Al Cavaliere 4 anni di reclusione....Ma sulle pene accessorie dovrà ripronunciarsi la Corte di Appello

ROMA-Confermata la condanna d’appello a 4 anni di reclusione con rinvio alla Corte d’Appello di Milano per rideterminare l’interdizione. È questa la sentenza della Corte di Cassazione a conclusione del processo Mediaset. 

Al momento della sentenza gli avvocati difensori di Berlusconi, Longo e Ghedini, non erano presenti in aula. Berlusconi ha atteso il verdetto a Palazzo Grazioli insieme al vicepremier e ministro dell’Interno Angelino Alfano. Con loro anche Piersilvio Berlusconi, secondogenito del Cavaliere. In appello Berlusconi era stato condannato a 4 anni di reclusione per frode fiscale e a 5 di interdizione dai pubblici uffici. Ieri, al “Palazzaccio”, era stata la giornata delle difese. Nel corso della sua arringa l’avvocato Ghedini aveva spiegato che «nel tessuto della sentenza mancava la prova che Berlusconi avesse partecipato al reato». Martedì invece il procuratore Antonio Mura, dopo aver definito Berlusconi «l’ideatore del meccanismo delle frodi fiscali», aveva chiesto il rigetto dei ricorsi delle difese degli imputati (e quindi la conferma delle condanne). Da ricalcolare invece l’interdizione dai pubblici uffici considerata troppo elevata.

The funds to back

For brave investors, Mr Fahy has previously recommended Artemis European Growth, up 42pc over the past year but he added: "If investors are looking for ‘cheap’ – then the obvious market to be dripping money into is China."

Ben Yearsley of Charles Stanley Direct, a low-cost fund supermarket, is also lukewarm on European stock markets but said: "Looking for the positives, Europe doesn't look expensive and the dividend yield from equities is good so it could be bought and tucked away for the long term."  He favors Henderson European Special Situations (with a typical historic annual cost of 1.76pc), managed by Richard Pease, and Jupiter European fund (1.79pc) and Jupiter European Opportunities investment trust (1.12pc), both managed by Alex Darwall. Blackrock European Dynamic (1.68pc) is another favorite. "All are run by good quality, long-term managers," added Mr Yearsley.

Cheap tracker funds

For cheaper options, consider a fund that only tracks the market. The Vanguard FTSE Developed Europe fund charges 0.25pc a year and yields 2.6pc.  A year ago, the dividend yields, which give a rough indicator of value, were stunning on some European stocks with Swiss drugs maker Novartis paying nearly 5pc and German insurer Allianz at 4.6pc. Today they pay 3.6pc and 2.8pc, respectively. Investors have certainly missed the buying opportunity of a year ago. Those who want to back only high-yield stocks could consider the iShares DJ Euro STOXX Select Dividend 30, an exchange traded fund that can be brought through a stockbroker. Its annual cost is 0.4pc and it yields 6.2pc.

Cheap shares

David Dudding, who runs the Threadneedle European Select fund, which has returned 91pc over five years compared with an average 35pc for the sector, said: “Pricing power is everything in share investing.” Two examples he cites are Nestle, the food giant, and Kone, a lift manufacturer. “The market sees Nestle as a boring dividend payer,” he said. “I see it as an attractive growth stock. Meanwhile the lift market is very hard to break into. It takes a long time to build up significant scale, so there’s little downward pressure on prices and firms have great repeat business from maintenance contracts.” Advisers say long-term investors should have some exposure to Europe to keep a balanced portfolio, although this could also be achieved through a global fund. Mr Fahy tips Artemis Global Income which has 23pc of investors money in Europe. He added: “If you believe the eurozone can continue to muddle through for the remainder of 2013, then hold your nose and stay on your toes, ready to take profits.”

Nigel Farage tonight-Get your money out of europe-BANK RUN, NOW !!!!

Nigel Farage tonight-Get your money out of europe-BANK RUN

“I must say the thing I find the shabbiest about it is there insisting that it doesn’t need to be subjected to a vote in the Cypriot Parliament. I very much hope that the members of the Cypriot Parliament say, ‘To hell with that, we demand another vote.’

It’s funny isn’t it, the Germans are going to have a vote on it in their Parliament, but the Cypriots are being told that they shouldn’t have a vote on it. If that’s not moving into a German dominated Europe, I don’t know what is.

I said last week that I felt any savers who had money in other eurozone banks, particularly in the Southern eurozone countries, really ought to think seriously about getting their money out. Well, this afternoon something far more serious has happened. The Dutch Finance Minister, about an hour and a half ago, said that he saw the Cyprus eurozone bailout as now being a template of how they intend to act in the future. So the burden of all of this will now fall on the private sector, and not on the public sector.

Frankly, what that now says is that anybody that has money, or anybody that has big money sitting in a Spanish or an Italian bank, and particularly if you happen to be a financial officer for a company, it would be criminally negligent of you to now leave your money or a company’s money in a Spanish or an Italian bank.

I think what they’ve done today is to spark a major run on those banks. I see that some of the banks stocks have fallen 6% this afternoon, and I think in their desperation to keep the eurozone propped-up, I really believe that long-term they have made an absolutely fatal error. They have now crossed the bounds into one of complete criminality, and from this their reputations will never, ever recover.”

There you go ...no dice ma'man...hihihihi

The Eu Parliament is refusing the budget as is.   Le Point:

"Le Parlement européen ne peut accepter en l'état l'accord trouvé aujourd'hui (vendredi) au Conseil européen. Nous regrettons que M. Van Rompuy n'ait pas parlé, ni négocié avec nous au cours des derniers mois", ont indiqué les parlementaires. Les chefs d'État et de gouvernement européens se sont mis d'accord vendredi, à l'issue d'un sommet marathon, sur un budget d'austérité pour les sept prochaines années, en baisse pour la première fois dans l'histoire de l'Union européenne. "C'est maintenant que les véritables négociations vont commencer, avec le Parlement européen", ont prévenu les parlementaires. True negotiations are starting... 

 

Joint Statement to the Press by Joseph Daul, on behalf of the EPP Group, Hannes Swoboda, on behalf of the S&D Group, and Guy Verhofstadt, on behalf of the ALDE Group and on behalf of the Greens/EFA Group Rebecca Harms and Daniel Cohn-Bendit.

"...This agreement will not strengthen the competitiveness of the European economy. It is not in the prime interest of our European citizens. The European Parliament cannot accept today's deal in the European Council as it is. We regret that Mr Van Rompuy did not talk and negotiate with us in the last months.

.....We see with astonishment that EU leaders agree to a budget that could lead to a structural deficit. Large gaps between payments and commitments will only store up trouble for the future and not solve existing problems. We remain firm on the respect of Article 310 of the Treaty which requires a balanced budget.
In addition to this there are four important points that we will not abandon:

First, we are calling for increased flexibility using Qualified Majority Voting: between years and between categories of spending. It is a sensible approach which will allow us to make the best use of our financial resources.
Second, we are also standing firm on a compulsory revision clause with a Qualified Majority Vote in the Council, which should allow us to revise the financial framework in two or three years. We don't accept an austerity budget for seven years.
Third, with this same sense of responsibility we are calling for new, genuine own resources for the European budget to progressively replace the current system based heavily on national GNI contributions.  Fourth, we cannot accept a budget based solely on priorities of the past. We must maintain support for future-oriented policies, strengthening European competitiveness and research.
The outcome of the final budget will determine whether the second decade of the 21st century will be remembered as the time of further integration for the benefit of all Europeans or the time of a standstill for Europe, or even falling behind in a globalised world.

A Guide To Committees, Groups, And Clubs

September 28, 2012

Political leaders and officials from around the world shape the work of the IMF through their various fora and bodies. With the IMF at the center of the coordinated global response to events in international financial markets and the world's economies, understanding what these groups do and how they work is important.

International Monetary and Financial Committee Development Committee Financial Stability Board Group of 7 Group of 8 Group of 10 Group of 15 Group of 20 Group of 24 Group of 77 Creditor Clubs Archive:Group of 5 Group of 22 Group of 33

International Monetary and Financial Committee

The IMFC is responsible for advising, and reporting to, the IMF Board of Governors as it manages and shapes the international monetary and financial system. The IMFC also monitors developments in global liquidity and the transfer of resources to developing countries; considers proposals by the Executive Board to amend the Articles of Agreement; and deals with unfolding events that may disrupt the global monetary and financial system.

The IMFC usually meets twice a year, in September or October at the Bank-Fund Annual Meetings and in March or April at what are referred to as the Spring Meetings. The Committee discusses matters of concern affecting the global economy and also advises the IMF on the direction of its work. At the end of the meetings, the Committee issues a communiqué summarizing its views. These communiqués provide guidance for the IMF's work program during the six months leading up to the next Spring or Annual Meetings. There is no formal voting at the IMFC, which operates by consensus.

The IMFC has 24 members who are central bank governors, ministers, or others of comparable rank and who are drawn from the governors of the Fund's 188 member countries. The membership reflects the composition of the IMF's Executive Board: each member country that appoints, and each group of member countries that elects, an Executive Director appoints a member of the IMFC. The group is currently chaired by Tharman Shanmugaratnam, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance of Singapore, who was selected to head the Committee in March 2011. A number of international institutions, including the World Bank, participate as observers in the IMFC's meetings.

IMFC Membership
Nationalities of current members:
Singapore (Chair) Algeria Argentina Australia Belgium Brazil Canada China	France Gabon Germany India Indonesia Italy Japan Netherlands	Russia Saudi Arabia South Africa Spain Sweden Switzerland United Arab Emirates United Kingdom United States

Development Committee

The Joint Ministerial Committee of the Boards of Governors of the Bank and Fund on the Transfer of Real Resources to Developing Countries, better known as the Development Committee, was established in October 1974 to advise the Boards of Governors of the IMF and World Bank on critical development issues and on the financial resources required to promote economic development in developing countries. Over the years, the Committee has interpreted its mandate to include trade and global environmental issues in addition to traditional development matters. The Committee usually meets twice a year following the IMFC meeting.

The Development Committee has 25 members (usually ministers of finance or development) who together represent the full membership of the IMF and World Bank. The present chairperson is Marek Belka, President of the National Bank of Poland.

Development Committee Membership
Poland (Chair) Argentina Bahrain Belgium Brazil Canada China Côte d’Ivoire Denmark France	Germany India Indonesia Italy Japan Mexico Morocco Netherlands New Zealand	Nigeria Russia Saudi Arabia Switzerland United Kingdom United States Zimbabwe

Financial Stability Board

In order to strengthen the surveillance of financial markets, the G-20 leaders decided in April 2009 to expand the membership of the former Financial Stability Forum and renamed it the Financial Stability Board. The new membership includes all G-20 countries, the former FSF members, Spain, and the European Commission.

The FSB is designed to help improve the functioning of financial markets, and to reduce systemic risk through enhanced information exchange and international cooperation among the authorities responsible for maintaining financial stability.

The FSF first met on April 14, 1999, at IMF headquarters, and has since then met semi-annually. The FSF was made an observer of the IMFC in September 1999.

Mark Carney, Governor of the Bank of Canada, chairs the FSB in his personal capacity. The FSB consists of a Plenary, a Steering Committee, other committees and sub-groups as needed, and a secretariat based in Basel, Switzerland. The Plenary is the decision-making organ of the FSB; its members are the heads of members' treasuries, central banks, and supervisory agencies; the chairs of the main standard-setting bodies and central bank committees; and senior representatives of international financial institutions (Bank for International Settlements, European Central Bank, European Commission, International Monetary Fund, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, and The World Bank). The Steering Committee provides operational guidance between plenary meetings to carry forward the directions of the FSB; its composition is decided by the Plenary at the proposal of the Chair. The Plenary may establish Standing Committees and working groups as necessary.

Financial Stability Board Membership
Chairman (1)
National Authorities (24)
International Financial Institutions (6)
International Regulatory and Supervisory Groupings (6)
Committees of Central Bank Experts (2)

Group of Seven

The Group of Seven (G-7) major industrial countries began to hold annual economic summits (meetings at the level of head of state or government) in 1975. At the level of finance minister and central bank governor, the G-7 superseded the G-5 as the main policy coordination group during 1986–1987, particularly following the Louvre Accord of February 1987, which was agreed by the G-5 plus Canada and subsequently endorsed by the G-7. Since 1987, the G-7 finance ministers and central bank governors have met at least semi-annually to monitor developments in the world economy and assess economic policies. The Managing Director of the IMF usually participates, by invitation, in the surveillance discussions of the G-7 finance ministers and central bank governors. Although, Russia has joined the group, thereby forming the Group of Eight (see below), the G-7 continues to function as a forum for discussion of economic and financial issues among the major industrial countries.

G-7 Members
Canada	Japan
France	The United Kingdom
Germany	The United States
Italy

Group of Eight

The Group of Eight (G-8) was conceived when Russia first participated in part of the 1994 Naples Summit of the G-7. Again in 1997, Russia joined, for political discussions, the Denver Summit after the conclusion of the G-7 economic summit. At the 1998 Birmingham Summit, Russia joined as full participant, which marked the establishment of the Group of Eight, which convenes annual summits of the heads of state or government of the major industrial countries to discuss the major economic and political issues on their agenda.

G-8 Members
Canada	Japan
France	Russia
Germany	The United Kingdom
Italy	The United States

Group of Ten

The Group of Ten (G-10) refers to the group of countries that have agreed to participate in the General Arrangements to Borrow (GAB), a supplementary borrowing arrangement that can be invoked if the IMF's resources are estimated to be below member's needs. The GAB was established in 1962, when the governments of eight IMF members—Belgium, Canada, France, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and the United States—and the central banks of two others, Germany and Sweden, agreed to make resources available to the IMF for drawings by participants, and, under certain circumstances, for drawings by nonparticipants. The GAB was strengthened in 1964 by the association of Switzerland, then a nonmember of the Fund, but the name of the G-10 remained the same. Following its inception, the G-10 broadened its engagement with the Fund, including issuing reports that culminated in the creation of the Special Drawing Right (SDR) in 1969. The G-10 was also the forum for discussions that led to the December 1971 Smithsonian Agreement following the collapse of the Bretton Woods system. The following international organizations are official observers of the activities of the G-10: The Bank for International Settlements (BIS), European Commission, IMF, and OECD.

G-10 Members
Belgium	Netherlands
Canada	Sweden
France	Switzerland
Germany	The United Kingdom
Italy	The United States
Japan

Group of Fifteen

The Group of Fifteen (G-15) was established at the Ninth Non-Aligned Summit Meeting in Belgrade, Yugoslavia in September 1989. It is composed of countries from Latin America, Africa, and Asia with a common goal of enhanced growth and prosperity. The G-15 focuses on cooperation among developing countries in the areas of investment, trade, and technology. The membership of the G-15 has expanded to 17 countries, but the name has remained unchanged.

G-15 Members
Algeria	Indonesia	Nigeria
Argentina	Iran, Islamic Republic of	Senegal
Brazil	Jamaica	Sri Lanka
Chile	Kenya	Venezuela, República Bolivariana de
Egypt	Malaysia	Zimbabwe
India	Mexico

Group of Twenty

The Group of Twenty (G-20), which superseded the Group of 33 (see below), was foreshadowed at the Cologne Summit of the G-7 in June 1999, but was formally established at the G-7 Finance Ministers' meeting on September 26, 1999. The inaugural meeting took place on December 15–16, 1999, in Berlin. The G-20 was formed as a new forum for cooperation and consultation on matters pertaining to the international financial system. It studies, reviews, and promotes discussion among key industrial and emerging market countries of policy issues pertaining to the promotion of international financial stability, and seeks to address issues that go beyond the responsibilities of any one organization.

As the global economic crisis unfolded, and with the meetings of G-20 Heads of State and Government in November 2008, and in April and September 2009, the G-20 assumed an increasingly active role on global economic issues. This culminated in leaders designating the G-20 as "the premier forum for our international economic cooperation" during their Pittsburg Summit.

The membership of the G-20 comprises the finance ministers and central bank governors of the G-7, 12 other key countries, and also the European Union, which is represented by the rotating Council Presidency and the European Central Bank. To ensure that global economic fora and institutions work together, the Managing Director of the IMF and the President of the World Bank, plus the Chairs of the IMFC and the Development Committee, also participate in G-20 meetings on an ex-officio basis. Mexico is the 2012 chair of the G-20, to be followed by Russia in 2013.

G-20 Members
Argentina	France	Japan	South Africa
Australia	Germany	Korea, Republic of	Turkey
Brazil	India	Mexico	The United Kingdom
Canada	Indonesia	Russia	The United States
China	Italy	Saudi Arabia	The European Union

Group of Twenty-Four

The Group of Twenty-Four (G-24), originally a chapter of the G-77, was established in 1971 to coordinate the positions of developing countries on international monetary and development finance issues and to ensure that their interests were adequately represented in negotiations on international monetary matters. The group, which is officially called the Intergovernmental Group of Twenty-Four on International Monetary Affairs and Development, is not an organ of the IMF, but the IMF provides secretariat services for the Group. Its meetings usually take place twice a year, prior to the IMFC and Development Committee meetings, to enable developing country members to discuss agenda items beforehand. Although membership in the G-24 is strictly limited to 24 countries, any developing country can join discussions. China has been a “special invitee” since 1981. Palaniappan Chidambaram, Minister of Finance for India, is the current chairman of the G-24.

G-24 Members
Algeria	Egypt	Iran, Islamic Rep. of	Philippines
Argentina	Ethiopia	Lebanon	South Africa
Brazil	Gabon	Mexico	Sri Lanka
Colombia	Ghana	Nigeria	Syrian Arab Republic
Congo, Dem. Rep. of	Guatemala	Pakistan	Trinidad and Tobago
Côte d’Ivoire	India	Peru	Venezuela, República Bolivariana de

Group of Seventy-Seven

The Group of Seventy-Seven (G-77) was established on June 15, 1964, by the "Joint Declaration of the Seventy-Seven Countries" issued at the end of the first session of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) in Geneva. It was formed to articulate and promote the collective economic interests of its members and to strengthen their joint negotiating capacity on all major international economic issues in the United Nations system. The membership of the G-77 has expanded to 132 member countries, but the original name has been retained because of its historical significance. The Chairmanship rotates on a regional basis (between Africa, Asia, and Latin America and the Caribbean) and is held for one year. Currently, Algeria holds the Chairmanship of the Group of 77 in New York for 2012.

G-77 Members
Afghanistan, Islamic Republic of	Djibouti	Libya	São Tomé and Príncipe
Algeria	Dominica	Madagascar	Saudi Arabia
Angola	Dominican Republic	Malawi	Senegal
Antigua and Barbuda	Ecuador	Malaysia	Seychelles
Argentina	Egypt	Maldives	Sierra Leone
Bahamas, The	El Salvador	Mali	Singapore
Bahrain	Equatorial Guinea	Marshall Islands	Solomon Islands
Bangladesh	Eritrea	Mauritania	Somalia
Barbados	Ethiopia	Mauritius	South Africa
Belize	Fiji	Micronesia, Federated States of	Sri Lanka
Benin	Gabon	Mongolia	Sudan
Bhutan	Gambia, The	Morocco	Suriname
Bolivia	Ghana	Mozambique	Swaziland
Bosnia and Herzegovina	Grenada	Myanmar	Syrian Arab Republic
Botswana	Guatemala	Namibia	Tajikistan
Brazil	Guinea	Nepal	Tanzania
Brunei Darussalam	Guinea-Bissau	Nicaragua	Thailand
Burkina Faso	Guyana	Niger	Timor-Leste
Burundi	Haiti	Nigeria	Togo
Cambodia	Honduras	Oman	Tonga
Cameroon	India	Pakistan	Trinidad and Tobago
Cape Verde	Indonesia	Palestine	Tunisia
Central African Republic	Iran, Islamic Republic of	Panama	Turkmenistan
Chad	Iraq	Papua New Guinea	Uganda
Chile	Jamaica	Paraguay	United Arab Emirates
China	Jordan	Peru	Uruguay
Colombia	Kenya	Philippines	Vanuatu
Comoros	Korea, Democratic People’s Republic of	Qatar	Venezuela, República Bolivariana de
Congo, Dem. Rep. of	Kuwait	Rwanda	Vietnam
Congo, Rep. of	Lao P.D.R.	St. Kitts and Nevis	Yemen
Costa Rica	Lebanon	St. Lucia	Zambia
Côte d'Ivoire	Lesotho	St. Vincent and the Grenadines	Zimbabwe
Cuba	Liberia	Samoa

Creditors Club

Paris Club

The Paris Club is an informal group of official creditors, industrial countries in most cases, that seeks coordinated and sustainable solutions for debtor nations facing payment difficulties. Paris Club creditors provide debt treatments to debtor countries in form of rescheduling or reduction in debt service during a defined period or as of a set date. Although the Paris Club has no legal basis, its members agree to a set of rules and principles designed to reach a coordinated agreement on debt rescheduling quickly and efficiently. This voluntary gathering dates back to 1956, when Argentina agreed to meet its public creditors in Paris. Since then, the Paris Club, and related ad hoc groups, has reached 426 agreements covering 89 debtor countries. The Paris Club and the IMF have extensive contact, since the Paris Club normally requires countries to have an active Fund-supported program in order to qualify for a rescheduling agreement.

London Club

The London Club is an informal group of commercial banks that join together to negotiate their claims against a sovereign debtor. The debtor initiates a process in which a London Club “Advisory Committee” is formed. The Committee is chaired by a leading financial firm and includes representatives from other exposed firms. Upon signing of a restructuring agreement, the Committee is dissolved.

Archive

With the passage of time, a number of committees, groups and clubs have changed or have been superseded. Some of these are archived in this section.

Group of Five

The Group of Five (G-5) major industrial countries was established in the mid-1970s to coordinate the economic policies of France, Germany, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the United States. (These countries' currencies also constituted the SDR, an international reserve asset, created by the IMF in 1969 to supplement the existing official reserves of member countries). The G-5 was the main policy coordination group among the major industrial countries through the Plaza Agreement of September 1985. It was subsequently superseded by the G-7.

Group of Twenty-Two

The establishment on a temporary basis of the Group of Twenty-Two (referred to also as the “Willard Group”) was announced by President Clinton and the other leaders of APEC countries at their meeting in Vancouver in November 1997, when they agreed to organize a gathering of finance ministers and central bank governors to advance the reform of the architecture of the global financial system. The G-22 comprised finance ministers and central bank governors from the G-7 industrial countries and 15 other countries (Argentina, Australia, Brazil, China, Hong Kong SAR, India, Indonesia, the Republic of Korea, Malaysia, Mexico, Poland, Russia, Singapore, South Africa, and Thailand). It first met on April 16, 1998 in Washington, D.C. to examine issues related to the stability of the international financial system and effective functioning of global capital markets. It was superseded first by the G-33 and then by the G-20.

Group of Thirty-Three

The Group of Thirty-Three (G-33) superseded the G-22 in early 1999, and was itself superseded by the G-20 later in the year. Several seminars of the G-33 on the international financial architecture were convened at the initiative of the finance ministers and central bank governors of the G-7. The first meeting was hosted by Germany in Bonn on March 11, 1999.

The G-33 consisted of the finance ministers and central bank governors of Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Côte d'Ivoire, Egypt, France, Germany, Hong Kong SAR, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Malaysia, Mexico, Morocco, the Netherlands, Poland, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, Turkey, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

---

¹ The IMF also has a set of credit arrangements with members and institutions, the New Arrangements to Borrow (NAB), which became effective in November 1998. In March 2011, NAB participants ratified the expansion of the NAB up to SDR 367.5 billion (about $560 billion), once all new participants have adhered to the expanded NAB. In November 2011, Poland joined the NAB, bringing its total size to SDR370.0 billion (about $565 billion).

Switzerland's oldest bank is to close permanently after pleading guilty in a New York court to helping Americans evade their taxes. Wegelin, which was established in 1741, has also agreed to pay $57.8m (£36m; 44m euros) in fines to US authorities. It said that once this was completed, it "will cease to operate as a bank". The bank had admitted to allowing more than 100 American citizens to hide $1.2bn from the Internal Revenue Service for almost 10 years. Wegelin, based in the small Swiss town of St Gallen, started in business 35 years before the US declaration of independence. It becomes the first foreign bank to plead guilty to tax evasion charges in the US. Other Swiss banks have in recent years moved to prevent US citizens from opening offshore accounts. US Attorney Preet Bharara said: "The bank wilfully and aggressively jumped in to fill a void that was left when other Swiss banks abandoned the practice due to pressure from US law enforcement." The closure of Wegelin is a watershed moment that has huge implications for the Swiss banking industry - and for Switzerland's famed banking secrecy. Wegelin's guilty plea included the admission that it intentionally opened accounts for US citizens to help them avoid tax. In court Wegelin's managers said they knew it was wrong, but thought they would not be prosecuted because it was legal in Switzerland, and common practice in Swiss banking - words which are causing something close to panic among other Swiss banks, including Credit Suisse, who are also being investigated by the US authorities. Until now everyone expected Wegelin to fight the charges - instead Switzerland's oldest bank will cease to exist. The message to the Swiss financial sector is clear - the US will not give up this fight over tax. The Swiss government has been trying for months to negotiate a deal with the US which would protect Switzerland's banking secrecy. The Wegelin case makes that look virtually impossible.

There are several reasons for the euro crisis but bailing out banks is one of the major reasons, followed by large scale tax evasion by corporations.The EU is trying to regulate banks and is also taking measures against tax havens. Richard Murphy's (tax research UK)figures may be disputed but it must run into hundreds of billions.
The Right are already talking about 'loss of sovereignty' by nation states. How much sovereignty does a nation state have (esp. a small one) in a globalised world? The sovereignty went when we bought into the present system whereby the 'markets' dominate political decision making.  In 1966 when we had an economic crisis we had five levers to control the economy.

1 we could control the exchange rate-that ended with the end of the Bretton Woods agreement in the early 70s
2 we could impose tariff controls as a temporary measure. The WTO would not allow that now.
3 we had capital controls. Abolished by the Thatcher govt.
4 Interest rate was set by the chancellor-no longer -that was Labour
5 we could vary taxes upwards, Now we are told it would drive away foreign investment and rich people. 

 

The scarcely regulated banking system trashed the world's economy and austerity policies are making it worse. The motive of the banks is obvious-they don't want to lose out. They over extended themselves and could not survive without state help. Much of the bail out of Southern Europe is not to pay for essential services for the people, but to pay off the banks. There is an issue of overspending by the govts. but it is not the main cause. Revenues collapsed in the wake of credit crunch. More were diverted to tax havens-partly due to inefficient government control. We, the people, have little power over the likes of Goldman Sachs but we can vote for politicians who can construct a pan European policy to control the banks and go after revenues which are being diverted. I agree that govts. should try to live within their income but not in the worse recession for sixty years.We need investment and it seems only the state is able to do so while the corporations sit on their money.  I would go further and suggest that the power to create money should not remain with the private banking system but I doubt if there is enough support for this-at present.  The fact is that taxpayers' money is not being diverted to bailouts. The banks are issuing money and it is being guaranteed by national governments. If the Eu can implement some of these reforms, there is a chance we could get out of the mess. Is there another plan which would involve less suffering?

Let me get this right....France wants more CAP money to prop up an unsustainable domestic farming culture based on 18th century methods. Germany does not want to shell out billions of Euro to pay for Greece, Spain et all, and is trying to fudge a deal until Angela can try to get back in. Spain is falling apart and refuses help as it would require to give up sovereignty, a precursor for joining and is breaking up anyway. Italy needs the cash to help its poor south, which by the way has been poor since biblical times, and Ireland , Portugal and Greece, poor bastards, are saddled with debt they cannot afford.
And that's just the biggies.
The whole concept is bankrupt both on a financial, social and an ideological basis, and on top of that, they are corrupt, never having passed an audit.
Why are we even talking to them?...

Talks on a new European Union budget have collapsed after David Cameron won German support in a row with France about his demands for more cuts in spending. The Prime Minister accused Brussels of 'living in a parallel universe' and said there could not be a 'deal at any cost.'  Speaking at the end of the failed summit Mr Cameron said: "We're not going to be tough on budgets at home just to come here and sign up to an increase. "Frankly the deal on the table was just not good enough. It wasn't good enough for Britain and neither was it good enough for a number of countries. "In the UK we are cutting admin budgets by as much as a third, civil service staff by 10 per cent in two years. None of this has been easy. Meanwhile Brussels continues to exist as if it is in a parallel universe."

Interviewed by the Guardian and five other European newspapers from France, Germany, Spain, Italy and Poland, Hollande also called for monthly meetings of the national leaders of the 17 eurozone countries to end the cycle of "so-called 'last-chance' summits", which he said in the past had led only to "fleeting successes".

He said domestic electoral considerations should not get in the way of solving the euro-crisis. Merkel "is very sensitive to questions of internal politics and to the demands of her parliament. I understand that, and can respect that. But we all have our own public opinion. Our common responsibility is to put Europe's interests first."

France's first socialist president for 17 years also rejected the idea that Germany was the only nation putting its hand in its pocket for everyone else.

"We're all taking part in this solidarity. The French, the Germans, just like all the Europeans in the ESM [the eurozone's new rescue fund]. Let's stop thinking that there's only one country who's going to pay for the others. That's false. However, I know the sensitivity of our German friends to the problem of supervision. Whoever pays should control, whoever pays should sanction. I agree. But budgetary union should be completed by a partial mutualisation of debts through eurobonds."

Hollande's assertion of the need for the eurozone to pool some of its debt through eurobonds challenged one of Merkel's red lines. She has repeatedly refused to countenance the proposal and there is scant chance of her shifting that position as she moves into an election year.

"We are near, very near, to an end to the eurozone crisis," said Hollande. But decisions taken at the last EU summit in June had to be implemented "as fast as possible".

....What an incompetent! - Ollie Rehn's opinion in WSJ...

"A casual reader of much recent commentary could be forgiven for believing that European governments are blindly enacting harsh policies of austerity, under the watchful eye of a European Commission obsessed with enforcing arbitrarily chosen nominal deficit targets. It is time to debunk this damaging myth.

In fact, the European Union's Stability and Growth Pact can adapt a country's agreed fiscal adjustment path if the economic situation calls for it.   Alongside the nominal targets for deficit reduction, each new recommendation issued to a member state specifies the structural fiscal effort to be achieved each year until the excessive deficit is corrected. While the nominal targets may continue to dominate the headlines, the Commission focuses its assessments of member states' actions first and foremost on their compliance with the agreed structural effort.

This is consistent with another little-known, yet key element of the pact: the medium-term objective of a balanced budget in structural terms. The appropriate pace of progress towards this medium-term objective is agreed by taking into account the specific economic circumstances of each EU member state. Accordingly, a member state may receive extra time to correct its excessive deficit. This has occurred twice this year already: in July for Spain, and in October for Portugal. Both now have until 2014 to bring their government deficits back below 3% of GDP. ".... excerpt of OR's article in the WSJ

Athens-based journalist Damian Mac Con Uladh reports that the Greek government has even banned some TV crews from covering parts of Angela Merkel's trip today:

Ms Merkel is due to land in Greece this morning for talks with her counterpart Antonis Samaras and president Carolos Papoulias. But she is likely to face angry protests in a country where many feel their already-struggling economy has been dealt further harm by austerity measures demanded in return for a bail-out. Greece is in its fifth year of recession and unemployment has soared to 25pc. The country is currently in negotiations with the troika (representatives from the IMF, European Commission and ECB) over whether it has made enough progress implementing cuts and tax hikes to release its next €11.5bn tranche of bail-out cash, without which it faces bankruptcy by November. Alexis Tsipras, who leads the opposition Syriza party in Greece, said: "She does not come to support Greece, which her policies have brought to the brink. She comes to save the corrupt, disgraced and servile political system. We will give her the welcome she deserves." Around 7,000 police will be on patrol on the streets of Athens, backed up by rooftop snipers, water cannon and a helicopter, while 300 members of the coastguard have also been drafted-in to bolster the security operation. As well as the large police presence, all large gatherings and rallies have been banned in large parts of Athens (shown in the map below) from 9am to 10pm to "preserve the peace".I see austerity does not apply to the German Chancellors security - evidently. Germany have squeezed every little last ounce of competitiveness from Greece, and are now spitting in their faces. Mercedes should be 20% more expensive than they are, minimum. The reason the Germans sell so many is because they are using Greece and the other southern sovereign nations to keep their exchange rate artificially low. It is a huge scam on the Greeks. Meanwhile, Greece have to buy all in Euros. They should revolt and hang their leaders.

There is no German help that can solve the basic problem in Spain. Money, or access to it, is not the problem for the Spanish sovereign. It has had quitre literally hundreds of billions of euros thrown at it since it joined the EU a quarter of a century ago and it has still failed to develop a sustainable and functional economic model.   Fully a third of people in Madrid are employed by the state, many in utterly futile positions which are duplicated at regional and local model. Spain would be better off if it offered redundancy to all such public sector workers, with a view to cutting down numbers by say a third. Those who take up the offer should in addition to their redundancy pay be assured of loan and equity funding for business start ups to generate wealth that the country badly needs. And I'm not talking about property development projects on the coast which seems to be the default Spanish notion of entrepreneurialism.  All this schlepping up and down from one European capital to another by leaders and finance ministers is utterly futile. The fundamental problem will not be solved by finding some ingenious way of getting "free money" funneled from North to South. The basic problem is that, given developments in the East, not enough wealth is being generated to sustain our current economic and social model in both South and North. Countries such as Greece and Spain are being picked off in the same way that we see the least fleet of foot in the herd being picked off by the predator on those BBC wildlife programmes.   But if the basic problem is not tackled, what is happening in those countries will surely happen in countries such as France and the UK, which because of their proud histories implicitly believe that they are somehow immune, in a few years time. Let's stop sloganeering about bankers and tax evaders - for whom incidentally I have not an ounce of sympathy - and stop putting our faith in the chimera of revolution. Let us rather face up to the simple fact that if we want to maintain our existing social model we must start to generate wealth or within a generation we ALL will be eking out our livings on the verge of grinding poverty.

Mr Ayrault made clear the frustrations in the new socialist government over the handling of Greece by eurozone leaders, including the German chancellor, criticizing them for a “political weakness” and “a lack of vision”. I think Merkel is guilty of both of these things. She makes big, definitive statements, then undermines them a few days later. The people of Greece (and of Spain, Ireland and Portugal) deserve to know where they stand. The last Greek election was a farce because it was fought between a party that said it would simply cancel the debt with no consequences and a party that said it would renegotiate the bailout. Surely, if Merkel's "heart bleeds" for the Greeks, she's morally obliged to be straight with the Greek people. These are real people who can't make big life decisions - like whether to stay in Greece, whether to start a business, whether to start a family - because their country is in limbo. And it's in limbo because they don't know how much support they have from Germany. They don't have a clear way to stay in the EZ... they're just being strung along. Maybe it's good for her re-election chances - or her opinion poll numbers - but it's a lousy way to treat people.As things stand, we're still waiting for the Troika's official report into Greece's progress. Ayrault's comments add weight to the theory that Athens will be granted more support in the event that it has missed a significant chunk of its targets. We'll bring you reaction to Ayrault's comments as soon as possible.

Portugal is on the brink of abandoning its controversial plans to hike taxes on workers, in a victory for the huge numbers of people who protested a week ago. Pedro Passos Coelho, the Portuguese prime minister, is due to hold talks with employers and trade unions today to discuss alternative proposals. The public opposition to his plan to effectively slash workers' pay to fund lower taxes for companies appears to have forced Lisbon to change course.

to preserve the Eurozone PIIGS democracy has to go as it stands in the way.

There's only a debt crisis because there is a growth crisis. The growth crisis was a guaranteed result from the design of the Eurozone.  Each country has to be responsible for its own debt and high investment high productivity Germany will always have the balance of payments surplus and the rest will have the deficit.  They can never hope to match German productivity which is based on a massive investment over many years but are locked to the same currency. Hence they continuously build up debt to pay for German products and year on year are overpaying themselves because they have no chance ever of matching the productivity.
The increasing debt in turn reduces their economic growth because of the money that goes on interest charges which grows in parallel with the debt.  For the Eurozone to work to the German design the PIIGS need to take large annual reductions in salaries and pensions. This can never work in a democracy because who is going to vote for a party that guarantees reduced salaries and wages year on year?...Therefore to preserve the Eurozone PIIGS democracy has to go as it stands in the way. Instead the commission have to implement these reductions year on year and democratic government taken out of the picture.  If people weren't people this answer would work but I suspect people will remain as people and the EU elite and commission will become increasingly unpopular as they implement the policies necessary to preserve the Eurozone year in year out.   A corollary of preservation of the EZ is high PIIGS unemployment especially for the young. I suspect the best and brightest will leave to get a life. Once established they are unlikely to to the EU because of its ageing demographics. This has to mean high taxation for the declining number of working age.

The EZ is having the effect of making the EUs ageing demographics worse as it's the top 20% or so who are the movers and shakers who tend to be the creators of new businesses that generate wealth.

The EU is the nightmare that just keeps growing

I don't know what's more puke-inducing: (1) hearing Barroso stating that the EU must be turned into a "federation of nation states" in which member countries will surrender more sovereignty to Brussels whilst moving towards full integration; or (2) seeing Barroso's fat, ugly face plastered in numerous DT threads. OMG what a horrible day for the EU!!!.....So how much more crap can the EU citizenry take? ... How many more rights and privileges will be transferred over to Barroso and the other Brussels Eurocrats before the citizens finally revolt? ... How many more hundreds of billions of tax dollars will the Eurocrats waste in their delusional, warped quest towards an ideal Euro-federation? ... How many new bailout funds will be developed? ... How many more ESMs will emerge? ... How many more Draghi speeches promising UNLIMITED FUNDING for the PIIGS will transpire? ... How many more summits between Merkel and the Latin Desperadoes will be required to keep this disaster afloat? ..... The EU is the nightmare that just keeps growing.

 Mircea Halaciuga, Esq.
004.0724.58.1078
PROXEMIS - Managementul Riscurilor

...54% of Germans are in favour of the court blocking the legislation,

Fate of eurozone rests in the hands of German judges. The decision is likely to give financial rescue fund the go-ahead against a background of German disillusion with single currency. They have the potential to throw the stock exchange into turmoil, trigger frenzy on bond markets and bring down the German government. So the eyes and ears of the eurozone will be on the eight red-robed judges of Germany's highest court this week when they deliver a long-awaited verdict over whether a financial rescue fund considered crucial to the future of the euro gets the green light.

The constitutional court is under international pressure to rule in favour of the European stability mechanism and fiscal pact. A dissenting ruling from the court, based in Karlsruhe, southwestern Germany, would probably cause havoc on money markets and cast doubt on the future of Europe's single currency.  "The German constitutional court cannot afford to be seen as not being independent, but it also cannot afford to be seen as the court that brought down the government," said Constanze Stelzenmüller, a senior transatlantic fellow at the German Marshall Fund in Berlin. "They're going to have to try to square the circle; in other words, not bring down the government at the same time as asserting their independence."

The ruling, due on Wednesday, is expected to give the go-ahead to the ESM, a permanent bailout mechanism, and the fiscal pact, but with caveats such as constraints on future decision-making or a ruling that Germany's basic law has to be rewritten if there is to be further EU integration.

A government insider told the Observer, on condition of anonymity, that the court "is very independent and always good for a surprise. Nobody knows what will happen on 12 September." A poll published on Friday on Spiegel Online showed that 54% of Germans were in favour of the court blocking the legislation, reflecting the degree to which public opposition to bailouts is increasing.

The Bundesbank remains critical of the purchase of euro system sovereign bonds

Europe's most powerful central bank kept up its opposition even after Germany's political leaders voiced some support for ECB President Mario Draghi's plan to resume buying bonds. "The Bundesbank remains critical of the purchase of euro system sovereign bonds, which comes with considerable risks for stability," the Bundesbank wrote in its monthly report. "Decisions about a possible broader mutualisation of solvency risks should be... with the governments and parliaments, and should not occur via central bank balances."Mr Draghi indicated earlier this month the ECB could intervene in debt markets but he held back from announcing concrete steps. The Bundesbank retains substantial influence within Germany and across financial markets due to its inflation fighting credentials, but it is unlikely it could scupper Draghi's plan, given the German central bank is only one of 17 constituents at the ECB. This will have the same effect like Eurobonds - No safe haven any more, borrowing costs for Germany (and the UK) will rise and the costs for Italy and Spain will be lower, as investors start already now buying their bonds.

Menwhile, an interview being published today with Asmussen from the ECB...."Greek exit manageable but not preferable (reuters)"

1. He indicates support for Draghi's dual-path bond-buying program, in contrast to the Bundesbank's Weidmann. (From Handelsblatt) He considers it firmly within the ECB's mandate, as "only a currency whose existence is not in doubt, is monetarily stable. "Precisely this doubt in the Euro's continuing existence is what we want to remove from the market" ...The other German on the ECB sides with Draghi.

2. On Greece. Staying in the Euro is his preference, but a Grexit would be "manageable".

3. On the costs of a Grexit. "It would be associated with a loss of growth and higher unemployment and it would be very expensive - in Greece, Europe as a whole and even in Germany.". Handelsblatt adds: the ECB is worried about the effects on other countries. One shouldn't act "as if one knows with certainty what would happen the day after". That's relevant because Asmussen, according to persistent German media reports, is the ECB board member responsible for contingency planning for a Grexit - although it's something he refuses to discuss with the media.

STEP BY STEP ..." goose" step that is ...!!!

The German military will in future be able to use its weapons on German streets in an extreme situation, the Federal Constitutional Court says. The ruling says the armed forces can be deployed only if Germany faces an assault of "catastrophic proportions", but not to control demonstrations. The decision to deploy forces must be approved by the federal government. Severe restrictions on military deployments were set down in the German constitution after Nazi-era abuses. The court says the military still cannot shoot down a hijacked passenger plane - fighter jets would have to intercept the plane and fire warning shots to force it to land. After World War II the new constitution ruled that soldiers could not be deployed with guns at the ready on German soil, the BBC's Stephen Evans reports from Berlin. The court has now changed that, saying troops could be used to tackle an assault that threatens scores of casualties. The judges had in mind a terrorist incident involving armed attackers in public places. German troops have been deployed abroad since the war, but it has been a gradual process. German warplanes have been used in the Balkans and troops are on the ground in Afghanistan, protecting construction workers, but able to return fire if attacked.

Perhaps Finland will be the first Country to say enough is Enough and leave.

Frau Merkel knows well - and if she has forgotten, the many irate German taxpayers posting on German newspaper websites can inform her - that if she she is going to 'protect' anything, it is to follow the oath she took on becoming Chancellor. 'To protect the German people and to avert their harm." ("das deutsche Volk zu schuetzen, und von ihm Schaden abzuwenden.") There was a reason for this oath. A previous Chancellor (can't recall who) had pursued a policy that was likely to result in the wholesale death of German citizens and the destruction of their wealth. So the post-war founding fathers of the BRD worded the oath veeery carefully. Of course, being a socialist technocrat from (communist) East Germany, and a loyal citizen of the GDR, she may not have noticed the wording of this oath of what is, after all, for her a foreign country. I'd just like to remind her. 'To protect the German people and to avert their harm." Nichts zu ungut, Frau Kanzlerin. If she carries on like this, Mrs Merkel will have created the most misery in the whole of Europe since once of her predecessors tried to unify the continent under a single government. That failed, too..... The EEC/EC/EU was designed to be run by the French and paid for by the Germans. We know this. The German population are now finding this out and are beginning to object. With a few exceptions, the rest of Europe cannot keep up economically with Germany. The Germans should realize that as each of the various EZ countries come under pressure and needs a bail-out, then they will eventually be left trying to deal with the whole cost. They could not afford it and therefor want the rest of the countries to reform their economies. What the Germans also do not realize is that as more power goes to the center "More Europe" they will have less control over their future and their finances. They would be outvoted by the "club med/Latin" countries including France and Belgium. Position reinforced with France in charge and Germany paying. Their best route forward would be to leave the Euro, and for it to be based on the Latin Bloc led by France. Would involve losses but rest of existing EZ would have a better chance to paying for the debts. If, and it is a big if, Germany and a few other countries were planning this they would hardly say this. Perhaps Finland will be the first Country to say enough is Enough and leave.

Bank secrecy masks a world of crime and destructionBanks seem willing to exploit the loopholes found in tax havens and it's costing the British taxpayer dear" (source: the guardian)…If anybody has actually read any of my postings and comments, which is not at all certain since I do not read other blogs, posts and comments, they will have seen how I have been advocating the end of Tax Havens and fancy avoidance schemes for years. I have been saying we are in a world war: the 1% against the 99%. It was in my report sent to Governments in 2009: A MORAL PATH TO RECOVERY, which can still be read on my blog's archived posts,  I maintain that Wealth Management, offered by the big banks, is code word for tax evasion on a massive scale. It has grown into a major industry of the rich for the rich, by the rich actually sponsored by Governments which have allowed the privileged elite to avoid paying taxes. And we wonder why our countries are in debt and the economies stagnating. The banks have been exposed as virtually corrupt, fraudulent, criminal organizations and yet not one single banker has been brought to justice. The 13 trillion dollars hidden away as calculated by the Tax Justice Network simply must be recovered if Europe and America are to survive as democracies. The 99% just cannot support any more austerity measures, cut backs and increased taxes. That is the simple choice we face. The 1% know they cannot hold out for ever but they seem too shortsighted to understand that if the majority sinks they will go down too....Well, as long as we allow banks to hold a license to create money as debt, there will be no solution to this or any of the other corrupt activities of banks. Take away their power to do something and they will buy it back with the stroke of a pen. Banks are masters of our universe - but ONLY because we allow them to create 97% of our money supply when they extend loans. Until we restore the utility of money to a public accountable body in the national interest the bankers (in collusion with the political power they can buy so easily) will do as they please.