call out the abysmal democratic deficit in the emerging European federation. This is catastrophic and may turn the EU into a benign version of "China without the death penalty."

I also see your points on the different needs of the Germany factory and the Mediterranean fishing villages. But I am willing to give Merkel a little more leeway there than you do because I think the Mediterraneans need to become more competitive and export more unless one of two will happen
- a transfer union on a massive scale or
- Germany and the other northerners literally buy every asset in the Club Med with their giant trade surpluses.

But the democratic deficit is a MAJOR problem!!

Isn't it natural for a country's leader to look out for their own country's self interest? Germany benefits immensely from the Euro and wants to keep that system in placer regardless of the consequences to the rest of the EU. Its the fault of the other EU countries not to realize that by joining the Euro, the more powerful countries will be dictating monetary policy to the poorer members. It was unrealistic to expect richer countries to undercut their wealth in order to give poorer countries an economic boost. PM Merkel knows who she works for. She knows that the German people don't want to pour money into the rest of the EU and riots in the streets doesn't effect her.

That's the most vitriolic anti-Merkel and anti-German article I have ever seen. I wonder if all this would still apply if Camaroon or Camultramaroon had signed up to allow changes to the EU treaty to save the euro, a currency that the U.K. doesn't even use. But he didn't because he thought he could extort protection for London to be enshrined in the treaty for perpetuity. That's like New York asking for a special amendment to the U.S. Constitution to protect its financial industry. The blackmail would not have been so bad if he didn't cynically assume that the rest of Europe would do anything to save the euro. He thought he had the fate of the euro in his hands but he was wrong.

The protection of privilege for London that Camoron sought is actually not new. The British Empire had a similar law which prohibited its colonies around the world from trading with each other or with any other country without going through London first. India couldn't sell its cotton to Indonesia unless London allowed it and, of course, taxed it first. The law was used to good effect to try to stifle the nascent freedom which had been declared by the revolutionaries in the young United States of America.

Your economic arguments minus the anti-German vitriol do make sense but I am not so sure you would have bothered to write such an article if your Mr Macaroon had signed up to the treaty changes. I was always skeptical about the survival of the euro but not, as you seem to indicate, to spite Merkel or Germany or France for the benefit of the U.K. After reading your vitriolic diatribe, I can only say "Long Live the Euro!"

Europeans complain about the democratic deficit in the EU but few bother to vote for the EU parliament. Really it is their own fault. If the parliament received a high voter turnout it would gain more legitimacy within the union and be able to wrest more power away from the beauracrats.
The failure lies with Europe's population.

You list many reasons why this latest injection of formaldehyde won’t get the Euro back on its feet while castigating Cameron for washing his hands of it. Similarly you point to the EU’s increasing disregard for democracy but mention only ‘selective issues related to London's financial services industry’ for a decision entirely in accordance with the wishes of the UK electorate.

It was perfectly clear to anyone following the unfolding of the Merkozy plan that the double act would entertain no opt outs or amendments. What then would be the point of reasoning with them? Cameron laid Britain’s demands on the table, they were rejected and he returned to London, disappointed probably but sanguine. If someone wants to smoke themselves to death there are many good reasons for attempting to dissuade them but lighting up yourself is scarcely one of them.

Superb analysis!

I am fascinated how long European brainpower is on analysis and how short it is on coming up with specific possible solutions. After reading this article, we - once again - know exactly what caused the present mess and who is to be blamed for it (personally, I don't agree with all the arguments; let's not forget that Germany was "the sick man of Europe" less than 10 years ago but then did something about it).

For whatever is worth, I have come up with my own proposal as to how Greece could get out of her mess (see link below). My point is that the brainpower of Europe should devote itself to that very question (instead of analysing the past to death).

http://klauskastner.blogspot.com/2011/09/endgame-for-greece.html

yes reality is some thing else which no one knowes.
Racism is a belief that some races are superior to others, justifying actions that create inequality by favouring the supposedly superior groups. In practice, the definition of race is broadened to include ethnic, religious, and other similar groups, so discrimination on such grounds is also termed racism. Some people deny that racism is common in modern, industrialized, multi-ethnic societies. Wherever research is done, however, it shows racism is important. In a national representative survey in the 1990s by the UK Policy Studies Institute, for example, 20–26% of the White participants admitted in an interview to have prejudice against Asian, Caribbean or Muslim ethnic minorities.1 In fact, the figure is likely to be larger, for some people do not give publicly unacceptable answers in interview. It would be interesting to see comparable data from other European countries; the results would surely be equally and perhaps even more uncomfortable.

Among the many historical lessons Europe should never forget is the one from Nazi Germany. Hitler's views were published in Mein Kampf (vol. 1 in 1925) to widespread acclaim and support, acting as an inspiration to much of the German public, and the medical professionals in particular.2,3 Silver's review demonstrates the central role of the medical profession—the staunchest supporter of the Nazi regime—in issues important to ethnic minority groups, for example, eugenics and race medicine.3 The economic, social, scientific, and political circumstances that allowed Hitler's policies to flourish could return. Eugenics is currently out of favour but its return is a likely outcome of the genetic revolution. Only open racism remains off-side in mainstream politics though there are signs that racism as a component of right-wing political policy is making a comeback.

A rapid rise in ethnic minority populations in European cities, easy international travel, increasing pressures of Racism is a belief that some races are superior to others, justifying actions that create inequality by favouring the supposedly superior groups. In practice, the definition of race is broadened to include ethnic, religious, and other similar groups, so discrimination on such grounds is also termed racism. Some people deny that racism is common in modern, industrialized, multi-ethnic societies. Wherever research is done, however, it shows racism is important. In a national representative survey in the 1990s by the UK Policy Studies Institute, for example, 20–26% of the White participants admitted in an interview to have prejudice against Asian, Caribbean or Muslim ethnic minorities.1 In fact, the figure is likely to be larger, for some people do not give publicly unacceptable answers in interview. It would be interesting to see comparable data from other European countries; the results would surely be equally and perhaps even more uncomfortable.

Among the many historical lessons Europe should never forget is the one from Nazi Germany. Hitler's views were published in Mein Kampf (vol. 1 in 1925) to widespread acclaim and support, acting as an inspiration to much of the German public, and the medical professionals in particular.2,3 Silver's review demonstrates the central role of the medical profession—the staunchest supporter of the Nazi regime—in issues important to ethnic minority groups, for example, eugenics and race medicine.3 The economic, social, scientific, and political circumstances that allowed Hitler's policies to flourish could return. Eugenics is currently out of favour but its return is a likely outcome of the genetic revolution. Only open racism remains off-side in mainstream politics though there are signs that racism as a component of right-wing political policy is making a comeback.

A rapid rise in ethnic minority populations in European cities, easy international travel, increasing pressures of
The new political (the “fiscal compact”) and funding arrangements are what matter, along with the response of the ECB.

The fiscal compact has some worthy long-term goals but won’t in itself be able to solve the eurozone’s balance of payments problems, and it also introduces a new round of political risk into the first half of 2012. It’s also unclear whether the European Commission has the requisite authority to provide institutional support to the compact — though Brussels remains supremely gifted at legal pragmatism, if nothing else.

In short, it’s unclear whether (1) the deal has enough power to change states’ behaviour (a problem worsened by the fact it’ll take time that the eurozone doesn’t have to show how the rules work), and (2) it can escape unscathed from the small country electoral gauntlet it’s about to run.

On (1), here is Goldman Sachs’ take (emphasis ours)…
The new political (the “fiscal compact”) and funding arrangements are what matter, along with the response of the ECB.

The fiscal compact has some worthy long-term goals but won’t in itself be able to solve the eurozone’s balance of payments problems, and it also introduces a new round of political risk into the first half of 2012. It’s also unclear whether the European Commission has the requisite authority to provide institutional support to the compact — though Brussels remains supremely gifted at legal pragmatism, if nothing else.

In short, it’s unclear whether (1) the deal has enough power to change states’ behaviour (a problem worsened by the fact it’ll take time that the eurozone doesn’t have to show how the rules work), and (2) it can escape unscathed from the small country electoral gauntlet it’s about to run.

On (1), here is Goldman Sachs’ take (emphasis ours)…
the fiscal rules (or ‘fiscal compact’) do not go beyond what we expected. ECB President Draghi has highlighted that such rules are required before any other policy actions might follow. The ‘ex ante’ component – which Draghi emphasised as key – consists of reporting debt issuance plans. That seems to use to be relatively weak as a fiscal rule. Further measures may follow and more details will need to be worked out today. Debt rules will also apply in each country, with the European Court of Justice verifying that they are enacted at the national level. But that falls short of monitoring on an ongoing basis.
the fiscal rules (or ‘fiscal compact’) do not go beyond what we expected. ECB President Draghi has highlighted that such rules are required before any other policy actions might follow. The ‘ex ante’ component – which Draghi emphasised as key – consists of reporting debt issuance plans. That seems to use to be relatively weak as a fiscal rule. Further measures may follow and more details will need to be worked out today. Debt rules will also apply in each country, with the European Court of Justice verifying that they are enacted at the national level. But that falls short of monitoring on an ongoing basis.
However, the available decisions do not expand on the form of sanctions and to us it remains very unclear how these sanctions can be enforced. As the fiscal compact – mainly because of UK opposition – will not be part of the EU Treaty and will be only an “international agreement”, it remains uncertain whether the EU Commission or the ECJ will have the rights to enforce these measures. In case the Commission is able to enforce the measure and has the right to take away national sovereignty for the 17 euro area member states, the agreement might require a referendum in some member states, e.g. Ireland. The other open question is how national constitutional courts (e.g. Germany) will regard this agreement.
However, the available decisions do not expand on the form of sanctions and to us it remains very unclear how these sanctions can be enforced. As the fiscal compact – mainly because of UK opposition – will not be part of the EU Treaty and will be only an “international agreement”, it remains uncertain whether the EU Commission or the ECJ will have the rights to enforce these measures. In case the Commission is able to enforce the measure and has the right to take away national sovereignty for the 17 euro area member states, the agreement might require a referendum in some member states, e.g. Ireland. The other open question is how national constitutional courts (e.g. Germany) will regard this agreement.

A qualified majority vote does also require that at least half of the countries are in favour. For the Eurozone specifically this means a minimum of 9 countries have to approve, collecting at least 73.9% of the voting rights. There is even a third requirement: that the countries voting in favour represent 62% of the Eurozone population

It is clear that a number of small countries can quite easily block a QM vote. Here is the most extreme theoretical example: If the 9 smallest countries vote against a motion, a Qualified Majority cannot be reached by the remaining 8 countries. However, the 9 smallest countries collectively represent only 50 of 213 QM votes, and only 7.5% of the overall Eurozone GDP.

So it may appear that small countries carry disproportionate weight. But large countries also enjoy special protection. Given the 73.9% majority rule, any group of countries combining 56 votes or more out of 213 can block a QM. Germany and France together have 58. Looking at a group of fiscally stronger countries in the Eurozone, like Germany, Netherlands, Finland and Austria also represent a blocking minority with 59 votes.

The reality of QM voting in Europe is that individual country’s interests are relatively strongly protected. For small and large countries it is relatively easy to build coalitions that can block a Qualified Majority
A qualified majority vote does also require that at least half of the countries are in favour. For the Eurozone specifically this means a minimum of 9 countries have to approve, collecting at least 73.9% of the voting rights. There is even a third requirement: that the countries voting in favour represent 62% of the Eurozone population

It is clear that a number of small countries can quite easily block a QM vote. Here is the most extreme theoretical example: If the 9 smallest countries vote against a motion, a Qualified Majority cannot be reached by the remaining 8 countries. However, the 9 smallest countries collectively represent only 50 of 213 QM votes, and only 7.5% of the overall Eurozone GDP.

So it may appear that small countries carry disproportionate weight. But large countries also enjoy special protection. Given the 73.9% majority rule, any group of countries combining 56 votes or more out of 213 can block a QM. Germany and France together have 58. Looking at a group of fiscally stronger countries in the Eurozone, like Germany, Netherlands, Finland and Austria also represent a blocking minority with 59 votes.

The reality of QM voting in Europe is that individual country’s interests are relatively strongly protected. For small and large countries it is relatively easy to build coalitions that can block a Qualified Majority

Thanks

Admin of Travel agency

With socialism you eventually run out of spending other people's money. Right now, the Germans are the only ones left with money to spend, so the Euro elites will gladly give up whatever they need to spend their money. But those who fear a German-dominated Europe should not worry, eventually the socialists will spend all of Germany's money, too...

Penalties, punishments and disciplines will not come to pass because they are unenforceable.

As long as EU has sovereign governments, Germany is not going to be sending NATO troops to enforce them.

Where will it go from here? No where.

EU will keep trudging along until Germany itself goes broke after dolling out so much of its wealth in that bottomless pit.

The day of reckoning has just been postponed.

EURO will crash and everybody will be for itself.

I can understand that Germans are getting fed up with paying big bills. First, there was the war they had to pay off, and the Holocaust bill goes on forever. Second, came unification, and when all the bills were in for that, the total was one trillion. Considerable German funds have already gone into the present crisis, but it has not been enough.

Uptight, protestant Germany just cannot understand the laidback, club med mentality of the south -- and moreover doesn't want to understand it. However, it's not the "germanness" of Germany that's the problem here; it's the conservatism. As a rule, countries in recession come out of it slowly with conservatives in charge, and faster with more liberal governments. Conservatives don't mind gambling on the stock market, but when it comes to investing in people, "O, no, that's profligate."

Germany believes that if everybody were a creditor, we would have no unpaid debts and financial crises. In order to run current account surpluses, there must be someone who is willing to run deficits. Without deficits, there will be no surpluses. It is not Merkel's or German companies fault to supply goods and services that everybody wants (think Mercedes-Benz, Porsche, Deutsche Bank, SAP). In fact, we should encourage countries to keep innovating and improving their products just like what the German engineers did. However, it is Merkel & Co's fault for giving loans blindly without even considering or do not want to consider if debtors have the means to payback the loan. If debtors can't payback the loan, the assets (receivables) on creditor's balance sheet is just a number. In other words, if Euro fails, Germany fails.

sdfttw gh rt yaetq3wthjnhg jrdt wer qwer qwr gh

http://www.yahoofashion.net
Nike s h o x(R4, NZ, OZ, TL1, TL2, TL3) $35.
Handbags(Coach lv fendi d&g) $35.
Tshirts (Polo , ed hardy, lacoste) $16.
free shipping.you will get nice

http://www.women-store.net/
new styles women snow boots,70 save off.
clearance for winter!

cf gser aw rqwe qwfd fj ghjk g esrt we wq y

This article is only saved from being anti-German propaganda by the possiblity that the writer seriously believes his basic economic argument that poor people can spend and borrow themselves out of poverty. Well, maybe they can if their society is reasonably honest, frugal, hard working, etc. Culture is powerful, and Stereotypes are Real. But , as our own "bubbles" attest, these ideas are easily perverted by powerful cliques . As a formula, we should be aware that they may easily fall flat. Trying to make all of Europe over in a German mode may not be a good idea, but that doesn't mean to make it over in the Greek mode is any solution at all. It seems to me that route merely stokes up a bigger crash down the road, as the US is llikely to find out. Where is there any meaningful reform in either the US or Europe?

It's no good people blaming the poor for getting into debt this is a deliberate decision by governments to pay people low wages so that the only way they can survive is by taking out debt and owing money back to the rich, unfortunately this was such a short-sighted policy it was bound to backfire like stock trading with money you don't have you cannot afford to make any mistakes. If people were paid decent wages they wouldn't get into such bad debt problems. Germans get paid better than most and as a result do not live on credit cards and short-term loans.

If other EU countries want German money then the Germans have the right to ask their debtors to sort their houses out. Otherwise the Germans would be fools to allow what could be open-ended commitments. I think what will eventually happen is that the weaker countries will abandon the Euro or be forced out. That is going to be painful for the Europeans and that would leave the Americans and the Chinese in charge of the world economy.

Profound systemic and structural problems may well call for radical solutions.

A staple solution throughout Western economic history has been to call for a "jubilee year" in which massive and unsustainable debts could be forgiven, at least for private individuals and firms.

A "heterodox" economist who has been calling for this is Steve Keen. (Historically, there was the work of Hyman Minsky)

http://www.debtdeflation.com/blogs/

For a short intro to his work, see his interview on BBC's "Hardtalk"

http://tradewithdave.com/?p=8507

The following is a site dedicated to the work of economists who critique and refuse the neo-classical/neo-liberal orthodoxy:

http://www.paecon.net/

Take what Germany offers on its own terms or go elsewhere for your help. you cant beg someone and demonize them at the same time....thanks!
massagistas

First of all, the EU has 27 and not 24 member states ("This searing image could be embellished with the 24 EU members...."). If you write about Europe, you should at least be aware of that.

Secondly, I just love the excuses some people bring to the table to justify their own shortcomings: for instance, you quote Portuguese European MP Ana Gomes speaking to the Germans: "Our governments, banks, companies and citizens were encouraged to become dangerously indebted by your banks, businesses, your official representatives," And, I would answer, you went and did it and of course you are in no way responsible for your actions. Back to kindergarden, return when you've grown up.

Overall, a very poor assessment of the situation, full of hostility and emotional outbursts.

Your article is pure BS. The only countries in history that have had a growth in their GDP are countries that have enforced a reasonable level of federal debt control (or better a surplus) and Germany has the upper hand among EU nations on this subject at the moment. Sorry to say, the USA is flushing itself down the toilet on the subject of tax cuts, astronomic deficit spending and virtually no growth in GDP.

You keep speaking about how Merkel has "broken up" the EU and that German domination is an "evil thing". It is amazing how Britain's typical "we get all the benefits without any of the responsibility and accountability" for membership in the EU is viewed as a positive by American idiots. Even the NY Times last week had a headline that the EU is "divided". Oh yeh? Since when is the UK 50 percent of Europe? - and since when is the rest of the continental members "the other 50 percent half-partners"? Cameron only took the position he did because it meant the EU gravy train was now leaving for a different destination and "Europeans" are dictating that the Brits would have to help pull the wagon now the same as everyone else has been in order to get the benefits.

If anything, Europeans would gladly give the Brits the boot. The EU should just dump the Brits and force them to stay in bed with somebody else (namely the USA - which coincidently would get the same s**t from them eventually. That's why the UK keeps playing the "old empire" role of changing partners only when it is in their "interests").

Lastly on the now evident role that Germany plays in European affairs... European experts have been championing the need for Germany to take just such a position to bring the EU back into stable economic health as a whole. People may grumble at the hard times, but no one is seriously speaking of splitting from the EU and dumping the Euro: and certainly no one is "resentful" towards Germany. I know... idiot, because I live and work in Europe.

Under Merkel, the Germans have demonstrated the path that the USA has exercised to maintain her wealth and power (until 2001) through exceptional "business and finance fair play first" - before military force - to achieve it. I applaud the Germans. They have accomplished what they merit and this time perfectly with fair play. We haven't had another world war or millions of people dying over this exercise of human progress (for you idiot, that means "change").

Each state in the USA as whole has to answer collectively to the coherency of the state of the union and certainly the stability of the Dollar - with some states wielding more power and influence than others. Maybe that's why the American idiots who profess themselves experts on Europe try to brainwash everybody that this is a "bad" thing! oh yeh - throw in those big buzzwords like "undemocratic" and "denial of rights" ; it smoke screens everybody. The BS coming out of America on the European economic situation just seems to keep getting thicker and thicker. What is it ? Can't handle good competition to make you get off your a** and get America out of her degradation spiritually, morally, socially and economically?

I am really have to say that you should not take every word of this author Paul Hockenos as the truth. He is an American and obviously he has some interests in putting any power in Europe (such as Germany) down.
It is quite obvious the way he writes. Watch out!

In my view she is still powerful and can influence the progress of Germany.

Andy
Fav Search Engine

...that symmetry is the key word

Peripheral countries' deficits are just the mirror image of excess savings in the core, and notably in Germany.
Imposing asymmetric adjustment is unfair,and it won't work.

The core needs to compensate the fiscal consolidation in the periphery with an expansion of domestic demand. Otherwise, the whole eurozone is headed towards a lost decade...

http://fsaraceno.wordpress.com/2011/10/27/the-emu-problem-is-north-vs-south-but-not-the-way-mrs-merkel-thinks/

1. CDU politician Volker Kauder was indeed stupid to state that Europe now would speak german. But he is not representative of German opinion, at least not the thinking and enlightened part of it, and harvested much criticism in his own country for his arrogance.

2. What I do not understand in this article ist this: On one side, Germany benefits from lavish spending in countries that buy German goods on credit they supposedly do not need. So how could Frau Merkels efforts into summoning tighter budget discipline in these countries be of mere German self-interest? If the deficits in these countries mirror German excedents, then spending cuts in these countries will be mirrored by German sales going down. How would that represent German self-interest? Might she not actually be trying to save the euro?

Merkel mounts a very high horse when scolding the beleaguered "PIGS" periphery. But her self-righteous fixation with their wasteful ways (which were disastrous, no doubt; imagine if that spending had gone into export-oriented factories or R&D rather than condos or civil servants' pay) and new sets of sanctions and rules to restrain their supposed genetic profligacy doesn't offer a long-term solution. There's not an economist in all of Europe who really believes that dire austerity measures will enable the Greeks, the Irish, or anyone else to pay off their debts. Search for fashion shopping deals

I just love the excuses some people bring to the table to justify their own shortcomings: for instance, you quote Portuguese European MP Ana Gomes speaking to the Germans: And, I would answer, you went and did it and of course you are in no way responsible for your actions. Back to kindergarden, return when you've grown up. aeronaves ar condicionado