|
EURO DOES NOT GIVE THE RESULT THE
POLITICIANS PROMISE The EURO-construction is
contradictory, if the nations is not broad to an end. It is meaningless even
then, because it is the common experimentation of the politicians with the
European continent, the experimentation continues with the issuing of
compulsory monetary units. The articles of the Maastricht-treaty is the
starting point of the EURO. The articles are certainly not tied invariable
claims to the monetary policy. Even four of five random claims of convergency
were given up, because only Luxenbourg fulfilled them. The tragicomic in this
fact is that Luxenbourg lives on EU-bureaucracy og banking. And today France, Germany
and Italy and others do not fullfill them either. They were just listed up
for you to believe it was some kind of a hard German D-Mark anno 1955 in
European disguise and perhaps to get the member states endeavour to do
it a little better. I guess at least 80% of voters do not know that this kind
of European hard currency actually was OFFICIAL-LY given up by both
Germany and France in the midd 1990s. European politician-created
monetary unions have been tried twice before with den Latin- and the Nordic
monetary union respectively before and after World War I. "When many
deficits and many debt-entries are summed up the result is still deficit and
debt". This logic ruled in 1914, in the 1920s and in the 1930s. After
World War II we were meant to believe something else, thanks to J. M. Keynes'
good faith or closely defined job at Bretton Woods. The hard ECU presented by
John Major - before he became Britain's Prime Minister - was the right
solution, because the central banks of the nations then still could
have remained independent. An ECU-emmission-house buing your less wanted
national currency, if you prefered the ECU was much better. ECU was
voluntary, the EURO is not. The national Counsellor of Exchequer was then
punished, when you exchanged to ECU, because he then had to rise
the interest rate, when the circula-tion of his money had to be decreased. In principle there have
always been two, and even more possibilities: A national central bank
independent of politicians and private banks ruled by the constitution alone.
No central bank at all with the possibility for the citizens to use every
currency they like. The last possibility means no real state at all. The nation and a compulsory
currency are the two sides of the same coin. This means EU with the Euro
as proclaimed have to built a federal state. This cannot be discussed,
its a fact. Great Britain and Sweden
have chosen none of these possibi-lities until now (the voters in Sweden have
a Euro-referendum September 14th). The voters of Denmark have voted NO
to Euro, but we are sure they will ask us once again, "because we voted
wrong."
But the EURO is based on a
misunderstanding of the financial relations of the world. The politicians
know nothing real about economics! After the collapse of the
Euro there are other possibilities: http://www.lilliput-information.com/intmo.html |