of Kissinger. they are playing global power games using us poor mugs as pawns.   My simple high school / secondary school dropout understadning is that the United States government ( specifically the Obama adminstration) is operating one of the biggest PONZI schemes in history. OK, I have no law training or degree and I ain't no bean counter. However, this particular administration blackmails the house ( read Republicans) to constantly increase the debt limit. My understanding is that the main buyers of US Treasuries (China and the UK) are farely well maxed out on purchasing US Treasuries and there are no new substantial buyers, so, as the US $ is the main reserve currency it somehow has the right to print more money without having actual physical reserves (gold) to backup all the money it has spread aropund the world. Thus when they increase the debt limit they print more money in order for the Fed (Federal Reserve) to buy (although I understand not directly) their own older treasuries and even newly printed treasuries. His Obamaship and his sycophantic Democratic poodles are intent on going ahead with the Demoncare (the Demoncrats own it as no Republicans voted for it and the majority of the US public do not want it) despite the fact that it is going to need 1.8 trillion dollars to set it in motion. They cannot raise taxes to pay for that so they will increase the debt limit next year, print some more money. Prince Harry over at the Senate meanwhile want to increase next years budget by 1 trillion 5 billion (strange figure). Today the Whitewash House announced that it was going to bail out the forever profligate Democratically controlled bankrupt city of Detroit. Another 17 billion dollars. Has the US taxpayer agreed to that and do they have the money to even do it? Perhaps, they will print more money and also shaft the Detroit debtholders just as they did with Chrysler and GM and favoured banks and financial institutions.    I wonder what the true value of the US $ is today compared to when the investors in US Treasuries bought them. To me it's like when I bought my house for 220,000. I sold it 17 years later for 405,000 and everyone said what a great profit I made on my "real eastate investment". Except, that when I tallied up that I had paid about 370,000 in interest to the kind and gentle banks and the value of the CDN $ had declined I do not think I made anything.  If the house (which i understand is supposed to control the purse strings - although the Emperor Obama (O.K. he has some nice clothes except for nasty golfing shorts and grandpa jeans says he will not negotiate on Demoncare, the debt ceiling, the public debt, any move to cut spending, any move to reduce taxes any attempt to prevent tax increases) allows the Administration to increase the debt ceiling and stop the profligate spending the the rating agencies need to downgrade the US credit rating  (that will help exports from the US anyway and increase the cost of imports (which may provoke the use of every available US sourced  enernergy resource instead of the trillions that it costs to import from countries that hate the US anyway). The mandarins should also stop giving further credit to the US (cut up it's credit card and force it to use a current account debit card). And while they are at it maybe they should devalue the greenback.  The US currency has the motto "In God We Trust". I have news for the big spenders, that was not put on the currency to indicate that they trusted God to be the lender of last resort when they had spent their money on idols. Plus, if there is a deity I doubt that he has much trust left in the three equal but separate parts of the US government or any level of US government. OK, you can now tell me I do not know what I am talking about and how everything I said is wrong (no abusive language please, it just reflects on you, not me). However, when you are telling me how wrong I am then tell me how wonderfully brilliant and correct the US governance is.
 

....So 9 trillion dollars goes "missing" and I'm sitting here poor, eating GMO foods because I can't afford anything better... my cat has problems breathing and I don't know if I'll have the money to take her into the veterinarian but hey! at least they all the money they could ever need, they probably wipe their ass with money they are so rich.

Merkel does put German interest above European interest. But that's not the whole story. She also puts German corporate interest above German public interest. And most of all, her own interest above anything else.

I understand people in Germany being upset about everyone in Europe wanting their tax money. But that's only half the truth. The other half is, Germany profits from investors taking back their money from other European countries, and now investing it in the much safer and quite profitable Germany. Our interest rates in Germany have reached an all-time low in the crisis, so German economy profits from this crisis. And we still live from exports, and so from the EU. German economic interest is: try to keep up the status quo as long as possible, and that is what Merkel does.

Problem is, in my opinion, that will be disastrous for Europe. Polemics aside, the south europeans have a point. There's need for reforms, there's need for savings, but there also needs to be a perspective. You can't just close schools, hospitals, stop investments in infrastructure and deny people their healthcare for nothing in return but a lack of perspective. Just fire everyone from public service and don't offer any alternative for them. You can't just sacrifice the future of countries and societies for nothing but the need to save money.

It almost seems like Britain was right in its Euro-scepticicm. And everyone who was afraid of a too strong Germany after its reunion. That doesn't mean we should split up. In present and future, we simply have no choice but to work together in Europe. We're all in the same boat. If Britain wasn't in the European boat, few would care about it anymore. UKIP is wrong, British interest has to be in a strong Europe, not in a lone Britain.

Our unpopular former chancellor Gerhard Schröder made the reforms that led to present German economic strength. He risked his chancellorship, against his own party, to put through inevitable reforms. He turned the inert giant into an economic powerhouse. Merkel hardly does anything, the economic success she rests on was caused by her predecessor who took great risks. Risks that Merkel would never take. She's not the risky type. Schröder made reforms that were in parts flawed, but his own party, the SPD, is willing to work with and against the flaws today. Merkel is nothing like that. Her own influence is everything, and everything else plays second role, be it Germany, be it Europe.

Chancellor Schröder would have forced similar reforms on those countries, but he would have tried to convince them. Something like "it's going to be hard, but we're in the same boat, and we need to work together to get out of the crisis with greater strength". Even if it would damage his reputation in Germany. Merkel doesn't care about that. She simply says: "it's inevitable, deal with it. German savings are secure, I don't care a lot about the rest of Europe". She only cares about her position. And her position doesn't depend on Greece, Italy, Spain, or Britain. It only depends on Germans wanting to keep their money, and German economy, which is, again, profiting from the Euro crisis.

I am convinced that will destroy Europe, and I will vote for her adversary this month, but I have very little hope in a regime change. My hope is for a large coalition in which the SPD will have a little bit of influence on her Europe policy. A Europe policy, that is, contrary to her claims, careless and heartless.I find the idea that a German chancellor is responsible for solving the European economic crisis quite ridiculous. It is not in her powers to do so as she is no monarch but the democratically elected head of the German government. To all those moaning about her putting Germany's interest first - well that's actually her job description. That means, that she will, quite free of any ideological leaning decide hand in hand with the German industry what should be pursued for Eurozone. Be the next chancellor Steinbrueck or Merkel, nothing will change that.

Hungarian Central Bank Gyorgy Matolcsy: IMF office in Budapest not necessary any longer. A long-running dispute between Hungary and the International Monetary Fund escalated on Monday when the head of the country's central bank called on the IMF to close its office in Budapest, saying it was no longer needed. Relations between the government of Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán and the International Monetary Fund have never been especially good. Now they have hit rock bottom. Orbán's former economy minister and current central bank governor, Gyorgy Matolcsy, wrote a letter to IMF Managing Director Christine Lagarde on Monday calling on the fund to close its representative office in Budapest as it was "not necessary to maintain" it any longer. Hungary owes its economic survival to the IMF. When the country was caught up in the global financial crisis in 2008, the fund and the EU came to the rescue with a €20 billion ($26 billion) loan. At the time, Orbán's predecessor was in office. Ever since Orbán became prime minister in 2010, Hungary has had trouble with international institutions. His government pushed through a new constitution and many laws that curtailed democracy, the powers of the constitutional court, the justice system and press freedoms. The EU responded by launching several proceedings against Hungary for breaching EU treaties. In early July, the European Parliament passed a resolution calling on Hungary to repeal the "anti-democratic changes." Orbán angrily dismissed the demands as "Soviet-style" meddling. Under Orbán, all negotiations with the IMF about fresh aid have failed. On Monday, central bank chief Matolcsy said the country didn't need the IMF's money and that Hungary would repay the 2008 loan in full by the end of this year. He said the government had succeeded in pushing its budget deficit below the EU ceiling of 3 percent of GDP and had reduced government debt. Matolcsy is the architect of Orbán's unorthodox economic policy which is based on imposing heavy special taxes on large companies. He became central bank governor four months ago. The Hungarian economy shrank by 1.7 percent last year. The EU Commission expects it to return to weak growth in 2013. The budget deficit is expected to rise again, back up to 3 percent of GDP.

UK to claw back power from the EU.

EUOBSERVER(source)BRUSSELS - The UK wants to retain 35 EU-wide police and justice laws out of some 130 in its wider efforts to claw back power from the EU.

“We believe the UK should opt out of the measures in question for reasons of principle, policy, and pragmatism,” UK home secretary Theresa May told ministers in London on Tuesday (9 July).

Tory-right wingers want to repatriate all 133 laws, but May said the UK should retain its co-operation with the EU police agency, Europol, and the EU's joint judicial authority, Eurojust.

“We should opt in post-adoption provided that Europol is not given the power to direct national law enforcement agencies to initiate investigations or share data that conflicts with our national security,” she noted.

The European Arrest Warrant will also figure into UK’s provisional opt-in list but with added conditions to better protect British nationals of extradition to other member states in case of minor offences.  May wants to amend the Extradition Act so that people in the UK can only be extradited under the European Arrest Warrant when the requesting state has already made a decision to charge and a decision to try. The UK parliament is set to vote and adopt the measures next week but opposition ministers say they need more time to examine the 159-page document that details the government’s full plans. Others accused the home secretary of double standards over the government’s stated position on EU-related justice issues.

May had previously suggested that the European Arrest Warrant was not in the UK’s interest. Shadow home secretary Yvette Cooper said “the home secretary has been forced to admit the truth, Britain does need the European Arrest Warrant, it does need joint-investigation teams, Europol, the exchange of criminal records, and help to tackle online child abuse.” Other proposed desired opt-in laws include the principle of mutual recognition to financial penalties, confiscation orders, and simplifying the exchange of information and intelligence between law enforcement authorities with member states.

The UK has to accept all 133 measures, made before the Lisbon Treaty was adopted in 2009, or reject them all. If it rejects them all, it can then opt back into individual laws it wants to keep.

The decision must be made by June 2014 or all the EU laws, as of December of the same year, will be subject to oversight by EU judges as well as the European Commission’s enforcement powers.

“Following our discussions in Europe, another vote will be held on the final list of measures that the UK will formally apply to rejoin,” said May. Some senior government officials see the move as part of David Cameron’s push for an in/out referendum on its EU membership.  MPs last week unanimously backed a bill that guarantees the popular vote by the end of the 2017. The opposition Labour party, however, boycotted the vote on the bill.

The commission, for its part, says it respects the UK government's choice to opt out, and welcomes the UK intention to also opt back into certain measures. “The commission will clearly need to take the necessary time to assess the indicative list of proposals for opting back in that the UK has outlined,” said a commission spokesperson in a statement. The commission will formulate an official position after it receives formal notice following the December 2014 deadline.  Official negotiations between the two have yet to start.

China - British deal = "adios" Euro !!!

China and Britain have reached a three-year deal to swap their currencies when needed, the first such agreement between Beijing and a major developed economy and a move that could help boost the Chinese Yuan outside Asia.... In a statement released late Saturday, the Bank of England said Governor Mervyn King and his counterpart at the People's Bank of China, Zhou Xiaochuan, signed an agreement to set up a three-year swap line with a maximum value of 200 billion Yuan ($32.6 billion). It means that Bank of England could draw on the line with the PBOC when there is a sudden shortage of Yuan funds in the U.K. market—and make the Yuan, also known as renminbi, available to banks under its jurisdiction.  China's central bank has increasingly used such bilateral currency-swap deals in its effort to promote the Yuan in global trade and finance. So far, the PBOC has signed nearly two trillion Yuan worth of currency-swap deals with some 20 countries and regions, including Hong Kong, Thailand, Singapore, New Zealand, Argentina and Malaysia. Most of the pacts so far have been with emerging economies in the Asian-Pacific region and don't include major economies such as the U.S., Japan and those in the euro zone. These currency lines, though rarely tapped, could enhance foreign investors' confidence in trading of the Yuan. An expansion of Yuan trading into London could help China advance its goal of turning the Yuan into an international currency, a key part of its broader push to open up its financial system. Currently, Beijing maintains a tight leash on cross-border fund flows, making it difficult for the Yuan to accumulate overseas. Chinese officials in recent months have increased their rhetoric toward making the Yuan a freer currency, hinting that a plan on Yuan convertibility would be proposed later this year and include steps aimed at allowing freer flows of its currency and ways to let Chinese individuals make overseas investments. Some scholars within China expect the Yuan to become basically convertible as early as 2015, though Chinese officials have never given a timeline for how soon that would occur. The timing would depend on progress in China's efforts to overhaul its creaky financial system and open its capital account—efforts that could be slowed if China's economy sputters or its financial system hits turbulence.  U.K. and European bankers as well as the politicians are counting on the Yuan to help cement London's role as the center for global foreign-exchange trading. This comes as cities such as Singapore, Tokyo, Taipei, Luxembourg and Kuala Lumpur are all exploring the possibility of becoming offshore Yuan trading hubs—a status only the Chinese.

"Deutschland uber alles". ...

Wolfgang Schaeuble, Germany’s finance minister, has criticized the Irish bankers caught on tape joking about the Irish banking system bailout, calling them “aloof super humans” who were worthy of contempt. The comments followed the released of transcripts of telephone conversation from 2008 between bankers at Anglo Irish Bank that have caused outrage worldwide. John Bowe, Anglo’s head of capital markets, and Peter Fitzgerald, director of retail banking, were heard laughing and mocking as authorities were preparing a rescue deal for the country’s teetering banking system. This has led to accusation that the lender suckered the Irish government into a €7bn (£6bn) bail-out knowing that much more was needed. The bankers are also heard singing a pre-war verse of the German national anthem, with the words "Deutschland uber alles".

Mr. Schaeuble's remarks are quoted in German newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine and echoed comments by Chancellor Angela Merkel on Friday. “These bankers seem to like themselves in the role of aloof super humans who only have contempt for their fellow humans,” Mr Schaeuble said. “Instead it is they who should get our contempt and to whose game we should put a stop.”

The Irish government was eventually forced to pump €30bn (£25.7bn) into Anglo and roughly the same amount into Ireland’s two other cash-strapped banks, Bank of Ireland and Allied Irish Bank – rescues that brought the entire Irish economy to its knees.

Same crap allover the place ...

Mark Carney, the incoming Bank of England governor, has appointed Charlotte Hogg, a senior executive at Santander and the scion of one of Britain's most blue-blooded political dynasties, to become the Bank's first chief operating officer.

Hogg, who heads Santander's high street operations, will start at the Bank on 1 July – the day that Carney takes over from Sir Mervyn King. The 41-year-old will head all the day-to-day management functions of the Bank – from personnel to property, IT and security – and become the most senior female employee in its 319-year history.

Hogg, who has been at Santander since September 2011, will collect the same £260,000 salary and benefits as the Bank's three deputy governors. It is a significant pay cut from the £2.5m she earned from Santander last year, including buy-out awards from her previous employer, the credit checking agency Experian.

Carney, who is joining the Bank from Canada's central bank where he reorganised the management structure, said he was delighted to have been able to poach Hogg from Santander. "My tenure at the Bank will oversee a significant transition," he said. "Charlotte brings an outstanding track record and breadth of experience that will help to catalyse that change and I look forward to working closely with her to realise the full potential of the new institutional structure of the Bank."

Hogg, who like Carney studied at Oxford and Harvard, started her career at the Bank before moving to McKinsey in Washington. She also worked at Morgan Stanley, before joining Experian as head of its operations in the UK and Ireland.

"I'm delighted to be returning to the Bank of England, where I started my career in 1992," she said on Tuesday. "I am looking forward to working closely with Mark Carney as he takes over the governorship."

Hogg is descended from one of Britain's most high profile political families – with both her mother and father holding life peerages. Her mother is Baroness (Sarah) Hogg, a senior adviser to Sir John Major when he was prime minister. Her father is Viscount Hailsham, the former Tory cabinet minister Douglas Hogg, who stepped down as an MP after claiming £2,200 expenses for cleaning the moat at his 13th-century country estate.

Her paternal grandfather was Lord Hailsham of St Marylebone, a former lord chancellor. His father, her great-grandfather, was also a lord chancellor. Her maternal grandfather was Lord Boyd-Carpenter, a former chief secretary to the Treasury.

"You can have too much of a good thing in one family," Hogg once told her local newspaper.  Paul Tucker, the Bank's deputy governor for financial stability who lost out on the top job to Carney, announced his intention to leave the Bank last week.  Santander UK's chief executive Ana Botín said: "During her two years at Santander Charlotte has reshaped our retail distribution business. Her work has made us a more customer-centred organisation and has put us in a strong position for further development."

Hogg's responsibilities at Santander will be taken over by Martin Bischoff and Miguel Sard. Prior to Hogg, the most senior woman at the Bank was Rachel Lomax, who served as a deputy governor from 2003 to 2008.

Hey Mario: what part of "FUCK OFF" don't you undestand.

EUROSMOKE AND LIES - “The answer to the crisis has not been less Europe but more Europe... The EU and the [euro] are no exceptions. The choice is between adapting them to the new conditions or do nothing and risk their dissolution.” The EU is a body primarily driven by pure politics without any ameliorating rational input from experts in economics markets science etc. Both the creation of the Eurozone and the FTT were political projects making extensive use of confirmation bias and totally ignoring expert advice. The Eurozone is a failure and the FTT will kill off the City as well as destroy markets inside the EU which both sovereign states and EU companies rely on. Politicians and bureaucrats taking the decision have never even heard of the repo market but they are about to find out how important it was once they destroy it. Rational thought would mean taking account of the views of experts on the FTT but the FTT is a political dream where there is no room for reality. If there was there would be no FTT. Any organization run by purely political decisions is going to lose out against a more rational response elsewhere in the world. I doubt the EU will ever base its decisions on rational thought processes rather than politics as there is no mechanism in place to force elite politicians to take note of experts. In their conceit they only see their own narcissistic beliefs as relevant to decision taking. Confirmation bias means that politicians start by already knowing the answers and see the job as putting their irrational policies in place. When policies do not work in the real world confirmation bias is called upon again to warp data to explain failure without ever seeing any need to change policy. Failure followed by more failure is guaranteed by the political approach. Pressure from the UK public to leave will increase noticeably once the FTT is in place and the City goes down the tubes. This will be extensively reported by the media. How often have we heard this before? You will never convince the average Brit that having more decisions taken by the unelected elite in Brussels is going to deliver anything for us. The nearer you get to a EUSSR the less the Brits will like it and the more we will want to leave. We have a totally different mentality to the majority of the EU who think that taking all decisions centrally will lead to economic success. That idea is seen as rubbish here and unworldly. To work in the real world the people taking the decisions would have to real experts in many fields and driven by rationality instead of politics. That can never happen in the EU as it is a political construct. Instead decisions are from over-conceited politicians and bureaucrats whose knowledge and understanding of the real world is minimal. Whatever Draghi says about banking reform will be politically based and not based on research by experts. The starting point always has to be 'more EU' whereas it is unlikely in the real world that all answers would come out to be simply as case of more EU solving the problem. That is illogical. Draghi : "If we are successful in establishing (a federal Europe) as I am sure we will be..." "Europe is much more stable today (thanks to me)..." There you have it. Breathtaking arrogance combined with delusion. The only option we have is to gtf away from pr!cks like this.

TARGET2 - Legal base - A Decision of the ECB of 24 July 2007 concerning the terms and conditions of TARGET2-ECB (ECB/2007/7)

The Governing Council of the ECB decided to legally construct  a multiple system with the highest degree of harmonization of the legal documentation used by the central banks within the constraints of their respective national legal framework, named TARGET2.  All ECB legal acts related to TARGET2 can be found on a dedicated website. TARGET2 is the real-time gross settlement (RTGS) system owned and operated by the Euro system. TARGET stands for Trans-European Automated Real-time Gross settlement Express Transfer system. TARGET2 is the second generation of TARGET. Payment transactions are settled one by one on a continuous basis in central bank money with immediate finality. There is no upper or lower limit on the value of payments. TARGET2 mainly settles operations of monetary policy and money market operations. TARGET2 has to be used for all payments involving the Euro system, as well as for the settlement of operations of all large-value net settlement systems and securities settlement systems handling the euro.  TARGET2 is operated on a single technical platform. The business relationships are established between the TARGET2 users and their National Central Bank. In terms of the value processed, TARGET2 is one of the largest payment systems in the world.

• TARGET2 had 999 direct participants, 3,386 indirect participants and 13,313 correspondents;
• TARGET2 settled the cash positions of 82 ancillary systems;
• TARGET2 processed a daily average of 354,185 payments, representing a daily average value of €2,477 billion;
• the average value of a TARGET2 transaction was €7,1 million;
• two-thirds of all TARGET2 payments (i.e. 68%) had a value of less than €50,000 each; 11% of all payments had value of over 1 EUR million each;
• the peak in volume turnover was 29 June 2012 with 536,524 transactions and peak value turnover was on 1 March 2012 with €3,718 billion;
• TARGET2’s share in total large-value payment system traffic in euro was 92% in value terms and 58% in volume terms;
• the SSP technical availability was 100%;
• 99.98% of TARGET2 payments were processed in less than five minutes.

Just a thought :

Europe just went through a debt crisis that was entirely avoidable. Iceland showed us the way in 2008, no sovereign debt crisis there.

Unemployment below 5%, 7 consecutive quarters of growth averaging 2.5% per annum as of January this year. More GDP growth than other Nordic countries.

No wonder the rest of Europe is disillusioned. People are fed up with paying through the nose for debts that don't belong to them.

The burden of banking debts is tearing apart social cohesion.

Commission published a web-based information guide....

Small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) will drive the recovery in Europe, but they need improved and easy access to finance. Over the last few years the European Commission has been constantly working to improve their situation.  This commitment is reiterated in a joint European Commission/European Investment Bank (EIB) Group report published today. At a time when the situation remains difficult, the EIB Group's support for SMEs reached €13 billion in 2012. In addition, with a budget of €1.1 billion, Commission-funded guarantees helped to mobilize loans worth more than €13 billion, boosting nearly 220 000 small businesses across Europe. Today´s report covers the results of the current funding schemes as well as the new generation of financial instruments for SMEs. Financial resources for SMEs will be significantly enhanced through the €10 billion increase in the EIB’s capital.  As part of the Commission’s continuing efforts to support SMEs, European Commission Vice President Antonio Tajani, responsible for enterprise and industry policy, today also launched a new single online portal on all EU financial instruments for SMEs as well an information guide to promote SME stock listings, at a meeting of the SME Finance Forum on the eve of an Informal Competitiveness Council on 2 and 3 May in Dublin.  European Commission Vice President Antonio Tajani, Commissioner for Industry and Entrepreneurship, said: "

Access to finance of SMEs remains difficult and is one of the main reasons for the current economic downturn. Therefore we intend to enlarge our loan guarantees to SMEs under the new COSME  programme as of 2014. Each euro dedicated to our guarantees has the power to stimulate - on average – 30 euros in bank loans. This is crucial to help Europe's jobs engine, our small enterprises, to run smoothly again. It is they who create 85% of all new jobs."

The European Commission also launched today a targeted information campaign to promote SME listings and stimulate investors’ interest in SMEs and mid-caps. To this end the Commission published a web-based information guide for SME stock listings. This tool provides advice to small and medium-sized businesses on how to go public.

It will be combined with the creation of an award for the best European stock market listings among small and mid-cap companies.

"The economic situation is worsening from month to month, and unemployment has reached a level that puts democratic structures ever more in doubt. The Germans have not yet realized that southern Europe, including France, will be forced by their current misery to fight back against German hegemony sooner or later," he said, blaming much of the crisis on Germany's wage squeeze to gain export share. Mr. Lafontaine said on the parliamentary website of Germany's Left Party that Chancellor Angela Merkel will "awake from her self-righteous slumber" once the countries in trouble unite to force a change in crisis policy at Germany's expense.

His prediction appeared confirmed as French finance minister Pierre Moscovici yesterday proclaimed the end of austerity and a triumph of French policy, risking further damage to the tattered relations between Paris and Berlin. "Austerity is finished. This is a decisive turn in the history of the EU project since the euro," he told French TV. "We're seeing the end of austerity dogma. It's a victory of the French point of view."....Nigel Farage has been predicting this for several years now, not based on emotion, but clear calculated logic (listen to some of his speeches from a few years ago). The EU was always a French & German club which others were allowed to join strictly on their terms. The most striking is the CAP, which always was and always will be EU wide support for inefficient French farmers. Never mind scrap the Euro and save the southern Mediterranean countries, scrap the EU altogether and save 500 million people from any more nightmares...

Where are the pro EU trolls today? Have they nothing to say about these devastating comments from Mr. Lafontaine?

Perhaps they are busy consoling themselves that Mr. Lafontaine is just a clown or a fruitcake and can be safely ridiculed and ignored?

GERMANY–Deutsche Bank said Monday it will raise €2.8 billion ($3.65 billion) in fresh capital in a dramatic about-face for the bank, which has repeatedly said it won't turn to shareholders for help boosting its capital cushion. The bank, Europe's second-largest by assets, has long faced doubts from investors and analysts about whether it has enough capital to absorb potential future losses and to meet increasingly stringent regulatory requirements. On paper, Deutsche Bank had one of the thinnest capital ratios of large European banks.  The Basel rules don't fully kick in until 2019, but banks across Europe are under pressure from regulators and investors to comply with the rules well before then. Few investors or analysts expected the bank to meet the targets in 2013.  The size of Deutsche Bank's capital hike is relatively modest compared with what some bankers, analysts and investors think it needs. Analysts previously estimated the bank needs up to €10 billion. Deutsche Bank executives have been meeting in recent weeks with senior investment bankers to sound them out about how much capital the bank would need to raise to placate investors, according to people who participated in the meetings. The bankers' response: Deutsche Bank should come up with at least €6 billion and possibly as much as €10 billion to put the capital concerns behind it, these people said. The bank's change-of-heart apparently stemmed from executives' frustration with the lack of reaction among investors to the bank's strategic changes, according to industry officials. The bank's management felt they could raise a token amount to alleviate market concerns without destroying credibility, these people said. "This is a blatant U-turn," said a senior investment banker who was involved in the talks. "It's a real climb-down for them."  The timing of the capital increase could raise questions because earlier this year, with Deutsche Bank's stock trading more than 15% above its current levels, executives insisted they had no plans to raise new capital. If they had proceeded with the share sale at the time, they could have raised more capital by selling a fewer number of shares, a preferable outcome for the bank's existing shareholders. While Deutsche Bank didn't disclose the terms of the share sale, industry officials said the deal's structure would likely involve a small number of big institutional money managers picking up the shares at a small discount to the stock's current trading price. Because the share sale is relatively small, Deutsche Bank doesn't need to go through the process of offering all existing shareholders the right to participate, a potentially costly and complex process that Deutsche executives were eager to avoid....NOW, WE ALL KNOW THAT THE fed PUMPED OVER 25 TRILLION DOLLARS IN THIS BANK IN THE PAST TWO YEARS !!! Show us the money Mrs. Merkel !!!!

We are gradually realising how stupid and falsely mis-led we have become...

We are gradually realising how stupid and falsely mis-led we have become. - Fundamentally, it is energy and a cheap supply of energy that fuels our economy - not the bankers, and the monetarists who now rule over the hegemony of the market. Their 'stake' in the economy, is largely 'unreal', what is 'real' is energy, and particularly oil, and the products it manufactures.

We see this we've all the propaganda about Thatcher. She wasn't the 'Iron Lady' - a personality cult - she was the 'Oil Lady' - her crude policies were made possible through crude oil.

Without a supply of cheap energy, there can be no cheap production of goods, or pump-priming consumption, or financial inflation in the developed world making us 'feel' rich.

The 'first world consumers' / 'third world producers' model of global capitalism is gradually breaking down because the producers are catching up with the consumers - in a race to the bottom - driven by economics (and crippling debt levels) and an increasing lack of cheap energy.

The average man or woman in the west, is having to pay more for their fuel/food bills than ever before. They can't afford to buy the latest goods made in India or China. They could only afford to do so, latterly, through building up debt, which they are now having to pay back, and at the exact same time, the cost of living, i.e. food and energy is going up.

I think that is what is being revealed to us. Economic debt is the tip of the iceberg, with energy distribution being the mass of the ice berg. Consequently, our high living standards cannot be sustained - economically, or more importantly - via high energy consumption.

Economics in many ways is only a proxy measurement for energy consumption. Where there is a high consumption of energy, there are developed economies. Where there is a low consumption of energy, there are developing economies. Modernity is based on oil and energy development - primarily, and economic development - secondarily. We seem to have completely forgotten which way around things go.  We've certainly become consumer junkies in the developed world, but the things sustaining that (cheap, plentiful energy and cheap, plentiful debt) is no longer available to us.

The question is what comes next? What are we as 'consumer junkies' going to demand? A rational and reasonable solution that suits most people doesn't seem possible, as long as people keep buying into what they're currently sold.

We are witnessing the unraveling of the hard truth: The economy is built largely on the reality of finite energy resources, not on the unreality or symbolism of money as a resource.

Thatcher is dead, and her economic philosophy is dying because, as we are seeing - it is wholly false ideology - not based on the core truth of what makes modern life; modern economics; modern politics; and modern society, possible and 'sustainable': oil and energy resources.

MADRID—Spain's central bank said Tuesday the Spanish economy contracted at a faster pace in the third quarter and the country may miss its budget-deficit target because of tax-revenue shortfalls.

The euro zone's fourth-largest economy contracted by 1.7% from the same period last year, compared with a 1.3% contraction in the second quarter, the central bank said.

In the first estimate of Spain's economic performance during the July-to-September quarter, the Bank of Spain said that on a quarterly basis gross domestic product likely contracted 0.4%, the same as in the second quarter. The central bank's estimates are often very close to or in line with final government estimates issued later. The government's first third-quarter GDP estimate is due Oct. 30.

The central bank also said that "it can't be ruled out" that Spain's government would miss its budget deficit target for this year, currently at 6.3% of GDP after a series of revisions, largely because of tax-revenue shortfalls. Last year, Spain's deficit stood at 9.4% of GDP, more than three percentage points above the target.

"The efforts to lower spending at the public sector have had a net contracting effect (on the economy) in the central months of the year," the Bank of Spain said. "We see drops in consumption and investment by all levels of government above those seen in previous quarters."