According to the Commission in 2005 the EU adopted 1,691 regulations, directives and decisions. According to the Office of Public Service information, in 2005 Britain enacted 3,326 statutory instruments (secondary legislation via which all EU legislation is adopted) and according to Wikipedia just 23 acts of primary legislation were passed (those quaint acts of Parliament that we used to be governed by).
As a matter of straight arithmetic therefore the EU is responsible for fully 50% of the total enacted law of the UK in 2005. This flatters the domestic contribution since a great proportion of domestic statutory instruments deal with the alteration of the status of individual schools hospitals etc. and is therefore not law binding on the land as are all EU directives.
Since 1965 fully 22,000 individual acts of enforceable law have been promulgated by the the EU and passed into British law via secondary legislation. In that time the British Parliament has passed just 2355 Acts of Parliament. In other words British primary legislation (the kind that's debated and modified by our elected representatives) comprises an average of 10% of the law passed in Europe over a forty year period. In 2005 the figure was 1%.
Thursday, August 16, 2007
Observer leader on the Referendum (I)....
Observer Editorial:
This is a completely false statement.
The differences between the treaties for WTO, NATO etc. and the treaties and institutions of the EU are not differences of degree but differences in kind.
Within an exponentially growing number of areas the EU institutions are a superior policy and law making body to the UK (German, French etc.) government and legislature. According to the German Ministry of Justice 80% of all German law originates in Europe.
In (again an exponentially growing number of areas) the EU court is a superior judicial body to the British (German, French etc.) courts. The definition of whether an area is within its competence is exclusively a matter for the European court to decide.
For members of the Euro the European Bank has supreme authority over interest rates and the Ecofin and commission have superior authority over elected finance ministers over spending and borrowing levels.
There is simply no comparison between these sweeping and expanding powers and the intergovernmental arrangements or treaties such as NATO or the WTO.
Our laws are not made by the IMF or NATO.
We do have free trade and arbitration obligations imposed by the WTO but these are not currently highly controversial and could be repudiated (without even an Act of Parliament) by any government so minded. Any judgement of the WTO arbiters is binding in honour on the government but it is not enforceable against the government or individual companies (or citizens) under British law. British courts do not have to accommodate regulations or judgements of the WTO into British law – it is entirely an intergovernmental matter.
Kyoto obliges us to deliver targets for greenhouse gas reductions. This has economic and regulatory implications but these are entirely for us to construct and deliver. No international agency other than the EU presumes to pass whole bodies of law direct, unchanged and undebated into British law. No other international agency can promulgate law that binds the British government, the British courts and British citizens.
Any agreement on co-operation between governments - membership of Nato or the World Trade Organisation, for example - requires some compromise on national autonomy. The new EU treaty is no different,
This is a completely false statement.
The differences between the treaties for WTO, NATO etc. and the treaties and institutions of the EU are not differences of degree but differences in kind.
Within an exponentially growing number of areas the EU institutions are a superior policy and law making body to the UK (German, French etc.) government and legislature. According to the German Ministry of Justice 80% of all German law originates in Europe.
In (again an exponentially growing number of areas) the EU court is a superior judicial body to the British (German, French etc.) courts. The definition of whether an area is within its competence is exclusively a matter for the European court to decide.
For members of the Euro the European Bank has supreme authority over interest rates and the Ecofin and commission have superior authority over elected finance ministers over spending and borrowing levels.
There is simply no comparison between these sweeping and expanding powers and the intergovernmental arrangements or treaties such as NATO or the WTO.
Our laws are not made by the IMF or NATO.
We do have free trade and arbitration obligations imposed by the WTO but these are not currently highly controversial and could be repudiated (without even an Act of Parliament) by any government so minded. Any judgement of the WTO arbiters is binding in honour on the government but it is not enforceable against the government or individual companies (or citizens) under British law. British courts do not have to accommodate regulations or judgements of the WTO into British law – it is entirely an intergovernmental matter.
Kyoto obliges us to deliver targets for greenhouse gas reductions. This has economic and regulatory implications but these are entirely for us to construct and deliver. No international agency other than the EU presumes to pass whole bodies of law direct, unchanged and undebated into British law. No other international agency can promulgate law that binds the British government, the British courts and British citizens.
Referenda not a cop out...
The government’s Constitutional powers are not government property but the property of the whole nation. If the government wishes to change the rules under which we are governed then it is obliged to obtain our permission first. Governments are leaseholders exercising functions delegated to it by us (the freeholders) on a limited term contract. They cannot sell our property simply because they are not the owner.
This basic principle was publicly acknowledged over the devolution issue and the government duly applied for permission. They promised to do the same on the European treaty.
Their doomed argument now is that no new powers have been transferred – an impossible claim that will bring them very great trouble indeed if they persist with it.
The belief that controversy is something that must be removed from direct public judgment is not one I share. This “not in front of the children” attitude to the public infests both the explicit and implicit argumentation of most Europhiles. Representative democracy is strengthened not weakened when the public are directly consulted on controversial matters. Certainly calling referendums is not an act of political cowardice.
This basic principle was publicly acknowledged over the devolution issue and the government duly applied for permission. They promised to do the same on the European treaty.
Their doomed argument now is that no new powers have been transferred – an impossible claim that will bring them very great trouble indeed if they persist with it.
The belief that controversy is something that must be removed from direct public judgment is not one I share. This “not in front of the children” attitude to the public infests both the explicit and implicit argumentation of most Europhiles. Representative democracy is strengthened not weakened when the public are directly consulted on controversial matters. Certainly calling referendums is not an act of political cowardice.
More to and fro on the treaty.....
An exchange with d-jones on the Economist thread
With respect if we wanted a “charter of rights” then we are perfectly capable and have all the means at hand to enact one. A European tier is wholly redundant in this regard.
This is the problem – The entrance price for the EU compels us to trade our existing rights as voters to whom our rulers are accountable in order to obtain the privileged position of becoming petitioners to our new rulers in Brussels. “Please reform yourselves” we may plead - but like residents of the Hotel California we can never demand.
I am not interested in a fool’s mission of trying to make a European polity work. It is not anti democratic by accident - it is anti democratic by design and that is the way it will stay because anti democratic is exactly the way our rulers want it.
The notion that there cannot be (and has not been) regional collaboration without the EU is one of the most ridiculous fallacies of this debate. The EU may claim “collaboration” as a fully owned proprietary brand of Brussels inc. but this no reason to take its ludicrous monopoly claims seriously. Extra EU collaboration exists in the European space agency, the European Court of human rights, Nato etc. etc.
The “colleagues” in Brussels deeply resent these autonomous agencies of course – hence their attempt to claim the jurisdiction of the European Convention via this pointless charter. Or to absorb the most cost effective Space programme in the world into that wasteland of unaudited and failed programmes that it already runs. As for NATO the progenitors of the “praline alliance” are very anxious indeed to supplant that and even get their sticky hands on French and British defense capacity just as they got control over the Deutsche Mark via the Euro.
The EU does is not about “collaboration” it is about “compulsion”. You do not need a central power to ensure voluntary collaboration – because it is voluntary it will occur continuously and spontaneously. But you do need a central power if you are to compel states into ‘Collaboration” that they would not otherwise choose for themselves. The EU is all about removing such inconvenient choices. “conformity” and “compliance” are the watchwords of EU collaboration.
If your “ambition” is only to be told what to do and who you can do it with - then the EU is definitely for you.
D jones: “In the meantime, we should appreciate the (charter of) rights that we have protected for ourselves by creating an EU that we can be citizens of..”
With respect if we wanted a “charter of rights” then we are perfectly capable and have all the means at hand to enact one. A European tier is wholly redundant in this regard.
d- jones”..and seek to improve its democratic accountability further - making the council more transparent, increasing the powers of the parliament and working to develop a European polity.”
This is the problem – The entrance price for the EU compels us to trade our existing rights as voters to whom our rulers are accountable in order to obtain the privileged position of becoming petitioners to our new rulers in Brussels. “Please reform yourselves” we may plead - but like residents of the Hotel California we can never demand.
I am not interested in a fool’s mission of trying to make a European polity work. It is not anti democratic by accident - it is anti democratic by design and that is the way it will stay because anti democratic is exactly the way our rulers want it.
D-jones –“The advantages of regional collaboration are too great to throw away due to a lack of ambition.”
The notion that there cannot be (and has not been) regional collaboration without the EU is one of the most ridiculous fallacies of this debate. The EU may claim “collaboration” as a fully owned proprietary brand of Brussels inc. but this no reason to take its ludicrous monopoly claims seriously. Extra EU collaboration exists in the European space agency, the European Court of human rights, Nato etc. etc.
The “colleagues” in Brussels deeply resent these autonomous agencies of course – hence their attempt to claim the jurisdiction of the European Convention via this pointless charter. Or to absorb the most cost effective Space programme in the world into that wasteland of unaudited and failed programmes that it already runs. As for NATO the progenitors of the “praline alliance” are very anxious indeed to supplant that and even get their sticky hands on French and British defense capacity just as they got control over the Deutsche Mark via the Euro.
The EU does is not about “collaboration” it is about “compulsion”. You do not need a central power to ensure voluntary collaboration – because it is voluntary it will occur continuously and spontaneously. But you do need a central power if you are to compel states into ‘Collaboration” that they would not otherwise choose for themselves. The EU is all about removing such inconvenient choices. “conformity” and “compliance” are the watchwords of EU collaboration.
If your “ambition” is only to be told what to do and who you can do it with - then the EU is definitely for you.
Anti democratic argumentation for "Europe"
Recent Encounters at the Economist with commenter Stone Monk.
Well I take the old fashioned (and no doubt Churchillian) view that if Sun reader’s taxes count then so does their vote. If they are to be disenfranchised surely they should also be exempt from tax? Or is taxation without representation the cry for a brave new European order?
One of wonders of our time has been the enthusiasm and effectiveness of the “Europe project” to treat both sovereignty and democracy as obstacles to building a better Europe. Instead of the messy conflicts and policy shifts of National democracies they offer the panacea of permanent rather than transitory government, consistent rather than changeable policy, with power exercised by an oligarchy of experts rather than by a bunch of unqualified crowd pleasers.
Nor does comprehensive failure seem to dent this faith in government by “experts”. European fisheries policy has converted the abundance of our Northern waters into a vast marine desert. The Common agriculture policy, in a postmodern inversion of the Robin Hood ethos, has robbed both the African poor and the EU taxpayer alike for the benefit of a tiny landed class of parasites.
Of course the beautiful part of being of being an oligarchy with no elections to win is that failures such as these don’t have be either acknowledged or fixed – which is also why these massively destructive policies are still with us.
Democracy, as Churchill would point out, is only superficially chaotic – as an open system it responds to failure and changes policy. When measured by outcomes democracy will always beat an oligarchy precisely because the oligarchy has no feedback loop with which to improve its policies.
Instead of this Churchillian wisdom we are told by EU defenders that if people properly understood their own interests they too would embrace the need for oligarchy. The public’s persistent refusal to accept this truth is clearly a product of their ignorance and a testament to their wilful stupidity.
Nonetheless the continuing affection of the European public for both country and democratic liberty has meant that the European project has had to proceed cautiously by paying lip service to the vulgar competition for power in the open democratic marketplace whilst furtively detaching the hand of the democratic “circus” from its historic grip on the levers of power.
In this enterprise they have been astonishingly successful – elections will still come and go and they will still be full of sound and fury. Politicians will still strut their hour upon the stage but it will all signify nothing because decision making is no longer subject to the outcome of these arcane public festivals. Behind closed doors the important decisions will already have been made, the key policies will already have been decided and the government in power will never change.
Of course the Euro elite would argue that their success is not really astonishing because it simply confirms the truth of their belief that the people really are too stupid to understand what’s going on.
Maybe they’re right?
Stone Monk: “Secondly, regarding the referendum, I really don't see the need for football-watching-Sun-readers to express their "balanced and informed" opinions and turn everything in another example of how wrong Churchill was about democracy.”
Well I take the old fashioned (and no doubt Churchillian) view that if Sun reader’s taxes count then so does their vote. If they are to be disenfranchised surely they should also be exempt from tax? Or is taxation without representation the cry for a brave new European order?
One of wonders of our time has been the enthusiasm and effectiveness of the “Europe project” to treat both sovereignty and democracy as obstacles to building a better Europe. Instead of the messy conflicts and policy shifts of National democracies they offer the panacea of permanent rather than transitory government, consistent rather than changeable policy, with power exercised by an oligarchy of experts rather than by a bunch of unqualified crowd pleasers.
Nor does comprehensive failure seem to dent this faith in government by “experts”. European fisheries policy has converted the abundance of our Northern waters into a vast marine desert. The Common agriculture policy, in a postmodern inversion of the Robin Hood ethos, has robbed both the African poor and the EU taxpayer alike for the benefit of a tiny landed class of parasites.
Of course the beautiful part of being of being an oligarchy with no elections to win is that failures such as these don’t have be either acknowledged or fixed – which is also why these massively destructive policies are still with us.
Democracy, as Churchill would point out, is only superficially chaotic – as an open system it responds to failure and changes policy. When measured by outcomes democracy will always beat an oligarchy precisely because the oligarchy has no feedback loop with which to improve its policies.
Instead of this Churchillian wisdom we are told by EU defenders that if people properly understood their own interests they too would embrace the need for oligarchy. The public’s persistent refusal to accept this truth is clearly a product of their ignorance and a testament to their wilful stupidity.
Nonetheless the continuing affection of the European public for both country and democratic liberty has meant that the European project has had to proceed cautiously by paying lip service to the vulgar competition for power in the open democratic marketplace whilst furtively detaching the hand of the democratic “circus” from its historic grip on the levers of power.
In this enterprise they have been astonishingly successful – elections will still come and go and they will still be full of sound and fury. Politicians will still strut their hour upon the stage but it will all signify nothing because decision making is no longer subject to the outcome of these arcane public festivals. Behind closed doors the important decisions will already have been made, the key policies will already have been decided and the government in power will never change.
Of course the Euro elite would argue that their success is not really astonishing because it simply confirms the truth of their belief that the people really are too stupid to understand what’s going on.
Maybe they’re right?
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
Mea Culpa - Not bloody likely!
On demands on CiF that those who supported the war apologise….
Lets be clear here – all those demanding recantation from liberal interventionists were and are happy to provide alibis for fascist and theocrat mass murderers in Iraq. It’s a free world that they are lucky to live in but they might at least have the decency to be less pleased with themselves.
To which comes the reply: “I guess secular mass murder gets a pass in your moral universe, does it?”
No, as indicated (and unlike Neil Clark) I am appalled at Stalin’s, Milosevic’s and Saddam’s torture chambers and mass graves too. All of these are a standing rebuke to the lazy and complacent guilt exhibitionists in the west who think that their attention seeking mea culpa’s give them a moral edge when all it demonstrates is their moral bankruptcy.
I am then told that “Criticizing yourself for picking a fight you've lost isn't the same thing as exculpating your opponent. "
Well it does excuse the enemy if like the other denizens of creepy hollow you think there is some magic formula which converts all Iraqi excess deaths into the victims of evil America instead of the victims of those who actually do target and kill them.
It does excuse the enemy if you make the claim, routinely retched up from the SWP vomitorium onto CiF, that the motive of those who blew up 19 Iraqi children this week are the same as the French resistance rather than the SS.
It does excuse the enemy if you make the "right on" but racist assumption that the insurgents can be infantilised by our vogue for pity and guilt out of a moral identity of their own.
Exempted from having evil motives and excused moral responsibility for their own crimes because as mere objects of pity in our narrative they are only provided with the motives that we select i.e. "blowback" against the "root cause" (singular) of American evil and not credited with the motives they themselves proclaim Jihad, Caliphate, restoration of Baathist dictatorship and/or genocidal ethnic supremacy as the case may be.
The actual motives and the actual actions of the insurgents are also not "culturally legitimate" even in that land of lesser breeds called "the other" that we are continuously commanded to "respect" because we are culturally forbidden from understanding it.
The “other guys” aren't in a silent movie they have voices of their own – listen to them and see if making respectful excuses for them whilst demonising "Bushitler" is really the only acceptable response.
We can only lose in Iraq if we decide to. That decision may have already been made but history won't end there, with vindication for the righteous westerners who opposed the war. They are the only one’s who think that this is all about them and their low rent exhibitionist “morality”. In the real world it’s also about the other guy and, after such an easy triumph in Iraq, our enemies will deliver their own distinctive reward in carnage and chaos to their silly, dilettante allies in the West. They certainly don’t look like the types to stay at home and take up social work.
Lets be clear here – all those demanding recantation from liberal interventionists were and are happy to provide alibis for fascist and theocrat mass murderers in Iraq. It’s a free world that they are lucky to live in but they might at least have the decency to be less pleased with themselves.
To which comes the reply: “I guess secular mass murder gets a pass in your moral universe, does it?”
No, as indicated (and unlike Neil Clark) I am appalled at Stalin’s, Milosevic’s and Saddam’s torture chambers and mass graves too. All of these are a standing rebuke to the lazy and complacent guilt exhibitionists in the west who think that their attention seeking mea culpa’s give them a moral edge when all it demonstrates is their moral bankruptcy.
I am then told that “Criticizing yourself for picking a fight you've lost isn't the same thing as exculpating your opponent. "
Well it does excuse the enemy if like the other denizens of creepy hollow you think there is some magic formula which converts all Iraqi excess deaths into the victims of evil America instead of the victims of those who actually do target and kill them.
It does excuse the enemy if you make the claim, routinely retched up from the SWP vomitorium onto CiF, that the motive of those who blew up 19 Iraqi children this week are the same as the French resistance rather than the SS.
It does excuse the enemy if you make the "right on" but racist assumption that the insurgents can be infantilised by our vogue for pity and guilt out of a moral identity of their own.
Exempted from having evil motives and excused moral responsibility for their own crimes because as mere objects of pity in our narrative they are only provided with the motives that we select i.e. "blowback" against the "root cause" (singular) of American evil and not credited with the motives they themselves proclaim Jihad, Caliphate, restoration of Baathist dictatorship and/or genocidal ethnic supremacy as the case may be.
The actual motives and the actual actions of the insurgents are also not "culturally legitimate" even in that land of lesser breeds called "the other" that we are continuously commanded to "respect" because we are culturally forbidden from understanding it.
The “other guys” aren't in a silent movie they have voices of their own – listen to them and see if making respectful excuses for them whilst demonising "Bushitler" is really the only acceptable response.
We can only lose in Iraq if we decide to. That decision may have already been made but history won't end there, with vindication for the righteous westerners who opposed the war. They are the only one’s who think that this is all about them and their low rent exhibitionist “morality”. In the real world it’s also about the other guy and, after such an easy triumph in Iraq, our enemies will deliver their own distinctive reward in carnage and chaos to their silly, dilettante allies in the West. They certainly don’t look like the types to stay at home and take up social work.
Sarkozy wants the reins of economic power
Sarkozy has tried to make eurozone economic policy more reform friendly – i.e. extend deficits beyond stability pact limits and reduce euro interest rates. He has succeeded in the first objective but not (yet) succeeded with the second.
The ECB is bound by its incorporating treaty to target inflation only. This means that it has no remit to adjust rates to reduce unemployment or stimulate growth. The US fed has a looser remit and it has explicitly included growth and unemployment as part of its rational for setting interest rates. The low dollar policy is designed to be growth friendly.
Sarkozy has pointed to the essential benefits of a looser monetary policy to absorb the painful impact of substantial structural reforms i.e. extending the working week, reducing employment protections etc. This pressure valve is now seen by many as being fundamental to the growth actually achieved from the structural reforms in Britain.
A tight monetary policy at a time of comprehensive labour market reform resulted in the record unemployment of the late Callaghan and early Thatcher era in Britain. Conversely the liberation of the pound from the ERM, and the subsequent cut in interest rates was the trigger for the longest sustained growth cycle in British history.
Sarkozy understandably wants to skip the pain of early Thatcherism by loosening both the monetary and fiscal corset imposed by the EMU. Nor is this uniquely a problem for right of centre reformers. Oskar Lafontain found (to his great cost) that a socialist policy also required a looser monetary framework and that this was impossible to achieve under EMU. "Political control" of monetary policy was deemed to be anathema to the founders of EMU.
The electorates of Europe can vote for any policy they like as long as it is ECB policy. European electorates cannot however change ECB policy - it is set in stone by treaty and designed to be independent of electoral interference.
So the elephant in the room neither mentioned by Sarkozy or others is that the Eurozone is not merely a sub optimal currency area but without a Euro fiscal policy (Euro taxes and borrowing) the eurozone is not even a viable currency area in the long term. Hans Tietermayer said of EMU that absent a European central tax and borrowing capability the single currency was "a house without a roof".
The stability pact was tacked on to cover this gap so that countries could not recklessly import inflation to the whole Eurozone by increasing their domestic deficit in the knowledge that the inflationary consequences would be everyone’s problem and not just theirs. This pact has been serially violated by the bigger Eurozone economies notably Germany, France, Italy and the Netherlands. As Sarkozy has again demonstrated it no longer even serves as anything more than an aspiration.
As Sarko points out these annual borrowing targets are not realistic at national level but they are still essential for the survival of the Euro. To repeat - the Euro cannot bridge the asymmetric impact of 18 untethered fiscal policies. The pact no longer has teeth and has swiftly loosened its targets so that chronic instability threatens the Euro itself as Eurozone economies diverge. This is no laughing matter.
So an ostensibly left of centre government in Germany under Schroeder had to fire Lafontain and implement labour law reforms and cut taxes in order to boost German growth. An ostensibly right of centre government in France will be unable to enact labour reforms because the dead weight of ECB policy will rob those reforms of effectiveness and make them politically impossible.
Sarkozy will now have no option but to cut taxes and to follow Germany in "the race to the bottom" via "fiscal dumping" which we are always being told by our European masters is such a "bad thing". This will further blow out the French deficit and increase the breach of the now pointless stability pact.
As inflation is fed into the system by reckless debt on the part of large economies Euro interest rates will rise and likely so will the exchange rate thus prompting a further spate of fiscal irresponsibility as the one legged man of Eurozone economic policy is trapped in ever tightening circles.
So glad we're still out....
The ECB is bound by its incorporating treaty to target inflation only. This means that it has no remit to adjust rates to reduce unemployment or stimulate growth. The US fed has a looser remit and it has explicitly included growth and unemployment as part of its rational for setting interest rates. The low dollar policy is designed to be growth friendly.
Sarkozy has pointed to the essential benefits of a looser monetary policy to absorb the painful impact of substantial structural reforms i.e. extending the working week, reducing employment protections etc. This pressure valve is now seen by many as being fundamental to the growth actually achieved from the structural reforms in Britain.
A tight monetary policy at a time of comprehensive labour market reform resulted in the record unemployment of the late Callaghan and early Thatcher era in Britain. Conversely the liberation of the pound from the ERM, and the subsequent cut in interest rates was the trigger for the longest sustained growth cycle in British history.
Sarkozy understandably wants to skip the pain of early Thatcherism by loosening both the monetary and fiscal corset imposed by the EMU. Nor is this uniquely a problem for right of centre reformers. Oskar Lafontain found (to his great cost) that a socialist policy also required a looser monetary framework and that this was impossible to achieve under EMU. "Political control" of monetary policy was deemed to be anathema to the founders of EMU.
The electorates of Europe can vote for any policy they like as long as it is ECB policy. European electorates cannot however change ECB policy - it is set in stone by treaty and designed to be independent of electoral interference.
So the elephant in the room neither mentioned by Sarkozy or others is that the Eurozone is not merely a sub optimal currency area but without a Euro fiscal policy (Euro taxes and borrowing) the eurozone is not even a viable currency area in the long term. Hans Tietermayer said of EMU that absent a European central tax and borrowing capability the single currency was "a house without a roof".
The stability pact was tacked on to cover this gap so that countries could not recklessly import inflation to the whole Eurozone by increasing their domestic deficit in the knowledge that the inflationary consequences would be everyone’s problem and not just theirs. This pact has been serially violated by the bigger Eurozone economies notably Germany, France, Italy and the Netherlands. As Sarkozy has again demonstrated it no longer even serves as anything more than an aspiration.
As Sarko points out these annual borrowing targets are not realistic at national level but they are still essential for the survival of the Euro. To repeat - the Euro cannot bridge the asymmetric impact of 18 untethered fiscal policies. The pact no longer has teeth and has swiftly loosened its targets so that chronic instability threatens the Euro itself as Eurozone economies diverge. This is no laughing matter.
So an ostensibly left of centre government in Germany under Schroeder had to fire Lafontain and implement labour law reforms and cut taxes in order to boost German growth. An ostensibly right of centre government in France will be unable to enact labour reforms because the dead weight of ECB policy will rob those reforms of effectiveness and make them politically impossible.
Sarkozy will now have no option but to cut taxes and to follow Germany in "the race to the bottom" via "fiscal dumping" which we are always being told by our European masters is such a "bad thing". This will further blow out the French deficit and increase the breach of the now pointless stability pact.
As inflation is fed into the system by reckless debt on the part of large economies Euro interest rates will rise and likely so will the exchange rate thus prompting a further spate of fiscal irresponsibility as the one legged man of Eurozone economic policy is trapped in ever tightening circles.
So glad we're still out....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)