New World Order In The News
Credit crisis triggers unprecedented response
The Washington Post
(August 8, 2008) - Since the credit crisis
erupted a year ago, the Bush administration has presided over one of the
broadest expansions of the government into private lending in U.S.
history, risking public money to prop up financial firms both large and
small. The administration has transformed federal agencies into dominant
players in such diverse realms as student lending and mortgage finance
while exposing itself to trillions of dollars in loans. The scope of
these commitments demonstrates the unprecedented nature of the challenge
facing the nation. Not since the Great Depression have so many debt
markets been in turmoil at the same time, financial historians say.
During the savings and loan crisis of the late 1980s and early 1990s,
for example, the financial upheaval was largely contained to banks and
thrifts, though the real estate market also felt the impact. Now, the
contagion has rapidly spread from mortgages to bonds and exotic
securities, student and corporate lending, credit cards and home equity
loans, and residential and commercial real estate. The disruption has
buffeted investment and commercial banks, mortgage finance agencies, and
insurance firms of different stripes. "We have a banking crisis and an
agency crisis and a mortgage crisis and a coming credit card crisis.
We've never seen anything like that before. And it all seems to be
coming home to roost at the same time. That's never happened either,"
said Charles Geisst, professor of finance at Manhattan College. He said
the Great Depression was the last time financial markets were hammered
by such a variety of factors. "But we did not even have credit cards in
the 1930s; there were no such thing as student loans," he added. The
breadth and speed of events have sent federal officials scrambling to
plug leaks in the financial system. In the process, the government
has bound taxpayers to the fate of a wide variety of banks and borrowers
and could ultimately be responsible for losses in the tens of billions
of dollars or more, according to estimates by congressional reports and
interviews with regulators. But the government may also end up
paying nothing at all, largely because it received collateral in return
for backing much of these debts and could recoup some money if borrowers
stop making their interest payments. No one knows for sure because much
of the government's response involved novel programs designed to contain
an unpredictable crisis. As the credit crisis worsened, Treasury
Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr., a strong proponent of free markets and
the architect of much of the administration's response, began to push
initiatives that enlarged the government's involvement on Wall Street
and in the housing industry. "What I've said is that I'm playing the
hand that was dealt and that my responsibility is to protect the U.S.
economy and the American people," Paulson said in an interview. The pace
of these interventions accelerated as the credit crisis spread across
the capital markets. At first, the administration avoided programs that
exposed taxpayers to potentially large losses. The Federal Housing
Administration, for instance, offered struggling mortgage holders a
chance to refinance into low-cost loans backed by the government with
any losses borne by the agency's insurance fund. Last summer, Paulson
also pressed private mortgage lenders to form an alliance called Hope
Now to rework mortgages. The initiative did not require public funds,
except to set up a hotline, and it may have prevented lawmakers at that
time from pursuing more expensive initiatives, he said. Within months,
however, Paulson was directing more significant intrusions into the
markets. In March, he strongly endorsed the Fed leaders' decision to put
$29 billion in public money on the line to facilitate the takeover of
the crippled investment firm Bear Stearns by Wall Street bank J.P.
Morgan Chase. In April, Paulson helped the Department of Education set
up emergency programs to ensure students could get loans as private
lenders fled the business because of trouble in the credit markets.
Education officials ramped up their direct lending, which some analysts
say could reach $75 billion, and got new authority from Congress to buy
loans outright from lenders. Then, last month, Paulson pushed for new
authority to lend or invest in mortgage giants, Fannie Mae and Freddie
Mac, which the Congressional Budget Office said could impose a wide
range of costs to taxpayers, from nothing to more than $100 billion.
Along the way, the Fed was injecting money into the banking system,
including through several new, unusual programs. In negotiations over
the Bear Stearns rescue, the Fed agreed to back $30 billion worth of
risky mortgage assets but persuaded J.P. Morgan to absorb the first $1
billion of any losses. At the end of July, the portfolio was worth $29.1
billion, according to the central bank. Because the Fed can be patient
and sell the assets gradually over time, officials believe taxpayers
are highly unlikely to lose more than a couple billion dollars and
the central bank may ultimately make some money. more...
EU keeps ticking
without Lisbon treaty, report says
EU Observer
(August 8, 2008) - Europe continues to work
without the Lisbon treaty and the demise of the document would not be a
catastrophe for the bloc, an influential think tank has said. In an
assessment of Ireland's referendum rejection of the EU treaty published
on Thursday (7 August), the London-based Centre for European Reform
concludes that "Europe works fairly well in many areas with the current
treaties." It notes that the 27-nation bloc continues to achieve results
and "integrate" using intergovernmental bodies such as the European
Defence Agency and through new laws such as those on liberalising the
energy market in Europe or the Emissions Trading Scheme. But the paper
suggests that the EU would be "much better off" with the Lisbon Treaty -
already ratified by 23 member states - as it would clear up the
"dreadful arrangements" for managing EU foreign policy, currently a
mishmash of personalities and responsibilities. It would also allow
easier decision-making in the area of justice and home affairs and give
more power to national parliaments, writes Charles Grant, the author of
the report and director of CER. His assessment concludes that there are
three possible options ahead, with the treaty needing ratification by
all member states if it is to go into place. Under the third "most poisonous" scenario, Ireland
would hold a second referendum and vote No, leading to "internal
divisions," with countries such as Britain and central European states
likely to block any attempt to kick the country out of the EU. The paper
predicts that whatever eventually happens with the Lisbon Treaty, it is
likely to be the last attempt by the EU to adopt a "big, comprehensive"
treaty. Instead the bloc will probably opt for sectoral treaties in
areas such as energy or migration policy in future. more... Managing Global Security per German Foreign Minister Walter Steinmeier Constance Cumbey (July 29, 2008) - This was a telling speech given to the latest "Managing Global Insecurity" conference. It was delivered at the Berlin site of the MGI July 14-15 Conference co-held by the Brookings Institution and the Bertelsmann Foundation. It was given by German Foreign Minister Walter Steinmeier. As it says, they are now 'singing from the same sheet." Having read and listened so very many times to Javier Solana's launching speech delivered March 21, 2007 in Washington, D.C., I cannot help but notice the deep similarities to the speech given now by one of the constituent foreign ministries to Javier Solana's European wide one. You may read Solana's launching speech last year by clicking here. As a former political speech writer, I wonder who composed this one? As you can see from the context, they have BIG PLANS for 2009. Stay tuned! "Responsible Sovereignty in an Era of Transnational Threats", Rede von Bundesaußenminister Steinmeier anlässlich der Konferenz "Managing Global Insecurity" der Bertelsmann Stiftung, Berlin
| EU/UN / 4th Kingdom | Solana | NewWorldOrder |
U.S. companies vulnerable to foreign buyers
Reuters
(July 29, 2008) - With a record volume of international takeovers
of U.S. companies, it almost appears America itself is up for sale. The
weak dollar and slumping stock prices of U.S. companies has created a
window of opportunity for international buyers to snatch up American
icons such as beer brewer Anheuser-Busch Cos Inc and the landmark
Chrysler Building in New York. "The dollar has depreciated so much that
America is on the sale rack," said Sung Won Sohn, a professor of
economics at California State University. "America has such an appetite
for foreign goods -- Chinese imports and oil -- that U.S. dollars have
gone overseas. Now, many Americans aren't happy that foreign companies
are buying pieces of America with the money we gave them in the first
place," Sohn said. In the second quarter, acquisitions of U.S. companies
by international buyers totaled $124.3 billion, marking the highest
total for any second quarter on record and jumping 23 percent over the
year-earlier quarter, according to research firm Dealogic. International
takeovers represented 22 percent of all U.S. merger activity in the
first half of the year, up from 17 percent in the first half of 2007,
according to research firm Dealogic. InBev NV's deal to acquire
Anheuser-Busch for $52 billion gave Belgium the distinction of being the
most active foreign buyer of U.S. assets in the first half of this year,
followed by Spain and Canada, Dealogic said. The Anheuser-Busch deal
ranked as the second-biggest cross-border acquisition of a U.S. company
in history, following Vodafone Group Plc's $60.3 billion
acquisition of AirTouch Communications in 1999, according to Thomson
Reuters. Other U.S. assets recently falling into international hands
include Barr Pharmaceuticals Inc, which agreed to be acquired by
Israel's Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd, the world's largest generic
drug company, for $7.46 billion; and eye care company Alcon Inc which is
being bought by Switzerland's Novartis AG for about $27.7 billion.
Earlier this month, Swiss drugmaker Roche AG made a bid to acquire the
shares of its U.S. partner Genentech Inc it does not already own for
$43.7 billion. Even the Pennsylvania Turnpike awarded long-term leasing
rights to a Spanish-led investor group for $12.8 billion. Although some
investment bankers and analyst pin the spike in cross-border activity to
the weak dollar, others contend that strategy and the desire to expand
globally were the motivators behind many of these recent corporate
deals. "Strategic buyers don't wake up in the morning and say: 'This
currency is cheap. I'm going to go do a deal.' They do a deal because
it's strategic and makes sense," said Herald Ritch, president and
co-chief executive officer of investment bank Sagent Advisers. "There's
no question that, on the margin, currency levels tend to influence
decisions, but strategic deals get done because they fit a company's
strategy," Ritch said. European companies have been the most active
buyers of U.S. assets, with 314 deals so far this year, compared with
117 deals by Asian acquirers, and 33 by African and Middle Eastern
buyers, according to Thomson Reuters. "Europe and the U.S. dominate deal
activity globally, so it makes sense that deals between those areas
would predominate," Ritch said. Although some investment bankers view
the second quarter's record pace of U.S. takeovers as an anomaly, Sohn
said the 13-percent depreciation of the dollar against major currencies
over the past 18 months should fuel more acquisitions. "There are
trillions of dollars overseas that have to be put to work. This is just
the tip of the iceberg," Sohn said.
Americans may be losing faith in free markets
Los Angeles Times
(July 16, 2008) - For a generation, most people accepted the idea
that the core of what makes America tick was an economy governed by free
markets. And whatever combination of goods, services and jobs the market
cooked up was presumed to be fine for the nation and for its citizens --
certainly better than government meddling. No longer. Spurred by the
continued housing crisis, turmoil in financial markets, spiking oil
prices, disappearing jobs and shrinking retirement savings, the nation
and its political leaders have begun to sour on the notion that the
current market system is the key to a fair, stable and efficient
society. "We're at a hinge point," said William A. Galston, a senior
fellow at the Brookings Institution in Washington who helped craft
President Clinton's market-friendly agenda during the 1990s. "The strong
presumption in favor of markets, which has dominated public policy since
the late 1970s, has been thrown very much into question." Now, to a
degree not seen in years, politicians and outside experts are looking
with favor at more, not less, government involvement in the economy. Of
course, Americans always grouse during troubled times. And as market
advocates are quick to point out, the current run of bad economic breaks
has yet to result in the throwing over of free-market principles in
favor of some drastically different approach -- such as a
government-directed economy. "There may be a backlash against markets at
the moment," acknowledged Kevin A. Hassett, economic studies director at
the American Enterprise Institute in Washington and an advisor to
presumed Republican presidential nominee John McCain. "But the backlash
doesn't seem to be informed by any alternative view of how the world
works." more...
U.N. scheme to make Christians criminals
WorldNet Daily
(July 10,
2008) - Dozens of nations dominated by Islam are pressing the
United Nations to adopt an anti-"defamation" plan that would make
Christians criminals under international law, according to a United
States organization that has launched a campaign to defend freedom of
religion worldwide. "Around the world, Christians are being increasingly
targeted, and even persecuted, for their religious beliefs. Now, one of
the largest organizations in the United Nations is pushing to make a bad
situation even worse by promoting anti-Christian bigotry," the American Center for Law &
Justice said yesterday in announcing its petition drive. The
discrimination is "wrapped in the guise of a U.N. resolution called
'Combating Defamation of Religions,'" the announcement said. "We must
put an immediate end to this most recent, dangerous attack on faith that
attempts to criminalize Christianity." The "anti-defamation" plan has
been submitted to the U.N. repeatedly since about 1999, starting out as
a plan to ban "defamation" of Islam and later changed to refer to
"religions," officials said. It is being pushed by the 57-member
Organization of the Islamic Conference nations, which has adopted the
Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam, "which states that all
rights are subject to sharia law, and makes sharia law the only source
of reference for human rights." The
ACLJ petition, which is to be delivered to the United Nations High
Commissioner on Human Rights, already had collected more than 23,000
names in just a brief online existence. The ACLJ's European division,
the European Center for Law & Justice, also has launched its work on the
issue. It submitted arguments last month to the U.N. in opposition to
the proposal to institute sharia-based standards around the globe. "The
position of the ECLJ in regards to the issue of 'defamation of religion'
resolutions, as they have been introduced at the U.N. Human Rights
Council and General Assembly, is that they are in direct violation of
international law concerning the rights to freedom of religion and
expression," the organization's brief said. "The 'defamation of
religion' resolutions establish as the primary focus and concern the
protection of ideas and religions generally, rather than protecting the
rights of individuals to practice their religion, which is the chief
purpose of international religious freedom law." "Furthermore,
'defamation of religion' replaces the existing objective criterion of
limitations on speech where there is an intent to incite hatred or
violence against religious believers with a subjective criterion that
considers whether the religion or its believers feel offended by the
speech," the group continued. Interestingly, in nations following Islam,
the present practice is to use such laws to protect Islam and to attack
religious minorities with penalties up to and including execution, the
brief noted. "What should be most disconcerting to the international
community is that laws based on the concept of 'defamation of religion'
actually help to create a climate of violence," the argument explained.
more...
U.S. and EU near deal on sharing data
International Herald Tribune
(June 28, 2008) - The United States and the
European Union are nearing completion of an agreement that would allow
law enforcement and security agencies to obtain private information -
including credit card transactions, travel histories and Internet
browsing habits - about people on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean.
Seeking to improve information-sharing to fight crime and terrorism,
government officials have been meeting since February 2007 to reach a
pact. Europe generally has more-stringent laws restricting how
governments and businesses can collect and transfer personal data, which
have led to high-profile disputes over American demands for such
information. Negotiators have largely agreed on draft language for 12
major issues that are central to a "binding international agreement"
making clear that it is lawful for European governments and companies to
transfer personal information to the United States, and vice-versa,
according to an internal report obtained by The New York Times. American
and European Union officials are trying to head off future
confrontations "by finding common ground on privacy and by agreeing not
to impose conflicting obligations on private companies," said Stewart
Baker, the assistant secretary for policy at the Department of Homeland
Security, who is involved in the talks. "Globalization means that more
and more companies are going to get caught between U.S. and European
law." Paul Schwartz, a law professor at the University of California,
Berkeley, said such a blanket agreement could transform international
privacy law by eliminating a problem that has led to negotiations of
"staggering" complexity between Europe and the United States. "The
reason it's a big deal is that it is going to lower the whole
transaction cost for the U.S. government to get information from
Europe," Schwartz said. "Most of the negotiations will already be
completed. They will just be able to say, 'Look, we provide adequate
protection, so you're required to turn it over."' But the prospect that
the agreement might lower barriers to sending personal information to
the U.S. government has alarmed privacy-rights advocates in Europe. The
Bush administration and the European Commission, the EU's executive
body, have not publicized the talks. But in a little-noticed paragraph
deep in a joint statement following a summit meeting between President
George W. Bush and European leaders in Slovenia this month, the leaders
hailed their progress. Issued June 10, the statement declared that "the
fight against transnational crime and terrorism requires the ability to
share personal data for law enforcement," and it called for the creation
of a "binding international agreement" to facilitate such transfers
while also ensuring that citizens' privacy is "fully" protected. In
addition, businesses that operate on both sides of the Atlantic are
pushing to eliminate the prospect of getting caught between conflicting
legal obligations. "This will require compromise," said Peter Fleischer,
the global privacy counsel for Google. "It will require people to agree
on a framework that balances two conflicting issues - privacy and
security. "But the need to develop that kind of framework is becoming
more important as more data moves onto the Internet and circles across
the global architecture." more...
PLO Sees Bush's Exit as Chance for EU To Take Over
One News Now
(June 24, 2008) - Hind Khoury, French
ambassador of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), said Monday
that next year's exit of American President George W. Bush from office
will allow France and the rest of the European Union (EU) to exercise a
more powerful role in the Middle East. Khoury noted that French
diplomats have expressed they are prepared to "shake hands with
Hizbullah." French President Nicolas Sarkozy met on Monday with
Palestinian Authority (PA) leaders, including Khoury, at the French
consulate in Jerusalem. Scientist: 'Global warming' scheme to push global tax WorldNet Daily (June 19, 2008) - A scientist whose reservations about "global warming" have been officially endorsed by tens of thousands of other scientists is accusing the U.N. of using "mob rule" to generate fear-mongering climate change reports intended to scare national leaders into submitting to its worldwide taxation schemes. "Science has always progressed on the basis of observations, experiments, and thoughts published by individual scientists and sometimes pairs or small groups of scientific coworkers," Art Robinson, a research professor of chemistry and co-founder of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, said in a recent column in Human Events. Except at the U.N., he said. Robinson's concern over the political manipulation of science earlier led him to launch the Petition Project, a compilation of more than 31,000 scientists – with more names arriving daily – who have voluntarily signed their names to the following statement:
He said the scientific process begins with the results
of individuals' work and their distribution of their ideas. "A few of
these published articles are especially valuable; a greater number,
while not remarkable, provide relative mundane studies that add to the
infrastructure of science; many are not useful at all; and some are
completely wrong. As individual scientists read these articles, they use
their own wisdom, knowledge, and judgment to separate new information
that they find valuable from information that they find of no use,"
Robinson said. Eventually, the good, accurate and valuable information
is advanced. "Always, scientific progress is a result of a large number
of individual decisions that trend in a specific direction," he said.
Not so, however, at the United Nations. Especially with the
organization's
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which has generated many
of the claims of catastrophic results of man's use of hydrocarbon fuels,
including submerged coastlines and a deadly, massive expansion of
African deserts. The IPCC website boasts of sharing the 2007 Nobel Peace
Prize with Al Gore Jr. for "efforts to build up and disseminate greater
knowledge about man-made climate change." It also notes its goals are to
eradicate poverty and hunger, achieve universal primary education,
promote gender equality, reduce child mortality, improve mothers'
health, combat HIV/AIDS, ensure environmental sustainability and others.
"The IPCC provides its reports at regular intervals and they immediately
become standard works of reference, widely used by policymakers, experts
and students," the organization itself says. "The primary requirement
for selection is a willingness to participate in the United Nations' new
'process' and the agenda behind it," Robinson said. "These people study
and discuss the current and past research literature concerning climate
and climate prediction. … These emanations are closely observed by a
very select small group of United Nations operatives." At the end of the
meetings, "this small group of observers combines the products of the
meeting into a large important-looking report – carefully editing the
report so that it supports United Nations political objectives,"
Robinson said. "At no time is this report submitted to the 600-plus
'scientists.'" The results then are distributed as "settled science," he
said, "regardless of the fact that the scientists involved do not agree
upon the text. … The elite few who oversaw the meeting and interpreted
its results are special. They are the U.N.'s anointed messengers of the
truth." A spokeswoman for the United Nation's Secretary General Ban
Ki-Moon declined to respond to WND questions about the process,
referring those questions to the IPCC office in Geneva. There a
spokeswoman confirmed for WND the process that has a small number of
specially appointed U.N. operatives write reports following "scientific"
meetings. Also, "science" has become devalued. "And nowhere is it more
abused than in the United Nations, where institutionalized mob rule is
called 'science,'" he said. "In its headlong drive to gain the power to
tax and ration world energy (and thereby control world technology –
sharing taxation authority with other governments in return for their
support) the United Nations has created a 'process,' which it calls
'science,'" he said. In real science, however, "truths are never
determined through such meetings; unsolved scientific questions are
never resolved by such meetings; and scientific articles are never
published unless every putative or listed author has personally approved
every word of the publication," Robinson said. "Scientific truth is
never decided by meetings organized to decide which ideas are true and
which are false. more... Senate Housing Bill Requires eBay, Amazon, Google, and All Credit Card Companies to Report Transactions to the Government Freedom Works (June 19, 2008) - Update: Senate Finance Committee Ranking Member Charles Grassley is pushing the bill. Hidden deep in Senator Christopher Dodd's 630-page Senate housing legislation is a sweeping provision that affects the privacy and operation of nearly all of America's small businesses. The provision, which was added by the bill's managers without debate this week, would require the nation's payment systems to track, aggregate, and report information on nearly every electronic transaction to the federal government. FreedomWorks Chairman Dick Armey commented: "This is a provision with astonishing reach, and it was slipped into the bill just this week. Not only does it affect nearly every credit card transaction in America, such as Visa, MasterCard, Discover, and American Express, but the bill specifically targets payment systems like eBay's PayPal, Amazon, and Google Checkout that are used by many small online businesses. The privacy implications for America's small businesses are breathtaking." "Privacy groups like the Center for Democracy and Technology and small business organizations like the NFIB sharply criticized this idea when it first appeared earlier this year. What is the federal government's purpose with this kind of detailed data? How will this database be secured, and who will have access? Many small proprietors use their Social Security number as their tax ID. How will their privacy be protected? What compliance costs will this impose on businesses? Why is Sen. Chris Dodd putting this provision in a housing bailout bill? The bill also includes the creation of a new national fingerprint registry for mortgage brokers. "At a time when concerns about both identity theft and government spying are paramount, Congress wants to create a new honey pot of private data that includes Social Security numbers. This bill reduces privacy across America's payment processing systems and treats every American small business or eBay power seller like a criminal on parole by requiring an unprecedented level of reporting to the federal government. This outrageous idea is another reason to delay the housing bailout legislation so that Senators and the public at large have time to examine its full implications." From the Senate Bill Summary:
| NewWorldOrder |
Ireland to hold second referendum
The Australian
(June 23, 2008) -
THE Irish Government is expected to bow to Franco-German pressure and
hold a second referendum to try to rescue the Lisbon treaty that voters
rejected this month. The plan for a possible new vote in Ireland, being
discussed by some ministers in Dublin, will be greeted with outrage by
opponents of the treaty in Britain. Irish ministers say they might be
able to rescue the treaty if they can secure concessions from Europe to
placate voters on a list of issues. "A yes vote can be achieved if the
Irish people are offered guarantees on issues like defence and
taxation," said one senior Irish official. "The no campaign will be
picked off one by one. Everyone has a price." The likely time for a new
referendum is next spring so that the treaty can come into force before
the June 2009 European election campaign for the Brussels parliament.
The date is favoured by French President Nicolas Sarkozy and German
Chancellor Angela Merkel. If the Irish vote no again, British Prime
Minister Gordon Brown would have to choose between siding with Ireland
to stop its citizens being turned into second-class Europeans or siding
with France and Germany to push ahead with further EU integration.
Concessions likely to be sought by Ireland include guarantees to protect
its neutrality in the event of European armed forces being created, the
reinstatement of its right to a European commissioner, and the right to
set its own abortion laws and corporate tax rates. Mr Sarkozy is
determined to "save" the EU as France takes over the rotating presidency
on July 1. "It is not written down in the summit conclusions, but
everyone agreed that we need to get out of this before next year's
European elections," Mr Sarkozy said last week. He said European leaders
had already mandated France to ensure the EU "does not grind to a halt".
Both Mr Sarkozy and Ms Merkel have exerted subtle pressure on Ireland
and its potential allies by threatening the end of the EU's enlargement
east if theLisbon treaty does not come into force. The French President
will visit Ireland on July 11 for talks with Brian Cowen, the Taoiseach,
or Prime Minister. "We will try to make this 'no' an opportunity," he
said, pledging to use "English pragmatism" to find a solution. The Irish
Government has to decide its next move before the European Council
meeting on October 15. more...
RBS issues global stock and credit crash alert
Telegraph UK
(June 19, 2008) -
The Royal Bank of Scotland has advised clients to brace for a
full-fledged crash in global stock and credit markets over the next
three months as inflation paralyses the major central banks. "A very
nasty period is soon to be upon us - be prepared," said Bob Janjuah, the
bank's credit strategist. A report by the bank's research team warns
that the S&P 500 index of Wall Street equities is likely to fall by more
than 300 points to around 1050 by September as "all the chickens come
home to roost" from the excesses of the global boom, with contagion
spreading across Europe and emerging markets. Such a slide on world
bourses would amount to one of the worst bear markets over the last
century. RBS said the iTraxx index of high-grade corporate bonds could
soar to 130/150 while the "Crossover" index of lower grade corporate
bonds could reach 650/700 in a renewed bout of panic on the debt
markets. "I do not think I can be much blunter. If you have to be in
credit, focus on quality, short durations, non-cyclical defensive names.
"Cash is the key safe haven. This is about not losing your money, and
not losing your job," said Mr Janjuah, who became a City star after his
grim warnings last year about the credit crisis proved all too accurate.
RBS expects Wall Street to rally a little further into early July before
short-lived momentum from America's fiscal boost begins to fizzle out,
and the delayed effects of the oil spike inflict their damage. "Globalisation
was always going to risk putting G7 bankers into a dangerous corner at
some point. We have got to that point," he said. US Federal Reserve and
the European Central Bank both face a Hobson's choice as workers start
to lose their jobs in earnest and lenders cut off credit. The
authorities cannot respond with easy money because oil and food costs
continue to push headline inflation to levels that are unsettling the
markets. "The ugly spoiler is that we may need to see much lower global
growth in order to get lower inflation," he said. more...
EU Presses Ahead With Treaty Ratification Despite Irish "No"
Deutsche Welle
(June 18, 2008) -
Ahead of a summit in Brussels, the European Union called Wednesday
for the ratification process of the Lisbon Treaty to continue despite
its crushing rejection by Irish voters last week. A planned two-day
European Union summit which opens on Thursday, June 19, meant to focus
on weighty topics such as rising oil prices is likely to be overshadowed
by the institutional crisis plaguing the bloc after Irish voters last
week resoundingly rejected the Lisbon treaty. Ireland plunged the
European Union into chaos last week when 53 percent of voters rejected
the treaty meant to streamline the bloc's cumbersome institutions and to
make it more efficient after a recent eastward expansion. Slovenian
Prime Minister Janez Jansa, who will act as chair for the last time as
president of the European Union, insists that "not a single item has
been dropped from the official agenda because of what happened in
Ireland." "Leaders will want to show that they are paying attention to
what matters to consumers, which is oil and food prices," one diplomat
told news agency DPA. Yet despite their best intentions, EU leaders will
inevitably focus on the institutional chaos sparked by Ireland's
rejection of the Lisbon Treaty. European Commission President Jose
Manuel Barroso called on the EU heads of state and government to take
time at Thursday and Friday's summit in Brussels to find a consensus
together with Ireland. "We must work very closely with the Irish
government to help solve this problem," Barroso told members of the
European Parliament in Strasbourg on Wednesday after being harangued by
a group of deputies wearing green sweat shirts emblazoned: "Respect the
Irish Vote." But the Social Democrats warned of a "crisis of trust" in
EU institutions. It was worrying that all the major Irish parties had
called for a yes vote and the electorate had still voted no, Social
Democrat faction leader Martin Schulz said. According to leaked results
of an EU survey published on Tuesday by the Irish Independent, many of
the people who voted no in the referendum did so either because they did
not understand the treaty, or because they had other concerns, such as
immigration and unemployment. Moreover, 70 percent of those who rejected
the treaty thought it could be easily renegotiated. One possible
solution is for Ireland to be granted a number of concessions before
being asked to vote again, either in the autumn or early next year. In
the meantime, leaders have called for the remaining eight national
parliaments to ratify the treaty and have avoided talking about a
"two-speed Europe," whereby some member states would go ahead with
further integration, leaving the sceptics behind. "We want to continue
with a one-speed Europe," Slovenian Prime Minister Janez Jansa said on
Tuesday. more...
Eye on the EU: The Trouble With Iron and Clay
Fulfilled Prophecy
(June 14, 2008) -
The Lisbon Treaty was rejected Thursday by Irish
voters. What does their vote mean for the EU and for the
WEU Ten? Guest columnist Mishael Meir — an
attorney with interest in EU legal development — answers this
question. Ireland’s “No” vote on the Lisbon Treaty tells us just how
brittle the EU structure really is. The existing EU treaties gave
rise to a power-thirsty oligarchic government that overlays 27
sovereign democracies. It’s quite a brittle blend of iron and clay,
an iron fist attempting to rule over the pliable clay of democracy.
Having bullied the vote on the Lisbon Treaty out of citizens’ hands
from all but one democracy, the EU heads of state concocted a bait
and switch: get Ireland to say yes by hiding their plans for
expansion of the EU military and security mechanisms until after the
Irish had voted. See
here,
here and
here. Up until the vote results came in early Friday morning, EU
leaders had been huddled behind closed doors, divvying up the power
they hoped would soon be handed over by the member states under the
Lisbon Treaty. As reality sets in and finger pointing begins, the EU
leaders may again pressure the Irish to reconsider and hold a second
referendum, just like they did in 2001 when they agreed to insert
stronger provisions to preserve Ireland’s neutrality as incentive
for the Irish to approve the Nice Treaty on their second vote. More
immediately, the EU will press its member states to continue with
the remaining ratifications through 2008. Without these outcomes,
the EU won’t be able to assess how much work is needed to fashion
yet another means to what they call “institutional efficiency.” See
here. But more on that later. What could deepen this crisis even
further is that the EU could see more “No” votes in coming months.
Thus far, 18 state parliaments have voted “Yes,” Ireland’s citizens
have voted “No,” and eight parliamentary votes remain. Citizens in
the UK and the Netherlands will bring increasing pressure on their
governments to allow them to vote instead of their parliaments. See
here and
here.
Without getting the Irish on board and collecting the remaining
ratifications, it will be nearly impossible for the EU to enact the
failed constitution/Lisbon Treaty under yet another treaty or by
legislation. See
here.
That’s because for EU power to have legitimacy, it has to have at
least the semblance of democratic consent. See
here. It
doesn’t look like it is going to get it. Meanwhile, the
WEU Ten Is the Only Alliance Standing.
more...
Ireland's no vote: Europe is not going away
Times Online
(June 14, 2008) - It took hundreds of
pages of the Federalist papers, a few dozen men locked for weeks in
a sealed room in Philadelphia and a bloody civil war for the US
constitution to be accepted. So the little local difficulties in
France, the Netherlands and now Ireland must be seen in a broader
perspective. Anti-Europeans are lacing their champagne with Guinness
as they celebrate the “no” vote and proclaim with W.B. Yeats “all
changed, changed utterly”. Yet the EU, its Commission, existing
treaties and directives will still be in place tomorrow. Europe has
been here before and will be again. Ireland's “no” campaigners
accused the wordy Lisbon treaty of introducing abortion and high
taxes, and abolishing peat-cutting, union rights and Irish
neutrality. Then Alistair Darling gave a speech saying that
Ireland's beloved Common Agricultural Policy should be pruned and
Peter Mandelson promised to reduce agricultural protectionism to
help the Doha trade talks. The chance to kick British bigwigs and
their own former prime minister, now helping the authorities with
their inquires, was too tempting. As the money men, the Socialist
Workers' Party, the Unite union and Sinn Fein enjoy their weekend of
joy, Ireland and the rest of Europe will wake up on Monday with a
headache but not much else. Not a single Eurocrat will lose his job.
The bloated 27-strong Commission may even breathe a sigh of relief
as a little-noticed clause in the treaty cut its size. The loss of a
guaranteed EU Commission seat for Ireland was one argument used by
the “no” campaign to defeat the treaty - the first time that
Eurosceptics have sprung to the defence of the Brussels bureaucracy
instead of wanting it slimmed down. The big losers are Turkey and
Croatia. British Tory Eurosceptics hypocritically proclaim their
support for Turkish accession, but know that demanding referendums
on future treaties means an end to enlargement. No EU treaty can
come into force until all signatory nations ratify it. But Ireland
represents 1 per cent of the EU's total population and some
old-fashioned democrats may feel that 1 per cent does not outweigh
the rest of Europe's nations which are saying “yes” to the treaty.
But the rules are clear. Had the Irish voted “yes” and the British
Parliament voted “no”, it is unlikely that Open Europe and Stuart
Wheeler would describe the Irish popular vote as superior to one by
Britain's sovereign parliament. But amid the clamour from anti-EU
campaigners in Britain and other nations to ignore sovereign
parliamentary decisions, some way forward will have to be found. So
what now? First, the Irish Government must tell its 26 EU partners
what happened and why. Secondly, other European nations must stay
calm, despite the screeching of the “no” camp for instant
repudiation of the treaty. Many countries have voted not once but
twice for a new EU rule book. They will be sore that the French and
the Dutch, and now the Irish, have blocked new rules deemed
necessary to make Europe work better. more...
Nicolas Sarkozy plans to bypass Irish no vote
Telegraph
UK
(June 13, 2008) - Nicolas Sarkozy, the
French President, is working with European Union officials and diplomats
to plan a special "legal arrangement" to bypass Ireland's referendum
rejection. Mr Sarkozy takes over the EU's rotating presidency in July
and will be tasked with resurrecting, for a second time, Lisbon Treaty
proposals first contained in the European Constitution rejected by
French and Dutch voters three years ago. Diplomats and officials have no
intention of letting the Irish no vote sink a blueprint to boost the
EU's powers on the international stage and to create a President of
Europe. Gordon Brown has already phoned Paris to promise Mr Sarkozy that
Britain will ignore Ireland to continue parliamentary ratification of
the EU Treaty.
Jean-Pierre Jouyet, the French Europe Minister, has hinted that
Paris already has a legal "fix", such as plans revealed in The Daily
Telegraph on Wednesday, to keep the EU Treaty alive. "The most important
thing is that the ratification process must continue in the other
countries and then we shall see with the Irish what type of legal
arrangement could be found," he said. "We must remain within the
framework of the Lisbon treaty." Eight countries are still engaged in
parliamentary ratification of the Treaty but are expected to have
finished, without any upsets by the autumn. Plans to find a "mechanism"
keeping Ireland within the EU but temporarily outside the Lisbon Treaty
will then be tabled at an October or December meeting of Europe's
leaders. "Ireland must not stop the process of getting the Treaty
through. Then we can take stock," said a diplomat close to negotiations.
Mr Brown will join Mr Sarkozy and other EU leaders at a Brussels summit
next Thursday to vow that it is business as usual on pushing the Treaty
through. There are advanced plans in Brussels for a "bridging mechanism"
to allow Ireland to be removed from the list of signatories to the
Lisbon Treaty after the EU's 26 other member states have ratified it.'
Ireland will continue to remain in the euro and be covered by existing
Treaties but will be left out of the creation of an EU president and
foreign minister, which would proceed as planned. more...
Lisbon No vote: What happens next?
RTE News
(June 13, 2008) - With Ireland's
rejection of the Lisbon Treaty, politicians and pundits in Ireland and
across Europe are talking about what will happen next. Government
leaders have described the situation post-vote as 'uncharted territory'.
Taoiseach Brian Cowen said he did not have an answer to what happens
next, but would have to go to next week's European summit to see if
there is a consensus on the way forward.
Mr Cowen appeared to rule out a second referendum during the
campaign, but speaking to RTÉ's Bryan Dobson this evening he said that
at this point he could not rule anything 'out or in, up or down'. The
fact that Ireland has already been made to vote again once after it
rejected the Nice treaty in 2001 makes the idea improbable, but not
impossible. Minister John Gormley said this treaty was Plan B and he
does not know what Plan C is. Minister Gormley said it would be
problematic to go back to the people because he does not know what could
be added. He said that Ireland cannot gain any more concessions. He said
that under Nice each country will still lose a commissioner. In the
short term, the Irish vote means the new positions of a permanent
president of the European Council of EU leaders and a stronger foreign
policy chief with a real diplomatic service will be delayed. The EU will
be weakened internationally, notably in dealings with difficult powers
such as Russia and Iran, by having to limp on with dysfunctional foreign
policy and defence institutions, and by the sheer loss of face,
diplomats said. Pending legislation to fight climate change, promote
energy efficiency and open the EU internal energy market to more
competition should not be delayed by the Irish vote, they said. It
remains unclear exactly what course the EU and Ireland will follow, but
the ratification process in other countries looks set to continue. The
ratification of the Lisbon Treaty 'must continue' in other member states
despite Ireland's rejection in a referendum, European Commission chief
Jose Manuel Barroso has stressed. 'The ratification process is made up
of 27 national processes, 18 member states have already approved the
treaty, and the European Commission believes that the remaining
ratifications should continue to take their course,' Mr Barroso told
journalists. France's European affairs minister Jean-Pierre Jouyet said
the EU could negotiate a 'legal arrangement' with Ireland to avert a
crisis. But he agreed, along with other European leaders who have made
statements, that 'the most important thing is that the ratification
process must continue in the other countries.' 'Then we shall see with
the Irish what type of legal arrangement could be found,' the French
minister said. The Netherlands, which rejected the EU constitution three
years ago, will continue ratifying the Lisbon treaty despite its
apparent rejection by Ireland, Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende said.
The Head of the Socialist Grouping in the European Parliament has said
he is very worried about the information coming from Ireland. Speaking
in Brussels, German MEP Martin Schulz said that if there was a No vote
in Ireland it would be one of the biggest problems in the EU for a long
time. He said that it is now up to the Irish Government to explain to
Europe how we should proceed. Czech Prime Minister Mirek Topolanek
warned that the Irish result would lead to 'political complications'.
Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk said even with a No vote on the Lisbon
Treaty, the EU would look for ways to bring the treaty into effect. He
said the referendum in Ireland won't disqualify the treaty. Antonio
Missiroli of the European Policy Centre think tank said the vote
triggered a European political crisis that required strong leadership in
Ireland, in Brussels and key member states.
Fate of Lisbon Treaty rests on Irish referendum
Telegraph UK
(June 13, 2008) - The fate of Europe
lay in the hands of the Irish electorate after they were given the
opportunity of a vote denied to the British people. The outcome of
the referendum, which will see Ireland's 2.8 million registered
voters determine the future of the EU's 495 million citizens, was
still too close to call when the polls closed on Thursday night. A
low turnout threatened to see the major European Union (EU) reform
defeated. While the Yes campaign took comfort in the fact voting
levels increased from the earlier low of 20 per cent, initial
indications estimated a turnout of 40 per cent. Academics who have
studied earlier Irish polls predicted a 45 per cent turnout was the
minimum required to deliver a Yes vote, but while in Dublin there
were signs of levels reaching the 40-45 per cent, outside the
capital, estimates were often lower. A vigorous "no" campaign led by
Declan Ganley, the multimillionaire leader of the Libertas group and
a son of Irish emigrants, had seen the rival camps draw level in
opinion polls. Ireland's main political parties urged their
supporters to back the treaty and the formidable political machine
of the ruling Fianna Fail party rallied supporters. The contest
even saw a Papal intervention, with Pope Benedict XVI appearing to
encourage Catholic Ireland to vote yes. In St Peter's Square,
the Pontiff paid tribute to St Columbanus, a monk from Co Meath who
led a mission into Europe in AD500. "With his spiritual strength,
with his faith, with his love of God and neighbour, he became one
of the Fathers of Europe, showing us today the way to those roots
from which our continent may be reborn," the Pope said. A no
vote could delay or doom the painstakingly negotiated pact, which
must be ratified by all 27 states. Implementation would see the
number of EU commissioners reduced from 27 to 18 and require
foreign, defence and security decisions to be taken unanimously.
Secret Bilderberg Agenda To Microchip Americans Leaked Prison Planet (June 10, 2008) - Sources from inside the 2008 Bilderberg meeting have leaked the details of what elitists were discussing in Chantilly Virginia last week and the talking points were ominous - a plan to microchip Americans under the pretext of fighting terrorist groups which will be identified as blonde haired, blue eyed westerners. Veteran Bilderberg sleuth Jim Tucker relies on sources who regularly attend Bilderberg as aides and assistants but who are not Bilderberg members themselves. The information they provided this year is bone-chilling for those who have tracked the development of the plan to make the general public consider implanted microchips as a convenience as routine as credit cards. "Under the heading of resisting terrorism there were points made about how the terrorist organizations are recruiting people who do not look like terrorists - blonde, blue eyed boys - they're searching hard for those types to become the new mad bombers," said Tucker. Ominously, Tucker's source also told him that Bilderberg were discussing the microchipping of humans on a mass scale, which would be introduced under the pretext of fighting terrorism whereby the "good guys" would be allowed to travel freely from airports so long as their microchip could be scanned and the information stored in a database. Tucker said the idea was also sold on the basis that it would help hospital staff treat a patient in an emergency situation because a scan of the chip would provide instantaneous access to health details. Tucker underscored that Bilderberg were talking about subdermally implanted chips and not merely RFID chips contained in clothing. The discussion took place in a main conference hall and was part of the agenda, not an off-hand remark in the hotel bar. Such a bizarre concept may seem unbelievable to some, but over the last ten years there have been dozens of examples of people accepting implanted chips for a variety of different reasons. In 2004, Mexico's attorney general and 160 of his office staff were implanted with tracker chips to control access to to secure areas of their headquarters. The Baja Beach Club in Barcelona and other nightclubs around the world are already offering implantable chips to customers who want to pay for drinks with the wave of a hand and also get access to VIP areas of the club lounge. Bilderberg skeptical of attack on Iran Tucker's source told him that Secretary of Defense Robert Gates did attend Bilderberg despite him not appearing on the official list. Tucker said that his sources told him Gates was in attendance to present his case for war with Iran, but that the majority of Bilderberg members were against an attack at this time. "The Europeans were generally opposed to an invasion of Iran - Gates made the regular war propaganda drill about how Iran is a nuclear threat to everybody," said Tucker, adding that European Bilderbergers made snide comments about where such nuclear weapons actually were being kept and at one point joking that they were possibly "in Saddam Hussein's tomb". Despite Bilderberg opposition, Tucker said that the administration was still considering an attack before Bush leaves office in January. "At least 90 per cent of the Europeans oppose a war, probably closer to 100 per cent," said Tucker, adding, "most of the Americans were passive and deferential to the Secretary of Defense and Condoleezza Rice's pitch in so far as Iran is concerned". Tucker said that most Americans present at the meeting were opposed to attacking Iran but dare not be as visible and loud in their opposition as the Europeans. Energy and oil prices
"One of the Bilderberg boys raised this question - should we put a
lid on the rise in oil prices, are we reaching the point of diminishing
returns," said Tucker, adding that Bilderberg noted how Americans were
trading in their SUV's in record numbers for small and more fuel
efficient cars and using more public transport to combat high gas
prices. Tucker's source said that Bilderberg were predicting $5 for a
gallon of gas by the end of this summer and oil over $150 dollars a
barrel, but that this was a ceiling and oil prices would probably begin
to decline thereafter because they thought the acceleration had happened
too quickly.
As we previously reported, Bilderberg called for oil prices to soar
in 2005 when oil was a mere $40 a barrel. During the conference in
Germany, Henry Kissinger told his fellow attendees that the elite had
resolved to ensure that oil prices would double over the course of the
next 12-24 months, which is exactly what happened.
During their 2006 meeting in Ottawa Canada, Bilderberg agreed to
push for $105 a barrel before the end of 2008. With that target having
been smashed months ago, the acceleration towards $150 is outstripping
even Bilderberg's goal, which is why the elitists expressed a desire to
cool prices at least in the short term. Just two days after he left
Bilderberg, Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke, George W. Bush and others
expressed support for a strong dollar and Bernanke hinted that interest
rates could rise, which immediately caused oil prices to drop in line
with Bilderberg's consensus.
Ultimately the system being developed now by the mystery of iniquity will require either a pledge of allegiance to the man of sin or death. So in the name of peace and security, the deceitful system is being put in place that will destroy all those who refuse to worship this man who would claim to be God. Regarding Iran, I think this summer may bring about God's intervention and destruction of the Iranian-Turkish-Russian allied forces that are prophesied to attack Israel from the North. There are many aspects to this prophecy that are coming into alignment and even though that is the case, I still can't claim to be 100% sure. Just read through the Gog/Magog and Isaiah 17 news to see why I think this is forming on the near horizon. Will this involve action on the part of America? I don't think so, although I can't rule out strategic action against America, the great Satan, coinciding with an attack on Israel, the little Satan. Keep watching and praying!
0:02:25
U.S. stops following foreign money trail
WorldNet
Daily
(June 9, 2008) - Foreign investment in
the United States is on the rise and key U.S. businesses and
infrastructures such as roads and airports are being sold to foreign
investors. Now comes word from the U.S. Department of Commerce the
Bureau of Economic Affairs will stop publishing a key report tracking
those foreign dollars.
WND reported earlier on a decision by the Federal Reserve to quit
publishing M3 data, a money-supply measure watched closely by
economists. Last month, econometrician John Williams reported on his
subscription website,
"Shadow Government
Statistics," that the M3 statistic he compiles from available
government data shows the growth of M3 at historically high rates last
seen in June 1971, two months before President Nixon closed the gold
window and instituted wage and price controls. Charles McMillion,
president and chief economist at MBG Information Services in Washington,
D.C., also has expressed concern over the recent decision by the
Department of Commerce to discontinue publishing foreign investment data
and warned that may forecast an unprecedented surge in foreign
investment anticipated by the Bush administration. In the announcement,
BEA claimed funding limitations necessitated
halting future reports. The most recent report, released Wednesday,
showed direct foreign investment in U.S. businesses reached $276.8
billion in 2007, the second largest amount recorded and the highest
since 2000, when new foreign investment outlays peaked at $335.6
billion. Of the direct foreign investments in the U.S. in 2007, only
about 10 percent, approximately $21.9 billion, established new U.S.
businesses, while foreign investments to acquire existing U.S.
businesses totaled $255.0 billion. Nearly 37 percent of the foreign
investments in 2007 involved European investors, although the BEA noted
investments from Asia and the Middle East rose substantially. McMillion
noted in an e-mail that the BEA decision to discontinue publishing
foreign investment data comes at a time when public and congressional
concerns have increased over the acquisition of U.S. assets by foreign
investors McMillian referenced the recent attempt by "China's mysterious
but closely state-aligned Huawei" to acquire 3Com, a key supplier of
Internet security technologies to the U.S. Department of State, in
conjunction with Boston-based Bain Capital, a private equity firm
founded by Republican 2008 presidential candidate Mitt Romney. In March,
Bain pulled out of the deal after learning that the secretive Committee
on Foreign Investment in the United States, or CFIUS,
organized in the U.S. Treasury Department, planned to block the
deal. In May, during a four-day trip to the Middle East that included
Saudi Arabia and Dubai, U.S. Secretary of Treasury Henry Paulson
encouraged foreign investment in the United States, arguing the
controversy over
Dubai Ports in 2006 did not reflect an adverse U.S. attitude toward
foreign investment. "I have met with many leaders from the Middle East
who ask if the United States really continues to welcome investment,"
Paulson said in a speech to the U.S.-United Arab Emirates Business
Council, according to Bloomberg.com. "As we seek to open new markets
abroad, America will keep our markets open at home to investment from
private firms and from sovereign wealth funds."
WND previously reported that since the beginning of the year, Dubai
and Abu Dhabi, two of the largest United Arab Emirate states, have been
in discussions with the U.S. Treasury, offering reassurances that their
investments in U.S. banks and security firms would not impose
restrictions usually dictated by Islamic law, commonly known as sharia.
WND also has reported sovereign wealth funds in six Persian Gulf
countries, including Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates and Qatar, have
now amassed $1.7 trillion, positioning them for attempts to control
major banks and securities firms in the United States. In September
2007, Dubai
acquired 19.9 percent of Nasdaq, the second largest stock exchange
in the United States. WND also reported last month
the top bid to lease the Pennsylvania Turnpike on a long-term
public-private-partnership, or PPP lease, for a bid of $12.8 billion
was submitted by Spanish infrastructure management company Abertis
Infraestructuras of Barcelona.
We can reduce risk in the financial system
Financial Times
(June 8, 2008) - Since last summer,
we have lived through a severe and complex financial crisis. Why was the
financial system so fragile? What can be done to make the system more
resilient in the future? The world experienced a financial boom. The
boom fed demand for risk. Products were created to meet that demand,
including risky, complicated mortgages. Many assets were financed with
significant leverage and liquidity risk and many of the world’s largest
financial institutions got themselves too exposed to the risk of a
global downturn. The amount of long-term illiquid assets financed with
short-term liabilities made the system vulnerable to a classic type of
run. As concern about risk increased, investors pulled back, triggering
a self-reinforcing cycle of forced liquidation of assets, higher margin
requirements, increased volatility. What should be done to strengthen
the system in the future? First, when we get through this crisis we have
to increase the shock absorbers held in normal times against bad
macroeconomic and financial outcomes. This will require more exacting
expectations on capital, liquidity and risk management for the largest
institutions that play a central role in intermediation and market
functioning. They should be set high enough to offset the benefits that
come from access to central bank liquidity, but not so high that they
succeed only in pushing more capital to the unregulated part of the
financial system. Second, we have to improve the capacity of the
financial infrastructure to withstand default by a big institution. This
will require taking some of the risk out of secured funding markets,
increasing resources held against default in the centralised clearing
house, and encouraging more standardisation, automation and central
clearing in the derivatives markets. Third, the regulatory framework
cannot be indifferent to the scale of leverage and risk outside the
supervised institutions. I do not believe it would be desirable or
feasible to extend capital requirements to leveraged institutiions such
as hedge funds. But supervision has to ensure that counterparty credit
risk management in the supervised institutions limits the risk of a rise
in overall leverage outside the regulated institutions that could
threaten the stability of the financial system. And regulatory policy
has to induce higher levels of margin and collateral in normal times
against derivatives and secured borrowing to cover better the risk of
market illiquidity. Fourth, we need to streamline and simplify the US
regulatory framework. Our system has evolved into a confusing mix of
diffused accountability, regulatory competition and a complex web of
rules that create perverse incentives and leave huge opportunities for
arbitrage and evasion. The blueprint by Hank Paulson, Treasury
secretary, outlines a sweeping consolidation and realignment of
responsibilities. The institutions that play a central role in money
and funding markets – including the main globally active banks and
investment banks – need to operate under a unified framework that
provides a stronger form of consolidated supervision, with appropriate
requirements for capital and liquidity. To complement this, we
need to put in place a stronger framework of oversight authority over
the critical parts of the payments system – not just the established
payments, clearing and settlements systems, but the infrastructure that
underpins the decentralised over-the-counter markets. Because of its
primary responsibility for the stability of the overall financial
system, the Federal Reserve should play a central role in such a
framework, working closely with supervisors in the US and in other
countries. At present the Fed has broad responsibility for financial
stability not matched by direct authority and the consequences of the
actions we have taken in this crisis make it more important that we
close that gap. The big central banks should put in place a standing
network of currency swaps, collateral policies and account arrangements
that would make it easier to mobilise liquidity across borders quickly
in a crisis. As we reshape the incentives and constraints for
risk-taking in the financial system, we have to recognise that
regulation has the potential to make things worse. Regulation can
distort incentives in ways that may make the system less safe. One of
the strengths of our system is the speed with which we adapt to
challenge. It is important that we move quickly to adapt the regulatory
system to address the vulnerabilities exposed by this financial crisis.
We are beginning the process of building the necessary consensus here
and with the other main financial centres. more...
EU foreign policy expected to enter 'new era' EU Observer (April 6, 2008) - The European Parliament is seeking to bolster its role in the bloc's common foreign and security policy (CFSP), with senior MEPs saying it is time for Europe to become a "player and not just a payer" on the world stage. Polish centre-right MEP and head of the foreign affairs committee, Jacek Saryusz-Wolski, says that EU foreign is moving "from one era to another" with the new Lisbon Treaty, due to kick in next year. The proposed new EU foreign minister and diplomatic service as well as the possibility for a group of member states to move ahead in defence cooperation mean foreign policy is "one of the most innovative parts of the treaty." The fact that Javier Solana, the EU's foreign policy chief, will for the first time be present at the MEPs' annual debate on CFSP on Wednesday (4 June) is in itself a "turning point," said the Pole at a briefing on Tuesday. Euro-deputies will today debate a report that sets out principles for the EU's foreign policy - such as respect for human rights - calls for certain issues to be prioritised and says that the CFSP budget from now until 2013 is "insufficient." "Either we have to beef up foreign policy financially, or we have to rethink whether we really want to be a global player," said Mr Saryusz-Wolski, who next week will travel to Paris to discuss the issue with the incoming French EU presidency. "We ask why is nothing ready, prepared for the events that will happen if the treaty [comes into force], and we haven't had an answer," he said. "We are asking this question also: do you have any hidden reserves? What's your view? How to finance the new set up? No answer." Democratic oversight The report also calls for parliament to be given greater democratic oversight over the area, which to date has remained firmly the domain of member states. It suggests that the foreign minister "regularly" appear before MEPs and that the parliament be "fully consulted" on who the foreign minister should be, as well as what the diplomatic service should look like. Deputies are also urging the future EU foreign minister to inform the parliament before any "common actions" are taken. "If we start sending soldiers into danger, it is up to the parliament to give its blessing," says Mr Saryusz-Wolski. The report also takes a more long-term view of the future of common foreign and security policy, with the head of the foreign affairs committee urging the bloc to stop acting like a "fire brigade" rushing to put out emergencies here and there and to think more of the "long-term strategic interests of the Union…20–30 years ahead." EU army Mr Saryusz-Wolski, who believes the union will
gradually develop its own army, says it is no longer enough that the
bloc exercises its traditional role as a soft power. "Too often we spend
money without any conditions being attached. I am against Europe being a
payer and not a player," he said. But he admits there is a "fear" in
the parliament that the foreign minister and the new permanent president
of the European Council may add to the trill of voices of on the EU
stage all claiming to speak for Europe and may not turn Europe into a
player. The potential for overlap between the two posts – starting
in January - and for rivalry with the European Commission president is
high. Debates on the posts are expected to start in earnest in autumn
and be wrapped up by December. In time-honoured EU fashion, balancing
who wins the posts will have to involve the consideration of a series of
factors, including nationality, whether a candidate comes from an old or
new member state or a small or big member state, and the person's
political hue.
European HQ heads Sarkozy plan for greater military integration
Guardian UK
(June
7,
2008) - France has proposed a battery of measures aimed at
boosting European military integration - including the EU's first
permanent operational headquarters in Brussels for planning military
missions abroad - threatening a bruising battle with the British
government. The proposals, circulated to European governments in a
five-page document detailing Paris's security policy priorities, include
common EU funding of military operations, a European fleet of military
transport aircraft, European military satellites, a European defence
college, and the development of exchange programmes for officers among
EU states. Since 2004, the British have resisted the headquarters idea,
seeing it as a French ploy to undermine the Nato alliance and boost
common European defence by establishing a European rival to Nato's Shape
planning headquarters at Mons in Belgium. The prime minister's spokesman
said yesterday the British government is committed to Nato remaining the
cornerstone of European defence, but also supports permanent structured
cooperation on defence within the EU so long as it does not duplicate
the work of Nato, or remove the UK veto. The two governments are already
negotiating quietly over President Nicolas Sarkozy's defence proposals,
sources said, adding that Washington is privately pressing the Brown
government to reach a deal with the French. In a speech to Greece's
parliament, Sarkozy said the EU must be able to defend itself, but he
said: "It is not a case, nor will it ever be a case of competing with
Nato. We need both. A Nato and European defence that oppose each other
makes no sense." Details of the French proposals, obtained by the
Guardian, confirm that Sarkozy is determined to use his six-month EU
presidency, starting in three weeks, to drive forward his military
agenda for Europe. The French have sought to keep their proposals
private for the moment so as not to derail ratification of the EU
treaty. Ireland is holding its referendum on the Lisbon treaty next week
and British peers are due to vote on whether to demand a similar
referendum next Wednesday. The British government insisted the document
was a set of preliminary proposals for discussion with the British and
Germans, and did not represent French government policy. Most
sensitively, Paris is insisting on the new Brussels headquarters
coming under the authority of Europe's foreign policy supremo, a
post whose powers are considerably boosted under the EU's reform treaty
and which is currently held by Javier Solana of Spain.
Ultimately, the Brussels headquarters would plan and control EU missions
abroad. "Solana thinks we need a more permanent structure in Brussels.
There's no doubt about that. The big problem is the Brits," said an EU
foreign policy official. more...
'Undemocratic' EU needs to be tamed
Gulf Daily News (June
6,
2008) - The famous 40th anniversary of the May 8, 1968
storming of the Parisian establishment by the revolutionary students
came and went like a damp squib. No Daniel Cohn Bendick here. But, in
1968 real issues of freedom were being addressed across Europe. Now it
is more sulky objections to Sarkozy's proposal that the students and
public sector work a little harder. Hardly a moral imperative to protest
in favour of doing nothing. The old joke rings true; 'How many people
work in the EU?' 'Oh about 30 per cent says the businessman, the rest
are paid by the state'. So they are too feather-bedded to do a "68". The
lack of serious protest in the face of increasing undemocratic,
bureaucratic controls is strange, As Bill Bryson said 'It is interesting
for an American to see the richest countries in Europe enthusiastically
ceding their sovereignty to a body that appears to be out of control and
answerable to no-one.' And so despite votes by the French and Dutch the
amended, but essentially unchanged European constitutional treaty is
pushed through by the political and bureaucratic classes. The last
chance is down to Ireland, as a referendum cannot be avoided under their
constitution. So come on you Irish, show some rebel spirit and save
Europe from the new commissarat. May 8, of course, is also officially
Victory in Europe Day. Every village had its parade with flags and
medals to the War Memorials, with a speech by the mayor followed by
aperitifs in the village hall. In Britain, who with its Empire, did most
of the fighting, it passed almost unnoticed. A poignant comment on the
vibrancy of the two cultures. So France claims the victory for when the
Allies liberated them. Good for them. France has shown clever leadership
with its unwavering strategy to shape Europe to its interest while
Britain has sulked in the corner to its detriment. As Sarkozy made clear
when he and Merkel removed their support from Blair's candidacy to be
Europe's first president, because Britain is not in the Euro, nor
Schengen and invaded Iraq, there are now two classes of European
members. Those committed to common policies and integration and those
not. Britain needs to face this reality and either move to associate
status, like Norway regaining sovereignty but retaining trade access or
embrace fully the EU. And influence its policies. This is a major
opportunity for the UK Conservative Party, but on my recent visit no-one
seemed interested in Europe at all. more... France readies for 'heaviest Presidency in EU history' EurActiv (June 2, 2008) - With climate and energy negotiations at the top of France's priorities and a reshuffle of the European institutions in sight for 2009, the French Presidency promises to be "the heaviest in EU history," diplomats say. On 1 July 2008, France takes over the EU's six-month rotating presidency from Slovenia with an exceptionally busy agenda. According to a French diplomat in Brussels, "this presidency is the heaviest one of all the history of the European Union in terms of workload". This, he explained, is because the EU is getting more cumbersome: there are more countries and commissioners than ever before and the Parliament has gained more powers. But it is also because additional factors have accumulated. "For the first time, you have this coincidence of a heavier Union but there is also the end of the political mandate of the Commission and Parliament as well as the end of the [ratification process of] the Lisbon Treaty. You never had all these things together." A series of sensitive dossiers have also piled up, all of which have to be closed by the end of the year. The energy and climate change package, tabled by the European Commission in January, is the first among them. The package includes a proposed revision of the EU's CO2 trading scheme and a new renewable energy directive, two dossiers which involve tough negotiations on how to share the burden of commitments between each EU member state. "Energy and climate change is enough to feed a presidency," the diplomat pointed out. But he added that "there are circumstances which mean the agenda is heavier for political reasons because some things have been delayed." This includes for instance a debate on the future of the Common Agricultural Policy, which the French are keen to |
This page may take some time to load. For
size reasons I have archived topics by year: |