We all have views, we all have opinions and we all have insights. That is our right and I would never deny those rights to anyone. Yet, in any light, should we stop asking questions? Should we decide on one voice being more trustworthy than another one? Should a mere reference or the right PDF be value to that? That is a question every reader should have. You cannot just select one option and ignore the second one without evidence. Some we trust on their word, some sources we trust, and in other cases we trust our own gut feeling. Whatever choice you take here, you must always hold onto scrutiny that what you become aware of. Some you can decide on because of logic, some due to education and experience and some are based on the trust that others give it.
That is the first token, as I see it in any given situation.
When we get back to my previous blog (We do not Care Bears), I mentioned elements in the upcoming Brexit reference. In there a prominent Police Minister of State, namely Rafal Trzaskowski mentioned on the cost for Britain, with the additional mention that you can’t always get what you want. Now we see another specimen of the in this case partially Polish persuasion, namely Jacek Rostowski who gives us “The leave campaign must remember the advantages that Britain has negotiated over 40 years of EU membership that will be lost – as will the UK’s main route to global market access“, is that truly the case? Do you not think that many nations will find a backdoor in any arrangement if this means that they can export to a target audience of 65 million? In addition, the statement “It is hard to see how a market of 65 million could negotiate the terms achieved by that of 500 million“, which is a truth and a fact. What is not given is that the UK is 13% of that entire population. It is one of several nations that has had enough of irresponsible spending and non-accountability.
It is the title we see again in the very and “it is for the British people to decide, but the leave camp is selling a Pollyanna vision of Britain outside Europe that will never exist“, which sounds nice and clever, yet in all this, when a population of 65 million needs goods trade will occur. It did so before the Euro, it will exist after the Euro collapses. It is the rock star (the person I have written about and against) Yanis Varoufakis that gives us ‘The EU no longer serves the people – democracy demands a new beginning‘, which is not incorrect, but it was the Greek utter unacceptable acts (by some of the previous Greek administrations) that is bringing this about. Now we see that Greece is selling itself of to any industrial with enough cash like a cheap debutante. My issue there is that as premium opportunities are ‘given away’, Greece itself will end up having less and less options to grow a national economy. I feel certain that Yanis Varoufakis knows this. Yet, in the article (at http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/05/eu-no-longer-serves-people-europe-diem25), he brings the goods that do matter “Brexit campaigners are promising voters that they can have their sovereignty and access to Europe’s single market. But this is a false promise. A truly single market, a genuinely level playing field, requires a single legal framework, identical industry, labour and environmental protection standards, and courts that will enforce them with the same determination throughout the single jurisdiction“, Yanis is not wrong, but I believe him to be incorrect. You see, he is not lying or deceiving you, the issue here is the exact statement that matters. Part one is “Brexit campaigners are promising voters that they can have their sovereignty and access to Europe’s market“, you see, Europe is not a single market, it only seems to be that way.
Take a look at this: “§24 EEG: falscher Alarm oder K.O. für Windbranche?” (Translate: §24 EEG: false alarm or KO for wind industry?), you see, there are still fractured markets, they are managed through a never-ending stream of European legislation. Consider the part “suggests that from 2016 effective six-hour rule the Renewable Energies Act (EEG) will halve revenue of new wind farms within 25 years“. Can anyone explain the utter unfathomability of this quote? (I am not saying it is a false quote; at http://www.erneuerbareenergien.de/24-eeg-falscher-alarm-oder-ko-fuer-windbranche/150/434/88817/), in my simple world, this cannot be. Consider the second quote “an oversupply of production electricity prices on the power exchange EPEX to 6 hours or more negative in a time-contiguous block are. Defacto means of temporarily stopping the market premium payment proceeds failure. That the threat potential of §24 is generally real, shows a view in the short history of the current prices in 2014, the at least six hours continuous phases added with continuously negative market electricity prices on a time volume of 37 hours, which then affected by the six-hour rule would have been. In the first half 2015 already 43 hours fell under the criteria of §24“, this implies that there are moments of oversupply. Now, that might be the actual truth, yet, this seems to imply that the entire renewable energy is linked and only allowed as addition to the fuelling of profit, when that goes renewable energy is not to be used, or to be charged negatively. (I know that my view of that quote is not entirely correct).
I am trying to state that if we truly believe in renewable energy, the moment there is an oversupply, non-renewable sources should be toned down, lowering the price of energy to the people. The article (in German) implies to me that this is another market that is driven to exploitation and profit. And what about the ‘over’ production? What if all that power fuels streetlights, hospitals, places that could benefit by not being charged for energy. If that is 6 hours as implied, we see the linked implication that 25% in cost reduction could be achieved.
In short, the single market of Yanis never existed, EEC legislation is in my view creating a fractal of legislative clustering, all with their own rules for maximised exploitation. The second part is “courts that will enforce them with the same determination throughout the single jurisdiction“, which is nice, but when the law falters on the levels is had, like, you know, jailing those politicians that spend the money Greece never had, would Greece be in such a mess? Well yes, because those laws actually do not exist. We see an influx on humanitarian laws, or perhaps better stated, a code guide to emphasize a surrealistic version of political correctness, yet how much protection did journalist Kostas Vaxevanis get? Was anything done with the published lists? Seems weird doesn’t it, that concept of single jurisdiction, does it not? Even within most national borders the idea of single jurisdiction is a bit of a stretch. Especially when we see the intermixing of issues of commercial and criminal law. We see banks not getting convicted for their actions, yet under intentional torts they could get a hefty invoice. When we get to Quasi tort, we see the case Re Goldcorp Exchange Ltd  UKPC 3, where we get that the bank argued that the gold stocks had never been isolated, making all the gold customers unsecured creditors and that its security interest took priority. It is an argument that can be made, yet in all this consider the parallel where the Greek government ‘sold’ its bonds to the Greek retirement funds. Perhaps some people remember the news that the Financial Times had in Feb 2013 (at http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/91aae2a6-75f4-11e2-8eb6-00144feabdc0.html), which gets us: “Smaller Greek state pension funds, which are only able to invest in Greek government bonds that are held by the central bank as custodian, together had losses close to €10bn over the same period“, so does that not amount to hiding debts and giving worthless IOU notes to those retirement funds? Was this ever criminally investigated? Moreover, if it is not a crime, why wasn’t there a law enabled stopping this? Even a local Greek law might have helped a lot, but we have seen in many places that certain players will get away with murder, just look at Tesco and see which players are still not under public scrutiny to see that reality.
So, I have issues with this piece by Yanis Varoufakis, yet you should read it, because it is a good piece. Yet, in all that, he never mentions to hold the people and the laws to account as they fell short in the last decade, which I believe is crucial to any progress, any true progress of a shoddy economy. Because with corporate greed firmly in place, with a bubble where power seekers can fill their pockets, we will never get any solution. The realistic fact that over 1 in 3 Greeks are now in poverty should have been a large wakeup, but it seems not to be the case. As some players want their extra cream, fat and lollies, Greece gets to end with less than nothing, something that could have been prevented in 2014, but alas, the law was inadequate.
It would not have been easier, but at least Greece might have a few options, now they have none of those and even less possessions as the valuables have been sold off, a part I was never in favour of! So, let’s get back to the Jacek Rotowsky story (at http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/08/brexit-pollyanna-vision-europe-leave-campaign-eu-uk), where we see “This reminds me of the Brussels phrase: “If you’re not at the table you’re on the menu.””, well, as I see it Poland will be, the UK is deciding that this restaurant is no longer for the UK. In that same environment we get the following Gordon Ramsay memes (I have no idea if he ever stated them as I do not watch his show).
- You burned the food so black, it stole my bike.
No Gordon! You placed the debt money next to the oven and its equity turned to ash.
- This mushroom is so raw, it says the princess is in another castle.
No Gordon! You cannot refer to the economy as an unpleasant situation and state that the other person is at fault.
So as we see how Jacek Rotowsky is about who is at the table and who is on the table, we are in actuality seeing that the UK finds this restaurant to be massively overpriced, whilst serving stale food. And they are not the only guests in attendance, you see, there are 2 dozen more people there. With the first shift (Brexit), France will immediately moving to a Bistro (Frexit), which leaves Germany and Italy in a lurch. Considering that these 4 have 70% of all the debt. Yet they still believe that moving out and taking their invoice with them will pay off for them in the medium long run mainly, because the other nations are just as bad in keeping their budgets and Greece is showing how the others are paying for their choices and errors. The only one in a bad place is Germany, because when the UK goes, so does France, unless it can make an ironclad deal with Germany, giving Italy chances to catch up, but if France goes, so does Germany and then the mess will be complete. The UK is not the first one to truly get a better deal, that is Germany, but overall both will be much stronger within 5 years. France will muddle on and the power blow that the US gets when the Euro goes is the nightmare scenario for whomever ends up in the oval office, only because greed could not be contained.
So as bankers and politicians grab the most powerful Prazosin solution they can charge their health care fund for, we see that this only dims the feeling the nightmare has, not the reality what a collapsed economy holds. That reality will be with the people, they get to learn this lesson because too many players were happy to quote unreal expectations of an improved economy, after which they would hide behind waves of managed bad news and not seek out the dangers that might have been a long term bet could now bring us the approaching reality that we see today and that could pan out to be the new life in Europe from 2017 onwards.