mercoledì 27 febbraio 2013

High Time to Shut Down the Vatican Bank ?


S

God’s Racket: Why It’s High Time to Shut Down the Vatican Bank

Think of it as HSBC with God’s imprimatur.
Photo Credit: Shutterstock.com
It’s a place where angels fear to tread; where criminals, frauds and mysterious corpses turn up as regularly as rats in the metro. The Institute for Works of Religion, commonly known as the Vatican bank, was set up in 1942 by Pope Pius XII to manage the vast Vatican finances. Often referred to as the world’s most secret bank, the operation is run by a CEO and overseen by five cardinals who report directly to the Pope.
The bank’s official role is to safeguard and administer property intended for works of religion or charity. The actual activities of the bank are somewhat different. They include money laundering for narcotics traffickers, bribery, skimming charitable funds to enrich priests, and tax evasion for wealthy Italians.
Finance, Vatican-Style
The scandals associated with the Vatican bank, particularly over the last four decades, are so sordid and improbable as to strain the creativity of a supermarket tabloid. The Church’s past offenses of selling indulgences and charging fees for sacraments have been updated for the world of modern finance, complete with shell companies, speculation and secret transfers. (For more on the antecedents of the current bank, see Betty Clermont’s handy synopsis at Daily Kos.) Last year, Italian journalist Gianluigi Nuzzi published a book delving into the intrigue and corruption swirling in a bank that has been answerable to no one. It was an eye-opener.
In May 2012, Pope Benedict XVI’s butler was arrested for leaking documents bristling with claims of financial corruption and criminal activity involving major Italian companies. The last Vatican bank chairman, Ettore Gotti Tedeschi, was shown the door when it was revealed that the bank was running afoul of international money-laundering standards. Leaked material and reporting reveals a bank that appears to be a kind of rogue offshore vehicle favored by various kinds of miscreants, including right-wing politicians, mafia types and tax evaders who wish to hide their financial transactions. Kind of like HSBC, only with God’s imprimatur.
Subsequent investigations have resulted in a shutdown of credit card transactions at all Vatican venues; right now, God can only take cash. In an attempt to restore relations with the international financial community, outgoing Pope Benedict appointed a new director of the bank, German lawyer Ernst von Freyberg, as one of his final acts. So far that’s not looking so good, as Freyberg has been revealed to have unfortunate links with a company with a history of making warships, including those produced for Nazi Germany.
Skeletons In the Vault
The same month the butler story broke, sinister echoes of earlier scandals emerged when the Catholic Church’s top exorcist (yes, you got that right)claimed that a pile of bones buried in the tomb of a notorious gangster – and church doner -- belonged to a missing schoolgirl who was forced to perform for priests' sex parties. The gangster’s girlfriend at the time claimed that American monsignor Paul Marcinkus, the scandal-ridden chief of the Vatican bank from 1971 to 1989, was behind the abduction. Whether or not that’s true, the years of Marcinkus’ reign were certainly unusual.  
In the 1980s, the Vatican bank was involved in a major political and financial ruckus involving the $4.7 billion collapse of Banco Ambrosiano. Marcinkus was under consideration for indictment in 1982 in Italy as an accessory to the bankruptcy, but he escaped earthly justice when the Italian courts ruled that his status as a priest and high-ranking prelate of the Vatican gave him diplomatic immunity from prosecution. One Roberto Calvi, known as “God’s banker” because of his close association with the Holy See, was the chairman of Banco Ambrosiano. He also did business with the Mafia, and was found in June 1982 swinging from Blackfriars Bridge in London the day after his dismissal from the bank. The death was ruled a murder, and is widely suspected to have been a mob hit.
Some years earlier, in 1968, we meet the shady figure of Michele “The Shark” Sindona, who became a Vatican financial adviser despite the small matter of his past job as manager of heroin operations for the Gambino crime family. A world-class hustler who specialized in money-laundering, he was a member of the notorious P2 Lodge, a bogus ''Masonic'' lodge considered to have operated something like a right-wing shadow government. Like other Italian bankers associated with the Vatican, Sindona trumpeted his sleazy activities as the defense of free enterprise against leftist political forces. 
Sindona ended up in prison for bank fraud and ordering the murder of a lawyer appointed to liquidate his Italian banks. He later died there after drinking a cyanide-laced coffee. Some say his poisoning was an attempt to keep him from talking about the sudden death of 65-year-old Pope John Paul I just 33 days after taking office. The reform-minded Pope had been speaking out against the profiteering of the Vatican Bank, and theologian Abbé George de Nantes, among others, has made a case for murder. (If you saw The Godfather Part III, you may recall a storyline involving the Vatican bank, organized crime and the sudden death of a fictional pope.)
Too Corrupt to Exist
Right now there’s a power struggle going on in the Vatican concerning how the bank should operate, whether to modernize and become more transparent, or to keep on operating under the radar and doing all the shady business it can get away with.
If anyone thinks that the Vatican bank could be cleaned up, I would suggest thinking of the mythic Augean stables. Essentially, a racketeering entity has been operating as a non-profit dedicated to doing God’s work. Jesus was famed for throwing the money-lenders out of the temple. In the Vatican, they run the temple.
The Vatican needs cash, and as its influence in the West declines in favor of poorer areas of the globe, there is no telling what else it will do to get it. The bank has had multiple opportunities to clean up its act after noxious scandals, and has repeatedly failed to do so.
Andreas Wassermann and Peter Wensierski of Der Spiegel described the corruption at the heart of the bank:
“Its business model depends on keeping things as shrouded as possible from all financial authorities. Capital gains are untaxed, financial statements are not disclosed and anonymity is guaranteed. The bank's exotic status of belonging to a religious monarchy in a sovereign state the size of a city park has shielded it from investigations and unpleasant external monitoring.”
Here’s an idea: Shut it down. Why shouldn’t priests use regular banks just like everybody else? Why should a bank housed in a medieval defense tower gobble donations and launder illicit funds, giving haven to cheats, criminals and wealthy parasites? The Vatican bank is too corrupt to exist.
Lynn Parramore is an AlterNet senior editor. She is cofounder of Recessionwire, founding editor of New Deal 2.0, and author of 'Reading the Sphinx: Ancient Egypt in Nineteenth-Century Literary Culture.' She received her Ph.d in English and Cultural Theory from NYU, where she has taught essay writing and semiotics. She is the Director of AlterNet's New Economic Dialogue Project. Follow her on Twitter @LynnParramore.

martedì 26 febbraio 2013

How the Fed Could Fix the Economy

How the Fed Could Fix the Economy--and Why It Hasn't

By  (about the author)     Permalink     
OpEdNews Op Eds 
Become a Fan
  (115 fans)


liquidity by andersoneric87

Quantitative easing (QE) is supposed to stimulate the economy by adding money to the money supply, increasing demand. But so far, it hasn't been working. Why not? Because as practiced for the last two decades, QE does not actually increase the circulating money supply. It merely cleans up the toxic balance sheets of banks. A real "helicopter drop" that puts money into the pockets of consumers and businesses has not yet been tried. Why not?  Another good question . . . .

When Ben Bernanke gave his famous helicopter money speech to the Japanese in 2002, he was not yet chairman of the Federal Reserve.  He said then that the government could easily reverse a deflation, just by printing money and dropping it from helicopters. "The U.S. government has a technology, called a printing press (or, today, its electronic equivalent)," he said, "that allows it to produce as many U.S. dollars as it wishes at essentially no cost." Later in the speech he discussed "a money-financed tax cut," which he said was "essentially equivalent to Milton Friedman's famous "helicopter drop' of money." Deflation could be cured, said Professor Friedman, simply by dropping money from helicopters.

It seemed logical enough. If the money supply were insufficient for the needs of trade, the solution was to add money to it. Most of the circulating money supply consists of "bank credit" created by banks when they make loans. When old loans are paid off faster than new loans are taken out (as is happening today), the money supply shrinks. The purpose of QE is to reverse this contraction.

But if debt deflation is so easy to fix, then why have the Fed's massive attempts to pull this maneuver off failed to revive the economy? And why is Japan still suffering from deflation after 20 years of quantitative easing?

On a technical level, the answer has to do with where the money goes. The widespread belief that QE is flooding the economy with money is a myth. Virtually all of the money it creates simply sits in the reserve accounts of banks.

That is the technical answer, but the motive behind it may be something deeper . . . .
An Asset Swap Is Not a Helicopter Drop
As QE is practiced today, the money created on a computer screen never makes it into the real, producing economy. It goes directly into bank reserve accounts, and it stays there.  Except for the small amount of "vault cash" available for withdrawal from commercial banks, bank reserves do not leave the doors of the central bank.

According to Peter Stella, former head of the Central Banking and Monetary and Foreign Exchange Operations Divisions at the International Monetary Fund:

[B]anks do not lend "reserves". . . . Whether commercial banks let the reserves they have acquired through QE sit "idle" or lend them out in the internet bank market 10,000 times in one day among themselves, the aggregate reserves at the central bank at the end of that day will be the same.
This point is also stressed in Modern Monetary Theory.  As explained by Prof. Scott Fullwiler:

Banks can't "do" anything with all the extra reserve balances. Loans create deposits--reserve balances don't finance lending or add any "fuel" to the economy. Banks don't lend reserve balances except in the federal funds market, and in that case the Fed always provides sufficient quantities to keep the federal funds rate at its . . . interest rate target.
Reserves are used simply to clear checks between banks. They move from one reserve account to another, but the total money in bank reserve accounts remains unchanged.  Banks can lend their reserves to each other, but they cannot lend them to us.

QE as currently practiced is simply an asset swap. The central bank swaps newly-created dollars for toxic assets clogging the balance sheets of commercial banks. This ploy keeps the banks from going bankrupt, but it does nothing for the balance sheets of federal or local governments, consumers, or businesses.
Central Bank Ignorance or Intentional Sabotage? Another Look at the Japanese Experience
That brings us to the motive.  Twenty years is a long time to repeat a policy that isn't working.

UK Professor Richard Werner invented the term quantitative easing when he was advising the Japanese in the 1990s.  He says he had something quite different in mind from the current practice.  He intended for QE to increase the credit available to the real economy.  Today, he says:

[A]ll QE is doing is to help banks increase the liquidity of their portfolios by getting rid of longer-dated slightly less liquid assets and raising cash. . . . Reserve expansion is a standard monetarist policy and required no new label.
Werner contends that the Bank of Japan (BOJ) intentionally sabotaged his proposal, adopting his language but not his policy; and other central banks have taken the same approach since.

In his book Princes of the Yen (2003), Werner maintains that in the 1990s, the BOJ consistently foiled government attempts at creating a recovery. As summarized in a review of the book:

The post-war disappearance of the military triggered a power struggle between the Ministry of Finance and the Bank of Japan for control over the economy.  While the Ministry strove to maintain the controlled economic system that created Japan's post-war economic miracle, the central bank plotted to break free from the Ministry by reverting to the free markets of the 1920s.  . . . 
They reckoned that the wartime economic system and the vast legal powers of the Ministry of Finance could only be overthrown if there was a large crisis - one that would be blamed on the ministry.  While observers assumed that all policy-makers have been trying their best to kick-start Japan's economy over the past decade, the surprising truth is that one key institution did not try hard at all.

Werner contends that the Bank of Japan not only blocked the recovery but actually created the bubble that precipitated the downturn:

[T]hose central bankers who were in charge of the policies that prolonged the recession were the very same people who were responsible for the creation of the bubble. . . . [They] ordered the banks to expand their lending aggressively during the 1980s.  In 1989, [they] suddenly tightened their credit controls, thus bringing down the house of cards that they had built up before. . . .
With banks paralysed by bad debts, the central bank held the key to a recovery: only it could step in and create more credit.  It failed to do so, and hence the recession continued for years.  Thanks to the long recession, the Ministry of Finance was broken up and lost its powers. The Bank of Japan became independent and its power has now become legal.

In the US, too, the central bank holds the key to recovery. Only it can create more credit for the broad economy. But reversing recession has taken a backseat to resuscitating zombie banks, maintaining the feudal dominion of a private financial oligarchy.

In Japan, interestingly, all that may be changing with the election of a new administration. As reported in a January 2013 article in Business Week:

Shinzo Abe and the Liberal Democratic Party swept back into power in mid-December by promising a high-octane mix of monetary and fiscal policies to pull Japan out of its two-decade run of economic misery. To get there, Prime Minister Abe is threatening a hostile takeover of the Bank of Japan, the nation's central bank. The terms of surrender may go something like this: Unless the BOJ agrees to a 2 percent inflation target and expands its current government bond-buying operation, the ruling LDP might push a new central bank charter through the Japanese Diet. That charter would greatly diminish the BOJ's independence to set monetary policy and allow the prime minister to sack its governor.
From Bankers' Bank to Government Bank
Making the central bank serve the interests of the government and the people is not a new idea. Prof. Tim Canova points out that central banks have only recently been declared independent of government:

[I]ndependence has really come to mean a central bank that has been captured by Wall Street interests, very large banking interests.  It might be independent of the politicians, but it doesn't mean it is a neutral arbiter.  During the Great Depression and coming out of it, the Fed took its cues from Congress.  Throughout the entire 1940s, the Federal Reserve as a practical matter was not independent. It took its marching orders from the White House and the Treasury--and it was the most successful decade in American economic history.
To free the central bank from Wall Street capture, Congress or the president could follow the lead of Shinzo Abe and threaten a hostile takeover of the Fed unless it directs its credit firehose into the real economy. The unlimited, near-zero-interest credit line made available to banks needs to be made available to federal and local governments.

When a similar suggestion was made to Ben Bernanke in January 2011, however, he said he lacked the authority to comply. If that was what Congress wanted, he said, it would have to change the Federal Reserve Act.

And that is what may need to be done--rewrite the Federal Reserve Act to serve the interests of the economy and the people.

Webster Tarpley observes that the Fed advanced $27 trillion to financial institutions through the TAF (Term Asset Facility), the TALF (Term Asset-backed Securities Loan Facility), and similar facilities. He proposes an Infrastructure Facility extending credit on the same terms to state and local governments. It might offer to buy $3 trillion in 100-year, zero-coupon bonds, the minimum currently needed to rebuild the nation's infrastructure. The collateral backing these bonds would be sounder than the commercial paper of zombie banks, since it would consist of the roads, bridges, and other tangible infrastructure built with the loans. If the bond issuers defaulted, the Fed would get the infrastructure.

Quantitative easing as practiced today is not designed to serve the real economy. It is designed to serve bankers who create money as debt and rent it out for a fee. The money power needs to be restored to the people and the government, but we need an executive and legislature willing to stand up to the banks. A popular movement could give them the backbone.  In the meantime, states could set up their own banks, which could leverage the state's massive capital and revenue base into credit for the local economy.

Ellen Brown is an attorney, president of the Public Banking Institute, and author of 11 books. Her websites are http://WebofDebt.com, http://EllenBrown.com, and http://PublicBankingInstitute.org. In her latest book, "Web of Debt: The Shocking (more...)
 

lunedì 18 febbraio 2013

Prosecutor of Rome to investigate the Bilderberg Group


Italian Lawyer Demands Public Prosecutor Investigate Bilderberg Group

  •  The Alex Jones ChannelAlex Jones Show podcastPrison Planet TVInfowars.com TwitterAlex Jones' FacebookInfowars store
Alfonso Luigi Marra charges secretive organization colluded to pick Mario Monti as Prime Minister
Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com 
February 12, 2013
Photo: World Economic Forum
Italian lawyer Alfonso Luigi Marra has requested that the Public Prosecutor of Rome investigate the secretive Bilderberg Group for criminal activity, questioning whether the elitist organization’s 2011 meeting in Switzerland led to the selection of Mario Monti as Prime Minister of Italy.
The Bilderberg Group is an annual confab of around 120 of the most influential power brokers on the planet from the world of politics, business, banking, academia, media, and even royalty. Mainstream press reports routinely downplay the significance of the meeting despite the fact that it has proven its kingmaker status on numerous occasions in the past and is clearly not just a “talking shop,” as some have characterized Bilderberg.
Marra’s full request that the Public Prosecutor of Rome investigate Bilderberg, a translation of which is posted here(original version in Italian here), identifies the organization as a “secret world government seeking to destabilize democracies through carnage,” that has relied on “institutional collusion” to keep its agenda largely secret.
Marra cites article 18 of the Italian Constitution, which explicitly bans secret societies from engaging in political activities.
Labeling the group a “unique, illegal brotherhood” of elitists who consider themselves to be “above the law,” Marra points the finger at Bilderberg for engineering wars, economic collapses, and arming dictators, activities which, “constitute an obvious, blatant violation, to say the least, of the articles of the Criminal Code.”
Marra urges the Public Prosecutor to investigate Bilderberg for engaging in illegal activities, “with particular reference to the legality of the conduct of Mario Monti as a member of Bilderberg,” and an “assessment of whether there are connections between some politicians” who attended the 2011 Bilderberg meeting in St. Moritz “and his appointment to the Presidency of the Council.”
Mario Monti, a former international advisor for Goldman Sachs, the European Chairman of David Rockefeller’s Trilateral Commission and also a leading member of the Bilderberg Group, assumed office as Italian Prime Minister following the resignation of Silvio Berlusconi in November 2011.
Monti’s cabinet was entirely comprised of unelected bureaucrats, prompting charges that Monti was merely the latest of a growing list of ex-Goldman Sachs technocrats selected undemocratically to seize control of European economies.
Monti attended the 2011 Bilderberg meeting in St. Moritz, Switzerland, at which Luigi suggests a deal may have been struck to appoint Monti as Berlusconi’s successor. Since the conference took place in June, five months before Monti’s appointment as PM, if evidence of this was uncovered by the Public Prosecutor it would clearly indicate that underhanded scheming had secured the position for Monti.
There are innumerable other examples of how Bilderberg has influenced major global events ahead of time, picking Presidents and Prime Ministers on a regular basis with total contempt for the democratic process.
In 2009, Bilderberg chairman Étienne Davignon even bragged about how the Euro single currency was a brainchild of the Bilderberg Group.
The former Prime Minister of Belgium, Herman Van Rompuy, was picked for the role of European Union President just days after he attended a Bilderberg Group dinner meeting in November 2009.
In 2010, former NATO Secretary-General and Bilderberg member Willy Claes admitted that Bilderberg attendees are mandated to implement decisions that are formulated during the annual conference of power brokers. If this is the case, it would violate laws in numerous countries that forbid politicians from being influenced by foreign agents in secret.
During the 2011 meeting in St. Moritz, Dominique Baettig, a prominent member of Switzerland’s largest political party, attempted to confront other Swiss politicians attending the secretive confab and called for a parliamentary investigation into the activities of the group.
*********************
Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Infowars.com and Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a host for Infowars Nightly News.

Bankenstein: Euroscepticism could “lead to war”

Euroscepticism: More than a British phenomenon

EurActiv, 25 January 2013, updated 12 February 2013

With Prime Minister David Cameron having vowed to hold a referendum on UK membership of the EU, Britain's penchant for EU bashing is well publicised. But there are political parties in other member states which are far from in love with the European project, and whose stance against integration has been fanned by the worsening of the economic crisis.

SUMMARY

That the European Union claimed the last Nobel Peace Prize may have done little to turn the tide of euroscepticism. With Europe in the throes of an economic crisis, resentment towards Brussels is higher than ever. Many Europeans have blamed the EU for causing the crisis, citing a failure of the euro currency. They also resent the EU for continued rounds of austerity measures, which have seen some communities lose vital services, and for its perceived lack of democratic legitimacy.
Speaking to British Labour Leader Ed Miliband in New Statesman magazine, the president of the European Commission, José Manuel Barroso, warned about the effect the crunch could have on European morale: “Of course [euroscepticism] worries me … There are old demons in Europe - extreme nationalism, populism, xenophobia. You see that in times in crisis that extremist forces, populist forces, have a better ground to oversimplify things and to manipulate feelings.”
But to authors and political scientists Robert Harmsen and Menno Spiering, the EU integration process is a victim of its success.
In their book 'Euroscepticism: Party Politics, National Identity and European Integration' (2004) the authors suggest: "The European Union's progressively expanding competence has, correspondingly, multiplied the potential sources of friction which may give rise to forms of Euroscepticism."
They also suggest the EU opens itself up to criticism through its 'soft' power style.
"Equally, the EU's particular propensity for 'existential' political debate, regularly revising its founding treaties in the midst of discussions as to its finalities and purpose, has perhaps also served to fuel a commensurate questioning of that purpose."
Nik de Boer and Maarten Hillebrandt of the Amsterdam Centre for Law and Governance say the mistrust between citizens and the EU is understandable.
"The European member states have never really sought to involve their citizens in the EU. The political debate about the goal of the EU and the way to reach it has largely taken place behind closed doors," they wrote on BlogActiv.
They said this has led to European citizens putting the brakes on further integration through national referenda. The EU has become something to either be for or against, they added.
Definition
The word sceptic denotes a member of one of the ancient Greek schools of philosophy, or more specifically that of Pyrrho, who believed that real knowledge of things is impossible.
Eurosceptics are citizens or politicians who present themselves as ‘sceptical’ - critical - of the union which they say takes powers away from their national government and poses a threat to their national sovereignty.
There are supposedly two forms of euroscepticism - ‘hard’ and ‘soft’.
‘Hard’ or ‘withdrawalist’ euroscepticism is the opposition to membership or the existence of the EU. The European Parliament’s Europe of Freedom and Democracy group, which includes the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP), is hard eurosceptic.
‘Soft’ or ‘reformist’ euroscepticism supports the existence of the EU and membership to the Union, but opposes further integrationist EU policies and the idea of a federal Europe. The European Conservatives and Reformists group, including the British Conservative Party and the European United Left-Nordic Green Left alliance, can be described as soft eurosceptics.
But euroscepticism can further be viewed as part of a spectrum, ranging from 'europhobia' - similar to xenophobia - to a healthy sceptical attitude, and questioning of accepted beliefs. As such, certain forms of scepticism exist across all political spheres.
Interviewees from a December 2011 European Parliament report on British euroscepticism, ranging from a former EU Council press officer to a correspondent from the Daily Express, a particularly eurosceptic UK paper, outlined such a spectrum. Xenophobia and europhobia were judged to be the most extreme expression of euroscepticism. 'Non-integrationism', 'eurorealism', 'populism', 'euroboredom' and criticism of the EU were deemed milder forms.
Michael Shermer, editor of Skeptic magazine, says scepticism is a process of discovering the truth rather than a blanket non-acceptance of the latest theory. Hence, unthinking support can be as bad, if not worse, than blanket non-acceptance. This is why both eurosceptics and supporters of the EU both try to claim they are 'realistic'. 

ISSUES

Greece: Dawn of dissent
The Greeks are credited with creating the first pan-European society, the Hellenistic empire which expanded from modern-day Spain to Russia, and with giving Europe the classicism which continues to define the continent’s culture 2,000 years later. Yet euroscepticism - a word derived from Greek - is now coming of age within its population.
As EU-ordered austerity measures put the squeeze on Greek public spending, patience among the population is faltering. The country has seen waves of, sometimes violent, protests over the past two years as Greeks find themselves with heavily-reduced if not absent basic public services.
Many have questioned whether austerity is the right cure for the Greek economy, saying the lack of new investment paralyses growth. They would rather leave the EU, than suffer the perceived ‘ignominy’ of these measures, which are the cost of the bailouts keeping the Greek economy afloat.
“Greece’s eurozone partners (especially Germany) are blamed for subjecting the country to excessive and unjustified punitive austerity”, writes George Pagoulatos in ‘Reinventing Europe: Desperately hanging on in Greece’. “These sentiments have been seized upon by extremists and populists.”
Many believe the ‘Golden Dawn’ to be a neo-Nazi group, which its members deny despite bearing a Swastika-like emblem, giving Nazi-style salutes and espousing an extremely intolerant attitude towards immigrants. The group is strongly against the EU and its members have been linked to a number of violent incidents during anti-austerity marches.
Its perceived defiance of austerity may part of the Golden Dawn's success. Support for the ultra-nationalist party has risen as high as 14% in recent months, making it Greece’s third-largest political party.
The radical left Syriza party has also gained ground, having taken up an anti-EU stance. “Its virulent opposition to the ‘Memorandum’ and ‘Merkel’s policies’ may incorporate elements of economic nationalism," says Pagoulatos. "But it shuns cultural nationalism and vociferously opposes xenophobia.” 
By spring 2012, Eurobarometer suggested that 14% more Greeks considered the EU a ‘bad’ thing than a ‘good’ thing, a clear reversal of the situation over the previous two decades, when the gap between those with a positive view of the EU compared to a negative view had reached highs of over 60%, says Pagoulatos.
France: je t’aime, moi non plus?
France, along with Germany, is central both geographically and politically to the EU. It was the French, perhaps more than any other people, who seduced Europe into forming the European Community (EC) in 1957. French politician Jacques Delors is further credited with making the EU’s first steps towards deeper integration, when he served as President of the European Commission between 1985 and 1994. But the country has housed its fair share of eurosceptic sentiment.
The Front National (FN), a right-wing political party now spearheaded by Marine Le Pen, sees the European project as synonymous with social breakdown and dislocation. Sovereignty and statehood is a touchy subject for some French, who still shed a nostalgic tear at the thought of the Gaullist Republique.
The National Front claimed much of the credit when France rejected the constitutional treaty in a 2005 referendum.
Le Pen was quoted as saying: “We will have to strike down the European treaties, the treaties of the mainstream parties, which are holding us back and condemning us to isolation. This anything-goes politics has become totally anachronistic throughout the world.” She has called the EU “the Trojan horse of ultraliberal globalisation” yet also, perhaps contradicting herself, compared it to the USSR and “a European Soviet Union”.
French euroscepticism is more often a sort of euro-indifference or detachment rather than outright antagonism, writes Helen Drake in 'French Relations with the European Union' (2005).
“This helps to explain why a pronounced eurosceptical stance has not so far proved a major vote-winner for presidential contenders or for political parties, except in elections to the European Parliament which voters regard as being of secondary importance”, Drake says.
Le Pen has never been a serious contender for president - though the FN did gather a record number of votes in the last French election - but she was elected to the European Parliament under the slogan “Europe hurts”.
The Netherlands: EU turn
The Netherlands had long been viewed as one of the most enthusiastic supporters of EU integration. At least since the 1960s, Dutch governments have been strong supporters of the ‘Community Model’ and the development of supranational institutional structures, write Harmsen and Spiering. Indeed euroscepticism is not as much of a force in the Netherlands as it is in the UK, with fewer calls to leave the EU. But resentment is on the rise, due to concerns over the net national contribution to the EU budget.
Fanning that resentment is Geert Wilders, the towheaded leader and founder of the right-wing nationalist Freedom Party (PVV). A central part of Wilders’ campaign is to ditch the euro, bring back the Dutch guilder, and eventually leave the EU.
When his party lost 11 parliamentary seats in recent elections, he said he would continue to fight “to protect the Netherlands against Europe, against mass immigration, against the super-state.” The government headed by Mark Rutte collapsed in April 2012 after Wilders refused to support further public sector cuts, saying he disagreed with “European diktats” requiring the Netherlands to cut its deficit.
Experts believe that his anti-immigration and anti-Europe views forced mainstream parties to become more eurosceptic, in a way that draws parallels with the influence of UKIP on the British Conservative Party.
Rutte said last year, in a televised interview, that Greece should not receive any more bailout money from Dutch taxpayers.
Adriaan Schout, a researcher at the Centre for European Policy Studies, argues that the Dutch Parliament has been skirting European problems, leading to mistrust in the public. “Public debates about the EU have come too late and been conducted with insufficient depth. As a result, the public has remained ill-informed and has been left with uncertainty, for example about whether their taxes are being wasted on Greece and on an ineffective EU budget. Such uncertainties create a fertile breeding ground for discontent.”
Poland: a tenet of the extreme
Euroscepticism is relatively unpopular in Poland, with the EU generally representing welfare, freedom and democracy, as well as modernity, for Polish citizens, analysts say. Since the days of the Soviet empire, Poland has fostered stronger links with Germany and the former Soviet republics, with old ruler Russia viewed by many as its 'main enemy'.
An anti-EU stance has been the mainstay only of extremist parties and individuals, with the main political groups having pushed for integration. The decision to join the EU in 2004 was supported by 77.45% of Polish voters in a referendum the year before, making it one of the most pro-EU countries to join the union.
The only party to lobby heavily against EU memberships was the far-right, nationalist and Catholic traditionalist League of Polish Families (LPR), which claimed the EU was a non-Christian organisation that supported a civilization of “death”.
Like eurosceptics everywhere, the LPR feared the EU would affect its country’s independence, preferring isolationism over integration.
The Catholic Priest Father Tadeusz Rydzyk, who supported LPR on the ultra-conservative radio station Radio Maryja, said on air in 2002: “In the west, I detect mostly the power of Satan”, adding he thought the EU wanted “to strangle Poland, take its land and make it a subjugated republic”.
But after Poland joined the EU, agricultural subsidies benefited Polish farmers and Rydzyk himself applied for EU money, justifying it as a “patriotic obligation, to take as much as possible away from them.”
Another largely eurosceptic party is the populist Self-Defense Party (Samoobrona). It had begun an anti-EU campaign, claiming accession would jeopardise Poland’s countryside, but kept silent during referendum campaigns after seeing the vast support for the EU in the general population.
Poland’s largest political party, the Law and Justice party, formerly led by twin brothers Lech and Jarosław Kaczyński, has traditionally supported EU integration as long as it was beneficial to Poland.
"We support a strong Poland. That's why we are calling for a yes vote for Poland's accession into the EU," Jarosław Kaczyński said before the 2003 referendum.
The former prime minister, who could normally be described as only a mild sceptic, began to pull away from the EU at the start of the debt crisis.
"We shouldn't pay for Greece. We were supposed to sit at the European table and feast. But now we are on the menu," he said.
Kaczyński also found himself in a comparable position to British Prime Minister David Cameron, needing to please a eurosceptic backbench – the anti-Europe LPR party in his coalition.
The current Polish leader, Donald Tusk, is what you might call pro-European, declaring unequivocally in July 2011: “The European Union is fantastic”.
During the same speech, he called for greater solidarity within the Union, which was “going through one of the most difficult and complicated moments in its history” and called for more integration.
He also warned of a “new euroscepticism” - differentiating it from the UK’s “traditional euroscepticism” - which he said was the “behaviour of politicians who say they support the EU and further integration but at the same time take steps that weaken the union.”
Finally, he said Poles were not afraid of integration because they “lived for years as a non-sovereign country, under Soviet occupation … European integration is not a threat to sovereignty because we experienced not long ago a serious threat to our sovereignty,” adding that pro-European Polish “energy” could revitalise an anxious EU.
Danes opt out
Euroscepticism has existed in Denmark ever since the country joined the European Economic Community in 1973. The Danes have voted for eurosceptic parties to represent them in the European Parliament since 1979.
In the 1970s and 1980s, most eurosceptics came from left-wing parties – which have traditionally seen the EU as ‘too liberal.´ But since then the right-wing nationalist Danish People’s Party has taken over bearing the anti-EU standard. However, there is a tendency in Denmark for politicians to be more pro EU than the majority of the population (voters).
Like their British counterparts, Danish eurosceptics fear losing their independence to Brussels. Supporters of the EU usually cite the economic benefits that come with the removal of trade barriers.
Denmark currently holds four opt-outs from EU policies: the “Common security and defence policy”, “Citizenship of the European Union”, “Area of freedom, security and justice” and the “Economic and monetary union”. This is as many as the UK, which opts-in case by case on most “Area of freedom, security and justice” matters, however.
After 50.7% of the Danish voters refused to support the Maastricht Treaty and join the EU in 1992, Denmark negotiated the four opt-outs. Eventually Denmark joined the EU after a second referendum in 1993, with still only 56.7% of the voters accepting the treaty.
In 2000, the abolition of the euro opt-out was put to another referendum, but 53.2% of the voters voted against adopting the currency. The Danish central bank, however, has run a fixed exchange-rate policy to keep the krone within a tight band versus the euro. The bank usually cuts rates in tandem with the European Central Bank, effectively making the krone the euro by another name.
Ever since the 2000 referendum, the question of adopting the euro has been absent from the Danish political debate. The euro crisis has made it even more difficult for Danish politicians to put the question on the agenda.
An opinion poll from June 2012 showed that 56.7% of Danes wanted Denmark to continue the euro opt-out. Only 17.2% would vote “yes” to adopting the euro if Denmark was to hold another referendum. Local eurosceptics also celebrated the news from Danish economists in July 2012 that the country has saved 338 billion kroner (€45.31 billion) from not being part of the euro.
The new Danish government which took office in October 2011 said it planned to hold referendums to remove the two opt-outs “Common security and defence Policy” and “Area of freedom, security and justice” in its first term.
Nevertheless, in June 2012 Prime Minister Helle Thorning-Schmidt told the newspaper Politiken that because of the “euro crisis and so much turmoil and uncertainty surrounding the European project”, it might take several years before the Danes once again have to decide in a referendum whether to keep the country’s four EU opt-outs.
Czech Republic is in no hurry
While joining the EU was viewed by many politicians as the achievement of its highest foreign policy goal since the fall of Communism in 1989, the Czech Republic is largely seen as the most eurosceptic country in Central-Eastern Europe.
The country was the last member state to ratify the Lisbon Treaty, which entered into force 1 December 2009. In May 2010, the Czech president Václav Klaus said that they "needn’t hurry to enter the eurozone".
Klaus, did not sign until he secured a guarantee his country would not be exposed to property claims by Germans expelled from the then Czechoslovakia after the Second World War.
The 2004 European Parliament elections in the Czech Republic were won by the right-wing Civic Democratic Party (ODS), which gained 30% of the vote. The ODS subsequently decided that it would pull out of the European People's Party group and would form a new eurosceptic party together with the UK Conservatives.
The Communist Party of Bohemia and Moravia (KSCM) has demanded an EU referendum. Similar to the criticism voiced by other eurosceptic left-wing parties in Europe, the KSCM sees EU integration as somewhat a 'capitalist conspiracy', labelling it “exploitative multinational capitalism”. They have expressed concerns that EU policies are aimed at protecting the interests of larger states such as Germany.
According to the then leader of the SNK-ED (European Democrats), Lukáš Macek, that party offers a "pragmatic and realistic programme for right-wing or centrist voters who want the Czech Republic to be an influential member of a stable and operational EU". 
SNK-ED candidates support Prague's speedy adoption of the euro and its ratification of the Lisbon Treaty. The party also supports the creation of a "functioning EU energy policy" and wants to reform the EU budget. Though it could be viewed as political fence-sitting, the party's motto reads: 'Neither isolation, nor left-wing policy'. 
The Party of Free Citizens (SSO) casts itself as a "real opposition party", against the "current trends in European integration". The SSO has demanded a referendum on ratification of the Lisbon Treaty and the adoption of the euro.
The party's opinions differ greatly from the European mainstream, expressing its desire for the abandonment of the EU's renewable energy targets, support for agrofuels, and the abolishment of "all green euro-regulations". Furthermore, it believes that the solving the economic crisis should remain within the competence of each member state.
There is evidence that Czechs are warming to Europe after the pro-EU Miloš Zeman won the presidential election in January 2013.
But analysts are taking the change with a pinch of salt. “Anyone who has a chance to become president is more pro-European than Klaus,” said Jiří Pehe, a Czech political scientist.

POSITIONS

In November 2010, the European Council president, Herman Van Rompuy, claimed euroscepticism could “lead to war” and that it was part of a rise of nationalism in Europe.
“In every member state, there are people who believe their country can survive alone in the globalised world. It is more than an illusion: it is a lie”, he said.
Former Prime Minister of the UK Tony Blair likened euroscepticism to a "virus". He said: "The Right have got it bad on this Europe thing", adding that if the UK left the EU it would be "hugely destructive of Britain's interests".
Others, such as Conservative MP Bill Cash, denied the link between nationalism and euroscepticism. But to the European Commission’s President, José Manuel Barroso, they are cut from the same cloth.
MEP Nigel Farage said in a UKIP statement: "We seek an amicable divorce from the European Union and its replacement with a genuine free-trade agreement, which is what my parents' generation thought we’d signed up for in the first place." He later said: "We know the costs of Europe. What are the benefits?”

EXTERNAL LINKS

​Press articles

​Think tanks and academia

domenica 17 febbraio 2013

Restoring a public banking system

CSRwire Talkback

 

Ethical Markets: Transforming Finance Still Top Priority

Ethical Markets’ new initiative Transforming Economics Into True Wealth invites investment professionals to build a real economy.
Submitted by:Hazel Henderson
Posted:Feb 08, 2013
 
Hazelhenderson
By Hazel Henderson
Despite incremental reforms, the Dodd-Frank Act in the USA, Basel III and the 0.1% financial transaction tax now approved by EU finance ministers, the global financial casino is still playing. 
Financial lobbying still seeks to block or weaken reforms and floods of money distorting democratic politics, loosed by the Supreme Courts’ 2010 Citizens United decision, are still flowing unchecked.  Billions still secretly fund attacks on climate science, social safety nets, teachers and other public employees and their pensions. All these efforts to repeal FDR’s New Deal and a fairer economy continue unabated.
Ethical Markets’ Transforming Finance initiative, launched in 2010 with its first Statement, emphasizing the bigger picture: finance is a part of the global commons, to serve real economies, not dominate them, and its high-frequency traders and all market players use and rely on taxpayer funded infrastructure: the internet, satellite communications, computers, wireless transmission over public airwaves. 
Many high-minded financiers who have co-signed this Statement and later ones are former Wall Streeters. They are pioneers of ethical, SRI firms and are also interviewed on our Transforming Finance TV series, including John Fullerton, Amy Domini, Susan Davis, Karl Kleissner, Alisa Gravitz, Terry Mollner, Katherine Collins, Leland Lehrman, Sarah Stranahan, Michaela Walsh, Ben Bingham and author/lawyer Ellen Brown (available at www.ethicalmarkets.tv andwww.films.com).
Our latest Transforming Economics Into True Wealth (November 2012) is an invitation to fully engage in the planetary whole-system shift now under way. These investment professionals recognize our responsibility for the many breakdowns in our societies and ecosystems resulting from our limited consciousness: climate change, hunger, poverty, conflicts, financial crises and ecological destruction.
These systemic breakdowns are accelerating due to global interconnectedness and now driving the Financial transaction taxbreakthroughs worldwide occurring but missed by mass media. The 193 members of the United Nationshave recognized human interdependence: no nation acting alone can solve these global systemic crises. They pool their sovereignty, seeking treaties, agreements, protocols and agencies to promote the common good. 
Our signers state, “finance has strayed from its stewardship role, and become a global casino, a bubble exacerbating many global problems.” They invest in many creative activities and successful models, yet agree that deeper collaboration and broader engagement are now needed at all political levels, from global to local, to build equitable societies based on Ethics and Life’s Principles that successfully evolved Earth’s 30 million species over 3.8 billion years.
Our ethical, ESG, triple bottom line industry has led the way in directing resources toward solutions-based socio-economies. Yet, social inequality and environmental degradation have reached unsustainable levels in economies still unsustainable, unfair, unstable and undemocratic. The Statement calls on our colleagues to support cross-sector efforts to transform our failing political economic system and support for key system changes:
    1. Restoring trust and integrity to currencies and monetary systems.
      2. Transforming the global financial services industry from extraction to creating community health by:
            • Supporting a financial transaction tax, being implemented in many countries.
            • Protecting the commons and public infrastructure from privatization.
              3. Building a new financial system that includes:
                • Restoring a public banking system.
                • Directing investments to undercapitalized communities through Community Development Financial Institutions and microfinance.
                • Creating the enabling conditions to support local living economies.
                • Investing democratically through crowdfunding.
                • Continuing to involve mainstream financial institutions that demonstrably share our goals, values and ethics.
                        4. Restoring democracy and our collective capacity to regulate, tax and invest in public priorities by limiting money in politics, amending “corporate personhood” and the “money is speech” doctrines, and promoting public financing of elections.
                        Ethical leadership and collaborative networking can manifest the change we all believe will lead to a more positive future for all life on this planet. Among our latest Transforming Finance co-signers
                        • Michel Bauwens, P2P Foundation
                        • Mariana Bozesan, Ph.D., president, AQAL Investing, Germany
                        • Riane Eisler, JD, president, Center for Partnership Studies
                        • Mary Houghton, co-founder, Shorebank, IL
                        • Monika Mitchell, founder/CEO, Good Business, NY
                        • Robert A. G. Monks, co-founder, The Corporate Library
                        • Jonathan Porritt, UK
                        • Tessa Tennant, Green Investment Bank, UK
                        • Stuart Valentine, CenterPoint Investment Management, IA
                        • Stephen Viederman, Board, Network for Sustainable Financial Markets
                        • Gregory Wendt, CFP, Stakeholders Capital, CA
                        • Anders Wijkman, co-president, Club of Rome, Sweden

                        Post in evidenza

                        The Great Taking - The Movie

                        David Webb exposes the system Central Bankers have in place to take everything from everyone Webb takes us on a 50-year journey of how the C...