ALLIANCE FO§ DEMOCRACY

Transfer union

Anyone who believes that the much-vaunted transfer union is still to come must be living in dreamland. It has been with us for a long time, since the countries of the European Currency Union are already liable for each other, although it was originally stipulated that no Euro country was allowed to be liable for another Euro country incurring a high deficit.
This regulation has long since been broken; Loans via guarantees with subsidiary liability have been passed around between the Euro countries for years. Being deferred and with temporary effect, these rescue package contributions (of the individual countries), which are actually debts, never get into the statistics. Unfortunately the EU is in this way shooting itself in the foot every day with regard to stability, continually leading to rumours of structural problems. And since further such commitments were decided at the latest Euro summit at the beginning of November, it is bound to collapse sooner or later. Viewed in this way, no Euro country has to introduce Euro-bonds, although Mr. Sarkozy was toying with the idea as early as June, and other heads of state indicated at least that they were not averse to this type of borrowing. Only Angela Merkel has so far rejected Euro-bonds, although not because she has suddenly come to her senses, but because the German Basic Law still scotches these plans. It will be a question of time until constitutional law is adapted to the plans of the EU, or to put it another way, until German constitutional law is bent. Until then, the ECB must continue to buy up junk government bonds of the Euro countries in order to support the Euro (€ 200 billion so far).
Added to this is the fact that in addition to other Euro countries, the German Bundesbank has been requested to provide the International Monetary Fund (IMF) with € 200 billion, so that the IMF can prop up insolvent banks from this fund. The German share is to be € 45 billion. The Bundesbank bridled against this request, and asked for a parliamentary resolution on this matter, something which the CDU/CSU had so far considered to be unnecessary.
Anyone who cannot recognise a transfer union in this situation is blind. And if Angela Merkel now believes to have realised that her salvation lies in the so-called fiscal union and stability union implemented at the November Euro summit, then it must be said: the Chancellor has in this way succeeded perfectly in putting the skids under Europe. Unfortunately the governments of these bankrupt countries will have no other alternative than to go along with the Merkel plan, because all the Euro countries are bankrupt, and therefore have no freedom of action. The fiddling around with the former treaty principles, which represented Europe as an economic pact, is coming under the hammer in the crisis. After Great Britain at least rescued the previous EU Treaty by its withdrawal, there are still enough other possibilities to put an end to the EU. There is still the TFEU, within which a change to the implementation conditions was agreed (Euro summit 8./9.11.2011), in order to be able to control and also sanction judicial control over the observation of the stability criteria of the Maastricht Treaty by supreme courts such as the European Court of Justice. Another spanner in the works, another blow to the stability criteria, which previously ensured that the EU could function as an economic community. Now every country can decide what it likes. With every slide even deeper into the spiral of debt, another of these laws will go by the board (with the debt brake at the very top of the list); and sooner or later, the EU will be no more.
The end of a single Europe would even be desirable; because an increasing number of people have to live below the minimum subsistence level, not only because of the disastrous accumulation of debt, while the few rich people become even richer. And the governments of the Euro countries will continue to adhere to their policy,

1.in order to be able to keep themselves in power for longer;

2.to better position major banks and the economy in order to

3.be able to allow the rip-off and exploitation to continue in future on only a lower level, and thereby to deceive those, by the retention of commissions, in the advance knowledge of price write-offs for the banks, on receiving less on the sale of such assets and thereby benefiting the rich at the cost of the ever-increasing number of poor, who are recruited mainly from the ranks of small investors and tax-paying working people and pensioners.