Referendum: Is Germany Preparing For The Nuclear Option?

Tyler Durden's picture

Two months ago, in the aftermath of the "surprising victory" for the Italian PM from the June 29 European summit, which the media mistakenly interpreted as successful for Monti and Rajoy, whose hijacking tactics merely led to even more European animosity and instability in a system that is beyond fragile (i.e., Europe), we proposed an entirely different explanation, namely that "Merkel's Surprising "Defeat" was Merely A Gambit For A German Referendum?" To wit: "it appears that events over the past week may have been merely a gambit for something that Schauble and Weidmann have already hinted at: a popular referendum that decides the fate of Europe once and for all, washing Merkel's hands and letting the people decide if they want the European experiment to continue or not." Turns out we were right.

From Spiegel:

Germany Considers Holding EU Referendum

The chancellor is in a tricky position at the moment, as she fails to get the euro crisis under control. Of course, the Economist's notion of a secret plan to break up the euro zone is purely fictitious. But it fits into the current debate, where more and more politicians from Germany's coalition government are talking about radical steps to solve the euro crisis.

Officially, though, Merkel's line is that she wants more Europe, not less. In the chancellor's bid to save the common currency, she is willing to go to the very limits of what is permissible under the German constitution. That was made clear by her support for the permanent euro rescue fund, the European Stability Mechanism (ESM), and her pet project, the fiscal pact. But Merkel still wants more. "We need a political union," she recently said on German public television station ARD. "That means we have to give up further competencies to Europe, step by step, in an ongoing process."

Talk of a Vote

But that will probably not work, given the limits of the German constitution, something that members of the opposition have been pointing out for some time. In the meantime, more and more people within the governing parties have been talking about holding a referendum in Germany on the European Union. Rainer Brüderle, the floor leader of the business-friendly Free Democrats, Merkel's junior coalition partner, said on Friday that there could come a point "when a referendum on Europe becomes necessary."

Horst Seehofer, head of the Christian Social Union (CSU), the Bavarian sister party to Merkel's Christian Democratic Union (CDU), has even called for several referendums. Finance Minister Wolfgang Schäuble has also talked about holding a national vote on the EU.

Such a vote could indeed be a way to get the much needed legitimacy for a transfer of national competences to Brussels. But how would it actually work in practice? SPIEGEL ONLINE presents an overview of some possibilities.

There are three conceivable options for a referendum:

1. The Voluntary Way

The German constitution, officially known as the Basic Law, does not make much mention of direct democracy. Referendums are only specifically foreseen for the case of a reorganization of Germany's territory and for the event that the Basic Law, which was originally supposed to be temporary, is superseded by a new constitution. There have been repeated calls to give the population a greater say beyond ordinary elections, especially from the opposition. In contrast to the CDU, the CSU and FDP are open to the idea.

Critics say that questions about transfers of competence or measures to save the euro are too complex. But CSU leader Seehofer considers those objections to be "pure arrogance" towards the people. In the newspaper Die Welt, Seehofer listed three areas where people should have more say. They include: the transfer of significant competencies to Brussels; the enlargement of the European Union through new member states; and German financial support for other EU states.

What is striking here is that the CSU would answer "no" to all of these questions. And the party believes that an increasingly euroskeptic German population would also say the same. But not even Seehofer himself appears to believe that the constitution would really be amended to include his proposed referendums.

2. The Forced Way

Even more likely than opening up the constitution for referendums is that it comes up for discussion as a consequence of European integration. And this, of course, would require Germans to decide on a new constitution. Article 146 of the constitution stipulates that the current constitution "shall cease to apply on the day on which a constitution freely adopted by the German people takes effect."

Indeed, Schäuble and Brüderle aren't the only ones that suspect that when the Federal Constitutional Court delivers its verdict on the fiscal pact and the ESM, it will say that the limits of the current constitution have been reached. What's more, since the official stance of almost all German political parties is that the response to the crisis should be "more Europe," a referendum seems inevitable.

At the moment, the questions of exactly what Germans would be voting on and when are just as unclear as what the court will decide. So far, there has only been vague talk about such issues as "political union," "yielded sovereignty" and "common budgetary policy." Peer Steinbrück, a former federal finance minister and leading figure in the center-left Social Democratic Party (SPD), predicts that there will be a referendum within two years, while Schäuble says five. Typically, Chancellor Merkel refuses to speculate.

Despite this guessing game, one thing is clear: Before Germans can hold a vote on the EU, the European Union has to decide what it wants. "Creating a new constitution, if necessary, can only be the absolutely final step and therefore never a 'foundation stone' in the construction of a new European statehood but, rather, always only the 'keystone,'" stressed constitutional law expert Hans-Peter Schneider in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung newspaper.

Still, getting to the keystone stage could take some time -- even if the crisis calls for determined action. Seen from this perspective, the various ideas about referendums that even the ruling coalition is throwing around right now are probably nothing more than a way to keep voters calm.

In short, the message they want to send is this: Don't worry. You will have the last word.

3. The European Way

A referendum in Germany could also be embedded within a pan-European referendum. This would theoretically have all EU member states vote on the expansion of EU powers, and on the same day.


The idea of having a common constitution for all EU states is not new. In 2004, EU heads of state and government approved a draft constitution that, among other things, would have given the European Parliament more power and limited the influence of individual member states. But after failed referendums in France and the Netherlands, the constitution idea fizzled out. Instead, leaders agreed on the Lisbon Treaty in 2007.

In order to put some teeth into EU policies aimed at better combating the financial and economic crises, there needs to be a new agreement -- or, better yet, a constitution.

A few weeks ago, European Justice Commissioner Viviane Reding said that such a constitution would have to be ratified by referendums in all EU countries. And that includes Germany.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
slaughterer's picture

This is NOT bullish.

malikai's picture

It might be bullish for freedom.


Precious's picture

Sure.  Sure.  It's always "purely fictituous" until it happens.

Nothing To See Here's picture

Freedom... that is sooo 1800s. Some want to take us back in the past with retro ideas it seems.


barkster's picture

Time to buy Diebold stock.  Germany will be placing a large order.

magpie's picture

Nope, the printing presses will be working overtime for spare ballots.

BigJim's picture

I am SO sick of this bullshit.

There's absolutely no need for the PIIGS to exit the Euro - they can just default on their debts, the French and German banks holding their debt can go under, and we can carry on, with lenders being a little wiser when it comes to lending PIIGS money in future.

This 'exit the euro' threat is just a way for the banks to threaten the PIIGS. The PIIGS should tell them to go fuck themselves, and, yes, we're keeping the Euro, thanks.

Aziz's picture

Referendum won't happen.

Germany are letting PIGS print their own euros, and looking the other way.

This works beautifully for the European utopians; it lets them pretend to uphold their hard money credentials while keeping their beloved European project together.

Unfortunately it is also an incredibly messy piece of brinkmanship.

fockewulf190's picture

When the PIIGS turn into PIIGGS, and then F'N PIIGGS, that may just be the trigger that finally blows the whole $600 trillion plus derivatives apocalypse....and the Great Reset will begin.

fightthepower's picture

I pray that the Germans have the courage to pull out of the EU.  Why on Earth would they want to be a part of a European dictatorship?  If they don't pull out.  They deserve their fate. 

TSA gropee's picture

Why? Because perhaps the plan has been all along that they'd be doing the dictating...

boogerbently's picture

They made the "euro" choice, before. It failed. why would they vote to stay in it, especially when THEY would have to foot the majority of the bailout bill??

sablya's picture

I guess when the cost of supporting the currency outweighs the benefits of a cheap currency, they will think hard whether the cost to stay in is less than the cost to get out.

No easy answers.

Ghordius's picture

what has the EU (27 members) to do with the Eurozone (17 members) and the ESM and the EFSF? Obviously something, yes, but then you throw a dictatorship on top like a cherry on a well stirred cocktail...

bigkahuna's picture

Well, if you disagree, give your point of view. You want a federal reserve of your very own over there? The people will not even have a shot at being financially secure, they will work until their bodies give out. Then they will die. Nice life! You want that for the Europeans? A little central planning will save the day? Are you paying attention!?

Ghordius's picture

part of my point of view is here 2686891 - originally, we just wanted our gold - as agreed.

This mess has not started in 2008, in fact even 1971 was just a mid-point

i-dog's picture


"even 1971 was just a mid-point"

Agreed. I'm glad you [finally] corrected that. I spit my coffee when I saw you recently claiming that the Euro was a response to the closing of the gold window!!

Ghordius's picture

Of course it was not all determined by single points, but 1971 had a huge impact. According to all graphs, including prices, in a greater magnitude as 1994/5. So yes, in the planning of the ECB this aspect was on the top of all minds. You could not ignore that. It was a "what now and what in the future" moment. so

IMHO as simplification the quip "Nixon is one of the fathers of the EUR" holds. And the EUR has a defensive, "rolling with the punches of the reserve currency" design. To soften and cushion the impacts on the economy. It can be spent, for that. Note that I'm keeping the debt discussion out of it for brevity's sake.

Remember, in europe we have both views, too. Our classical liberals point to the Swiss National Bank as the best compromise, being best able to switch between gold-backed and fiat and being owned & controlled by the state-banks of their near-sovereign "cantons".

Note how their Federal Government has the military but not the control over money. And only 50% of the "purse". Many smart political ideas in CHF-Land.

But the ECB is a later, similar design - which has also the political imprint of having 17 governments as indirect owners (they generally own their CBs, often the central bankers are appointees of the gov or even appointed by parliament). Some of them can't even discuss going back to gold - since they would have to open a very painful discussion on how to back with gold sitting in the US.

Our willingness to act is dampened by the fact that the NY-Fed has our sack (of gold) in her hands. Hard grip, that bitch.

In order to tie with other discussions we had, the state is an instrument and a system, there are many ways to employ it, some smarter, some less. And a lot of it is solved by design. And before you write that: yes, (european) classical liberalism is full of this proud "luciferian" hubris of being able to solve many problems by smart constitutional design. Though again, see Switzerland, the only country that had a successful liberal revolution. And then note how often those principles were replicated in the design of the EU and the ECB.

i-dog's picture

<*sigh*> The longer your posts are, Ghordie, the more non-sequitors and strawmen you seem able to cram in! I often don't reply to them simply because I'm not sure even where to begin!! (I'm sure that's your plan - see here - but that's a whole different topic).

However, since it's a weekend and on a dead thread, I'll have a go ... just for you. :)

The plan for a United States of Europe - with both political and monetary integration - was hatched prior to WWII (and, indeed, was one of the primary motivations for WWII...but I digress). After WWII and Bretton Woods, the stops were pulled out and a number of attempts were made to get the ball rolling:

1947 - Joint International Committee for European Unity
1947 - CIA formed (headed by Allen Dulles, Knight of Malta)
1948 - American Committee on Unified Europe (funded by CIA, Rockefeller and Ford Foundation)
1948 - Congress of Europe (bogged down by disagreement between "unionists" and "federalists")
1948 - European Movement (founded by the "federalists" from the Congress of Europe)
1949 - Treaty of London: Council of Europe formed by the 10 "federalist" states
1950 - European Movement secretariat transferred from London to Brussels (orchestrated by CIA)
1951 - Treaty of Paris: European Coal and Steel Community established - but only 6 of the 10 "federalists" joined
1952 - Bilderberg Group formed
1952 - European Defence Community treaty signed by "inner 6", but torpedoed by deGaulle. Instead, Germany brought into NATO, 3 months later.
1954 - First Bilderberg meeting
1955 - Negotiations begin to form EEC
1955 - Benelux (Belgium-Netherlands-Luxembourg) Parliament formed
1955 - NATO Parliamentary Assembly formed
1957 - Treaty of Rome: EEC (European Economic Community) begins with just 6 nations
1957 - Last year of US government surplus

1968 - Club of Rome founded (hosted by David Rockefeller)

1973 - Norwegian voters reject EEC entry in referendum 
1973 - UK, Denmark, Ireland join EEC (UK referendum 2 years later gets 43% electoral support!)
1981 - Greece joins EEC
1986 - Spain, Portugal join EEC
1989 - Fall of Berlin Wall
1992 - Maastricht Treaty converts EEC to EU
1995 - Austria, Finland, Sweden join EEC
2004 - 10 Eastern European countries join EEC
2007 - Romania, Bulgaria join EEC 

As you can see from the timeline, a great deal of political capital was expended by Churchill and others to get a United States of Europe together right from the beginning, straight after WWII. However, many states were keen on a "union", but reluctant to cede sovereignty to a "Federal" Government ... so only 6 joined initially ... not enough yet for a Euro!

Secondly, the purely defensive aspects of the Euro that you mention could easily have been achieved by simply getting the various states to agree a Bretton-Woods-like peg between them ... but the objectives have always been for political central planning, not monetary.

Thirdly, most of the central banks of the EZ are privately owned.

Fourthly, it is debateable exactly how much gold the NY Fed holds, and on behalf of whom. In any event, that is a very small proportion of the world's gold (less than 5%).

Lastly, your final paragraph is an incoherent ramble that I dare not touch!

Ghordius's picture

nevertheless, thanks for your answer - ah, and stop throwing the "shill" and "propagandist" gauntlet, your jury is clearly not yet out on this! ;-)

you take many facts and imply correctly that strong forces were at play on the US and UK side.

but your story contains very little about the forces on the continent, what they wanted, why they made certain deals.

we don't really disagree on many key points, only I keep track on much, much more groups, and some of them seem to be foreign, to you (this is a feeble attempt at banter, mkay?). and those forces push in several directions.

Both France's and the UK's governments were often influenced by coalitions of internationalists, and the UK dragged the US in the camp of the globalists. both have  some goals that converge, but the groups behind it are not all the sames. Lots of internationalist support is pacifist, btw, it's about not having a world war again. pls don't let me mention the various socialists or Moscow.

but please, it's also a lot of ideas involved, and ideals. which drive genuinely ideological grops. you might not share their ideals, but they are real. for example one important date, for us continentals, is 1848, when most of those were discussed seriously for the first time - here.

1948, disagreement between unionists and federalists. you see? different dimension.

1952 was the federalists getting the upper hand on the unionists, thanks De Gaulle, an anti-globalist (French) imperialist. And Bilderberg had most of the time people from all camps.

1951 Treaty of Paris was mainly due to post-WWI national disagreement between France and Germany. What is your beef with it, do you want another war between them?

1956 is missing on that list. The Brits and the French were happily invading Egypt and Oncle Sam called them back.

1973 Norway was a great victory for all federalists believing in the classic liberal ideal of referendums. Confederation? yes. Liberty? yes. Referendum says no? than it's a no. You have a detail wrong, the UK ECC 1975 referendum had a quorum of 65% with an approval of 67%. And it's the current British Parliament that is not allowing a new EU referendum. What do you expect from the others? A Parliament's no is British national business. Also part of the ideal of sovereign self-determination.

And yes, the entry of the Eastern European countries was heavily pushed by Washington, hell, they tried to get Turkey in. But this is the NATO dimension view. We europeans are still something between vassals and allies.

Secondly Bretton-Woods? We had Bretton-Woods. Who exacty did not follow up on that agreement? Fool me once...

For the federalists, the unionist's goals are fine, up to a certain point. Federalists are about balance. The US had that balance and lost it. One government get's easily tyrannical. Several interlinked governments have to eat more humble pie.

Thirdly, (link)

Fourthly, that's the point, it's debatable. But it was enough for Nixon not to send any, wasn't it? It was enough to change the world's balance (lol). The USD was convertible to gold - and afterwards it wasn't. You really think this was not significant? It opened up the biggest "credit card account" the world has ever seen. Half or ZH's comments are about this fact.

i-dog's picture

<sigh> What a mish-mash! Back to not knowing even where to begin....

I'll just correct one [of the many] of your misinterpretations: the "federalists" wanted a strong central (ie. federal) government taking sovereignty from the states, like that of the US Constitution; the "unionists" wanted a loose union with strong national sovereignty, like that of the US Articles of Confederation. This is why only 6 of the 44 states attending the gung-ho Congress of Europe went any further over the following 25 years.

Ghordius's picture

up to now I had a certain peace of mind, but I have to admit you just made me angry.

like the US Constitution???

why - should - we - have - that - as - an - example ???

Only the Brits see it as an example. And this is the devide between us and the Brits. They constantly moan about "like the US", as if the path the US would be like a railroad, once taken, leading only to one point. One of the ugliest parts of the Anglo-American worldview. It's always like either the US or the UK, eh? All the others don't really exist. Are scenery.

Try Holy Roman Empire - if you are conservative, it sounds good. The 6 are the old HRE.

Try Switzerland, if you are a classical liberal, it's the best version, yet.

Try the current Treaty of Lisbon. It has balances. 27 governments and 27+1 parliaments. I just miss referenda.

If the damn unionists would not always get some help from London or Washington or NY, particularly from the globalists, it could just stay this way.

i-dog's picture

You already have the US Constitution as your EU blueprint!! Wake up, Ghordie!

In 1789, the US Constitution was foisted upon the people of the 13 original "States of the Union" - who were quite happy with their state governments and their mutual defense arrangement under their Articles of Confederation of 1776 - to achieve two things for the Vatican masters:

  1. Creation of a Federal Government that could erode state sovereignty, piece by creeping piece.
  2. Creation of a Federal Supreme Court that could ratify the erosion of sovereignty of the States.

Just as the Supreme Court of the United Statesa (SCOTUS) only rules on "constitutional" matters (for example, ratifying Obamacare!), so the European Court of Justice (ECJ) only rules on "European Union Law".

And just as the SCOTUS and Congress are losing legitimacy in the eyes of many Americans, so the ECJ and the EU Parliament have limited legitimacy in the eyes of Europeans.

A survey in 1992 of a sample of the public in each of the EU member states had a 72% 'no', and 14% 'yes', vote to the question: "Do you think citizens have sufficient democratic influence in EC-decision making, or not?". A simple question and a resounding rejection of your claim that Europeans "love" their democratic "checks and balances"!

Ghordius's picture

constitutional design - if something is good, then more is better?

The biggest step/transition on the US path from a Confederation to a Federation to a Union to one Megastate was done 1913, with the Seventeenth Amendment (though the creation of a FED without connection to the states and the Sixteenth also helped). Just think about it: by having a direct vote on senators, the Legislatures of the States were made nearly irrelevant. And the US states were already weakened by the direct vote on their governors.

We don't have this model and your 1992 survey moaning is the perfect example. The democratic influence is national. The EU is still a confederated matter at national governmental level. We don't need a bloody directly elected president to give a democratic verneeer to something that is simply silly to vote on directly.

Not all good checks and balances are made through democratic/popular vote. In fact, we should scrap the EU parliament. But the Brits would get palpitations. They have, like the Yanks, only one model in their head, and still don't (want to) understand the others...

i-dog's picture

That's revisionist history, Ghordie. I realise you must keep pushing the "MegaBanks, bad" and "Fed, bad" meme du mois to divert attention from the whole statist system, but it won't work on me. The CBs and commercial banks are part of a system that supports, and is supported by, the state.

The First Bank of the United States of 1791 was the second attempt by the Vatican to impose a central bank over American commerce - and 35% of its capital came from Irish Jesuits with close family associations to Alexander Hamilton (who had also engineered the first attempt in 1782, the Bank of North America). It also faced strong resistance and its 20-year charter was not renewed in 1811, causing the British to launch the War of 1812 (and destroy only public buildings in Washington DC in 1814!) to force more war debt onto Americans that would need to be financed.

The Second Bank of the Unitied States of 1817 was the third attempt by the Vatican to impose a central bank over American commerce - with much of its initial capital coming from Jesuit connections to France, as well as the Rothschilds (who at that time titled themselves 'Guardians of the Vatican Treasury'). Again, it faced resistance and Andrew Jackson would not renew its 20-year charter in 1837. This provoked, firstly, an unsuccessful assassination attempt on Jackson by a man who confessed that he was “in touch with the powers in Europe” (paid by Jesuits, one might assume?). When that failed to deter Jackson, the bankers facilitated massive speculation and state government deficit spending, followed by the 'Panic of 1837', to bring the financial system to its knees.

That then takes us to the fourth attempt by the Vatican and your quoted 1913 creation of the Federal Reserve, the Inland Revenue Service and the Income Tax.

As you can see, there had been a concerted attack by the Vatican on American economic and financial independence beginning long before 1913, though it certainly culminated in the coup d'etat of 1910-1913 with the creation of the FED and the IRS.

The question of the 17th Amendment is one of opinion only. There had been calls for reform and direct election of senators beginning in 1828 - due to concerns about cronyism and bought appointments in the state houses by senate candidates. Though there is a call today to revert to the initial system, that is mainly because people are looking for scapegoats and have forgotten the situation that had previously caused 31 states to have tabled resolutions calling for reform prior to 1910. It's a red herring, and I suspect you know it!

Ghordius's picture

nope, it's not revisionist history - it's our version. but now I see that you truly see all and everything steered by the Vatican. can't help with that view. I find funny that you mix up our federalists and our unionists (perhaps an Anglosphere reversal of terms?), though.

You seem to forget that I see the MegaBanks only as the epitome of the MegaCorps/globalist side that seems to be fine-as-it-is, for you.

Interesting take that you have on the 17th.

I think we have concluded our discussion by your reversal to "It's the Vatican". Please just don't call me a Jesuit and I'll refrain to call you a Yank.

i-dog's picture

The difference is that I'm not a Yank. That's just another of your failed assumptions and failed attempts to attach a label to me. Ciao. ;-)

Ghordius's picture

Utterly OT: i-dog, viewed from the outside, there are two great political views in the US: those who distrust Government and those that distrust Corporations.

I distrust both - if let to their extremes. And both are governed by the constitutional environment that sustains them. MegaCorporations are children and spawners of empires, as Powers were, and the Super-Powers that followed.

To this, there is an additional dimension: human density. The higher it is, the higher is the need for integration and rationalizations of more common efforts. This means more organization.

The Greek and Romans had a smart laws for this, all grouped around one concept: pomerium.

Inside the walls of a city, no weapons, more integration, more regulation, more state, even women's rights!

Outside of the walls: weapons and freedom and risk and whatever you wanted.

For this reason alone, troops after a campaign had to pass through a "triumph" gate that symbolized their return to "civility" (from the word civitates, urban).

i-dog's picture

Just how dumb do you think I am, Ghordie?!

Your sidetrack into "pomerium" has nothing to do with city walls or population density - it was purely a religious convention that applied only to the "sacred heart" of Rome.

For example, Caesar was assassinated by armed senators and that occured outside the notional boundary of the pomerium of Rome, though inside the Roman Senate.


"those who distrust Government and those that distrust Corporations"

False dichotomy [again]. Most who distrust corporations understand that corporations are both a creation of government and protected by government ... so they also distrust government.

It's true that many who distrust government also, bizarrely!, call for more government regulation of corporations ... but they also call for more debt to solve the problem of too much debt, and for more war to solve the problem of too much war. Go figure!

Ghordius's picture

and how am I supposed to know what you know or not? yes, before laws, we had religious conventions between groups, the "divine laws" of peace between kingroups. wars had to be approved by the religious authorities, for example.

the "pomerium" principle was older than Rome, all Greek cities and most other civilizations around the Med had it. how it was shaped differed, nevertheless it had in common that population density creates different needs that have to be satisfied by conventions and laws. my question is this: is it possible to have one set of laws and one form of government (or non-government) that has the right shape for every territory? all this without even mentioning other differences. the answer is hardly. And it's a constant source of political irritation.

Cities produce a different mindset, different problems and different political solutions from countrysides. You travel enough to have noticed this.

I'm clueless why this should be a false dichotomy - does it not fit the American political landscape, for example? I could enumerate many examples how this fitted the european political landscape. Hitler was famous for being an "anti-city guy", for example, part of his culture war.

Lore's picture

"3. The European Way: A referendum in Germany could also be embedded within a pan-European referendum. This would theoretically have all EU member states vote on the expansion of EU powers..."

In other words, screw Germany and screw the German people in the short term, thus ensuring utter and complete eventual screwage for all of Europe. Hand the socialist can-kickers a shovel so they can be seen to have dug their own hole. Nation breakers have a dark sense of irony.

squilmi's picture

I think you misspelled that.

Nonexistent Uninvented God's picture

German Economy = Exports

Germany Leaves Euro = Economy Tanks

Germany Continues lending money to Europe in order to keep exporting to Europe= German Economy Tanks once it's out of money to give away for people to "buy" the heir exports


Option 1: Germany is openly blamed for the crash

Option 2: Germany isn't, at least openly



Which one do you think Ze German Politcans wish they could do? Why can't they do it? (Hint: AMERICA)

AirportValet's picture

Option 4:

Germany temporarily leaves the Euro, and buys unlimited quantites of Eurobonds, bringing the DM to an acceptable level.

francis_sawyer's picture

 Option 1: Shit

 Option 2: Get off the pot

Zero Govt's picture

Option 3. Draghi rolls out tons of toilet paper for everyone to wipe their arses

AGuy's picture

"Germany Leaves Euro = Economy Tanks"


"Germany Continues lending money to Europe in order to keep exporting to Europe= German Economy Tanks once it's out of money to give away for people to "buy" the heir exports"

Not really since Europe unemployment is near 25%. Few Europeans are buying German goods since they can't afford them. No Jobs no money to buy German made goods. If the Germany pulls the plug, the DM is not going to soar in value since it Debt to GDP will be high and its Banks own a lot of EU soveriegn debt. As its not as if the Italians, the Spainish, the French are going to rush into buying DMs as a safe-haven like Swiss Francs.

I suspect most of Germanys Exports go outside of the EU: Russia (Mostly to people in the Russian Energy\Weapons sectors that have big $$$), North America and Asia.

Over the long term, it doesn't matter. The EU is insolvent. Germany has a two choices. Pay now or delay and Pay a lot more later.

Germany is lending money to the PIGS so its banks can remain solvent. Most of the money being loaned is used to make debt payments to German banks. However its the Rube Goldberg method to bailing out their banks. It would have been wise to just bailout the German banks directly and write off the whole mess.

JeffB's picture

That's my take on it, other than I might opt for letting some of those German banks fail.

They should exit if that's what it takes to have the other members quit hounding them about WWII trying to guilt them into lending more good money after bad until they're all in the same fiscal quagmire. Giving up their sovereignty and economy they've worked so long and so hard to build up would be a tragic mistake. They can't "save Europe". They're better off letting the big government, big spending socialists do their own thing. Maybe if they let them hit bottom like the communists they'll eventually come to their senses.

At least I hope America can eventually see the folly of its fiat money and profligate ways. Sooner rather than later preferrably.



Abraxas's picture

The people are to decide what's gonna happen??? Yeah, right!

kliguy38's picture

Just gimme control of the "new money" and I'll make it "bullish".....SLUUUURP! 

Nothing To See Here's picture

Referendums on the EU have always worked like this :

YES -> democracy at work

NO -> something went wrong with the democratic process, plan another referendum

Not Too Important's picture

"The people are to decide what's gonna happen???"

Not if the European vote counting is anyways similar to the now-defunct US vote counting system.

From Black Box Voting:

Not if you don't mind some unknown guys working offshore controlling whatever they choose to in the software processing votes and voters."

  Translation - strangers working in secret, in foreign locations, owned by secret corporations primarily located in off-shore tax havens, are telling us who wins and who loses our elections. All of them.

Full story:

"It's not the people who vote that count. It's the people who count the votes." - Josef Stalin
Not Too Important's picture

More on SCYTL:

"SCYTL is based in Barcelona; its funding comes from international venture capital funds including Nauta Capital, Balderton Capital and Spinnaker."

Balderton Capital -

     Tim Bunting - Goldman Sachs

     Mark Evans - Goldman Sachs


This is far worse than anyone can imagine. Complete capture of the vote counting in most major countries:



Hugh_Jorgan's picture

SCYTLs? Isn't that what Bernanke's minions scoop out of their Unicorn's stalls every morning when they clean?

"Taste The Rainbow!"

chet's picture

If it assured they will vote the way the ruling party wants, then they can vote.  If popular sentiment runs the other way, they won't vote.

slewie the pi-rat's picture

marioECB wants the ESM to get a banking licence and i think angela  agreed to pursue that at least in principle at the end of the "summer0'12Summit"

does germany need a referendum for this when the EU clearly has "the votes" already? 

or is it just 4 angela's cover?

the german pastry-chef court decides when?  or did they already say:  no licence w/out a referendum?

the political aggrandizement of the EU [surrender of state sovereignty] is every NW0rderly's dream, but this bankstering licence is gonna get pushed thru soon (imo) b/c the squididity needs the ability to monetize a whole buncha bullshitsky

slewienomics indicates that this ESM bankstering licence is what is "buoying the mkts"

so stay tooned!

dereksatkinson's picture

When it's on the cover of the economists, that's a pretty obvious contrarian indicator.

Zero Govt's picture

the Photoshop'd image also indicates Merkal's on a whisky and coffee 'diet'