Bilderberg.org

[marektysis]

..Seek Purchases in Eastern Europe, de Vaucleroy Says
By Fabio Benedetti-Valentini - Jun 30, 2011 10:00 PM GMT+0200 inShare0More
Business Exchange Buzz up! Digg Print Email Axa SA (CS), Europe’s second-largest insurer, aims to reach operating earnings “as close as possible” to 100 million euros ($145 million) from eastern and central European countries, said Jacques de Vaucleroy, who oversees the company’s operations there.

Axa last year generated 1 million euros of operating profit from a group of countries including the Czech Republic, Poland and Ukraine, according to a presentation handed to reporters today.

“It would be an issue if we are still in the same position five years from now,” de Vaucleroy told reporters, without giving a timeframe for the target. ”We would like, if there is something available, to make acquisitions in the region,” he said, declining to identify any specific target.

Axa may also look for acquisitions in Turkey, Chief Executive Officer Henri de Castries said in a separate presentation to reporters.

De Castries said Axa supports a ”long-term” solution to roll over Greek debt and hopes that non-European and smaller bondholders will also participate.

Axa holds about 300 million euros in Greek sovereign debt.

To contact the reporter responsible for this story: Fabio Benedetti-Valentini at fabiobv@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Frank Connelly at fconnelly@bloomberg.net.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-06-30/axa-may-seek-purchases-in-eastern-europe-de-vaucleroy-says.html

[marektysis]

http://srnnews.townhall.com/photos/view/foreign_affairs/1015/netherlands_queen_beatrix_and_palestinian_president_mahmoud_abbas_pose_for_a_picture_in_palace_huis_ten_bosch_in_the_hague/f6ca218c-6510-41a3-b763-2f936f1d988f/

no politics, i know, i know, just a joke..

[marektysis]

DECEPTION...JUST A BOOK BY COMPLOTIST PERL...
(not by Steinbeck)
The End of the End of Evil
June 30, 2011
By: David Silverberg

Back in 2003 David Frum, a former White House speech writer, and Richard Perle, a former assistant secretary of Defense, authored a book called An End to Evil: How to Win the War on Terror.

The book's title was very apt and in four words summed up the aim of the clumsier Global War on Terror (GWOT). GWOT was not merely a war on terror, it was an attempt to end evil in the world, whether that was generated by terrorist groups (Al Qaeda) or an "axis of evil"--Iraq, Iran and North Korea.

Yesterday, with the unveiling of the new National Strategy for Counterterrorism, the United States ended its war on evil and focused on Al Qaeda.

Make no mistake -- there's still evil in the world and John Brennan, the White House counterterrorism and homeland security advisor, acknowledged it.

"We seek nothing less than the utter destruction of this evil that calls itself Al Qaeda," Brennan told an audience at the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies in Washington, DC. The United States remains at war, "a broad, sustained, integrated and relentless campaign that harnesses every element of American power," as he put it.

But it's a war against Al Qaeda and not against evil in the world; not against the "Axis of Evil," not against "every single terrorist organization in every corner of the world, many of which have neither the intent nor the capability to ever attack the United States or our citizens."

The US counterterror effort will be part of a much larger national security strategy that uses diplomacy and outreach, particularly to the Muslim world, Brennan said. It will be conducted in partnership with other countries and allies. It will be agile, subtle and tailored to the times and places where it needs to be implemented. "Going forward, we will be mindful that if our nation is threatened, our best offense won’t always be deploying large armies abroad but delivering targeted, surgical pressure to the groups that threaten us."

And homeland security is an integral part of the new strategy, as Brennan pointed out. He repeatedly noted homeland security measures that had been taken including building "multi-layered defense, bolstering security at our borders, ports and airports; improving partnerships with state and local governments and allies and partners, including sharing more information; increasing the capacity of our first responders; and preparing for bioterrorism." He noted the increase in aviation security since the Christmas Day bombing attempt in 2009.

A key element of the new strategy, said Brennan, is "building a culture of resilience here at home. We are doing everything in our power to prevent another terrorist attack on our soil. At the same time, a responsible, effective counterterrorism strategy recognizes that no nation, no matter how powerful—including a free and open society of 300 million Americans—can prevent every single threat from every single individual who wishes to do us harm. It’s not enough to simply be prepared for attacks, we have to be resilient and recover quickly should an attack occur."

In practical terms, the new Counterrorism Strategy will necessarily require greater emphasis on homeland security even as the United States reduces its military forces abroad.

The strategy makes a great deal of sense in the wake of Osama Bin Laden's death and the new efforts by the United States to kill Al Qaeda's leadership and destroy its affiliates. But even as the United States exchanges the broadsword of GWOT for the dagger of its new, more targeted attacks, so it has to keep the shield of homeland security strong to protect the American homeland and build the resilience Brennan called for in his speech.

If we're not going to try to end evil and we'll accept that it will continue to exist, we will clearly have to be ready to counter and combat it in the homeland. The new strategy does not mean a slackening but it certainly marks a major milestone in the quest for safety and security.

http://www.hstoday.us/blogs/perspectives/blog/the-end-of-the-end-of-evil/8ec810b3350260249aa0b18baeb8949c.html

[marektysis]

US in contact with Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood - Clinton Hillary Clinton said the US would stress the importance of human rights in any talks Continue reading the main story
Egypt's RevolutionDefending Mubarak
Power struggle over Mubarak fate
Cost of revolution
Egypt suffers post-revolution blues
Washington has had "limited contacts" with Egypt's largest Islamic group, the Muslim Brotherhood, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has said.

She said the US wanted to "engage with all parties" seeking peace and non-violence following Egypt's uprising.

The Muslim Brotherhood has a strong following in Egypt but was illegal under ousted President Hosni Mubarak.

The group is planning to stand in parliamentary elections scheduled for September.

'Respect our values'

Mrs Clinton, on a visit to Budapest, told reporters that the Obama administration was "continuing the approach of limited contacts with the Muslim Brotherhood that have existed on and off for about five or six years".

She went on to say that "given the changing political landscape in Egypt... it is in the interests of the United States to engage with all parties that are peaceful, and committed to non-violence, that intend to compete for the parliament and the presidency".

She insisted that they would, in any talks, continue to press home the importance of democracy, non-violence, respect for minority rights and the full inclusion of women.

The Muslim Brotherhood said it welcomed Mrs Clinton's remarks but that no "direct contact" had yet been made.

"We are willing to meet in a context of respect," spokesman Mahmud Ghozlan told the AFP news agency.

"If the US is truly willing to respect our values and support freedom, as it says it does, then we have no problem."

The Brotherhood is still technically illegal under Egypt's constitution, which bans parties based on religion, class or regionalism.

But it is assumed to be Egypt's best organised and most popular opposition movement, and has begun its campaign to be recognised as a formal political party.

The Muslim Brotherhood has stressed that the new party it has set up to contest September's elections will be a civil, not a theocratic, group.

But correspondents say that with its Islamist agenda and historical links to radical groups, the group is feared and mistrusted in the West and to some extent in Egypt.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-13979410

[marektysis]

http://www.opednews.com/articles/The-Bilderberg-Group-Seal-by-Rakesh-Krishnan-Si-110626-385.html

[marektysis]

Greece, Portugal, Ireland to Default: Feldstein
-----------------------------------------------------------
By Jillian Berman and Margaret Brennan - Jul 14, 2011 6:46 PM GMT+0200 More
Business Exchange Buzz up! Digg Print Email
Martin Feldstein, professor of economics at Harvard University, poses for a portrait during the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City annual symposium near Jackson Hole, Wyoming. Photographer: Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg
Greece will default on its debt and Portugal and Ireland are likely to suffer the same fate, said Martin Feldstein, former president of the National Bureau of Economic Research.

“Eventually, we will see a default in Greece, we probably will see a default in Portugal and Ireland. I hope we’re not going to see one in Spain or Italy,” Feldstein, who served as chief economic adviser to President Ronald Reagan said today on Bloomberg Television’s “In Business” with Margaret Brennan.

“What we’re witnessing is a conflict between the European Central Bank, that has basically said ‘we won’t deal with bonds that are in default,’ and the rating agencies that are saying virtually anything that’s done will cause them to trigger a default status,” Feldstein said.

European leaders are working on a plan to rescue Greece from a possible default that could reach $85 billion euros ($120 billion) and may involve support from private lenders. The effects of Greece’s debt crisis have already spread to other countries. Moody’s Investors Service cut Ireland to junk on July 12, a week after lowering Portugal to below investment grade.

“If you were to ask, my best guess is that the ECB will give in,” Feldstein said. “In the end, that they will say that sovereign bonds of Greece -- no matter whether there’s a technical default or not -- are going to be acceptable as collateral,” Feldstein, 71, a Harvard University economics professor said. “Once that happens, then the pieces can fall together to make that deal work.”

To contact the reporters on this story: Jillian Berman in Washington at jberman13@bloomberg.net; Margaret Brennan in New York at Mbrennan25@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Christopher Wellisz at cwellisz@bloomberg.net
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-07-14/greece-portugal-ireland-to-default-feldstein.html

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Without any doubts and above all 'insiders' secrets revealed in this forum
articles about Sankt Mauritz Meeting, i may annouce, not only on basis of former article, but this one is one between many others i posted this year
that a powerful move has taken place against the feudal domination of USA through Atlantic bounds that dominated our continent during half a century and more .
A new generation of citizens are now acting in OUR interests in secret and partly the meeting was planned to erase the influence of our
new secret friends.
This is explaining the work done by Feldstein by instance against Europe,
to render impossible the new role of Euro in the world. On the other side,
the same causes are producing the same effects on the other side of Atlantic and i may give you guarantee that USA will loose more than win
in its attempt to destroy the work done by chairman Davignon to create the Euro....
That is what you have mainly to understand from this curious situation.

I can t tell you more about that, but in december 2011 everything would have been played before your astonished eyes.


Marek Tysis

[marektysis]

Former top EU officials criticised a lack of vision in the handling of the current debt crisis, and urged governments to team up with the private sector to buy debt from struggling countries, on Friday.

The five former senior officials complained that EU leaders lacked a "clear vision" for the eurozone, the survival of which some say is threatened by contagion from the crisis that has brought Greece close to bankruptcy.

"States must guarantee individuals' deposits" and those who invested in Greece's sovereign debt despite the risks should "bear their share of the burden," they said in an editorial in French newspaper Le Monde.

They called for measures to "lighten the burden" of citizens in debt-laden countries such as Greece, via "buy-backs, using EU or international funds, of part of the most downgraded sovereign debts, in order to cancel them."

The piece was signed by the French former European Commission president Jacques Delors, Spain's former prime minister Felipe Gonzalez and Italian former prime minister Romano Prodi.

The other two main signatories were the Belgian ex-vice president of the commission Etienne Davignon and Antonio Vitorino, a Portuguese former EU commissioner.

The five also backed proposals for a European Union-wide system of financial market regulation.

"These principles are simple," they wrote. "If the main political leaders of the European Union adopt them, and if the states, the European Commission and the International Monetary Fund apply them, solutions can be found."
http://www.expatica.com/fr/news/french-news/former-top-eu-officials-criticise-weak-vision-in-debt-crisis_163470.html

[marektysis]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/sns-rt-us-trade-wto-zoellitre76g21f-20110717,0,7310150.story
*************************************************

Somebody or some people are moving the carpet under the feet
of those gentlemen....

Marek Tysis

[marektysis]

MERKEL, SARKOZY… TIME FOR THE NEW FEDERALISTS?
August 10th, 2011 Posted in Europe english
Or how reality forced a generation of realists to become federalists

It is in times of crisis when the EU makes the biggest steps towards integration. This sole fact dismount all the theories that
see in the EU a complot or a conspiracy.
Once again it is proven that the European integration
is driven by necessity and not by intellectual curiosity.

We are living the times of faster economic integration since the Maastricht treaty . During the last 2 years the EU has created the European Semester, the European Financial Stability Facility (to be followed by the European Financial Mechanism, a mini European Monetary Fund) together with other surveillance authorities and committees in order to give a short term answer to the crisis. More in the mid-term, the door is open to raise own resources for the union in the shape of taxes on capital or carbon or VAT, financing the EU debt with Eurobonds and the creation of an EU treasury . The steps in this direction –specially after the European Council meeting of July 21st- have been the only way to show the people and the markets that the EU has a grasp on the crisis and can face the repayment of the accumulated debt.



Before the meeting of July 21st Germany and France have been doing everything in their hands to pospone doing what needed to be done; the result beeing a constant increase in the numbers of vulturs profiting from the European economies. It is not a tabu anymore, President Sarkozy himself acknowledged last month that “We can’t keep having a currency disconnected from economic policy“. Chanciller Merkel with all her reservations finally seems to agree to walk the path towards an European Economic policy.



What we are seeing is that the current generation of European leaders, after having tested any other option on the table, are finally realising –at a high cost in credibility for Europe and themselves- that the only way forward is more Europe, the federalist way. These “New Federalists” have in common that none of them have lived a war and hence their vision for Europe is different from those fathers of Europe -Adenauer, Schuman, Churchill, Monnet…- from whose heritage the EU has lived until today. If there was any doubt, today we have the confirmation that the “old” federalism is over. Whether we like it or not, the pragmatic federalism of the style of Merkel and Sarkozy is what has to drive the European integration in the years to come.



The “old” federalists were visionaries; they were arguing in favour of more European economic integration only when followed at the same pace by political integration, democratically legitimated by the European people. They defended that the sharing of sovereignty between local, national and supranational levels is necessary but no delegation of sovereignty should take place without democratic control. This is why institutions like the European Parliament representing the European citizens and tools such as a European Constitution were conditio sine qua non to advance in the path of further economic integration. Economic integration without political integration –i.e. the people have no control on setting the rules that regulate the markets- would lead to a lack of legitimacy of the European project. They were visionaries but they were right; current EU legitimacy crisis has its roots in the lack of popular identification with the European project.

http://www.simonlluma.eu/2011/08/merkel-sarkozy-time-for-the-new-federalists/



The “old” federalists argued from the beginning that a common monetary policy cannot survive without a common economic policy. During the last decade greeks and spanish have been borrowing money at german interest rates which didn’t match their productivity; this time of living beyond their possibilities has created an indebtment that now they can’t pay back. With an EU treasury, backed with Euro-bonds and a proper European budget the current crisis could have been a lot better managed and the current bailouts would not have happened because this over-indebtment would not have been allowed.
But let’s go back to the “new” federalists. The “new” federalists are hardcore realists –the same realists that 4 years ago were saying that more integration was not necessary and that an EU treasury would never happen-.



The problem with “realists” is that, contrary to visionaries, they are in a constant state of improvisation –no vision = no plan-. Our European leaders have been grossly improvising since 2008 and the financial markets are punishing us all for the chaos linked to improvisation at 27. Secondly there is the problem of democratic legitimacy; the measures adopted during the last 3 years have been taken behind closed doors and observed with scepticism by the majority of europeans. This constant improvisation rules out any public participation in the current process of European construction; not even the European Parliament -already seen by many as being to far away- hasn’t been allowed to participate in the creation of the latest institutional fixes such as the European Financial Mechanism. What is worst is that so far the “new” federalists haven’t expressed any regret or worry about this current lack of democracy in the current shape-up of the EU. Not surprisingly the EU is in the lowest popularity rates since its creation.



Many claim that the time for visionaries has passed, and with it went also the first chance to build a political EU capable of controlling the economic sphere; an EU governed by the people and for the people. It is claimed that the realists have imposed their lack of vision; the result being that the necessity of more integration is driving the agenda but the democratic nature is missing in most of the decisions. Something is wrong when to save the European peoples they have to be locked outside the decision room…



It is true that we are in the path of a transfer union which will lead us to a fiscal union and which will bring with it a European treasury and European bonds. Eventually, having an European fiscal and monetary policy might force the creation of a political union. After all, the political integration in Europe after WWII has followed the economic integration, and it is important to underline that the political union has been a consequence, and not a cause, of the economic integration. Regretably, it can be argued that the failed results of the referendums on the EU Constitutional Treaty in France and the Netherlands and after the failed Lisbon treaty referendum in Ireland also prove that political integration cannot preceed economic integration. Yet political integration has to be encompassed –even when a bit delayed- with any progress in European integration. Therefore, the latest developments in the creation of tools of economic policy should open the door to further participation of the European people in the EU decision making. Failing to do so puts the credibility of the european project at stake.



A lot less romantic than one could have imagined, the path towards an European federation is not led by the European people, not even by strong leaders with a vision, it is led by markets alone. However we have learnt from history that democracy doesn’t happen if people don’t ask for it. It is therefore of high importance to pursue the vision of an “European democracy”, and this cannot be done by our “new federalists” alone. Against all odds the people of Europe have to retake control of the European process and for this visionaries are still very much needed!

[given by Marek as an explanation of the only way to get out of the economical crisis by the high side, but not the best one for me. It supposes the adhesion of the UK to this version and we are far from her acceptance.There is less democracy in this way even than before.]

[marektysis]

Daily digest: Russia to join the eurozone?

Posted on | August 12, 2011 | No Comments

The five stories you should now about EU politics this morning.

The billionaire Mikhail Prokhorov has announced he is running for Prime Minister in Russia, and he want a tighter connection between Russia and EU: “I think our country should make a decisive step toward rapprochement with Europe by first of all joining the Schengen zone and secondly entering the euro zone,” he told at a press conference.

Merkel and Sarkozy is once again having a crisis meeting concerning the eurozone. This time it is Sarkozy inviting German Chancellor Angela Merkel to join him in France on the next tuesday. In Berlin they’re not necessary happy for the invitation, since this breaks with Angela Merkels strategy to keep cool, experts say.

Slovakia’s Parliament speaker Richard Sulik compared the European Union with the Soviet Union on Tuesday. “This is like the Soviet Union. But we have never joined such a union. No one before our (EU) accession referendum ever told us that Slovakia should now pay billions upon billions for Greek pensions and Italian I-don’t-know-what,” he said. The Open Europe blog have made a comment on the statement.

In extension the Swedish Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt said yesterday the debt-hit EU countries can blame themselves, and should also find their own solutions. ”It is important to recall that it is up to European countries hit by the crisis to find solutions to their own problems,” Reinfeldt told reporters in Stockholm. Sweden is now one of the most robust economies in Europe.

After the a lot of turmoil on the markets a German MEP is now asking for one voice on economic woes in Europe. “The problem is that the Europeans have not reacted immediately. It’s not one voice that is speaking. Also the leading power, Germany and Merkel, have taken a long time to understand the crisis,” Jorgo Chatzimarkakis said to Los Angeles Times.
http://beyondbrussels.com/2011/08/daily-digest-russia-to-join-the-eurozone/

[marektysis]

Iowa caucus-goers are notorious for being informed voters, and POLITICO's Molly Ball reports that a fair amount of information is already spreading around the Hawkeye State:

Interviewed on Des Moines-based WHO on Monday, Perry took some tough questions from listeners who may all have been working from the same script. The host, Jan Mickelson, said he’s been “deluged” with anti-Perry articles, including 150-plus copies of the same 14-point letter.
Callers to the program confronted Perry with aggressive, statistic-filled queries about his support of an anti-cancer vaccine, his push for toll roads, conspiracy theories about a Nafta superhighway and a pan-American currency, and his attendance at a meeting of the Bilderberg Group.

On the Gardasil vaccine, he gave the impression he long ago realized his error, even though his conversion is a recent development, as the Texas Tribune documented.

“I’m one of the first to say we didn’t approach this issue right at all,” Perry told the caller who asked about the vaccine. “We shouldn’t have done it with an executive order. We should have worked with the legislature.”

Perry reiterated his line that he was motivated by a sincere desire to stop cancer, then said, “That particular issue is one that I readily stand up and say I made a mistake on. I listened to the legislature, they said that was not going to occur, and I agreed with their decision. I don’t always get it right, but I darn sure listen.”

That might come as a surprise to the Texas legislators who have heard Perry insist he was right about the executive order as recently as September 2010.

On the supposed Nafta superhighway, Perry called it “an interesting myth that has been out there a long time.” He joked, “There is a corridor from Mexico to Canada. It’s called I-35. It’s been there a long time.”

Perry went on to defend his failed bid to build a trans-Texas highway and his support for toll roads, saying the alternatives would be to raise taxes, ask Washington for money or wait for “the asphalt fairy” to get needed roads built.

To the caller who asked about the Bilderberg meeting and the Amero, a supposed Euro-like common currency for the Nafta countries, Perry said, “I agree with you, that doesn’t appeal to me at all either.”

He said he was invited to the Bilderberg meeting and attended out of curiosity. “I found it to be an interesting group of people. I have yet to find out why they want to keep it a secret,” he said. “I haven’t been invited back and that was 5 years ago, so I guess I didn’t impress them.”

Perry also gave a spirited defense of Al Gore – at least, the incarnation of Al Gore whose 1988 presidential campaign he chaired in Texas.

“This was Al Gore before he invented the Internet and got to be Mr. Global Warming,” Perry said. Growing up in rural Texas, he said, “I never met a Republican until I was 25. ... In 1988 when you looked at the candidates, Al Gore was the most conservative candidate that was out there.” He pointed to Gore’s support for missile defense.

Once Gore failed to win the nomination, he said, he came to question his partisan identity. “Not only did I vote for George H.W. Bush for president, I switched parties the next year,” Perry said. “When I did that, I made both political parties happy.”

MAREK TYSIS
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/61404.html

[marektysis]

Eurobonds could work, but we’ll probably never know


August 25, 2011 by Megan Greene 3 Comments

There have been increasing calls for eurobonds in recent weeks as the only way to finally draw a line under the euro crisis. While German chancellor Angela Merkel and French president Nicholas Sarkozy have rejected eurobonds for now, at least they feel pressure to pay lip service to mutualising European debt. It is encouraging that eurobonds are finally on the table as something that EU leaders feel they must address, even if to reject them. But don’t get your hopes up. The current debate on eurobonds is occurring against a backdrop of profound dysfunction in the eurozone, with countries displaying once again that they are more interested in their national self-interest than they are in solidarity and the survival of the euro.

Are eurobonds the solution?

Assuming the objective is to the keep the euro area intact, eurobonds could draw a line under the euro crisis. A centralised European debt agency would issue bonds that are guaranteed by all eurozone countries. Countries would be allowed to cover up to a certain percentage of their overall borrowing needs with eurobonds (60% of GDP has been mooted by the European think tank, Breugel), above which they would have to issue national debt. Eurobonds would give the weaker euro area countries greater access to the markets because investors could be assured that the stronger countries would step in to repay the debt in the event of a sovereign default.

This would greatly reduce the borrowing costs in the periphery. However, it would probably raise some borrowing costs in the core, and this is one of the primary reasons core countries like Germany and France are opposed to eurobonds. There have been several back-of-the-envelop calculations for how much eurobonds could cost Germany annually (notably by the Ifo Institute and the Ifw Institute), but ultimately the cost would be determined by the markets. It is very likely that investors would demand a higher premium to purchase eurobonds than they would to buy German bunds on the basis that eurobonds would also be used for peripheral country borrowing.

Given that there are currently serious questions being asked about the future of the euro area, however, issuing eurobonds could reduce the premium investors demand to buy bunds. If eurobonds were issued, contagion of the debt crisis to Spain and Italy would likely be halted. The risk that Germany would have to step in and contribute to bailouts for these two large economies would be significantly reduced. Lower borrowing costs for bunds could help to offset the slightly higher borrowing costs for eurobonds.

Another argument Germany in particular touts against eurobonds is that they involve moral hazard. If peripheral countries know that most of their debt will be guaranteed by stronger, more responsible core countries, they will have no motivation to get their own fiscal houses in order. This argument does not hold if a country must issue national debt to meet any borrowing costs above a certain percentage of GDP, however.

Why eurobonds will never happen

Whatever the arguments for and against eurobonds, it is unlikely they will ever be issued. As talk of eurobonds has increased, the second Greek bailout package agreed only last month has rapidly unraveled as euro area countries have demonstrated a disturbing lack of solidarity.

Finland has demanded collateral for its contribution to the EFSF loans in Greece’s second bailout package. As the agreement currently stands, Greece will have to stump up cash deposits to Finland in order to receive Finland’s portion of the EFSF loans. In response to this, Austria, the Netherlands, Slovakia and Slovenia have all said that if one country receives collateral in exchange for loans to Greece, they will demand it as well. This would significantly reduce the amount of funding available for Greece, undermining the bailout package. The bilateral deal between Finland and Greece will need to be passed by all eurozone countries, and may well be voted down. In that case Finland would probably withdraw from the EFSF. Finland’s contribution to the bailout fund is small, but it would set a dangerous precedent for other euro area governments tempted to pander to electorates that are increasingly anti-bailout.

The Finnish collateral deal not only places the second Greek bailout package into question. By agreeing to provide collateral, Greece may be triggering a negative pledge clause resulting on a default on those bonds that are subject to international law (amounting to around €18bn). This would probably trigger cross-default clauses on other international borrowing, and it could trigger a credit default swap (CDS) payout on Greek government debt. EU leaders have been desperately trying to avoid a credit event in Greece or other peripheral countries that might trigger a CDS payout given the significant impact that would have on the European financial system.

Even if EU leaders manage to come to agreement on the collateral debt issue and decide to issue Eurobonds, a significant hurdle would still remain: the German Constitution. In order to mutualise European debt the German Constitution would need to be amended, requiring a two-thirds majority in the German parliament. According to a recent YouGov poll, nearly 60% of Germans are opposed to any further bailouts. The chances that two-thirds of MPs will support fiscal union in a vote are very slim.

Throughout the euro crisis, EU leaders have repeatedly demonstrated that their top priority is their own national self-interest, despite the huge potential downside risks this poses to the common currency. As long as this is the case, eurozone leaders will not take the steps necessary to adopt common fiscal policies and common responsibility for euro area debt, and therefore will not manage to draw a line under this crisis. However frequently chancellor Merkel and president Sarkozy announce that they are willing to do “whatever it takes” to protect the euro, actions speak much louder than words.
http://economistmeg.com/2011/08/25/eurobonds-could-work-but-we%E2%80%99ll-probably-never-know/

The USA began to function once they thought 'federal' and created the first emission of Dollars through a central bank in 1790 ( Hamilton,etc...)
The big mistake from Merkel, Sarkozy was to think 'National' when then were up a horse called ' Europe' because indirectly they are feeling guiltiness to have so much lied to European masses, and after so much lies ( a big lot of lies since 1958) they are dicredited. The real hope of European people is now vanished because this elite worked not fot the people but for the 'elites' and you may not have two lords at the same time: the result is thus under our eyes: a big failure for the population of Europe and now a way without real issue. In my mind i am certain they will be obliged to make what they should have done in the way the USA done after 24 years after the war against the red coats. But this will happen the back against the wall. The richs richer and the poors poorer and a social revolution at the horizon.

Marek Tysis

[marektysis]

Palestinian statehood at the UN: Why Europeans should vote 'yes'

Europeans are set to play the pivotal role in a United Nations vote over Palestinian statehood (expected in late September). With the US already declaring its opposition, the votes of the 27 European Union member states are the big prize.

This pivotal role gives Europeans the chance to inject some vitality into the flagging prospects of a two-state solution for the Middle East. Europeans should unite around a ‘yes’ vote. As European foreign ministers meet in Brussels on Monday 12th September, they should also engage with the Palestinians and urge them to take account of legitimate Israeli concerns.

The Palestinians are likely to ask the UN General Assembly to upgrade their UN status from ‘observer’ to ‘non-member state’. This is not the same as recognition, which only individual states can bestow upon Palestine.

In a policy memo published by the European Council on Foreign Relations, “Palestinian statehood at the UN: why Europeans should vote ‘yes’”, Daniel Levy and Nick Witney argue that Europeans should vote ‘yes’ because of:

Consistency – Europe has long supported a 2-state solution, and invested in this politically and financially (over €1 billion a year).
State-building – Europe has supported a Palestinian state building project that the UN, IMF and World Bank all say has met the benchmark of success. A UN vote would give this a political context.
Values – European support for self determination and freedom in the Arab Spring would look insincere if it was followed by rejection of these same rights for Palestinians.
Interests – Europe’s interests align with its values, and allow it to reset a regional role that encompasses crucial issues like security, proliferation, economic growth, energy and immigration – by doing the right thing on an issue that resonates powerfully with Arab public opinion.

The memo also calls for European foreign ministers to mandate Catherine Ashton to urge the Palestinians to reassure the Israelis over their key concerns in exchange for European support, including recognition of Israel’s existence alongside Palestine.

The Palestinians should also clarify that moves towards statehood would not see them rushing precipitously to the International Criminal Court even if it were to confer jurisdiction at some stage.

The authors deal with various other objections to the vote. Notably, the report argues that despite its own opposition, the US may benefit from this, strengthening its hand in future dealings with Israel.

Click here for a pdf of the memo

Background:

A Palestinian application to the UN Security Council would be vetoed by the US, so they are most likely to ask the UN General Assembly to upgrade their status from ‘observer’ to ‘non-member state’, like the Vatican.
Previous voting patterns suggest that a global majority in the UNGA will vote ‘yes’. Instead of ‘how many’, attention will be focused on ‘who’ votes in favour of the Palestinians – and the 27 EU votes are the big prize.
At the General Affairs Council in Brussels on 12th September, European foreign ministers can encourage the EU’s Foreign Policy High Representative, Catherine Ashton, to engage with the Palestinians over the precise drafting of the resolution.
The last attempt by the Quartet (the EU, US, UN and Russia) to resume negotiations over a two-state solution between Israel and the Palestinian Authorities failed in July over a text that was considered to have tilted decisively in favour of Israel. This contributed to the Palestinians turning towards the UN.

http://ecfr.eu/content/entry/palestinian_statehood_at_the_un_why_europeans_should_vote_yes

********************
So are the men that they do what they think to be the good way.
forgetting they are belonging to a present future that will end in
cries and regrets.

Marek Tysis

[marektysis]

The Less Than Prophetic Martin Feldstein

Dean Baker is the co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research

The Washington Post business section ran a piece today titled, "a fiscal prophet shapes debt debate." The prophet being referred to in the headline is Harvard economics professor Martin Feldstein, who served at one time as President Reagan's chief economist.

Some of us know Mr. Feldstein for some less than prophetic work. For example, in the spring of 1993, when Congress was debating the Clinton tax increase, he wrote a column in the Wall Street Journal that claimed the Clinton tax increases will raise little, if any, revenue. His argument was that the disincentive of the higher tax rates would more than offset the impact of the higher rates themselves.

Feldstein also gained notoriety early in his career for publishing an article that purported to show the Social Security reduced private savings. It turned out that his results were driven by a computer programming error. When the error was corrected his results were statistically insignificant.

He updated this study in 1995 and claimed that with the additional years of data, his original results were now shown to be correct. However, it turned out that once the Commerce Department revised the savings data, his results were again insignificant.

Read more posts on CEPR »

Read more: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/beat_the_press/~3/w-s-6mMtmhE/the-less-than-prophetic-martin-feldstein#ixzz1YQpkeccg
*************
WITHOUT ANY DOUBT MR MARTIN FELDSTEIN IS A WELL...INFORMED
MAN

Marek

[marektysis]

http://zeenews.india.com/news/world/putin-merkel-gates-nominated-for-chinese-peace-prize_732167.htmlPutin, Merkel, Gates nominated for Chinese peace prize

Last Updated: Sunday, September 18, 2011, 12:49
Putin, Merkel, Gates nominated for Chinese peace prize Moscow: Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates have been nominated for the Confucius Peace Prize, China's equivalent to the Nobel Peace Prize.

The Confucius Peace Prize started in 2010, when it was announced just before jailed Chinese dissident Liu Xiaobo was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.

Other candidates for this year include South African President Jacob Zuma and former UN secretary-general Kofi Annan, Chinese news portal sina.com said Saturday.

In July, Berlin-based organisation Werkstatt Deutschland announced plans to give Putin the Quadriga Award as a "role model for enlightenment, dedication and the public good".

The plan came under attack in the media and the political community. Many German public figures protested the idea, saying Putin's human rights record made him an unacceptable candidate.

Putin served with the KGB in East Germany for five years until German reunification in 1990.

Later, the organisation reversed its decision to award Putin the prestigious prize.

President Dmitry Medvedev later blasted the German organisation for reversing its earlier decision.

IANS
-----------------------------------

So,so, so...we are walking on our head as it appears, giving peace prize to so called philantropists in poison vaccins, bilderberger and peace maker in tchetchenia...

Marek