This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Smashing The Can Instead Of Kicking It Down The Road
Wolf Richter www.testosteronepit.com
“No, absolutely not,” said European Central Bank President Mario Draghi when asked if the euro was in danger. “The euro is irreversible,” he added just as a whiff of panic began sweeping over the Eurozone. Everybody was supposed to enjoy their long vacation, and nothing important was supposed to happen. But, like a group of disruptive homeless guys, the ECB, the International Monetary Fund, and politicians have apparently gotten tired of kicking the Greek bailout can down the road, and they stomped on it instead.
Last week it was the ECB; it announced that it would no longer accept Greek government bonds as collateral, thus cutting Greek banks off from ECB funding. They will now be dependent on Emergency Liquidity Assistance (ELA) by the Bank of Greece, an unsustainable, risky measure.
Over the weekend, word seeped out that the IMF, having lost patience with Greece’s stalled reform efforts, would be unwilling to contribute more funds to the bailout. A huge blow. Vigorous denial by the IMF? Nope. On Monday, it only said tepidly that it would be “supporting Greece in overcoming its economic difficulties.”
Inspectors of the Troika—the EU, the ECB, and the IMF—are trundling into Athens today for meetings and inspections starting on Tuesday. Their final report will be the basis for the Troika’s decision in September to make the next bailout payment, or to let go. Politicians appear to be holding off on their final judgment until then. But they’re talking—and it doesn’t look good for Greece. Its demands to renegotiate the agreed-upon reform measures and then to delay their implementation has hit a wall of resistance.
“We won’t agree to any substantive change of the agreements we made,” said German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle. Economics Minister Philipp Rösler was “more than skeptical” that Greece could work out its problems. But any decision would have to wait for the final Troika report. “If Greece cannot meet the stipulations, then there won’t be any more payments,” he said. Greece would have to default, which might encourage it to leave the Eurozone. But no big deal: “Greece’s exit has long ago lost its scariness,” he said.
Giorgos Papakonstantinou, Greek Finance Minister from October 2009 until he was replaced by Evangelos Venizelos in June 2011, doubted the abilities of the Greek government to deal with the challenges and was “not optimistic“ that it could remain in power much longer.
Even the Big Kahuna, who is on vacation, and who’d pushed for these serial bailouts though they put deep rifts into her coalition government, lost patience with Greece. It leaked out that Chancellor Angela Merkel considered it “unthinkable” for her to beg the Bundestag for a third bailout package. And a third bailout package would be required if Greece’s demands for watering down the reforms and for delaying their implementation were met—they’d raise the costs by an additional €30 to €50 billion.
The next opportunity for Greece to default is August 20, when it has to pay the ECB €3.8 billion, which it doesn’t have. As Greece’s debt is now mostly held by public institutions, including the ECB, a default would cost taxpayers outside Greece dearly. Requests for emergency funding have fallen on deaf ears. So Greece could try to sell three- or six-month bills at astronomical rates, but most likely, the ECB will find a way to keep it afloat until a political decision has been made in September.
With Spain under fire, and with Italy—and thus the Eurozone as a whole—at risk, the perception is growing that the Eurozone might be stronger if it scuttled its leakiest ship. The surprise factor has long been wrung out of the system. Markets are ready. After a bit of chaos, there might even be relief. And that perception, if it gains the upper hand, will seal Greece’s fate.
Now the strategy is to prevent contagion. The temporary EFSF bailout fund is too small. What is needed is the larger firewall that the “permanent” ESM bailout fund will provide, once operational. Hence the enormous pressure on the German Constitutional Court to wrap up its review of the ESM and nod it through by September 12 [read.... Euro Desperation: German Justices already Buckled under Political Pressure].
By getting the Greek default over with, politicians and the Troika could focus on bailing out Spain. Unlike Greece, Spain is critical to the survival of the euro—and after Spain there is Italy, whose debt is huge, and even the ESM won’t be able to bail it out. All that remains is hope that contagion somehow stops before it gets to Italy. Hope, or a treaty change that would allow the ECB to buy sovereign bonds on a massive scale and bail out banks directly. The whole debt crisis would be over. To be replaced by a crisis of a different and more pernicious sort. Unlikely that the “northern” Eurozone countries would go for that.
But, but, but.... There are opportunities in Europe: mining. Europeans have a long history of it, yet dealing with regulations and eco-friendly groups has driven countries to switch to importing resources. Now record joblessness has refocused political agendas because mines can employ a lot of people! For investors, that’s exciting news. Read... Profiting from Europe’s New Gold Rush.
And here is yours truly in a conversation with Max Keiser on the Keiser Report, discussing bubbles, central banks, the Eurozone, NIRP, and “stupidity arbitrage” (video, aired over the weekend).
»
- advertisements -
their weakness is that they can only recruit the more stupid, immoral and crazy.
Ambrose Evans-Pritchard has much sharper words to say on the euro-mess ... He is not so cheerful as Wolf that things like the Greek exit can be 'contained', or that Germany is in such a strong position either.
AEP's column in the UK Telegraph is terrific, an absolute must-read on the EU situation. His two latest:
'Eurozone danger mounts as Spain spins out of control'
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financialcrisis/9422001/Eurozone-dang...
'Who will hold the Troika to account for asphyxiating Greece?'
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/ambroseevans-pritchard/100019006/wh...
BGIB, Ambrose Evans-Pritchard has an EUR fixation. It's quite common in England. I note, for example, that he never remembers how the currency grid worked (until it didn't) and why. He just draws on the old, old views from Blighty that whatever happens on the Continent can't be good. Note also that it's all "domination", "forcing to stay in the eurozone", and now of course "kicking out of the eurozone". Even when he is right, what he writes is dictated by his "the EUR has to die" view.
----
Note this quotation of his: "Mr Jenkins said the fire must be contained before it reached the next big country, either by massive ECB intervention or full fiscal union. Germany is still blocking both." Blaming Germans sells British newspapers.
He has an Euro fixation, and you don't? I suggest you look at your wierdo avatar.
The Euro was imposed on Germans as a political compromise for a reunified Germany, and it is now quite unpopular. AEP seems to be against the European Commission's actions, not "Germans" (which the German Government and the Commission unjustly by-pass in decisionmaking).
just look at your language: "...was imposed on Germans..." followed by "...political compromise..." and then "...wierdo avatar".
so the avatar makes the message? Do I have to find a pair of tits so that my opinion makes more sense for you?
- AEP has written on his flags that "the EUR has to die, dammit". this is a fact
- the EUR has been adopted by frigging 17 countries. all part of this "imposition"?
- AEP does usually skirt the history of the currency grid and why it was attempted. the EUR is just it's version 2.0. why do you think 17 countries wanted this?
- AEP does not delve into how the bloody commission is commissioned and who commissions it - hint: it's the govs of the EU. 27 of them.
and you are mixing up the EU commission (27 countries) and the eurozone's ECB (17 countries engaged in one currency system)
Question: how much do you know about europe? only what AEP passes as gospel?
It seems it was said that the avatar reveals your Euro fixation, rather than Ambrose's.
Yes, the Euro was imposed by the political classes of all the countries which have adopted it, and is imposed to the rest of Member States by the European Union since they are legally forced to join at the earliest date (except Britain and Denmark, which have an opt-out agreement, but may choose to join without that legal obligation). The practice has always been TBTF scaremongering and threats of exclusion from the common market.
I remind you that this is what started WW2 and led to its subsequent horrors: the attempted encirclement of Germany. Of course, due to integration, every so-called "sovereign" EU Member State now has it far worse in terms of national security and will never last as much as Germany did. I suspect getting the EU out of Europe will turn things more bloody than we have ever seen or imagined.
The currency grid happened to make the world safe for financial markets, and its creation was first proposed by the USG which funded and shaped European federalism.
You are dumb. Even according to the official narrative, the Commission is independent of any national government and acts solely for 'Community interests' (i.e., its wealthy clients and social engineers).
I'll answer the last for myself: I live in EU-ridden Europe and I am not a Briton, nor care much for whatever is left of them. It is impossible that there be a single democracy within the EU due to the supremacy of EU law over national law.
I would enjoy a degree of federalism in Europe, if it were pro-European--i.e., explicitly for the European race, and respecting its constitutent peoples--rather than viscerally anti-European like it is, acting as a beachhead for the demographic invasion of Africans and Asians. There are lots of things in Europe pertaining to the economy that a command dictatorship like the EU might help with, e.g., massive energy infrastructure projects.
However, no Eurocrat will ever pledge what I just did, so go fuck yourself. And your pissing on people and waiting for them to say they are voluntarily standing in the rain when their governments betrayed them ... won't last for much longer.
zelter, there are several prerequisites that have to be fulfilled in order to be allowed to adopt the EUR. One of them is that you have to "prove" you are meeting the so-called convergence criteria. Another is that you have to join the ERM II Central Bank Agreement.
The Kingdom of Sweden, for example, did not join the ERM II.
NOBODY CAN "FORCE" SWEDEN TO DO SO. (short of invading them, which is preposterous).
By the way, the Swedes had first one referendum in 1994 where they wanted to join, and a second one in 2003 where they said they won't. Referendum, what a sweet word. Here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweden_and_the_euro
Sovereign is what acts as a sovereign. Sweden does. Worthy member of the club of sovereigns that is the EU.
Look this up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Exchange_Rate_Mechanism
And then just have a look at this article taken out at random: http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2012/01/euro-scotland-joi...
Note how the narrative is again all about "forced". Note how stupid this narrative is, and how this whole "forced to join the EZ" is used for local political reasons. Note how here, too, they had to admit afterwards that "Sweden is not doing it".
Note how whacked this narrator's point of view is: "if this precedent holds". "Precedent" does NOT apply "this way" to sovereign nations.
-------------------
And while you are there, look up the (recent) history of the first Exchange Rate Mechanism's demise: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Wednesday
Stop believing whatever propaganda is used by the parties in your country (which is it, btw?), expose them, the truth is there. If they are trying to use the EU as a tool to "enslave" you, then it's your local political setup that you have to challenge.
Now I've done part of YOUR homework regarding currency. Don't thank me, go and search for the truth regarding immigration laws in the EU. Go and expose the fact that for all purposes, it's a NATIONAL policy matter - as the last bitching between France and Italy proved.
Oh, and buy some gold, we are in a currency war.
As for the EU's general thoughts on managing the invasion of racial aliens--and its proven track records of fighting any political party who might curb it--here is a recent interview with Cecilia Malmström, European Commissioner for Internal Affairs:
http://www.lemonde.fr/europe/article/2012/07/10/l-immigration-sera-necessaire-pour-l-europe_1731562_3214.html
Here is another statement: http://www.eui.eu/News/2012/25-06-Malmstrom-MPC.aspx
It is obvious that the EU wishes Europeans replaced with foreigners as a matter of ideology.
pls read my comment on Barroso in the thread. This stupid commissioner is a free citizen and can say any stupid thing she likes. And please give me a list of races, tribes and religions that you would find acceptable or not.
This so-called stupid Commissioner is a veteran Swedish politician (i.e., someone who has never worked a day in her sorry life) with a huge say on the goings on in Europe and, again, protected by security services. She speaks as a Commisioner, not as a citizen. She actually deals, as a matter of her several functions, with what Euroslime dishonestly call "migration". Hard to dismiss her as one-among-half-a-billion. What she does holds political import and affects many. And what she does is well within the thought process of the EU and its attitude against Europeans.
I find any race acceptable, and I learned to speak Japanese due to an one-year stint there. What I do not find acceptable is non-Europeans' future and past settlement in Europe, which under current conditions will result in the complete demographic replacement of Europeans and total loss of future political power--a well-known crime, starts with g. It's not about my feelings, it is about Europe's children's future.
As a fan of the EU, how many Europeans would you permit a secure existence as Europeans? Is it okay with you that indigenous villages are protected, or do you want all-European villages wiped out as the Committee of the Regions is attempting?
this "veteran Swedish politician" is one of that ilk that made prostitution in Sweden a criminal act for men and the prostitutes victims. This is all part of a very, very broad cultural "war" (partly imported from the US) that is, IMHO, peaking and will recede.
Look, without offense, you have IMO a very authoritarian bent. The more I read from you the more I get the impression that you would prefer to have a hard-ass, uniformed, male, racially conscious and authoritarian commission with strong powers that takes care of your issues.
I'm trying to explain that those idiots are set there by the governments (and have to get approval of the EU Parliament first) to give some ministerial continuity to the whole she-bang. I'm trying to explain to you that most of us western european would like to keep the center as weak as possible. And you eastern europeans often don't help in this task, you seem to abhor a burocracy with lots of silly words and little power. You seem to crave for a "strong apex". Please, don't.
Yes, this lady is a very good example for the silliness of many, many politicians in the commission. And they talk too much, and, yes, they try to influence the directives of the 27 governments. And they are perfect representatives of many cultural mainstream ideas, including neo-feminism, racial blindness, etc. etc.
But using phrases like "she is...protected by security services" is just not acceptable by over 95%, it implies that you would place a bullet inside her little empty head, if you could. Which would be an utter waste of bullets, because they are many and replaceble. And utterly marginalizes your views for the broad societal public.
PLEASE read the migration report I've linked in the other comment. Many things you seem to believe are LIES, and others are true. Whatever the propaganda you seem to believe is, knowing some facts helps you making your views getting better through.
You are authoritarian since that is the only political system possible for a country under the anti-European rule of the EU. Wikipedia may help: "Authoritarianism is a form of social organization characterized by submission to authority as well as the administration of said authority." That authority is the EU, which you promote. The only reason I'd like a supranational "Commission" with powers like the EU would be the carte blanche to wipe out any remaining EU supporters after the EU is destroyed.
I pointed out the protection the dingbat receives BECAUSE the EU's continuing power over Europe is based on military can-do and mafia-like ambitions, not volunteers or democracy. I'd like to see that bitch expire from a noose (although I have no current or future plans to undertake that myself), but that's neither here nor there.
What you mean by the cultural mainstream is problably the cultural elite, installed and funded through legal privileges granted to foreign capital by the "openness" the EU promotes. It is not mainstream, and you will never have a free vote of any native European population on it. No one was asked in any Western country whether they want replacement. I'm sorry if this comes as a surprise to you, but the controlled media and academia, with their politically correct speech etiquette, do not represent the masses. (An example of that etiquette is your fringe usage of "migration", which was first used by the radical leftist sociologists in academic journals, then by supranationals as the UN and EU, but never by the common folk. )
The EU is the absolute cutting edge in such "cultural" ideas. After all, it was EU structures which prevented meek conservative Rocco Buttiglione from joining the Commission. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocco_Buttiglione
The regime in my country is backed by surrounding countries, and has a huge military gridlock protecting it against change. If there were not powerful external actors interested in European demise, a "change of heart" reflecting itself in demographic policy would be easy to perform. Please don't piss on me and tell me it's raining. When Serbia was attacked, and Kosovo is now occupied by EU police units (EULEX Kosovo) for it, General Wesley Clark noted that there was no place for "ethnically pure states" in Europe, and the 21st century will see their dissolution. Perhaps you're going to say the Serbs love their newfound freedom as a disappearing, ethnically cleansed minority in Kosovo. I'd suggest you your time to make a trip there and ask around.
There is no European Commissioner or important EU political persona who is against the constant influx of Third Worlders into Europe. Most of them have already said that Europeans "must" accept non-Europeans at even larger rates. This is what the EU is there for.
if you read my comments carefully, I endorse a weak EU. The last thing we really need is a continental center with real power. I endorse national sovereignty with a "confederate" "service center". I endorse national referenda, including on matters of leaving the EU or the EUR. But I also endorse "owning your shit" - in this case national parliaments, governments and presidents. If the Czech president "feels pressured" to do something he openly says he thinks it's wrong, what am I supposed to do? He is the Czech prez, and I'm not Czech. This is a question of national will. Who votes for the Czech Parliament?
No, I do mean cultural mainstream. By the way, I am guilty as charged: the use of "migration" as a word has been promoted by our dear western Left and part and parcel of this PC correct speech etiquette, agreed.
Would it help you if I tell you that I supported Rocco Buttiglione? But you can't get into the commission if the council does not want you - 27 governments decide on this, and the EU Parliament has to give a confirmation.
Yes, Wesley Clark made the cultural basis clear: this US-led alliance does not support ethnically pure states. Which also means that the two millions Czechs living in the US are not segregated, btw, this is the other side of this coin. Czechs that fled the Warsaw Pact and are now living in other european countries are also free to live a life like the ethnically indigenous peoples, marry them, have children with them - they are people, too. As I said before, this is the way this alliance functions. By the way, I was in Kosovo several times, and it is an even more complex can of worms.
Which all brings back to the "regime in your country". For all purposes, they want immigration, the same way the previous regime wanted immigration. Did you read that report? The Vietnamese and Chinese are coming since over 50 years, by now.
The Czech Parliament is not a sovereign institution since it is bound by developments in EU law, not by campaign promises or national opinion. I do wish it would be the latter, but it's the former. The EU project wouldn't go ahead without it; after all, most political promises imply national legal supremacy, thus leaving the EU. I can't "own my shit", since the EU does (unless "freely" leaving).
Whether or not your degenerate country (I'm guessing the Netherlands) has it in the cultural mainstream is certainly no reason to project, and certainly no reason to argue for it since it is an alien influence. Nevertheless, opposition to genocide is surely also in the cultural mainstream, including these four forms of it:
What it means is that the EU structures do not reflect the political pluralism of Europe and serve to suppress it. As stated before, the EU is a mechanism to bypass democratic state power. It is doubtful that the other member states' peoples' opinions contributed to that decision; please tell me how it reflects on democracy in any way since this is overall an elite agenda shoved down people's throats. See for example: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/scottish-politics/9426224/Gay-marriage-to-be-legalised-in-Scotland-despite-two-thirds-of-people-opposing-change.html
Wesley Clark, as a half-Jew, supports ethnically pure states of course, just not in Europe. After bombing Serbs for his genocidal reasons, he went on to be a presidential candidate. During his campaign, he proposed the formation of an ethnically pure Jewish state to best secure a permanent Jewish character of the state. Obviously, all the universalist propaganda is rubbish as this is directed only against European children. The EU fully supports the "alliance" and harm against those children. The EU probably is the "alliance", and certainly makes it difficult to dismantle that "alliance".
As I said before, the only reason it was not reverted was due to exterior pressure and thus a total lack of respect for sovereignty. The kind that the EU and aspirations of federalism produces.
I have even less a clue what you are talking about than at the beginning. You dance around all my key points and questions. You avoid statistics, history and facts. Fine.
You seem to reject the Czech Nation the way it is currently constituted. Fine.
You have a very, very strange, IMO, point of view on the realities of our current military alliance (the US-led NATO), our current european economic alliance (the EU) and the monetary alliance of some of the EU members (the EZ). Fine. Let's agree on disagreeing.
Further, I have no clue if you are endorsing political assassinations or not - this is the second time you approach this matter obliquely, with those very, very vague points b,c,d,e. Very confusing. Fine.
I do have the impression that you are very confused in what is right or wrong (a personal decision) and what is lawful or unlawful (a question of laws and court decisions). My friends that risked prison or worse in helping people flee the Warsaw Pact did something that they felt it was right - but it was illegal in the countries they operated. Think about this difference.
I have no clue why you seem to think, among many other things
- that "someone" is decreasing the fertility of your ethnic group, or that "someone" or the EU is "after your ethnic group". As I tried to explain, I think you are confusing politics with society and culture.
- that the British national decision to impose gay marriage on Scotland has anything to do with the EU.
- that sovereignty is a given, or that someone owes it to you. Hint: like freedom, it's fought over, endlessly.
- that the right of an ethnic group to possess an exclusive territory is a given.
I tried to engage in a discourse, I ignored your "degenerate nations", your "hellholes", your "racial taunts" (btw, this "mongrel" here is a descendent of Ottokar II that is confused for a local when in Prague) and I am now coming to the conclusion that you are not honestly interested. IMO we could have had a discussion if you had tried. Fine for me. Over and out.
You are being disingenous about everything, from the possibility of referenda to the meaning of nation. A "nation" is a people distinct from others, not a collection of citizens under a government. A national group is perfectly synonymous with an ethnic group, "national" being the Latin-derived equivalent of the Greek-derived "ethnic". You are probably using an irrelevant political definition of "nation" imposed over time through the globalist UN, which has nothing to do with reality.
I do not reject the Czech nation the way it is currently constituted, you do through your support of the EU. Even if you were to say citizenry, I would note that the EU imposes alien immigration so you also reject the present configuration.
The EU is not an economic alliance, it is a political alliance with bad economic after-effects. NATO works with the EU and shares its resources, and the EU was created and works for the USG to promote the USG's foreign policy in Europe.
I quoted provisions of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. Prevention of those points are supreme law, regardless of any constitutional provisions, in all EU states. The EU ignores the Convention, and aids the crime.
- The measures and values the EU accepts and promotes, and bans and impede dissent to, decrease the chances to family life thus European fertility. Obviously the "right to family life" is something that can be denied or suppressed, otherwise the EU wouldn't protect it in a Charter. Obviously, that right is not protected for Europeans but for invasive aliens the EU wishes in unanimity to colonise native Europeans with, and whose presence further aids to decrease European TFR. Obviously society and culture is something currently regulated by governments in conformity with the EU's wishes, and the EU promotes expansion of its filth the European world over, and those regulations serve to decrease rather than increase the TFR. Obviously it is not a magical phenomenon that European societies are uniformly being broken down while aliens are invited in, with no democratic backing.
- I noted that it is an elite project against the wishes of majorities, despite the elite project's lame propaganda dominating the waves. I noted that this is the same with the EU against governments, and governments against people, and most importantly EU against people. This was a point against your lie of it being the "cultural" "mainstream". It hardly is everywhere. You are again feigning stupidity.
- Of course. This is why I encourage people to fight the EU and all its agents including the little pestilence calling itself Ghordius, which maintains that somehow WE'RE DOING IT TO OURSELVES, because ultimately the only way out of the EU is through it and its numerous tools no matter what short-term harm may come.
- Even if those rights are not a given, causes for the life, national self-determination and self-defence of European peoples are morally unimpeachable. People cannot survive without territories for very long, at least not with a top-down imposition of liberal culture. Of course, EU supporters who wish Europeans harm may disagree.
Ditto, I guess. You seem to be too lawyerly and evasive to be able to respond to anything.
The EU arbitrarily imposes its rule of law. It wants to appear legitimate, so it kow-tows to referenda on several subjects.
When the subject is racial oppresion of native Europeans, the EU will push down with sanctions.
The very Wikipedia article you linked says quite clearly:
> Sweden does not currently use the euro as its currency and has no plans to replace the krona in the near future. Sweden is obliged under the Treaty of Maastricht to adopt the euro at some point in the future.
What part of obliged don't you understand? It is a dictatorship, and it does what it pleases. The EU doesn't want to risk another bout of popular illegitimacy, and it doesn't act on it as of this moment. The mention of a de facto opt-out is wrong and irrelevant. Participating in ERM-II is not a necessary legal criterion. Read the law. Sanctions CAN be applied for insufficient efforts to join the Eurozone.
The leading political parties in Sweden pegged the krona to the Ecu (the forerunner of the Euro, not the old basket of currencies) during 1990-92 and crashed the Swedish economy with massive interest rates, bankruptcies and unemployment. Then the political class sounded off the alarms though the bought press, that "EU MEMBERSHIP IS OUR ONLY ECONOMIC HOPE" just as the paid propagandists were recently doing in Croatia.
The Swedes figured out they've been played, and hated the European Union since, and voted it down in referenda. The European Union has given the go ahead to continue a process of flooding indigenous Swedes with non-Europeans and breeding them out of existence. The European Union bans national plebiscites for ethnic majorities, and thus destroys democracy in every member state.
"Sanctions CAN be applied for insufficient efforts to join the propaganda" ??? Listen, I DID read the treaties. No such thing. And precedent is quite different, too, as well as the political setup. pure propaganda by someone trying to pull a fast one.
And the Treaty of Maastricht has been violated by EVERY MEMBER OF THE EU, remember?
I said Eurozone, not propaganda. I never said the EU was a responsible dictatorship, motivated by a stern application of the rule of law. It's also ineffective and useless as anything but a tool for flooding European lands with aliens. Its security services are good (of course, this does not extend to Frontex, the border agency, which allows nearly a million illegal aliens to enter and squat in Europe yearly). On nation-wrecking, I give it five stars.
Once again and for the last time. The European Commission is the "Guardian of the Treaties" and can subject any Member State to penalties for not following, or doing enough to follow, what is in the Treaties. For a Member State to not possibly and legally be subject to penalties for not wanting to join the Eurozone as soon as possible, it will take a cobbling together of an amending treaty to allow that to happen (which all Member States will agree to without question as Stalin's plenipotentiaries always agreed with Stalin).
yes - I put the wrong word. Please see my answers more detailed in the other comment. I'm starting to think that your are pulling my leg, after all. The more we get into details the more you astonish me for believing such obvious and disprovable lies.
if it were pro-European--i.e., explicitly for the European race, and respecting its constitutent peoples--rather than viscerally anti-European like it is, acting as a beachhead for the demographic invasion of Africans and Asians.
____________________________________
Wont happen so soon. Europe is under Indo European domination, therefore asian people domination.
Indo Europeans wont pack up that early back to Asia.
You've said the same thing before, and I understand it just as little as then.
This Chinese trollbot has not only said the same thing before, and just as meaninglessly, he has said it over ... and over ... and over ... and over ... and over ... and over ... and over ... and over ... and over ... and over ... and over ... and over ... and over ... and over ... and over ... and over ... and over ... and over ... and over ..........
Mindless Chinese Citizenism monotony: make me laugh.
WW2? it was just the remake of WW1. what led to WW1?
and this "they are legally forced to join at the earliest date" is just bollocks - how the fuck do you force something like that?
and since when are "official narratives" relevant? are you sure your problem isn't with your own EU country, btw? your "...when their governments betrayed them..." seems to suggest this
World War 2 was not really a remake of WW1, but a result of the Versailles Treaty. If you want to get down to it, of course, it was all about competing, unreconcilable interests. Interests that still exist today, but cannot be asserted because of the EU.
The organisation you shill for is like a powerful mafia and always makes offers others cannot refuse. It's called gunboat diplomacy. Encircling states and governments, and forcing them into "cooperation" against their indigenous peoples' national interests. Of course, assuring a stream of payouts to the political classes of the governments is easier than stark threats--and I suppose you consider it classier.
That new EU member states must agree to adopt the euro at the earliest opportunity is a legal obligation which has automatically been imposed on all new EU member states since the Maastricht Treaty came into force. Since, however, the rule of law is arbitrary, I cannot sue e.g. the Czech Government (not mine, in case you are wondering) for not doing what it had contracted itself to do.
Yes, the EU was not born in a vacuum, and cannot be destroyed as such. From the paid and unpaid propagandists to the treasonous political classes who wanted zero accountability for their actions... all will have to be relieved of their functions.
first, I don't "shill" for the EU or the EUR. The EU is nothing else than a gang of sovereigns, and sovereigns are a gangs, too, akin to something I like to call "legal" mafia.
Nevertheless, I hate propaganda, particularly when filled with lies. I'm just trying to expose the truth. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A FREE LUNCH, AND THIS APPLIES TO POLITICS, TOO.
What the Czech government does is for the Czech to correct or not. Accountability is part of the democratic process, political as well as legal, or, at the if-necessary-bitter-end, through the street and, yes, ultimatively the lampposts.
I'm just making a distinction between the host(s) and the parasites.
second, WWI was about empires colliding, recolliding in WW2 and then somehow merging. If you think we have magically "exited" the age of imperialism, then I'd suggest you have a hard look around.
Yes, you shill for the EU and the EUR. When vermin like Barroso claim the Euro is irreversible, he obviously doesn't care about democratic input.
Within the current configuration, national parliaments are bound by EU law and not their electorates. This means that their legal mandate is upholding what the EU says, and not what their voters say. Penalties do not exist for betraying voters. Penalties exist for betraying the EU.
The Czech government is treaty-bound to enter the Eurozone at the earliest opportunity as a legal obligation. It hasn't for various reasons. I don't want this to happen, but Eurocrats say it is their business what policies so-called sovereign governments do. This shows that the so-called rule of law is arbitrary and the EU is autocratic.
The gang of sovereigns is a gang of politicians who shit on their own people and deny opposition legal rights and demonise it in their press, with the help, publicity and money of the EU.
I cannot festoon politicians on lampposts since the EU has given them "human rights", and my country is subject to invasion and occupation to "protect democracy".
I agree that the EU is an empire. And we might as well need a regional bloc like that. However, instead of making things better it is slowly but surely killing us unless removed. Instead of enlarging our Lebensraum, it shuts us in. It is a tool of colonisation by racial aliens, crowding us out of our only living spaces. The EU will oppose until its last days the removal of settled racial aliens from our midst. It will have to be removed before it exterminates us.
Ok, zelter, let's have a quick look at the "Bohemian Monetary Situation". First: long live the Czech Republic! May one of the premier industrial centers of Europe resurge to it's previous splendor!
1. Yes, the country previously-called Bohemia signed the Treaty of Accession of 2003, which is nothing else than a "we, too" writ large, akin to a "letter of intent".
2. The Republic received in the Treaty of Accession the RIGHT to access the eurozone, IF the parameters are met. "Treaty bound" is a very flexible term, we are NOT the bloody Soviet Union. About as flexible as marriage, nowadays. And whoever tells you differently is LYING.
3. The adoption of the EUR was originally planned for 2010, but in 2006 the criteria were not met, and the whole thing was rescheduled several times. The last speculation about what date would be possible is by the central bank governor, for about 2019 (and he has to be optimistic, it's his job).
4. A survey of 2011 found out that 6% think "definitely yes", 16% "rather yes", 35% "rather not" and 43% "definitely not". So we can say that it's a Czech NO, THANKS.
5. PM Petr Necas said already in 2010 "Nobody can force us into the euro, de facto we have an opt-out" and "nobody can force us to enter this mechanism" (see EMR II) and "It's solely up to our will, it's our decision, and there is no reason to rush". This after the (ez-skeptic) President Vaclav Klaus urged the PM to clarify the situation. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-05/czech-republic-still-able-to-op... . So both President and PM are not keen and hit the breaks. And this can go on forever, like an engagement.
6. Meanwhile, as far as I remember (can't do all your homework, can I?) the Convergence Criteria are not met anyway!!! And WHY should anybody FORCE Sweden, Scotland, the Czech Republic or any other bloody country to join? It's simply one of the craziest things I ever heard.
7. The Czech Republic will join the eurozone at that moment when it's Parliament and President are going to say yes AND the criteria are met. Which can be never.
8. Meanwhile, there is a new requirement, the Fiscal Compact. Note how the Czech Rep. did NOT partecipate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Fiscal_Compact. Did someone force the Republic to sign? NO. Note that the Swedes are keeping their options more open, though.
Has anything changed since then? If not, just a few replies:
- His Excellency the Bloody Stupid Commissioner-in-Chief the Idiot Barroso is a free citizen of the EU. He can say as many STUPID things he want, we don't have laws against it. This includes idiocies about the "Irreversibility of the Euro".
- Nothing stops a National Parliament from putting up a law that is against EU law. In fact, NO EU law is applicable without the national parliament giving some kind of assent (per treaty, per act, per general principle or whatever), and always with the power to rescind it. Yes, there might be *diplomatic* consequences, but this is "business as usual". I can bring you LOTS of examples where this happened.
- Nothing would undermine the functioning of the EU more than the EU "forcing" a member to do something. The EU is the SERVANT of the member nations and their citizents. If you really WANT forcing, you have to piss off enough of the member's governments and parliaments. The other gangs.
- No, the EU is NOT an empire. It's PART of the Washington Hegemony (you just have to look at the NATO bases and their national composition). Which tries to be influenced from the US as little as possible. Which is one of the reasons for the "continental sized" SHARED SERVICES instututions of the EU and the EZ.
1. Yes, the Czech Government signed that treaty, after having had its population incessantly propagandised with Washington Consensus economics, with the idea that the EU is an unalloyed good and having been issued certain (non-binding) guarantees by the EU. Although the politicians knew what they were doing, it was under the false pretense of European unity and friendship. The Czech Government campaigned to join the EU, but almost never mentioned the Euro as an obligation. Those lies have made the Czech people hostile to further EU integration whenever they get the chance to affect it.
2. The European Union offers less autonomy to its slave states than the Allied did to Germany after WW2 when they outright abolished the government and made everyone stateless. The Allies never tried to exterminate its controlled population and replace them with foreigners wholesale, though. No organisation in history has been this vile and hateful as the EU and its governments.
3-6. Planned and rescheduled by whom, genius? Certainly not planned by the Czech, who didn't create the idea of the common currency themselves, nor ask for it in the first place.
You need to check Wikipedia or something if you don't know the difference between de facto and de jure. Slave States which have not negotiated an opt-out have a legal obligation to join the Euro and can be subject to penalties by the European Commission, the "guardian of the treaties", if they are deemed to be stalling just as well as they can be sanctioned if their so-called sovereign parliaments fail to implement European directives
There is no de facto opt-out from the FUCKING SANCTIONS FOR NOT DOING THE BEST TO JOIN AT THE EARLIEST which should be automatic according to the law. Of course, there isn't any real rule of law either, and the Commission as an unelected, unwanted dictatorial institution doesn't want to rock the boat.
7. Many politicians are mindless pro-EU drones, and there is always external diplomatic pressure. Lisbon was signed, yet unpopular; the President stalled it for a while but was too much of a pussy to get rid of it, which just shows the EU's power.
8. The fiscal compact is legally not an EU treaty and not an EU requirement--it seems you are making it sound like it is? Of course it is, but the legal fiction is that it isn't. Another everyone-is-volunteering crap.
- Barroso is not just a free citizen. He is immune from prosecution and protected by the EU's security services, which is something you and I are not. He also steals money from working Europeans which does not belong to him, which is probably a point of similarity between you and him. If his protection did not exist, he'd be dead by now.
- "Nothing stops a National Parliament [...]" -- yeah, it's called secession. Since we now have a multi-party dictatorship that is pro-EU (which practically forms a single party bloc given the uniformity of policies), the only way to secure that secession is a single opposition party forming a strong anti-EU government. This will lead to the EU slapping sanctions for the "lack of democracy" (i.e. lack of EU dictatorship), and internal opposition by various pro-EU foreign agents (NGOs, etc.).
Those sanctions will be more serious than ever before, will cripple the economy, and will force that party to fall in popularity unless promptly banning all propaganda centres of the EU and destroying other political parties. The EU will identify this as a casus belli, and will talk of a need to free the secessionist country from a madman. Of course, the EU already cripples and bans opposition political parties in the womb so the only choice left is a coup via the security services and a probably losing war. This is why subject peoples remain subject peoples, not because they can help it.
Note how the EU animals (and you on ZH) whined about the Hungarian situation and the meek conservative provisions in their constitution.
- Please explain why the new entrants, Bulgaria and Romania, rush every EU trash through. Their economies are not up for it, and will collapse soon. Is it because they are client states who vote for the EU position every time?
- The EU is an empire (not that there's anything wrong with that excepting the presence of aliens in it which is optional for empires if you look at history) motivated by racial hatred against native Europeans and has a police force occupying Serbian territory in Kosovo.
The EU does not try to be influenced by the US as little as possible. That's mindless Eurocrat rhetoric. The EU agrees with the US State Department on much of everything (especially the vile policy of deracinating Europeans), and it is now easier for the US to get everyone in line. See sanctions against Iran.
European federalism actually exists today because it was primarily funded by American security services. This sabre-rattling against Americanism (whose promotion of globalism and related filth it shares) is a bare-faced lie.
Edit: A final note on point 5.
What politicians say, and what politicians do when they are not criminally liable for they say, is something completely different and something reflected in the sad state of Western politics. Those statements are lies and have zero value unless backed by international treaties saying so explicitly. The Euro conveyor belt is active on the long-term, if there is a long-term.
The EU and the political classes of most member states is committed to all member states joining the Euro, regardless of the opt-outs. Merkel said that it is her goal that all EU Member States join the Euro. Croatia was forced by joining the EU to pledge itself to joining the Euro, and the pro-EU pro-Euro UK government, like all other Member States, has not asked for a Croatian opt-out from that obligation.
Seven countries were forced to join the Euro as a prerequisite to joining the EU the very day they were in, and have since done that. Eight countries are legally en-route as long as the EU remains alive, and there is no reason to think it is not an endgoal. Two have opt-outs, but can join anyway, and will probably be forced to join via diplomatic pressure if the EU kills off all other continental currencies.
1. this is easy: we disagree, but we will see
2. a slave state? Buddy, I was several times there and in Hungary during the Cold War. You have no idea. Let's say that the people we helped escape slightly disagree on this. Please, get rid of this slave mentality of yours.
3-6. This is disingenouos to the extreme. Those government wanted to get in, planned accordingly, and are now planning NOT to get in. Read again what Prime Minister Petr Necas said. And frigging go back and look what was said, before, during the treaty talks, and by which side.
7. Your gov and your prez are "pussies", in your view.
8. There is NO WAY that a country NOT meeting the convergence criteria AND not agreeing to the Fiscal Pact is going to join the EUR. NO FUCKING WAY.
You know what? I'm tired. You ignored my key arguments. And the rest, since you make so many predictions, is: "we will see".
1. We shall not see as long as the Czech Republic is in the EU or under EU influence, because the EU bans referenda of the Czech people.
2. Obviously. The EU has full plenary power, the Czech people have zero. The Czech people work as slave labour for the EU economy and for the EU "values" of destroying Czechs.
3. What the PM said is a lie according to the law. Whether he expects lawlessness with a degree of absolute certainty is a different matter.
The Commission is legally obligated to issue sanctions against member who do not follow its rule to the letter. However, the Commission is autocratic and lawless, no one is above it, so it sometimes "forgets" to do that when it is politically expedient, like with the Czech situation--for now. Google Article 258 of TFUE.
If the Czech government elects not to take all the necessary steps to join the Euro, and if the Commission notices, the Commission is obliged to goad the Czech Government into taking the necessary steps. It says clearly: that if the Commission "sees", it "shall".
Of course, it is ultimately up to the Commission whether it "shall" do what it is tasked to do, or whether it admits to have "seen" what is quite obvious. The PM's open statement should have had the Commission lashing out at the Czech Government, if there was a rule of law. Of course, politics and legitimacy is a bitch.
I'd love for the Commission to act according to the rule of law every time. If it would, we'd all see how retarded and awful the EU really is.
7. Vaclav Klaus constantly compared the EU to the Soviet Union (which, I repeat, had no exterminationist intentions against the Czech unlike the EU), and bitched about the Lisbon Treaty. He clearly disliked it. Why did he sign it? Why did he feel someone put a gun to his head? (Vile Eurocrats said he should be thrown out of a window for stalling, btw). He caved under pressure, but Lisbon going forward was not his conviction. Therefore, he was a coward and a traitor.
8. LOL, please tell me you are joking. Half the countries rammed into the EUR did not meet the damned criteria (not that their criteria matter a lot, whoever drew them has no idea how a financial economy works), and the EU knew it. Even about the big bad boy, Greece:
''We knew that Greece was cheating, it was clear as soon as they joined that there was something wrong" - Karel De Gucht, European Commissioner for Trade
Shilling for the Euro is shilling for trash economics. The only parties a single currency help are huge businesses and huge trading partners like the US and China. And the only reason it helps them is because their operating costs are shifted to the little guys.
You know what the biggest problem of the Czech Rep. and Hungary is? You think the others are constantly thinking about you. You take yourself awesomely seriously. Just read your words: "the Soviet Union...which...had no exterminationist intentions against the Czech, unlike the EU".
DO YOU SERIOUSLY THINK THAT ANYBODY PLANS THE EXTERMINATION OF THE CZECH??? Do you seriously think that you get this kind of attention by Brussels? And while we are there, why exterminate the Czech but not the Greeks? I don't get it.
You are under some seriously weird propaganda influences...
The EU is incapable of planning anything complex, therefore I only mentioned intentions. Those intentions are against every European nation, including Greece, and I have not claimed otherwise.
You can check the Total Fertility Rate of the population of every European country from EU or UNECE data, and acknowledge that the EU, which I'm sure you'll not deny projects its values and power all over Europe, is doing a good job of destroying (or letting destroy or preventing to save) what's left, and importing high-TFR foreigners to take our place.
Perhaps you may have seen the disgusting British display at the Olympics.
pls see below, methinks you are mistaking cultural influences with politics.
7. Vaclac Klaus? The Prez? The guy that went to Ireland and campaigned in the referendum for an Irish No? Where the Irish gave a resounding YES? Does he propose that the Czech should have referenda? He is an eurosceptic, fine, but with "someone put a gun to his head" you probably refer to diplomatic pressure, because this guy has a Czchech army and three secret services, doesn't he? BTW, is your country's hunger for defenestration still not sated?
Yes, I ask you. The Czech Parliament ratified and the Czech Prez finally signed the Lisbon Treaty. Why? You are playing the full mis- and re-direction game of your government and prez. Bitching: yes. Going a different way like Switzerland or Norway: no. Don't blame the diplomatic non-events of your government on others.
Meanwhile, wasn't there the a small matter with the Czech Constitutional court that you are omitting? A lot of the delay that Klaus used for political posturing was because of the Court.
The Irish gave a resounding YES only due to alien propaganda, threats and goading. When the Irish gave a resounding NO, the European Parliament overwhelmingly voted to disrespect the vote and the political class claimed the confused subjects didn't really mean it. The Lisbon Treaty was rejected as a Constitution. The last Irish referendum in favour of EU integration was due to the claim that they already paid in, but wouldn't cash out unless they voted yes.
Vaclav Klaus was routinely more popular than the Parliament according to polls, as is true with the NO position than the YES position to Lisbon. Please explain why he ratified the Lisbon Treaty other than external pressure, including threats that the Czech Republic will become a cast-out.
The Constitutional Court voted (wrongly, IMO) on constitutionality, which is irrelevant to the function of a President in ratification. President Vaclav Klaus was entitled not to sign if he felt it was a raw deal, and chances are he did. Why was it posturing, though? Why does the EU mafia never receive any real political opposition? Is it because it undermines the pluralism it praises as long as it's all EU pluralism?
yeah, the Irish are such disgusting sheep, following alien propaganda, threats and goading and voting accordingly at referenda./sarc
see below
8. yes, this is typical human behaviour. It's called "closing the barn doors after the cows have fled".
And don't forget that the Squid helped cooking the books.
No, it's called closing the barn doors after you've moved the cows out.
Romano Prodi admitted as much, that he knew the the first batch of Euro states were unstable, and the effects today predictable, but it was worth it for the closer integration.
"Shilling for the Euro..." and who the fuck is shilling for the Euro? I'm "shilling" for the truth. One of them, for example, is that the economic parties in favour of the EUR are those industries - mainly small and medium businesses - that produce the myriad components that go into various multistage products, from cars to planes to industrial plants, etc.
Big Biz like Foxxconn does not need one currency! They have huge full staffed treasuries and controlling departements. They work in a multi-currency environment anyway. They thrive in it.
The big business aspect is untrue and the small and medium businesses aspect is unlikely, but if true then so what? The consumers and littler guys get the shaft, even if the EU internationalises them to make them feel they make a gain. There is no such thing as a free lunch.
untrue/unlikely? why?
Despite promoting the Euro, you pretend to be as clueless as an African villager as to what it does, namely tranfser the costs of commerce and "economies of scale" from those who ought to bear them on to everyone else who is forced to use the currency. No international supply chain, then you're getting fucked.
Article 258 of TFUE? Are you kidding me? The full and complete article is this
"Article 258 (ex Article 226 TEC)
If the Commission considers that a Member State has failed to fulfil an obligation under the Treaties, it shall deliver a reasoned opinion on the matter after giving the State concerned the opportunity to submit its observations.
If the State concerned does not comply with the opinion within the period laid down by the Commission, the latter may bring the matter before the Court of Justice of the European Union."
Tell you what, you can ask a help department of the Commission if they are the Guardian of the Treaties and legally obligated to make sure everyone follows the law. They have an email address somewhere on their site where you can ask some EU chimp info about the functioning of the EU.
And if you do not admit that the Commission is legally obligated to make sure Member States fulfil their legal obligations (but doesn't), thus we're without the rule of law, then do you admit the whole EU is an off-the-rails insanity? Whoops. Well, you're not here to concede anything.
The CJEU is filled to the brim with pro-EU people, they derive their employment from the EU and the Commision, and will mostly rubberstamp what the Commision does and wants. It's even worse than the Parliament if you can believe that.
see below. IMO you have strange views on what is law, politics, etc.
1. "because the EU bans referenda of the Czech people". This is utter bullshit. There is NO such thing, and it's a clear case that shows you are consuming lots of propaganda filled with lies. Several countries have referenda - you can debate forever if the experience with referenda about EU matters did help or not the irish, but they had referenda because they (meaning their institutions) required it.
There is NOTHING from the EU or the sister-countries that the Czech Republic has that forbids referenda. The Czech Parliament can meet today and put up a referenda. Today.
Boy, you just made me very mad, this is an issue that is very dear to me. The fight for keeping national sovereignty is the fight to keep the National Parliaments the key stones, the key deciders. Your constitution is your national popular matter. It's for the Czech to request referenda. It's for the English to finally put political pressure on their Parliament to allow referenda. Two countries where referenda are political tools in the hands of Parliament.
It's your citizen's prerogative to petition and demonstrate and propagate and vote towards referenda. Nobody is going to make this a gift to you - you have to fight (politically) for it. You must want it, crave it, find others to push for it.
Go and look how many european countries have referenda and how they got it. IRELAND JUST HAD ONE.
I said the EU bans referenda of the Czech people, not Czech citizens (the latter of whom contains aliens). The future of Czechs either belongs to Czechs or we have no national self-determination to speak of.
Any legal route to bypass the test of citizenship is moot, as there is a legal requirement that "European citizens" get equal rights and a vote. Please google the 60.000 "European citizens" able to vote in any putative referendum on Scottish independence.
Thanks for my "human right" not to be able to have a referendum while my country is a subject of the EU.
you make no sense whatsoever, here.
Citizenship = indicated by some government piece of paper claiming you belong in a country. Gypsies have it.
Gypsies are not Czechs, thus not part of the Czech nation, thus not of the Czech people.
The EU forbids subject governments national referenda, even if they pertain to strictly national matters, because it is a globalist, anti-European organisation.
National referenda are not an impossibility and have been undertaken in European history.
Is there anything more to explain or are you completely insane?