Sunday, December 11, 2011

Sarkozy, who is hoping to win re-election in May, needs an external enemy to display his leadership qualities, according to Roger-Petit. “Germanophobia is forbidden, but visibly, Anglophobia, if we can use this term, is now the trend,” the journalist wrote on Friday. Chatham House’s Gomis agreed that Sarkozy and Cameron’s public disagreement over the EU has helped their respective images at home. “Adopting this position, as the leader who saves the euro despite British opposition, is very interesting for Sarkozy ahead of elections,” Gomis said. It really disapponts me that countries such as Holland , Denmark, Poland and others in the North part of the EU do not seem to be worried about losing their independence and ability to decide their own futures. Ireland must also be worried as it means their much vaunted way of attracting business to their country by way of low Corporation tax will shortly end... in the meantime, absolutely nothing has been done to solve the Eurozone crisis.

3 comments:

cotoiul said...

Neconduc ( in general europa ) tot felul de secaturi - putin, basescu , sarkozy, merkel ...etc fosti nomenclaturisti si securisti - cazul merkel, fosti militieni- cazul sarkozy, fosti securisti - basescu , putin ...de-aia merge struna !

Anonymous said...

Euro-Zone Treaty May Be Illegal

The euro-zone 17 in combination with six other countries quickly began moving forward on their own. But is such a move legal? European Union lawyers have their doubts that the kind of euro-zone fiscal union within the EU would be allowed.

Changes to the EU treaty, after all, must be unanimous. Furthermore, EU officials in Brussels say, because monetary union is regulated extensively in the Lisbon Treaty, reform can only be implemented within the existing legal framework. The legal services experts of the European Commission, the European Central Bank and the European Council, which represents the member states in Brussels, are all in agreement. A treaty concluded only by the 17 euro-zone governments would be illegal, they say.

Individual countries could only issue a "political declaration of intent," in which they determined, for example, how they would decide on the use of sanctions against budget offenders. But such a declaration would have no legally binding character and, as officials point out, could also be revoked following the election of a new government. This is principally a reference to France, where the Socialist presidential candidate François Hollande has already announced that he would not accept any incursions into national sovereignty.

Shortly before the summit, many European leaders were pushing for a quick rescue plan. At the convention of the European People's Party (EPP) in Marseilles, the conservative group which currently constitutes the largest faction in the European Parliament, smaller countries also spoke out in favor of a strong Europe with strict rules.

Anonymous said...

Only One Possible Answer

Now, finally, there is a clear line of separation. On the one side is euro-Europe with a treaty obligating them to stay within clear budgetary and sovereign debt boundaries. And there is the rest which still has complete sovereign control over their finances. The 17 euro-zone member states will no longer be forced to accommodate a country that rejects anything that smells like supra-nationalism.


There is certain to be a debate over the question as to how a divided Europe should continue. But that doesn't have to be a disadvantage. Such a debate has been necessary for a long time and conflicts can not always be avoided. Sometimes, a bit of bickering is necessary to create clarity.

The questions for Britain, however, are equally difficult. What exactly is the country's role in the EU? British historian Timothy Garton Ash, a critic of the euro-skeptic course followed by the Cameron administration, said recently in an interview with SPIEGEL: "If the euro zone is saved, there will be a fiscal union, which means a political union of the euro countries.... Then, in the next two, three or four years, we in Great Britain will face the final question: in or out?"

If the British political class does not undergo a fundamental transformation, there is only one possible answer. Out.